Iranian Alert - October 7, 2004 [EST]- IRAN LIVE THREAD - "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2005: Annus Horribilis

October 06, 2004
Townhall.com
Tony Blankley

If you think the last three years have been rough, just wait a few months. Compounding the lethal threat of Islamic terrorism, 2005 will be the year of decision for the world on what to do -- or not do -- about quickly nuclearizing North Korea and Iran. In the month left before the presidential election, the American people have a right to demand to know from both George Bush and John Kerry precisely what they will or won't accept and do about these appalling developments.

Two news stories in the past week bring the danger into better focus. Last Friday, the Associated Press reported that: "Amid heightened concerns of a North Korean missile test, a U.S. destroyer has started patrolling the Sea of Japan in what officials say is a first step toward creating a shield to protect the United States and its allies from a foreign missile attack." North Korea responded to the news by asserting that "The U.S. should clearly understand that a preemptive attack is not its monopoly."

Two days later, Reuters reported that Iran rebuffed a proposal by John Kerry to supply them with nuclear fuel if they agreed to give up their own fuel-making capacity. "We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel), and there is no need for us to beg from others," Reuters quoted the Iranian government.

Regarding the North Korean threat, Jim Hoagland, the Washington Post's esteemed and balanced foreign affairs columnist, wrote over the weekend:

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.

The same could be said about both candidates' public comments regarding Iran's nuclear objectives. They both debate various modalities of working with Britain, France, Russia and the United Nations to induce Iran to stand down from her nuclear aspirations.

The grim reality is that neither country would appear to have any intention of backing down. Thus, very soon (if not already) the world will be faced with two new nuclear powers, one led by a lunatic, and the other led by fanatical Islamists committed to rolling back the advance of Western Civilization and wiping out Israel.

North Korea is notorious for selling their most advanced weapons to the highest bidder, while Iran is the world's premier backer of terrorists. But even if they were not to proliferate their dreaded nuclear capacity, they both must be presumed to be willing to use such weapons either actually, or as blackmail devices, for their own state purposes.

It is not for nothing that President Bush listed Iran and North Korea, along with Iraq, as the Axis of Evil in his 2002 State of the Union Address. At the time, commentators giggled and smirked at the metaphor. But whether they constitute an axis, or are merely separate sources of extreme danger, three years on the danger is no longer theoretical -- but imminently actual.

And, as it is increasingly apparent, even extreme international diplomatic blocking actions are not likely to stop Iran and North Korea from their nuclear quest.

So, if diplomacy fails, what will the president of the United States do about it in 2005? President Bush has said that such nuclear status is unacceptable, but continues to express confidence in diplomacy. Unlike Mr. Kerry, the president is committed to making operational a missile defense system. While that is necessary, regretfully, it will not be up and running in time to constitute a full check against the imminent threat.

Mr. Kerry continues to limit himself to expressing confidence in his ability to solve the danger diplomatically. Also, and significantly, unlike the president, he opposes the development of nuclear "bunker-buster" technology, which is being developed specifically to deal with North Korea's and Iran's nuclear capabilities.

It is understandable that in a closely fought presidential election, neither candidate would find it appealing to talk of his contingent plans for war with a possible nuclear adversary. It would be even less appealing, one supposes, for either candidate to admit that if it came to it, he would just accept the nuclear status of Iran and North Korea and hope for the best.

But I, for one, would like to know which candidate, if either, would acquiesce to such conditions and which, if either, would be prepared to fight.

So far, a remarkably incurious Washington press corps has not chosen to challenge the candidates to explain beyond their platitudinous paeans to the doubtful efficacy of diplomacy in the face of belligerent madness.

A 5,000-Year First

[Excerpt]
October 07, 2004
Zalmay Khalilzad
The Wall Street Journal

KABUL -- More than 10 million Afghans will have the opportunity to cast ballots to choose their president on Saturday, in the first direct election for head of state in the nation's 5,000-year history.

Three years ago, few predicted that Afghans could reach this historic milestone. Yet with the world's assistance, they have seized the moment and are now poised to take another major stride toward joining the ranks of the world's democratic nations.

* * *

After the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan faced enormous challenges, the lack of a legitimate political system, the existence of warlords with private militias, the absence of effective national institutions -- and desperate poverty. Though none of these problems has been fully overcome, significant progress is now being made against all.

Step by step, the Afghans are rebuilding an effective state and political system. At last year's Constitutional Loya Jirga (or political assembly), they approved the most progressive constitution not only in Afghan history, but also in the Islamic world. At the loya jirga, all political groups accepted a set of rules for deciding who governs, as well as on the limits of state power. And all ethnic groups -- Pushtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, and others -- are fully vested in the constitutional process to elect the president, the parliament, and provincial and local councils.

The embrace of democracy: Hamid Karzai clings to support at a campaign stop in Ghazni, outside Kabul.

Afghans, with the support of the international community, are breaking the back of warlordism. Customs revenues increasingly flow to the national government, rather than to the pockets of regional strongmen. President Hamid Karzai has appointed new governors and police chiefs in most of the country's provinces. He has removed leaders with private militias from positions of military command or transferred them away from the regions in which their personal networks and bases of power were entrenched.

Most of the heavy weapons in the country -- and all of those in the capital of Kabul -- have been cantoned under the control of the Afghan National Army (ANA). A national agreement on the demobilization of militias has resulted in about 15,000 fighters -- about one-third of the total -- returning to civilian life and will see all militias disbanded by the middle of next year.

The job is not done, but the days of those who have conducted themselves as warlords are numbered. The warlords know it. The sun is setting on their way of life. Some seek to reform their ways, cutting their ties with the dying institution of private militias and looking to find their place in emerging national institutions. Those who do not reform ultimately will have no place of power or prestige in the new Afghanistan.

At the same time, Afghanistan's national institutions are taking shape. The Afghan National Army now numbers more than 15,000 troops, with deployments underway and regional commands being established in every region.

Progress is accelerating toward the goal of a 70,000-troop force. Average Afghans often say, "Where the ANA goes, stability follows." More than 28,000 members of the national police have undergone initial training and equipping. The Afghan government has launched a program to rebuild its administrative capacity in the more than 350 district centers.

Year-on-year progress in state building has been significant. Though much remains to be done, momentum is clearly gathering.

Economically, Afghanistan has experienced a peace dividend of growth rates in the legal economy exceeding 15% for three years. Inflation is low, and the new currency is maintaining a stable exchange rate. Several banks have started doing business in Kabul and other cities. Agricultural production is increasing steadily. Thousands of new small businesses have opened.

The rebuilding of the country's primary roads -- led by the U.S.-Japanese-Saudi work on the Kabul-Kandahar-Herat highway -- is well under way. The ring road and the links to regional networks, all of which are scheduled for completion in the next three years, will recreate the Afghan land bridge between Central Asia, South Asia and Southwest Asia, and re-establish a historic market that now accounts for more than $4 trillion.

The best market test to understand how Afghans view the future is the fact that 3.3 million refugees have returned from Pakistan and Iran since 2002 -- the largest voluntary repatriation in history. These refugees would not return unless they believed the quality of life for their families was better in Afghanistan.

* * *

While a positive trajectory exists in all of these areas, Afghans and their friends know that challenges remain.

The remnants of the Taliban and other terrorist organizations continue to conduct a low-grade insurgency from sanctuaries in neighboring countries. The explosion of opium production will need to be reversed in coming years, through concerted action to suppress production and provide alternative livelihoods.

In speaking with Afghans, they say that life is immeasurably better than under the Taliban, and that they are profoundly grateful for the help received from the United States and the rest of the world. However, we all know that, to succeed fully in Afghanistan, we must sustain the positive momentum developed to date for at least five years. ...

Mr. Khalilzad is Special Presidential Envoy and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan.

Dragging A Neighbour Into Anarchy

October 07, 2004
National Post
Nooredin Abedian

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently told the International Herald Tribune that "Iran is providing support for the insurgency in Iraq." He added, however, that "the extent of its influence over insurgent forces is not clear."

But it is very clear to Iraqis themselves -- including Iraq's Defence Minister, Hazem Shaalan. Being on the terrorists' hit-list himself, having recently lost a cousin to terrorism and having had an uncle kidnapped during last month's unrest in the city of Najaf, Mr. Shaalan cannot be blamed for rejecting Mr. Powell's diplomatic formulations. He told The Washington Post in July that Iran remained "the first enemy of Iraq," charging it with sending spies and saboteurs into his country and infiltrating the new government, including his own ministry.

Theoretically, the Iranians should have little motive for supporting Iraq's guerrillas and terrorists. Iran is largely a nation of Shiite Muslims. The same religious group constitutes a majority of Iraq's citizens, and so Shiites will likely get their way when expected elections are held next year. Moreover, the most influential and organized Iraqi Shiite parties are deeply influenced by Iran, ideologically as well as politically. During Saddam Hussein's rule, many of Iraq's Shiite leaders lived in Iran. Some Iraqi groups were even founded in Iran under direct Iranian influence, with their leaders publicly calling Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei their marja (religious guide).

The wisest course for Tehran, one would think, would be to permit a smooth transition of power following elections, and then extend influence through friendly Shiite intermediaries in Baghdad's new government. Even if the United States military were still stationed in Iraq at that time, Washington would hardly be in a position to confront a nation designated an ally by a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government.

Yet an overwhelming array of facts show Iran has embraced the opposite strategy. In September, Mr. Shaalan displayed an array of weapons with Iranian markings that had been captured from insurgents in Najaf after they were forced out of that city's Shiite shrines following days of bloody fighting. Dozens of Iranians captured during the clashes were shown on Iraqi television.

According to Iran's official press, there are currently more than 1,200 Iranians in custody in Iraq. Iraqi media has recently reported that a truckload containing 1,800 82 mm-mortar rounds, three mortar launchers, 250 Katyusha rockets and large quantities of explosives was seized in transit from Iran to Iraq. Iranian independent opposition sources say 4,000 Shiite clerics from Iran have been sent to Iraq since the fall of Saddam's regime. According to the same sources, thousands of Revolutionary Guards disguised as religious pilgrims have also been dispatched.

Why is Iran stirring up Iraq's guerrilla war when it might just as easily profit from a smooth transition to democracy?

The answer lies in Iran's domestic affairs: If Iran, a dictatorship, were to permit a truly democratic political structure to take root next door, it would only provide encouragement to the millions of young Iranians who have been militating for similar reforms back home.

Though Iran and Iraq fought a long and deadly war in the 1980s, the affairs of the two nations are heavily interrelated. Last year, more than five million people crossed the 750-mile-long unguarded Iran-Iraq border, many of them religious pilgrims (and this according to official figures, which are likely lower than the true numbers). Several hundred thousand Iraqis took refuge in Iran during Saddam's rule, married Iranians, and are now travelling back and forth. Two peoples with such a huge volume of religious, cultural, commercial and political ties cannot long be expected to live under totally political different regimes.

For the clerics ruling Iran, the solution is clear. Ayatollah Ali Meshkini, speaker of Iran's Assembly of Experts, an exclusive body of clerics that appoints the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, recently urged Iraqi leaders to "expel the occupiers and establish an Islamic government." And if that doesn't happen, Tehran would gladly accept ongoing bloodshed as a second choice.

Iran's rulers loathed Saddam's regime, but they at least took comfort in the fact that his Baathist political model did not pose much threat to Iran's domestic order. The same cannot be said of a democratic Iraq. Thus is Iran using its violent proxies to help tear the country apart.

In the long run, promoting stability in Iraq will require democratization in Iran -- for Tehran's theocrats will never accept a democracy on their western border. Until that day, the United States and other Western nations should hold Tehran to account for the violence and chaos it is deliberately fomenting. It is bad enough that 70 million Iranians must live under tyranny. Iraq's population must not be allowed to suffer the same fate.

nooredinabedian@mail.com; Nooredin Abedian is a writer living in France, and a former university professor in Iran.

Iran to launch first homemade satellite

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.

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.

9:30 AM 10/14/2004
Event Type:	News Conference
Event Name:	Islamic Regime Influence
Sponsored by:	SMCCDI
Event Location:	First Amendment Lounge
Details:	Islamic Regime Influence in USA Contact: Aryo Pirouzima @214-906-8181