Skip to comments.Iranian Alert - October 24, 2004 [EST]- IRAN LIVE THREAD - "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"
Posted on 10/23/2004 9:00:24 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
click here to read article
Iran called a European proposal seeking indefinite suspension of its nuclear activities "unbalanced," but said Sunday the Europeans had chosen the right path of engaging in dialogue over the issue.
In talks Thursday in Vienna, Austria, envoys from Britain, France and Germany offered civilian nuclear technology and a trade deal to the Iranians reportedly in return for Iran permanently giving up all uranium enrichment activities - technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons.
"The proposal by the Europeans is unbalanced," Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a press conference. "However, the Europeans have chosen the correct path of dialogue."
Britain, Germany and France have warned that most European countries will back Washington's call to refer Iran's nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council for possible economic sanctions if Iran doesn't give up all uranium enrichment activities by the Nov. 25 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
Iran, Asefi said, was still studying the European proposal.
"We think we have to reach a solution acceptable to both sides so that European concerns are eased and, at the same time, our rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty are recognized and met," Asefi added.
The spokesman said Iran had its own proposals but refused to discuss details.
Detailed talks with the three key European powers would resume Wednesday, he said.
Asefi said Iran would not accept a permanent suspension of its nuclear activities, and maintained that the Europeans didn't want that either.
"The discussion is not about permanent suspension of enrichment. The Europeans have proposed indefinite suspension until an agreement is reached. They didn't call for a permanent suspension," he said.
Iran insists its nuclear activities are peaceful and geared solely toward generating electric power. The United States contends it is running a covert atomic weapons program.
Last month, the IAEA unanimously passed a resolution demanding Iran freeze all work on uranium enrichment and related activities, such as uranium reprocessing and the building of centrifuges used for enrichment. The UN nuclear watchdog is to judge Iran's compliance at the Nov. 25 meeting.
Iran already has defied the IAEA resolution by continuing to build centrifuges and by converting a few tons of raw uranium into hexafluoride gas, a stage before enrichment.
Iran has said the agency has no authority to ban it from enriching uranium, a right granted under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. However, while not prohibited from enrichment activities under that treaty, Iran faces growing international pressure to suspend them.
|Iran likely to answer to EU nuclear proposal: parliament speaker|
|www.chinaview.cn 2004-10-24 23:02:11|
TEHRAN, Oct. 24 (Xinhuanet) -- Iranian Majlis (Parliament) Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel said Sunday that Iran was likely to answer to the European Union (EU)'s nuclear proposal late this week, the official IRNA news agency reported.
"Iran's envoys to Vienna talks are likely to take part in a meeting late this week and extend Tehran's reply to the proposal of the three European countries (France, Germany and Britain)," Adelwas quoted as saying.
On Saturday, Sirous Nasseri, Iran's delegation member to Thursday's negotiation in Vienna, said the second round of talks between the two sides was to be held next Wednesday.
The European trio made a proposal during Thursday's negotiation, which was aimed at encouraging Iran to halt its fuel cycle work.
According the proposal, Iran would get access to imported nuclear fuel and other offers, including a light-water reactor, in return for a complete suspension of its uranium enrichment.
Adel said Tehran was considering the proposal.
"Iran was still insisting on its past position on peaceful implementation of nuclear technology," Adel stressed."
The proposals of the Europeans would mean violation of the constitution of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and ignorance of rights of the Iranian nation if it stopped Iran from using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes," Adel said.
The speaker also reiterated that Iran would never suspend uranium enrichment activities unlimitedly.
"Iran was against such proposals which would deprive Iran from its legitimate rights," he said, stressing that Iran is a country which would "never yield to pressures to quit its scientific achievements."
"However, at present time Iran was keen to suspend enrichment activities to get the chance to start negotiations for finding a solution," Adel added.
Earlier in the day, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said the EU proposal was "unacceptable" and "unbalanced".The IAEA last month adopted a resolution, urging Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment-related activities and fully cooperate with inspectors to clear up all related issues.
The resolution set Nov. 25 as the deadline for Iran's nuclear case. If Iran fails to satisfy the IAEA before this date, its case may be referred to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions.
The resolution was criticized and rejected by Iran, which termed it as "illegal".
Tehran has been denying the US accusation of developing secret nuclear weapons, asserting that the accusation is politically motivated and Iran's nuclear research is fully peaceful. Enditem
Journal Messenger Columnist
Of course, he wasn't being entirely truthful, either. And when he said, earlier in the campaign, that many foreign leaders would prefer dealing with a Kerry administration rather than the current occupant of the White House, again he wasn't kidding. But he neglected to mention who the foreign leaders were, which is understandable.
The Talking Monument has explained and re-explained his various foreign policy positions so often that many voters, I suspect, don't really understand where the Democratic nominee actually stands on matters crucial to our survival. They know he would do things differently than George Bush, that he would employ some kind of a "global test" before going to war, that he would be more sensitive, that he sounds like he's smarter than Bush, and that he likes the word "nuance."
What they don't know is that the foreign policy difference between the Monument and the President is not just a matter of how best to achieve a shared goal, it's what that goal should be.
The President believes that terrorism is such a threat to our national security that the terrorists need to be killed and captured and that the regimes that sponsored them need to either stop sponsoring them or be changed. To achieve that end he has set in motion the War on Terror, and he has chosen to fight that war where the terrorists live rather than here.
He's had considerable success. Prior to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the State Department identified seven regimes that funded, supported, and/or provided safe haven for international terrorists - Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Two of those regimes, Afghanistan and Iraq, no longer exist, and a third, Libya, has agreed to stop its terrorist activities. The Bush administration's war on terror used military force to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which apparently scared the pants off of the Libyan leader Qadhafi, who now wants to play nice with the civilized world.
In addition to reducing the number of terrorist regimes from seven to four, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq brought an end to the Iraqi/UN oil for food scam, disrupted the money flow to terrorist cells throughout the world, and shed unfortunate light on the scoundrels who run the United Nations.
John Kerry, however, would have done everything differently. Following the advice of Michael Moore and other foreign policy advisors, Kerry would not conduct a war on terror, at least not in a military sense. Sensitive and nuanced as he is, the Talking Monument disclosed in a recent New York Times interview that he would like to see terrorism reduced to a nuisance, sort of like prostitution and illegal parking. Both he and Michael Moore do not see terrorism as the threat the Bush administration does. Following a terrorist act, Kerry would prosecute terrorists as criminals while sensitively negotiating and nuancing with the four remaining terrorist regimes.
I suspect this might be the reason why the Monument is reluctant to tell the American people who the foreign leaders are who would like to see him as Leader of the Free World, and why he has no comment concerning accusations that the mullahs in Iran are helping fund his presidential campaign.
A group of Iranian expatriates, the Student Movement Coordinating Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI), has accused Kerry presidential campaign fund-raiser Hassan Nemazee, a New York-based investment banker, of using his position to advance the agenda of the Islamic Republic of Iran. According to SMCCDI that agenda includes normalizing relations between Iran and the United States and opening trade and investment with the terrorist regime. The group has called Nemazee one of "Iran's American propagandists."
Political scientist Jerome Corsi, who co-authored the best-seller "Unfit for Command," stated recently that "The Democratic Party and John Kerry have been funded by pro-mullah groups who have Israel as their sworn enemy. They are funding insurgents to go against our troops in Iraq, and John Kerry wants to give them nuclear fuel."
In a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations last December, Kerry said: "As president, I will be prepared early on to explore areas of mutual interest with Iran, just as I was prepared to normalize relations with Vietnam a decade ago."
I don't know if he has any relatives preparing to do business with Iran.
Ken Concannon is a resident of Prince William County. E-mail him at KMConcannon@aol.com.
President Bush? Yes!
Those who would replace President Bush are working to shore up the enemies of America and the Iranian populace
October 24, 2004
As the American electorate enters the last couple of weeks before the 2004 presidential elections the American left are stepping up their propaganda war against President Bush. The closer the election gets, the more desperate the left gets in their attempt to undermine President Bush's presidency and his doctrine for a free, democratic Middle East. In the 1980's the Democrats were highly critical of President Reagan's initiative in Eastern Europe to wrist control from the Communists and install democratic regimes. Decades later Eastern Europe is home to some of the worlds strongest democracies.
Today, once again, the Democrats are condemning President Bush's doctrine for a free, democratic Mid-East. Decades from now the left will once again see that they were wrong. The Iranian-American community must understand that these vocal critics of President Bush are no friends to the Iranian populace. In fact, in order to achieve their agenda they will back any radical group including the hard-liners in Iran. Some of the financial fuel for this agenda comes from US based Iranian-American organizations that have questionable ties to the Iranian government and millions of dollars to disperse throughout the Iranian-American community.
Eyeing the President's broadening lead over John Kerry and witnessing the possible downfall of the legitimacy of a failed Iranian government these groups have strongly broadened their scope. They are actively and desperately turning over every leaf in order to find damaging information on President Bush. To some extent these groups have successfully silenced the historically Republican Iranian-American community. Using propaganda, fear tactics, hysteria and sometimes outright lies they've scared the Republican Iranian-American community to the side of John Kerry.
Some of the accusations fronted by these organizations against Republicans are support for the MKO, military action against Iran, and support for establishing relations with the Iranian government. None of these accusations are even mildly true, but they've been effectively used by covert groups to distance the community from the Republican Party.
That's a real shame because the Republican discussion boards are consistently filled with words of praise for Iranian students, condemnation of human rights violations in Iran, and support for those seeking freedom, and democracy in the region. For example, an American Republican with no family ties to Iran started his own website in support of Iranian students. He favors moral and financial support to the students in Iran. You can visit his website at regimechangeiran.com.
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have consistently condemned Iranian student demonstrators as stooges of the CIA on their discussion boards, held their ears to the consistent human rights violations in Iran, lambasted the Iranian opposition movement, and often filled their discussion boards with downright racist and hateful comments such as claiming Iranians are too backwards to accept democracy.
Senator Sam Brownback (R)-KS one of virtually all Republicans who have endorsed Iranian students and their fight for freedom and democracy had this to say:
"Recently, President Bush praised the Iranian people who kept up protests for over a week in the face of government sponsored thugs who beat innocent women with chains. The president called these protests 'heroic' and indeed, they are.
"Just as it was an important rhetorical step for President Reagan to dub the Soviet Union an 'Evil Empire,' so too it is important for us to recognize the current regime in Iran for what is - an illegitimate, ruling elite that stifles the growth of genuine democracy, abuses human rights and exports terrorism...
"To the Iranian people, I offer my continued support. This is how history is made - one brave act at a time. The battle for your freedom will be long and hard. Stay strong, and know that America supports you, and will be there to help you rebuild your beautiful land. Hopefully, next July - as America again celebrates its independence, we can rejoice with you in celebrating a free Iran as well."
Not only has the Democratic Party avoided the issue, but Senator John Kerry has publicly and openly widely condemned any sort of support for Iranian students, endorsed negotiations with the Iranian government in support for their hand in Afghanistan and Iraq, and assured the Iranian government that if they aid in those countries the US will stay silent as the Islamic Republic crushes the pro-Democracy opposition.
A recent letter from an Iranian student organization sums it up best:
On behalf of the Iranian student movement and the Iranian diaspora around the world, especially our oppressed countrymen, we extend our sincerest appreciation for your leadership and efforts to promote long term peace and democratic rule in the world.
We also want to use this opportunity to express, once again, our deepest gratitude for your consistent and open support of our people in their quest for true freedom and democracy.
Indeed, your tireless support of our subjugated and tyrannized people has touched millions of Iranians and they view you as an ardent defender of freedom and a source of hope. As one of the few world leaders that fully appreciates and openly supports the aspirations and goals of our subjugated country, we extend our thanks. Let us assure you, as you plan for the conquest of Mars, that you have already succeeded in conquering the hearts and souls of millions of Iranians. It is, therefore, imperative that you are re-elected this November, and you can count on our constant support, and votes, in the upcoming election.
Even as the Iranian people take steps to wrest control of their own country and lives from the religious extremists who have ruthlessly dominated them for decades, John Kerry and the Democrats are putting them in serious danger.
Those who would replace President Bush are working to undermine his policies and shore up the enemies of America and the Iranian populace, the extremists in control of Iran. To them, nothing matters more than taking power in this country, even if they have to prevent democracy from taking root in Iran.
Don't get me wrong I'm against direct foreign intervention in Iranian politics. Iran's internal affairs are for Iran, but the Iranian people deserve moral support. Also, I'm one of the few who'd accept an Islamic Republic establishment in Iran, as long as it was supported in a referendum. My point is that we should let the Iranian people choose whatever that choice may be, but they certainly deserve moral support in having that choice. Therefore, this election season I merely ask you to reason through and seek the truth. Don't let bias steal your vote.
My guess is that if the Iranian-American community understood the issues similar to the Cuban-American community, over 70% would support President Bush.
Very Good article!
Strange. Gary Sick says almost nothing in this whole interview. He never answers, "Q: What is the role of Iran in establishing stability in Iraq? " The rest of the answers he gives are vague generalities and references to the past.
Thanks for the ping.
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.