Iranian Alert -- September 5, 2004 [EST]-- IRAN LIVE THREAD -- "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"

From the ECONOMIST article

It no longer attempts to export revolution, and it lives in a dangerous neighbourhood, now with American troops also nearby.

Iran FM surprised by Straw's remarks

08:36:10 Þ.Ù
Tehran, Sept 5 - Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, in reaction to a statement by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, said here Saturday Straw's claims are surprising.

Kharrazi added while Iran and Europe are engaged in a round of sensitive negotiations such statements are not constructive.

Iran's Foreign Minister said Islamic Republic of Iran is totally obliged to its commitments and it is Europe that has not been able to keep its promises.

Jack Straw, on arrival to Valkenburg (the Netherlands) to participate in EU's Foreign Ministers meeting said he was surprised and sorry about the fact that the government of Iran did not implement all tasks and promises which it had been committed to.

m/k

If 75-95% of Iranians hate the Mullahs, why doesn't the US just smuggle rifles, guns and ammunition into Iran, and let the people have their own revolution?

"Yet a nuclear-armed Iran is a danger worth averting."

(From the ECONOMIST article)

I hope you let me answer your question;

Well, 95% of the true Iranians dislike the Mullahs but as long as the Mullahs have some sort of Foreign support, the removal of them seems to be so hard for the defenseless people of Iran.

The point is that the regime of Iran only keeps barking and shouting!

Sep. 3, 2004 1:46 | Updated Sep. 3, 2004 12:08

Column One: Policy wars and real wars

By CAROLINE GLICK

From what has been reported over the past week on the FBI's spy probe into the activities of senior AIPAC lobbyists, Israeli diplomats, and a mid-level Iran analyst named Larry Franklin who hails from the neoconservative stronghold of Douglas Feith's policy shop in the Pentagon, it is hard to escape the impression that the story is more of a smear campaign than an espionage investigation.

It is true that it is still early and perhaps the press-crazed FBI will seek indictments of one or more of the suspected bad guys on some charge or another before this story is quietly filed away like the loud and groundless investigations of CIA employee Adam Ciralsky and US Army civilian engineer David Tenebaum in the late 1990s. Both men, who were accused of spying for Israel, are currently suing the US government for discrimination, claiming they were placed under investigation simply because they are Jews.

But even if nothing comes from the story, the obvious target of the leak has been hit. That target is not specifically AIPAC. Nor is it Douglas Feith or Paul Wolfowitz. And the target is also not the Israeli Embassy or Israel per se. The target of the leak is a policy direction, and the leaked story, regardless of its as-yet-amorphous legal grounding, has dealt that policy direction a below-the-belt punch.

In Washington today, the central issue of debate in policy circles is Iran. Iran, which, with its documented ties to al-Qaida and its sponsorship of Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah, as well as Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces in Iraq and other terrorist militias in Afghanistan, is today the epicenter of global terrorism. And Iran, with its now all-but-declared pursuit of nuclear weapons, its proven ballistic missile capabilities, and its long suspected chemical and biological weapons arsenal, is both an active enemy and a looming threat to US national security and of course to the physical existence of Israel, which is a major non-NATO ally of the US.

And yet, as a US government source involved in the policy debate on Iran told The New York Times on Thursday, "We [the US] have an ad hoc policy [on Iran] that we're making up as we go along." Which is why policy directions become so important. The Pentagon, along with Israel and AIPAC, is the leading proponent of a view that says Iran cannot be contained and cannot be appeased. On the other side, the CIA, the State Department, and the Democratic Party, as well as Germany, France and Britain, believe that it can be contained and appeased.

The most recent attempt to articulate the US's policy toward Iran was made on August 17 by Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton in an address at the Hudson Institute. After spelling out specifically why the US believes that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons, Bolton explained that the US believes that it is necessary to isolate rather than engage Iran. As a result, the US is working to convince the EU and members of the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of directors to refer the issue of the Iranian nuclear program to the UN Security Council.

There are only two problems with the so-enunciated US policy on Iran. First, the US has almost no chance of success in moving the issue to the Security Council. Second, even if it were successful in moving the Iranian nuclear program to the Security Council, which it will not be, it is quite certain that the Council would take no action that would in any way dissuade Iran or prevent it from continuing its nuclear weapons program.

In the wake of the US campaign in recent weeks to have the Iranian nuclear program referred to the Security Council, IAEA spokespeople and German, French and British officials engaged in the issue have all claimed that there is no reason to do so. In Amman this past Sunday, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said Germany, France and Britain were working to reach an understanding with the Iranians whereby in exchange for nuclear energy technology the Iranians would agree to cease their uranium enrichment activities. The same plan is also being touted by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. It cannot have escaped the Iranians' attention that North Korea exploited a similar deal to develop its own nuclear arsenal.

And in the unlikely event that the US is successful in having the Iranian nuclear program referred to the Security Council, why should there be any expectation that Iran would come under sanctions? Russia built the nuclear reactor at Bushehr. China has reportedly supplied Iran with nuclear technologies through the Pakistanis. France, Britain and Germany, as well as Japan and China, are all actively courting the Iranians for oil contracts and business opportunities. Indeed, three years of attempts to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat through diplomatic means have not brought the international community even a half-step closer to taking issue with Iran's nuclear program or, for that matter, its active support for international terrorism.

In the meantime, the Iranian government has in recent months taken to issuing apocalyptic threats of nuclear destruction against Israel on almost a daily basis. The Iranians have begun to issue similar threats against the US mainland and against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In just one recent example, a newspaper associated with Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei published an editorial on July 6 threatening, "The White House's 80 years of exclusive rule are likely to become 80 seconds of hell that will burn to ashes That very day, those who resist [Iran] will be struck from directions they never expected. The heartbeat of the crisis is undoubtedly [dictated by] the hand of Iran." And on the ground, the latest IAEA report states that Iran plans to conduct a test of a plant that converts raw uranium into nuclear fuel. Nuclear experts have claimed that the amount of raw uranium that Iran plans to enrich will be sufficient to make five nuclear bombs.

The Times quotes a former Bush administration official who claims that all discussion of a military option against Iran had proved sterile. In his words, "There's no military option." This statement leads to the inevitable question of why. Given Iran's refusal to reach any accommodation on either its support for international terrorism or its nuclear program, why hasn't a directive been given to the responsible authorities to put together a plan for action against Iran's nuclear installations? No doubt, with US forces now bordering Iran in both Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no military option because no one has been given instructions or even permission to develop one.

And now, in the aftermath of the leak of the spy probe that has reportedly been going on for two years and has led thus far to zero indictments, chances of developing such options are even smaller than they were last Thursday before the story was leaked. After all, a victory for the Pentagon (which now stands officially accused of working for Israel) on the issue of Iran policy would make the job of those claiming that the US policy is dictated from Jerusalem all the easier.

It is hard to shake the impression that leaking or making groundless allegations against administration hawks through their foreign counterparts has become the tactic of choice by their opponents in the policy debate. The spy probe story calls to mind similar allegations against another Pentagon favorite, Ahmed Chalabi.

On Wednesday, at the same time as the Israeli spy probe began fizzling out, counterfeiting charges against Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, were dropped. Murder charges against his nephew Salam Chalabi, who is building the war crimes case against Saddam Hussein, were also dropped.

The arrest warrants for the Chalabis, which were issued with great fanfare by US-appointed judge Zuhair al-Maliky last month, were viewed by many as a further attempt by Chalabi's enemies in the CIA and State Department to discredit a man known to all as the Iraqi point man for the Pentagon's hawks. The initial attempt was made in early June when Chalabi was accused of spying for Iran. Those charges, which like the allegations against Franklin made little sense to begin with, have never been substantiated. But in the meantime, the allegations themselves, like the arrest warrants, have worked to discredit Chalabi and his Pentagon associates in the eyes of the American public and the media.

It may be that given the damage now wrought on the reputations of apparently the only forces in Washington who may be willing to admit that the US non-policy towards Iran, in all its permutations, is a colossal failure, means that the US will not take any action against Iran's nuclear installations. If this is the case, Israel may quite simply be forced into a position of having to ignore America for now and do what needs to be done.

If, as a result of the prominence of the appeasers in US policy circles and their fast and dirty tactics, the US is no longer able to take military action against threats to its national security that happen to constitute even larger threats to Israel's national security, then going it alone, and as quickly as possible, may be Israel's only option. Israel can simply not afford to be paralyzed by American policies on Iran that have already failed or by spy scandals that make no sense.

DUBYA ON TARGET

[Excerpt]

By AMIR TAHERI

September 5, 2004 -- OUF! This is the sigh of relief that many will be taking after listen ing to President Bush's speech Thursday night at the Republi can Convention. Persuaded by conventional wisdom, some had come to expect that Bush, with an eye on the polls, would try a bit of Clintonesque triangulation and blur differences with his Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry, at least in foreign policy.

That did not happen, however. Bush stuck to a vision that he developed soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. By doing so, he has given American voters a clear choice, at least as far as foreign policy is concerned.

At his convention speech the president offered the outline of the analysis on which his vision is based. In its starkest version, that goes something like this:

There is a war between free societies and their enemies. In this war, the United States is the principal target because, were it to falter or fall, the rest of the "free world" would not be able to resist. In this war, nations are divided into three categories: active enemies, active allies and neutrals. If necessary, America is prepared to fight alone, but would prefer to do so at the head of the broadest coalition possible. The core area where the threat to the United States persists is the broader Middle East, the so-called "arc of crisis" that spans the area between the Indian Subcontinent and North Africa. While the use of force is needed in the short run, the only way to ensure America's long-term security is to bring freedom and democracy to the region.

SOME might see Bush's vision as Man ichaean. He did not use his favorite phrase of "good versus evil" but spoke of "a struggle of historic proportions."

He portrayed America as a nation with a mission, not as a superpower engaged in Realpolitik. He called America "the hope of the oppressed, the greatest force for good on this earth." America, he said, would be on the side of "reformers, political prisoners, and exiles."

"America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century," he said. "The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom."

Nevertheless, Bush made it clear that the United States' commitment to "advancing freedom" was motivated by enlightened self-interest and not angelic altruism. For America to enjoy national security, it is necessary for the whole world to become democratic.

WHAT Bush did not do in his speech was as important as what he did.

He did not, as many had urged him to do, rule out pre-emptive attack on the perceived enemies of the United States. "We must confront threats to America before it is too late," he said.

Bush also ignored the pundits who had hoped he would sound somewhat apologetic about the liberation of Iraq. He recalled that on the eve of the war in 2003 he had pondered whether "to take the word of a madman or take action to defend my country."

Another thing that Bush did not was to offer any hint that, faced with domestic pressures, he might tilt towards a "cut and run" policy on Iraq. Again and again, he insisted that, if re-elected, he would stay the course.

"When America gives its word, America must keep its word," Bush emphasized.

It could not have been accidental that Bush cited as his models only two American presidents: Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. Truman, of course, led the United States in the initial phases of the Cold War, while Reagan is generally seen as the president who pushed the Soviet "Evil Empire" over the edge. (Interestingly, George W Bush did not refer to his own father's presidency. Instead he recalled the eight years that Bush Sr. had spent as Reagan's vice president.)

FOR all the clarity of his vision, how ever, when it comes to practical poli cies, Bush's foreign agenda is still plagued by the contradictions within his administration.

It is clear that there are two camps within the administration. One camp, generally consisting of the State Department, the CIA and part of the National Security Council, still regards America as a status quo power, especially in the Middle East, and is uncomfortable with such concepts as pre-emption and the imposition of democracy by force, if necessary.

Another camp, represented by the entourage of Vice President Dick Cheney, the Pentagon and several pro-Republican think tanks, appears to be totally committed to the use of American power, including military force, for reshaping the world.

In broad terms Bush's speech, and the Republican Party's platform, reflected the views of the second camp. But when it came to concrete issues, the influence of the first camp was undeniable.

ONE example: Saudi Arabia, which the president praised as an active ally in the war against terrorism. The GOP platform is even more specific: "Saudi Arabia is working hard to shut down the facilitators and financial supporters of terrorism. The government has captured or killed many first-tier leaders of the al Qaeda organization in Saudi Arabia. Today, because Saudi Arabia has seen the danger and has joined the War on Terror, the American people are safer."

While this is true, the fact remains that the social and political and cultural conditions that bred terrorism in Saudi Arabia remain unchanged. And there was no mention of what the president proposes to do to help change those conditions in the four years to come.

The only other mention of Saudi Arabia is in the domestic section, where the platform advocates "energy development in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, holds some 16 billion barrels of oil—enough to replace oil imports from the kingdom for 20 years."

Another example: Pakistan. Again, there is no doubt that President Pervez Musharraf's decision to switch sides in 2002 made the task of getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan that much easier. It is also certain that Pakistan has helped kill or capture large numbers of al Qaeda terrorists.

But the fact remains that, without a strategic decision to build a genuine democracy, Pakistan will remain one of those " swamps" that breed terrorism.

A third example: Iran. Despite the fact that the Islamic Republic has been waging an undeclared war against America for the past 25 years, the president hardly mentioned it. And the GOP platform had this to say on Iran: "The development of a nuclear weapon by Iran is intolerable to the international community."

This is diplomatic double-talk of the worst kind. Notice that the phrase takes care not to make the matter a direct concern of the United States. Notice also that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic would not even be "unacceptable" but merely "intolerable," one of the weakest adjectives in the diplomatic jargon. We are also not told what the mythical "international community" is supposed to do about this "intolerable" development.

ALL in all, while Bush's vision is re freshingly new, the means deployed in its service often remain timeworn. ...

E-mail: amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

TEHRAN POLL FAVORS REFORMIST PRESIDENTIAL VICTORY.

A recent poll of 1,123 people in Tehran found that the majority of respondents favor the probable reformist candidate in the May 2005 presidential election. The Iran University Students' Polling Center, which is affiliated with the University Jihad, conducted the poll, "Farhang-i Ashti" reported on 1 September.

Former Prime Minister Mir Hussein Musavi topped the list with 29.4 percent of the respondents favoring him as their top choice for the election. Expediency Council Chairman Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani was a close second with 26.4 percent. Trailing far behind were Tehran Mayor Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad with 6.8 percent, Tehran parliamentarian Ahmad Tavakoli and Supreme National Security Council Secretary Hojatoleslam Hassan Rohani with 4.7 percent each, parliament speaker Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel with 4.3 percent, former Islamic Culture and Guidance Minister Ataollah Mohajerani with 3 percent, and former parliament speaker Hojatoleslam Ali-Akbar Nateq-Nuri with 2.6 percent. (This amounts to about 82 percent, and the report does not account for the remaining 18 percent.)

Of the respondents, 56.6 percent said they do not follow news about the presidential election, and only 22.6 percent of the respondents were familiar with the prospective candidates.

Of the respondents, 43.5 percent believe that the election will help resolve many of the country's problems.

source:RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 8, No. 169, Part III, 3 September 2004

Comment: What do you think about this? What does the election law stipulates: If the above would have been the result of an election would it be a second round between Musavi and Rafsanjani?

IRAQI MILITANT LEADER CRITICAL OF IRAN...
Ansar al-Sunnah leader Abu Abdallah al-Hassan bin Mahmud has criticized Iran in an interview published in the 21-27 August issue of the Beirut political weekly newspaper "Al-Muharrir" (for a description of the Ansar al-Sunnah Army, see "RFE/RL Iraq Report," 4 June 2004). He said bombings that target Iraqi citizens are carried out by organizations representing Iran, because the Persians bear a grudge dating from the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War. He accused the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, al-Da'wah al-Islamiya, and the Islamic Action Organization of being Iranian products. Abu al-Hassan claimed that Iranian intelligence operatives killed SCIRI leader Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim because he turned against his Iranian patrons by promoting a democratic federal Iraq rather than a Shi'a theocracy. The Iranians, furthermore, want the "fatwa headquarters" transferred from Al-Najaf to Qom. Iran's objective in Iraq is to spread Shi'a Islam, create an Islamic government, have the Shi'a rule the country, buy land, and "obliterate the Iraqi identity." He added that Iran wants to control the shrines, introduce prostitution networks, sell drugs, and create sectarian strife. BS

...AND COOPERATES WITH RADICAL SHI'A CLERIC. Ansar al-Sunnah leader Abu Abdallah al-Hassan bin Mahmud also said in his interview in "Al-Muharrir" that his organization met with Muqtada al-Sadr in June 2003. According to al-Hassan bin Mahmud, al-Sadr showed a note from his father that said if he is martyred his sons should "follow the fatwas of Al-Sayyid al-Haeri and Sheikh D. Ahmad al-Kubaisi. You must unite with the Sunnis." Subsequently, the Ansar al-Sunnah and the Imam Al-Mahdi Army exchanged personnel. "Therefore, the relationship can be described as intimate," Abu al-Hassan said. BS

RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 8, No. 169, Part III, 3 September 2004

"Rafsanjani was a close second with 26.4 percent"

Not Again

Hmmm......wonder how much of that is true?

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”