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

Skip to comments.

Iranian Alert - September 11, 2004 [EST]- IRAN LIVE THREAD - "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"
Americans for Regime Change in Iran ^ | 9.11.2004 | DoctorZin

Posted on 09/10/2004 9:54:43 PM PDT by DoctorZIn

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.

DoctorZin




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

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

1 posted on 09/10/2004 9:54:45 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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

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

2 posted on 09/10/2004 9:57:40 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Friday, September 10, 2004

War On Terror is Defining Issue

[Excerpt]


There is only one swing state that will determine the outcome in this upcoming election -- and it's not located in the Midwest. That state is Iraq: a newly liberated and sovereign state.

The conventional wisdom is that the success or failure of that country's fledgling government may well determine the election here. Pundits say that if the violence settles down, Bush wins, and if the insurgency continues unabated, with the loss of more American lives, Kerry wins.

There is another alternative: Bush wins if he can clearly explain to U.S. citizens the relevance of the liberation and occupation of Iraq and why it's worth the American lives lost. The president made his case convincingly and was aided by equally powerful speeches from Senators John McCain and Zell Miller and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. And in a major coup, he announced the endorsement of the same firefighter's union that he met at Ground Zero following Sept. 11. Senator John Kerry, who is still on the defensive about his weak military voting record, won't be able to recover by Election Day.

Last week's Republican convention delivered the mojo it needed to cut through the spin and the media static and tell the American people directly -- at last -- why we're in Iraq. The convention had begun with low expectations but ended up blowing everyone away. It was a home run. The polls are showing a large bounce for Bush, with the Time magazine poll having him ahead by 11 points.

President Bush remembers Sept. 11, as he reminded Americans during his acceptance speech, by declaring:

"This election will also determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism -- and you know where I stand. Three days after September 11th, I stood where Americans died, in the ruins of the Twin Towers. Workers in hard hats were shouting to me, 'Whatever it takes.' A fellow grabbed me by the arm and he said, 'Do not let me down.' Since that day, I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I will never relent in defending America -- whatever it takes."

Of course, nearly everyone believes the world is better off without a brutal tyrant like Saddam Hussein in power, but not everyone is convinced the continuing violent occupation by American troops is worth the cost. The president made his case clearly and convincingly to the American people. He explained how Iraq fits into the War on Terror and now has a clear path to his re-election.

Moderate Arab Voices

Fortunately, there are some new, brave and moderate voices among Arabs who are now praising Iraq's liberation and democratization. Amazingly, the Middle East's largest English daily, based in Saudi Arabia, just came out with a startling endorsement of America's actions in Iraq. (Read it and weep, Michael Moore and John Kerry.)

Bush was right to have gone into Iraq. The president identified three nations as an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address to Congress in January 2002: Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the last of which has nuclear warheads. Iran is now building them, and Iraq had been secretive about its WMDs, large stockpiles of which it had once admitted it possessed. All three were ruled by madmen. The world had reason to be concerned.

America recalls when, a few days after 9/11, the president bellowed through a bullhorn while standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center, addressing the gathered rescue workers, "I can hear you, and the people who knocked those buildings down will soon hear from all of us." America cheered. We were at once united.

We soon went into Afghanistan and removed the Taliban. That government, a regime of Islamic radicals that had sponsored Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, was soon replaced by an administration that allowed women to attend schools, children to fly kites and people to listen to music. The world cheered the liberation of that nation.

The world woke up to the new 9/11 era and the Bush Doctrine: Terrorists and the nations that harbor them will not be tolerated.

Shortly, thereafter, Saddam, the Iraqi madman -- who had danced in the streets during the 9/11 attacks, who had previously tried building illegal nuclear plants, had gassed his own people and had invaded neighboring Kuwait -- played footsies with weapons inspectors from the United Nations. While the United Nations equivocated, the United States acted decisively to remove a psychotic dictator who had terrorized his people for three decades. In a post-9/11 world, there needs to be clarity. The president showed that clarity. And although the Bush administration's claims of links between Iraq and al Qaeda are tenuous, there is no doubt Saddam condoned terrorism. His regime was itself a WMD.

Many terrorists found safe haven in Iraq. Americans may have already forgotten that soon after the United States removed Saddam, a Boeing 707 was found at a deserted terrorist training camp in Salman Pak, Iraq, miles from any airport, where terrorists practiced hijackings. In addition, Saddam routinely feted terrorists and openly rewarded families of suicide bombers that killed Jews in Israel.

World War III Has Begun

World War III has started. If you haven't noticed, you're not paying attention. Islamic radical extremists are seeking greater control throughout the world. Iraq and Afghanistan are just tips of an iceberg of the major problem America and the world must face: the scourge of widening extremist Islamic radicalism.

Look at reality. Radical Islamists who foment strife and teach hatred are not just anti-West; they are simultaneously anti-democracy. They are also anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Buddhist and anti-Hindu. The sooner the West opens its eyes and stops blaming the victims, like the United States and Israel, the sooner we get on with dealing with the world's most pressing problems.

Radical Muslims are involved in all 26 of the military conflicts going on in the world today: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Cyprus, East Timor, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel/occupied territories, Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kurdistan (including parts of several countries), Macedonia, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sudan, Russia/Chechnya, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan.

Connect the dots. World War III has begun. What will you do about it? Read the sports page?

Approximately 1 million non-Muslim black Sudanese have been slaughtered by the Arab Islamic regime in Sudan alone. The world is still sitting idly by. The United Nations is really too busy to swing into action. It has apparently been more concerned about collecting millions in bribes and payoffs from Saddam's regime in the corrupt, kickback-ridden, U.N.-sponsored Oil for Food program than about confronting a growing worldwide scourge involving millions of deaths in armed conflicts worldwide.

Kerry Doesn't Get It

When Democrats start voting for Bush, it's time to see whether the temperature is falling in Hell. Some Democrats get it. John Kerry, unfortunately, is not one of them, but former New York City Mayor Ed Koch is. The die-hard lifelong Democrat is voting for Bush this November because he believes the president understands the gravity of the terror situation. Koch's office is near Ground Zero, and he understands that Bush has been responding correctly to the worldwide terrorist threat. Koch opined that the president's clarity on this issue trumps his views on gay rights or abortion rights, with which Koch disagrees.

Conversely, Arab Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Bush over Al Gore in 2000, are now shifting to Kerry in droves. They see the Democratic presidential candidate as more Arab friendly. Not surprisingly, many Arab Americans get their news from satellite dishes that carry the al-Jazeera news network, which many Western observers have called the mouthpiece for al Qaeda and radical Islamists.

Ironically, in spite of all Bush had done for Israel -- and that is much -- the American Jewish community here, overwhelmingly in agreement with the Arab community, is similarly supporting Kerry. According to a recent poll, Bush is trailing Kerry in the Jewish community by 53 points! What are they thinking?

You'd think the Jewish community would be delighted we took Saddam out. The dictator had not only been rewarding suicide bombers who killed Jews in Israel; he gave safe harbor to Abu Abbas, the mastermind terrorist who killed a wheelchair-using Jewish American on the Achille Lauro, a hijacked ocean liner, in 1985. Saddam also rained Scud missiles into Israel during Desert Storm, although that nation was not even a combatant in that war.

Israeli Jews Prefer Bush

Israeli Jews, on the other hand, understand Islamic terror. They also comprehend the dynamics of the Middle East. This is no salon chatter to them: It's a matter of life or death. They live and breathe politics from morning to evening. They live with the daily terror threat, and a recently released Israeli poll shows that Israelis support Bush by 49 percent to just 18 percent for Kerry. They have their lives on the line every day, not only at border checkpoints but also as they board buses, visit hotels or drink espressos in their cafés.

The huge disparity of opinion between American Jews and Israeli Jews in the upcoming election is puzzling. An observer can draw one of two conclusions: Either American Jews are so liberal, secularized and assimilated that Jewish interests, particularly those concerning Israeli security, are of little concern to them -- they simply want to vote for the more liberal candidate, the one who supports abortion on demand -- or they simply think that the Orthodox Jews in Israel are just as bad as Yasser Arafat and that there should be a pox on both their houses. No other answer satisfies. Why else would New York Jews overwhelmingly vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton, despite her public fawning over Arafat and his wife? Hillary and her husband unreasonably pressured Israel to give away much to an unstable Palestinian Liberation Organization. Israel reluctantly yielded, and the result was more bloodshed.

Bush gets it. He voices clear opposition to Palestinian terrorism. He has made a public declaration that some areas of Jerusalem and the West Bank must remain under Israeli control. The president has also made clear that he rejects so-called right-of-return claims for Palestinians. Bush rightfully deserves the support of the Jewish community.

Yet the continuing American Jewish preference for Kerry is a puzzle. It's time for Jews to do some soul searching and reconnect with their Jewish roots and their fellow Jews in a troubled Israel. Israel is not, as the angry Left would have us believe, the victimizer; it is the victim. American Jews must first understand that. If they would only do so, they'd come to the same conclusion that Ed Koch has: Terrorism cannot be placated through appeasement or capitulation. This course breeds only more terrorism. ...

Adam Sparks is a Bay Area writer.

3 posted on 09/10/2004 9:58:14 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

4 posted on 09/10/2004 9:58:51 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Political Activism Inspires Iranians


Jewish Journal - Report Section
Sep 10, 2004

Iran’s growing nuclear threat has activated members of Los Angeles’ Iranian Jewish community to participate in this year’s presidential campaigns and make their voices heard.

Political activism is a unique phenomenon for Iranian Jews, who, for 2,500 years in Iran, had been barred from taking part in political activities and had been denied certain civil rights.

"It took a while for us [Iranian Jews] to take care of our immediate needs in the U.S.," said Sam Kermanian, one of the co-vice chairs for the George Bush/Dick Cheney 2004 campaign in California. "This is a community that came here as refugees and had to put its foundations in place — so getting involved in politics in the last few years only became a priority after all these other issues were taken care of."

Kermanian recently stepped down as chair of the Iranian American Jewish Federation in Los Angeles in order to join the Bush campaign full-time. He said many of California’s 30,000-35,000 Iranian Jews support Bush’s re-election bid.

But the main challenge, he said, is not to convince Iranians Jews to vote but "to make sure that a community that traditionally does not have a culture of voting, to actually come out and cast its vote."

Since the beginning of the summer, Kermanian has collaborated with the Iranian Republican Coalition and the Republican Jewish Coalition in order to reach Iranian Jewish voters who favor the president’s strong alliance with Israel and unwavering stance against negotiations with Iran.

In August, Beverly Hills Jewish Republican Voters for Bush, a group consisting primarily of Iranian Jews, placed a one-page ad in Chashm Andaaz, the local Iranian Jewish magazine, asking for Iranian Jewish campaign volunteers. According to the group’s representatives, they have helped register roughly 200 Iranian Jews in the last two months.

"Because of Iraq, the situation in the Middle East and in Israel, a lot of people on an individual basis have expressed interest in getting involved, because they believe there is a lot at stake in that part of the world," said Solomon Meskin, a volunteer for Beverly Hills Jewish Republican Voters for Bush.

While support for President Bush is prevalent among many Iranian Jews, there are still many in the community that are equally engaged in campaigning on behalf of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

"The Iranian American Jewish community is not homogeneous and should not be regarded as a monolithic body with one political mindset," said David Nahai, a volunteer co-chair of Jews and Friends for Kerry who co-chaired a June fundraiser for Kerry in Brentwood featuring the Democratic nominee’s Jewish brother, Cameron Kerry.

Nahai, a Century City attorney and board member of The Jewish Federation, said he is trying to educate many Iranian Jews who are not yet fully aware of Kerry’s long-standing pro-Israel voting record.

"I believe that our community is now coming to recognize John Kerry’s rock-solid, 20-year, proven pro-Israel record which dwarfs that of George W. Bush in comparison," Nahai said. "I believe that as Iranian-American Jews learn more about Sen. Kerry, his support in the community can only grow."

Aside from Kerry’s pro-Israel voting record, Nahai said Iranian Jews are just discovering that Kerry has also expressed resolve against Iran’s nuclear program.

"Clearly Sen. Kerry is no dove where Iran is concerned and he has stated unequivocally that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable," Nahai said. "Sen. Kerry supports bringing the matter of Iran’s nuclear program before the U.N. Security Council if Iran does not verifiably foreswear its nuclear ambitions."

Nahai said some younger Iranian Jews he has spoken with have also expressed their backing for Kerry and other Democratic candidates in the upcoming election.

"I believe that younger Iranians are more likely to lean toward the Democrats," Nahai said. "The Republican leadership’s ultra-Christian, neo-conservative, big business ethos is backward-looking and simply does not resonate with the young who are looking for a more hopeful... and progressive vision."

Other Kerry supporters in the Iranian Jewish community said they were backing Kerry because of his domestic policies, including proposals to boost the economy.

"I support Kerry because I think his ideas are different from Bush’s as far as being better for our society, from the economy, environment and other areas," said Zhila Ross, an Iranian Jew who lives Brentwood.

In addition to acquiring volunteers, Kermanian said he has also helped start grass-roots campaigns with other Iranian religious and ethnic groups, namely Armenian Christians, Zoroastrians, Caledonians, Muslims and Bahais in California to support Bush.

"There has been absolute harmony among the Iranian groups behind the president," said Kermanian, who has spoken on Persian language radio and TV programs, as well as at many community events.

According to Kermanian’s election demographic records, approximately 80 percent of Iranian Jews in the state are U.S. citizens and 70 percent are of voting age.

Likewise, Nahai said he has also tried to stir up support for Kerry among local Iranians by appearing on KIRN 670 AM, a popular local Persian-language radio station, as well as on the Voice of America television program.

This past July, both Kermanian and Nahai spoke to an Iranian Jewish congregation at the Eretz-SIAMAK Cultural Center in Tarzana during Shabbat morning services, said Shohreh Nowfar, the volunteer chair for the center’s events committee.

More recently, Kermanian and Nahai said they have been approached by the leadership of the Nessah Cultural Center in Beverly Hills to engage in an open debate about both presidential candidates, but no time has been set for the event.

As the election intensifies, so do emotions for many Iranian Americans — regardless of their religion. Many say they still harbor a deep dislike for former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Iranian Americans in general continue to blame Carter for not supporting the regime of the late shah of Iran during the Islamic revolution in the late 1970s that ultimately forced thousands of Iranians, including Iranian Jews, to flee their former homeland and lose their livelihoods.

"Most Iranian Americans of all religions believe Carter had a policy that didn’t support the Pahlavi dynasty and his administration convinced military officials in Iran to step aside while the revolution took over the country," said Dr. Shirzad Abrams, co-founder of the Graduate Society Foundation, a local organization promoting the continuity of Iranian Jewish history and Judaism among young Jews.

Abrams and other Iranian Jewish leaders said that despite the resentment some in the community have for Carter, Iranian Jews by in large still continued to support Democratic candidates and politicians, including former President Bill Clinton and U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (Sherman Oaks).

Others in the Iranian Jewish leadership said that while the Democratic and Republican parties have reached out to Iranian Jews for fundraising purposes, the parties have overlooked the true political potential of the community.

"Iranian Jews have a great authority to mobilize the Iranian American community, which numbers around 1 million people," said Pooya Dayanim, president of the Iranian Jewish Public Affairs Committee. "In the years ahead, they need to become involved in non-Israel and non-Iranian causes to become fully integrated in the fabric of the American Jewish community".


5 posted on 09/10/2004 9:59:42 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn


Jihad in Chaos

The extremist ideology is in collapse.



On this third anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we have much more to be thankful for than some of our political leaders would have us believe. Islamist terrorism's global scourge has been unable to launch anything more than verbal tirades at America. And while the jihadists have won successes in lesser form — the train bombings in Spain that unseated a government, hostage-taking dramas in Iraq that forced minor players from the global antiterror team, and Iran's successful effort to sow divisiveness in the West about its nuclear ambitions while harboring much of al Qaeda's senior leadership — the fact remains that they have not been able to execute a spectacular strike in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Osama bin Laden's global vision — of jihadists crawling from the cracks in every enemy state to strike out at infidels with weapons of mass destruction — is drowning in a swamp of confusion among senior jihadists debating who to attack next, how to do it, and for whose benefit. In short, global jihad has turned on itself, and is being destroyed from within — one botched and more wretched attack at a time.

This is largely a function of the sacrifices made by our fallen heroes — the men and women of the U.S. armed forces, and their Coalition colleagues — in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Their courage and valor in conflict zones has battered the very thesis — that the enemy is too corrupt of mind, too decadent in spirit, and too weak of body to sustain the battle to victory — on which bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, have sent thousands of "martyrs" to their deaths.

Zawahiri's appearance on al Jazeera this week to once again threaten the U.S. was particularly poignant, since it was the Egyptian physician who, in his infinite wisdom, wrote in 2001 prior to the September 11 attacks that if the "jihadist vanguard" improperly executed its plans to spread Islam's words by force, the movement would become isolated and separated from the Muslim masses. He was right, and is now desperately trying to rekindle the unified spirit al Qaeda had achieved prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Zawahiri went so far, at that time in 2001, to set forth the thesis of "shock-and-awe" terrorism as a way to galvanize the Muslim masses against the infidels and win the hearts and minds of the feeble in the Muslim world. And so it was that he conceived the attacks of September 11. Galvanize he did, but the wrong masses. And now global jihad is showing real signs of coming apart.

Just look at recent terrorist acts to see how desperate the jihadists have become to regain their footing among Islam's increasingly skeptical masses. The most informative example is what happened in Russia last week.

The massacre of innocent children at Beslan, where terrorists turned guns on each other to coerce obedience to the plan, demonstrated the very failure of extremist Islam's ideology to inspire — and how the hideousness of their actions could sow doubt in even the most criminally hardened minds. When even the terrorists are at a loss to see how killing over 150 schoolchildren can help their cause, you know they have a problem. Most Chechens have now turned away from the very radicals who seek to free them because they see the horrific lengths to which the extremists will go, and realize that they too could be the targets of the assassins.

Like him or not, Vladimir Putin's resolve to stare down Beslan's terrorists — about whom he understood nothing — will (if by accident) be seen one day as a turning point in the war against extremism, because the depravity of Beslan's architects has turned the silent majority in the Muslim world on its ear. Editors, political leaders, and mullahs from Jeddah to Istanbul to Jakarta are decrying the insanity of the Beslan murders. And they are beginning to realize that always blaming others for their woes won't help elevate their disaffected people or spread the word of their failed vision any faster or better.

We Muslims (I am an American whose faith remains that of the humane and dignified Islam) have no legs to stand on anymore when those who proclaim our religion are willing to put a gun to a child's head, pull the trigger, and call it an act of martyrdom. Islam no longer carries a message of hope, only the indelible impressions of cruelty. Its purveyors are bankrupt of ideas that inspire, and have failed in an ideology that in its very heart today has become hypocritical. To top it all off, America's Muslims — whose freedom to craft and convey an opposition to the terrorist cancer is protected by the very people those terrorists seek to destroy, sit silent — stone cold silent.

Islam's "vanguard," as Zawahiri called it, has an opportunity to redefine the message and turn away from the extremists. America will win the war against extremism because America's values are righteous, and because God, whatever you conceive Him to be, is at our side. But Islam will surely lose its credibility as a great religion if its benefactors don't stand now and drive the final nail into the coffin of the terrorists who have hijacked a noble faith.

The terrorists have turned on themselves because they have no morality and no code. Let's now finish the job and rise up against them en masse with ideas that reflect human values, not just Islamic values: to mobilize the Muslim masses against their own extremist creed for the good of humanity. To do otherwise is to show the ultimate disrespect for our fallen heroes, both here in America and now in the fields of Beslan, where the innocence of our children was lost as well.

Mansoor Ijaz negotiated Sudan's offer to share intelligence data on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda with the Clinton administration in April 1997, and jointly authored the cease-fire plan for Kashmir in 2000. He is chairman of Crescent Investment Management in New York.

6 posted on 09/10/2004 10:00:19 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran — a nightmare scenario for the West

By George Jahn

Weapons experts agree that nearly two decades of covert activities have given Tehran the knowledge and technology to make nuclear bombs, activities that have mostly come to light in the past two years


It’s a nightmare scenario for the West - a hostile Muslim state develops nuclear weapons, throwing the Middle East and the world into turmoil. American officials warn that fear could soon turn into reality with Iran.

In Tehran, government authorities deride such concerns and threats as US propaganda. Pointing to faulty US intelligence that prompted the invasion of Iraq to save the world from apparently nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, Iran insists it doesn’t want nuclear arms - and doesn’t have the means to make them. It’s difficult to measure Iran’s intentions and test its assertions that it is only interested in the atom to generate electricity. But weapons experts agree that nearly two decades of covert activities have given the Islamic Republic the knowledge and technology to make nuclear bombs, activities that have mostly come to light in the past two years.

If Iran translates those skills into action, the Middle East could become the stage for a nuclear confrontation. After running its own secret programme for decades, Israel -Iran’s declared mortal enemy - is thought to have as many as 100 nuclear warheads.

Sounding the latest alarm, US Secretary of State Colin Powell urged Iran on Tuesday to renounce uranium enrichment, which he said “in our judgment, leads to a nuclear weapons,” or face moves to have it hauled before the UN Security Council. Britain delivered the same message, while German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called Iran’s activities “highly alarming.” Austrian physics professor Friedrich Steinhaeusler, a former UN nuclear safety expert, criticised the “distrust and discrediting of Iran.” But he acknowledged, “there is no lack of knowledge” or resources that would prevent Tehran from making nuclear weapons.

US officials have cited intelligence reports as estimating the first Iranian nuclear weapon could be ready by the end of the decade. Former UN nuclear inspector David Albright says it could be three or four years, or even sooner “if they are pressed.” Alireza Jafarzadeh, a former spokesman for the exiled opposition National Council of Resistance, says Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered Iran’s nuclear establishment this June to put finishing touches on a weapons programme by mid 2005.

Jafarzadeh’s exile organisation played a major role two years ago in revealing to the world what the IAEA had just learned - that Iran was running a secret uranium enrichment programme. Among concerns are plans for a heavy water reactor at the central city of Arak that will produce plutonium, which can be used for nuclear fuel but more commonly is used for nuclear weapons. Even before Iran revealed its plans for Arak, an IAEA report last year, one of six to date on the status of an agency probe into Iran’s nuclear activities, said Iran had extracted small amounts of plutonium in the laboratory as part of its covert activities.

The agency has revealed a series of other experiments that could be linked to attempts to make nuclear weapons. But most worrying is Iran’s advanced state of efforts to enrich uranium a process that also can be used to generate low-grade fuel for power or material enriched to 90 percent or above for nuclear warheads.

Enrichment does not violate the terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which Iran has accepted. But with world suspicions high in the wake of 18 years of nuclear secrecy on the part of Tehran the IAEA and most of its member nations want Iran to scrap enrichment plans as a confidence building measure, something Tehran says it is not prepared to do.

Tehran plans to run 50,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium in the central city of Natanz. Iran says the Natanz facility is meant to meet the fuel requirements of a nuclear reactor being built with Russian help that is expected to be finished next year.

But Albright says Iran is not far away from being able to make the 20 kilograms (nearly 45 pounds) of highly enriched uranium needed for one crude weapon. Feedstock for the centrifuges is not a problem. Iran has huge reserves of raw uranium and last week announced plans to extract more than 40 tons a year. But making enough weapons-grade uranium is only part of the equation. The bomb - or warhead - must also be fabricated using detailed blueprints.

Plans for such devices are available on the black market. Libya bought engineers’ drawings of a Chinese-made bomb through the Khan network as part of its covert nuclear programme that it renounced last year. Iran says it does not have such drawings, and no evidence has been found to dispute that claim. Still, Albright says that it is possible that Iran already possesses a copy. And while having such blueprints would be “immensely helpful” to Iranian scientists, they are expert enough to draw them themselves, if necessary, says Albright.

7 posted on 09/10/2004 10:01:03 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

AS IRAN STANDS FIRM ON NUCLEAR ISSUE, EU MOVES CLOSER TO THE US

By Safa Haeri
Posted Friday, September 10, 2004

PARIS, 10 SEPT. (IPS) As Britain, France and Germany adopted a tougher language, if not attitude towards Iran, going closer to the position of the United States, Tehran reiterated Friday commitments to its nuclear ambitions.

Europe’s “Big 3” demanded that Tehran halt all parts of the atomic fuel cycle that can be used to make nuclear weapons, the British news agency Reuters quoted Western diplomats in Vienna, where the United Nations nuclear watchdog is based.

"It's by no means certain that there will be a deal", a Western diplomat close to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told Reuters, referring to the meeting of the Agency’s Board of Directors on Monday 13 September.

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, a close associate of Iran’s leader, ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i repeated that Iran “would never forebear its natural right to achieve nuclear technology.

“The IAEA and the EU trio had made their position clear and it was now up to the Iranians to say yes, or no”, he pointed out, adding that the case of Iran would probably be reported to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions if Tehran do not oblige with the demands.

However, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the Secretary of the powerful Council of the Guardians and a close associate of Iran’s leader, ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i repeated that the Iranian nation “would never forebear its natural right to achieve nuclear technology for peaceful purposes".

Speaking to worshipers during the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran, the hard line cleric accused the West; with the United States at its head of not allowing the Islamic Republic acquiring nuclear technologies, the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported.

The United States, Israel and some European countries suspects Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian power program.

In response, Iran denies the charges and insists that its nuclear projects are for producing electricity.

Talks between Iranian officials and the U.N. nuclear watchdog ahead of Monday's key meeting at the agency's Vienna headquarters had produced no agreement by Friday afternoon and diplomats said it was unclear whether any would be reached.

The EU trio hope to submit a resolution to the IAEA board meeting next week that stops short of reporting Iran to the Security Council for violating the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But they are waiting for Iran's response on the suspension before circulating anything, diplomats said.

"They keep inventing pretexts and often repeat that
these (the Iranians) are after manufacturing nuclear weapons", Ayatollah Jannati went on, adding: "The Iranian nation has made up its mind and the Supreme Leader, too, stands firm over this issue, so it is absolutely impossible that the Iranian nation would forebear its natural right to get access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes".

On Tuesday, diplomats said Iran had agreed in principle to suspend its uranium enrichment programme -- a suspension it had promised in October 2003. The major sticking point now is Iran's refusal to accept EU demands that it abandon uranium conversion.

Iran says that uranium conversion was never part of the original suspension agreement.

Iran recently announced plans to convert 37 tonnes of milled "yellowcake" uranium into uranium hexafluoride (UF6), the feed material for centrifuges used to purify uranium for use as fuel in atomic power plants or in weapons.

This announcement was harshly condemned by European and U.S. officials.

Experts say the amount of UF6 obtained from this process could theoretically be enriched into fuel for one to five bombs

Last October, the trio signed an agreement in Tehran with Hojjatoleslam Hasan Rohani, Iran’s senior negotiator with the IAEA and Europe on Iranian nuclear activities to the effect that Iran would suspend enriching uranium and signing the Protocol to the Non Proliferation Treaty against getting access to advanced nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes.

Iran recently announced plans to convert 37 tonnes of uranium into UF6 that can be also used for making bombs

However, IAEA experts were quick to find out that not only Iran had not met its engagements, but had added new centrifuges to its nuclear arsenal for enriching uranium.

But Mr. Rohani who is also the Secretary of the regime’s supreme Council of National Security counter accused the “Big 3” of not respecting their part of commitments or presents an illogical or harsh resolutions.

“Iran considers controlling the nuclear fuel cycle its legitimate and basic right", he said, pledging however that Iran was prepared to deal with any decision the atomic energy agency's board may take.

''Whenever Iran gets practically close to enrichment issues, the sensitivity of the Europeans rises, and whenever we practically distance ourselves from enrichment, their tone changes and you see a smile on their faces", he said.

On Thursday 9 September, a senior British official warned Iran that if it do not agree with the IAEA suspending enriching uranium until November, its case might be transferred to the United Nations security Council for possible trade sanctions.

This possibility was discussed by the Group of Eight (G-8) when officials from the group met in Geneva on Thursday, hosted by the U.S. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton.

“The discussions will give the officials a chance to sort out differences over the approach to next week's meeting of the board of the IAEA, amidst speculations that the Euro 3 has moved closer to the United States over an IAEA investigation of Iran that began in February 2003, as both sides agree that “this process is not going to go on forever”, according to the French news agency AFP quoting a diplomat close to the IAEA. ENDS IRAN NUCLEAR 10904

8 posted on 09/10/2004 10:01:39 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iranian Ayatollah Says No Plans To Halt Nuclear Program

Iran -- Jannati, Ahmad, Ayatollah, GC head
Ayatollah Jannati (file photo)
10 September 2004 -- A senior Iranian ayatollah said today his country will not be prevented from continuing the development of its nuclear research program.

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who is the head of country's all-powerful Guardian Council, said countries warning Iran to halt its nuclear program should "know that the Iranian nation has taken its decision and that the supreme leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] is firmly behind the notion of acquiring nuclear technology."

Jannati's comments come three days before the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency is due to discuss a U.S. proposal for Iran's nuclear program to be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.

In Geneva today, disarmament officials from the United States, Italy, Japan, and Canada met to discuss Iran's nuclear program ahead of the talks in Vienna that start on 13 September.

(AP/AFP/dpa)

9 posted on 09/10/2004 10:02:41 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Another reformist journalist arrested in Iran


(AFP)

10 September 2004

TEHERAN - A reformist journalist working on the cultural pages of the Iranian newspaper Etemad has been arrested, the paper said yesterday.

According to Etemad, Shahram Rafizadeh was detained by police at the newspaper’s office on Tuesday without any explanation. In its yesterday edition, the paper also reported the arrest of three Internet writers also close to the Islamic republic’s emabttled reforimst camp.

The judiciary has recently stepped up its clampdown on Internet use, including the publication of information on the web from Iran and obliging access providers to filter usage. 

10 posted on 09/10/2004 10:03:07 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Mideast

US Demands Iran Open Nuclear Facilities to International Inspection
Lisa Schlein
Geneva
10 Sep 2004, 21:21 UTC

Listen to Lisa Schlein's report (RealAudio)
Schlein report - Download 405k (RealAudio)
 
A Top U.S. official says his country will demand that Iran come before the U.N. Security Council if it does not agree to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities. Iran's nuclear program was discussed at a two-day meeting of G-8 countries in Geneva in advance of next week's IAEA governing board meeting in Vienna.

A central focus of the closed door session was to try to get the Group of Eight countries to agree on a common position to stop Teheran from developing nuclear weapons. The United States and a trio of European Union countries, Britain, France and Germany, differ in their approach.

<b>John Bolton</b>
John Bolton
But, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton says over the past two days the U.S. and the EU-3 countries have tried to close the so-called tactical gap between them.

"I think I can say that we made progress in that regard here in Geneva. We have not completely closed the tactical gap," he said. "But, I think discussions will continue over the weekend and into next week and we will see what we are able to do. The overall objective of ensuring Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons capabilities is not an issue. All of us are agreed on that."

The United States has staked out a hard-line position. Washington wants the IAEA to declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This could force the issue before the U.N. Security Council. The European countries have adopted a softer approach. They want to give Teheran more time to comply with the treaty provisions before resorting to Security Council measures.

Mr. Bolton argues that Iran has been given enough time and has broken an agreement it made with the EU-3 to suspend its uranium enrichment program. He says bringing the case of Iran to the Security Council would not automatically trigger sanctions against the country.

"Iran's program, amounting as it does to a threat to international peace and security is of sufficient gravity that we want to put the Iranian program at center stage, in the world spotlight, in the forum of the Security Council and, we think just politically, the international dynamic would change dramatically if Iran were in center stage in New York. If they were to truly give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, there is a way to deal with that," he said. "I think we demonstrated that in the case of Libya."

Since Libya renounced its nuclear weapons, the United States and other countries increasingly have brought that country back into the international diplomatic fold.

Mr. Bolton says the G-8 countries also discussed the worldwide threat posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons program and South Korea's surprise announcement that it had conducted a secret uranium enrichment experiment in 2000. He says the U.S. government will not apply a double standard to South Korea. If that country has violated the international safeguards agreement, he says, it too will be criticized.


11 posted on 09/10/2004 10:03:30 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Movement in VOA Radio Q&A program on Sunday
SMCCDI (Public Announcement)
Sep 13, 2004

The Movement's Coordinator, Aryo B. Pirouznia, will participate in the "Voice of America" (VOA) Radio Q&A program on Sunday September 12, 2004.

This live program, hosted by VOA's Dr. Ebrahim Biparva, will start from 22:40 Iran's local time (02:10 PM US EST = 07:10 PM GMT). It will be broadcasted on SW 16.9 Meter band and on VOA's Internet website located at: http://www.voanews.com/Persian/webcasts.cfm

The discussion will be on the Movement, Iran's current situation and the geopolitical factors affecting the future of Freedom Movement. Auditors can formulate, live, their questions and comments by calling the VOA's phone number which will be announced in the program.

12 posted on 09/10/2004 10:03:50 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

‘Iran plans first nuke next year’


(AFP)

11 September 2004

PARIS — Exiled Iranian opposition officials claimed yesterday that the Teheran regime plans to have its first nuclear bomb built by the middle of next year.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran, speaking ahead of a meeting next week of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to discuss Iran’s nuclear capability, said Teheran has allocated some $16 billion to the programme.

“The Iranian regime is trying every means to avoid a decision by the IAEA’s Board of Governors next week to refer Iran’s case to UN Security Council,” the group said, citing “accurate information” from opposition inside Iran.

The United States has pressed the IAEA, whose governors meet from Monday, to refer Iran to the UN Security Council. But others, notaby European countries which have sought to remain engaged with Teheran, are resisting such a move.

The NCRI claimed that Teheran “is engaged in yet another deceptive attempt to prevent a decisive decision by the international community ... This would give (Iran) enough time to advance their plans for developing a nuclear bomb.”

Khamenei “has ordered the relevant apparatus of the regime to produce the first nuclear bomb by mid 2005,” it added.

It added that Iran’s supreme leader had added another $2 billion to this project “which brings the total spending for the regime’s nuclear projects to $16 billion.”

In order to meet the deadline set by Khamenei, various sites including Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak are very active and engineers are working extended hours and during holidays, it claimed.

A leading hardliner, Ayatollah Ahmad Janati, warned the international community yesterday not delude itself that the Islamic regime could be persuaded to abandon its nuclear programme, as it had been approved at the highest level of the leadership.

13 posted on 09/11/2004 9:54:13 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran’s nuclear programme ‘is peaceful’


Published: September 9 2004 17:39 | Last updated: September 9 2004 17:39

Ali Akbar SalehiThe board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meets on September 13 to discuss the latest report on Iran’s nuclear programme. In an interview with the Financial Times in Tehran, Ali Akbar Salehi, until recently Iran’s representative at IAEA, argues that Iran has answered all the questions from the IAEA and shown its nuclear programme is peaceful and consistent with the regulations of the Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT).

Mr Salehi insists that the world should now accept that Iran should be allowed – like any other country – to enrich uranium and develop its nuclear programme.

He argues that US pressure over the programme has a political motivation, and that the outstanding issues between the two countries would be better dealt with by détente.The text of the interview, conducted by Gareth Smyth in Tehran, follows:

FT: What is the role of the IAEA in monitoring nuclear programmes – is it simply monitoring the NPT?

Salehi: According to its constitution, the IAEA has three roles. One is to monitor the non-diversion of peaceful activities towards non-peaceful activities by any member state – that is the ‘safeguards’ part of the IAEA.

The second one is to help member countries develop their own nuclear technology, compatible with their needs, capacity and infrastructure.

The third aspect is safety. The IAEA makes sure that member states using nuclear technology do so safely. This is important, because the safety of nuclear power plants, for example, is not limited to the country where they are located.

These are the essential missions of the IAEA, and in my experience of five years at the IAEA, it has been objective and meticulous in carrying out these missions. It has not yielded or submitted to much political influence.

FT: One of the criticisms made of the NPT is that under its terms, states can get very near to the technology required to make nuclear weapons while developing a civilian programme and then, legitimately, can say they are leaving NPT and will make weapons. Is that a legitimate criticism?

Salehi: It is not legitimate in the sense that we can measure the intentions of member countries – we have no device for that.

Yes, if you acquire technology to some extent then you are potentially a country that can divert this technology to non-peaceful purposes. For example, Germany, Japan, Canada – these are the major developed countries with full fuel-cycles who are utilising nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and are under all sorts of inspection.

FT: Germany and Canada have more advanced nuclear technology than Pakistan...

Salehi: Of course. All these developments have come from Germany...Even Belgium, Holland and Sweden have mastered the technology and if they wish to divert, they can. But does this mean all these countries should be limited, their progress stopped, because of the fear that one day they may develop something fearful?

Probably there are two ways to measure intention. One is to look at the past behaviour – how can you categorise the intention of the US in using nuclear technology? The US has used this technology in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so the US is not in a position to tell others they cannot be trusted.

The other way is to create international instruments to prevent member countries overstretching limits – such as the NPT, such as the additional protocol....

In both these matters, Iran has been successful. We were attacked by chemical weapons from Iraq [during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war], although it was denied for many years. Despite its capacity to react, Iran didn’t do so but behaved in a responsible manner. During the war, we gave 24-hour warnings for people to leave Iraqi cities, and we are proud of this.

In the relation to the second, we are a signatory of the NPT and we have acceded to the additional protocol. We are signatories of the Chemical Weapons Convention of the Convention for the Test Ban Treaty, which bans nuclear explosions. We are hosting CTBT monitoring stations in Iran – five monitoring stations in Iran in the future, and we have two of them already working, monitoring the region.

FT: There is an argument that Iran should have nuclear weapons, like at least one of your immediate neighbours [Pakistan].

Salehi: In matters of national security we are not timid. We will assert our intentions. If nuclear weapons would have brought security, we would have announced to the world that we would go after them. We have shown we are an independent country, not a lackey of a superpower. We will decide what is appropriate for our national security.

But we have come to the conclusion that nuclear weapons would not bring us security. We think nuclear weapons for Iran would invite more threats, and trigger competition for nuclear weapons.

FT: That wasn’t the judgement of Saddam, who bombed Bushehr [an Iranian reactor] in 1985. Nor of Israel, nor of America, all of whom seem to feel nuclear arms would make Iran stronger…

Salehi: We do not think a nuclear Iran would be stronger. The leader of the country [Ayatollah Ali Khamanei] has issued an edict saying having a nuclear weapon is not allowed – this is a government principle. We have come to the conclusion that the best security for Iran is to have the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. If we have weapons of mass destruction we are not going to use them – we cannot. We did not use chemical weapons against Iraq.

Secondly, we do not feel any real threat from our neighbours. Pakistan and the Persian Gulf, we have no particular problems with them, nor with Afghanistan. The only powerful country is Russia in the north, and no matter how many nuclear weapons we had we could not match Russia.

Israel, our next neighbour, we do not consider an entity by itself but as part of the US. Facing Israel means facing the US. We cannot match the US.

We do not have strategic differences with our neighbours, including Turkey.

FT: You were at the apparently successful meeting that reached agreement with the Europeans last October - an agreement that the Europeans interpreted to mean that Iran would give up control of the nuclear enrichment cycle. The Iranian side says it will not give up control of the cycle. How can this divergence have happened?

Salehi: Mr [Hassan] Rowhani [head of Iran’s Supreme Council of National Security] in the meeting, in front of the three ministers [the foreign ministers of Britain, Germany and France], stressed over and over again that the voluntary suspension, and not cessation, [of uranium enrichment] could last from a day to a year. This was very clear to the three ministers.

We have told the Europeans – and we are telling them now – that we are wise enough not to expect you to think like us. We are ready to give any kind of meaningful guarantees and assurances that Iran will never divert its fuel-cycle technology to non-peaceful use.

We have even once indicated – not officially – that we are ready to enter into a joint venture in the enrichment of uranium. [We have said to the Europeans] ‘Bring your expertise to Natanz, join us, and sell to us, and to others.’

Iran has 10 per cent of Eurodif [the European consortium], which has a European enrichment plant [in France] ... It sells enrichment services to the world, and Iran has a 10 per cent share dating from the time of the past regime.

Why not repeat this same thing here, and we will assure you we will buy all the production. Natanz has been designed to produce 30 tons of enriched uranium up to 5 per cent maximum [ - below the level required for a nuclear bomb], and that is only enough for one year’s refuelling. Nantaz, with all its vastness, can supply only one reactor for a year. We are to construct seven reactors, we are starting the bid for the twin reactor in Bushehr in a year’s time, so for that one we need to buy our uranium from outside.

But this is a bargaining chip for us....We have made an economic calculation that with the facilities we have developed, the fuel we are going to fabricate in Iran would be a lot cheaper that what we can buy internationally. The manpower here is much cheaper and the capital investment we’ve made is in rials not in dollars.

FT: When you say bargaining chip, do you mean Iran might compromise over this?

Salehi: We say that for other plants we are going to buy our fuel from outside, but we are not going to become hostage to their wishes. Once they know we can develop our own enrichment, then they will enter into bargaining with us – like any other country.

FT: Is the control over the fuel cycle a matter of national sovereignty?

Salehi:Nuclear technology, of you are able to master it, opens the way to other technologies, because you are dealing with the highest limits of engineering – the highest pressures, highest temperatures, the highest material properties. This know-how can be used in other industries.

With technology you cannot have big jumps. You can’t suddenly expect an underdeveloped country to send a rocket to the moon.

Nuclear technology would give us the base for future technology in fusion, which is the ultimate answer to unlimited supply of energy for human beings. If you do not master fission now, when fusion comes in 20 to 30 years you will be totally ignorant.

FT: So when the Europeans say they want an international supply of enriched uranium….

Salehi: The Europeans have said they would assure us of the supply of nuclear fuel for the lifetime of the power plants, which run for 60 years, which is almost three generations. Who can believe such a guarantee? The world may change, we don’t know what will happen, even the European Union may break up in three generations …

FT: You said that to them?

Salehi: Yes.

FT: How did they react?

Salehi: Nothing. No answer.

FT: If Iran is supplied with enriched uranium, which is then removed after use, how would you as a physicist feel? Is this an insult?

Salehi: Of course we take this as an insult. This coming board of governors [of IAEA, on September 13] will be the seventh that will tackle the issue of Iran. This last report has been the most mild and positive compared to past ones. When they were less lenient, the Americans and the Europeans could not make the board of governors react in a very radical manner, because the board understood that Iran had not really gone beyond its obligations under the treaty [NPT]. It had made some small mistakes in reporting, not in a timely manner …

FT: It had hidden things?

Salehi: No, no, not like South Korea [which recently admitted a secret nuclear programme]. If the board of governors of the IAEA had concluded that Iran was in breach of its obligations, it would not have waited a second to refer Iran to the security council.

There are matters of difference. We had not reported some natural uranium. When it came to the question of why, there was a difference of interpretation of two articles of the safeguards agreement between us and the IAEA: if you read one article, you would feel that you do not have to report it, in another article you would feel you do. The catch was the one effective kilogram of uranium: if it was imported, you would have to report it, but if it was developed inside, you wouldn’t have to.

Things of this sort have created a lot of fuss. Take polonium. They said we didn’t report it. We said, look, you have the log-book of the reactor, the Tehran reactor, which your inspectors visit every month. The log-book had the signature of the inspector and he had not noticed it [the polonium]. This is not our problem.

Look at South Korea. It has a hidden enrichment activity, and we are waiting to see how the world is going to react.

Through the force of the media, they made the public believe that our activity in Natanz was a secret activity. Can you imagine? Had it been secret, would the IAEA have waited a second to refer us to the security council?

There was no secret activity in Natanz. How can it be secret if it has a few hundred acres, and a sign saying ‘Atomic Energy Organisation’ and the buses that go from Tehran to Natanz stop at a station called ‘Atomic station’?

Yes, we didn’t tell it to the IAEA, but we didn’t have to. Under the safeguards agreement, we have to tell the IAEA only 180 days before we enter the nuclear material into the facility. It is not yet completed and we have not brought in any nuclear material.

Look at our intention about the UCF, uranium conversion facility, in Isfahan. This converts natural uranium, which is called yellowcake, into hexoflouride uranium, UF6. What can you do with UF6? Its only use is in an enrichment facility. Five years ago, before the construction of the facilities, we invited Mr ElBaradei [IAEA chief] to Iran, took him to Isfahan, showed him the barren land said and said this was where we want to construct our uranium conversion facility. We were not obliged to do so – we could have constructed the facility and were obliged to inform the IAEA only before inputting the nuclear fuel.

In other words, when we indicated to the IAEA we would construct a UCF, we implied we were going to have an enrichment facility.

In the year 2000, I was invited to Columbia university by Mr Gary Sick for a review conference on the NPT. I gave a talk about our nuclear activities. A Japanese representative proposed that Iran sign the additional protocol – and this was before the issue of Iran popped up, everything was calm. Before I had the opportunity to answer, an American gentlemen, a retired state department employee who specialised in disarmament, said, and this was exactly the phrase he used: ‘No matter how many times Iran signs the additional protocol, we will keep up our pressure until Iran yields to a political détente. If this is realised, then we will offer them two of our best reactors.’

The US knows Iran is a responsible country, they know our intentions very well. The issue of détente is in the hands of the political elites of the two countries. It’s not an issue of Iran having a nuclear weapon.

Instead of using their energies to find ways and means of approaching each other, they are both exhausting their energy in weakening each other. For the US, it’s time to understand that the golden key to the region is Iran and without Iran the Middle East issue cannot be resolved in its entirety.

Economically we are self-sufficient. There are countries around us that look developed but owe $140bn in debt. That makes them susceptible to many problems.

We have $30bn in reserves, the highest in Iran’s history, and $9bn of debt, which is nothing for a country like Iran. Iran will take off very soon, and there is no way to stop Iran from progressing. The US and the West should understand this, and eventually they will treat Iran as an equal partner and a country that is fully independent.

FT: Do you see the IAEA as a neutral body, like a referee?

Salehi: Yes. I have come to the conclusion, from the way the IAEA tackled the issue of Iraq and did not yield to the pressure of the US over the Niger scandal, and from the way it is tackling the issue of Iran, that the IAEA has come to understand that it is more important to save the prestige and the integrity of the IAEA than to yield to the pressure of this or that country.

The IAEA is loudly saying that it has found no indications that Iran has diverted its peaceful uses of nuclear technology. It has done a relatively good job, and I myself am grateful to the IAEA and its board of governors.

14 posted on 09/11/2004 9:58:33 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

'Iran can build N-bomb' ... buys centrifuge gear

VIENNA, Austria (Agencies): It's a nightmare scenario for the West - a hostile Muslim state develops nuclear weapons, throwing the Middle East and the world into turmoil. American officials warn that fear could soon turn into reality with Iran. In Tehran, government authorities deride such concerns and threats as US propaganda. Pointing to faulty US intelligence that prompted the invasion of Iraq to save the world from apparently non-existent weapons of mass destruction, Iran insists it doesn't want nuclear arms - and doesn't have the means to make them. It's difficult to measure Iran's intentions and test its assertions that it is only interested in the atom to generate electricity. But weapons experts agree that nearly two decades of covert activities have given the Islamic Republic the knowledge and technology to make nuclear bombs, activities that have mostly come to light in the past two years.

If Iran translates those skills into action, the Middle East could become the stage for a nuclear confrontation. After running its own secret program for decades, Israel - Iran's declared mortal enemy - is thought to have as many as 100 nuclear warheads. Sounding the latest alarm, US Secretary of State Colin Powell urged Iran on Tuesday to renounce uranium enrichment, which he said "in our judgment, leads to a nuclear weapons," or face moves to have it hauled before the UN Security Council. Britain delivered the same message, while German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called Iran's activities "highly alarming." Ahead of an International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors meeting opening Monday on Iran, the view that Tehran can make nuclear arms - including mastering complex tasks like warhead designs - is shared even by those willing to give Tehran the benefit of the doubt about its intentions.

Austrian physics professor Friedrich Steinhaeusler, a former UN nuclear safety expert, criticized the "distrust and discrediting of Iran." But he acknowledged "there is no lack of knowledge" or resources that would prevent Tehran from making nuclear weapons. Estimates vary on a time frame. US officials have cited intelligence reports as estimating the first Iranian nuclear weapon could be ready by the end of the decade. Former UN nuclear inspector David Albright says it could be three or four years, or even sooner "if they are pressed." Alireza Jafarzadeh, a former spokesman for the exiled opposition National Council of Resistance, says Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered Iran's nuclear establishment this June to put finishing touches on a weapons program by mid-2005. Jafarzadeh's exile organization played a major role two years ago in revealing to the world what the IAEA had just learned - that Iran was running a secret uranium enrichment program. He said his latest information came from the same sources that leaked the news on Iran's enrichment activities.

Among concerns are plans for a heavy water reactor at the central city of Arak that will produce plutonium, which can be used for nuclear fuel - but more commonly is used for nuclear weapons. Even before Iran revealed its plans for Arak, an IAEA report last year, one of six to date on the status of an agency probe into Iran's nuclear activities, said Iran had extracted small amounts of plutonium in the laboratory as part of its covert activities. While finding "no evidence" that Tehran tried to make atomic arms, it said such efforts cannot be ruled out.

Toughen
France, Britain and Germany have toughened their stance on Iran's nuclear programme, demanding that Tehran halt all parts of the atomic fuel cycle that can be used to make a bomb, Western diplomats said on Friday. Western diplomats said that unless Iran satisfies the European Union's "big three" and verifiably halts its uranium conversion and enrichment programmes, it would probably be reported to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. The United States accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian power programme and has called on the Europeans to stop negotiating with Tehran and back a US plan to report it to the Security Council for concealing potentially weapons-related nuclear activities for nearly two decades. Iran denies pursuing atomic weapons, insisting its nuclear ambitions are limited to the peaceful generation of electricity.

Talks between Iranian officials and the UN nuclear watchdog ahead of Monday's key meeting at the agency's Vienna headquarters had produced no agreement by Friday afternoon and diplomats said it was unclear whether any would be reached. "It's by no means certain that there will be a deal," a Western diplomat close to the IAEA told Reuters. He said that the IAEA and the EU trio had made their position clear and it was now up to the Iranians to say yes or no.

15 posted on 09/11/2004 10:01:18 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

UN atomic agency seeks to visit key Iranian defense site: diplomats


Fri Sep 10, 3:41 PM ET
Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!

VIENNA (AFP) - The UN atomic agency has asked to visit one of Iran's main military sites, Parchin near Tehran, but the Iranians have not agreed to the visit, diplomats said, as an Iranian resistance group said Tehran planned to build a nuclear bomb by next year.

The visit would be part of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) investigation of Iran's nuclear program on US charges that Tehran is secretly developing nuclear weapons.

Parchin, 30 kilometres (18 miles) southwest of Tehran, is a site for a variety of defense projects, including Defense Industries Organization (DIO) work in chemical explosives, but the IAEA is wondering if Tehran is possibly doing nuclear weapons work there.

Iran says its nuclear program is strictly civilian and peaceful and that it is not developing atomic weapons.

A diplomat close to the IAEA confirmed that the agency had requested to send inspectors to Parchin but said this was not included in an IAEA report on Iran published September 1 since "whenever you are in the negotiating process, you should not mention what you are negotiating."

The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors is to meet next Monday to review the Iran file, with the United States saying Iran should be taken to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.

The IAEA did write in the report: "It is important for Iran to support the agency's efforts to provide access to locations, personnel and information relevant to safeguards implementation in response to agency requests."

A US official said from Washington that the IAEA had, according to verbal accounts, dropped the mention of Parchin in the written report, as well as a reference to concern about Iran's work with beryllium.

Beryllium has civilian applications but can also be used in combination with polonium to make a neutron initiator that is effectively a trigger for a nuclear bomb.

The official said the concern about Parchin was that the Iranians may be working on testing "high-explosive shaped charges with an inert core of depleted uranium" as a sort of dry test for how a bomb with fissile material would work.

A non-American diplomat confirmed the US assertion.

An IAEA spokesman refused to comment.

Exiled Iranian opposition officials meanwhile claimed in Paris Friday that the Tehran regime plans to have its first nuclear bomb built by the middle of next year.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran said Tehran has allocated some 16 billion dollars (13 billion euros) to the program.

"The Iranian regime is trying every means to avoid a decision by the IAEA's Board of Governors next week to refer Iran's case to the UN Security Council," the group said, citing "accurate information" from opposition inside Iran.

European countries which have sought to remain engaged with Tehran are resisting calls to send Iran before the Security Council.

The NCRI claimed that Tehran "is engaged in yet another deceptive attempt to prevent a decisive decision by the international community ... This would give (Iran) enough time to advance their plans for developing a nuclear bomb."

 

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "has ordered the relevant apparatus of the regime to produce the first nuclear bomb by mid 2005," the resistance group said.

They said Khamenei had added another two billion dollars to this project "which brings the total spending for the regime's nuclear projects to 16 billion dollars."

In order to meet the deadline set by Khamenei, various sites including Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak are very active and engineers are working extended hours and during holidays, it claimed.

A leading Iranian hardliner warned the international community Friday not delude itself that the Islamic regime could be persuaded to abandon its nuclear programme, saying it had been approved at the highest level of Iranian leadership.

"They should know that the Iranian nation has taken its decision and that the supreme leader is firmly behind the notion of acquiring nuclear technology," Ayatollah Ahmad Janati said.


16 posted on 09/11/2004 10:04:48 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iranian president likens occupier countries to "axis of evil"

www.chinaview.cn 2004-09-11 20:12:40

    TEHRAN, Sept. 11 (Xinhuanet) -- Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has likened occupier countries to "axis of evil", a term invented by the United States to label Iran, the official IRNA news agency reported on Saturday.

   "Countries that prevent others from living in peace in their own homelands and flagrantly support or commit terrorist acts are the real 'axis of evil'," Khatami was quoted as saying during his visit to Byelorussia.

   "Those who illegally occupy lands belonging to others against international norms and those who fuel chaos and extremism worldwide are the main components of the axis of evil," Khatami
said.

   "They try to deviate the world public opinion from their own crimes by trying to find scapegoats," he added.

   In January 2002, US President George W. Bush labelled Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the "axis of evil".

   Khatami cited the Middle East situation and the Iraqi turbulence as examples.

   "All regional countries have a stake in continued peace and security in a sensitive region like the Middle East. Crises and tensions in the region only serve the illegitimate interests of the outsiders," Khatami said.

   "The Iraqi people are now suffering because of the mistakes and failures of the outsiders, who came to the country on their own selfish agenda and should bear the cost of their mistakes," he said.

   "However, the current problems in Iraq have shown that the occupation can no longer continue and the use of force has to come to an end," Khatami noted.

   Khatami arrived in Minsk, the capital city of Byelorussia, on Thursday evening for an official visit, which is the second leg of his three-nation regional tour starting from Wednesday. He has already visited Armenia and will travel to Tajikistan after conclusion of Minsk tour. 

17 posted on 09/11/2004 10:08:57 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

European powers join U.S. in demanding Iran comply with IAEA

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent and AP

Europe's major powers have agreed to support an American initiative which proposes issuing an ultimatum to Iran which would require Tehran to fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and by November and stop trying to secretly make nuclear weapons, or face international sanctions.

Prepared for Monday's start of a key meeting of the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog agency, the draft resolution contains a so-called "trigger mechanism," warning of possible "further steps" - which diplomats defined as shorthand for referral of Iran's case to the UN Security Council.

The draft is likely to undergo changes before France, Germany and Britain - its initiators - submit it at the board meeting of the IAEA. And it still has to be approved by two thirds of the 35 board members.

But the draft puts the three European countries the closest they have formally been to the United States' position on what to do about Iran and activities that Washington insists show Tehran is trying build a nuclear bomb. Up to now, the three European countries have resisted U.S. attempts to have Iran hauled before the Security Council or even hint on a date for such possible action.

While the last board meeting in June censured Iran for past cover-ups and warned it has little time left to disprove it has a nuclear weapons program, it didn't impose a deadline or even indirectly threaten sanctions.

The draft suggests Iran has no wiggle room left in offering anything but full cooperation with the IAEA and its probe. It also emphasizes the need for Iran to fully enact what has been a partial and eroding commitment to stop uranium enrichment and related activities.

Enriched uranium can be used to generate electricity - which is what Iran insists it is interested in - or make nuclear weapons.

Iran last year agreed to freeze enrichment programs but has since resumed testing, assembling and making centrifuges, a key component of such activities. Last week it confirmed an IAEA report that it planned to convert more than 40 tons of raw uranium into uranium hexafluoride, the feed stock for enrichment.

Iran's original suspension pledge came in a deal with Britain, Germany and France but fell short of European demands that Tehran scrap enrichment.

Enrichment does not fall under Iran's obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but Tehran has been under international pressure for more than a year to fully renounce enrichment to counterbalance suspicions generated by nearly two decades of clandestine nuclear activities that came to light only two years ago.

On Tuesday it offered to re-impose a partial freeze on some of those activities, in an apparent move to deflect growing international exasperation ahead of Monday's meeting. But diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the AP they had not heard of a concrete agreement with the IAEA on that issue by Saturday, and the text of the draft had no reference to any commitment by Tehran to re-impose its enrichment freeze.

The draft has some positive language. It notes "the general positive ... Iranian cooperation" with the IAEA, while asserting that "the process of providing information needs, in certain instances, to be accelerated."

At the same time it notes, "with serious concern ... that Iran has not heeded repeated calls from the board to suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."

It "deeply regrets" that Iran's partial freeze of enrichment and related programs falls "significantly short" of what the IAEA wants, "and also that Iran has since reversed some of those decisions."

The draft expresses concern about Iran's plans to convert its raw uranium into hexafluoride - which is fed into centrifuges and spun to varying levels of enrichment. And it urges Iran "immediately and verifiably to suspend all enrichment-related activities, notably the manufacture of centrifuge components, the assembly and testing of centrifuges, and the production of feed material."

It asks IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to present a comprehensive review before the next board meeting in November of his two-year investigation into Iran's nuclear programs, a record of Tehran's cooperation with the probe, and a judgment on Iran's willingness to fully suspend "all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."

"A definite determination on whether or not further steps are required" will "probably" be made by the board on the basis of that report, said the draft.

"This is a 'trigger' that can be pulled if the November board deems it necessary," said one of the diplomats.

18 posted on 09/11/2004 1:10:12 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Defense and Foreign Affairs Daily

Sep 07, 2004

Iran’s Moves on Terrorism Escalation Show Caution But Resolve

Analysis. By GIS Staff

 

Iran’s clerical leadership, clearly in close cooperation with other Islamist groups, including al-Qaida, appears to be moving resolutely forward in its moves to provoke a confrontation with the West — particularly the US, Israel and Russia — but has stopped short, so far, from using formal Iranian military or Revolutionary Guard units to attack US military units in Iran. However, for the first time, Iran has apparently deliberately left clear fingerprints of involvement in terrorist operations against Russian and Israeli targets in the first week of September 2004.

This move appeared to be designed to provoke a US response against Iran, presumably to galvanize support inside Iran for the clerical leadeship.

See Defense & Foreign Affairs Dailies:

August 20, 2004: Iran’s Clerics Attempt to Regain Control of Strategic Confrontation With US by Forcing the US Into a Direct War.

August 23, 2004: Further Indications of Iranian Leadership Preparations for War With US.

August 24, 2004: How Iran Planned the an-Najaf Escalation in Iraq as Build-Up to Major Conflict.

There appears to be clear recognition in the Iranian and al-Qaida leaderships that it was necessary to force a confrontation with the US before the November 2, 2004, US elections, in order to defeat incumbent US Pres. George W. Bush. However, the fact that the Islamist forces decided not to proceed with attacks against the Athens Olympics and the New York Republican National Convention, despite the fact that substantial terrorist forces and weapons were known to be in place for both events, highlighted the fact that it was probably perceived that such attacks could have, in fact, been counterproductive for the Islamists. The attacks could have galvanized support for Pres. Bush.

The fact that the Bush election campaign has moved so strongly into the lead, and that opposition Sen. John Kerry’s chances of overturning the Bush Administration were now less of a prospect, will also contribute to the decisionmaking framework for the Iranian and al-Qaida leadership. In other words, it may be that one or more terrorist “spectaculars” may not remove Pres. Bush from office.

However, if the Iranian-al-Qaida team failed to undertake any significant shows of strength before the elections in the US, then Pres. Bush in the US, Prime Minister John Howard in Australia (election October 9, 2004), and Prime Minister Tony Blair in the UK (election before mid-2004), could all claim that they were winning “the war on terrorism”. As a result, the Islamist leadership is obliged to make moves which would attempt to show that the so-called “war on terror” has not succeeded, or that the Western leaders have made their populations more safe.

The current escalations of Islamist terrorism, involving HAMAS operations in Israel, al-Qaida/Iranian operations against Russia (the two downed Russian airliners and the attack and hostage taking against a Russian school in Beslan, North Osettia), and escalated attacks inside Iraq with Iranian links to the weapons, showed that Iran was taking a “safe route” in the escalation against the US.

Meanwhile, the Iranian's World Islamic Organization for Remembering the Shahids (martyrs) was reported in an Iranian daily on September 2, 2004, as unveiling “today, in Tehran's main cemetery, a monument commemorating those who conducted the most recent martyrdom operation in Israel”. The group's spokesman said that the “commemoration ceremony for the martyrs will take place ... next to the monument commemorating Khaled al-Islambuli”. It is assumed that the “most recent” operation refers to HAMAS operations in Beersheva, Israel.

The Beersheva attacks, in particular, conformed exactly to what Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily forecast in the late July 2004 piece about Palestinian Authority Pres. Yasir Arafat trying to end the “stalemate”, aided and directed by Tehran and Damascus. That piece also cited a telephone conversation between Khaled Mashaal (HAMAS/Damascus) and Arafat posted on the HAMAS website. The Beersheva attack, after many failed attempts, was the beginning of the attempted “strategic breakout”.

See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, July 27, 2004: PA Pres. Arafat Urges Major Anti-Israel Strike.


19 posted on 09/11/2004 1:20:42 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

I heard that Ayatollah Khomeini was genocidal. He like raided, pillaged, and leveled many villages and killed people. Many of them were Arabs, Jewish, Kurdish, Turks, Armenians, and Persians who were killed. There was one instance where thousands of people were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered and in one day, 88,000 people were murdered.


20 posted on 09/11/2004 1:24:11 PM PDT by Ptarmigan (Proud rabbit hater and killer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
This thread is now closed.

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

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

21 posted on 09/11/2004 9:08:50 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

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

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