Posted on 09/08/2004 9:46:53 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
Too bad the US and Israel pulled its troops from Lebanon. From what I know Lebanon was a great country until Syria got a hold of it.
You bring an interesting point of view. Until now I assumed the reformers in Iran were the minority. I figured the majority were happy with their leadership.
The fact is the Republican party relies far more on grassroots donations than the Democrats. You wouldn't think that from what the media portrays. The Democratic Party is the party that gets the big money. From unions. From corporations ( I don't get that one at all. Why would businessmen support these Stalinists is beyond me ) From billionaires like Ted Turner, Warren Buffet, Gates, ect ...
Sadly this is why the US cannot leave now. The Iranians were work night and day to destabilize Iraq.
Personally I believe partition is the answer for Iraq, The Turks will hate us. But of all people, the Kurds deserve a homeland of their own. Give the Shiites a homeland. And then give something to the Sunnis. But the US must have a long term committment.
Then why did the Germans elect Hitler? Why did the US south endorse slavery and the KKK? Why did the Japanese do okay under dictatorship? Why did Italians fair fine under Mussolini? Why did the Russians embrace communism?
Times change. Your point is mute and ridiculous.
Max Boot:
Bush Can't Afford Inaction on Iran [Excerpt] Hyped reports about an Israeli "mole" in the Pentagon are falling apart faster than the Kerry campaign. It now seems likely that the analyst in question was, at worst, guilty of mishandling a classified document, not espionage. According to news accounts, the memo he's accused of passing to pro-Israel lobbyists called for U.S. support of Iranian dissidents trying to overthrow their dictatorial government. This may not be spy-novel stuff, but it does raise an important question: Why hasn't President Bush implemented the recommendations reportedly contained in the Pentagon paper?
The case for action seems overwhelming in light of Bush's oft-stated warning: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." There is no question which side Iran is on.
The State Department calls Iran the "most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world." Much of its support goes to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, but the 9/11 commission also reported that Al Qaeda members including eight to 10 of those involved in the airplane attacks on the United States were allowed to use Iran as a transit route to and from training camps in Afghanistan. A number of Al Qaeda operatives remain in Iran, ostensibly under house arrest but in all likelihood allowed to carry on their deadly work.
Iran has trained and armed Muqtada Sadr's militia, which has been attacking U.S. forces in Iraq. Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, the cleric who now heads an influential government council, makes no bones about what his country is up to. In an April sermon, he declared that the situation in Iraq posed "a threat because the wounded American beast can take enraged actions, but it is also an opportunity to teach this beast a lesson so it won't attack another country."
Why would Iran be worried about being attacked by the United States? Because it is close to producing a nuclear bomb. It is also working on missiles with the range to strike targets in Europe and North America, though the likeliest vehicles for delivering an Iranian nuke would be its terrorist networks. Hassan Abasi, a senior member of the Revolutionary Guards, recently boasted that Iran had "a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."
Faced with this grave and gathering threat, John F. Kerry advocates appeasement. He recommends making a deal for Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program in return for U.S. concessions, such as helping it to build "civilian" nuclear reactors. There's no reason to think this approach would work any better than a similar accord with North Korea in 1994. Iran has already violated a 2003 agreement with Britain, France and Germany to curtail its nuclear weapons development. The mullahs are hellbent on going nuclear; they are not going to give up what one Iranian newspaper editor calls "the rare pearl for which we have labored greatly."
If we can't trust Tehran to make a deal, then we need a more confrontational approach. A military strike can't be ruled out, but it would be hard to pull off, especially without better intelligence than we had on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Luckily, Iran has a robust opposition movement that makes peaceful change from within a feasible alternative.
Self-styled realists claim that the tyrants of Tehran can't be budged, but then that's what they said about the Soviet commissars too, right up until the fall of the Berlin Wall. As in the Soviet bloc, most people in Iran have lost faith in their rulers. Many have even braved regime goons to protest in the streets. If they can succeed in establishing a representative government, it will not matter whether Iran has nuclear weapons, any more than it matters that India, Israel, France or any other democracy has nukes. Conversely, even without nukes, the terrorist-sponsoring mullahs would remain a major threat. We need to focus on the nature of the regime, not simply the nature of its weapons. ...
by Michael Adler
VIENNA, Sept 9 (AFP) - Iran is continuing to buy parts for centrifuges abroad, often skirting sanctions and export controls, as it seeks to supply a program which the United States charges is secretly developing nuclear weapons, Western intelligence officials said.
Their comments this week came as the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency was set to meet Monday to assess its ongoing investigation into the Iranian program and its links to the international nuclear smuggling network that was run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the disgraced father of Pakistan's atomic bomb.
Khan was arrested earlier this year in Pakistan and confessed to his activities but IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei has said these were just the "tip of an iceberg" of international trafficking in nuclear technology and materials which the IAEA seeks to monitor.
IAEA officials refused to comment on the intelligence sources' information but the IAEA had in a report September 1 said it was "continuing to pursue its investigation of the supply routes and sources of conversion and enrichment technology and the sources of related equipment and nuclear and non-nuclear materials."
A non-US intelligence official said Iran has been getting material not only from Pakistan.
Iran claims its nuclear program is strictly peaceful and that it has had to use the black market in order to skirt sanctions against it acquiring nuclear technology.
"There are companies all over Europe involved. The Iranians want to keep these channels open for ongoing operations and future operations," the official said.
The official said the Iranians have "for centrifuge production, kept purchasing materials in recent months."
This was in Russia but also "Iranian scientists, including nuclear scientists, are coming and going also to and from China," the official said.
Analysts said that while Iran has civilian nuclear programs with China and with Russia, which is building a reactor in Iran, Iran uses front companies to get around export controls on sensitive equipment.
While the United States has sanctions against selling nuclear-related equipment to Iran, even these can sometimes be defeated by selling through foreign subsidiaries or middlemen.
China and Russia are both members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) which seeks to fight proliferation of nuclear weapons through guidelines for nuclear and nuclear-related exports.
David Albright, a former nuclear weapons inspector and head of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), said the Iranians have simply continued using front companies in different countries "to buy things needed in centrifuges," which are machines used to enrich uranium.
The Iranians are both using selling through foreign subsidiaries to skirt export controls and buying "items that aren't controlled but are needed in centrifuges," Albright said.
"The interest is that this trafficking continues" since the crackdown on Khan's network and after Iran promised to suspend uranium enrichment, including a brief but now withdrawn promise not to manufacture, assemble and test centrifuges, Albright said.
He said the problem with lists the NSG compiles of dual-use equipment, meaning with both civilian and military applications, was that "companies and governments don't want to limit competition so they limit what's on the list."
Also, a country can claim that dual-use items such as high-speed cameras useful in weaponization steps are needed for peaceful purposes.
In addition, these lists have no legal weight since export controls are a matter for individual countries.
Non-proliferation expert Gary Samore, from London's International Institude for Strategic Studies said: "Obviously the Iranian enrichment program at least in the beginning depended on AQ Khan. The issue is whether there is still a key bottleneck in the program that requires foreign supplies.
He said a question was "can the Iranians make maraging steel," which is a key component in making the rotors that spin in centrifuges to refine the uranium isotope U-235 which is the explosive for an atomic bomb.
An intelligence official said it would be "most probably less than a year before the Iranians will be in control of the technology to enrich uranium."
And he said "by that time they would have enough feed material for their centrifuges so that they won't be dependent on foreign inputs."
Iran has told the IAEA it plans to convert 37 tons of uranium yellowcake into the uranium hexafluoride gas that is the feed material for enriching uranium. Experts said this would supply enough gas to make enriched uranium that could make from one to several bombs.
Another source, a diplomat close to the IAEA, said the Iranians were "almost self-sufficient" in centrifuge technology, but lacked magnets needed to turn the rotors.
Thu Sep 9, 8:22 AM ET
|
|
By Louis Charbonneau
VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran is using negotiations with the European Union (news - web sites)'s "big three" on suspending sensitive nuclear activities to buy the time it needs to get ready to make atomic weapons, an Iranian exile and intelligence officials said.
With intelligence sources saying Iran could be months away from nuclear weapons capability, the United States wants Iran reported to the U.N. Security Council immediately, charging Tehran uses its civilian atomic energy program as a front to develop the bomb. Tehran vehemently denies the charge.
France, Britain and Germany want to avoid isolating Iran and have taken a go-slow approach, negotiating with Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities.
"Iran continues to use existing differences between the U.S. and Europe to their advantage and tries to drag out talks with the EU to buy time," Alireza Jafarzadeh, an Iranian exile who has reported accurately on Iran's nuclear program in the past, told Reuters.
"They feel they have bought at least 10 months," Jafarzadeh said. He said he was citing sources in Iran familiar with the results of a recent high-level meeting on Iran's nuclear program attended by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Jafarzadeh said officials at the meeting also decided to allocate an additional $2 billion from Iran's central bank reserves to supplement some $14 billion already spent on what he called Iran's "secret nuclear weapons program."
The EU trio has expressed disappointment at Iran's failure to keep promises it made in October to suspend all activities related to the enrichment of uranium, a process of purifying it for use as fuel for atomic power plants or in weapons. But the three remain committed to a process of engagement with Tehran.
However an intelligence official said a failure to act now as Washington would like, could be decisive for the development of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability.
"The Europeans express helplessness, despair and lack of strategy, which is exactly what (the Iranians) want to hear," a senior non-U.S. intelligence official said.
"This is their golden opportunity, between now and the coming of a new (U.S.) administration."
"PLAYING FOR TIME"
The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been investigating Iran's nuclear program ever since Jafarzadeh announced in August 2002 on behalf of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an exiled opposition group, that Iran was hiding several massive nuclear sites from the IAEA.
Although the EU trio are reaching the point where they too might support a referral of Iran's nuclear program to the Security Council, which could impose economic sanctions, diplomats in Vienna say they will give Iran one more chance to end its enrichment activities before the November IAEA meeting.
On Tuesday, diplomats said Iran had agreed with the Europeans in principle to renew its suspension of centrifuge production, assembly and testing. But U.S. and other officials dismissed this as a ploy to escape a Security Council referral.
"Iran is playing for time," a Western diplomat told Reuters.
The IAEA Board of Governors meets next week to discuss Iran's nuclear program, parts of which it hid from the U.N. nuclear watchdog for nearly two decades. Vienna diplomats say the EU three oppose a U.N. Security Council report next week.
Diplomats and intelligence officials say this may give Iran just enough time to reach the point where it has all the technology and expertise it needs to develop an atom bomb at a time of its choosing.
"It is a matter of several months, up to a year, most probably less than a year (for nuclear capability)," the intelligence official said. "By that time we think they will have enough feed material for the centrifuges so they won't be dependent on foreign input."
Iran recently announced it would convert 37 tons of raw "yellowcake" uranium into uranium hexafluoride, the feed material for centrifuges. Experts say this is enough for a bomb.
The official said the IAEA was making a mistake by being so cautious about what the agency has called a lack of any evidence proving Tehran has a covert military atomic program.
"If the IAEA would wait forever to see a smoking gun ... it will be too late," the official said.
ASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - The Bush administration's campaign to persuade Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons programs is running into resistance among some allies and disputes over the seriousness of a new Iranian offer to suspend part of its activities, administration officials said Wednesday.
The officials said Iran made the offer during negotiations with the three European nations - Britain, France and Germany - that are trying to get Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and avoid punitive action sought by the United States.
The informal Iranian offer has not been made public, but officials who say they have seen details describe it as involving a suspension of some of Iran's nuclear programs in return for normal relations with the West and an end to threats of sanctions.
The United States has demanded that Tehran give up all its uranium enrichment activities, saying they are needed only to produce weapons, not electricity. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said he had seen reports of the Iranian offer, but was more interested in action. A senior official said Thursday that the offer, while inadequate, was a sign that American pressure is working.
"It was very telling that in the past 24 to 48 hours, the Iranians have started to try to deal again," said a senior administration official. "That indicates a great concern on their part.''
Other officials said, however, that the Iranian offer may have the effect of forestalling the action that the United States seeks next week at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. The agency has deplored Iran's lack of willingness to answer questions about its nuclear program but has taken no action.
The Bush administration wants the agency's 35-member board of governors to refer Iran's lack of cooperation to the United Nations Security Council, where sanctions and other forms of pressure might be considered.
On the other side, Germany and France argue that more pressure will make Iran less willing to consider curbs on its nuclear programs, which most experts regard as close to giving it the ability to make nuclear weapons.
Later this week, during a meeting in Geneva of top nuclear proliferation specialists from the major industrial countries, John R. Bolton, under secretary of state for nonproliferation affairs, will be trying to build a consensus to increase pressure on Iran.
The United States has tried and failed five times to get the votes to refer the matter to the Security Council, and Mr. Powell said last week that it would try again.
"We've been trying for the past five meetings to achieve that result," Mr. Bolton said in an interview before leaving for Geneva, referring to the effort to bring the matter before the Security Council. "We're going to try again in the sixth meeting. Whether or not that's possible, we've been unambiguous that we would make that push."
But European diplomats, asking not to be identified because the sensitive talks are continuing, expressed doubts that the referral would succeed. Some suggested instead that the United States give Iran one more chance to comply with the demands, with the clear understanding that failure will lead to sending the matter to the Security Council in November.
To some diplomats, the November meeting is critical because it would come after the American presidential election. Many experts say Iran is waiting to see the outcome of the race before deciding whether to negotiate with the Bush administration, even though Senator John F. Kerry has also taken a tough stance on the issue.
Administration officials said they had not yet been able to achieve a consensus on the board of governors. Normally the board takes action by consensus or not at all, which means that a strong dissenting minority can prevent it from acting.
Failing to get a consensus could signal a change of strategy for the administration, administration officials said. If there is no consensus, the administration may try to get a simple majority of the agency's board to send the issue to the Security Council. As a last resort, the administration may have to put the matter off until November.
"We're working it really hard right now," said a senior American official. "We may have to wait until next time, but we're really pushing hard to get this now." The official said that Mr. Powell had been on the telephone in the past week to press the issue.
If there is a yes-or-no vote, according to diplomats from countries involved in the talks, the United States might be able to get the votes of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, perhaps Japan and perhaps Spain and the Netherlands. The American strategy appears to be to line up enough votes that wavering countries might go along.
US threat against Iran unlikely to develop into war for now |
|
The United States has recently uttered a new wave of charges against Iran, which Washington had accused of being involved into the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but war is unlikely on the Mideast country, at least before the November US presidential elections. The United States and Israel have long been threatening to launch preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. What happened in the past months seems to give a signal that the Bush administration may have sorted out Iran as its next target and Washington's diplomatic and political containment may turn into military operations. Washington granted protected status to nearly 4,000 members of the anti-Tehran Mujahedeen Khalq Organization (MKO) in July and accused Iran of being involved into the terrorist attacks occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. On September 1, US Secretary of State Colin Powell uttered the new wave of attack, announcing Washington would prompt the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to refer Iran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council. Even so, some analysts here believed the US threat is unlikely to be escalated into war for the time being. Obviously, if the United States extends aggression to Iran out of the diplomatic and legal domains, it will wait for the nuclear watchdog's decision. Furthermore, whatever conclusion is reached at the IAEA meeting, the United States will be too preoccupied with the presidential election to spare any energy for Iran, and adopting any new tactics against Iran seems to be too risky for the Bush campaign. And Iran will also hold its presidential election in May next year. The United States will not be so impatient that it can not wait until Iran's next president emerges. If the reformists, who are more willing to cooperate with the West, continue to hold the Iranian presidency after the election, Washington can adopt more political and diplomatic measures to reach its strategic goal. If the conservatives come into power, it will not be too late for Washington to plan operations then. Moreover, considering Iran's military capacity, the United States has to calculate the price of launching a war upon the country with counterattack muscle. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said last month that Iran has achieved the effective deterrent power to confront its enemies in the region. Iran's Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, an upgraded version of which was successfully tested last month, can reach any strategic site in the Middle East. On the other hand, Iran, although it has the capability of attacking the US military bases in the Middle East, is definitely unwilling to plunge itself into a military counterwork with the only superpower in the world. Therefore, Iran, though beleaguered by Washington politically and militarily, will be very cautious within the battlefields that has opened so far and tried to clear itself of the US accusations within the framework of the international laws. |
Sporadic but violent clashes rocked main areas of the Iranian capital following a soccer game played yesterday evening in the frame of the pre-qualification for the next world cup.
Groups of young seized the occasion of Iran's victory in order to come into the streets for celebration, by dancing and chanting, and shouting slogans against the regime and its leaders. The most important gatherings were located in western, eastern and central parts of Tehran, such as in Azadi, Enghelab, Madar, Tehran Pars.
Groups of demonstrators retaliated to the brutal attack of the militiamen who were using plastic bullets and tear gas, by throwing pieces of stone and incendiary devices which resulted in heavy damages done to collective buses and several patrol vehicles. Tens have been injured or arrested during the clashes which persisted till late evening and the early hours of today.
Iranians use often various pretext in order to carry a collective action against the Islamic regime. Same Soccer demonstrations have rocked, in the past, many Iranian cities.
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.