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

Skip to comments.

Iranian Alert - October 4, 2004 [EST]- IRAN LIVE THREAD - "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"
Americans for Regime Change In Iran ^ | 10.4.2004 | DoctorZin

Posted on 10/03/2004 9:43:48 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: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: armyofmahdi; ayatollah; cleric; humanrights; iaea; insurgency; iran; iranianalert; iranquake; iraq; islamicrepublic; jayshalmahdi; journalist; kazemi; khamenei; khatami; khatemi; lsadr; moqtadaalsadr; mullahs; persecution; persia; persian; politicalprisoners; 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 10/03/2004 9:43:49 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 10/03/2004 9:46:16 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Writer of "Unfit for Command" joins the Movement defense team in Nemazee case


SMCCDI (Information Service)
Oct 4, 2004

Dr. Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard University graduate of political science, has joined the SMCCDI defense team as special advisor and consultant in the litigation against Hassan Nemazee. Mr. Corsi is an expert on political violence and terrorism and received his Ph.D from University in 1972.

He is a famous researcher and a writer who has written many books and articles, including the No.1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for Command - Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry." This book is viewed to be as one of the main reasons behind the Democratic Presidential nominee's difficulties in garnering popular support, because it points out many of his mistakes in reference to the Vietnam War and betrayals of his comrades in arms.

Mr. Corsi is currently working on a new book that deals with terrorism, oil money and domestic U.S. politics. This book is expected to expose many individuals and will offer evidences of links between some high level members of the Democratic Party and circles affiliated with the terrorists and the tyrannical Islamic republic regime.

It should be noted that Hassan Nemazee is one of the Islamic regime's well known apologists, or rather legitimacy doctors, and John Kerry's main Iranian fundraiser. He has sued the Movement and its Coordinator, Aryo B. Pirouznia, for 10 Million Dollars but has been counter sued. However, Namazee's legal action intended for intimidating and silencing the Movement is promising to be heading towards an undesirable direction. Having been called on his miscalculated political Poker bluff, Nemazee is facing the predicament of opening a Pandora's box for the Islamic regime's lobbyists and affiliates in the US and the Democratic Presidential nominee.

Nemazee's lawyers have been notified that Dr. Jerome Corsi will be present in their client's future deposition, that is scheduled for October 18th.

Dr. Corsi will also be speaking at a press conference scheduled for October 11th in Washington DC by SMCCDI. The topic of that press conference will be  Kerry's Iranian connection and Kerry's campaign links to the Mullahcracy.

A Dallas Judge rejected a very controversial request from Nemazee's lawyers. They wanted the deposition of their client to take place after the US Presidential elections in November!

That legal set back occurred after Nemazee's lawyers had already retracted from one of their main formal requests, which was "to know the names of the students and Movement's affiliates located in Iran." This retraction took place following the scandal raised on that issue by a September 8th article written in the "FrontPage Magazine" by the well respected "Robert Spencer" and a related editorial published by the Washington Times' Editorial board on September 15th. All who are familiar with "Nemazee Vs. SMCCDI & Pirouznia" case were astonished by such a request in a "defamation case," because, being absolutely not related to the case, it would have compromised the safety, and endangered the lives of many Iranian students.

SMCCDI is blessed to have the support of a powerful and knowledgeable legal defense team which is composed of the Honorable "Robert Jenevein", a former elected Judge, and "David T. Denny" of the famous Dallas based "Brady & Cole LLP" (www.bradyandcole.com); Assisted by the well respected "Michael Payma," of the "Law Offices of Payma & Kuhnel PC".

A website that is launched by SMCCDI's Counselors to keep abreast of matters relating to this case is:
www.regimeinfluence.com

For more information on October 11th WDC Press Conference, contact: (214) 906-8181

3 posted on 10/03/2004 9:46:47 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran won't surrender nuclear capability


(Filed: 03/10/2004)

Iran has said that it would be ''irrational'' to surrender its capability to produce its own nuclear fuel in exchange for receiving supplies from overseas.

Hamid Reza Asefi, the Iran foreign ministry spokesman said: "We have the technology and there is no need for us to beg from others. This suggestion is good for countries that do not have this technology, but we do not need their generosity and help."

Asefi was responding to US Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who has suggested providing Iran with nuclear fuel to generate electricity if Iran agreed to give up its controversial work on the sensitive nuclear fuel cycle.

In a debate with US President George W. Bush, Kerry said the United States should have joined a British-French-German initiative aimed at getting Iran to agree to stop work surrounding the enrichment of uranium.

Fuel cycle work for peaceful purposes is permitted under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Iran is a signatory, but the process can also be used to produce the core of an atomic bomb.

But Asefi repeated the assertion here that Iran needs to be self-sufficient when it comes to fueling it atomic energy programme, and would not accept being dependent on supplies from overseas.

"What guarantees are there? Will they supply us one day, and then if they want to, stop supplying us another day?" he said.


4 posted on 10/03/2004 9:47:22 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran's parliament sacks minister

Traffic, Tehran
Iran has one of the world's highest rates for traffic accidents
Iran's conservative-dominated parliament has voted to sack Transport Minister Ahmad Khorram.

MPs accused him of failing to improve Iran's air, rail and road safety.

Mr Khorram is the first member of President Mohammad Khatami's reformist Cabinet to be sacked since hardliners won a majority in February polls.

Before the vote, the parliament's speaker said "whatever the decision..., it does not mean that we do not want to work with this government".

Accidents up

From a total of 258 parliamentarians present at the session, 188 voted in favour of the motion - 58 voted in Mr Khorram's favour and nine abstained.

Conservative deputy, Ali Ahmadi, said in the current Iranian year, which began on 20 March, road accidents had already gone up by 24%.

Passengers from Dubai at Imam Khomeini airport after the only flight allowed in May
The new airport was closed after a single flight was allowed to land
"Last year 25,350 people died on the roads, that is 5,600 more than three years ago," he said.

"Between the [1979 Islamic] revolution and three years ago, we had 148 plane accidents with 780 dead. Over the last three years, we have had 86 accidents with 212 killed."

The impeachment motion - signed by about 116 deputies - mentions alleged corruption in the transport ministry and Mr Khorram's handling of Tehran's new international airport.

Mr Khorram was accused of "tarnishing the Islamic Republic of Iran's reputation" after he handed a $200m contract to a Turkish-Austrian consortium to build and run the airport.

The Iranian army closed the airport down in May - after only one flight had landed - saying its foreign ownership was a security concern.

Iran has one of the world's highest rates for traffic accidents.


5 posted on 10/03/2004 9:47:59 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Constitutional changes bare Iran's new battlelines

Mon October 4, 2004 1:18 AM GMT+05:30

By Christian Oliver

TEHRAN (Reuters) - The prospect of large-scale privatisation in Iran has pitted hardliners keen to keep the government's grip on the economy against pragmatic conservatives who want to free business from the state's stranglehold.

The Expediency Council, Iran's top legislative arbitrator, on Saturday gave the green light to major privatisations, overhauling Article 44 of the constitution that had decreed core infrastructure should remain in the hands of the state.

After stripping reformers of their parliamentary majority and isolating the moderate government of President Mohammad Khatami, splits have emerged among Iran's conservatives.

Although the pragmatic conservatives looking to revitalise the lumbering state-heavy economy are focusing on commercial goals, analysts say a more alluring environment for foreign investment could catalyse political and cultural reform.

The changes to Article 44 drew instant fire from radical hardliners who are inspired by religious seminaries that have resisted foreign infiltration into Iran for more than a century.

"We have repeatedly warned about doctoring Article 44 and the negative consequences of entrusting sensitive and vital state bodies to the private sector," the hardline Jomhuri-ye Eslami daily said on Sunday.

This breed of hardliner is represented by the most vocal of the hardline lawmakers who took up parliamentary seats in May. They are opposed by pragmatic conservatives, who argue Iran can breathe life into its economy without weakening Islamic values.

"I was expecting something like this since Rafsanjani and others in the Expediency Council are more business-minded (than the parliamentarians)," said Albrecht Frischenschlager, a director of Tehran's Atieh Bahar Consulting.

Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani heads the Expediency Council and has reared an influential network of business-minded proteges active throughout the economy.

"It is a clear signal to parliament. Most of the leadership, both conservatives and reformists, have been very unhappy about parliament's performance," he added.

Iranian parliamentarians have thrown out bills proposed by reformists looking to privatise banks and insurers and lure foreign investors into the needy energy and financial sectors.

Radical parliamentarians argued they could make no concessions to the private sector because of Article 44. Pragmatists have now stripped them of this excuse.

"This shows that the radicals still lack strongholds within the senior decision-making bodies of the establishment," said economic analyst Saeed Leylaz.

The change to Article 44 must now be approved by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's most powerful figure who asked the Expediency Council to make a ruling on the issue.

TECHNOCRAT CONSERVATIVES

Leylaz said the pragmatist conservatives had formed alliances with the traditional merchant conservatives of the bazaar, also alive to the merits of liberalisation.

"Traditionalists and technocrats are allied and have extensive plans for running Iran the morning they land on the president's seat next August, as they think they will," he said.

The reformist Khatami cannot stand again in mid-2005 polls.

Downstream oil and gas, mines, banking, insurance, telecommunications, railways, roads, airlines and shipping can all now be privatised in Iran, which holds the world's second largest reserves of crude oil and natural gas.

Many view Iran as a slumbering giant, with massive resources and an educated workforce held back by outdated laws.

Major sectors such as shipping and car-making have outpaced the weak domestic banking structure and are seeking European bank loans and eurobond issues.

"The political impact could be huge, once you leave things to the private sector, you lose control," said one Iranian political analyst, who declined to be named.

"Central government will lose its grip on society and politics. The people will not have to depend on them for everything," he added. "There will be an opening up to foreign investment and ultimately culture."

Iran's parliamentarians have opposed foreign investment, trying to bar Turkey's Turkcell from running a mobile telephone network and accusing Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell of excessive cultural influence.

A starker warning to foreign investors came as Revolutionary Guards took over Tehran's new airport the day it was due to open in May after Turkish company TAV spent millions of dollars building it and hoped to recoup its money by running it.

But though these high-profile names have proved alluring targets for hardline attacks, many middle-sized foreign contractors have found rich pickings in Iran, in power stations, mining and the petrochemicals' port of Assaluyeh.

(Additional reporting by Paul Hughes and Amir Paivar in Tehran)


6 posted on 10/03/2004 9:48:34 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

MAJLES IMPEACHED KHATAMI’S ROAD AND TRANSPORT MINISTER

Posted Sunday, October 3, 2004

TEHRAN, 3 Oct. (IPS) Iran’s beleaguered President Mohammad Khatami was dealt a severe blow on Sunday after the conservatives-controlled Majles impeached Mr. Ahmad Khorram, his Minister of Roads and Transportation by a large majority.

Mr. Khorram was voted out of office by a tally of 188-58 and nine abstentions in the 290-seat parliament, an impeachment motion brought up for mismanagement in his office, the official news agency IRNA reported.

The vote came while Mr. Khatami was in Algiers, addressing Algeria’s parliament and lecturing lawmakers on the values of religious democracy.

The decision was that hardest humiliation dealt to the powerless Khatami by the Majles and in total contradiction with the new lawmakers who, when they took control of the House, had assured the President of their cooperation with him and his government, analysts noted.

The vote came while Mr. Khatami was in Algiers, addressing Algeria’s parliament and lecturing lawmakers on the values of Islam, religious democracy and friendship among all nations, mostly Muslim world.

Iranian political analysts said the powerless Khatami could postpone his visit to Algeria, but he deliberately left the country in order to escape the difficult task of defending personally the embattled Minister, accused of “corruption, abuse of power, mismanagement and impotence in the face of high fatalities on Iranian roads as well as rails and aviation”.

"The performance of Transport Minister Ahmad Khorram has been satisfactory and I believe the ministry is among the successful branches of the government in terms of the volume and quality of work done", Mr. Khatami had said on Thursday, informed of the Majles’ decision to impeach Mr. Khorram.

But analysts said the Revolutionary Guards, who have some 80 lawmakers in the present Majles brought on the Sunday motion, angry with Mr. Khorram over the contract he signed with a Turkish-Austrian consortium awarding all the services at the newly constructed, but no yet finished Imam Khomeini International Airport (IKIA) to the firm.

The Armed Forces shut down IKIA to air traffic hours after it was officially inaugurated last May, invoking security risks and warned that the 500 US Dollars million airport would remain closed as long as the nation’s security requirements for carrying out flights from the facility are not met.

Khorram had adamantly defended the contract, rejecting contentions that his ministry’s decision in awarding the tender for the construction and operating the IKIA to the Tepe-Afken Vie had jeopardized Iran’s national security, IRNA reported.

Khatami had suffered a serious blow last week when lawmakers approved a bill imposing on the Government the “necessity” to secure Majles’ authorisation for signing any major contracts with foreign companies and since the bill included contracts signed before the measure, it obviously faulted contracts with TAV and TurkCell, a Turkish telephone company that was awarded Iran’s second mobile telephones operator.

Opponents of this contract accuse TurkCell of having contacts with Israel, a country that not only the ruling Iranian ayatollahs do not recognise the existence.

The decision, taken on the eve of Mr. Khatami’s official visit to Ankara prompted the Government to postpone the planned trip to Turkey as long as the fate of the contracts have not been decided.

However, in a conciliatory move, the Majles decided later on the week not to include the deals with the two Turkish concerns in the unprecedented law, one that Mr. Khatami described as “unjust and against the Constitution”.

If the government feels that there is a powerful supervisory apparatus, this will definitely help it improve its performance.

According to a government official, the annulations would cost Iran billion of dollars, as TurkCell was expected to invest about three billion dollars in the project, making it one of the biggest foreign investments in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

During the Sunday debates, Mr. Khorram said, "Those who voted for my impeachment are not certainly satisfied with this move. "If the MPs had looked fairly at this issue, they should have opposed the impeachment", he added.

Majles Speaker Qolamali Haddad-Adel defended the motion, saying, "Impeachment is among the prerogatives and responsibilities of the Majles.
"If the government feels that there is a powerful supervisory apparatus, this will definitely help it improve its performance", he observed.

The Road and Transportation Minister was formally summoned last month to the parliament to defend his record and answer for a spate of disasters at the country’s air and rail networks.

In February, 289 people were killed and several hundreds wounded in a train accident in Neishabour in northeast Iran, where wagons loaded with sulphur, fertilizer and cotton careened and exploded.

Last February, 276 people were killed when a passenger plane crashed into a mountain in southeastern province of Kerman.

Another plane, an Il-76, crashed also into mountains last year, killing all on board, including 302 passengers and the crew.

Khorram took over as the transport minister from Rahman Dadman, who died in a plane crash four years ago.

ENDS KHORRAM IMPEACHED 31004

7 posted on 10/03/2004 9:49:04 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Someday, I hope very soon, the media will be forced to acknowledge that Iran wants freedom from religious tyranny. Americans sympathies are with those in Iran who yearn for liberty and democracy. The leftists Kerry and the Old Media would prefer that Iranians wait patiently for the UN and the EU to decide how to get rich off your movement towards freedom before they lift a finger. Could be a while if Iranians are waiting on Kerry's favorite do-nothing scumbags in the UN, France, Germany, and now Spain...

True Americans (and probably Israelis) won't wait for the mullahs to get nukes and therefore doom the Iranians to years, maybe decades of additional oppression and stagnation. You start, the US will back you if I have to go myself.


8 posted on 10/03/2004 9:55:42 PM PDT by wvobiwan (Kerry/Edwards Foreign Policy Slogan: Accept our surrender or we'll sue!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
The Iranian army closed the airport down in May - after only one flight had landed - saying its foreign ownership was a security concern.

It was not closed by the army, it was the Revolutionary Guards: http://www.payvand.com/news/04/may/1115.html
9 posted on 10/03/2004 9:59:05 PM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

ping


10 posted on 10/03/2004 11:08:56 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (Save a Democrat! Vote Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Money trail behind
Kerry's Iran stance

Candidate has financial ties to backers of mullah regime


Posted: October 3, 2004
10:25 p.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry's call for providing Iran with the nuclear fuel it seeks, even while the regime is believed to be only months away from developing nuclear weapons, is being linked to his campaign contributions from backers of the mullah government in Tehran.

During last Thursday's nationally televised debate between the Democratic presidential candidate and President Bush, Kerry insisted as president he would provide Tehran with the nuclear fuel it wants for a pledge to use it for peaceful purposes only.

"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes," Kerry said in a critique of the Bush administration's handling of Tehran's nuclear program, which the Iranians claim is only for civilian purposes.

The comments came in response to a question about whether diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the "nuclear problems" with North Korea and Iran.

"If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together," Kerry said of Tehran. "The president did nothing."

Among Kerry's top fund-raisers are three Iranian-Americans who have been pushing for dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Most prominent among them is Hassan Nemazee, 54, an investment banker based in New York. Nominated to become U.S. ambassador to Argentina by President Clinton in 1999, Nemazee eventually withdrew his nomination after a former partner raised allegations of business improprieties, WND previously reported.

Nemazee was a major Clinton donor, giving $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee during the 1996 election cycle and attending at least one of the famous White House fund-raising coffees.

In 2001, at the invitation of Mobil Oil Chairman Lucio Noto, whom he counts as a "personal friend," Nemazee joined the board of the American-Iranian Council, a U.S. lobbying group that consistently has supported lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran and accommodating the Tehran regime.

The Kerry camp has identified Nemazee as having raised more than $100,000 for the senator's campaign, WND reported last spring.

A Nemazee friend in Silicon Valley, Faraj Aalaei, has raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the Kerry campaign. Aalaei has worked in the telecommunications industry for 22 years and is the chief executive officer of Centillium Communications, a publicly traded company.

Last year, Aalaei married a 35-year-old recent immigrant from Iran named Susan Akbarpour, whom the Kerry campaign also lists as having raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the campaign.

In just six years since coming to the United States on a tourist visa from Iran, Akbarpour has started a newspaper, a magazine and, most recently, a trade association whose goal is to get sanctions lifted and promote U.S. business and investment in Iran.

Most odd about the support from Akbarpour, writes Kenneth Timmerman in this month's issue of the American Spectator, is that she claimed political asylum from the Iranian regime when she came to this country.

Meanwhile, Kerry has embraced the entire political agenda of Akbarpour and other wealthy Iranian-Americans embracing Tehran. Those positions include:

The stunning remarks by Kerry were initially reported only by WorldNetDaily, and some analysts suggested the statements were misunderstood, taken out of context or simply a verbal gaffe by the candidate.

However, the same policy of accommodation toward Iran's nuclear aspirations is clearly outlined on Kerry's campaign website as well.

Under the heading "Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons," the Kerry campaign makes the same point emphatically – that the U.S. should still give or sell the nuclear fuel Iran wants in exchange for a promise not to build nuclear weapons.

"A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region," the campaign policy statement reads. "While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action."

However, according to the latest intelligence reports, Iran has decided at the highest levels of government to build its nuclear weapons program within the next four months. Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged his country's weapons developers to step up work on making a nuclear bomb, a U.S. official said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

Citing an authoritative source in the Iranian exile community, the official said Khamenei met recently with senior government and military leaders regarding the nuclear weapons program.

Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said.

Tehran has said the recent International Atomic Energy Agency resolution calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment could lead to the country's withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Officials of the Kerry campaign were unavailable this weekend.

In addition to the nuclear weapons threat, Iran test-fired a Shihab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, capable of reaching Israel, Sept. 18 and also in August. The missile is reportedly capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

During the debate, Bush said he wants to continue to work with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain to "convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions."

Responding to Kerry, Bush noted the U.S. already has sanctioned Iran.

"We can't sanction them any more," he said. "There are sanctions in place on Iran."

Israel has said it wants to await the outcome of international pressure on Iran before it considers a pre-emptive military strike on reactors as it did in 1981 in Iraq.

At another point in the debate, Kerry also said he wants to end research on bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons, which presumably could take out an Iranian reactor if his sanctions are ineffective.

Kerry said it "doesn't make sense" for Bush to be pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons when the U.S. is trying to tell countries, such as North Korea, to disarm.

"You talk about mixed messages," he said. "We're telling other people, 'You can't have nuclear weapons, but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.'"

"Not this president," Kerry said. "I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation."

11 posted on 10/03/2004 11:14:38 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...

Money trail behind
Kerry's Iran stance

Candidate has financial ties to backers of mullah regime

Posted: October 3, 2004
10:25 p.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1234526/posts?page=11#11


12 posted on 10/03/2004 11:32:46 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Divided Iran swings to Right

Nicolas Rothwell
October 04, 2004

GRAVE images of the former Ayatollah Khomeini and wartime martyrs stare down from the omnipresent billboards that decorate the buildings of downtown Tehran.

"Support the Supreme Jurisdiction," instruct the slogans in the lavish subway stations, "so your country will not come to harm." A quarter-century after the Islamic revolution transformed Iran's capital, the ideology is still clear.

But there is another city: one of fashion, pleasure, yearning appetites, where the younger generation live by mobile phone and pay little thought to the musty slogans of the clerical regime above them. This is a society quietly seething, yet strangely stable, where contradictions have come to form the thread of daily life.

At the vast burial shrine of Ayatollah Khomeini, where construction of the monument continues to this day, the thoughts of the Islamic Republic's founder are prominently on sale in the gift shops, alongside new-release DVDs of Shrek and Jungle Book.

The centre of Tehran was host to a pair of landmark cultural events this month: the Fifth International Holy Koran Reading Competition, and the local premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11.

After the first night's screenings of the suitably anti-American documentary, glamorous women could be seen strolling the boulevards, window-shopping eagerly, checking out the latest Western clothing imports. The most sought-after fashion items just now for the city bourgeoisie are Louis Vuitton monogram shoes, which have the advantage of being visible beneath a full Islamic robe.

From time to time, the women would slip into the darkly inviting cafes, pausing as they entered, to adjust their mandatory headdress, for all restaurants now carry a stylised logo, and a warning from the morality police: "Dear improperly attired sisters, unfortunately we cannot serve you unless you adjust your head-coverings."

These conflicting social currents both influence, and are played out in, Iran's subtle politics, now dominated by the resurgent conservative forces. In 1997, reformist President Muhammad Khatami came to power. His liberalising instincts made him a figure of almost cult-like popularity with younger urban Iranians and prompted a counter-reaction from Islamic ideologues at the heart of the regime, who have spent the past few years strengthening their control over the levers of politics.

This process is almost complete. In the parliamentary elections early this year, large numbers of reformist candidates were disqualified and the hardliners gained full control of the legislature. And the presidential elections midway through next year are expected to mean a conservative candidate's rise to power.

A set of measures to regain control over the free spaces of Iran's civil society and rein in potential opposition has been in high gear for much of the past year. It is relentlessly, and efficiently pursued. Dissidents are monitored and anti-regime protests broken up. Reformist newspapers have been closed and the sharp purge on unwelcome opinion has even been extended to liberal internet websites.

During a visit to Tehran over the past month, extensive interviews and contacts, both official and non-official, provided a picture of this crackdown, but also of a more startling phenomenon: for all the increased control by the regime, it remains a dominant government widely accepted outside the elite circles of the city intelligentsia.

"The liberal intellectual class is small," sighs one prominent dissident. "When we talk about freedom, everyone says they want it. When we talk about a modern Islam that puts no limits on democracy, that too is popular. But now people have gradually lost belief in political life and simply don't care. The Iranian people are like a field of wheat that bends in the wind, and will only ripen and stand up again when the climate becomes gentler. Many accept what the Government is prepared to give them, and take the quiet life."

Western diplomats struggling for reasons to explain the present state of affairs point to the extensive social subsidies that Iran's oil revenues make possible to prevent poverty and despair. And they argue that the country at large, still exhausted by the after-effects of revolution and war, prizes stability above all other goals.

But the key factor behind the regime's secure position may well be the deep strain of Persian nationalism that forms a key component of the Iranian mentality.

Stable, religious in its watch-words, ideologically driven, the Iranian ruling circle has another all-important characteristic: it is a scholastic regime, with power tightly centralised in the hands of determined, experienced and sophisticated men. A glance at the austere pronouncements of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suggests the steely temper of the figures directing this theocracy. Around Khamenei is a parallel power structure, supported by the hardliners of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

Figures in this world never make themselves available for interview. They practise a secret politics. Cryptic conduct and undetected action are their hallmarks. Hence, of course, the critical significance today of Iran in the Middle Eastern region, and as a player on the world stage. What, the Iran-watchers ask, is Iran really doing, and what does the regime want?

Next month, the showdown between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran over Tehran's uranium enrichment programs will reach a climax. Israel, which is the regime's chief opponent, is considering military raids to destroy Iran's nuclear reactors.

The US sees Iran's hidden hand behind the insurgency that has derailed the reconstruction of Iraq. And the Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrilla movement remains a crucial element in the strategic balance between Israel and its northern neighbours.

The reality behind these three linked concerns is hard even for quasi-insiders to fathom. One Tehran observer with former ties to the power structure said in an interview that not even President Khatami and his ministers would know the truth about Iran's nuclear program. Outside the closed scientific facilities, said this source: "You could count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who know the real goal of Iran's nuclear project."

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi was last week reiterating Iran's insistence that it is not seeking atomic weapons but merely attempting to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

He said Iran had not backed the militant Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's rebellion in the holy Iraqi city of Najaf last month – although the detention of hundreds of Iranian infiltrators by US-led forces sits a touch uncomfortably with this claim.

In similar fashion, the pro-Iranian Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon now present themselves as normal politicians in the social landscape, as much as dedicated anti-Israel resistance squads.

It may be that both aspects of Iran's regional involvement are real: that the regime's current instincts are at once ideological and practical.

Western experts often argue that Iran's most disquieting operations are really attempts to deal, to find a negotiating partner, either in Washington or among the powers of the European Union. And Iranian officials love to stress their capacity to act as a blocking force, and their urgent wish to be treated as part of the equations of regional decision-making.

On this view, Iran is just a state like any other, even if it sits poised between the two countries the US is currently trying to reshape – Iraq and Afghanistan.

But there is another face to Iran's grand civilisation, as those pondering the implications of its nuclear research venture are nervously aware. This is the face that confronts the passer-by at every turn along the avenues of Tehran, as stern-faced religious leaders gaze down, exhorting their followers to fresh feats of purity, of martyrdom and sacrifice.

13 posted on 10/03/2004 11:35:30 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

What happened with the protests, and the reports of members of the Republican Guard being killed?


14 posted on 10/03/2004 11:39:08 PM PDT by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

This just in from Banafsheh...

"DoctorZin,

The Mullahs have sent one of their biggest spin doctors, Deputy foreign minister of Iran ALI AHANI has been sent to Brussels as the new IRI ambassador in order to continue the last ditch efforts and hyper-desperate bolstering of relations between the European Union and the Islamist terrorist punks. This man has been known to have manipulated many heads of nations in order to augment trade and further spread radical Shiíte doctrine.

He is one of the reasons WHY the European Union has once again started "polishing the Mullahs´ apples" and is continuing the corrupt colonialist looting that only Europeans can do oh so well...

Lastnight an extravagant event was organized by this slick "agent" in order to impress members of the European Union whose palms requires further greasing and treacherous Iranians who live in Europe but tow God´s party line!

Please distribute. Thank you.

Banafsheh"


15 posted on 10/03/2004 11:41:47 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran revises constitution to allow privatizations

TEHRAN - Iran Saturday overturned a key plank of the constitution to allow large-scale privatizations in a bid to overhaul the lumbering economy, over which many hard-line parliamentarians have been trying to maintain state dominance.

The Expediency Council, Iran's top legislative arbitration body, gave the green light to Privatisations in the downstream oil and gas sectors, mines, banking, insurance, telecommunications, railways, roads, airlines and shipping.

"In order to realize economic growth and development ... investment, ownership and management of these fields by private, cooperative and public sectors are permitted," a statement faxed to Reuters by the Expediency Council said.

Article 44 of Iran's constitution, written after the 1979 Islamic revolution decreed the core infrastructure must remain in the hands of the state.

The Expediency Council made no reference to radio and television which are cataloged in the constitution along with the sectors now earmarked for sale.

Upstream oil and gas and the airwaves for telecommunications will also remain in the hands of the state, news that will relieve parliamentarians who have said these must stay state-run in the interests of national security.

Several attempts by President Mohammad Khatami's government and the former reformist parliament to privatize key industries were blocked by the Guardian Council, a hard-line watchdog that labeled the moves unconstitutional.

Reinterpreting article 44

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last word on all state matters in oil-rich Iran, in June referred the debate to the Expediency Council. The council acts as a consultative wing for the leader in outlining key policies.

Saturday's decision is a final ruling on the constitutional legitimacy of privatization but details have not been finalized.

Although hard-line clerics sit on the Expediency Council, it also includes reform-minded ministers and pragmatic conservatives looking to shake up the economy.

Iran's 2005-2010 economic development plan envisages average economic growth per year over the five years, up from 6.7 percent in the year to March 2004. Iran's calendar runs from March to March.

Analysts dismiss the target as wildly optimistic and Iranian officials say it will not be realized unless the state ends its hegemony over the country's economy.

Hard-line lawmakers opposed the privatization of banks and insurance companies but in August gave the nod to a 49 percent sale of state-carrier Iran Air. Iran's Privatization Organization Wednesday said it would this month sell more than $570 million worth of state assets.

Government has a privatization target of $5.95 billion in the year to March 2005, but this month's sales will be the first major step taken toward this goal.

Iran sold more than $1 billion worth of state assets in the year to March 2004.

16 posted on 10/03/2004 11:43:56 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Khatami's Minister Sacked


SMCCDI (Information Service)
Oct 3, 2004

The Islamic Republic's parliament, whose members were carefully hand picked by the guardian council during the last parliamentary sham elections, has voted overwhelmingly for removal of Mr. Ahmad Khorram, the Transportation minister.

Following a long session of interpellation, a vote of no confidence was reached based on uncorroborated allegations of Mr.Khorram's "incompetence" and innuendo's of official corruption.

Although the atrocious condition of Iran's transportation safety is known world wide, the real reason behind Mr. Khorram's sacking lies elsewhere.

As of late, Mr. Khorram had become highly outspoken in denunciation of rampant illegal trafficking and smuggling activities that are taking place at Iran's borders and ports. He had attempted to assert authority and gain control of numerous illegal border crossings and harbors.  The Revolutionary Guards Corps (PASDARAN), the Islamic Mafia's armed wing, in cooperation with other circles in neighboring countries, particularly Dubai, supervise and coordinate these illegal border activities. As such, Billions of dollars of unaccounted profits are netted annually by the Mullahcracy and their mercenaries. Money which goes, after filling the coffers of the Mullahs and their goons, to support terrorist activities in Iraq and elsewhere in the world.

Last month Mr. Khorram had threatened to expose and reveal the names of some of the businesses involved in illegal border activities.

It should also be noted that the "Reformist" group, which Mr.Khorram is considered to be a member of, is no less guilty of corruption and self enrichment at the expense of the nation.

The so-called "Reformers" have offered billions of dollars worth of illegitimate Oil and various services contracts to foreign groups. Examples of which are, the Turkish contract for Tehran's new international air port that was shut down by the Revolutionary Guards at its inauguration, and contracts to BP, Total, Shell, Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel, Society General, Banque Nationale de Paris or the Dresdner Bank.

Karoubi, the former speaker of the Islamic Parliament, and Behzad Nabavi, his deputy speaker, are two of the most notorious members of the "Reformist" camp who have amassed substantial wealth as they bought foreign recognition for their hated regime.

17 posted on 10/03/2004 11:47:01 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Increase of organized attacks against regime's symbols


SMCCDI (Information Service)
Oct 3, 2004

Several businesses reputed to be linked to the Mullahcracy, and a number of Islamic regime's patrol cars were destroyed or damaged in nightly commando style operations during the last 48 hours.

In Tehran alone, unidentified individuals, whom the local residents call "Freedom Fighters," set 26 businesses on fire and destroyed 14 patrol vehicles and were able to escape from the scene unscathed.

Same types of actions have been reported from Shahin Shahr and even the usually peaceful Kashan.

Violent means of confrontation with the repressive Islamic regime are alarmingly on the rise, where as more and more, incendiary devices such as Molotov Cocktails, home made grenades, and fire arms are being used by the citizens.

The belief among the populace that the Islamic Republic can not be brought down by "peaceful means" is getting stronger every day.

18 posted on 10/03/2004 11:48:51 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

New York based "Asia Society" become a platform for terrorists


SMCCDI (Information Service)
Oct 1, 2004

On Tuesday, September 28th the New York based "Asia Society", played host to yet another representative of the tyrant and terrorist regime of the Islamic Republic in Iran; Foreign Minister, Kamal Kharrazi, was guest speaker of this event. The Asia Society, claims to be "America's leading institution dedicated to fostering understanding of Asia and communication between Americans and the peoples of
Asia and the Pacific."

Asia Society's management went out of it´s way to keep the Kharrazi event under raps, fearing peaceful demonstrations from conscientious objectors. The event was neither promoted or announced nor has anything about the event reported in the international media. However on September 30th the Islamic Republic regime's official News Agency, IRNA, reported the gathering.

As usual the propagandists of the Mullacracy intended to use this offensive function as a signal of international recognition of a regime that is otherwise considered by a landslide majority of Iranians as illegal and corrupt.
 
"Addressing members of Asia Society in New York late Tuesday, Kharrazi alluded to the regional development and foreign policy of Islamic Republic, and said continued instability in Iraq had raised serious questions about the real goals behind the invasion of that country." IRNA reported.

Not surprisingly, names like, Hassan Nemazee and Ambassador Nicolas Platt are among the highest levels of Asia Society's management or its Board of Trustees. Both men are known for their efforts to legitimize the Islamic regime ; both have repeatedly spoken of the resumption of ties between the government of the United Stated and the Mullahs: the same people who are known for sponsorsing and
supporting anti-American Terrorism.
http://www.asiasociety.org/about/officers.html#desai

Nemazee, who has sued the Movement in an effort to silence the SMCCDI and its Coordinator, is John Kerry's main fundraiser and a notorious apologist for the Islamic republic regime. Platts is a surreptitious, retired US diplomat who is supported by various lobbies. The duo were also members of the board of the infamous American Iranian Council (AIC) which is headed by Hooshang Ami-Ahmadi, also known as "the death broker" by many Iranians.

The AIC was the shady channel through which Madeleine Albright, the then Secretary of State, offered the Mullahs, the formal U.S. apology.
 
Senator Joseph Biden´s (D-Delaware) fundraiser at the IMAN Islamist Center of Los Angeles was also hosted by the head of IMAN, Sadegh Nemazikhah, who happens to be yet another AIC Board member; there are also various other meetings that were organized between members of the Mullahs' regime, such as Mehdi Karoubi and several US lawmakers and members of Clinton Administration. Biden is well known for having tried to use his influence within the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee to push for resumption of ties with the illegitimate regime of the Mullahs.
 
Other members of the Kerry campaign, such as, Richard C. Holbrooke are also part of Asia Society's trustees.

19 posted on 10/03/2004 11:51:25 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Europeans Mull a Bush Re-Election

[Excerpt]
Wall Street Journal - By Marc Champion
Oct 4, 2004

U.S. Poll Results Prompt
A Strategic Re-Evaluation; Can Divisions Be Healed?

LONDON -- In August, French President Jacques Chirac, one of U.S. President George W. Bush's chief sparring partners in international affairs, asked the White House to meet with his foreign-policy chief.

U.S. officials say the request came as a surprise. It was the middle of an American presidential campaign, a notoriously bad time for negotiating foreign policy, and the U.S. and France had been at loggerheads as recently as June at a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Istanbul, Turkey.

The lengthy meeting between Maurice Gourdault-Montagne and U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice also resulted in an agreement -- rare between the two countries nowadays -- for France and the U.S. to co-sponsor a United Nations Security Council resolution that passed Sept. 2. It demanded all non-Lebanese -- meaning Syrian -- troops should pull out of Lebanon.

The French initiative is one sign that European countries at loggerheads with Mr. Bush in the past are preparing the ground to be able to work with a second Bush administration, as opinion polls ahead of the Nov. 2 election have tipped slightly in Mr. Bush's favor.

Indeed, a few weeks after the joint Security Council resolution, on Sept. 22, France agreed to allow 300 NATO trainers to go to Iraq -- something Mr. Chirac had ruled out at the June NATO summit.

The signs of overtures to the Bush administration come after months when the debate in European capitals had focused more on what change Sen. John Kerry, Mr. Bush's Democratic challenger, would make if he were to win.

But Mr. Bush's resurgence in the late summer has prompted some European nations to pay more attention to what it would mean to them if Mr. Bush was re-elected and how a second Bush administration might differ from the first.

"Don't consider that Bush 2 would start the same way as Bush 1" was the message one Washington ambassador said he had sent home.

In terms of U.S. attitudes, "now NATO is back, even the U.N. is on the way back," the message said, according to the ambassador. "Yes, [U.S. Vice President Dick] Cheney is there, but will there be a role for the neoconservatives?"

Foreign diplomats say they would look to see what roles prominent foreign-policy hawks, known as neoconservatives, would be given in a second Bush administration for an indication of whether it would be more pragmatic.

Of course, there remains less than a month until the U.S. election, and the race was viewed as tightening last week after Mr. Kerry's widely perceived strong performance in Thursday's presidential debate.

For his part, Mr. Kerry early in the campaign claimed he had garnered support among foreign leaders. And most Europeans would support Mr. Kerry, opinion polls show, if they had a vote.

But Mr. Kerry's campaign claims that he would be able to produce troops for Iraq from allies that have rebuffed Mr. Bush have prompted some concern among officials in France and Germany. Both governments have been sending out quiet warnings not to raise expectations, because they still could decline to provide troops even if Mr. Kerry wins.

There is a lot at stake in the outcome of the election for many countries. The next few years will decide the structure of international affairs for decades to come, says Simon Serfaty, director of global policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. He likens the moment to the U.S. Truman-Dewey election of 1948, after which U.S. President Harry Truman built a Western alliance to deal with the threat from the Soviet Union.

"Will we have a U.S. strategy, a European strategy, or a Western strategy" toward the major global problems, Mr. Serfaty asked, starting with how to fight the war on terrorism.

Whoever wins the White House, the window of opportunity to figure out whether the divisions that emerged over the war in Iraq can be healed could be pretty short, officials say. For example, the U.S. on one side and France, Britain and Germany on the other will have to try to reconcile their approaches to Iran's refusal to abandon its uranium-enrichment program. The next board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency to discuss Iran is on Nov. 25 -- less than a month after the election.

Decisions will come quickly in Iraq, too, as countries decide how to respond to elections set for January that could for the first time produce an elected -- rather than U.S.-appointed -- government there. Also outstanding are differences over how to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; how to spread stability in the so-called wider Middle East; and how to handle Russian President Vladimir Putin's growing authoritarianism.

Officials and analysts say all sides are likely to take one issue at a time, rather than try to hammer out some grand new trans-Atlantic agreement. But it won't be easy. Take Iran.

U.S. officials say they believe Britain, France and Germany have realized the deal they made in Tehran in October 2003, offering improved trade terms and other incentives in exchange for a suspension of Iran's uranium-enrichment program, has failed. Britain, France and Germany have acknowledged that the deal needs fresh ideas.

This past month, Iran said it was restarting its enrichment program.

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, the American point man on antiproliferation, has said the next step should be to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council. But many European officials describe a Security Council referral as a last resort, and reject setting a "hard trigger" -- or automatic referral to the U.N. Security Council -- if Iraq failed to meet requirements set by the IAEA's Nov. 25 meeting. They worry it isn't clear what the Security Council would be able to do, while the act of referral could end any chance of getting Tehran to cooperate.

In Europe, meanwhile, officials are batting around ideas for proposing to the next U.S. administration that it join in offering Iran a new grand bargain. The U.S. and European Union jointly would promise trade, restored diplomatic relations and guaranteed fuel supplies for Iran's civilian nuclear-power program. In exchange, Iran would offer to give up all activities that could be used to create fuel for a nuclear weapon and cease its support of groups that carry out terrorist acts, including in Israel. Many analysts and even some European officials say the U.S. is unlikely to buy into such a deal.

20 posted on 10/03/2004 11:53:48 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Meeting could ease U.S.-Iran tension
Steven R. Weisman NYT
Monday, October 4, 2004
WASHINGTON After months of forceful American talk on Iran, the Bush administration's new openness to having Secretary of State Colin Powell attend a conference along with an envoy from Iran next month is spreading hope among European and Arab officials that such a meeting may reduce tensions in the region.

State Department officials insist that Powell's newly expressed willingness to be in the same room with an Iranian representative at the conference - which is to be on the future of Iraq - does not portend a softening in other American grievances, including the demand that Iran abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program and support of terrorism.

"We don't see this as an opening for a new dialogue," a senior State Department official said.

"It just shows we will talk to Iran on certain issues like Iraq when it is in our interest to do so."

[Iran announced Sunday that it intended to take part in the conference, Agence France-Presse reported.

"In principle, taking part in the conference does not pose a problem for us," Hamid Reza Asefi, Foreign Ministry spokesman, said.]

Bush administration officials say there has been a debate for months over how to deal with the growing problem of Iran's nuclear program as Britain, France and Germany have sought to engage the Iranians over it to avoid a confrontation with the United States.

Except for a brief talk between a U.S. envoy in Baghdad and some visiting Iranian officials this year, the United States has not had diplomatic contact with the Iranian government since May 2003. Talks were cut off then after a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia that were linked to groups based in Iran.

Iraq's interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, provided an opening for a new engagement recently, according to officials from the United States, Europe and the Arab world. Allawi has appealed to Iran and Syria, which also has troubled relations with the United States, to do more to stop cross-border help for insurgents in Iraq.

While in the United States last week, Allawi said this issue could best be dealt with in a conference of Iraq's neighbors in the region, plus other leading countries in the world.

The United States accepted the idea, and State Department officials say they now expect it to occur in late November in Cairo.

Asefi said it would be "irrational" for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad. Iran has the technology to make nuclear fuel, Asefi said, "and there is no need for us to beg from others."
21 posted on 10/03/2004 11:58:55 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

22 posted on 10/04/2004 12:07:43 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Getting it wrong on Iran


The mullahcrats in Tehran made it official yesterday: John Kerry's grand alternative to the Bush approach for dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat is dead in the water. At Thursday night's debate, Mr. Kerry suggested that Iran be supplied with nuclear fuel for power reactors if the regime agreed to forego its existing nuclear program. Yesterday, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry rejected the Kerry proposal, saying it would be "irrational" for Tehran to rely on nuclear supplies from abroad.

    But don't expect Mr. Kerry to be chastened by the contemptuous response from Iran. If recent history is any guide, the senator will soon be out with some new spin explaining why President Bush, and not the Islamist regime, is to blame for the Iranian nuclear-weapons progam.

    Indeed, at Thursday's debate, that's what Mr. Kerry tried to do: rewrite history in an effort to blame Mr. Bush for a pattern of hostile behavior that began with the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and has continued ever since. In an effort to show that Mr. Bush was asleep at the switch, Mr. Kerry claimed that the British, French and Germans initiated their effort to curb Iran's nuclear program "without the United States." Mr. Kerry failed to mention the fact that Mr. Bush agreed to support the Europeans going forward with their diplomatic effort despite serious misgivings —which have been borne out by the abysmal failure of the EU 3 to get Iran to change its behavior.

    Mr. Kerry said that the United States should have offered to provide Iran with nuclear fuel in order to "test them [and] see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes." But the premise is delusional: No serious observer could possibly claim that Iran has been acting in good faith. The International Atomic Energy Agency has documented the fact that Iran has been misleading the world about its nuclear intentions since the 1980s. Tehran's refusal to cooperate with the EU 3 is simply a continuation of its efforts to cheat.

    Mr. Kerry also tried to rewrite history regarding North Korea's nuclear program. At one point during the debate, he suggested that the Clinton administration fixed the problem by negotiating a 1994 agreement with Pyongyang and that President Bush destroyed a promising U.S.-North Korean "dialogue" two years ago. In fact, the Communist regime has been going forward with a covert nuclear program for a decade after promising not to; Mr. Kerry's apparent solution would be an updated version of the failed Clinton approach.

     Two principles appear to underlie Mr. Kerry's approach to foreign policy: First,that anything done by Mr. Bush is by definition wrong, and second, that Mr. Kerry will be able to fix everything by holding summits and bilateral talks, at which he will use his unique persuasive powers to get foreign despots to behave themselves. Twenty-nine days from now, the American people will decide whether someone who lives in such a fantasy world is fit to lead the free world.

But don't expect Mr. Kerry to be chastened by the contemptuous response from Iran. If recent history is any guide, the senator will soon be out with some new spin explaining why President Bush, and not the Islamist regime, is to blame for the Iranian nuclear-weapons progam.

    Indeed, at Thursday's debate, that's what Mr. Kerry tried to do: rewrite history in an effort to blame Mr. Bush for a pattern of hostile behavior that began with the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and has continued ever since. In an effort to show that Mr. Bush was asleep at the switch, Mr. Kerry claimed that the British, French and Germans initiated their effort to curb Iran's nuclear program "without the United States." Mr. Kerry failed to mention the fact that Mr. Bush agreed to support the Europeans going forward with their diplomatic effort despite serious misgivings —which have been borne out by the abysmal failure of the EU 3 to get Iran to change its behavior.
    Mr. Kerry said that the United States should have offered to provide Iran with nuclear fuel in order to "test them [and] see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes." But the premise is delusional: No serious observer could possibly claim that Iran has been acting in good faith. The International Atomic Energy Agency has documented the fact that Iran has been misleading the world about its nuclear intentions since the 1980s. Tehran's refusal to cooperate with the EU 3 is simply a continuation of its efforts to cheat.

    Mr. Kerry also tried to rewrite history regarding North Korea's nuclear program. At one point during the debate, he suggested that the Clinton administration fixed the problem by negotiating a 1994 agreement with Pyongyang and that President Bush destroyed a promising U.S.-North Korean "dialogue" two years ago. In fact, the Communist regime has been going forward with a covert nuclear program for a decade after promising not to; Mr. Kerry's apparent solution would be an updated version of the failed Clinton approach.
     Two principles appear to underlie Mr. Kerry's approach to foreign policy: First,that anything done by Mr. Bush is by definition wrong, and second, that Mr. Kerry will be able to fix everything by holding summits and bilateral talks, at which he will use his unique persuasive powers to get foreign despots to behave themselves. Twenty-nine days from now, the American people will decide whether someone who lives in such a fantasy world is fit to lead the free world.

23 posted on 10/04/2004 12:58:22 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

For those interested in learning more about the lawsuit go to their website:

http://www.regimeinfluence.com/


24 posted on 10/04/2004 2:40:19 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

10/3/04 - IRAN DEMOCRACY DEMONSTRATION

The following is an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government:

 
President George W. Bush says that democracy makes possible the freedom people need to live in dignity:

“That dignity is honored by the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, protection of private property, free speech, equal justice, and religious tolerance.”

Pro-democracy Iranians would seem to agree. According to news accounts, about two-thousand people recently took to the streets of Tehran to demand greater freedom. Observers say the demonstration shows that many Iranians desperately seek change. That may be especially true of Iranian women. The New York Times newspaper reports that Iran’s parliament recently blocked proposals to expand the inheritance rights of women and to adopt the United Nations convention barring discrimination against women. There have been recent reports of women in Tehran and other parts of the country being arrested for wearing clothes deemed insufficiently “Islamic.” Moreover, Iranian members of parliament have reportedly called for segregating men and women at universities and for other limitations on women’s activities.

Iranian women are not the only target of government repression. The international group Reporters Without Borders says that “[t]hreats to press freedom have increased since the hijacking of last February’s parliamentary elections. . . . Tehran chief prosecutor Said Mortazavi has launched a new effort to silence the press.” Tactics include closing newspapers, blocking Internet access, blacklisting journalists, and imprisoning writers and editors.

As President Bush has put it, “tired, discredited autocrats are trying to hold back the democratic will of [the] rising generation” in Iran. The U.S., says Mr. Bush, has a message for the Iranian people: “We hear your voice. . .and we stand with you in your desire to be free.”

25 posted on 10/04/2004 9:07:29 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran cancels music concerts under hard-line pressure


Mon 4 October, 2004 14:18

By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian authorities have cancelled several musical concerts organised by European embassies after religious hardliners warned the Islamic state against the "corrupting" influence of Western culture.

Analysts said the concert cancellations reflected a new political climate in Iran where religious hardliners now firmly have the upper hand over the pro-reform allies of moderate President Mohammad Khatami.

One Italian musical group left Iran without playing a note and planned concerts organised by the Swiss and Spanish embassies were scrapped, the diplomats said on Monday.

"The Culture Ministry cancelled the concerts fearing there may be some attacks on the concert hall by hardliners," one of the diplomats said.

Mohsen Majedi, a political science professor at Tehran's Baheshti University said: "They (hardliners) cannot wait any longer to paralyse Khatami's achieved reforms."

Following Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution all but classical or religious music was banned. Restrictions eased somewhat following Khatami's landslide electoral win in 1997.

Iran held its first official "Islamic pop" festival in 1999 but concerts remain tame with female soloists banned from singing in front of men and audiences prohibited from dancing.

Hardliners, who say the concerts promote immoral behaviour among young people, have in the past attacked cultural centres where musical performances were held.

"Our religious people are against such concerts which help to spread corrupt Western culture," the hard-line Jomhuri-ye Eslami newspaper said last week.

Behrang Tonekaboni, a member of Iran's Niavaran Musicians Association, told the Mardomsalari newspaper an Italian group had to leave without performing after threats were made.

Another Italian-sponsored event was moved to the ambassador's residence at short notice after permission was denied for the intended venue at a public concert hall.

The Swiss Embassy was informed about the cancellation of its classical music concert due to "technical problems" just one day before the musicians' were due to arrive.

"We regret such short notice ... but we still have hope of having concerts in the future," a Swiss diplomat said.

26 posted on 10/04/2004 9:10:04 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

10/4/04 - IRAN AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

The following is an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government:
 
In the latest U.S. State Department report on religious freedom, Iran is again listed as one of the most serious violators. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says the report singles out eight countries of particular concern:

"We are re-designating five countries that, in our judgment, continue to violate their citizens' religious liberty: Burma, China, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. We are also adding three additional countries to this list: Eritrea, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam."

According to the report, Iran is guilty of "severe violations of religious freedom." These include "imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination" based on religious belief. The report says that in Iran "all religious minorities suffer varying degrees of officially sanctioned discrimination particularly in the areas of employment, education, and housing." Those minorities include Sunni and Sufi Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Baha'is. Conversion of a Muslim to a non-Muslim religion is punishable by death.

The Baha'is are the largest non-Muslim minority in Iran with an estimated three-hundred-fifty-thousand adherents. And they are special targets of abuse. Baha'is are not permitted to teach or practice their religion, obtain government jobs, or attend Iranian universities. Their property has been seized and they are victims of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Several Baha'i sites of great religious significance have been destroyed by Iranian authorities.

Christians in Iran must carry identity cards, and church officials are required to inform the government before admitting new members. Official discrimination against Jews in Iran is common, and the Iranian Jewish community has been reduced to less than half of what it was before the Islamic Revolution. Prominent Sufi leaders are harassed, and Sunni Muslims likewise face discrimination.

President George W. Bush says, "We believe that when all Middle Eastern peoples are finally allowed to live and think and work and worship as free men and women, they will reclaim the greatness of their own heritage. . . . That's why we're working to advance liberty in the greater Middle East. . . . We believe that inherently in the soul of men and women is this desire to live in free societies."

27 posted on 10/04/2004 9:12:27 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

A line-in-the-sand election

By Ralph R. Reiland
Monday, October 4, 2004

What we're seeing is the turning of a nation.

The October Surprise in this election -- and it'll be a surprise only if you haven't been paying attention -- will be the pictures flashed around the world of millions of people lining up to vote on Saturday in Afghanistan's first-ever presidential election.

True, Afghanistan still is a tough environment, tough enough so that troops will be stationed to protect the polling sites. And no doubt there will be violence by those who want to disrupt the electoral process. But the big story will be that, despite the threat, more than 10 million Afghanis who have registered to vote, including at least 4 million women, will be going to the polls to elect a president for the first time in their history.

The election won't be perfect. Afghanistan won't be perfect. But it'll be better, both for us and the Afghanis, than when that country was the world headquarters for al-Qaida's training camps.


Hamid Karzai, whom the United States supports, is expected to win in a landside. Already, the critics are charging that Karzai was "selected" by the United States, just as they say George W. Bush is the "selected" president of the United States. Nevertheless, it's a hard sell to argue that things aren't now better in Afghanistan than when playing chess or flying a kite was punished by jail time and the Taliban used the soccer stadium in Kabul as the site for amputating hands and the public execution of fornicators.

The election isn't the last step in the process of establishing a democratic government in Afghanistan. It's only a beginning step for a nation torn apart by decades of civil war and extremist rule by the Taliban. And there's no shortage of al-Qaida terrorists, anti-democratic warlords and Taliban fanatics who are determined to derail the process. As a coalition, they seek nothing less than the regeneration of a narco-terrorist state that can clamp a fundamentalist straitjacket on the Afghani people and fund a worldwide assault against the West.

Hanging chads, in short, won't be the problem Saturday. We can look ahead to car bombs and rocket attacks. Al-Qaida and the Taliban, though displaced, are still a force, as are banditry and warlordism. This year more than twice as many reconstruction workers have been killed as in 2003. In the nine months it took to register voters, 12 people have been murdered and 30 injured in election-related terrorist attacks.

But no car bomb should eclipse the fact that what we're seeing is the turning of a nation. Since the defeat of the Taliban in the fall of 2001, about 3.5 million Afghani refugees have returned to Afghanistan, voting with their feet. On election day, millions more who haven't yet made it home will be voting by absentee ballot --- 800,000 living in refugee camps in Iran, another 1.5 million in Pakistan. By a million-to-1, the voters in Afghanistan will outnumber those who get up that morning and strap dynamite sticks to their exhaust pipes or around the waists of their children.

None of what I'm saying is meant to suggest that things are fundamentally OK in Afghanistan, or in Iraq. The assessment on Afghanistan that Donald Rumsfeld gave to CNN's Larry King in December 2002, a year after the Taliban had been driven from power, was plainly too upbeat. "There are people who are throwing hand grenades and shooting off rockets and trying to kill people, but there are people who are trying to kill people in New York or San Francisco," said Rumsfeld. "So it's not going to be a perfectly tidy place."

No, Afghanistan is worse than San Francisco, worse than a bit untidy. But it's unquestionably not as bad as when it was the training ground for the movement that attacked New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. Instead, Afghanistan is now a line in the sand in the global struggle between a murderous form of theocratic fascism and the rest of the world, a major front in the battle against the Taliban and al-Qaida murderers who seek to slaughter as many of us as is necessary in order to purify the world. It's a fight, if we're to continue to exist, that we can't afford to lose.


28 posted on 10/04/2004 9:16:31 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

No Iranian 'Plan' for Weapons

[Excerpt] Monday, October 4, 2004; Page A23

Iran's foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, who was at the United Nations last week, sat down with Lally Weymouth of Newsweek and The Post to discuss U.S. concerns over Iran's nuclear program, the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Excerpts:

Q. Is Iran seeking a uranium enrichment capability solely to fuel nuclear power reactors, or is it also to give your country a nuclear option in the future?

A. It is solely for producing fuel needed in our power plants, because we propose to have seven power plants. It is not for producing nuclear weapons.

The IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] does not seem to be persuaded that you are living up to the agreement that you made with the Europeans in the fall of 2003 -- to stop enriching uranium.

They expect us not to produce any spare parts for centrifuge machines. We have suspended the enrichment process, but they are asking us to suspend related activities, by which they mean the production of spare parts. For some time, in an agreement with the Europeans, we stopped manufacturing spare parts. But the Europeans were supposed to work actively to close Iran's file at the IAEA. Since they failed to meet their commitments, we did not find ourselves committed to the agreement.

Once Iran has the uranium enrichment capability, won't it give you the ability to pursue a nuclear weapons program?

We are capable to enrich uranium, and we are capable to manufacture all machinery that is needed [in this process]. But this does not mean that we are capable of producing [nuclear] weapons. ...

But centrifuges are used to enrich uranium, which is used to make nuclear weapons.

Centrifuges can be used to make highly enriched uranium. We do not have a plan to produce highly enriched uranium as needed for weapons.

Couldn't Iran reap the benefit of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy without having to enrich uranium and thus alarming the international community?

That means we'd have to buy fuel from outside the country. We want to be self-sufficient in producing fuel.

Are you worried that Israel may strike your nuclear facilities?

It is a threat, and when there is a threat, you have to take it into consideration and be prepared to react. We are prepared.

Like the Shahab missile?

There are capabilities that we will use. Shahab missiles are well developed and made in Iran, and we are proud of having them.

Reportedly, Iran's intelligence services are providing support to insurgents who are attacking coalition forces in Iraq.

That is quite wrong. On the contrary, we have been quite helpful in defusing the crisis in Iraq -- especially in Najaf.

Would you like to see the coalition forces leave Iraq?

Yes. Insurgents say that since their land is occupied, they have to resist. So, the best way [out] is to maintain security by Iraqi forces and let the multinational forces leave.

What is your assessment of the current security situation in Iraq?

It is a very dangerous place. Killings and kidnappings are increasing. Coalition forces are unable to secure Iraq, and the government is facing many problems. The people of Iraq are delighted Saddam Hussein is gone, but they are not happy with the presence of foreign troops. That was America's mistake. They thought that if people opposed Saddam Hussein, they would welcome the presence of Americans.

You seem to agree with the Americans that the Iraqi elections should take place in January.

That's right. It is a very important first step for a solution to the crisis. We need to get a representative government in place.

What is your vision for the future of Iraq?

We would like to see one integrated Iraq and a democratic government in place.

Is Iran ready to join many other countries in advocating a two-state solution for the Israelis and the Palestinians and also to end its support for Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad?

If the Palestinians decide to have two states, we don't mind, but we are for a one-state solution.

Is there any prospect for an Iranian-U.S. dialogue?

No, I don't see any prospects at this time because the policies of the United States in the Middle East have been so wrong. They have left no room for any rapprochement, especially in the case of Iran. They have interfered in our internal affairs and have talked about a change in regime.

[Iranian President Mohammad] Khatami was looked on as a reformer. Now it looks as if the hard-liners are back in control. Is the road to liberalism dead?

Reformists pushed too much, and there were some setbacks. But in general, reform has been ongoing. No one can stop reforms. Seventy percent of Iranians are under 35 years old, and so reform is inevitable regardless of who is in power.

Do you think it would be better for your country if Senator Kerry won the upcoming presidential election?

We cannot evaluate the future of any president by his election slogans.

Some people here say "anybody but Bush." Do you agree with that?

We are not happy with President Bush. He has adopted wrong policies -- against Iran and the Middle East. The majority of the people in the Middle East are against the policies of Bush. His policies have resulted in hatred of the U.S. in Muslim countries.


29 posted on 10/04/2004 9:21:30 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Bush has it right on nuclear proliferation

By Amity Shlaes
Published: October 4 2004 03:00 | Last updated: October 4 2004 03:00

Iran and North Korea are likely to be topics in tomorrow night's debate between the vice-presidential candidates. They were also at the centre of last week's presidential debate. Indeed, the only thing both candidates agreed on last week - aside from the quality of each other's parenting - was the threat of nuclear proliferation. George W. Bush pronounced mullah "MOO-lah"; Democratic challenger John Kerry lacked time to present detailed proposals. Still, the positions of the two sides on this crucial issue are already clear. A review shows the "unilateralist" Republicans are offering the stronger - even the more multilateralist - policy.

Start with North Korea. Mr Kerry charges that the US has done nothing to stop Pyongyang arming itself. As a result, Mr Kerry said last week, North Korea has "gotten nuclear weapons". Mr Kerry would, therefore, like the US to initiate direct (one could say, unilateral) talks with North Korea.

As vice-president Dick Cheney is likely to explain tomorrow, the Democrats' arguments are wrong on two counts. The first argument is that North Korea's nuclear weapons are the result of Bush policy. The North Koreans have been moving towards a weapons programme and covertly enriching uranium since the Clinton days. The Clinton administration took great pains to lock North Korea into a commitment not to turn a fuel capacity into a military one but North Korea ignored it.

As for the Bush administration, it has worked hard on North Korea from the start, participating in a six-nation discussion that includes China. The US does not have much influence over North Korea, which is probably one reason Pyongyang felt it could flout Mr Clinton. But China does - it provides 80 per cent of North Korea's energy in subsidised coal and diesel fuel. This, as Mr Cheney could point out, is one reason the president hosted Jiang Zemin in Crawford, Texas, two years ago.

Then there is Iran and its troubling uranium enrichment, which John Edwards will probably bring up. He has already blamed the Bush administration for allowing "dangers to mount" - that is, allowing nuclear weapons to be developed.

Mr Kerry also alleges that the US has no Iran plan. Last week he said the UK, Germany and France "were the ones who initiated an effort, without the US regrettably, to curb nuclear possibilities in Iran". He argued that the Iran situation would not be worsening had the US offered nuclear fuel to Iran and supervised its nuclear fuel plants. Then if Iran had diverted material to nuclear weapons the US could have punished it with sanctions.

The first rebuttal here is that, as Mr Bush noted, the US has approved of and supported the European initiative at issue from the beginning. The administration does not necessarily agree with this plan. But it has gone along, doubtless because ally Tony Blair wants it to.

The second point is more fundamental: with or without supervision, providing nuclear fuel to Iran is a crazy idea. Iran does not need a fuel source in the way North Korea does. It has oil and natural gas. The only reason Iran would want to build its nuclear capabilities is to create a weapons programme, or at least the potential for one. And, as Mr Bush noted, those theoretical US trade sanctions against Iran to which Mr Kerry referred are already real, and in place. They predate this administration.

Finally, the US has been aggressively working on the Iran problem through a traditional multilateral venue, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Now is the moment to refer the issue of a weapons programme to the United Nations Security Council, with the expectation of pursuing international sanctions on Iran. France, Germany and Britain have, however, been unwilling to make the difficult decision to join the US in this push.

What about nuclear challenges beyond Korea and Iran? The US and its allies have spent enormous energy preventing technology transfer: the sale of nuclear toolkits via the black market. This Proliferation Security Initiative includes more than 60 nations. An aggressive PSI interdiction at sea helped convince Libya's Muammer Gadaffi to give up his programmes for weapons of mass destruction. Mr Cheney recently explained his administration's attitude to multilateralism: the US, he said, wants to work multilaterally. But being multilateralist does not mean "submitting to the objections of a few". And multilateralism does not preclude Mr Bush's stated policy of staying "on the offence".

In brief, what Democrats are asking for is a return to the emphasis on careful diplomacy that was the policy of the US in Asia and the Middle East during the 1990s. This is why Mr Kerry recalled Mr Bush's father, in the debate.

But the reality is that the look-away-and-pre-empt-not policy of the Bush-Clinton 1990s did damage. It is a "colossal error" - to borrow a Kerry phrase - to give countries such as Iran and North Korea time to develop nuclear weapons. Diplomacy, as Colin Powell, US secretary of state, said recently of Iran, doesn't have to "mean pretending something isn't there when it is there". In this new and unstable era, both diplomacy and offensive action have their place. Right now the Republicans are the ones showing they are ready to try both. amity.shlaes@ft.com

30 posted on 10/04/2004 9:25:43 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran, Pakistan and nukes



By Wilson John

    The International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA) is currently investigating Iran's nuclear program, especially the possibility that Pakistan helped it with substantial transfers of technology and materials in the past. There has been no conclusive evidence so far, except for a piece of evidence that Pakistan had supplied designs for an advanced centrifuge called P-2 to Iran in 1995. There is a reason why the IAEA is finding it difficult to discover the nuclear trail in Iran. The agency is not looking in the right places, for instance in Pakistan. What it needs to do is not complicated, either: It has to begin by questioning A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist who has been persuaded to go into hiding by Islamabad following disclosures early this year that he was the kingpin in a worldwide network of nuclear smugglers.

    Mr. Khan has been actively involved in transferring nuclear technology and material to Iran since the early 1990s. Although the proliferation activities were clandestine, there is substantial evidence that the Pakistani establishment — especially its external intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence — not only knew of the activities but assisted in the smuggling. Lt. Gen. Asad Durrani, the ISI chief in the early 1990s, was aware of Mr. Khan's travels to Iran in 1991 and 1992. Iran was quite willing to pay heavily for a nuclear gateway with Pakistan. Tehran had offered $3.2 billion to finance Pakistan's nuclear-weapons program in exchange for the transfer of nuclear technology, as reported in the Pakistan daily newspaper Dawn on Dec. 20, 1994.

    The Pakistan-Iran nuclear connection existed since the time of Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq, who had approved unpublicized cooperation between the two nations in the nuclear field in 1987. The cooperation was specifically limited to nonmilitary spheres. A respected Pakistani English-language daily published in Islamabad, the News, quoted a retired nuclear scientist: "Just before his death in 1988 when I told Zia about Iran's growing interest in non-peaceful nuclear matters, he asked me to play around but not to yield anything substantial at any cost." In fact, many believe that not only Gen. Durrani but his superior, Gen. Aslam Beg, then the army chief of staff, were also deeply involved in the clandestine nuclear deals with Iran.

    Gen. Beg, according to a former Pakistan cabinet minister, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, had negotiated with Iran for a nuclear deal. Gen. Beg bragged that "Iran is willing to give whatever it takes, $6 billion, $10 billion. We can sell the bomb to Iran at any price." A former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Robert Oakley, has also referred to a conversation with Gen. Beg during which the latter said he was discussing nuclear cooperation with Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

    Officially Pakistan has always denied having any cooperation with Iran in the nuclear weapons program. But large sums of unaccounted money were deposited in the personal accounts of at least two Pakistani scientists for clandestine deals with Iran. One of them was Muhammad Farooq, a centrifuge expert, who traveled to Iran and Libya on behalf of Mr. Khan, and was ironically the key source of information against Mr. Khan when U.S. and Pakistani intelligence officials debriefed him in November. One of the startling disclosures made by Mr. Farooq was about Mr. Khan's financial skullduggery.

    Investigations have since revealed that the scientists maintained secret bank accounts in Dubai where millions of dollars were deposited. Noman Shah, Mr. Khan's estranged son-in-law, operated one of the main Dubai-based front companies used by the Khan network. It was Mr. Shah who set up a supplier firm for Mr. Khan in Dubai and worked closely with his father-in-law until he divorced Mr. Khan's daughter Dina after four years of marriage in 1994. Several nuclear and missile deals signed by the Khan Research Laboratory (KRL), including transactions with Iran, were routed through Mr. Shah.

    More evidence of Mr. Khan's Iran link is an Islamabadbusinessman named Aizaz Jaffri. In December, Mr. Jaffri reportedly flew to Iran after three employees of the KRL were detained for questioning following the disclosures about Mr. Khan. Officials suspect that Mr. Jaffri's responsibility on the Iran trip was to find out how much the Iranians had told the IAEA officials about Pakistan's involvement in their nuclear-weapons program. Mr. Jaffri was an intermediary between Mr. Khan and his network. The former used to work for Pakistan's National Development Corporation, a state enterprise, before he joined Mr. Khan's network and began acting as a front man for dozens of businesses established by him.

    An intriguing fact is Mr. Jaffri's reported association with the state-owned China North Industries Corporation, or Norinco, which is collaborating with Pakistan on missile and weapons development and production. One link that has emerged in the recent investigations was that Norinco and Mr. Khan's brother Qayuum have a stake in a Chinese restaurant in Islamabad partly owned by Mr. Jaffri two years ago. Is there a Chinese connection to nuclear collaboration between Iran and Pakistan?

    Wilson John is a senior fellow with Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, India.

31 posted on 10/04/2004 9:32:02 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Last Update: 04/10/2004 18:25

Islamic Movement rebukes claim of terror ties to Iran

By Haaretz Service

The Islamic Movement sharply rejected claims by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that it serves as a conduit for Iran to recruit Israeli Arabs for terrorist activity.

Sharon's comments constitute a declaration of war against both the Islamic Movement as well as the entire Arab sector, deputy of the movement's northern branch Sheikh Kamel Khatib told Army Radio in an interview.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Monday accused the Iranian leadership of trying to recruit Israeli Arabs for terrorist activity, Army Radio reported, saying that most of the country's Arab population only wanted a quiet life and to be an integral part of Israeli society.

"There is no doubt that Iran is a very dangerous state," Sharon told soldiers who he hosted at the sukkah in his Jerusalem residence.

"It is operating among Israeli Arabs via the Islamic Movement, despite the fact that most Israeli Arabs want to live a quiet life," he said.

But, said Sharon, there is a small minority of Israeli Arabs who are guided by Iran.

Khatib called on Sharon to name this minority, stating that it is not the Islamic Movement.

"The Islamic Movement has always stood by Israel's laws," Khatib said.

The prime minister expressed the hope Monday that international pressure would make it more difficult for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, Israel Radio reported. He also said that Israel was working to protect itself from the Iranian threat.

Israel has previously accused the Iranian-backed Hezbollah organization, which fought Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon, of infiltrating the territories and supporting and training Palestinian militants.

The two states have also traded verbal blows over Iran's nuclear program, with Tehran warning Israel against any pre-emptive strike to destroy its atomic facilities.

On Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister told Newsweek that Iran does view Israel as a threat to its nuclear plants, and that Tehran was "prepared" to respond to such a threat.


32 posted on 10/04/2004 9:59:28 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Can Europe Work With Bush?

[Excerpt] October 04, 2004
The Wall Street Journal
Eliot A. Cohen


LONDON -- Jacques Chirac made a request in August that surprised U.S. officials. The French president, one of President Bush's chief sparring partners in international affairs, asked the White House to meet with his foreign-policy chief.

Such meetings aren't unusual, but the timing was. It was the middle of an American presidential campaign -- a notoriously bad time for negotiating foreign policy -- and the U.S. and France had been at odds as recently as June at a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Turkey.

Still, the lengthy meeting resulted in an agreement for France and the U.S. to co-sponsor a United Nations Security Council resolution that passed Sept. 2. It demanded that all non-Lebanese -- meaning Syrian -- troops pull out of Lebanon.

The French initiative is one sign that European countries at loggerheads with Mr. Bush in the past are preparing to work with a second Bush term, as opinion polls ahead of the Nov. 2 election have tipped slightly in Mr. Bush's favor.

Indeed, a few weeks after the joint Security Council resolution, on Sept. 22, France agreed to allow 300 NATO trainers to go to Iraq -- something Mr. Chirac had ruled out at the June NATO summit.

The overtures to the Bush administration come after months in which the debate in European capitals had focused more on what changes Sen. John Kerry, Mr. Bush's challenger, would make if he were to win.

In recent weeks, Mr. Bush's resurgence in the polls has prompted some European nations to pay more attention to what it would mean to them if Mr. Bush was re-elected and how a second Bush term might differ from the first.

"Don't consider that Bush 2 would start the same way as Bush 1" was the message one Washington ambassador says he sent home.

In terms of U.S. attitudes, "now NATO is back; even the U.N. is on the way back," the message said, according to the ambassador.

Foreign diplomats say they would watch what roles prominent foreign-policy hawks would be given in a second Bush term for an indication of whether the administration would, in their words, be more pragmatic.

Of course, the U.S. election is still a month away, and the race was viewed as tightening last week after Mr. Kerry's widely perceived strong performance in Thursday's presidential debate.

For many European leaders, a victory by Mr. Kerry would be a welcome chance for a fresh start.

But Mr. Kerry's claims that he would be able to produce troops for Iraq from allies that have rebuffed Mr. Bush have prompted some concern among officials in France as well as Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Germany, the two European countries most consistently at odds with the Bush administration. Both governments have been sending out quiet warnings not to raise expectations, because they would likely decline to provide troops even if Mr. Kerry wins.

There is a lot at stake in the outcome of the election for many countries. The next few years will decide the structure of international affairs for decades to come, says Simon Serfaty, director of global policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. He likens the moment to the U.S. Truman-Dewey election of 1948, after which U.S. President Harry Truman built a Western alliance to deal with the threat from the Soviet Union.

"Will we have a U.S. strategy, a European strategy, or a Western strategy" toward global problems such as terrorism, Mr. Serfaty asks.

Whoever wins the White House, there could be a limited window of opportunity to figure out whether the divisions that emerged over the war in Iraq can be healed, officials say. For example, the U.S. on one side and France, Britain and Germany on the other will have to try to reconcile their approaches to Iran's refusal to abandon its uranium-enrichment program, which could be used for nuclear weapons. The next board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency to discuss Iran is on Nov. 25 -- less than a month after the election.

Decisions will come quickly in Iraq, too, as countries respond to elections set for January. Also outstanding are differences over how to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; how to spread stability across the Middle East; and how to handle Russian President Vladimir Putin's growing authoritarianism.

Officials and analysts say all sides are likely to take one issue at a time, rather than try to hammer out some grand new trans-Atlantic agreement. But it won't be easy.

Take Iran.

U.S. officials say they believe Britain, France and Germany have realized the deal they made in Tehran in October 2003, offering improved trade terms and other incentives in exchange for a suspension of Iran's uranium-enrichment program, has failed. Iran said last month it was restarting its enrichment program.

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, the American point man on antiproliferation, has said the next step should be to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council. But many European officials describe a Security Council referral as a last resort, and reject setting a "hard trigger" -- or automatic referral to the U.N. Security Council -- if Ira[n] failed to meet requirements set by the IAEA's Nov. 25 meeting. They worry it isn't clear what the Security Council would be able to do, while the act of referral could end any chance of getting Tehran to cooperate.

In Europe, meanwhile, officials are weighing ideas for offering Iran a new grand bargain: The U.S. and European Union jointly would promise trade, restored diplomatic relations and guaranteed fuel supplies for Iran's civilian nuclear-power program. In exchange, Iran would offer to give up all activities that could be used to create fuel for a nuclear weapon and cease its support of groups that carry out terrorist acts, including in Israel. Many analysts and even some European officials say the U.S. is unlikely to buy into such a deal.

Some observers say no matter who wins the U.S. election, it will no longer be possible to create a broad Western alliance against terrorism like the anti-Soviet alliance that existed during the Cold War. ...

"The Western alliance is dead," Mr. Ferguson says.

---- Carla Anne Robbins in Washington contributed to this article.

33 posted on 10/04/2004 10:04:17 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Militiaman killed during repressive mission

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Oct 4, 2004

A feared militiaman named Hassan Gooraki, who was terrorizing the residents of Bushehr (located in S. Iran by the Persian Gulf) was killed on Sunday.

The latter was harassing and brutalizing the women of the city for the respect of the Islamic Dress code when he was killed by several young who have been arrested.

The regime's Militia communiqué has qualified the killed agent as a "Martyr assassinated in duty".

Violent means of confrontation with the repressive Islamic regime are alarmingly on the rise, where as more and more, incendiary devices such as Molotov Cocktails, home made grenades, and fire arms are being used by the citizens.

The belief among the populace that the Islamic Republic can not be brought down by "peaceful means" is getting stronger every day.

34 posted on 10/04/2004 10:12:16 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn


Iran at the Tipping Point
The West should help push it over.

I'm ashamed of myself. I haven't written a word about Iran in years, and Iran may be the most important story no one is talking about.

shouldn't say no one. Michael Ledeen has been writing about Iran with a constancy his fans call Churchillian and his enemies call deranged. Ledeen is convinced, as are numerous Iranian activists and exiles, that Iran is poised for a democratic revolution.

Tehran and several other cities have been wracked in recent days with widespread anti-government protests and violent crackdowns by government forces. Buildings have been set ablaze, and exiles are calling for revolution. According to reports on Activistchat.com, a website dedicated to freeing Iran from the oppressive rule of the mullahs, numerous protestors have been killed. Ledeen — who has many sources inside Iran and out — reports that the roundups and executions of young men have picked up at a terrific pace. Iran has staged 120 public hangings since March, according to the government's own news agency.

The unpopularity of the mullahs, primarily with the younger, Western-oriented generation, is causing panic inside the regime. The appeal of revolutionary theocracy has been bled dry. The Christian Science Monitor reported — some would say "reluctantly reported" — that discontent with the regime and a desire for "change" according to various "polls" equals 90 percent. And we all remember those famous soccer games where Iranian fans chanted "USA! USA!"

Even if this weren't such a powerful human-interest story, it would still be appalling how completely the mainstream media have downplayed what could be one of the most important news stories of our lives. If Iran were to throw off the shackles of the mullahocracy in favor of anything like a sane, decent, and democratic regime, it would be the most significant advance for freedom and decency since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It would be a national-security victory of staggering proportions.

So here's why we should all be ashamed we haven't paid more attention to this situation: The only way Iranian regime change will ever come about is if we — Americans, Europeans, the West — want it to. By ignoring the story, the press is in effect lending its support to the corrupt theocrats ruling Iran. One can't help but think this story is particularly inconvenient to those who think no good could ever come, even as a partial result, of the president's foreign policy.

That's especially the case for our enemies and "friends" in the Middle East who are invested in the continuation of tyranny, terrorism, and the status quo. It's not that the Iranian Shiite regime is particularly popular with Arabs or Sunnis or its neighbors in general. But the collapse of that theocracy at the hands the Iranian street would deal a crippling blow to Islamists everywhere, proving that what normal Muslims want is freedom, prosperity, and normalcy, not righteous totalitarianism.

Moreover, Iran is al Qaeda's best friend — and probably the Iraqi insurgency's, too. The Iranians have been sowing discord in Iraq since before Saddam's ouster, and an end to their mischief would go a long way toward stabilizing Iraq. It would also have a profound teaching effect on the entire region that democratic change is inevitable and that everyone should get onboard the freedom train.

There's no end to the potential upside to a democratic transition — even a bloody one — in Iran. The Iranians could no longer give safe harbor to leaders of al Qaeda or support terrorist attacks on U.S. interests. And, oh yeah, it might stop Iran from procuring nuclear weapons.

It may be necessary to use military force to remove the nuclear threat from the Iranians, but it would be a colossal mistake for America to see the nuclear issue as the only thing driving American policy — or, for that matter, to regard military force as the best tool of American policy. Critics of the Bush Doctrine and the Iraq war complain, almost entirely disingenuously, that Iran and North Korea were bigger threats to America than Iraq. That's debatable at best. What is irrefutable, however, is that Iraq was an easier target than either Iran or North Korea.

When the rebels attacked the Death Star in Star Wars, there was a reason they attacked at the battle station's weakest point. Iraq was the Axis of Evil's weakest point. The hope for many of us was that toppling Saddam would set off a chain reaction that would bring the whole thing down.

That can still happen. Critics who lament "instability" in the Middle East miss the point entirely. Instability — the right kind of instability — is exactly what we want. The signs are that the Iranian regime is coming apart. Whether it's inches or miles from the tipping point is impossible to tell. But what is obvious is that without the West's active pressure on the mullahs, and even more active support of the freedom fighters, the tipping point may never come.

So please, start paying attention. I will.

35 posted on 10/04/2004 1:07:28 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Update: Date Change of WDC Press Conference.

Dr. Corsi will be speaking at a press conference scheduled for the week of October 11th in Washington DC by SMCCDI. The topic of that press conference will be Kerry's Iranian connection and Kerry's campaign links to the Mullahcracy.

The Press Conference will not be held on October 11th, 2004.

We will post the exact date and time as soon as it becomes available.
36 posted on 10/04/2004 2:43:14 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith

"It was not closed by the army, it was the Revolutionary Guards"

Guys in uniforms with guns....they don't know the difference.


37 posted on 10/04/2004 9:20:40 PM PDT by nuconvert (Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

I was in such a hurry to read "Unfit for Command" I never really looked at the authors. In addition, the book (and my efforts to obtain it) made me so ANGRY, I didn't keep all the info before I FORCIBLY donated it to the local library, (which was trying to tell me they couldn't obtain it for weeks). I donated it, and now, seven weeks later, they have sent me the card saying I can borrow it, they have ONE copy. Guess what, IT'S THE ONE I DONATED.


38 posted on 10/04/2004 10:07:44 PM PDT by Norski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn


The new airport was closed after a single flight was allowed to land
"Last year 25,350 people died on the roads, that is 5,600 more than three years ago," he said.

What's their population? We (USA) have 50,000 deaths/year in USA, with a population of (appx) 270 million?


39 posted on 10/04/2004 10:11:01 PM PDT by Norski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | 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”

40 posted on 10/04/2004 10:22:01 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