Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iranian Alert - October 18, 2004 [EST]- IRAN LIVE THREAD - "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"
Regime Change Iran ^ | 10.18.2004 | DoctorZin

Posted on 10/17/2004 9:17:33 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.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: armyofmahdi; ayatollah; cleric; humanrights; iaea; insurgency; iran; iranianalert; iraq; islamicrepublic; 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 1-2021-4041-45 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 10/17/2004 9:17:42 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!

2 posted on 10/17/2004 9:20:08 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

No political talks between Iran and IAEA delegates: IAEO deputy director

Tehran Times Political Desk
TEHRAN (MNA) -- The deputy director of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO), Dr. Ismail Khalilipur said here on Sunday that discussions between Iranian officials and delegates from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were not political rather focused on technical affairs.

“Significant progress has been made in Iran’s nuclear dossier during the recent trip of high-ranking officials from the IAEA to Iran,” Khalilipur announced in a joint press conference with Pierre Goldschmidt, deputy director general and head of the Department of Safeguards at the IAEA.

During a week stay in Tehran IAEA delegates discussed on Iran’s remaining nuclear issues and held talks with vice-president and IAEO chairman Reza Aghazadeh, he added.

Khalilipur expressed optimism over the recent trip to Iran, adding that the group was aimed to help resolve the minor technical issues remaining in Iran’s nuclear dossier. For that matter they obtained relevant information and held discussions with selected Iranian officials, he added.

He further said that the IAEA officials were provided technical information on the issue of contaminated nuclear parts but since the source of contamination is from outside the country the cooperation of third countries is needed.

3 posted on 10/17/2004 9:20:54 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Chinese diplomat underlines Iran's right to use nuclear energy

TEHRAN (IRNA) -- Chinese Ambassador to Tehran Lio G Tan said on Sunday that Iran is entitled to peaceful use of nuclear energy, referring to the attempts Iran has made to use nuclear energy for peaceful objectives.

In a meeting with Majlis Deputy Mohammad Hassan Abutorabi, Tan added that no country can deprive Iran of its right to use peaceful nuclear energy, reported the Cultural Department and Public Relations of Majlis.

The Chinese diplomat expressed satisfaction over growing bilateral relations, saying that the volume of trade exchanges has increased in recent years.

He referred to projects such as metro, telecommunications, power plants, railway lines and refineries as good areas for mutual cooperation. Abutorabi, for his part, appreciated China's support for Iran's peaceful use of nuclear energy, saying, "The clear stance of China reflects its independent foreign policy. Besides, it has shown that the independent states have safeguarded the very right of decision-making."

He expressed hope that Tehran-Beijing relations, in light of further efforts of the two countries officials, would be developed and strengthened in all areas.

4 posted on 10/17/2004 9:21:33 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran’s interests and nuclear rights should be observed in any European plan

TEHRAN (MNA) – Iran announced on Sunday that any proposal by the European states on its nuclear program should consider its interests and legitimate rights for a peaceful use of nuclear technology.

“That kind of plan is accepted by us that first of all respects our interests since our policy is based on interests with an observation of principles, and secondly recognizes our legitimate right for a peaceful use of nuclear technology,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi told a weekly press briefing.

Asefi said Iran has not yet received any proposal by the European side and therefore it cannot make any judgment in this regard.

He said what is quite certain is that Tehran will not budge on its rights.

He added that Iran is prepared to preserve its rights through dialogue and has no preconditions for such a dialogue.

After a meeting of the Group of Eight industrial powers in Washington on Friday the EU trio – Germany, France and Britain -- presented a package of "carrots and sticks" aimed at pressing Iran to halt uranium enrichment. The trio told the United States they will offer Iran incentives in the coming days.

Hossein Musavian, the chairman of the foreign policy committee at Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told AFP Saturday that Iran will reject any European proposal for a complete cessation of its work on the nuclear fuel cycle, but might be willing to consider further "confidence-building" measures and extend its suspension of uranium enrichment.

"We would be willing to consider any package that recognizes the full right of Iran to enjoy peaceful nuclear technology within the framework of the NPT," Musavian said. However he added that Iran is not prepared for cessation and any package including a cessation of fuel cycle work would be rejected by Iran.

5 posted on 10/17/2004 9:22:02 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

INDIA:National Security Advisor leaves for Iran

Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, October 17

India and Iran will hold talks on regional and international security issues during a three-day visit to Tehran by National Security Adviser JN Dixit.

Dixit, who left for Tehran on Sunday, will hold talks with his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rowhani.

The talks are part of a security dialogue the two countries initiated during former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's visit to Iran in 2001.

A joint declaration issued at that time, agreed to cooperate towards maintaining peace and stability in the region.

The Iranian national security adviser had visited India in February for talks.

India and Iran share similar views on most regional and international security issues, including Afghanistan and Iraq, and New Delhi has refused to join the western condemnation of Tehran for its nuclear programme.

The two countries were together in their opposition to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and had assisted the anti-Taliban forces.

6 posted on 10/17/2004 9:22:35 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran to launch first spy satellite by spring

By Amnon Barzilai

Iran will launch its first spy satellite in March or April 2005, Uzi Rubin, head of the Defense Ministry department responsible for ballistic missile defense, predicted over the weekend.

The launcher will be based on Russian ballistic missiles adapted by expatriate Russian experts, Rubin said. These experts have significantly advanced Iran's ballistic capabilities, he said, among other things, by significantly improving the accuracy of its Shihab-3 missile.

Iran is currently developing three satellites. Two are small, weighing 20 to 60 kg, and are expected to be launched mainly as a test. The third weighs 170 kg and will carry a telescopic camera for espionage purposes. That is the one that Rubin expects to be launched next spring.

Unlike its nuclear program, which is shrouded in secrecy, Iran has been very open about its missile and satellite programs, and Rubin said that Tehran views the satellite launch as a global show of strength. That, he added, ought to worry the West, and especially the United States.

Rubin, who has won two national security prizes for his role in developing the Ofek spy satellite and the Arrow anti-missile missile, bases his belief that Iran is being aided by expatriate Russian experts on photographs that Tehran disseminated of improvements in the Shihab-3. He said the new shape of the missile's cone - the part containing the warheads - is very similar to that found in old Soviet missiles, but different from that of the missiles Russia has produced since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990.

Israeli experts believe that the Shihab's new shape is meant to foil the Arrow. "We go crazy about Iranian progress in the nuclear field, and forget that the missiles Iran is developing can do us damage even with conventional capabilities," Rubin said.

7 posted on 10/17/2004 9:23:07 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Monday, October 18, 2004. Page 7.

Gazprom Buys Into Iran Nuke Controversy

Combined Reports


The Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran, shown here in 2003, was finished last week.

The head of Russia's nuclear watchdog said on Friday that a unit of gas monopoly Gazprom has extended its reach into the atomic sector by buying a majority stake in Russia's key nuclear company.

The Kremlin wants to tighten control over the strategic energy sector via Gazprom despite criticism by Russia's liberals that the move contradicted market-economy principles.

"I can confirm that Gazprombank has bought a stake in Atomstroieksport. The total stake acquired was more than 50 percent," Andrei Malyshev, head of the federal nuclear supervision service, said in an interview.

The move also means Gazprom would have a say in Atomstroieksport's key project -- construction of the controversial $1 billion Bushehr nuclear plant in Iran. The United States accuses Iran of seeking weapons of mass destruction and says Tehran can use Russian know-how to make nuclear arms.

Industry sources said earlier this month Gazprom, the world's No. 1 gas company, had bought a stake in Atomstroieksport, with an order book of $3 billion, from firms linked to machinery maker OMZ. But none of the parties involved would confirm the transaction.

Malyshev said the government welcomed Gazprom's expansion.

"We have to keep an eye on how that relationship is going to develop, but we think that Gazprom is a very stable company ... partly because it's state-backed," Malyshev said.


"Therefore participation of such partners in the Russian nuclear industry is very positive."

Malyshev also said Russia will build more nuclear reactors for Iran when a diplomatic standoff over its atomic program subsides.

"The Iranian side has told us they want more nuclear reactors, and if the political aspect does not harm that, Russia will build more reactors there," he said.

"Our experts are currently discussing the construction of a second reactor. It's a very serious project," Malyshev said.

For Russia, Iran is a key market in the Middle East as it seeks a bigger share of the global nuclear industry. But it wants Iran to be more forthright about its work in the industry.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Sunday urged Iran to make stronger efforts to assuage international concerns and ratify a protocol it signed last year envisaging additional inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran must also abandon uranium enrichment, he added.

Gazprom, currently on a state-backed expansion spree, is soon due to take over state oil firm Rosneft in a deal that would raise the state's stake in Gazprom to a majority from the current 39 percent.

It has also built strategic stakes in national power group UES and in Moscow's regional utility in its bid to become a fully integrated energy group.

But analysts questioned Gazprom's foray into the nuclear sector, saying they could not see how the politically sensitive move could enhance its long-term expansion strategy.

"I'm not sure that Gazprom's future lies in the Russian nuclear industry," said Jonathan Stern, an energy expert at Britain's Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

"I don't see how this fits in Gazprom's business."

The remainder of Atomstroieksport belongs to state companies controlled by the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, or RosAtom. The company is the successor of a nuclear export company set up in Soviet times to assist Moscow's allies in building nuclear reactors. Apart from Iran, it is also building two nuclear reactors in China and one in India.

8 posted on 10/17/2004 9:23:32 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

  The Mideast - Dr. Lewis Beres, Chairman of the Daniel Projet

"A fully zero leakage-rate would be necessary to adequately protect Israel against nuclear and/or biological warheads, and such a zero leakage-rate is unattainable

- Dr. Louis Rene Beres, 9/28/2004

Lewis Rene Beres presents us with a view on the pre-emptive capabilities of Israel and the implications in terms of Iran's reckless run at building a nuclear weapon.  Part two will follow.


Iranian Nuclearization And Israel`s `Arrow`: Implications For Preemption Option

Posted 9/28/2004
By LOUIS RENE BERES Israel`s security from enemy state aggression depends upon a carefully conceived mix of deterrence, preemption and war-fighting postures. It also requires an integrated and capable system of active defenses. The current core of Israel`s active defense system is the Arrow anti-ballistic missile program. An Israel Air Force (IAF) operational undertaking, the Arrow was developed jointly by Israel and the United States and is managed by the Israel Missile Defense Organization (IMDO) in close cooperation with the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The prime contractor for the Arrow ABM is Israel Aircraft Industries/MLM Division.

On July 29, 2004, as part of the ongoing Arrow System Improvement Program (ASIP) which is carried out jointly by Israel and the United States, an Arrow ABM successfully intercepted and destroyed its target at the Point Mugu Sea Range in California. This was the 12th Arrow intercept test and the seventh test of the complete Arrow system. According to a statement issued by Israel`s Ministry of Defense (MOD) on that same day: "The target trajectory demonstrated an operational scenario and all the Arrow system components performed successfully in their full operational configuration."

From the standpoint of Israel`s security, these test results are very significant. They indicate not only continuing close cooperation between Washington (DOD) and Tel-Aviv (MOD), but also the intrinsic technical promise of Israel`s ballistic missile defense. But now, serious decisions need to be made. Still faced with a steadily nuclearizing Iran, Israel must quickly consider carefully whether it can rely upon a suitable combination of deterrence and active defenses or whether it must also prepare energetically for an appropriate form of preemption.

On its face, it would appear that with a successfully operating system of ballistic missile defense, Israel`s preemption option is now substantially less urgent. Indeed, if the Arrow is truly efficient in its reliability of intercept, it would seem that even an irrational Iranian adversary armed with nuclear and/or biological weapons could be dealt with effectively by Israeli active defenses. This means that even if Israel`s nuclear deterrent were immobilized by an enemy state willing to risk a massive "countervalue" Israeli reprisal, that state`s ensuing first-strike would still be blocked by Arrow. Hence, why preempt?

But this argument would rest upon altogether untenable assumptions. Ballistic missile defense systems cannot be appraised dichotomously; that is, as either "reliable" or "unreliable." Here, Operational Reliability of Intercept is a continuous variable, and any BMD system — however successful in its tests — will always have "leakage." Whether or not such leakage would fall within acceptable levels would depend, primarily, upon the kinds of warheads fitted upon the enemy`s incoming missiles. Moreover, the Arrow`s recent success in intercepting a Scud might not be as easily replicated with more advanced targets. Iran`s newest missile — the Shahab-3 — travels almost three times as fast as the Scud.

In evaluating its preemption option via-a-vis Iran, Israeli planners will need to consider the expected "leakage rate" of the Arrow. Expressed as a percentage, a very small number of enemy missiles penetrating Arrow defenses could be acceptable if the associated warheads contained only conventional high explosive or even chemical high explosive. But if the incoming warheads were nuclear and/or biological, even an extremely low rate of leakage would almost certainly be unacceptable. A fully zero leakage-rate would be necessary to adequately protect Israel against nuclear and/or biological warheads, and such a zero leakage-rate is unattainable. It follows, given intrinsic limitations of deterrence, that Israel can not depend entirely upon its anti-ballistic missiles to defend against any future WMD attack from Iran, and that even a very promising Arrow system would not obviate Israel`s preemption option.

At the same time, a rational adversary will need to calculate that Israel`s second-strike forces are substantially invulnerable to first- strike aggressions. Additionally, this adversary will now require many more missiles for an assuredly destructive first-strike against Israel than would be the case without Arrow. This means that Israel`s Arrow will at least compel a rational adversary such as Iran to delay any intended first- strike attack until such time as this adversary can deploy a fully robust nuclear and/or biological offensive missile force.

In this way, ballistic missile defense — while not permitting Israel to reject the preemption option altogether — does offer Israel two distinct and complementary levels of protection: (1) protection afforded by Arrow`s demonstrated capacity for physical interception of incoming ballistic missiles; and (2) protection afforded by Arrow`s allowing Israel to "buy time" until a nuclearizing adversary is able to deploy a more or less substantial number of offensive ballistic missiles. By definition, of course, Arrow will have no deterrent effect upon any irrational adversary, but it could still have some consequential damage-limiting benefit in the event of an enemy attack by such an adversary.

In the best of all possible worlds, Israel would not need to make any of these complex strategic calculations, and could rely instead upon those codified norms of international law associated with methods of peaceful dispute settlement. But we surely do not yet live in the best of all possible worlds, and Israel surely still faces a number of state enemies in the Middle East whose undisguised preparations for the Jewish State are authentically genocidal. Jurisprudentially and strategically, war and genocide need not be mutually exclusive, and certain ongoing enemy state preparations for war against Israel are fully consistent with the definition of genocide found in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

(To be continued)

LOUIS RENE BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971), Professor of International Law at Purdue University and Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press, is Chair of "Project Daniel."

9 posted on 10/17/2004 9:24:09 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

I always read but rarely reply/post. Thanks DoctorZin for all your hard work in keeping this situition in front postition for anyone who is interested to read. I pray for strength for these good people to get free of the monsters & terrorists there

10 posted on 10/17/2004 9:29:05 PM PDT by DollyCali (The wounded, confused, candidate Heaped & dazed in the CORNER is declared winner by MSM.(AGAIN))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DollyCali

Iran will be free soon!

11 posted on 10/17/2004 9:58:25 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
October 15, 2004, 8:26 a.m.

“The Age of Liberty”

President Bush is making the world safe for democracy.

By Paul Kengor

Over the last week, something enormously important has happened — something deserving of much more than the routine news-cycle coverage. To put it bluntly, the presidential election in Afghanistan is a seminal event, and those who don't understand how or why are sleepwalking through history.

Next to September 11 — which began the sequence of events that made this election possible — the vote in Afghanistan is the most far-reaching occurrence of the young 21st century, holding profound implications for future generations. Mercifully, the one person who understands the ramifications as well as if not better than anyone is the so-called dummy in the White House.


Here's the big picture: The great story of the past three centuries is the spread of democracy. The spirit of 1776, the launching of the American experiment, was the pinnacle event of the 18th century, eventually offering a beacon that continues to inspire and change the world to this day. The most important development of the 19th century was the preservation of that extraordinary democratic republic through the Civil War period, as the nation persevered to play a more significant role than any other in the "American century" ahead. The decisive change of the 20th century was the spread of liberty to Western Europe after WWI, to Germany and Japan after WWII, and to Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia after the Cold War.

The one area of the world painfully immune to this contagion of freedom is the Middle East: the least democratic region on the planet. A survey by Freedom House at the end of the 20th century found that while 63 percent of nations are technically democracies, an astonishing zero of the 16 Arab countries in the Middle East were democratic. George W. Bush's vision is to change that condition not just for the betterment of the Middle East but to the benefit of the world, and he hopes that the transformation has just begun in Afghanistan.

In the academic field of international relations, one of the few useful debates is the "democratic peace" argument. It postulates a crucial reality: Democracies tend not to fight one another. Consequently, to the extent that the hostile Middle East becomes more democratic, it may become more peaceful. George W. Bush subscribes to this hope.

The president's most far-reaching address was his November 6, 2003, speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, which ought to be required reading for every poli-sci class. The president that day reminded the crowd that in the early 1970s there were only 40 democracies. As the 20th century ended, there were 120. "[A]nd I can assure you," he said to applause, "more are on the way." Bush said the world had just witnessed, in just over a generation, the quickest advance of freedom in democracy's history. Historians will search for explanations for this shift; yet, said Bush, we already know some of the reasons they will cite. Among them, he said, tellingly, "It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation [America] was itself a democracy." After World War II, reported Bush, the United States made military and moral commitments in Europe and Asia that protected free nations from aggression and created conditions for new democracies to flourish. Now, in the Middle East, under his administration, America seeks to do so again.


That progression of liberty, said the president, is "a powerful trend" that, if not defended, could be lost. "The success of freedom," said Bush, "rests upon the choices and the courage of free peoples, and upon their willingness to sacrifice." Because the United States and its allies were steadfast, Germany and Japan became democratic nations that no longer threatened the world. Bush then explicitly affirmed his belief in democratic peace: "Every nation has learned, or should have learned, an important lesson: Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for, and standing for — and the advance of freedom leads to peace." "And now," he continued, thinking of the Middle East, "we must apply that lesson in our own time. We've reached another great turning point — and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement." He continued:

In many nations of the Middle East — countries of great strategic importance — democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? ... I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free.

Some skeptics of democracy assert that the traditions of Islam are inhospitable to representative government. This "cultural condescension," as Ronald Reagan termed it, has a long history. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would "never work." Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, "most uncertain at best." ... Seventy-four years ago, The Sunday London Times declared nine-tenths of the population of India to be "illiterates not caring a fig for politics." ... Time after time, observers have questioned whether this country, or that people, or this group, are "ready" for democracy — as if freedom were a prize you win for meeting our own Western standards of progress.

Seeing the Islamic nations of the Middle East as no exception, Bush contended that "in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace." The "freedom deficit" in the Middle East had to be changed.

Bush conceded that while democracy is not perfect and not the path to utopia, it is "the only path to national success and dignity." Importantly, he added that democratic governments in the Middle East "will not, and should not, look like us." They should reflect their own cultures; they could be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. Equally significant, Bush urged that "working democracies always need time to develop — as did American democracy." America must be "patient" with those nations at different stages of the journey.

In the most controversial part of the address, Bush claimed: "It should be clear to all that consistent with democratic rule." Actually, it is not clear at all. Nonetheless, for doubters, he singled out examples of democratic progress in predominantly Muslim countries: Turkey, Indonesia, Senegal, Albania, Niger, and Sierra Leone. He said that Muslim men and women were good citizens of India and South Africa, the nations of Western Europe, and the United States. According to Bush, over half of all Muslims live under "democratically constituted governments," and they succeed in democratic societies, "not in spite of their faith, but because of it." He identified signs of democratic progress in Morocco, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Yemen, Kuwait, and Jordan.

If such countries become 21st-century democracies, historians will struggle to explain how impossible democracy's prospects once seemed in these nations, and thus how boundless and rare was Bush's optimism. His assessment may have been more farfetched than Ronald Reagan's predictions on the end of Communism in the early 1980s, which Bush referred to in this speech. Speaking specifically of Reagan's June 1982 Westminister Address, as well as Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, Bush concluded: "The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country.... We [Americans] believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history.... [T]his is, above all, the age of liberty."

He finished by stamping his blessing on the work of all cheerleaders for liberty at the National Endowment for Democracy: "May God bless your work." That parting reference to God should not be dismissed as a throwaway line: Indeed, George W. Bush believes that God has implanted the desire for freedom deep within the hearts of all human beings, regardless of religion or ethnicity, Muslim Arabs included.


The speech's revolutionary sentiments were not new for Bush, and were also not post-Iraq War window-dressing. Since the first days after September 11, he had argued that what the terrorists hated most was freedom. A week after September 11, he promised: "We're going to lead the world to fight for freedom." He told Bob Woodward: "I truly believe that out of this [September 11] will come more order in the world — real progress to peace in the Middle East."

George W. Bush assigned himself the role of catalyst. A year after September 11, and over a year before the National Endowment for Democracy speech and the invasion of Iraq, his administration released its sweeping National Security Strategy, which promoted the spread of democracy to nations held hostage to despots. This objective, Bush wished, could bring long-term peace to regions like the Middle East. In a parallel not lost upon Bush, historian John Lewis Gaddis noted that by seeking to spread democracy everywhere, Bush aimed to finish the job Woodrow Wilson started a century earlier. "The world," writes Gaddis, "quite literally, must be made safe for democracy, even those parts of it, like the Middle East, that have so far resisted that tendency." (This was the kind of thing that liberals once championed, before blind rage at Bush precluded their better angels.) In July 2001, in his Proclamation 7455 marking Captive Nations Week, Bush had declared: "The 21st century must become the 'Century of Democracy.'"

Against incredible odds, George W. Bush may have laid the ground for Middle East democracy in the two most unlikely places, the Taliban's Afghanistan and Saddam's Iraq. Nowhere were women more repressed than in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Nowhere were humans generally more repressed than in Iraq under Saddam. Between the two, Saddam was the biggest destabilizer in the world's most unstable neighborhood.

How will George W. Bush have achieved this? In both cases, by force — military force issued in reaction to September 11. September 11 handed him the opportunity. We can be certain that on that awful morning, as Osama ghoulishly smiled from a cave in Afghanistan, a rout of radical Islamic terror, defeat of dictatorship in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a potential wave of democratic freedom in the Middle East was not what Mr. bin Laden had in mind. But neither did he have in mind the response of George W. Bush.

To the extent that the Middle East becomes democratic, and peaceful — a very big "if" that remains to be seen — President Bush will have sowed the seeds in Afghanistan and Iraq. One man will have changed the course of history, making the 21st century rosy instead of bleak. And if such a monumental transformation happens, George W. Bush will be the toast of history, quite a change from today, where he is the focus of dripping hatred from millions in America and around the world. If only the haters could briefly put aside their passions and pause to see the remarkable stage of history possibly unfolding before their eyes. And if only our media could put aside partisanship and superficiality to ponder and relay the big picture.

Paul Kengor is author of God and George W. Bush. He is also a professor of political science at Grove City College and a visiting fellow with the Hoover Institution.

12 posted on 10/17/2004 10:08:08 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn


13 posted on 10/17/2004 11:13:20 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

President Bush's mid-east doctrine will be the same as President Regean's liberation doctrine in communist controlled east europe.

14 posted on 10/18/2004 12:06:45 AM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Persian lady in Tehran. In my bias opinion the most beautiful women in the world.
15 posted on 10/18/2004 12:10:04 AM PDT by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: freedom44
Sure, but this tells more about the cultural differences:

16 posted on 10/18/2004 6:55:24 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; DollyCali
I second Dolly's post.

Thank you, DoctorZin!

Satellite technology in Iran, Russia and China recklessly trading nuclear secrets/materials with known terrorists/supporters. Powers of darkness in high places, indeed.

Prayers for the persecuted in Iran, and Israel.

17 posted on 10/18/2004 6:59:56 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl (Remember 912.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn


18 posted on 10/18/2004 8:44:29 AM PDT by F14 Pilot (Democracy is a process not a product)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

An anonymous "informed source" said the Guardians Council is likely to approve a proposal that the presidential election take place on 9 June 2005, "Sharq" reported on 16 October. The source explained the date by saying it falls after school exams and that would allow academics to administer the elections. BS


Tehran parliamentary representative and former student activist Ali Akbar Musavi-Khoeni told a gathering of the Office for Strengthening Unity that the only presidential candidate that could challenge the conservatives is Expediency Council Chairman and former President Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, "Farhang-i Ashti" reported on 16 October. If Hashemi-Rafsanjani refuses, he said, the Executives of Construction Party, the Islamic Labor Party, and the Labor House will back anyone that Hashemi-Rafsanjani recommends. Mustafa Derayati, a member of the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Party's central council, said on 15 October that with Mir Hussein Musavi's refusal to run for president, his organization will back former Science, Research, and Technology Minister Mustafa Moin, Mehr News Agency reported. Derayati said that the IIPP has not spoken with Moin yet. He added that there have also not been any negotiations with Hashemi-Rafsanjani. BS

Source: RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 8, No. 197, Part III, 18 October 2004
19 posted on 10/18/2004 8:45:36 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Exporter of terrorism

[Excerpt] By Nasser Rashidi
Posted October 18 2004

The war in Iraq has developed into what can be viewed as a battle between the free world and Islamic fundamentalism. The mullahs in Iran wish to destroy the hopes of the Iraqi people for freedom and democracy by provoking instability in Iraq and eventually to bring an Islamic fundamentalist government to power. Iraq is the arena where international terrorism demonstrates its real face -- Islamic fundamentalism -- and its actual sponsor, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Let's review some information about Tehran's rulers:

The mullahs' leaders have kept up their overt rhetoric to fuel insurgency in Iraq, while covertly they provide logistical support as well as manpower. Millions of dollars in material support and thousands of intelligence agents, revolutionary guards and mercenaries have found their way into Iraq across the long porous borders between the two countries.

In mid-June a group from Teheran called "the Committee Commemorating the Martyrs of Islam's Global Movement" claimed that they registered about 15,000 Iranians, including members of the mullahs' intelligence agencies, for suicide bombing operations in Iraq, as well as in other lands of the region.

On June 25, Pakistani border police arrested some 18 men trying to sneak into Pakistan on false Bangladeshi passports, three of them being Iranian agents. About the same time, Iraqi authorities rounded up eight Iranian intelligence officers in Najaf, and one other, a high-ranking officer in the Revolutionary Guards, was caught while attempting to sabotage an oil pipeline.

Iran's mullahs have plenty to gain from the unrest, instability, political turmoil, and economic failures of Iraq and Afghanistan among other countries in the region. The exportation of Iran's Islamic revolution serves to cover-up the mullahs' own instability and fragile position in Iran and is the flip side of the coin of their ongoing policy of domestic suppression.

Peace and stability in Iraq and throughout the entire region is only possible through an all out confrontation of Iran's regime. The mullahs' hope is that in this election year the United States will not take the lead in any initiations beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. Banking on this, the Iranian regime is pushing its luck on both fronts: extending suppression inside Iran and exporting fundamentalism and terrorism outside Iran, particularly into Iraq. ...

There is now a pragmatic solution, centered on the Iranian opposition, to uproot Islamic fundamentalism once and for all. The Western countries should support this international movement and the efforts of Iranian people for a regime change.

Nasser Rashidi is a human rights activist with the National Coalition of Pro-Democracy Advocates in Washington, D.C.


20 posted on 10/18/2004 9:09:01 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 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
Topics · Post Article

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