Iranian Alert - September 29, 2004 [EST]- IRAN LIVE THREAD - "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"

The US media still largely ignores news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, “this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year.” As a result, most American’s are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East. In fact they were one of the first countries to have spontaneous candlelight vigils after the 911 tragedy (see photo).

There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. I began these daily threads June 10th 2003. On that date Iranians once again began taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Today in Iran, most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy.

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.

In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.

This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.

I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.

If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.

If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.

Perhaps this will help you understand.

"First, the media works in a pack that is happiest when following a simple narrative."

This is an observation by Mike Murphy of the Weekly Standard speaking in reference to the coming presidential debates, but the it applies to news coverage in general.

Thus far the news on Iran requires a considerable amount of understanding of people, culture, strategies, events, in order to interpret what is happening there.

The news media is looking for "a simple narrative." They are looking for something that people can immediately understand and appreciate, such as the return of a major leader, an election, things of this nature. They are looking for news that is easy to consume.

The news on Iran does not fit this at this time.

Another thing missing for the broadcast media is that there is little video footage of events inside of Iran to "tell the story." This is of course due to the restrictions placed on the media by the regime. Major news networks with journalists in Iran fear exposing the regime prematurely for fear of being forced out of the country.

So what does this mean for those of us wanting to support the Iranian people?

I would suggest that before we contact the media on a breaking news story, that we need to provide the media with this "simple narrative" that the media can use.

Once events warrant it and we provide that narrative, if the media takes hold of the story, group think takes over among journalists and they will attack the story.

Iranian Citizens Trash Fahrenheit 9/11

By Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi
September 29, 2004

A few weeks ago, Mamoun Fandy, a media analyst, syndicated columnist and former professor of Arab Studies at Georgetown University, was interviewed on the subject of Michael Moore. Fandy stated that Iraqis who were familiar with the film found Moore’s portrayal of them to be exceedingly racist; he went on to say that Moore’s callousness to the plight of the Iraqi people and to the unbelievable human rights devastation in Iraq was outrageous.

And that was only the verdict of the Iraqis.

I have also been asked to express the judgment of a number of Iranians who saw the film in Iran. They sent e-mails, faxes and even phoned me to ask me to report their reviews.

First, other than David Lynch’s film, ‘The Straight Story’, Iranians have not really been exposed to any western films in their cinemas. The Mullahs’ film board forbids the display of women’s uncovered hair and all the other “corruption” Western filmmakers spread. For Iranians, therefore, viewing Michael Moore’s film was a tremendously novel experience.

After 25 years of living in a virtual concentration camp, Iranians have become exceedingly socio-politically savvy. Moore’s anti-American propaganda did not attract anywhere near as many viewers as the Mullahs had hoped for. Tehran’s despots had hoped the film would challenge the Iranian people’s favourable notion of President Bush and promote John Kerry.

But Iranians are too smart.

A group of 12 university students, for example, composed of both men and women who had seen the film, collectively wrote me and signed an e-mail which said: “Wow, this guy complains that Bush lied once. What would this windbag do if he lived here where our president lies to us once an hour?”

Another comment was: “This guy gets to publicly accuse Bush of lying and becomes famous and adored worldwide. We, here, complain about some decrepit and inconsequential government lackey and we not only go to prison but some of us get death sentences. He ought to thank his lucky stars he lives in a country where he’s allowed and even encouraged to be this obnoxious…”

Someone else quipped: “If he thinks that the U.S. is so bad, he’s welcome to trade places with us…since he’s so forgiving of brutal Middle Eastern dictators!”

Another young man said: “They are showing this film to erase from our minds the idea of America being the great liberator; maybe Americans themselves don’t appreciate what they have but we sure do!”

Another comment was: “Outside such pathetic ideological schemes, Moore’s fixation to reprimand and castigate his own society is so great that he is BLIND to the fact that our ancient land and society cannot be regarded and dealt with in the same fashion; therefore he has fallen pray to the Mullahs for whom he is nothing more than a tool to discard when his mission for them is completed.”

My father, Siamak Pourzand, a 75-year-old Iranian journalist, film historian/critic/promoter has been a political prisoner since November of 2001 in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where he has experienced severe torture. During this time, not one member of the self-involved, international film community, to whom I reached out about his plight, responded. When in the fall of 2002 I called Michael Moore’s office, (like I did many other Hollywoodites) I was told: “Sorry, but Mr. Moore is too busy AND just can’t get involved in these types of matters because we can’t be sure who you are and what your agenda is.”

I am sure Moore is a busy guy, but with all the blowhard exposing of “evil” that he proclaims to be doing, I’m sure he could have asked someone on his team to find out who I was and what my so-called “agenda” was. But unfortunately, he cannot even be bothered to contact the brilliant Ray Bradbury to get permission to use Mr. Bradbury´s copyrighted title, let alone contact some random Middle Eastern wretch like me, who’ll challenge his myopia and force him to cast a critical eye outside the little box that he so cozily lives in.

Most intelligent and politically savvy people from my part of the Middle East and the vicinity, with whom I network, believe that Moore is not qualified to address our issues; he is simply not familiar with our cultures, history, mentalities or peoples’ needs; NOR does he have to right to impose his diatribe on our exhausted and abused peoples.

Mr. Moore and his mindless and greedy distributors thought that they could manipulate the Iranian people; but this goes to prove a crucial point: Moore thinks he speaks for his audiences but he does not know them. Otherwise, he would not have agreed to screen his film in a country whose citizens’ collective, real-life experiences drowns the clamor of Moore’s vapid bitching.

Blair says Iran and N.Korea close to compliance

Wed 29 September, 2004 09:09

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Tony Blair says the international community is closer than ever to making North Korea and Iran accept its demands to halt nuclear programmes.

"A couple of weeks ago Libya finally wound up its WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) programme. America has lifted sanctions. We have a better chance of getting Iran and North Korea into compliance than we have ever had," Blair told BBC radio on Wednesday.

Defending the decision to go to war in Iraq, Blair added: "I thought and I still think it was absolutely essential we took that step. I don't accept that containment was working."

Both Iran and North Korea, along with pre-war Iraq, were labelled by President George W. Bush as part of an "axis of evil" and have been under pressure from the West over their nuclear programmes.

North Korea cancelled a scheduled September round of talks over scrapping its nuclear programme in exchange for security guarantees, while the International Atomic Energy Agency has said it will take tough action if Iran defies its call to stop uranium enrichment.

Israel issue warning over Iran nuclear weapons
29/09/2004 - 09:10:15

Israel will consider “all options” to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons, Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said in an interview published today.

Concern about Iranian nuclear development intensified last week when Iranian Vice President Reza Aghazadeh said the country had started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, an important step in making a nuclear bomb.

The declaration came in defiance of a resolution passed by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, demanding Iran freeze all uranium enrichment – including conversion.

Israel considers Iran its most dangerous enemy and worries that Iran’s nuclear weapons programme is intended as a threat against it. Iran denies it is developing nuclear weapons, saying its nuclear development programme is aimed at generating electricity.

Mofaz told the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot that Israel had to be prepared to deal with what he called the Iranian “threat”.

“All options have to be taken into account to prevent it,” he was quoted as saying.

Mofaz said there was a chance a moderate regime would emerge in Tehran to stop the development of nuclear weapons, but if not, measures had to be taken to prevent their deployment.

“The question is what comes first, nuclear ability or regime change?” Yediot quoted him as saying.

Earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Israel is “taking measures to defend itself” – a comment that raised concerns that Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear installations along the lines of its 1981 bombing of an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak near Baghdad.

Russia reluctant to refer Iran to UNSC

Reuters
Moscow, September 29

Russia is against reporting Iran to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for what the United States and some other countries say are breaches of UN nuclear rules, a top Kremlin official was quoted as saying on Wednesday.

"Taking this issue to the UN Security Council, which is a political body, will hardly do us any favours," Igor Ivanov, head of Russia's Security Council and a former foreign minister who widened nuclear ties with Iran, told Interfax news agency.

However, diplomats at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the comment did not mean that Russia would definitely block a referral of the IAEA's concerns to the UNSC, which could sanction Iran.

Russia's criticism of Iran has strengthened since Tehran threatened this month to defy a call by the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog, for it to stop work on enriching uranium, a process that can be used to develop nuclear arms.

Moscow for months opposed referring the agency's concerns to the Security Council, where Russia holds a veto. But last week, President Vladimir Putin, who is being pressed by the United States to stop building a nuclear power station at Bushehr in Iran, urged Tehran to heed the IAEA's demands.

Many diplomats now believe that if Iran presses ahead with enrichment work, Moscow would support US demands to refer Iran to the Council in November for possible economic sanctions.

"Russia will not prevent the US from sending Iran to the Security Council," one non-American Western diplomat on the IAEA board told Reuters at the agency's headquarters in Vienna.

Washington says Iran wants nuclear arms and may use Russian know-how to acquire them, a charge Iran and Moscow deny.

Although Russia has promised to abandon Bushehr if Iran breaches any IAEA rules, the plant's launch has been delayed for years in what diplomats in Moscow see as a sign Putin may share privately some of the US concerns over Iran's intentions.

AN IRAN-ISRAELI WAR? [Excerpt]

By PETER BROOKES

September 29, 2004 -- TIME after time, the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency has demanded that Iran stop enriching uranium. Yet Tehran keeps on thumbing its nose at the U.N. body, saying its uranium enrichment is just a peaceful effort to produce electricity.

To many nations, especially Israel, it seems only a matter of time before Iran breaks out as a nuclear power, ratcheting up tension across the door Middle East. An Israel-Iran showdown over Tehran's outlaw nuclear-weapons program now seems increasingly imminent.

Last week, for example, Israel charged that Iran was merely "buying time" and will never abandon plans to develop nuclear weapons. It called for the U.N. Security Council "to put an end to this nightmare."

Addressing reporters at the U.N., Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom kept all options on the table by avoiding answering whether Israel would take military action against Iran if it continued to pursue nuclear weapons.

Also last week, the administration informed Congress that it was selling Israel 5,000 precision-guided "smart bombs," including 500 satellite-guided, one-ton JDAM "bunker busters" of Baghdad fame. (JDAMs are capable of penetrating six feet of concrete.)

In response to the arms sale, Tehran warned Tel Aviv against attacking its nuclear facilities, saying it would react "most severely" to any Israeli military action against Iran.

Then, over the weekend, Iran pointedly announced that its Shahab-3 ballistic missile was now operational. The missile can reach Israel, and Iran has 25 to 100 of them. Defense Minister Ali Shamkhrani crowed that Iran was now "ready to confront all regional [read: Israeli] and extra-regional [read: American] threats."

OK, so you say, a little chest-beating isn't the same as the beating of war drums. True. But bear in mind, Israel takes the threat of nuclear weapons in its neighborhood quite seriously. Just ask Saddam Hussein.

In 1981, Israeli fighters conducted a low-level, 700-mile, daylight raid through Saudi Arabian and Jordanian air space into Iraq. In a minute and a half, the fighters laid waste to the French-supplied Osiraq nuclear reactor — the centerpiece of Iraq's burgeoning nuclear-weapons program.

So what would happen if Israel decided to conduct a pre-emptive surgical strike on Iran's nuclear facilities?

Some say that an Israeli attack on a Muslim country would set the Middle East ablaze in an anti-Jewish frenzy. Possible, but not likely.

Sure, all Muslim governments would vociferously condemn the Israeli strike. But most would breathe a quiet sigh of relief. No one in the Middle East (except maybe Syria) wants to see fundamentalist, hegemonic Iran go nuclear. This is especially true for Iran's cross-Gulf rival, Saudi Arabia.

No Arab country would strike back at Israel, but Iran's Lebanese terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, would almost certainly target Israeli (and perhaps U.S.) interests in the region.

Iran itself could decide to retaliate on Israeli cities with missile strikes. And while Israel has a limited missile defense system, missiles raining in on Tel Aviv, a city of 3 million, could be devastating. But Israel could threaten to respond to Iranian strikes on Israeli civilian targets with nuclear weapons.

The other problem is exactly how to inflict sufficient damage on the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has as at least 24 suspected nuclear facilities scattered around the country. Some are underground; others are (intentionally) located by major population areas to ensure civilian casualties during a raid.

But the cost of doing nothing may be the most expensive. An Iranian nuclear breakout would mean a radical shift in the balance of power in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia would certainly move to go nuclear (with likely help from Pakistan). ...

Clearly, there are no easy choices, only hard decisions. A peaceful end to the Iranian nuclear problem should continue to be sought, but the countdown to a nuclear Iran has already begun.

Israel — at least for the moment — seems to be committed to a peaceful solution. But don't be surprised if Tel Aviv decides to jump the diplomatic track in an effort to end — or at least forestall — Iran's bid to become the first anti-Israeli member of the exclusive nuclear club.

Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow. E-mail: peterbrookes@heritage.org

THE REAL STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ

[Excerpt]

By AMIR TAHERI

September 29, 2004 -- WHILE kidnappings and head-choppings in the Sunni Triangle domi nate the news from Iraq, the real battle for that nation's future is fought in diplomatic, political and media arenas outside that country.

The terrorist movement in Iraq, at times graced with the label of "insurgency," is in no position to impose its will on the nation. With the help of its outside backers, it could, to be sure, continue kidnappings and killings for years.

More than a dozen countries (Colombia, Peru, Malaysia, the Philippines, Algeria, Egypt, etc.) have experienced similar terrorist movements in recent decades. In every case, the terrorists, having pushed the limits of brutality as far as they could, were ultimately defeated.

It took Peru almost a quarter-century to defeat and destroy the vicious Shining Path. ... It took the British almost 12 years to defeat the so-called "insurgency" in Malaya which, despite massive support from China and the U.S.S.R., was doomed from the start.

The ultimate reason for terrorist movements' failure is the same that constitutes their raison d'etre: Individuals and groups choose terrorism because they know they cannot mobilize popular support.

The terrorist hopes to force history in his direction with the help of bombs and guns. He tries to substitute his will for the will of the people. While claiming to fight in the name of the people he is, in fact, excluding the people from the political process if only because "ordinary citizens" are not prepared to die, let alone kill, for abstract ideas.

So the "insurgency" in Iraq is going nowhere fast. It will be as roundly defeated as were its predecessors in so many other countries. The danger for Iraq's future lies elsewhere.

It comes, in part, from Americans who want Iraq to fail because they want President Bush to fail. Some 81 books paint the president as the devil incarnate; Bush-bashing is also the theme of three "documentaries" plus half a dozen Hollywood feature films. Never before in any mature democracy has a political leader aroused so much hatred from his domestic opponents.

Others want Iraq to fail because they want America to fail, with or without Bush. The bitter tone of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan when he declared the liberation of Iraq "illegal" shows that it is not the future of Iraq but the vilification of the United States that interests him.

Add to this the recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."

In plain language, this means that, in the struggle in Iraq, Raffarin does not see France on the side of its NATO allies — the U.S., Britain, Italy and Denmark among others — but on the side of the "insurgents."

Those who want Iraq to fail because they hate Bush and/or America as a whole (for reasons that have nothing to do with Iraq) know that "the insurgents" can't get anywhere. Nor would the Bush- or America-bashers really want Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi to become ruler of Iraq.

If Jimmy Carter had been U.S. president or if Iraq had been liberated by the European Union, we would have none of the hot air that is blown about the war throughout the world. But someone like Carter or an entity like the European Union could never say boo to a goose, let alone destroy a vicious tyranny.

Those who want Iraq to fail so that Bush and/or America will also fail are now focusing their energies towards a single goal: postponing elections in Iraq for as long as possible. To achieve that goal, they will stop at nothing.

It was on that basis that opponents of Iraqi elections have cooked up a story around the claim that Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the primus inter pares of the Shiite clerics in Najaf, wants the election postponed or may even boycott.

U.S. and European newspapers that had always dismissed Sistani as "a reactionary mullah" have recently put him in the headlines and devoted lengthy editorials and op-ed pieces to his supposed opposition to the holding of elections.

The initial story was built around the claim that Sistani is unhappy with the elections because the Shiite share is limited to 55 percent of the total rather than 60 percent.

This is an absurd claim for the simple reason that the planned elections treat all of Iraq as a single constituency in which every vote is equal to every other vote. And if several or even all of Iraq's political parties wish to enter the election with a single list of national unity, how could Sistani overrule them? The ayatollah has never claimed to be a dictator.

Nor is Iraq an Iranian-style "Islamic" state, where a single mullah can overrule everyone else and even suspend the basic tenets of the religion. Anyone who knows Sistani would know that he is the last person to play the deadly game of Shiite-Sunni rivalry.

Note also that the January election is to form a Constituent Assembly, a body that will write the nation's new constitution. It is therefore important that the assembly enjoy the widest possible support among all Iraqis.

Immediately after Saddam's fall, some of us had urged the Bush administration to transfer power to an interim Iraqi government and organize elections as quickly as possible. Sistani endorsed that view as early as August 2003, calling for a transfer of power to the Iraqis and the holding of elections.

His position has not changed. Sistani wants elections, and wants them as soon as possible. All he asks is that the international community, including the United Nations, play a role in organizing and supervising the series of elections planned for next year. His hope is that Iraq would not only have a new constitution, to be approved in a popular referendum, but also an elected parliament and a government with a clear electoral mandate before the end of 2006. That, he knows, is the fastest way for the Coalition forces to leave Iraq in peace and with dignity.

Sistani insists on international participation, beyond the U.S.-led Coalition, for two reasons. First, he knows that divisions among the big powers over Iraq are harmful for all concerned. He wants them to unite in helping the people of Iraq make their true feelings known through free elections. Second, he knows that the elections will enjoy greater legitimacy if the international community unanimously endorses the results.

Sistani's message is simple: Think of the future of Iraq, not the settling of past scores. E-mail:

amirtaheri@ benadorassociates.com

New deadly clashes rock western Iran

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Sep 29, 2004

New deadly clashes rocked, yesterday, Mian-do-Ab located in western Iran by resulting in several deaths and injuries among armed opponents and members of the regime forces.

The Islamic regime officials are intending to portray the armed opponents as members of a religious cult and renegades but are acknowledging the existence of various ammunition depots.

The official number of deaths have been announced as five but other reports are stating about a much higher number as many in the region have rallied the armed opposition and nightly attacks are carried against the regime forces and interests.

Already last Wednesday two militiamen, including a regional commander, were killed in a deadly clash which occurred in the region.

The residents of the "Se-Tapeh" village retaliated to the brutal assault of the regime's forces sent to the locality.

Armed struggle is in constant raise as a majority of Iranians are believing that the Islamic regime will not step down from political power by peaceful means.

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.