Skip to comments.Iranian Alert - October 7, 2004 [EST]- IRAN LIVE THREAD - "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"
Posted on 10/06/2004 11:57:22 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 Americans 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.
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 be speaking at a SMCCDI press conference tentatively scheduled for October 14th in Washington DC. An earlier report had announced the cancelled date of 11th. The Movement will issue a press release, later this week, confirming the exact date and place of this event. Other speakers will include the SMCCDI's Coordinator and the members of the defense team. The topic of that press conference will be on Kerry's campaign links and proposals to the Mullahcracy and their ramifications, as well as, Kerry's Iranian connection.
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 Mid-October WDC Press Conference, contact: (214) 906-8181
THE ROOT OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM (Good introduction to the complexities of the War on Terror)
Eurasian Politician ^ | March 2002 | Islamic Terror, Russia, Soviet Union, Chechnya, al-Qaeda,
Posted on 10/06/2004 5:13:06 PM PDT by FearGodNotMen
19 armed Iranian agents arrested in IraqWed. 6 Oct 2004
Iran FocusBaghdad, Oct. 6 Nineteen armed agents of Irans Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) were detained by Iraqi security forces, Iraqi security officials said. The gunmen were arrested in the Iraqi province of Babil carrying large quantities of illegal drugs.
Iraq kept up WMD pretence 'to deter Iran'
Ex-president sure he was safe from US attack
Thursday October 7, 2004
Saddam Hussein refrained from using weapons of mass destruction during the first Gulf war because of the effect it would have had on world opinion, according to the Iraq Survey Group report.
The former Iraqi president was interviewed by interrogators compiling the report into the country's WMD, which paints a picture of a man obsessed with his own place in history as well as his own security. Asked by a US interviewer in 2004 why he had not used WMD against the coalition during Desert Storm in 1991, Saddam replied: "Do you think we are mad? What would the world have thought about us? We would have completely discredited those who had supported us."
The quote is one of the few directly attributed to the former dictator, who was captured in December last year in a hole in the ground underneath the outbuilding of a farmhouse south of Tikrit.
"These discussions were conducted and controlled by one debriefer and spanned several months," the report said. "Some vital insights emerged during these discussions, which elicited views and information that might be considered revelatory. There was no incentive and or motivation for Saddam to co-operate with the debriefer, except to shape his legacy," the report states.
"Saddam is concerned with his place in history and how history will view him. Therefore, Saddam had no choice but to engage his debriefer in both formal and informal discussions on events that occurred during his reign."
The report gives several tantalising glimpses of Saddam's rationale behind his WMD policy.
The report said that he thought WMD saved the regime many times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic mis sile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm Saddam believed WMD had deterred coalition forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait.
When asked, during a custodial interview, whether he would have reinstituted a WMD programme after sanctions were lifted, his answer implied that Iraq would have done what was necessary.
The report also states that Saddam kept up the pretence that Iraq still had WMD capability to frighten Iran, rather than the US or Britain. "He explained that he purposefully gave an ambiguous impression about possession as a deterrent to Iran," the authors wrote.
The report also reveals how far Saddam deluded himself into thinking Iraq was immune from US attack. According to the survey group Saddam apparently calculated that Iraq's natural resources, secular society and dominance in the region would inevitably force the US to deal with Iraq.
The report also gives an insight into Saddam's view of Iraq and himself. Iraq was the natural leader of the Arab world, with Saddam seeing himself as the latest in a long line of great Iraqi leaders, stretching back to Nebuchadnezzar and Saladin.
One of his favourite books was The Old Man and The Sea, Ernest Hemingway's Nobel prize-winning story of one man and his struggles to master the challenges posed by nature. "Saddam tended to characterise, in a very Heming wayesque way, his life as a relentless struggle against overwhelming odds, but carried out with courage, perseverance and dignity," the report notes.
But his rule was driven first by security concerns - survival came first. Saddam told interrogators he had only used a telephone twice since 1990 for fear of being located for a US attack.
He went on a palace and mosque building extravaganza in the late 1990s, employing 7,000 construction workers, when much of the economy was at the point of collapse. "His rationale for this was concern for his personal security. He stated that by building palaces the US would be unable to ascertain his whereabouts and thus target him."
Thursday October 7, 7:55 AM
Click to enlarge
Saddam Hussein was obsessed with his status in the Arab world, dreaming of weapons of mass destruction to pump up his prestige. And even as the United States fixated on him, he was fixated on his neighboring enemy, Iran.
That is the picture that emerges from interrogations of the former Iraqi leader since his capture last December, according to the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector, which gives a first glimpse into what the United States has gleaned about Saddam's hopes, dreams and insecurities.
The report suggests that Saddam tried to improve relations with the United States in the 1990s, yet basked in his standing as the only leader to stand up to the world's superpower.
It says Saddam was determined that if Iran was to acquire nuclear weapons, so was Iraq.
And it says he was a narcissist who cared deeply about his legacy, making sure bricks were molded with his name in hopes people would admire them for centuries to come.
Weapons hunter Charles Duelfer had access to information from U.S. interrogations of Saddam over several months. The former Iraqi dictator apparently talked not because he wanted to help the United States, but because he was concerned with his legacy, the report says.
Much of his motivation in the quest for weapons of mass destruction came from neighboring Iran and the two countries' "long-standing rivalry over the centuries," including the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.
"From Saddam's viewpoint, the Persian menace loomed large and was a challenge to his place in history," the report says.
"This was an important motivation in his views on WMD _ especially as it became obvious that Iran was pursuing the very capabilities he was denied," said the report, which found no evidence that Iraq had produced any such weapons after 1991.
Saddam has been out of sight since his capture from a spider hole near Tikrit last December, except for an appearance in July at a preliminary hearing in Baghdad. Then, he defiantly scoffed at charges of war crimes and mass killings and said the charges had been engineered by President Bush "to help him with his campaign."
Officials have said that interrogations of Saddam, first by the CIA and then by the FBI, have yielded little helpful information about weapons programs and the insurgency in Iraq. But Tuesday's report shows they have provided new insight into his thinking.
Saddam was angry that other Persian Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, enjoyed good standing in the West.
"His regime views the Gulf Arabs as undeserving," the report said. "They did not earn respect; the West simply wanted their oil."
Iran, as much if not more than the United States, motivated his interest in nuclear weapons.
"Nuclear programs were seen by Saddam as both a powerful lever and symbol of prestige," the report. "He also did not want to be second to the Persians."
Despite years of hostility with the United States, Saddam had mixed feelings about the Americans and through the 1990s tested U.S. willingness to open a dialogue, the report said. He sent "very senior Iraqis" to make various proposals, such as assistance with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, working through intermediaries including Duelfer _ the report's author.
At the same time, Saddam got a boost from America's hostility.
"He accrued power and prestige far beyond his inherent weight by positioning himself as the only leader to stand up to the last superpower," the report said.
At a Senate hearing, Duelfer was asked why _ if Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion _ he did not simply comply with U.S. and U.N. demands in an attempt to avert the war. Duelfer said Saddam's instincts were always to negotiate _ to seek something in return before giving something up.
"He had not realized the nature of the ground shift in the international community," after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer said.
Until the end, Saddam saw himself as a great leader of a great nation, the report says. With an eye to history, he had bricks made for use in the historic city of Babylon molded with the phrase, "Made in the era of Saddam Hussein," mimicking the ancient bricks there.
"This narcissism characterizes his actions," the report says. "And while it is not always visible, it is always there."
Iran Says it has Converted Some 'Yellowcake' Uranium
06 Oct 2004, 21:15 UTC
Iran says it has converted several tons of raw uranium - also known as "yellowcake" - into a gas that can be used in making enriched uranium.
Iran's chief delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Hossein Mousavian, said Wednesday the amount was not large and was done only for experimental purposes.
Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution demanding that Iran freeze all enrichment activities. This current move could be seen by some countries as defying the U.N. resolution.
In Vienna, a U.N. atomic agency spokeswoman, Melissa Fleming, said the uranium conversion was being conducted under the close supervision of the IAEA.
At the U.S. State Department, Spokesman Adam Ereli said Iran's latest move "clearly indicates that Iran is continuing its efforts in a nuclear weapons program."
Posted Wednesday, October 6, 2004
By Kamal Nazer Yasin*
At a time when Iran finds itself under increasing international pressure over its nuclear program, the countrys domestic political balance is coming under increasing strain. A new Iranian neo-conservative movement, comprised mostly of young and fervent advocates of Islamic republican ideals, is making a bid to seize control of Irans political agenda.
It is too soon to tell whether the power play by neo-conservatives, many of whom operate under an umbrella group called Abadgaran (The Developers of Islamic Iran), will succeed. If it does, there could be a marked increase in international tension hovering over the Middle East. At the very least, Iran seems destined to experience domestic political turbulence in the immediate future.
The Iranian neo-cons have surprised political observers by moving quickly to advance a hard-line legislative agenda in parliament. The Abadgaran faction has pushed for new laws that effectively hamper foreign investment, make it more difficult for the government to negotiate deals with foreign companies and roll back privatisation plans.
The pending legislation has already caused problems for Iranian diplomacy. President Mohammad Khatami recently was forced to call off a visit to Turkey, where he had planned to sign commercial and security agreements that had been the subject of months of painstaking negotiations.
The law includes two major contracts signed with Turkish firms of Tepe Aftken-Vie, awarded handling of all services at the new Tehran international airport IKIA in the one hand and TurkCell as Irans second mobile telephone operator.
Powerless President Khatami criticised the decision, saying that not only it was against the constitution but also paralyses the action of the government and discredits the president of Iran facing the outside world.
Foreign investors have indicated that if the pending legislation is enacted, existing international business relationships could be severely damaged, if not destroyed. Andreas Gabriel, head of Renaults Iranian subsidiary Renault-Pars told Iranian reporters in Paris that even watered-down legislation could result in a dramatic decline in foreign investment in Iran. "Even if these bills are drastically modified in weeks to come, the result for investors will be profound," he said.
Abadgarans aggressive pursuit of its political vision seems to have caught not only Khatami-aligned reformists off guard, it also has surprised Old-Guard conservatives namely the actual participants in the 1979 Islamic revolution whose idealism has faded over subsequent decades. The young neo-cons still tenaciously believe in the earlier utopian notions of the revolution; a theocratic and authoritarian state structure; an egalitarian and state-owned economic system; and a messianic foreign policy.
Many political observers did not expect drastic change when conservative forces gained control of parliament in the controversial election in February. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Conservatives have only limited public support, and relied heavily on the apathy of the electorate to stage their political comeback. Abadgaran, however, has confounded the expectation that the conservatives would have no choice but to embrace moderation.
A September 24 editorial in the conservative paper Ressalat indicated that many members of the Old Guard believe Abadgaran is trying to take Iran in a dangerous direction. "We had all accepted it that the new parliament should be free of tension and discord particularly with the government," the paper said. "But instead, an image is being formed that sensationalism, politicking, and above all, heady radicalism and extremism are becoming the norm there."
Abadgaran adherents, many of whom have served as commanders in Irans Revolutionary Guard, believe that generation change is needed to safeguard the Islamic revolution. Most are relatively unknown politicians, with little or no public record. This, they hope, can help them gain public approval, or at least a large enough share of it so that they can effectively govern.
Two trends in recent years played key roles in the creation of Abadgaran: the rise of reformists under Khatami at home, and the ascendancy of the Bush administration in Washington harbouring notions of "regime change" in Tehran. The twin threats to conservatives political power in Iran forced a tactical change: Old Guard leaders gave the young neo-cons an opening, hoping to harness the youngsters energy in efforts to neutralize reformists, blunt Bush administration pressure and reinvigorate the stagnant economy.
The rise of Abadgaran certainly helped conservatives outmanoeuvre reformists in the domestic political arena. Now, with the reformists in retreat, Abadgaran members clearly want to develop into the dominant faction within the conservative camp. In striving to do so, the movement has attracted the backing of the Revolutionary Guards and many hardliners within the political and security establishments, as well as a significant number of religiously inclined members of Irans lower and middle classes.
At present, Abadgaran is using parliamentary patronage and favours to expand its support within the broader conservative community. For instance, Parliament recently allocated $800 million to the Imam Rescue Committee, a conservative social welfare organization that was believed to be heading for a major anti-corruption investigation just two months ago. Meanwhile, in an effort to cement good will with hardliners, Abadgaran MPs have worked on legislation that would place the non-partisan Ministry of Intelligence under the control of the conservative-dominated judiciary.
Over the near term, Abadgaran appears determined to crush the reformists as a political force. The experts suggest that Abadgarans recent legislative push is designed to deny reformists a legacy on which they could mount a viable campaign to retain the presidency in the May 2005 election. Some observers also believe Abadgaran may spearhead an effort to impeach members of Khatamis administration, starting with Minister of Road and Transport Ahmad Khorram **.
In the international arena, the neo-conservatives in alliance with other hard-line forces are calling for a more aggressive foreign policy, under which an international effort to place limits on Irans nuclear research is being met with calls for withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In addition, the neo-cons, as the recent flap over control of Tehrans new airport demonstrates ***, want to limit the ability of foreign companies to operate in Iran, and instead seek to award lucrative state contracts to individuals and entities that are aligned with their hard-line agenda.
Members of the Old Guard retain considerable political influence, and there are some early signs that they are unwilling to cede control of the conservative political agenda to Abadgaran. Indeed, the young neo-cons may end up finding that their strongest opponents are their ideological forefathers.
ENDS IRAN SITUATION 61004
Editors Note: *Kamal Nazer Yasin is a pseudonym for a freelance journalist specialising in Iranian affairs.
EurasiaNet published the above article on first of October 2004
** Mr. Khorram was in fact impeached and left the government on 3 October, replaced by his deputy, Mr. Sadeq Bonab.
*** Named after Grand Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini, the leader of he Islamic Revolution of 1979 and founder father of the Islamic Republic, the new Tehran international airport (IKIA) was shut to air traffic on 8 May 2004 hours after it was officially inaugurated by the Armed Forces, on the pretext that awarding handling of services to a foreign firm, in this case an Austrian-Turkish company, endangers Irans national security.
Highlights and some editing are by IPS
TEHRAN, Oct 6: Iran said on Wednesday they will not cede to international demands for the Islamic republic to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, saying Tehran was ready for confrontation or negotiation.
"We have said clearly that we will not apply the second part of the resolution concerning the total suspension of enrichment," Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani told state television.
He was referring to a resolution passed on Sept 18 by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) calling on Iran to "immediately" widen a suspension of enrichment to include all uranium enrichment-related activities - such as making centrifuges, converting yellow cake into UF6 feed gas, and constructing a heavy water reactor.
"We have suspended enrichment voluntarily and we will not accept any constraints," Mr Rowhani added. "To sort out this case, there are two possibilities: Either we find a political solution and close the case (at the IAEA) or we move towards confrontation. We are ready for both."
Iran, facing a Nov 25 deadline, risks being referred to the UN Security Council if it fails to comply. But another official said Iran was continuing to convert uranium.
"Out of the 37 tonnes of yellow cake, a few tonnes has been used and converted. This is an experimental and testing process," Hossein Mousavian, a deputy to Mr Rowhani, told AFP.
He was referring to 37 tonnes of uranium yellow cake which Iran had previously said it would be converting into the gas, uranium hexo flouride (UF6), that is fed into centrifuges to make enriched uranium.
Mr Mousavian nevertheless said that the conversion activities were under the IAEA supervision. "The process of testing has from the beginning been under 100 per cent supervision and control of the IAEA, in the framework of safeguards agreements, the additional protocol and IAEA rules and regulations, and every milligramme of this testing process is controlled by the IAEA," he said.
"The testing process is continuing." And another official said Iran could resume the actual process of enriching uranium within months. Depending on the level of purification, enriched uranium can be used either as fuel for a civilian reactor or as the explosive core of a nuclear bomb. Iran says it only wants to generate electricity.
"Why should we not resume enrichment?" declared Kazem Jalali, spokesman for the Iranian parliament's foreign policy and national security commission, after deputies in the parliament on Tuesday began a legislative drive to force a resumption of enrichment.
"Where in the (nuclear) NPT and in the additional protocol does it say that enrichment is forbidden and therefore it should be stopped? It is our natural right," he continued.
"This bill is an ordinary bill, and it will be dealt with when it is its turn, and I think within a month or 40 days it will be the turn of this bill to be read in the Majlis," said Mr Jalali, a 37-year-old MP from the central city of Shahrud.
"I guess that it will be approved before Nov 25. After the bill is ratified the government has to implement it. I think it would be within months," he said when asked when enrichment could resume.
Speaking in Khartoum, President Mohammad Khatami meanwhile reiterated Tehran's resolve that it was not interested in a nuclear bomb. "Acting in conformity with our religious values and our commitment to the treaty banning proliferation of nuclear weapons, we are not going to produce nuclear weapons," Mr Khatami told reporters at the end of a three-day visit to Sudan.
He, however, declared that Tehran would not give in to foreign pressure aimed at stopping it from a peaceful nuclear energy programme. "We will continue our cooperation with the IAEA but at the same time we will not subdue ourselves or our nuclear programme because of foreign pressure," Mr Khatami said.
"It is our duty and right to use this nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and I'd like to assure the international community that we will not go to the extent of producing nuclear weapons."
ENRICHMENT CONTINUES: Iran said on Wednesday it had processed several tonnes of raw "yellow cake" uranium to prepare it for enrichment - a process that can be used to make atomic weapons.
A spokeswoman for the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the uranium processing was being closely monitored by the IAEA to ensure that nothing would be diverted for weapons purposes.
"The uranium conversion is being conducted under the supervision of the IAEA," spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said. It was unclear how much processed uranium had been produced so far, though Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA, Mr Mousavian, indicated the amount was not large.
"It is an experimental process and we have not entered the industrial phase," Mr Mousavian told Reuters in Tehran. Iran's uranium conversion plant at Isfahan intends to process a total of 37 tonnes of yellow cake, which experts say could be enriched into material for up to five atomic weapons.
The IAEA has installed monitoring cameras at Isfahan to oversee the production of uranium hexafluoride, the feed material for centrifuges used in enrichment. "They (the IAEA) were aware that the production had begun," a diplomat close to the IAEA told Reuters. The diplomat said the production began around 10 days ago.
Mr Mousavian said the oversight was intense, with the agency making certain that "each milligram of the used yellow cake (is) under the IAEA's watch and supervision."
Mr Mousavian reiterated that Iran views enrichment as its "legitimate right". On Tuesday, Iranian radio reported that Iran's conservative-dominated parliament has prepared a bill that would force the government to resume uranium enrichment. -Reuters/AFP
The Ayatollah overthrew the Shah but proceeds to commit the same acts of cruelty to those opposed to the government as the Shah did when he ran the country. Iran has gained nothing since 1979 except more victims because they were opposed to the injustices their government has committed.
"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."
I'm all ears...............any mention of Hillary?
I don't think you can compare the Shah's reign to Khomeini's or Khamenei's.
Welcome to FR
There certainly are parallels. They tortured and killed those who opposed their rule.
TWA Flight 800: Attacked, destroyed, covered-up
Look people; this aircraft was shot down...it was taken out by a foreign submarine, or fast surface boat...the military were tracking the vessel, and it eluded them...it was am arrogant affront to the military...just a taste of what is/was to follow
FYI - The Iranians have diesel-electric subs and some of them are Russian-built. One of those off of NYC would explain why a Navy destroyer would be in the neighborhood as well. That would be source of the theory that "we possibly shot it down" with a Navy missile.
See link for more info:
Iranian Sub Involved in TWA 800, http://www.multipull.com/twacasefile/iransub.html ?
PS - I am not the author of this webpage.
34 posted on 10/07/2004 8:12:59 AM EDT by jriemer
The late Shah of Iran was not so perfect but he was much much better than these Ayatollahs, I guess.
​​​​ TOKYO (Reuters) - The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, said Thursday he hoped Iran would fully suspend its uranium enrichment-related activities and that his agency was working with it to do so.
Iran said Wednesday it had processed several tons of raw "yellowcake" uranium to prepare it for enrichment -- a process that can be used to make atomic weapons -- in defiance of the U.N. watchdog.
"Well, they are doing conversion but they are not enriching uranium," ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told reporters after a meeting with Hiroyuki Hosoda, Japan's chief cabinet minister and top government spokesman.
"I am calling on them obviously to fully suspend all enrichment-related activities as a confidence-boosting measure," he added.
"We are still working with them, the Europeans are working with them and I hope we can move forward in a positive way."
Iran's president said Tehran would not give in to foreign pressure aimed at stopping what he said was a peaceful nuclear energy program, but which the United States says is a covert scheme aimed at building bombs.
An IAEA spokeswoman in Vienna said the uranium processing was being closely monitored by the watchdog to ensure that nothing would be diverted for weapons purposes.
It was unclear how much processed uranium had been produced so far, though Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA, Hossein Mousavian, indicated the amount was not large.
Iran's uranium conversion plant at Isfahan intends to process a total of 37 tons of yellowcake, which experts say could be enriched into material for up to five atomic weapons.
ElBaradei arrived in Tokyo Wednesday for a four-day visit.
The IAEA board of governors passed a resolution last month demanding Iran freeze all activities connected with uranium enrichment, including making feed material for centrifuges.
Tehran had originally promised France, Germany and Britain in October 2003 that it would suspend its entire enrichment program and all related activities. While it has yet to enrich any uranium, Iran never entirely froze the program and recently resumed key parts of it.
If Tehran fails to heed the demands, the board said it would consider possible "further steps" when it meets next month. Diplomats on the board said this included possibly referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which can impose sanctions.
October 07, 2004
The Wall Street Journal
Review & Outlook
One of John Kerry's claims to the White House is that his diplomacy would better control nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea than President Bush's alleged truculence. So it is newsworthy that a spokesman for Tehran's Foreign Ministry has just dismissed out of hand the centerpiece of Mr. Kerry's arms-control offer to the mullahs.
Senator Kerry has promised to provide a steady supply of nuclear fuel to Iran if it will dismantle its own atomic-fuel-making capability. But the New York Sun reports that Tehran spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi sniffed at the idea on the weekend, calling it "irrational" because "We have the technology and there is no need for us to beg from others." On Iran's present course, he's right.
The problem with the Kerry approach is that it is an arms-control illusion. Arms treaties can succeed between well-intentioned democracies, such as the U.S. and Canada. But they will never work to constrain the nuclear ambitions of an adversary determined to lie. We learned that the hard way with the North Koreans in 2002, when they unilaterally reneged on the Agreed Framework that the Clinton Administration had signed in 1994. For the rest of the 1990s we fooled ourselves that Pyongyang had abandoned its nuclear goals, only to discover later that it had two nuclear programs, not just one.
Mr. Kerry is now promising to negotiate directly with North Korea in hopes of signing another such deal. As it happens, within 48 hours of Mr. Kerry's one-on-one negotiating pledge last Thursday, the North Korean government called off all nuclear discussions with South Korea. ...
New York Sun Staff Editorial
October 7, 2004
The drumbeat of disclosures about Iran's nuclear weapons program increases the likelihood that at tomorrow night's debate, President Bush will be asked about Iran. Vice President Cheney and Senator Edwards got into the Iran issue Tuesday night in their debate, and, at first glance, it seemed like a convoluted role reversal. Mr. Edwards complained, "They ceded responsibility to dealing with it to the Europeans." Wait - isn't that Senator Kerry's plan for dealing with Iraq?
Mr. Cheney said, "We've got sanctions on Iran now, we may well want to go to the U.N. Security Council and ask for even tougher sanctions if they don't live up to their obligations under the initial - the International Atomic Energy Agency, a nonproliferation treaty."
Yet Mr. Bush lectured Mr. Kerry last week: "We've already sanctioned Iran. We can't sanction them anymore."
Mr. Cheney explained in the debate: "We're working with the Brits and the Germans and the French, who have been negotiating with the Iranians. We recently were actively involved in meeting with the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. And as I say, there will be a follow-up meeting in November, to determine whether or not Iran's living up to their commitments and obligations, and if they aren't, my guess is then the Board of Governors will recommend sending the whole matter to the United Nations Security Council for the application of international sanctions, which I think would be exactly the right way to go."
The Germans and the French? Weren't they the ones Mr. Bush was talking about yesterday when he said, "the senator would have America bend over backwards to satisfy a handful of governments with agendas different from our own." (Excerpts of Mr. Bush's remarks appear at page 11.)
The "Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency" and "the United Nations Security Council"? Weren't they the ones Mr. Bush was talking about yesterday when he said, "I'll never hand over America's security decisions to foreign leaders and international bodies that do not have America's interests at heart"?
We're tempted to suggest that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney debate the matter, but we're afraid Mr. Bush would lose: not on the substance, but on debating style.
Anyway, our sources have tried to clear things up for us in such a way that sophisticated viewers of tomorrow night's debate - and voters on Election Day - may want to keep in mind. When Mr. Cheney talks about bringing Iran to the U.N. Security Council and imposing international sanctions, he's not doing because he has any actual faith in the efficacy of such sanctions. He knows that the United Nations is widely discredited. Just this week, the U.N. was unapologetically acknowledging its practice of employing members of the Hamas terrorist group as "relief workers" in the West Bank and Gaza. And the interim Iraqi government was accusing a U.N. official in charge of the sanctions on Iraq, Benon Sevan, of having personally received oil rights from Saddam Hussein that were worth $1.2 million.
Instead, taking the Iran file to the U.N. Security Council and imposing sanctions that Iran will violate is a trap that will allow America to portray the regime in Tehran, as, like Saddam Hussein, a violator of international law. It sets the stage for American action either to disarm Iran or to change the regime in Tehran, as America did in Baghdad. The wisdom of such a strategy can be debated - it's hard to believe that Security Council members like Russia and Red China, which have aided Iran's nuclear and missile programs, will now side against it. But America went to the U.N. before liberating Iraq, too. When it came down to it, Mr. Bush was not deterred by opposition from permanent members of the Security Council.
When the Kerry-Edwards team talks about the French and the United Nations, though, they are not doing so as a prelude to American action. The senators are doing so in the misguided belief that the collection of corrupt bureaucrats and ambassadors of dictatorships that sit at Turtle Bay can actually be relied upon to protect America.
It is a dangerous delusion. And it is a difference that, for all the mixed messages, Mr. Bush actually articulated yesterday with impressive clarity.
Thursday night's fragmented argument over Kerry's championing of bilateral talks with North Korea and Bush's insistence on the value of multilateral talks illustrated the triumph of verbal dexterity over reality.
Kim Jong Il is interested in nuclear bombs, not in a particular format for talks. His covert betrayal of the nonproliferation agreement struck with a trusting Democratic administration and its overt belligerent defiance of Bush's tougher approach make that clear. But neither Kerry nor Bush could voice that inconvenient reality Thursday night.
|9:30 AM 10/14/2004|
|Event Type:||News Conference|
|Event Name:||Islamic Regime Influence|
|Event Location:||First Amendment Lounge|
|Details:||Islamic Regime Influence in USA
Contact: Aryo Pirouzima @214-906-8181
Tehran, Iran, Oct. 7 (UPI) -- An Iranian military official said Thursday his country would launch its first homemade satellite into space during the next Persian year, which starts in March.
Deputy Defense Minister for Space Affairs Nasser Maliki was quoted by the Iranian News Agency as saying the satellite would orbit the earth at low altitudes varying between 100 and 400 kilometers (about 60 to 250 miles).
"It is a small satellite which will prove the capacity of the Islamic Republic of Iran in space technology," Maliki said, noting that only 10 countries in the world possess satellites at present.
He said Iran also improved its missile production and technology in recent years and is manufacturing tens of surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles with longer ranges.
"We are on the threshold of entering the international space club ... Until 1998 we were producing short-range missiles and today we are into the production of long-range surface-to-surface missiles like Shihab 1 and 2 which deter the enemy," he said.
Iran to launch first homemade satellite
Tehran, Iran, Oct. 7 (UPI)
the Shah tortured and killed Communists and Islamic Fundamentalists. Same thing we're doing in the middle east, so are we also tyrants like the Shah? Or shall we have a double standard, Shah was a tyrant for killing Fundamentalists, but our country killing them is just?
you missed the point. What was one of the Ayatollah reasons for overthrowing the Shah. I didn't say what some of our troops did was right. It sounds like you think we shouldn't be there. You must be in favor of a global test maybe.
What Freedom said is correct. The Shah didn't target just anyone who was an opponent, like the current regime does.
He went after the mullahs and communists.
What exactly is your point?
The point is the regime that replaced the other does the same thing. I don't think you need a scoreboard to count the numbers. It shouldn't make a difference if they were communist, mullah or opposed to the regime. Killing and torture is killing and torture.
When is it okay to kill your enemies? Or maybe you don't think it's ever okay?
That's not what I'm saying. I don't advocate murder and torture. When you're going against enemies in battle that's one thing. It's another thing to imprison them and then torture or kill them.