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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

E-mail Author
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version

October 04, 2004, 12:22 p.m.
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.

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.