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

Skip to comments.

Iranian Alert - October 8, 2004 [EST]- IRAN LIVE THREAD - "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"
Americans for Regime Change in Iran ^ | 10.7.2004 | DoctorZin

Posted on 10/07/2004 9:10:00 PM PDT by DoctorZIn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DoctorZin



TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: armyofmahdi; ayatollah; cleric; humanrights; iaea; insurgency; iran; iranianalert; iranquake; iraq; islamicrepublic; jayshalmahdi; journalist; kazemi; khamenei; khatami; khatemi; lsadr; moqtadaalsadr; mullahs; persecution; persia; persian; politicalprisoners; protests; rafsanjani; revolutionaryguard; rumsfeld; satellitetelephones; shiite; southasia; southwestasia; studentmovement; studentprotest; terrorism; terrorists; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin

1 posted on 10/07/2004 9:10:00 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

2 posted on 10/07/2004 9:11:42 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran cleric denies wealth rumours

Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani (image from 1999)
Rafsanjani is one of Islamic Iran's most influential figures
A former Iranian president has publicly denied amassing great wealth after stubborn rumours of a business ranging from pistachio nuts to airlines.

Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who now leads Iran's powerful Expediency Council, said he was no richer than before the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

"The total value of all my belongings today is not even close to the value of the house I owned [then]," he said.

It is unclear what prompted him to deny rumours going back many years now.

He told religious students in the holy city of Qom that he only possessed two pieces of land.

"Except for these, there is nothing registered under my name and I am managing my life with a normal income," he was quoted as saying by the Iranian state news agency, Irna.

Mr Rafsanjani, president from 1989 to 1997, said he was proud that after 25 years in high office his assets were a tenth of what he had once possessed.

Correspondents say it is rare for Iran's clerics to comment on their personal affairs.


3 posted on 10/07/2004 9:12:01 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

More than 650 female students stage protest in Tehran

Thu. 7 Oct 2004

Iran Focus

Tehran, Oct. 7 - More than 650 female students of Allameh Tabatabai University in Tehran staged a demonstration late Monday afternoon in protest against the dire state of their boarding houses.

Students complained of a lack of basic commodities such as drinkable water and telephone facilities as well as unhygienic meals, according to eye-witnesses.

Many of the young women mostly in their late teens complained about the ‘dysfunctional transport system’.

Anti-riot police had been dispatched to the gates of the university ‘to bring about an atmosphere of fear and to arrest anyone who might dare to shout slogans against the regime itself’, according to one eye-witness.

Iran’s new academic year started 2 weeks ago near the end September.

It has also been reported that students from the Teachers Training College in the town of Sabzevar, northeastern Iran, staged a demonstration against the government’s failure to see to their welfare requirements.


4 posted on 10/07/2004 9:12:17 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran Wants Syria Cooperation in Face of U.S. Pressure

Thu Oct 7, 2004 04:57 PM ET
DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said on Thursday Syria and Iran had to cooperate for the sake of peace in the Middle East and in the face of pressure from the United States.

"These pressures have always existed and we have to neutralize them through our cooperation," the official news agencies of both countries reported Khatami as saying in Damascus at the start of his visit to Syria.

Khatami's visit comes at a time when Tehran and Damascus are facing mounting U.S. pressure over allegedly seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction and for supporting anti-Israeli militant groups.

Tehran says it will not give in to foreign pressure to halt what it calls a peaceful nuclear energy program but which the United States says is a covert scheme to build nuclear bombs.

Khatami said his talks with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will focus on ways of maintaining stability in the Middle East in view of escalated Israeli violence and developments in neighboring Iraq. Both Syria and Iran strongly opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"In our meetings we will try to cooperate toward ensuring calm and stability in the crisis-ridden Middle East region," Khatami said. "The situation is getting more perilous because of the inhuman and violent actions of the Zionist regime."

Syria's support for Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups and allegations Damascus was pursuing weapons of mass destruction were among key reasons behind U.S. economic sanctions in May.

Washington also wants Syria to seal its border with Iraq because of anti-U.S. insurgents and to pull its troops out of neighboring Lebanon where Damascus keeps around 14,000 soldiers under a bilateral deal with Beirut.

5 posted on 10/07/2004 9:12:34 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran will improve Shahab-3 missiles

TEHRAN: Iran intends to further improve its Shahab-3 missiles, which already have a claimed range of 2,000 kilometres, a senior official was quoted as saying on Thursday.

“The Shahab-3 missile has a range of 2,000 kilometres,” Nasser Maleki, deputy director of Iran’s aerospace industry organisation, was quoted as saying.

“Very certainly we are going to improve our Shahab-3 missile and all of our other missiles.” When asked if Iran intended to produce longer-range ballistic missiles — such as a Shahab-4 — a device that would involve a two-stage propulsion system and possibly bring European capitals within range — the official replied only that “we are at the level of the Shahab-3”.

Steady progress made by Iran on its ballistic missile programme is a major cause for concern for the international community, already alarmed over the country’s nuclear activities. On August 11, Iran tested an upgraded version of its Shahab-3 missile, which is believed to be based on a North Korean design. Previous figures had put the missile’s range at between 1,300 and 1,700 kilometres, already bringing archenemy Israel and US bases in the region well within range. afp

6 posted on 10/07/2004 9:12:49 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Hey, like the new banner at the top.


7 posted on 10/07/2004 9:17:18 PM PDT by nuconvert (Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

LOL! Poor Rafsanjani. "Except for these, there is nothing registered under my name" Lol.
What a Joke!


8 posted on 10/07/2004 9:21:07 PM PDT by nuconvert (Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Yesterday, I heard something that made me sit up and take notice -- then the details got lost when I had to miss part of it. On Fox News they were saying something about an "October Surprise", and seemed to be hinting at the fact that Israel is planning on taking some kind of big action against Iran.... anybody even see that?
I remember thinking, gee, dont hurt the people in Iran...


9 posted on 10/07/2004 9:28:05 PM PDT by onyx eyes (............just act normal........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
RUSSIAN RUMINATIONS ON THE PROSPECT OF A NUCLEAR IRAN

By Mark N. Katz

While some Russian observers maintain stoutly that there is no evidence that Iran is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, others privately indicate that Moscow recognizes this is exactly what Tehran is trying to do. Furthermore, the administration of Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly concerned about the implications of a nuclear-armed Iran for Russia. Moscow, though, does not see itself as able to stop this from happening. But others may be able to. During a recent conversation in Moscow, one Russian scholar with close ties to the Kremlin stated that Putin sees himself as being in a dilemma regarding Iran. On the one hand, he does not want to see Tehran acquire nuclear weapons both because of the threat from Iran this might pose to Russia, and because this could encourage proliferation of nuclear weapons to other Middle Eastern countries that have -- or may eventually have -- governments more hostile to Moscow.

On the other hand, the source said, while Putin realizes that the nuclear reactor Russia is building for Iran in Bushehr will help Tehran acquire nuclear weapons, he does not want Russia to stop work on it. To do so would be seen as Moscow backing down to U.S. pressure. Further, those in the Russian nuclear industry and others who want to continue building the reactors are arguing that if Russia stops work at Bushehr, U.S. or other Western firms might step in to finish the reactor and build others if, say, their is an Iranian-U.S. rapprochement similar to the recent Libyan-American one. The source also said that statements by prominent U.S.-based organizations such as the independent Council on Foreign Relations calling for an Iranian-American rapprochement are viewed by the Kremlin as evidence that such a rapprochement might soon occur. According to him, Putin does not understand that such statements have little influence over U.S. foreign policy, and that even if the U.S. president wanted to change course on Iran, getting Congress to lift U.S. sanctions against Tehran would be extremely difficult -- and without such a move, an Iranian-American rapprochement is unlikely. Another Russian observer, a specialist on nuclear issues, said that Moscow should never have signed the deal with Iran to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor, but since it did so, the Putin administration feels that it must finish the job. But Moscow, he too argued, is increasingly nervous about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The best solution to this problem, according to him, would be for what has already been built at Bushehr to be destroyed either by the United States or Israel.

The Putin administration, the observer predicted, would publicly denounce such a move in the strongest terms, but would actually be relieved. For this would both end the Iranian nuclear weapons program and forestall any unwelcome -- from the Russian perspective -- U.S.-Iranian rapprochement. Russia would offer to rebuild Bushehr -- if Iran would pay for it again. Even if Tehran did, this project would take years and years to complete. When asked about reports that Tehran has hidden, hardened facilities that would enable the Iranian nuclear program to survive even the destruction of Bushehr, the nuclear specialist responded that while he believes Iran does have other facilities where it is working on nuclear weapons, the spent fuel from the Bushehr reactor would still be needed to fabricate them. Thus, without Bushehr, there can be no Iranian nuclear weapons. Iranian statements that is has hardened facilities elsewhere are apparently intended to convince the United States that an attack on Bushehr would not end the Iranian nuclear program even though it actually would. But it would be better for Moscow, he said, if Bushehr were to be destroyed by Israel and not the United States. A U.S. attack on Iran would whip up anti-American hysteria in Europe and elsewhere that would be difficult for Moscow not to go along with without appearing acquiescent or even complicit in the destruction of Bushehr. An attack on Iran by Israel, by contrast, would allow Moscow to condemn Tel Aviv while maintaining reasonably cooperative relations with Washington.

Such sentiments by observers, of course, do not necessarily reflect a desire on the part of the Putin administration to encourage the destruction of Bushehr. Indeed, when a Russian Foreign Ministry official was asked whether it would better for Moscow if this were undertaken by the U.S. or by Israel, he pointedly responded, "By neither!" What these statements do reflect, though, is a growing Russian unease about the prospects of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons as well as the sense (whether accurate or not) that Moscow cannot do much to prevent this.

Mark N. Katz is a professor of government and politics at George Mason University. This piece is based on conversations he had in Moscow in September with several Russian scholars. source: RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 8, No. 191, Part III, 7 October 2004
10 posted on 10/07/2004 10:00:21 PM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Poor Rafsanjani. "Except for these, there is nothing registered under my name" Lol. What a Joke!

Maybe he has transferred his assets to his children?...
11 posted on 10/07/2004 10:02:04 PM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; DrZin

Putin very well might welcome the assistance (even if he indicates exactly the opposite).

I believe he will have his hands full in just a couple of days.

The FORTY-DAY MOURNING PERIOD for the TERRORIST SCHOOL MASSACRE is about to end!


12 posted on 10/07/2004 10:09:39 PM PDT by Norski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Iran 's Threat to Religious Liberty
Janet Parshall
Beyond The News Commentary

October 7, 2004
  
Iran remains the centerpiece of what President Bush calls the "axis of evil."

While most global concern revolves around that country's ability to amass nuclear weapons, there is a threat of another kind.

Recently 80 Christian leaders attending a religious conference in Tehran were arrested and questioned in a police raid; the detainees being driven for hours with their eyes blindfolded to disorientate them.

Officials in Tehran have been known for their harassment of churchgoers and for their monitoring of Christian churches.


Iran follows Shari'a law, which prohibits anyone from sharing his or her faith if it is not Muslim.

Iran has also told Christian groups to submit the names of those who attend their churches but so far that demand has not been meet.

The General Secretary of the Assemblies of God in Iran was killed because he would not sign a document stating that he would prevent Muslims from entering his churches.

The world watches to see if Iran will become even more of a threat, but we must never overlook the reality that they already are a real threat to religious liberty.
 
I'm Janet Parshall.

13 posted on 10/07/2004 11:14:45 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Kerry and Iran
Conservative Punk Magazine - Editorial

Oct 8, 2004

Kerry and Iran

In an atmosphere where the crosshairs of the global war on terrorisms are clearly trained on the state of Iran, not only for its blatant and arrogant support of groups like Hezbollah, but also for its continued effort to produce weapons of mass destruction, John Kerry is proving himself to be an ally to those seeking to impede internal revolution which would draw to a close the era of the Islamo-Fascist Mullahocracy.

The regimes apologists include Democrat favorite Hassan Nemazee, who is known to have given $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the re-election campaign of Bill Clinton, and is now John Kerry's main Iranian fundraiser (having raised over $100,000 during this election cycle alone). So established within the Democratic party was Nemazee that he was nominated to the post of U.S. ambassador to Argentina in 1999 by Clinton, however was forced to eventually withdrew his nomination under the weight of numerous business scandals.

Nemazee has recently brought a bogus 10 million dollar slander lawsuit upon the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI), as well as it's coordinator Aryo B. Pirouznia. The SMCCDI, is a well known organization, embedded in the struggle for freedom in Iran and, most certainly, a friend of Conservative Punk and freedom loving people around the world. This lawsuit is meant not only to muzzle the SMCCDI, but to destroy it, thus halting its valuable operations. However, this lawsuite will prove to have the opposite effect, as stated on the SMCCDI website, "opening a Pandora's box for the Islamic regime's lobbyists and affiliates in the US and the Democratic Presidential nominee."

So it comes as no surprise then that Kerry's policy toward Iran seems to be Clinton-esq North Korean bargaining tactics at best, or Chamberlain style Nazi appeasement at worst. It would seem to be, in fact, pro-Islamo-Fascist, reflecting the opinions of his Iranian money men, whom are not limited to Nemazee, but include several other high level fund raisers. In what should be considered a shocking statement, nearly ignored by the mainstream press, Kerry stated during the September 30th debate with President Bush, "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes", this is similar to saying that we should issue guns to prison inmates in order to gauge their ability to be trusted. It's foolishness undeniably raises questions about Kerry's ability to lead a war against the enemies of freedom. Mr. Kerry's stance on Iran will be soft, or perhaps it will be in his words a "kinder, gentler" stance on Iran.

Such fraternization with Fascist apologists by an American political party should not, and can not, be tolerated, especially within todays global parameters. With the stakes as high as they are, the company John Kerry keeps should be considered by the American people. We must challenge the mainstream press to bring these developments to light, and expose the depth to which the Iranian, pro-totalitarian lobby has infiltrated the Democratic party.

14 posted on 10/07/2004 11:18:47 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
But demonstrations are "rare" in Iran according to reuters . I guess reuters didn't catch this one either.
15 posted on 10/07/2004 11:32:17 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

We should start a charity for the poor bastard.


16 posted on 10/07/2004 11:34:05 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; F14 Pilot; Cyrus the Great; Persia; RunOnDiesel; faludeh_shirazi; Reza2004; democracy; ..


Army Specialist Omead Razani, 19, First Iranian-American Solider killed in Iraq.

"Be a lamp, or a lifeboat, or a ladder. Help someone’s soul heal.” - Rumi
17 posted on 10/07/2004 11:37:39 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn


Photo of Dr. Ahura Yazdi with Persian blonde in the 1970's.
18 posted on 10/07/2004 11:46:49 PM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: freedom44; RaceBannon; downer911; McGavin999; nuconvert; sionnsar; onyx; MEG33

Sad to hear this. I am proud that Iranians serve the US Armed forces.

SALUTE TO THE SOUL OF THE BRAVE PERSIAN FIGHTER, Omid (Omead), who died for good goals.


19 posted on 10/08/2004 1:50:49 AM PDT by Khashayar (R E S P E C T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith

Sure. His cat probably has more registered under its name than he does. lol.


20 posted on 10/08/2004 4:03:45 AM PDT by nuconvert (Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: onyx eyes
On Fox News they were saying something about an "October Surprise", and seemed to be hinting at the fact that Israel is planning on taking some kind of big action against Iran.... anybody even see that?

BUMP

21 posted on 10/08/2004 5:18:04 AM PDT by Reborn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran goes nuclear

By Paul Greenberg

Here's how the deal works, or rather how it doesn't: Iran continues playing games with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which continues passing resolutions demanding Iran end its nuclear program — resolutions Iran continues ignoring. In the latest round of play, the mullahs have announced they won't honor an earlier promise to suspend their nuclear programs. Is anybody really surprised?

Well, the editors of Britain's Guardian might be, though they would be the last to admit it. It wasn't too long ago (last Oct. 22) that the Guardian devoted multiple columns to celebrating the announcement in Tehran the previous day of the peaceful conclusion of disagreement over Iran's nuclear program.

Not one, not two, but three European foreign ministers — Britain's Jack Straw, Germany's Joschka Fischer and my own personal favorite, the sniffy Dominique de Villepin of France — had made a pilgrimage to the Land of the Ayatollahs. Now they were returning waving the usual scrap of paper. For they had a solemn promise that Iran would "suspend [its] uranium-enrichment and reprocessing activities."

O frabjous day. Calloo. Callay. You would have thought the Versailles peace treaty was being proclaimed; indeed, the ayatollahs' agreement would soon prove about as sound.

But at the time, there was general elation in European capitals at this latest "Peace in Our Time." As an Extra Added Bonus, to quote the cereal boxes, here was also a chance to sneer at that cowboy in the White House. To quote the Guardian's Ian Black on the happy news: "The agreement marks a significant victory for the European Union's policy of 'conditional engagement' and the use of carrots and sticks, in contrast to threats from the United States against the Islamic Republic, part of George Bush's 'axis of evil.' "

This would show the Americans. See what European finesse can accomplish compared to Washington's all-sticks, no-carrots tactics.

Oh, all mimsy were the borogroves, and the mome raths outgrabe. Or as another Guardian writer said more prosaically:

"Iran's agreement to allow unlimited inspections of its nuclear facilities and to suspend its uranium enrichment program marks a tremendous success for European diplomacy... To date [America's] polarizing, aggressive pressure tactics have mostly made a difficult problem worse. Europe demonstrated yesterday that there is a different, more effective way. And it is not the American way."

Yes, Calloo. Callay. Ni-i-i-ce axis of evil — so reasonable, so trustworthy, so easily tamed if you have any sort of talent at all for diplomacy, old chap. All the voices of Old Europe sounded ecstatic. And superior as ever.

Strange. Nobody in Europe is celebrating today. Instead there are worried looks and tough-sounding resolutions from the U.N.'s sleepy atomic energy agency. And, of course, as the ayatollahs well know, the U.N.'s resolutions only sound tough. How long before Iran joins North Korea as a full-fledged member of the Lunatic League of Nuclear Powers?

Iran's ayatollahs have often mused about nuking Israel. The Israelis might be able to retaliate in kind, but what are millions of casualties compared to wiping out the whole Jewish state with a single strike?

How deal with a regime bent on getting the Bomb and maybe using it? Carefully. And without illusions. Much as one would talk to the Mad Hatter at Alice's tea party.
Washington really isn't in much of a position to diplomatically pressure Tehran. With no official relations and only the barest of indirect contacts, Iran and the United States are at a standoff that has continued more than a quarter-century.

The chances are all too good — and all too scary — Iran will develop nuclear weaponry and proceed to share it with some terrorist outfit. Let's hope somebody in Washington is drawing up plans for a response to this danger more effective than U.N. resolutions. The alternative to confronting Tehran is to awaken one morning to a radioactive Middle East. Or maybe a nuclear blast much closer to home.

It's unlikely the U.N. and the Europeans will have much success negotiating with Tehran, but they need to keep the pressure on, like a good cop. Meanwhile, Washington can play bad cop, and try to get its message across less subtly.

For example, is it only a coincidence that the United States has just agreed to sell the Israelis 500 bunker-buster bombs — the kind that could be used to destroy underground nuclear facilities like Iran's uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz? That the sale was made public indicates not just a diplomatic message is being sent.

Paul Greenberg is a nationally syndicated columnist.
22 posted on 10/08/2004 12:59:08 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Mullahs Rattled by Dish and Web

October 07, 2004
The Economist
The Economist print edition


Oddballs on satellite television and websites are annoying the ruling clergy

For six months, aficionados of Rangarang, a satellite-television station run by exiled Iranian dissidents in Los Angeles, had waited for Ahura Khaleghi-Yazdi, the station's oddest personality, to fulfil his pledge to topple the Islamic Republic. But Iran's ruling clerics survived October 1st, the date he set for his triumphant return home. Iran's self-styled liberator has since been off the screen.

Los Angeles is home to the world's largest community of Iranian émigrés—and to a score of Persian-language satellite channels. For a while, Rangarang caught the attention of the competition. Rival stations conducted phone-in debates on the veracity of Mr Yazdi's curriculum vitae: he claims to know 17 languages and to be a successful businessman. He also boasts of having special healing qualities, as well as a “unified field of intelligence” that enables him to guide world events.

The debates were viewed with interest in Iran, where millions of people routinely defy a government ban on watching satellite TV. In the run-up to October 1st, Iranians here and there took to the streets in Mr Yazdi's name; some were arrested. Clips of him have been broadcast on state TV, which is trying to turn him and other exiled broadcasters into figures of fun.

That should be easy enough. Some of Mr Yazdi's claims—for instance, that foreign heads of state begged him to delay his return home—are loopy. His fellow presenters tend to be either ancient demagogic monarchists or comely female health gurus, with little in common save an antipathy for the Islamic Republic.

But why does the state spend so much energy discrediting has-beens and faddists? The authorities may be less concerned by the opposition exiles than by the technology at their disposal. It is harder to confiscate thousands of satellite dishes or permanently block a subversive internet site, than it is, say, to close a newspaper; zealous judges have banned dozens of publications over the past four years. “If the opposition becomes more competent,” says a seasoned journalist in Tehran, “TV and the internet could be a real danger.”

Pre-emption has begun. In August, ten on-line journalists and internet service providers were arrested (some were later freed). The editor of Keyhan, an ultra-hardline newspaper, has identified dozens of Iranian journalists working in Iran and in exile as part of a nefarious “network” that uses websites and weblogs to “fling mud at the system” and its leaders. More arrests could follow.

23 posted on 10/08/2004 1:02:19 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran criticises international condemnation of Egypt bombings

TEHRAN, Oct 8 (AFP) - Iran's influential former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani on Friday criticised the international condemnation of the deadly anti-Israeli bombings in Egypt that he said were acts of retaliation.

"How come there is no noise about the shedding of Palestinian blood but a retaliatory act is expected to be condemned so much?" Rafsanjani asked during the weekly Muslim prayers in Tehran.

"In Taba some angry people blew up a place they believed Israelis were staying. It is not known yet who has taken revenge ... and now all countries are lining up to condemn it in the media," he said.

Three suspected car bombs ripped through beach resorts packed with Israeli tourists on the Red Sea coast of Egypt's Sinai desert late Thursday.

A blast at the Hilton Hotel killed at least 24 people and caused a 10-storey wing of the building to collapse. Another two people were killed in attacks on another Red Sea resort south of Taba.

Rafsanjani hit out at the world's silence over the deadly Israeli attacks on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, where more than 90 Palestinians have been killed in an army offensive since September 28.

"We oppose terrorism, we have suffered from that more than any other country but we do not accept that one side commit as much crime as it wishes and the other side be all submissive and have its hands tied," he said.

He referred to Tuesday's US veto of an Arab-sponsored draft resolution in the United Nations Security Council against Israel's military operation in Gaza as "the best evidence of how cruel the world justice system can be".

AFP- 473
24 posted on 10/08/2004 1:11:51 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

opinion

The Iranian Connection
by
Oct 08, '04 / 23 Tishrei 5765

E-mail ThisPrint Homepage

We have all been asking ourselves the same question, over and over again. Why? What happened to Ariel Sharon? Why is he insisting that Israel abandon Gush Katif and evict people from their homes?

The difficulty is compounded following the tragic events at the end of last week: Kassam missiles hitting S'derot, killing two children, aged two and four. And this on the heels of the terror mortars and missiles in N'vei Dekalim, which left a young woman dead, soldiers killed and a mother of two shot to death by terrorists.

For the past few days, Israeli troops have, much to the chagrin of the Europeans, moved en masse into several key strategic points in Gaza, including the infamous Jabalya refugee camp. Dozens of terrorists have been wiped out, including major producers of Kassam missiles and those who operate them. This, in order to prevent further attacks on S'derot.

In a radio interview, Ariel Sharon emphasized that all rocket attacks on S'derot and other Israeli communities must be stopped completely, "allowing the eviction to take place quietly;" i.e., not under fire. Of course, it must be asked why Sharon didn't take major offensive action many months ago, thereby preventing literally thousands of daily attacks on Gush Katif communities. It is quite clear that the State of Israel, according Sharon, is divided into different types of people: there are those who live in cities like S'derot, who have real red blood, and then there are others, like those living in Netzarim, Kfar Darom and N'vei Dekelim, whose blood isn't quite so red. Jewish sacrifices in S'derot are unacceptable; Jewish blood spilled in Gush Katif is another story.

What is imponderable is what exactly Sharon expects will occur following (G-d forbid) the retreat from Gaza. Israeli forces will totally pull out, leaving the entire southern border open to attack. Hamas has promised, time after time, to hit Ashkelon. Does Sharon believe that Hamas terrorists are liars? Hamas doesn't lie, it tells the truth. They believe in the destruction of the State of Israel and they say it. They promise to kill Jews, and unfortunately, they do it. They guarantee that they will bomb Ashkelon, and I have no doubts that they will do their best to fulfill their pledge. And they have no plans to stop there.

So what does Sharon think, that fleeing from Gaza will solve all our problems, that Hamas will turn into our best friends? Far from it. When you run away from terror, the terror just follows you, like a tail. You cannot escape it or avoid it. The only way to deal with terror is head on - to destroy it. Ariel Sharon is accomplishing exactly the opposite. And it is hard to believe that he doesn’t know it. So, what’s up?

The following thesis is conjecture only. I have no proof of what I am about to say. I don’t have 'connections' with 'higher-ups' who have 'leaked' information to me. Truthfully, it is very difficult, if not down right impossible, to accurately analyze the current situation, because there is too much that is unknown. You can only analyze a situation based on the data available. When critical data is unavailable, the analysis can only be defined as unreliable.

That having been said, I would like to offer a possible explanation of Ariel Sharon's escapades. The key is Iran and the magic word is "nuclear weapons".

Only a few days ago, Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi said, "Nobody has the right to deny Iran its right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes." The previous week, Iran defied the International Atomic Energy Agency by saying it was resuming the enrichment of uranium. Iranian Vice President Reza Aghazadeh said the country had started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, an important step in making a nuclear bomb.

According to the internationally acclaimed security publication Janes, the Iranian reactor is an authentic nuclear threat: "A heavy water reactor is among the most dangerous in existence from a proliferation perspective.... According to David Albright, Director of the Institute for Science and International Security, the IR-40 will be able to produce 8-10kg of plutonium per year - approximately one to two bombs' worth of nuclear material. The IAEA holds that 8kg of plutonium constitutes a 'significant quantity' - enough to build a nuclear weapon.

How is Israel reacting to the Iranian threat? Last week, Defense Minister Sha'ul Mofaz stated that Israel has to be prepared to deal with what he called the Iranian "threat".

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

Earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Israel is "taking measures to defend itself."

What's the connection between this and Gush Katif? My guess is this:

Ariel Sharon knows that Israel will have to strike first against the Iranian nuclear reactor, regarding this presently as the gravest strategic threat to Israel's existence. He also knows that the mission may include preemptive strikes against Hizbullah, stationed in Lebanon, and possibly also against Syria. He also knows that the entire world will condemn these actions.

In order to lessen the 'damage' as he sees it, before hitting Iran, he pulls Israel out of Gaza, in essence, saying to the world, 'Look, you see, I really want peace. I did what no other Israeli prime minister could do - now leave me alone and let me protect my country.' Then, Israeli warplanes bomb the Iranian reactor. In other words, in Sharon’s eyes, Gush Katif, and four Shomron communities, are a necessary sacrifice in order to remove Iran from the nuclear club. He expects that the rest of the world will leave him alone after pulling Israeli families out of their homes.

He couldn’t be more wrong.

Israel doesn't need any excuses to destroy the Iranian threat. An Iranian nuclear bomb threatens not only Israel, but all of world peace. Where would we all be today if Israel hadn't destroyed the Iraqi nuclear plant in 1981? Iranian Islamic fundamentalist leadership would have no qualms using 'the bomb' against Israel, nor would they hesitate to use it against any Western nation, all of whom they view as infidels.

Sharon's fleeing from Gaza in order to placate world opinion creates, in itself, an existential threat to our state. True, if your leg is infected and must be amputated to save your life, then there is no choice. But in this case, the infection is left festering and the healthy limb is to be removed.

This also establishes a very dangerous precedent for the future. Israel will be told, in no uncertain terms, 'If you want to continue to protect yourself from outside threats, without international intervention, chop off another part of your body.'

And perhaps most important, the world will never let us be. They assisted Hitler, actively or passively, sixty years ago. And they haven't changed.

In other words, we must do whatever is necessary for self-preservation. And we must not play into the hands of our enemies, attempting to cosmetically 'look good', in their eyes.

We must unconditionally guarantee destruction of the Iranian threat, we must stay put in all our land, and we must not allow the Iranian connection to disassemble our state.

25 posted on 10/08/2004 1:18:03 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

URGENT ACTION

Iran: Imminent execution, Fatemeh Haghighat-Pajouh

PUBLIC
AI Index: MDE
13/040/2004
UA 281/04 Imminent execution
07 October 2004

IRAN Fatemeh Haghighat-Pajouh (f) aged 33

Fatemeh Haghighat-Pajouh has reportedly been sentenced to death for the murder
of her husband, who allegedly tried to rape her then 15 year old daughter from
a previous marriage. She is reportedly at risk of imminent execution.

According to a 6 October report in the Iranian newspaper E’temad, Fatemeh
Haghighat-Pajouh murdered her husband in 1997. At her trial she alleged that
her husband, identified as a 30 year old man named Bahman, was a drug addict,
who had been overtly interested in her 15-year-old daughter. She also told the
trial judge that Bahman had said he had lost the girl in a gambling match. When
she later discovered that he had tried to rape the girl, she killed him.

It is not known when Fatemeh Haghighat-Pajouh was arrested. According to the
report in E’temad, the sentence has been upheld by the Supreme Court, although
it is not known when. In Iran, all death sentences have to be approved by the
Supreme Court before they can be implemented. The E’temad report states that
her execution is expected to take place in the next few days.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty as the ultimate cruel, inhuman
and degrading punishment, in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to
which Iran is a state party. Article 6 of the ICCPR states: In countries which
have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for
the most serious crimes.

26 posted on 10/08/2004 1:19:42 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Empty words on Iran: U.S. getting only vacant rhetoric from U.N., Europe on nuclear risk

Friday, October 08, 2004

The Bush administration, as it tries to halt Iran's nuclear program, is looking like the only person in the fireworks factory warning against lighting a match. If the world doesn't stand up to the Iranian threat quickly, a bomb in the hands of the terrorist-friendly Iranian regime could be only a year or two away.

That, of course, is not the spin that comes out Tehran. There, the leadership contends that the nuclear program merely aims at satisfying domestic energy needs -- nevermind the fact that Iran has no need for nuclear power plants. The nation sits atop some 90 billion barrels of oil and untold hundreds of millions of cubic meters of natural gas, making it one of the most energy-sufficient nations on Earth.

Also, the known record of Iran's nuclear development, carried on in secret until two years ago, goes well beyond domestic power purposes. Just this week, Iran confirmed that it has converted several tons of raw uranium into a gas needed for enrichment, which is a key step toward building atomic weapons. Iranian nuclear authorities previously said they planned to process some 40 tons of uranium in that manner, a virtually unmistakable signal of bomb-making intent. At the same time, Iran revealed that it has expanded the reach of its missiles to 1,200 miles -- enough to reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East.

27 posted on 10/08/2004 1:22:16 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

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.

28 posted on 10/08/2004 1:24:46 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Regime's apologists target influencing US Intelligence

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Sep 28, 2004

Some of the Islamic regime's notorious apologists are intending to open their way of influence to the "US House's Select Committee on Intelligence". In this line a "fundraising" has been planned for the Honorable "Anna Eshoo" (D-14th/CA) who's a prominent US lawmaker and member of a very sensible legislative body.

The House Representative member seems to be totally unaware of her supporters background and their ultimate goals.

The main organizers and members of the Host Committee are "Susan Akbarpoor", founder of "Silicon Iran" and "Iran Today", and her husband, "Faraj-Alaei" head of the "Centillium Corp." and co-founder of the so-called "Iranian American Political Action Committee" (IAPAC). The couple and some of their related organizations are notorious for having tried, for several years, to legitimize the tyrannical and terrorist Islamic republic regime in the US.

The controversial fundraising is to take place in a Bay area home, located at 27011 DeZahara Way in Los Altos Hills - CA 94022, on October 10th from 05:00 PM. This home seems to be belonging to "Gita Kashani" who's a former head of the "Society of Iranian Professionals" (SIP) of N. California. Involved in the organization of some very controversial activities, Kashani was one of the main planners of "Technological trips to Iran", by non scrupulous US researchers, scholars and businessmen, and a well known organizer of official exchange seminars in cities, such as, Esfahan. It's to note that such actions are known to be needing the collaboration of the highest levels of the Islamic regime's Intelligence and Government in order to take place. She has since joined IAPAC and has increased her activities in a different way and which are more adapted to the current sensible circumstances.

Akbarpoor is a close friend to Hashemi Rafsanjani's daughter and a firm advocator of Kamal Kharrazi the Islamic regime's FM. Her organizations are intending to bring US Technology firms to lobby the US Administration for a recognition of the Mullahcracy and the cancellation of sanctions. She seems to have been able to attract, so far, the support of some mercantilist individuals, such as the wife of one of AT & T's main heads, to her goals.

In addition, "Hassan Nemazee", IAPAC's main co-founder who has tried to silence the Movement by initiating a costly juridical litigation, is expected to be present during Ms. Eshoo's questionable fundraising along with his long date colleague, Akbar Ghahary, the current front man of the Kerry Campaign for Iranian-Americans.

It's to note that IAPAC's initial founders, Nemazee, Alaei and Ghahary, were also Board members of the infamous and self-called "American Iranian Council" (AIC). Nemazee used of his position, as AIC Board Member, for publicly calling for the recognition of the Islamic regime, on June 1, 2002, in presence of Senator J. Kerry.

AIC, which is headed by the infamous "Hooshang Amir-Ahmadi", is still publicly trying to lobby for the recognition of the Islamic regime. It has to its dark credit the formal apology offered to Iran (meaning the Mullahs) by "Madeleine Albright", the then Secretary of State; Joe Biden's fundraising at the IMAN Islamist Center of Los Angeles headed by Sadegh Nemazikhah who's a AIC Board member; And various meetings organized between members of the Mullahs' regime, such as Mehdi Karoubi, and several US lawmakers and members of Clinton Administration. Biden is well known for having tried to use of his influence within the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee to push for resumption of ties with the illegitimate Mullahcracy.

The IAPAC's trio founders are also among John Kerry's main fundraisers. They're hoping that the election of the Democratic Candidate, as a future US President, will help to avoid Islamic regime's total collapse by boosting it via commercial and nuclear deals with Uncle Sam. Huge amounts of money are getting disbursed, at this time, by this group's members and their affiliated creations or partners, such as the self called "National Iranian American Council" (NIAC), in order to use some of non scrupulous Iranian Satellite TV and Radio networks, such as Tamasha, Channel One or 670 AM, in order to promote Candidate Kerry among the Iranian-American community.

NIAC's front man President is Titra Parsi. He was also a AIC Board member and a well known Khatami advocator. In addition to some questionable Iranian financial sources, the group is receiving financial contributions from groups affiliated to Theresa Heinz Kerry , such as Tides Foundation, and George Soros' Open Society Institute. Playing the nationalistic feelings of young Iranians, NIAC claims to be bi-partisan while in reality its heads are targeting a Democrat victory in the next US Presidential elections.

The Honorable Anna Eshoo's contact references are:
Phone: (202) 225-8104; (650) 323-2984; (408) 245-2339
Fax: (202) 225-8890 ; (650) 323-3498
E.mail: 
http://www-eshoo.house.gov/contact.aspx

29 posted on 10/08/2004 1:27:21 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

LAWYERS, SPOOKS & POLITICIANS

[Excerpt}

By AMIR TAHERI

October 8, 2004 -- WHATEVER the outcome of the debate over the liberation of Iraq, one thing is certain: a substantial segment of Western opinion believes that politics is too important to be left to politicians. The alternative, offered implicitly, is the rule of lawyers supported by spooks.

In the proposed post-politics system, intelligence services supply the information to lawyers, who then decide which part is "hard evidence," and which not. Action is taken when, and if, the lawyers unanimously pronounce it to be legal.

Let us apply this to the problem of Saddam Hussein.

A lawyer's first move is to reduce the many complex issues involved in a case to a single, relatively simple one. On Iraq, this approach has created the illusion that the problem was limited to the issue of weapons of mass destruction.

It no longer matters whether Saddam was violating the many other provisions of 12 mandatory resolutions, often unanimous, of the U.N. Security Council. For example, those resolutions required Saddam to stop violating the human rights of the Iraqi people, to account for thousands of people (some of them foreign nationals) who had "disappeared" under his rule and to abandon all his irredentist claims against Iraq's neighbors, notably Kuwait. All the resolutions made it clear that until Iraq had ceased to be a threat to regional and world peace, it would remain in a state of war with the United Nations.

Even opponents of the liberation of Iraq, including U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, cannot claim that Saddam fulfilled those obligations.

The lawyerly trick used by opponents of liberation is to ignore all those issues and focus solely on weapons of mass destruction. But even then the pro-Saddam lobby has a weak case.

All relevant Security Council resolutions demand that Saddam prove that he no longer had any WMD programs. The WMDs in question were clearly identified and precisely defined, forming the basis of the complex check-list developed by Rolf Ekeus, the first U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, and his successor, Hans Blix. In March 2003, on the war's eve, Blix still had 19 unanswered questions and could not give Saddam a clean bill of health in front of the Security Council.

At that time, as President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair pondered whether to go to war, they had at their disposal a mass of information from all major intelligence services. That information carried the caveat that intelligence services always attach, that it should not be regarded as "hard evidence" in the lawyerly sense.

No intelligence service could say with the kind of certainty required in a U.S. or British court that Saddam did or did not have any specific amount of weapons of mass destruction. Nor could any intelligence offer the assurance that Saddam would not restart WMD programs.

Click to learn more...

It is precisely over such issues that politics, which Aristotle saw as the highest form of human endeavor, earns its credentials. For political decision-making is fundamentally different from that of spooks or lawyers.

The spook is seldom able to take a decision because he is never 100 percent sure of the information he has obtained. At its best, intelligence provides pieces of a puzzle that only the political leader can put together and make sense of.

At its worst, intelligence can be dangerously misleading. In 1940 intelligence services were unanimous that Japan would remain focused on empire-building in Asia and so would not attack the United States. The same services were sure that Hitler wouldn't violate his treaty with Stalin by invading Russia until after the British had been defeated. In 1989, as the Soviet Empire was crumbling, the CIA was adamant that the Soviet economy was on the mend and that the Communist system remained viable for the foreseeable future.

Suppose that CIA and British intelligence had reported in March 2003 that Saddam had abandoned his WMD programs. Would that have changed the big picture — which includes Saddam's past performance, his clear political strategy and his failure to meet all his other obligations under the U.N. resolutions?

Would it have provided any guarantee that Saddam would not restart his WMD programs at the first opportunity? Would anyone have been able to provide assurances that Saddam wouldn't provide WMDs to terrorists that shared his hatred of America?

A lawyer might argue that a serial killer can't be touched unless he kills again. A political leader must restrain the killer before he commits another crime.

The pro-Saddam lobby claims that the policy of containment had worked, and should have been continued ad infinitum. But the truth is that, as far as Iraq's various obligations under Security Council resolutions were concerned, containment had failed, and the sanctions had begun to crumble. Even on WMDs it had not worked because Saddam had kicked U.N. inspectors out four years earlier.

The lawyer would say: But we had the inspectors back in Iraq in 2003, and should have given them time to find out whether or not Saddam, for once, was telling the truth. Yes — theoretically. America and its allies could have kept 200,000 soldiers in the Arabian desert for an indefinite number of years as a stick with which to persuade Saddam not to restart WMD programs. Yet then Saddam, assured of survival, would have had even less incentive to fulfil his obligations under U.N. resolutions. He would have pursued his cheat-and-retreat strategy, knowing that in time the American public would tire of the effort and cost of a problematic containment thousands of miles away, and force an end to sanctions.

Testimony by several of Saddam's closest collaborators, including former Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, show the lifting of sanctions would have given the signal for a massive re-launching of Iraq's WMD programs.

The decision Bush and Blair faced in 2003 was not about the intricacies of spooking or the fine shades of legalese. It was a political decision: Whether to end a messy situation and remove a long-term strategic threat by a regime that had repeatedly proved its evil intentions.

Ultimately, politics is about choice, about making a judgment. And this, by definition, involves controversy. As soon as one option is chosen, those who favor another option would try to knock it.

Even when Iraq, having invaded and annexed Kuwait in 1990, was clearly in the wrong and unanimously condemned by the United Nations, some, including Sen. John Kerry, believed Saddam should not be touched: Kerry voted against the liberation of Kuwait even though it had U.N. approval. His argument was that there was "no evidence" Saddam planned further aggressions, or could not be persuaded to leave Kuwait through negotiations.

Kerry may have been right; we'll never know. But note that he presented his opposition in political, not legalistic, terms. ...

E-mail:
amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com
30 posted on 10/08/2004 1:30:46 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Putin plans to visit Iran


MOSCOW (AFP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin plans to visit Iran where Russia will continue to assist in development of a civilian nuclear program, a senior Russian official said here Thursday.

"We do not have a concrete date for a visit by the president to Iran, but there is a firm agreement with the Iranian side that this visit will take place in the foreseeable future," Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alekseyev said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will visit Tehran for two days starting Sunday for talks with Iranian officials that could finalize details for a trip there by Putin, Alekseyev told reporters at a briefing.

Iran is under mounting international pressure to suspend uranium enrichment activities until its nuclear program is investigated thoroughly by independent experts, and Russia is also being squeezed for assisting in its development.

Russia has called on Iran to comply with all demands from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but Alekseyev rejected suggestions that Moscow should suspend its work in Iran's civilian nuclear program. "We are working and will work with Iran in the area of nuclear development for civilian purposes," Alekseyev stated. "It has no importance whether there is pressure or not."

During his visit, Lavrov was due to discuss a series of economic projects with Iran as well as possible ways of cooperating to fight international terrorism.

"We could imagine a new document in which Russia and Iran could express their unacceptance of international terrorism and their decisive rejection of terrorist acts," Alekseyev said.

31 posted on 10/08/2004 1:33:36 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn


WHAT TO LOOK FOR

First, is the United States winning its engagements on the ground? The answer is an overwhelming yes — whether we look, most recently, at Samarra or at the thrashing of the Mahdists in Najaf. The combination of armor incursions, constant sniper attack, and GPS bombing in each case has led to decisive tactical defeat of the insurgents. Our only setback — the unfortunate pullback from Fallujah — was entirely attributable to our wrongheaded constraint, as if we somehow felt that releasing the terrorists from our death grip would either placate the opposition, empower the Iraqi government, or win accolades from the international community. (See here, here, here, and here.)

In fact, our retreat achieved the opposite effect. Thus the withdrawal from Fallujah will be taught for decades as a textbook case of what not to do when suppressing insurgents. Nevertheless, we have reestablished the fact that we can crush all the opposition on the ground, our willingness to restart real hostilities dependent only on how much flak from our critics in the Middle East and Europe we are willing to take.

Let us hope that our planners have learned that whatever ephemeral public relations or humanitarianism they achieved by sparing the terrorists in Fallujah was vastly outweighed by the death and destruction they wrought and the greater number of lives that must now be sacrificed to defeat the emboldened killers for good. The foreign killers in Fallujah are just the sort of folk who trained in Afghanistan, would like to repeat 9/11, and are psychopathic killers of innocent reformers. Instead of worrying about how they got to Fallujah, we should see it as to our advantage that they are now conveniently collected in one central place and can be dealt with en masse. Because the 4th Infantry Division never came down from Turkey during the war into the Sunni Triangle, hundreds of Baathist killers who should have been crushed were not, and instead they melted away. It is now time to finish the job.

Second, are the terrorists — through their suicide bombing, car explosions, hostage-takings, and beheadings — winning widespread Iraqi support? Here I do not mean the anti-American braggadocio we see on spec when a CNN reporter sticks a microphone into the face of someone whose house has just been demolished. Rather, is there a large minority of Iraqis — perhaps four to five million — who are actively helping the terrorists and Islamicists? Again, so far the answer seems to be no; to the degree that civilians provide help and shelter to a Zarqawi and his thugs, it is predicated on self-interest: His men are ruthless and in the neighborhood, while the Americans are forgiving and distant. There is as yet no mass movement analogous to the Vietcong — one with a clear-cut and popular agenda to seize power and either restore Saddam or institute sharia. Indeed, the Iraqi democratic military has suffered as many battle casualties in its struggle against the terrorists as have the Americans.

Third, does fighting the terrorists lead to a political resolution that offers manifest advantages to the majority of Iraqis, and is it recognized as such? The answer is yes, with scheduled elections in January that could develop along the lines of those in Afghanistan. The increasing role of the Iraqi defense forces, the growing prominence of Mr. Allawi, and the preparations for voting in less than four months can all offer a political endgame that will soon lead to some sort of greater freedom and prosperity. That we have been inept in publicizing our achievements is regrettable; but still, most Iraqis grasp that American success leads to water, power, and jobs, and that Zarqawi's victory ensures heads rolling on the ground or spiked on fence posts.

Unlike the case of South Vietnam, the provisional democratic government is not flanked by a hostile nuclear China or Soviet Union, nor is it attacked by an organized conventional military fueled by the romance of a secular and global leftist utopianism. Not even French students march on behalf of Zarqawi's beheaders. So there is an opportunity for a political dynamic to emerge that terrifies al Qaeda: an oil-rich democratic Iraqi state, near a similarly consensual Turkey and Afghanistan, with nuclear India, Russia, and Pakistan — all hostile to Islamic fascists — nearby.

Indeed, the long-term strategic outlook for al Qaeda is far worse than its occasional macabre killings on the ground might suggest: Its victims are often Muslims, from all over the world, and are entirely innocent. So far the terrorists have not galvanized the Arab Street as much as dealt a crushing public-relations blow to Islam itself, succeeding in just a few years to make the young Arab Muslim male the most suspicious and scrutinized fellow on the planet. Indeed, in three years bin Laden and Zarqawi have done for the stereotyping of Arabs what Hitler did for Germans in 15 — and it will take decades to undo the damage to the reputations of millions in the Middle East not yet born.

Fourth, is there a mechanism for the United States to ease out of Iraq? More so than we think. In fact, the first step was eliminating Saddam Hussein. His departure meant that we did not need to keep tens of thousands of troops in the Gulf to box in a rogue Iraq. Thus, after the January elections, our goal should be redeployment rather than entirely new troop commitments: The 10,000 not needed in Saudi Arabia can be transferred to garrison duty to protect the Iraqi democracy, while we also draw down in the Gulf States and likewise shift those assets to bases in Iraq. In a larger sense, if 40,000 Americans who would be doing little in Germany are instead keeping the peace in Iraq, the overall cost to the American taxpayer is about the same.

A NEW POST-IRAQ MIDEAST POLICY

Our eventual aim should be perhaps around 50,000 American troops in the region — or not that many more present than when Saddam was in power. Even if the worst-case scenario were to transpire in January — an elected Islamist government ordering us to leave — we would still have plenty of alternatives. Beside not having to come through with the promised $87 billion in relief, we can also make it clear that an Islamist Iraq is subject to the same conditions as the mullocracy in Iran — veritable ostracism from the world community, prohibition from acquiring nuclear weapons, and internal problems from imposing sharia on a restless youth.

And the next time the United States uses force in the Middle East, we shall not do nation-building but rather serious GPS-ing at 20,000 feet in punitive Roman fashion. Indeed, despite the glum punditry, the sacrifice of blood and treasure to bring freedom to the Iraqis has been a landmark event by virtue of the very attempt. For decades, a corrupt Arab League — now unconcerned that Arab Muslims have murdered 50,000 black Africans but never losing a chance to damn Israelis for killing 30 Palestinian militants — whined that neocolonialism, Cold War realpolitik, oil, and imperialism precluded Western support for democratic reform.

Well now, Arab League, here you have your long-sought-after dream: The United States spent its own blood to take out a fascist, committed billions in aid to jump start democracy, and lobbied the world to forgive Iraqi debt — only to find either silence from the region's dictators or their active help for the beheaders and car bombers seeking to inaugurate an 8th-century fascist caliphate. The point? The Iraqi people and the Arab Middle East will soon have to go on record either accepting or rejecting the chance for democracy. If they choose theocracy, anarchy, or autocracy, well, the United States can say at least it tried to offer them a way out of their self-induced misery — but the region turned out to prefer the Dark Ages after all and must be left alone to suffer the consequences of that decision.

If an aggregate $50 billion in aid to Egypt; billions more to the Palestinians and Jordanians; the removal of the bloodthirsty Saddam Hussein and the Taliban; $87 billion invested in Iraq and an attempt to relieve its international debt; saving the Kuwaitis; protecting the Saudis; stopping the genocide of Muslims in the Balkans; and keeping the Persian Gulf safe gets us sky-high cartel oil prices and poll data showing that 95 percent of the Middle East does not like America, it is time to try something else.

I could start with the modest suggestion of a gradual cutting off all aid to Egypt, halting most immigration to the United States from the Middle East (in the manner we once did with Communist Eastern Europe), and announcing a carrot-and-stick non-interventionist Bush Doctrine II. All future Middle East military and economic aid would be predicated on the recipient's having a democratic government, while evidence of either terrorist bases or weapons of mass destruction would earn sustained U.S. bombing. Finally, we need a serious energy policy beside the pie-in-the-sky "hydrogen car" or "wind and solar" panacea. If the windmills won't spin for the beach houses off the coast of Nantucket, then they won't spin for us in Fresno either.

We can start by a compromise to drill for oil in the United States while clamping down on gas-guzzling cars. Nuclear power, more hydroelectric damns, oil shale, and mass transit may require subsidies, but billions of U.S. petrodollars are already subsidizing a corrupt Middle East, transmogrifying the type of violence we see routinely in Africa or Asia into something that can literally end the world as we know it.

THE KERRY NON-ALTERNATIVE

Meanwhile, Senator Kerry offers neither a plan to stay nor one to leave Iraq, only something "secret." He thinks a country that defeated Japan, Italy, and Germany at the same time as a warm-up to keeping at bay a nuclear Soviet Union and China must fail if she takes on Afghanistan and Iraq at once. His trial balloons so far — beg the Germans and French to come in and give the Iranians clean uranium — have met with polite chuckles. We already know the effect that such warmed-over Carterism will have in Iraq: failure with the added wage of humiliation.

In fact, Kerry's only chance for honest intellectual criticism of the Bush administration might have come from the right: stern remonstrations over our tolerance of looting, inability to train Iraqis in real numbers, laxity in shutting off the borders, failure to control arms depots, tolerance for terrorist enclaves in Fallujah, and sloth in releasing aid money to grass-roots organizations. Yet by putting a tired Richard Holbrook or a whining Jamie Rubin on television, Kerry suggests that far from chastising Bush for doing too little, he believes that the president has already done too much.

The administration's gaffes all share a common theme of restraining our military power in fear of either Middle Eastern or European censure. But once one climbs into a cesspool like Iraq, one must either clean it up or go home, and that means suffering the 48-hour hysteria of the global media about collateral damage in exchange for killing the terrorists and freeing the country. Only that way can we impress the fencesitting Iraqis that we employ an iron fist in service to their own security and prosperity, and thus we — not the beheaders and kidnappers — are their only partners for peace.

Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com. Sizing Up Iraq
Things are coming to a head in the Middle East.

From the various insurgencies of the Peloponnesian War to the British victory over Communist guerrillas in Malaya, there remain constants across 2,500 years of time and space that presage victory or defeat. Drawing wisdom from that past, there are at least four critical issues that must always be addressed if we are to create a stable Iraq under the auspices of a broad-based consensual government. So far the occupation has been plagued by mistakes, false assumptions, and incompetence — and yet we find ourselves still with a good chance of success.

32 posted on 10/08/2004 1:38:37 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn


Terrorists' Candidates?

[Excerpt]
Washington Post - By Charles Krauthammer
Oct 8, 2004

Do the bad guys -- the terrorists in their Afghan caves and Iraqi redoubts -- want George Bush defeated in this election? Bush critics, among them the editors of the New York Times, have worked themselves into a lather over the mere suggestion that this might be so. A front-page "analysis" in The Post quoted several Republican variations of this theme -- such as Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage saying that the terrorists in Iraq "are trying to influence the election against President Bush" -- then noted that "[s]uch accusations . . . surfaced in the modern era during the McCarthy communist hunt."

Intimations of McCarthyism constitute a serious charge. But the charge is not remotely serious. Of course the terrorists want Bush defeated. How can anyone pretend otherwise?


Why are we collectively nervous about terrorism as the election approaches? Because, as everyone knows, there are terrorists out there who would dearly love to hit us before the election. Why? To affect it. What does that mean? Do they want to affect it randomly?

Of course not. We know the terrorists' intent and strategy. We saw it on display in Spain, where a spectacular terrorist attack three days before the national election set off the chain of events that brought down a government that had allied itself with the United States. The attack worked perfectly. Within weeks Spain had withdrawn its troops from Iraq.

Last month, terrorists set off a car bomb outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, in the middle of a neck-and-neck Australian election campaign and just three days before the only televised debate between the two candidates. The prime minister, John Howard, is a staunch U.S. ally in both Afghanistan and Iraq. His opponent, Mark Latham, has pledged to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq by Christmas.

The terrorists may be medieval primitives, but they know about cell phones and the Internet and fuel-laden commercial airliners. They also know about elections. Their obvious objective is to drive from power those governments most deeply involved in the war against them -- in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else. The point is not only to radically alter an enemy nation's foreign policy -- as in Spain -- but to deter any other government contemplating similar support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism.

But Spain and Australia -- Britain, with Tony Blair up for reelection next year, will surely be next -- are merely supporting actors. The real prize is America. An electoral repudiation of President Bush would be seen by the world as a repudiation of Bush's foreign policy, specifically his aggressive, preemptive and often unilateral prosecution of the war on terrorism, most especially Iraq. It would be a correct interpretation because John Kerry has made clear that he is fighting this election on precisely those grounds.

Does this mean that the bad guys want Kerry to win? Michael Kinsley with his usual drollery ridicules the idea by conjuring up the image of Osama bin Laden, "as he sits in his cave studying materials from the League of Women Voters," deciding to cast his absentee ballot for the Democrats.

The point, of course, is that the terrorists have no particular interest in Kerry. What they care about is Bush. He could be running against a moose, and bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi would be for the moose.

How to elect the moose? A second direct attack on the United States would backfire. As Sept. 11 showed, attacking the U.S. homeland would prompt a rallying around the president, whoever he is. America is not Spain. Such an attack would probably result in a Bush landslide. ...

The Islamists and Baathists in Iraq are conducting their own Tet Offensive with the same objective as the one in 1968: to demoralize the American citizenry, convince it that the war cannot be won, and ultimately encourage it to reject the administration that brought the war upon them and that is the more unequivocal about seeing it through.

It is perfectly true, as Bush critics constantly point out, that many millions around the world -- from Jacques Chirac to the Arab street -- dislike Bush and want to see him defeated. It is ridiculous to pretend that bin Laden, Zarqawi and the other barbarians are not among them.


33 posted on 10/08/2004 1:48:45 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

ElBaradei: Iran Should Comply with IAEA by Nov. 25

Fri Oct 8, 2004 03:18 AM ET

TOKYO (Reuters) - Iran should freeze all its uranium enrichment-related activities by a Nov. 25 board of governors meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, said on Friday.

But ElBaradei added that he was hopeful Iran would comply by then and even if it did not the matter would not automatically be referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

"I'm still hoping that before the meeting of the board that Iran will come into full suspension" of its uranium enrichment-related activities, ElBaradei told a news conference.

The IAEA board of governors passed a resolution last month demanding that Iran freeze all activities connected with uranium enrichment, including making feed material for centrifuges.

Earlier Friday, ElBaradei said his agency had not detected any signs that Iran was using its nuclear program to make weapons, but that he was still concerned.

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 nuclear weapons -- in defiance of the IAEA.

ElBaradei said Iran's assurances that it was not developing atomic weapons needed to be verified by IAEA inspectors.

"Our job is to verify that the assurances are reflected on the ground," he said after giving a speech in Tokyo.

ElBaradei, tipped as a potential winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, to be announced later Friday, said the IAEA was making good progress in monitoring Iran's nuclear activities.

But he said it was too early to say that concerns about Iran's nuclear program had been cleared completely.

"We have not completed our job to be able to say that no undeclared activities exist in Iran," he said.

Iran has said it will not yield to foreign pressure aimed at stopping what it says is a peaceful energy program, but which Washington says is a covert scheme aimed at building bombs.

An IAEA spokeswoman in Vienna said Wednesday that the uranium processing was being closely monitored by the agency 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.

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 has said it will 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.

ElBaradei declined to say if the IAEA should refer Iran to the Security Council or whether it should set a deadline for Tehran to halt its nuclear program.

ElBaradei arrived in Tokyo Wednesday for a four-day visit.

34 posted on 10/08/2004 1:56:52 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: DoctorZIn

The following newstory tells the IAPAC side of the story.

Payvand News

10/8/04

Statement on the Subject of Accusations Made Against Iranian-American Political Action Committee

Over the past year, certain groups and individuals on several occasions have leveled various accusations against the Iranian-American Political Action Committee ("IAPAC") and its members. These accusations have ranged from insinuations that certain of IAPAC’s members are sympathetic to and act to promote the policies of foreign governments such as the Islamic Republic of Iran to suggestions that the organization is designed to promote the narrow interests of only a few persons. While categorically denying such allegations, IAPAC does not see any purpose to responding to particulars of these attacks; they consist of no more than reckless and baseless ad hominems that should have no place in reasoned political debate. Instead, we trust that our audience will look beyond the dissonance caused by a few that are insistent on capitalizing upon issues that divide our community by circulating and recirculating a set of false rumors and look to the organization’s purpose and accomplishments to judge its merits. We therefore publish this communication not only to reintroduce ourselves, but also to present a report on some of our activities.

IAPAC is a registered bipartisan federal political action committee that contributes to candidates for federal office. The principal criterion for making donations is whether the political candidate is attuned to the domestic policy concerns of the Iranian-American community residing in the United States. IAPAC focuses exclusively on these domestic policy matters, which, broadly speaking, thus far have consisted of civil rights and immigration issues. While supporting candidates on the issues, IAPAC also seeks to build and strengthen our community's political influence by, among other things, encouraging Iranian-Americans, regardless of their party affiliation, to participate actively in the political and electoral process and supporting Iranian-Americans who run for political office in the United States.

The purposes of IAPAC reflect the concern of its founders about what they perceived to be a need for a voice for the Iranian-American community within the political institutions of the United States. For too long, Iranian-Americans have not had a coherent, let alone influential, voice in American politics, even though individually they have succeeded at the highest levels of their educational and professional endeavors. The reality of the American political system teaches, moreover, that a community’s voice will be heard only if it is organized, is financially strong, and has a coherent, persuasive message. As such, IAPAC’s founders concluded that a political action committee representing our common interests was indispensable. This political action committee required (and will always require) strong financial backing and community support.

IAPAC is a bipartisan political action committee, meaning that it endeavors to advance its stated policy goals by reaching out to and building influence for the Iranian-American community among the ranks of both the Republican and Democratic parties. As such, IAPAC's trustees include individuals of diverse political persuasions and affiliations. While recognizing their differences of opinion, IAPAC's trustees have chosen to emphasize our community's common interests and to work together towards achieving the organization's stated goals. This is a model of collaboration that undoubtedly best serves our collective interest and that we sincerely hope and trust will be increasingly adopted by ever larger segments of the Iranian-American community.

Recognizing both the need for political and civic success and the absence of the necessary organizational framework, the twenty-two founding Trustees of IAPAC sought to create a mechanism to fill that void for the Iranian-American community. The impact of recent legislation (actual and proposed) on our community provided the necessary impetus to found the organization. Founded in 2003, IAPAC has grown at a rapid rate because of the dedication and support of a broad, bipartisan, and geographically diverse group of Iranian-Americans from all walks of life.

Click here to learn more about IAPAC’s organizational structure and leadership profiles.

Our recent activities demonstrate that IAPAC has become a credible and strong voice for Iranian-Americans. For example, IAPAC’s efforts have helped counteract recent legislative and regulatory developments in the field of immigration law that had a prejudicial impact on Iranians. In this regard, in collaboration with other Iranian-American organizations, IAPAC has brought the detention of approximately 1000 Iranians to the attention of Congress and has assisted scheduling and publicizing bipartisan briefings on Capital Hill on the issues of immigration law and its implementation under the NSEERS program. In addition, IAPAC has supported candidates for Congress whose positions promise to further advance the concerns of our community.

Click here to learn more about candidates supported by IAPAC.

Click here to learn more about IAPAC’s activities.

One final matter. Since IAPAC’s inception, many have asked what the organization’s position is with respect to Iran. As noted above, IAPAC is singularly dedicated to matters of American domestic policy. But we add the following thoughts. It goes without saying that the vast majority of, if not all Iranian-Americans ardently hope for a free, tolerant, and democratic Iran. However, in our experience, more specific discussions touching on matters of Iranian domestic politics traditionally have engendered great division within the community. Therefore, in forming IAPAC, the twenty-two founding trustees concluded that the organization would succeed only if it were built around domestic issues of interest or concern upon which there was consensus in the community. Thus, the goal has been not to confront and divide, but to encourage the community to believe that America belongs to it as much as it does to anyone else, and to get involved so that the Iranian American community can define its own image and can have a say about its future in America.

We believe that those who continually seek to hurl baseless accusations and recycle the same old insinuations against IAPAC do a great disservice to all Iranian-Americans who are seeking to establish their rightful place within the American political system. We at IAPAC believe that it is more important for Iranian-Americans to participate and engage in thoughtful and deliberate discussions – regardless of what their views may be – than for them to sit on the sidelines or to perpetuate innuendo. We only hope that Iranian-Americans will enter the political debate aiming to persuade with facts and sound reasoning. We invite you to learn more about us by visiting our web site at www.iranianamericanpac.org.


36 posted on 10/08/2004 2:25:09 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Sinai Massacre – an Iranian-Hizballah-al Qaeda Co-production

DEBKA File-Exclusive Report
Oct 8, 2004

Friday, October 8, on the morning after an terrorist bombing rampage at three idyllic Sinai desert resorts – with two dozen known dead and scores still missing – the first clues have been found to the identities of the hands behind the massacre and their targets. DEBKAfile’s intelligence and counter-terror sources report that the explosives used to tear away the entire frontage of the Taba Hilton and hit the Nueiba oasis campside further south on the Red Sea coast were of Iranian manufacture; the same make as the bombs used in the 1996 Khobar Towers blast and he 2003 Istanbul attacks.

Egyptian intelligence investigators are working on the same premise as their Israeli counterparts that a Hizballah cell based in Sinai rigged the four bomb cars and by mid-September had them ready for Thursday’s multiple strike. Two were reserved for the 10-storey Taba Hilton, where bodies are still being dug out of the rubble.

Intelligence of suggestive Hizballah movements prompted the counter-terror center at the Israeli prime minister’s office to warn Israeli travelers on the eve of the Jewish New Year to miss out on their favorite holiday sites in Sinai. Nonetheless, 15,000 Israelis were trapped there Thursday night.

(The Hizballah’s Sinai cell is part of the Palestinian international weapons smuggling network that has grown out of the Sinai-Gaza tunnel system and which now branches out to East Africa, Arabia, the Persian Gulf, Syria, Turkey and Chechnya.)

Two of the four bomb cars have been identified as “Ramses,” an Egyptian version of the Fiat. They were kept hidden in caves and wadis around the Sinai desert in waiting for the suicide bombers. Another Egyptian intelligence premise is that between 4 and 6 bombers activated the death cars, arriving one or two days earlier by one of two routes - from Sudan or from Saudi Arabia via Sudan. They would have reached the Egyptian Red Sea port of Gardaka and taken a regular ferry to Sharm el-Sheikh. Disembarking passengers are only lightly searched as Egypt has no wish to hurt its tourist trade. The other possibility is that the bombers crossed the Red Sea from Saudi Arabia and arrived at the Sharm el-Sheikh marina aboard a Saudi yacht, knowing the Egyptians would never search it.

A few hours later, they would have been picked up and driven to the hidden bomb cars by Hizballah operatives.

Friday's Casualty Figures.

Updated interim casualty figures from terrorist attacks on three Sinai resorts Thursday night: Total number of dead estimated at 28 including 14 Israelis and 6 Egyptians. Others will be identified by DNA testing. Six bodies transferred to Israel thus far. Of the 142 known Israeli wounded, 126 were taken to Eilat hospital and 16 to Beersheba. Six thousand Israeli trippers are still in Sinai of the 15,000 at the time of the attacks. No contact has been established with 250. At the ravaged 10-storey Taba Hilton, 70 Israeli rescue teams with heavy equipment are burrowing in the rubble for survivors alongside Egyptian teams. Altogether 200 Israeli aid and rescue personnel operating now in Sinai.

37 posted on 10/08/2004 2:28:51 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
There are a tremendous number of MUST READ reports today on the Iranian Alert Thread.

Join in the discussion.

DoctorZin

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1238599/posts
38 posted on 10/08/2004 2:31:30 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iranian intel: Tehran

harboring bin Laden
2 officials say they've seen terrorist
under care of Revolutionary Guard

Posted: October 8, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Iran's cleric leaders are harboring Osama bin Laden, according to two Iranian intelligence officials cited in a new book.

The sources say they have seen the al-Qaida terrorist leader alive and well, although he no longer resembles the picture on FBI wanted posters.

Author Richard Miniter writes in "Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror" that bin Laden "has trimmed his beard to fit the more traditional look of a Shi'ite cleric and he seemed to have put on weight, according to intelligence officials." The sources say bin Laden is constantly on the move, "shuttling from Iranian safe houses controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to areas of Afghanistan controlled by the Iranian-backed warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar."

"Choopan," one of the sources, gives three reasons why Tehran would give safe haven to bin Laden, risking the wrath of the West.

"First, the Iranians believe they can keep bin Laden's presence a secret and plausibly deny it if publicly accused," Miniter writes. "Second, the mullahs are feeling increasingly threatened by the War on Terror.

"The mullahs, Choopan says, fear a counter-revolution and see bin Laden's fighters as tools they can use to ensure the failure of these young democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan and the survival of mullah-dominated Iran. Finally, they share enemies, including many Arab leaders, the United States and the rest of the Western world."

The book, launched earlier this week by Regnery, publisher of "Unfit for Command," already is No. 2 on the Amazon.com list.

39 posted on 10/08/2004 2:39:09 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

IRAN AND SYRIA TO FORM A NEW ANTI-AMERICAN-ISRAELI AXIS

By Safa Haeri
Posted Friday, October 8, 2004

DAMASCUS-TEHRAN 8 Oct. (IPS) Iranian President Mohammad Khatami and his Syrian host Bashar Asad discussed best ways and means to form a new anti-American-Israeli axis to take off pressures Washington and Tel Aviv are putting on them.

The embattled Iranian President confirmed on Friday that the two countries would expand their cooperation in the face of mounting pressures from the United States and Israel as well as foster peace in the troubled region of Middle East.

A new high command is taking shape, formed by the Hezbollah, HAMAS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Iranian embattled President arrived in Damascus early Thursday morning at the end of an official visit to the neighbouring kingdom of Muscat and Oman, the last leg of a weeklong trip to African Arab nations of Algeria and Sudan.

The unscheduled visit came at a time that both countries, staunch opponents of the United States and Israel, are under increased international pressures, accused of derailing peace efforts by providing military, logistic and financial assistance to Palestinian and Arab radical groups opposed to peace with the Jewish State.

While the Iranian ruling ayatollahs are suspected of leaving no stone unturned in order to become a nuclear power, Syria, for its part, is under international pressure because of its “satellisation” of Lebanon.

"These pressures have always existed and we have to neutralize them through our cooperation", the official news agencies of both countries reported Khatami as saying in Damascus at the start of his visit to Syria.

Both Tehran and Damascus are also suspected by Washington of being behind Iraq’s insurgency by leaving their porous borders open to Arab and Muslim fighters, known as “jihadis” the remnants of Osama Ben Laden’s “Al-Qa’eda” network that masterminded the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington D.C.

According to Mr. Patrick Seale, a well-known British journalist based in Paris, under the auspices of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a new and “much dangerous” alliance is taking shape uniting for the first time Sunni and Shi’a Muslims in the one hand and Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah with hard line Palestinian groups assisted by Damascus.

“A new high command is taking shape, formed by Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shi’a movement that booted out Israel from southern Lebanon, HAMAS, the Palestinian resistance movement that has overshadowed the Palestinian Authority of Yaser Arafat as a spearhead of resistance to Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood, represented in the occupied territories by the Islamic Jihad and last but not least, the Islamic Republic of Iran”, Mr. Seale, author of a biography of the former Syrian strongman Hafez Asad wrote in the last edition of “Jeune Afrique-L’Intelligent” dated 3 to 9 October 2004.

“The particularity of this new alliance is that first of all, it abolishes the Shi’a-Sunni division among Muslims and also reunites Arab nationalists and islamists under one common flag. There is no more differences between resistance and jihadis”, he added, quoting one western intelligence source.

Khatam-Bashar talks also focused on ways of maintaining stability in the Middle East in view of escalated Israeli violence and developments in neighbouring Iraq, where both Syria and Iran strongly oppose the presence of American forces.

"In our meetings we will try to cooperate toward ensuring calm and stability in the crisis-ridden Middle East region", Khatami said. "The situation is getting more perilous because of the inhuman and violent actions of the Zionist regime", he added.

“The visit took place at a time when great pressure is being exerted on Syria, as a significant regional country, by the US, Zionist regime and some Western countries”, the official Iranian news agency IRNA commented, referring to a recent UN-based measure, sponsored by Washington and Paris, urging Syria to pull its 40.000 strong troops out of neighbouring Lebanon.

Khatam-Bashar talks also focused on ways of maintaining stability in view of escalated Israeli violence and developments in neighbouring Iraq.

Bowing to the move, Syria returned around 10.000 soldiers from around Beirut.

Syria's support for Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups and allegations Damascus was pursuing weapons of mass destruction were among key reasons behind U.S. economic sanctions in May.

“Political experts call Khatami’s visit to Syria as being “important”, believing that it would consolidate Syrian position in this critical situation”, the agency added, failing to mention Iran’s growing troubles with the United States, European Union’s so-called Big trio of Britain, France and Germany and the the International Atomic Energy Agency over its nuclear projects as well as Iran’s isolation in both the international community and the Arab and Muslim worlds.

In the past two decades, Iran and Syria have been enjoying close strategic relations based on their bilateral interests, as Damascus ruled by a rival faction of the Ba'th Party, was the only Arab nation that sided with non Arab Iran when the now toppled Saddam Hussein attacked it on September 1980.This is Khatami’s fourth trip to Syria.

Both presidents condemned the massacre of innocent Muslims in the occupied Palestine and called on the international community to react against the Zionist regime’s crimes, IRNA reported, as Mr. Khatami returned to Tehran on Friday.

This was Khatami's fourth official visit to Syria. The younger Asad came to Tehran three times.

According to Mr. Seale, American unilateral and systematic backing of Israel’s hard line Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in crushing the Palestinians in the one hand and American-Israeli’s menaces against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear ambitions are among major factors “explaining” the new mobilisation, “better organised and more determined.

ENDS IRAN SYRIA 81004

40 posted on 10/08/2004 3:19:05 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
 Bin Ladin in Iran? No wonder they want nukes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=40837

Iranian intel: Tehran harboring bin Laden
2 officials say they've seen terrorist
under care of Revolutionary Guard

Posted: October 8, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Iran's cleric leaders are harboring Osama bin Laden, according to two Iranian intelligence officials cited in a new book.

The sources say they have seen the al-Qaida terrorist leader alive and well, although he no longer resembles the picture on FBI wanted posters.

Author Richard Miniter writes in "Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror" that bin Laden "has trimmed his beard to fit the more traditional look of a Shi'ite cleric and he seemed to have put on weight, according to intelligence officials."

The sources say bin Laden is constantly on the move, "shuttling from Iranian safe houses controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to areas of Afghanistan controlled by the Iranian-backed warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar."

"Choopan," one of the sources, gives three reasons why Tehran would give safe have to bin Laden, risking the wrath of the West.

"First, the Iranians believe they can keep bin Laden's presence a secret and plausibly deny it if publicly accused," Miniter writes. "Second, the mullahs are feeling increasingly threatened by the War on Terror.

"The mullahs, Choopan says, fear a counter-revolution and see bin Laden's fighters as tools they can use to ensure the failure of these young democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan and the survival of mullah-dominated Iran. Finally, they share enemies, including many Arab leaders, the United States and the rest of the Western world."

The book, launched earlier this week by Regnery, publisher of "Unfit for Command," already is No. 2 on the Amazon.com list.  

41 posted on 10/08/2004 4:40:46 PM PDT by Reborn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Free Iran Bump...


42 posted on 10/08/2004 4:59:59 PM PDT by citizen (Write-in Tom Tancredo for President/Jeff Flake VP 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Dog; Boot Hill; jeffers; Coop; Cap Huff

Osama pong


43 posted on 10/08/2004 5:09:40 PM PDT by nuconvert (Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Reborn
Iranian Revolutionary Guards occupy Iraqi soil Fri. 8 Oct 2004 http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=462
Iran Focus

Baghdad, Oct. 8 – Crack troops of the Qods Force (Jerusalem Force), the extraterritorial force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, operating out of their base in the border town of Mehran, have seized Iraqi territories in Zeyn al-Qos, Seif Sa’ad and al-Amarah regions, according to reports from the area.

In recent months, forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) have moved their main headquarters from central Iranian provinces to those on the Iran-Iraq border. These include Marivan in the north, Mehran in the center, and Shalamcheh in the south. Qods Force’s commanders oversee and direct their operations inside Iraq from these border bases.

The principle task of the Qods Force is to spread Iran’s “Islamic revolution” to other parts of the Muslim world. The Qods Force has been particularly active in the Iraqi theater and last April, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei decorated Qods Force Commandant General Qassem Soleimani for his “success in promoting Islamic revolution in Iraq.” News of the decoration was not made public.

Iraqi sources say that Iran has been setting up and financing “Islamic libraries” throughout southern and central Iraq and uses them as a conduit to wage propaganda and recruit young Iraqis.

44 posted on 10/08/2004 5:11:00 PM PDT by Reborn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

I actually find this easier to believe than him still hanging out on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.


45 posted on 10/08/2004 5:11:38 PM PDT by Coop (In memory of a true hero - Pat Tillman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch have both received letters from me in the past because of their affiliations with Iranians and muslims of dubious character.


46 posted on 10/08/2004 5:18:58 PM PDT by nuconvert (Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

We need some FREE IRAN T-shirts, posters, bumper stickers, etc.

We on the right that want to do what is needed to stop this Islamic Facism need to get more forceful in our support. We actually need to adopt tactics of the left. Remember "Stop Aparthied" and "Free Mandela"? They do stuff like that well simply because they do the work and have the MSM machine and Hollywood wired.

Well the conservative network is big too. We just need to get it more coordinated. Conservative actors need to feel free to speak out. Mel Gibson could start his own studio and offer them work. They should sue and file charges with the state and federal agencies for discrimination (even get the ACLU involved) if they are fired for their views in NY or Hollywood.

We should deluge local TV and radio and newspapers to do stories on any Iranian community in their area. This country has a huge Iranian population. Most came before, during and after the 1979 revolution.

Many own businesses and are as American as anyone born here. One such person is the founder, owner, President and CEO of Paymaxx, Inc. where my wife has been working the last ten years.

He tells horror stories of life after the mullahs took over. Since they were not Muslim (they are Baha'i) they were persecuted. It took him years to smuggle family members out.

And the Iranians are ready to get rid of this facism. They need our covert help. With a few well placed SpOps team during the next big uprising...well you get the idea!

And the Bush Doctrine practically dictates regime change in Iran. And if that won't give Syria the message then they are next. You watch how fast Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia start getting tough for real! And force Jordan and Syria to clean up Lebanon or we should just turn it into a giant glass table. Terrorist are practically 99% of the living organisms in that hellhole anyway.


47 posted on 10/08/2004 5:25:14 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Defeat Taxman (with his secret plan) and Tortboy - Vote Bush/Cheney!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

"there are terrorists out there who would dearly love to hit us before the election. Why? To affect it. What does that mean? Do they want to affect it randomly?" "Of course not" " the terrorists have no particular interest in Kerry. What they care about is Bush."
"The Islamists and Baathists in Iraq are conducting their own Tet Offensive with the same objective as the one in 1968: to demoralize the American citizenry, convince it that the war cannot be won, and ultimately encourage it to reject the administration that brought the war upon them and that is the more unequivocal about seeing it through."


Krauthammer does a very good job explaining for the democrats, what the republicans already know


48 posted on 10/08/2004 5:30:12 PM PDT by nuconvert (Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Coop

There have been several articles stating that bin Laden and alQaeda have been enjoying the hospitality of the regime in villas by the Caspian and on secure military bases.
And what better way to receive the medical attention bin Laden supposedly needed? Who knows, maybe they thew in a kidney transplant along the way?


49 posted on 10/08/2004 5:38:30 PM PDT by nuconvert (Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

Yeah, I've seen those articles. He may also be hanging out in some Pakistani city, close to medical care.


50 posted on 10/08/2004 5:43:33 PM PDT by Coop (In memory of a true hero - Pat Tillman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson