Posted on 02/11/2005 7:12:05 AM PST by DoctorZIn
Top News Story
People of Iran Draw Backing in Washington
BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
February 10, 2005
WASHINGTON - As President Bush ratchets up pressure on Tehran, a member of the Republican leadership in the Senate has introduced legislation supporting Iran's internal opposition.
Senator Santorum, a Republican of Pennsylvania, yesterday introduced the Iran Freedom and Support Act, legislation that commits America to "actively support a national referendum in Iran with oversight by international observers and monitors to certify the integrity and fairness of the referendum." Mr. Santorum, as the chairman of the Republican Conference, is the third-ranking member of the Senate Republican leadership.
The legislation would support the movement in Iran to force a vote that could overturn the theocracy there, which America lists as a top sponsor of international terrorism. The bill would also commit the president to funding pro-democracy forces inside Iran, following in the pattern of amendments inserted into law in the last two years by Senator Brownback, a Republican of Kansas.
Yesterday, President Bush gave a stern warning to Tehran: "The Iranians just need to know that the free world is working together to send a very clear message: Don't develop a nuclear weapon." He said their program was a "destabilizing force in the world."
American diplomats in Vienna yesterday told the Associated Press that votes are being lined up inside the International Atomic Energy Agency for the possibility of taking Iran's violations of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty to the U.N. Security Council. Iran's ruling clerics could avert such a move it they accept a deal from Britain, France, and Germany to abandon their weapons program and freeze uranium enrichment.
Mr. Bush tried a similar approach in November, after nearly two years of negotiations had failed to resolve his concerns about the nuclear program Iran had kept hidden since the mid-1980s. At the last minute, the IAEA gave Iran another extension to continue inspections.
Since then, Iran's leaders have indicated they would not dismantle the centrifuges and reactors America wants destroyed. This week Iran's outgoing president, Mohammad Khatemi, said again that his country would never give up its nuclear program. He insisted its purpose was to provide energy. Iran has the world's third largest reserve of petroleum and natural gas.
Yesterday on Iranian television, Mr. Khatemi said, "Those who have been thumping the drums of war and have launched psychological warfare against Iran must know that the Iranian people will not allow the aggressors to put one foot on Iranian soil."
In recent weeks Mr. Bush has also signaled his support for the Iranian democracy movement. In his State of the Union address last week, the president addressed the Iranian people, saying, "As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."
A spokeswoman for Mr. Santorum said that he had coordinated his bill with the White House. Last year, the Bush administration did not support such legislation. "This is a priority for Senator Santorum, this is one of the first pieces of legislation he has dropped in the new Congress," Christine Shott told the Sun. "Our office has worked with the White House in preparation for introducing this bill."
A press release from Mr. Santorum announcing the bill's introduction noted that Iran has "been linked to attacks against American military personnel in Saudi Arabia at Khobar Towers in 1996, and to al Qaeda attacks against civilians in Saudi Arabia in 2004." The senator said the bill "will provide much needed assistance for pro-democracy groups who are committed to advancing democratic ideals and principles despite living at the hands of a government that views freedom as a threat to their power."
Last year the State Department opposed legislation that more explicitly made "regime change" with regard to Iran a policy for America. Mr. Santorum's legislation this year would not make regime change American policy. However, the referendum it supports would likely result in a new government in Tehran.
The legislation this year would also add language that reauthorizes sanctions against American and foreign companies that do business with Iran's oil sector. The bill would end most sanctions against Libya, a country that in 2003 announced its intentions to end its nuclear program. At the same time, it would address a loophole in the current legislation that allows foreign subsidiaries of American companies to do business in Iran without consequence.
The Texas-based oil-services company Halliburton last month announced that its subsidiaries would wind down business with Tehran in the coming months after news hit that the subsidiary, Halliburton Products & Services Ltd., had won a contract to develop a portion of the south Pars oil and gas field.
The Santorum legislation, dubbed the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005, authorizes the president to "provide financial and political assistance (including the award of grants) to foreign and domestic individuals, organizations, and entities that support democracy and the promotion of democracy in Iran. Such assistance may include the award of grants to eligible independent pro-democracy radio and television broadcasting organizations that broadcast into Iran."
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin
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”
and now Santorum has thrown his hat into the ring for the Presidency.
I kinda doubt that unless Iraq gets really stable really quickly, our military won't be ready to take on Iran. I like the idea of regime change in Iran, but I dont know if we should encourage the people if we arent ready to back it up with our own military, which is what it may take IMO.
IT S F'ING BLOG!!!
SINCE WHEN WAS SOMEONES ONE THOUGHT IDEA A WHITEHOUSE PRESS RELEASE????
does that mean for the people of Iran backing a regime change? Are they considered aggressors?
Bunny, pancake.
?
"Iran Vows 'Burning Hell' for Any Aggressor"....."does that mean for the people of Iran backing a regime change? Are they considered aggressors?"
Of course! However, he was speaking of foreign invaders.
(they've already made life Hell for the people in Iran)
This is the conference DoctorZin is attending. The list of speakers is impressive and varied....................
http://www.fbcinc.com/intelcon/
What do you object about this post?
It was linked to the story in the NY Sun and is a major development in the war on terror.
You object because I also post a blog?
My blog is the most read source for major news developments on Iran and endorsed by the major experts on Iran who read it daily. Do you mean because I have a blog I should not post to FR, and any news I post is not breaking news?
What blog? It's from the NY Sun.
Thanks for the ping.
are you okay? whats wrong with you?
Dr.ZIn has served us as best as he could since June 2003.
Every body appreciates him and his hard job
Fine.
Then please link me to the White House press release that states "White House now Supports "Regime Change" in Iran legislation". Thanks.
I don't care if it's Jesus Christ making the post. I'm sick and tired of seeing people say the White House is going to do something that it didn't say it would. Show me where the WH has ever said "regime change" in Iran. Thanks.
Okay, I see what you want, and thats fine. Maybe its semantics; but to say "regime change" is not the same as the quote in the article by Santorum. Supporting a vote is different, IMO.
That is senate or congress not the white house.
Congress or Senate has to plan some thing first and then ask the white house to take action on the basis of their plans.
So, It is just the beginning my friend.
Well, I would say that odds are that war will be unnecessary with Iran. Not that American troops won't be in Iran soon. Just like American troops were in Indonesia after the tsunami. We weren't waging war against Indonesia. Of course, it has been reported (no, I'm not talking about Seymour Hersh) that US and possibly Israeli special forces have been operating inside Iran for quite some time now (6+ months). We've also been repeatedly invading Iranian airspace in the last several months to test their defenses. No doubt this is the source of the recent rash of Iranian UFO sightings. Nevertheless, we desperately don't want to go to war with Iran.
Condi Rice said that we have no plans to attack Iran - yet. Of course, Europe went ballistic when they heard that. The ironic thing is, Europe may be our best hope to stop a war from starting. So, no, you didn't miss anything.
I would like to say that I am greatly pleased with the progress that has been made since the State of the Union speech. Things are happening, at least outside of the country. And now today there is hope that Iran will get referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.
The right sanctions will quickly produce regime change. That is, have the US Navy blockade Iranian oil exports. People will say that 40% of the world's oil passes through Iranian ports, and that any interruption will be damaging to say the least to the world economy in the short term. Yes, but it would sink the regime. You can have an inconvenience now, or utter mayhem in the future.
I would be utterly shocked if the UNSC passed such a sanction authorization. China is guarenteed to veto it. Now, theoretically, perhaps NATO could authorize the sanctions. Of course, it'll hurt the Europeans (as if $5 a gallon isn't hurting them already). Can we count of the French this time? I doubt it. They'd lose out again. They make all kinds of money off the mullahs. Faux socialism.
The interesting thing is - if we more or less unilaterally deployed a Navy fleet in interational waters just off Iran's maritime borders. And maybe tightened the blockade up gradually. Many countries would be mad. The sizzling Chinese economy might sputter. Some might consider the blockade an act of war, not the least of which might be Iran. So it could be messy. Today's world is organized more by oil than politics and ideology. But a hydrogen-based economy would flip that alignment on its head.
It basically comes down to this: How much is the freedom of others and your own safety worth?
PROTESTS IN TEHRAN
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1341555/posts
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.
