Posted on 11/22/2004 9:05:35 PM PST by DoctorZIn
The US media has finally discovered Iran. For the past few years the media has largely ignored 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
PS Check out our blog.
[Excerpt] CARTAGENA, Colombia (AP) -- President Bush said Monday that he hopes Iran's claim that it has suspended uranium enrichment and has no nuclear weapons ambitions is true, but "there must be verification."
Iran must "earn the trust of those of us who are worried about them developing a nuclear weapon," Bush said at a seaside news conference during a four-hour visit with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.
Earlier Monday, Iran announced it has suspended uranium enrichment. The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said he believed Iran had stopped its enrichment activities -- the central part of an agreement with Europe designed to head off possible U.N. sanctions.
"Let's say I hope it's true," Bush said.
But, he added, "I think the definition of truth is the willingness of the Iranian regime to allow for verification."
Iranian leaders "have said some things in the past, and it's very important for them to verify" that Tehran is not attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, Bush said.
He said that it wasn't just the United States that was concerned. "France, Great Britain and Germany and other nations around the world understand the dangers of the Iranian government having a nuclear weapon."
"It looks like there is some progress," Bush said. "But to determine whether the progress is real, there must be verification."
The United States had sought to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, a step that could lead to sanctions. However, if the International Atomic Energy Agency rules that Iran is honoring its commitment to suspend enrichment, it would blunt any call for sanctions.Monday, November 22, 2004 Posted: 3:41 PM EST (2041 GMT)
Iran appears to have ceased all sensitive nuclear operations ahead of a crucial meeting later this week of the board of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, according to western diplomats.The apparent suspension of activities follows an agreement last week with Britain, France and Germany designed to stave off US efforts to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council, a move that could result in UN sanctions.
Diplomats said the three had been alarmed by evidence that, after agreeing the suspension, Iran had produced significant quantities of uranium hexafluoride (UF6). They said it had raised further questions about its good faith.
UF6 is spun in centrifuges to produce an enriched form of uranium usable in nuclear power plants or an atomic weapon, and officials reported that Iran had produced, for the first time, about two tonnes of the material at a plant in Isfahan. That plant now appears to have halted production. Iran denies US accusations that it has a nuclear weapons programme.
IAEA inspectors have not had time to verify that all aspects of the country's uranium enrichment programme had been shut down, but they were hopeful that verification could take place before the IAEA board convened on Thursday, officials said.
"I think pretty much everything has come to a halt right now," Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA director-general, told reporters in Vienna.
Iran has said its suspension would not last long, but the European governments hope to offer Iran incentives to make the suspension permanent. "I think it's in Iran's interest to maintain the suspension peaceful purposes," Mr ElBaradei said.
The US is pushing for strong language in the board resolution that would insert a trigger clause that would result in Iran being automatically referred to the Security Council if it breached its commitment to the European governments. Scott Mcclellan, White House spokesman, said yesterday "the recent reports . . . have underscored our concerns about Iran and its intentions to continue to pursue nuclear weapons. We always said that the proof of the agreement they reached with the Europeans would be in the implementation. And so we look forward to seeing what's reported at the board meeting later this week."
A report this month to the board concluded that Iran had not diverted material from its known nuclear activities to any weapons programme, but it said it could not verify yet whether there was any nuclear programme that Iran had not declared.
By Saul Hudson
SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell had "polite dinner conversation" seated alongside his Iranian counterpart on Monday in the most extensive, high-level contact between the countries in years.
Iran and the United States, which are locked in a crisis over Tehran's nuclear program, do not have diplomatic relations but occasionally over the past few years their senior envoys have crossed paths at international meetings.
The Bush administration has been under pressure from many in the U.S. foreign policy establishment to begin a dialogue with Tehran but it has been divided over whether and to what degree it might reach out.
"During the course of dinner the secretary and the Iranian foreign minister engaged in polite dinner conversation," said a senior State Department official, who asked not to be named.
Substantive issues such as the nuclear crisis and Iraq are not considered "polite conversation," he added.
The Egyptians, hosts of the international conference, arranged the seating at a first-night dinner for countries' top representatives, putting Powell between the Iranian, Kamal Kharrazi, and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, the official said.
It was not clear if Powell knew before the meal who would be at his elbow for what would his most extensive encounter with an Iranian as the top U.S. diplomat.
In November 2001, Powell took the opportunity of a post-Sept. 11 meeting on Afghanistan to shake hands with Kharrazi at the United Nations in New York.
Powell has since attended two international donor meetings attended by Iranian diplomats, according to U.S. officials.
Any gesture toward Iran at the Iraq meeting would be modest, U.S. officials said before the meeting.
TWO DECADES
The United States has not had formal diplomatic relations with the Islamic republic since a hostage crisis more than two decades ago. It has had only intermittent contacts since then, despite Tehran's growing ability to thwart some of Washington's major objectives, such as stability in Iraq.
In the days leading up to the conference in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, Powell played down the possibility of a meeting to discuss bilateral issues. He also angered Iran with new accusations that it was seeking to adapt its missiles to carry a nuclear warhead.
But Powell, whose cautious support of European nuclear negotiations with Iran faces opposition from some Bush administration hawks, noted there would be conference social events and that he was "not a discourteous man."
The encounter came on the same day as Iran suspended sensitive nuclear activities that could be used to make a bomb in a move likely to thwart U.S. efforts to report it to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
The United States accuses oil-rich Iran of pursuing a nuclear bomb and has vowed to stop it achieving that goal. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and only to generate power.
On Tuesday, the second and final day of the conference, Powell also plans to hold a bilateral meeting with his counterpart from Syria, another country Washington has strained ties with.
| (IsraelNN.com) In yesterday’s (Monday) meeting with US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon explained intelligence reports indicate that Iranian uranium enrichment efforts continue despite a declaration from Iran that efforts would halt in response to the demands of the international community. Mr. Sharon called on Powell to bring the Iranian issue to the UN Security Council. |
JAY AMBROSE: Dealing with the Iranian threat
Copyright © 2004 Nando Media
Copyright © 2004 Scripps Howard News Service
Scripps Howard News Service
(November 22, 3:27 pm AST) - There are two stark truths to be kept in mind as Britain, Germany and France continue their negotiations with Iran, the first being that virtually no one doubts that this terrorist-friendly, autocratic theocracy has been plotting and maneuvering for years to acquire nuclear weaponry.
The second is that under no circumstances can the United States allow the acquisition to occur, not unless we are fools willing to put hundreds of thousands of American lives at peril, to put Israel at peril and to grant that the Middle East will become Iran's playfield, a place where its nuclear heft will cause others to tiptoe.
Lately, the three European nations have expressed satisfaction in winning an agreement from Iran to stop uranium enrichment in exchange for economic goodies and light-water reactor fuel. But watch out: Iran has sounded conciliatory before only to pull fast ones, the United States and an Iranian group outside the country have already issued warnings of deception and danger, and the light-water fuel itself could be used to develop nuclear bombs if Western observation is insufficient.
The U.S. position has been to have the U.N. Security Council consider sanctions, which conceivably might get Iran's attention. Because Iran has a significant democratic movement, some in the Bush administration have voiced hopes that the ruling ayatollahs might someday be displaced, a solution devoutly to be wished.
And there have been whispers about military action, although an invasion of Iran might make Iraq look like a picnic. Relying on bombs to take out nuclear facilities - such as Israel did to an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 - is difficult for many reasons, such as the fact that they could be all over the place, hard to find and fortified against explosions.
Despite all these difficulties, stark truth No. 2 must take precedence over stark truth No. 1. Iran must be made to know that the United States will not permit it to have nuclear weapons, that our power does count for something in this world despite the cries against its being used, and that Iran's best course is quickly to reach an agreement that offers the best possible safeguards that it will never make a nuclear weapon.
Contact Jay Ambrose, director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard Newspapers, at AmbroseJ@shns.com.
USA > Foreign Policy
from the November 23, 2004 edition
If Iran goes nuclear ...Bush softens his rhetoric as new intelligence indicates Iran is accelerating nuclear pursuit.
| Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON – As recently as April, President Bush said it would be "intolerable" for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. Since then problems in Iraq and the presidential campaign have pried attention away from Iran's nuclear ambitions. But now the spotlight is back, intensified by new intelligence suggesting Iran is accelerating its nuclear work. Yet Mr. Bush's recent rhetoric on the topic has been nuanced - gone is the word "intolerable." The shift may suggest two things: first, a realization that diplomatic options are limited, and second, a realization that Iran has tremendous means of influencing events in Iraq. Despite those factors, the prospect of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is cause for concern on several fronts, from the role that Iran's Islamic regime sees for itself in the Muslim world and the specific threat it poses to Israel, to the crucial place it holds as a global oil power. But perhaps the greatest risk is how an Iran declaring itself a nuclear power would almost certainly set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. "We need to be much more worried than we have been that what we do with Iran will be a model for others," says Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington. "The real problem of Iran is how it sets an example for others to follow in the region." An "overtly" nuclear Iran could result in a "large nuclear crowd in the Middle East," Mr. Sokolski says: Israel would go public with the nuclear armament it has been mum about, which in turn would put tremendous pressure on Egypt to stand shoulder to shoulder in the nuclear club. Syria, Algeria, Saudi Arabia - which would feel threatened by Iran's new status - would also feel pressed to ratchet up what are assumed to be varying existing programs. The potential impact on Israel is also key. "Right at the top I'd put what I'd call the Israel issue," says Daniel Brumberg, an Iran and Middle East expert at Georgetown University in Washington. "If Iran has an effective nuclear deterrent, its allies, particularly Hizbullah, might feel emboldened and that they have the cover to pursue a more hostile approach to Israel." Most experts believe Iran is at least three years from actually possessing a nuclear weapon, although some believe it could get there sooner if it focused on plutonium separation rather than uranium enrichment. Another possibility is that it possesses materials and facilities the international community doesn't know about, which could also telescope that prognostication to a shorter point in the distance. Either way, the time for heading off Iran's nuclearization is fleeting, experts say, which is one reason the issue has resurfaced. On Thursday the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is scheduled to take up Iran's case and decide whether to refer it to the Security Council - one reason Bush last week returned his attention to Iran and what he has called the problem of the world's worst regimes possessing the world's deadliest weapons. Few observers expect the IAEA to send the Iran case to the Security Council at this point, with several European countries having just concluded an agreement with Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment programs while international assistance is negotiated. On the heels of that agreement last week, Iran announced Monday it had frozen its uranium enrichment program. But the seeds of a breakdown appeared already sown in the deal, with Iran saying the freeze would be "brief" and tied to the Europeans' making good on promises of economic assistance, while the Europeans insisted on a "sustained" freeze before other elements of the deal would set in. In any event, the Bush administration remains deeply skeptical of the prospects for the European plan to derail Iran's nuclear ambitions. One reason is that over recent years Iran's nuclear program has become tightly bound with national pride, thus making it all the more difficult for a regime - particularly one whose popularity is already on the wane - to give it up. "It doesn't matter what faction it is, from the radical religious conservatives to the left, there's a consensus that Iran has a right to pursue the nuclear fuel cycle, and that indeed it has a right to develop nuclear weapons if it chooses," says Mr. Brumberg. "It's something that unites the country, so in a time of deepening divisions it's not something that anyone wants to renounce." Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, says the Iranians are not yet on a par with Pakistanis: "In Karachi you see clocks in the form of a nuclear warhead." But he says polls show as many as 80 percent of Iranians supporting the country's nuclear ambitions, underscoring how difficult securing an agreement from Iran may be. Still, experts like Mr. Takeyh say it is the "exceptionalism" of the bomb landing in the hands of such an "unpredictable, unstable, and aggressive regime" that makes Iran "a nearly existential threat." Some experts hold out the hope that Iran, if it became a nuclear power, could yet evolve in somewhat the same way India has- from a one-time international agitator to a nuclear power taking its position seriously and demonstrating stronger interests in regional stability. That Iran has not caused all the trouble in next-door Iraq that it is assumed it could have is one factor cited in support of Iran's potential for evolving into a responsible actor. Maybe Iran would not use its nuclear status to try to drive up oil prices, or to husband a more radical Palestinian future, some observers suggest. But even that would not address the risks posed by nuclear proliferation in perhaps the world's least stable region. As nonproliferation expert Sokolski says, the world is opening a can of worms if it allows countries the right, as Iran is claiming, to enrich uranium while claiming its ambitions are peaceful. The message to other nuclear wannabes would be clear. The problem of everyone "becoming nuclear ready," Sokolski says, is that "maybe it's not quite the bomb, but it's within a screwdriver turn of it." |
Commentary, Shahla Azizi,
Pacific News Service, Nov 22, 2004
The more one looks at Iran's civil nuclear programme, the more it looks like a concerted project to build an atomic bomb. So Teheran's decision yesterday to suspend all aspects of uranium enrichment is, on the face of it, good news because it blocks the mullahs' most direct route to making weapons-grade fissile material.
The so-called EU-3 - Britain, France and Germany - that negotiated the deal are congratulating themselves on neutralising Iran's nuclear programme through diplomacy rather than blunt military force. They believe they are on their way to a grand bargain that averts the danger of another Iraq-style war, "turns the corner" in relations with Iran and begins the process of reconciling America with Teheran's Islamic revolutionaries.
This should be treated with caution. There are serious questions about how much of Iran's nuclear programme remains hidden from international inspectors. Even if scrupulously respected by the mullahs, the suspension can be instantly abrogated. Britain's attempt at match-making between Washington and Teheran is also questionable. Many in both capitals seem more bent on confrontation than reconciliation.
Iranian hardliners believe the "Great Satan" is mired in the Iraqi insurgency and can be thrown out in the same way as the Soviets were evicted from Afghanistan. They believe the lesson from Pakistan and India is that, once a country has nuclear weapons, it is safer and accepted at the top table.
Meanwhile neo-conservatives in Washington, emboldened by George W Bush's re-election, believe the time is ripe for "regime change" in Iran, as the next member of the "Axis of Evil". They claim an invasion would not be necessary - at most there could be limited strikes against the Revolutionary Guards and nuclear facilities - because Iran is in "incipient revolution". They believe America can help students rise up against the clerics, in the same way as they backed Poland's Solidarity movement in its confrontation with the communists.
It may seem perverse that America could even think of a new adventure in the Middle East. Yet the neo-con high priests, who once argued that overthrowing Saddam would create a wave of democracy in the region, now say democracy cannot be established in Iraq without first changing the regimes in Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia. In other words, stability in Iraq can be achieved only by destabilising its neighbours.
British ministers believe the Iranian regime is firmly entrenched, and say they will have nothing to do with trying to overthrow it. But after September 11 they also said they would not invade Iraq. What will Tony Blair do if the intelligence agencies report that Iran is dangerously close to a nuclear weapon and Mr Bush decides he has no choice but to bomb its nuclear facilities?
The Government pins its hopes on European "critical engagement" with Teheran. It will not be easy, though. One senior British source described bargaining with the Iranians thus: "It's like agreeing to buy a car for £1,000, handing over the money and finding the car has only three wheels. You then agree to pay £100 for the wheel, only to find it has a bald tyre. It never stops."
In its deal, the EU-3 finds itself paying ever more for the same goods: Iran had already promised to "suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities" in October 2003, but dragged its heels, then reneged last summer.
The Europeans at first gave Iran just a vague promise of "easier access to modern technology and supplies" once the enrichment programme had been permanently halted. Now they have agreed to "move ahead with projects and/or measures that can be implemented in advance of an overall agreement". Senior officials say these could include an EU trade deal and the supply of civilian aircraft.
The Europeans know the agreement is just a stopgap until Mr Bush decides what to do. Iran is fast becoming one of the most pressing foreign policy questions of his second term. Having invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, America has become Iran's close neighbour. And, like hostile neighbours, they can either turn each other's life into a living hell or seek an accommodation.
With US forces surrounding Iran, America presents a real threat to the Iranian regime. Teheran, for its part, can cause even greater mayhem in Iraq and Afghanistan, and could throw its weight behind the international terrorist war against America.
"If they get into a confrontation, it will be very bloody," said one British source - adding that British forces in southern Iraq, along the border with Iran, could be caught in the middle. No wonder London is so keen on effecting reconciliation.
Engineering the downfall of the Iranian regime is too uncertain a policy to be relied on: American interference could strengthen the regime, as it has done with Fidel Castro. In any case, the mullahs may obtain nuclear weapons long before the students can sweep them from power.
With US forces badly stretched, the invasion of as large and mountainous a country as Iran is unthinkable. Even the bombing of nuclear sites is difficult, because they are dispersed and some facilities are buried in deep concrete bunkers. "It would be odd to have to use nuclear weapons to destroy the nuclear programme," said one senior British official. Moreover, military action could cause a nationalist backlash in Iran, and a wave of anti-Western outrage in the Muslim world.
So, for the moment, there are few choices but to try to contain Iran's nuclear programme by political pressure and rigorous inter-national inspections. To succeed, the Europeans will need America to continue playing "bad cop" while acquiescing to cautious rewards for good behaviour. But if the Europeans fail, the day may come when military action, unpleasant as it may now appear, will seem less unpalatable than the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran.
| Dean Calma/IAEA |
| The head of Iran´s Atomic Energy Organization, Reza Aghazadeh, at left, speaks during an International Atomic Energy Agency conference in Vienna on Sept. 21. |
 |
|||||||||||||||
| BEHIND THE HEADLINES | |||||||||||||||
As Palestinian picture improves, |
|||||||||||||||
| By Ron Kampeas |
|
||||||||||||||
| WASHINGTON Nov. 22 (JTA) — For Israel, it’s the classic “I’ve got good news, but you might want to hear the bad news first” scenario. Just when a confluence of unrelated events revived the prospect of peace talks with the Palestinians, Iran’s potential nuclear threat to the Jewish state suddenly seems greater than ever. In fact, the Iran dilemma is almost the mirror image of new hope with the Palestinians: The prospect of a nuclear-armed, radical Islamic regime suddenly has moved from the “within years” to the “within months” column, differences between the United States and Europe are dogging resolution — and the United States wants Israel to just sit still. Reports of Iran’s accelerated development of nuclear material, as well as missiles to deliver it, have profoundly unsettled Israelis. “We believe we know what the real intentions of the Iranians are,” Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said last week in Cleveland at the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities, the umbrella group of North American Jewish federations. “The real intention of the Iranians is to develop a nuclear bomb.” The level of agreement over keeping at bay a nation that routinely calls for Israel’s elimination and glorifies suicide bombers reached across Israel’s otherwise fractious political culture. “Israel cannot, cannot live under the shadow of nuclear Iran and the bomb,” Ephraim Sneh, a leader of the opposition Labor party, said on CNN. “Israel is very vulnerable,” said Sneh, who was in Washington last week. “All our economic and intellectual assets are concentrated in a piece of 20 and 60 miles. That’s all. Two bombs can turn Israel into a scorched Third World country. We cannot live with it.” Yossi Beilin, leader of the dovish Yahad party, said the issue hangs over the nation at a time when Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat’s death, forthcoming Palestinian elections and the Bush administration’s post-election energy present renewed opportunities for peace in the region. “Iran is a very, very important issue,” Beilin told JTA. “For us it is hovering, it is a problem.” Israel and the United States were hoping the International Atomic Energy Agency would announce tougher measures at its board meeting Thursday, including more rigorous international monitoring and a trigger mechanism that automatically would refer any violation of Iran’s nonproliferation agreement to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions. Mindful of this week’s IAEA meeting, the Iranians signed an agreement last week with France, Germany and Britain to temporarily suspend their uranium enrichment efforts. Iran announced on Monday that the suspension, in effect until Iran works out a long-term agreement with the international community, is now underway. Instead of assuaging concerns, however, the agreement underscored skepticism about Iran’s intentions. Within days of signing the agreement, a reliable opposition group said Iran was using advanced technology to enrich uranium at military sites and keeping the activity secret, presumably to exempt it from the suspension. The National Council of Resistance of Iran also said that the country had purchased enriched uranium in 2001 and designs for nuclear warheads in the mid-1990s. Iran dismissed the claims out of hand, but on Friday European diplomats — some apparently from the same nations that had negotiated the suspension agreement — were telling reporters that Iran was accelerating enrichment ahead of the suspension. The diplomats were furious with the obvious effort to get Iran as close as possible to weaponization before the freeze kicks in. President Bush said he found the allegations credible. Attending a meeting of Pacific Rim leaders in Chile, Bush said he considered the reports a “very serious matter.” Another area of concern for the Americans is the development of missiles needed to deliver the warheads. “I have seen some information that would suggest they had been actively working on delivery systems,” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said last week. Iran dismisses the reports as unfounded and compares them to the erroneous intelligence on weapons development that helped draw the United States into war with Iraq. “The burden of proof is on the shoulder of the person who makes the claims,” Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said Monday in an interview on CNN. The problem with that explanation is that Iran often is the source of the claims. In August, Iran released photos of a new version of its Shihab missile that had a baby-bottle design, as opposed to the usual cone shape. The design apparently was drawn from Soviet era ICBM nuclear missiles, said Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, since a nuclear device fits better in a baby-bottle shape. Why would the Iranians allow the release of those pictures? “They want people to know,” Clawson said. With Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein out of the way, flexing muscles sends a message that Iran is now a dominant power in the Middle East. That would allow Iran to continue its disruptive involvement in Lebanon, where Israel says Iran has armed Hezbollah terrorists with 13,000 missiles. Hezbollah and Iran also have emerged among the main financiers of Palestinian terrorist attacks in the West Bank. The revelations late last week only increased skepticism among some on the 35-member IAEA board, and the United States has expressed its determination to impose stiffer standards, especially since Iran reneged on previous deals. Europeans also are unnerved that the newer Shihab missiles apparently could put major European cities within range. On the other hand, China and Russia — which as declared nuclear nations have considerable influence at the IAEA — are averse to sanctions. Russia has a financial stake in Iran’s main nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Furthermore, Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA’s director-general, on Monday called Iran’s enrichment suspension a “step in the right direction,” despite skepticism by Israel and others that any real suspension was underway. Should Iran clear the IAEA hurdle, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) plan to reintroduce their bipartisan “Iran Freedom Support Act” when Congress reconvenes in January. It would allow the president to sanction countries that do business with the Islamic regime and strengthen support for opposition groups. That likely would have the strong support of the pro-Israel community in Washington, which believes the suspension agreement with Europe is inadequate. “Iran is intensely working to marry its nuclear and missile programs so that it can deliver a nuclear weapon at the earliest possible date,” said Andrew Schwartz, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “Nothing in the agreement stops Iran from completing nuclear warhead designs or improving its missiles to enable them to deliver nuclear weapons.” After this meeting, Bush likely would raise the threat of sanctions when the IAEA board meets again, in about four months. Israel, meanwhile, is sitting on its hands, not wanting to upend delicate U.S. efforts to build international support. U.S. officials have made clear they do not want Israel to repeat its successful 1981 strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. “I don’t see how it would do anything but provoke . . . a conflict between Israel and Iran, and we want to avoid that at all costs, and I think the Israelis recognize that,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press. “It’s one thing to attack a reactor in Iraq 20-some years ago. It’s something entirely different to take on that challenge now.” Israelis say they are happy to comply, for now. On the record, they say the window for Iran’s nuclearization is two years; off the record, they say the world is looking at 12 months. “The complacency of the international community drives Israel, pushes Israel to the corner,” Sneh, a retired general, told CNN. “We don’t prepare a pre-emptive strike, but, gradually, along the axis of time, we are pushed to the corner.”
|
|||||||||||||||
Iran Press News
In her speech in the Parlimant of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a representative from Tabriz said: "There are no laws specifically designed to deal with "street-walkers" and if we execute 10 of them, we will have dealt with the problem once and for all."
According to reports from the Islamic Regime´s official news agency, ILNA, Mrs. Eshrat Shayeq, the representative of Tabriz to the Islamic Assembly, stated during the third conference of women members the central Assembly of the of Islamic provinces being held in Tehran: "Any judge who claims that there is no legeal precedence regarding "street-walkers", needs to come and talk to me!" She added: " Single women are worth nothing and in many cultures single women are shunned from society! Our culture respects women; it is the women themselves who have no self-respect!"
Shayeq also stated that the Parliament cannot go against the ultimate order of the Supreme Leader himself and will not be pressured to accept the decision of anyone in the government. She also added that the representatives of the 7th Islamic Parliament have been handed a "house" that is not exactly in ruins but has many dire issues.
2004 Tuesday 23 November
BERLIN – AFP- German border police said Monday that they had arrested a 53-year-old man suspected of trying to illegally export material used in nuclear power plants to Iran.
The man, who was picked up as he returned from Poland, will appear before a judge in Postdam, eastern Germany on Tuesday, a spokesperson said.
He is one of eight people and three companies suspected of trying to sell Iran cranes, broken down into parts and moved through Poland and Russia between 2000 and 2002, for use in its nuclear plants.
A 44-year-old man was arrested in eastern Germany on November 4 on suspicion of involvement in the same activities. Police raided several homes and buildings in at least six cities the same day.
After 9/11 it was generally understood that cultivating moderation throughout the Arab and Muslim world was crucial to winning the war on terrorism. Suddenly, the elusive moderate Muslim was much sought after. But after coming to the disappointing discovery that their numbers were few and far between, many Americans became cynical about their existence. “Where are the voices raised in protestation?” they wondered as the crimes of Islamic terrorism stunned the rest of the world. But even as the West comes face to face with the barbarity of Islamism, the disingenuousness of the Arab media, and the conspiracy-theory-driven Muslim masses, voices of reason have begun to emerge from the chaos. That many of them originated in the West is not surprising; only in a political environment friendly to free expression can such voices truly flourish. But even amidst the dictatorships of the Arab world, a brave few have refused to conform. Fed up with the scapegoating – of Americans, Jews, Christians, and the West – that passes for governance and journalism in their countries, some Muslims have begun writing their own narratives. They suffer intimidation, harassment, and even attacks at the hands of fellow Muslims, but by refusing to cave in to the extremists, they can perhaps pave the way for future generations to follow. Daniel Pipes, Middle East scholar and Bush appointee to the U.S. Institute of Peace (although often falsely accused of the opposite), routinely gives moderate Muslims and Arabs their due. In his article "Moderate Voices of Islam" Pipes calls attention to such writers and activists because, as he puts it, "Promoting anti-Islamists and weakening Islamists is crucial if a moderate and modern form of Islam is to emerge in the West." Indeed, it behooves those who wish to advance U.S. victory against Islamic terrorism to highlight such voices. For such a struggle cannot be won on the battlefield alone, but must also be fought ideologically. And in order to do so, reform should be encouraged from within. In the United States, organizations such as CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations), beholden to Wahhabist interests in Saudi Arabia, have for too long set the agenda for American Muslims. Issuing selective condemnations of terrorism or none at all, and opposing every U.S. effort to combat Islamism, these groups are part of the problem, not the solution. In contrast, organizations like the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) are shaking the foundations of the American Islamic establishment. Not only do these groups renounce Islamic terrorism and the ideology that fuels it, they also express unconditional support for their country – America, that is. The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism has become increasingly visible on the national scene, with its spokespersons appearing regularly on Fox News and beyond. The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) put on the first Muslim-sponsored “Rally Against Terror” in the country earlier this year in Phoenix, Arizona. Although the turnout wasn’t huge and members of CAIR reportedly tried to infiltrate the crowd, AIFD should be commended for its efforts. In his articles for the Arizona Republic’s “Plugged In” weblog, AIFD chairman M. Zuhdi Jasser routinely condemns Islamic terrorism, as well as critiquing Arab journalists who provide backhanded support for Islamism. Arab and Persian intellectuals living in the United States are also making their mark. The brilliant Fouad Ajami, professor of Middle Eastern studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, is one of the most eloquent voices in American journalism. Born in Lebanon, Ajami’s books, The Dream Palace of the Arabs, The Arab Predicament and The Vanished Imam, provide insight into an Arab culture seldom understood by most Americans. His articles for Foreign Affairs and the Wall Street Journal are a both essential and pleasurable reading. Another professor originally from Lebanon, Walid Phares, a Christian, is now a terrorism analyst and Middle East expert for various mainstream media outlets in the U.S. His articles appear regularly at Frontpage.com and he is a senior fellow for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He is represented by Benador Associates, a public relations firm that features many of today’s brightest political stars. The writings of fellow Benador expert, Iranian Amir Taheri, provide an indispensable source of knowledge on Iran and the Muslim world. Unsurprisingly, Muslim women have been some of the most powerful voices of moderation among their peers. Canadian Irshad Manji has become well known for her groundbreaking book, The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith, which provides an honest examination of the religion and its drawbacks. As a gay woman, Manji is intimately familiar with the prejudices her own culture elicits. Asra Q. Nomani, an accomplished reporter originally from India, caused a stir last year in her Morgantown, West Virginia, mosque when she refused to abide by the usual gender-segregated seating. She continues to speak out for women’s rights in the American Muslim community and to oppose what she calls the attempted “takeover of many U.S. mosques by conservative and traditionalist Muslims.” In the Netherlands, Somali-born Dutch MP Ayann Hirsi Ali has been a strong proponent of Muslim women’s rights. An ex-Muslim who left Somalia to escape an arranged marriage, Ali has paid a high price for her outspokenness. She’s accompanied by a security guard at all times and has had to go into hiding on several occasions, most recently in the wake of Theo Van Gogh’s murder by an Islamist with ties to terrorism. Ali and Van Gogh had collaborated on Submission, a controversial film that criticizes the treatment of women under Islam. Ali was threatened directly in a note attached to Van Gogh’s body, titled “An Open Letter to Hirsi Ali” and has since gone underground. She may yet be rewarded for her bravery by the growing outcry in the Netherlands against Islamic extremism. Lest it be thought that such figures only defend America while still clinging to animosity toward Israel, there, too, is progress. Freelance writer and public speaker Nonie Darwish – a former Muslim born and raised in Cairo, Egypt, and the Gaza Strip who later converted to Christianity – has lived in the United States for over 25 years. Darwish set up a Web site with the unlikely title ArabsforIsrael.com, which seeks to bridge the gap that others all too often deem unbridgeable. Even more surprising is Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist who now lectures on behalf of Israel. He, too, converted to Christianity and became a devoted Zionist in the process. Providing firsthand experience of the hatred and anti-Semitism that is instilled in Palestinians from the time of their youth, Shoebat’s testimony is a powerful indictment against Islamist intolerance. The past several months alone have produced a slew of articles written by Arabs defending the state of Israel. Israeli Arabs in particular, mostly Druze and Bedouin, have broken ranks with those who continue to demonize Israel. As a correspondent for the Jerusalem Post and U.S. News and World Report, Israeli Arab Khaled Abu Toameh continues to provide rare unbiased reporting on the Middle East. Lebanese Christian Brigitte Gabriel delivered a moving homage to Israel during a speech last month at Duke University’s “Counter-Terrorism Speak-Out.” And Farid Ghadry, president of the Reform Party of Syria, urged Arab self-reflection in his article “Israel Cultivates Nobel Laureates, Arabs Cultivate Suicide Bombers.” The Arab media, although not typically known for moderation, have produced some pleasant surprises lately. Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel, became famous in the West when his column "Innocent Religion Is Now a Message of Hate" was published in the British newspaper the Telegraph. Written in the wake of the Beslan horrors and first published in the pan-Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, al-Rashad’s article caused quite a stir with its opening statement: "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims." Up until that point, only non-Muslims had dared to utter such a revolutionary (yet obvious) fact and they were immediately labeled "racists" for doing so. Al-Rashad’s admission paved the way for a more honest approach to the problem of Islamic terrorism, although his omission of Israeli citizens leaves something to be desired. Aisha Siddiqa Qureshi’s unprecedented article in Muslim World Today, "Liberal America, Europe Slowly Rebelling Against the Values Required for Civilized Existence," offered a potent warning to the West and to liberal Jews in particular about underestimating the destructive capabilities of Islamist hatred and aggression. That such an article was circulated among American Jews was wonderfully ironic. The war in Iraq, far from producing extremism, as is often claimed, has in fact led to a growth of moderate voices. And unlike the pessimism of much of the Western media on the subject, many Iraqis have expressed gratitude for the liberation of their country through various organizations, Web sites and Web logs on the Internet. The Iraq-America Freedom Alliance (IAFA) is made up of American and Iraqi organizations and individuals that support the War on Terrorism and, as they put it, "a free, democratic and pluralistic Iraq that is at peace with the world." The Future of Iraq Portal Web site provides what is probably the most complete listing of links focused on "empowering the Iraqi people." An Iraqi dentist who goes by the name of "Zeyad" provides "daily news and comments on the situation in post Saddam Iraq" with his Web log HealingIraq.com. Another Iraqi dentist, "A.Y.S.," provides a similar take on "Iraq after the liberation" at Iraqataglance.com. His header reads "Liberation, Freedom, Democracy – Now we have the right to act as we choose." And over at The Mesopotamian, blogger “Alaa” pledges “To bring one more Iraqi voice of the silent majority to the attention of the world.” Iran also produces countless Web logs and Web sites, both from inside and outside the country. In a welcome departure from the belligerence and extremism of Iran’s rulers, the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran provides a voice for the country’s dispossessed youth. Despite untold dangers to its members, the group maintains a Web site that offers a "vision of a free, independent, democratic, secular and industrialized Iran." The students also speak out against anti-Semitism and call for relations with Israel in the "post theocracy Iran" they dream of. One can only hope they’re receiving whatever support from the West is possible under the circumstances. Another class of moderate Arabs is not composed of Muslims. They have either become converts to Christianity (like some of those described above) or renounced religion altogether and become secularists. Both groups are highly critical of Islam itself and encourage Muslims to question their faith. One of the most famous of these is Ibn Warraq, who uses a pseudonym for reasons of safety. Inspired by the 1989 fatwa ordering the death of author Salman Rushdie by Iran’s then-leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, Warraq wrote his first book, Why I Am Not a Muslim. The title is obviously inspired by Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian, and in the book Warraq describes his transformation from Muslim to secularist. His second book, Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out, is a collection of testimonials by ex-Muslims. Warraq has since founded the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society, whose Web site, SecularIslam.org, elaborates on his thesis. Another Web site, FaithFreedom.org, provides an extensive collection of articles, by both ex-Muslim and non-Muslim writers, that critiques Islam in general and Islamism more specifically. They describe themselves this way: "Islam and Quran [Koran] denounced by ex-Muslims as the root of terrorism." Whether or not one subscribes to the group’s beliefs, they provide a welcome source for unfiltered criticism of Islam. Capping off this trend of growing moderation are two recent events. One is the historic conference that took place in Washington, D.C., on October 1, 2004. The Middle Eastern American Convention for Freedom and Democracy held its first forum in what organizers hope will be a continuing series. Participants included many of the groups and individuals discussed in this article, all there "to show their support for the efforts to defeat terrorism and radicalism and to create a free and peaceful Middle East." That they succeed in their efforts is critical. The other is a petition signed by 2,500 Muslim intellectuals from 23 countries titled "From Liberal Arabs to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and the chairman and members of the Security Council." First posted at two liberal Arabic Web sites on October 24, 2004, the petition is partially translated at Memri.org and reported on more extensively by Daniel Pipes. It calls for an international treaty banning the use of religion for incitement to violence and even names specific offenders, or "sheikhs of death." Such initial steps toward religious reform should indeed be recognized by the international community, whether or not the United Nations chooses to do so. When the 9/11 Commission met earlier this year, one of its recommendations was for "a more focused foreign policy approach to reach out to moderate Muslims around the world." And President Bush indeed made that a cornerstone of his first term. After all, it’s no coincidence that these monumental shifts in the Arab and Muslim world have taken place over the last three years. It seems that repeating the mantras of "freedom" and "democracy," not to mention elections in Afghanistan and soon Iraq, may just be having the effect that Bush and the so-called "neocons" desired. But despite such promising developments in the Arab and Islamic world, Americans should not be under the illusion that this evolution in thought is yet widespread. The Muslim world still has many crimes to account for, and all too often its people remain silent in the face of injustice. To impatient Westerners, change can seem excruciatingly slow to take hold in a culture so mired in the past. But the voices of moderation should not be ignored, nor should they be stifled. Just as the West grappled earlier with its reformation, so, too, must the Muslim world face its own demons. The question is can we wait for this process to occur before our own survival becomes tantamount? Only time will tell. Cinnamon Stillwell is contributing editor to ChronWatch.com and a writer for Frontpage.com. Her articles have also appeared at Opeds.com, IntellectualConservative.com, Jewish Press, and Israel National News. She lives in San Francisco and can be reached at: cstillwell@chronwatch.com.
Lov it!
bump
Posted Monday, November 22, 2004
E-mail this page 
Printer-friendly page
VIENNA, 22 Nov. (IPS) Iran is expected to score a half diplomatic success when the Board of Directors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meets on Thursday 25 November in Vienna to review controversial nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic.
“The meeting is very important for the Iranians. If their case is closed at the IAEA, something that Iran expects; it would be a great victory for them. But even if the Agency’s Board keeps the case for further review, not yielding to American pressures, it would be a half success”, a political analyst close to the problem told Iran Press Service.
likely, it is going to be business as usual: No sanction and not closing the case”, predicted one Iranian observer about next IAEA meeting
Diplomats also said that sanctions remain unlikely as China and Russia, two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, have said they support Iran's stance, ruling out at the same time using their veto power in case Washington can fulfill its aim.
“Very likely, it is going to be business as usual: No sanction and not closing the case”, predicted one Iranian observer.
According to a draft resolution prepared by Britain, France and Germany, the three most powerful members of the European Union that are actively working with Tehran to solve the case since a year ago, the so-called “Big 3” would ask Iran to continue suspending uranium enriching activities and approve the Additional Protocol to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The draft, obtained by the Iran press and to be presented to the Board, welcomes Iran’s suspending enriching activities but urges the IAEA’s Boss Dr. Mohammad Ebrade’i to continue monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities to make sure that the atomic technology is not diverted to military purposes, as Washington and Tel Aviv suspects.
In an agreement reached on 15 November 2004 in Paris with the European Troika, Iran accepted “voluntarily” to suspend enriching uranium as from 22 November “for the duration of talks”, but ruled out definitive stopping of the activities, as demanded by Berlin, London and Paris and pressed hard by Washington.
For their part, the Troika promised Tehran access to nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes and signing a Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the European Union.
Speaking in Moscow with reporters, Mr. Hoseyn Moussavian, one of Iran's senior negotiators with the IAEA and the Troika repeated that contined suspension of enriching uranium would depend on the outcomes of the 25 November meeting.
"If the Europeans respect their part of the (Paris) Accords, we would stay by our engagements, otherwise, we have no other obligations", he said.
In a statement in Santiago de Chile, President George W. Bush welcomed cautiously the Paris Accord, but added that what “all of us we want is to see Iran stopping all its nuclear activities at once and definitively”.
The Trio’s draft faults the Islamic Republic for the past activities it had not reported to the IAEA and calls on Tehran to continue cooperating actively with the Agency to “consolidate confidence building” by making sure that nuclear inspectors could visit any site they wishes to inspect “any time with no restrictions”.
Britain’s Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters in Brussels on Monday that Iran's move was a positive one but warned that it was not the end of the matter.
If there is a failure by Iran to meet its obligations then Britain, Germany and France reserve collective right to refer the matter to the Security Council", Mr. Straw warned
"If there is a failure by Iran to meet its obligations then Britain and also Germany and France reserve our collective right to refer the matter to the Security Council", Mr. Straw warned on the sideline of the EU foreign affairs ministers meeting, quoted by the BBC.
In an interview with the BBC radio on Sunday, Mr. ElBarade’i said cautiously though that “so far”, international nuclear inspectors have not found evidence proving that Iran is diverting nuclear technology to military uses.
"We believe that all the declared nuclear material in Iran is in our custody right now and has not been diverted to nuclear weapons", he said, observing however that “there is still a lot of work to do to make sure there are not undeclared activities in the country".
He also welcomed news of Iran's suspension as "a good step in the right direction" that could "build confidence" in the Iranian government's intentions.
He also said that Iran had made the uranium gas used in enrichment but that the quantities involved were not enough to produce a nuclear weapon.
Iran reacted angrily to recent reports that it was speeding up uranium enrichment during the week-long gap between the deal being struck and the deadline for its introduction.
"So far, we have been able (...) to visit all the facilities we want to visit... including military sites. I hope that will continue", ElBarade’i said, adding that IAEA inspectors "have pretty extensive rights of verification".
"I would like Iran to continue to demonstrate maximum transparency," he said. "The more transparency they show, the more confidence we can build and the more assurances we can provide the international community".
The declaration by the international nuclear watchdog’s boss contradicted earlier statement by both American officials like the outgoing State Secretary Collin Powell and un-identified diplomats in Vienna accusing the Iran to develop new hardware capable of transporting nuclear charges and transforming quantities of yellow cake, or raw uranium into hexafluoride gas needed for enriching uranium.
But while the so-called diplomats – the same ones that always turn out right before the start of each meeting of the IAEA directors when Iran’s nuclear case is on debate, giving Western correspondents new information on Iran’s breaches of the Agency’s earlier resolutions – were vague on the quantities of yellow cake and the dates it had been enriched, Mr. Powell also was challenged by the press on the accuracy of his “exclusive information” on new Iranian weapons.
As expected, Tehran hit back at Powell's charges, saying not only the information were “totally baseless”, but also ruled out as “useless” the possibility of him meeting Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister Kamal Kharrazi on the sidelines of the Sharm alSheykh international conference on Iraq.
“Despite some unreasonable demands, the proposed draft has a lukewarm language”, the official Iranian news agency IRNA quoted “analysts” as having commented on the Big 3’s proposal, adding however that it is unlikely to satisfy the United States.
“Presenting many contradictions with the views of the Americans, the draft, even if approved, would remain at the IAEA but would not go to the United Nations Security Council for sanctions against the Islamic Republic”, IRNA added. ENDS IRAN BIG 3 NUCLEAR 221104
Iran23 November 2004
Six years after a wave of murders of intellectuals and journalists in Iran, the Kazemi, Forouhar, Charif, Mokhtari, Pouyandeh and Davani families, and other families like them, still wait to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones, while the instigators and perpetrators of these killings celebrate six long years of almost total impunity that shows no sign of stopping given the frequent displays of judicial complicity and hypocrisy in these cases, Reporters Without Borders said today.
"The ban on any demonstration by the families of the victims to mark the sixth anniversary of these killings is a reflection of the obstructiveness and bad faith of the Iranian justice system, which is controlled by the conservatives in power," the organisation said.
Referring to the July 2003 murder of Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian photojournalist of Iranian origin, Reporters Without Borders said : "In this case, the Iranian justice system gave yet another demonstration of denials of justice, manipulation and lies that guarantee lasting impunity for the instigators, especially when they hold high government positions."
One of the most outrageous examples of this impunity was undoubtedly the decision of Ayatollah Shahroudi, the judiciary's supreme chief, to appoint former intelligence minister Ghorbanali Dorri-Najafabadi as state prosecutor in June of this year. Dorri-Najafabadi was alleged to have been directly involved in the serial killings but was never prosecuted.
Akbar Ganji, one of the few journalists to investigate these killings, has been imprisoned in Evin prison north of Tehran since 22 April 2000. He wrote several articles about these cases in the newspaper Sobh-é-Emrouz implicating religious affairs court prosecutor Mohseni Egeie and several political leaders including Ali Fallahian and Hashemi Rafsandjani, a possible successor to Mohammad Khatami as president.
As for the lawyer of the victims' families, Nasser Zarafshan, he was arrested on 7 August 2002 and is still detained. A military court found him guilty in March 2004 of "divulging case information" and sentenced him to five years in prison.
The wave of killings of intellectuals and government opponents took place in November and December 1998. The victims included liberal opposition figureheads Darioush and Parvaneh Forouhar, Iran-é-Farda editorialist Majid Charif and writer-journalists Mohamad Makhtari and Mohamad Jafar Pouyandeh.
These deaths had been preceded by a few months by the disappearance of Pirouz Davani, the editor of the magazine Pirouz ("Victory" in Farsi). His body was never found. All these cases were extensively covered by many pro-democracy news media. The intelligence ministry officially recognized in January 1999 that some of its agents were involved and announced dozens of arrests. Fifteen intelligence ministry agents were convicted in January 2001 for the murder of the Forouhars. Three were sentenced to death. The other 12 received prison sentences. Three other suspects were acquitted. The supreme court upheld the verdict but only two persons were sentenced to 15 years in prison. The authorities never tried to establish the circumstances Davani's disappearance and there was never any investigation into Charif's death.
None of the instigators of the 1998 murders have ever been questioned or detained. The victims' families, who are supported by Reporters Without Borders, have filed complaints before international judicial bodies.
There have been no limits to the judiciary's duplicity and hypocrisy in the Kazemi case. Arrested on 23 June 2003 while photographing the families of detainees outside Evin prison, Kazemi died in custody, probably on 10 July 2003. After trying to conceal the causes of her death for nearly a week, the Iranian authorities finally recognised that she was beaten to death.
Following an Iranian parliamentary enquiry and under heavy pressure from Canada and the international community in general, the judicial authorities named an intelligence agent who had been one of Kazemi's interrogators as the person responsible for her death. He was charged and then acquitted in a sham trial on 24 July 2004.
Lawyers acting for the victim's family requested that Mohammad Bakshi, an Evin prison agent working for Tehran prosecutor Said Mortazavi, and five other senior judicial officials present during Kazemi's interrogation, should appear at the trial. But the Tehran court refused and concluded the trial in two days. Yet various Iranian commissions of enquiry had implicated these officials.
A few days after this parody of justice, the Iranian judicial authorities revised the findings of the investigation and announced that Kazemi's death was "accidental."
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.
