Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iranian Alert -- August 21, 2003 -- LIVE THREAD PING LIST
The Iranian Student Movement Up To The Minute Reports ^ | 8.21.2003 | DoctorZin

Posted on 08/21/2003 12:08:31 AM PDT by DoctorZIn

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movment in Iran from being reported.

From jamming satellite broadcasts, to prohibiting news reporters from covering any demonstrations to shutting down all cell phones and even hiring foreign security to control the population, the regime is doing everything in its power to keep the popular movement from expressing its demand for an end of the regime.

These efforts by the regime, while successful in the short term, do not resolve the fundamental reasons why this regime is crumbling from within.

Iran is a country ready for a regime change. 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.

Please continue to join us here, post your news stories and comments to this thread.

Thanks for all the help.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iran; iranianalert; protests; studentmovement
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
Discover all the news since the protests began on June 19th, go to:

1 posted on 08/21/2003 12:08:32 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread

Live Thread Ping List | DoctorZin

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

2 posted on 08/21/2003 12:14:44 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
The war against terror can be won only if we have the will

By Michael Ledeen
(Filed: 20/08/2003)

Long before the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I wrote that the coalition had better be ready for a relentless terrorist assault, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, once Saddam had been toppled.

We had waited an unconscionably long time between the liberation of Afghanistan and the move against Saddam, thereby giving the terror masters in Baghdad, Teheran, Damascus and Riyadh abundant opportunity to plan their response. They decided to repeat what they saw as their winning strategy in Lebanon in the 1980s (driving out America and France) and 1990s (compelling an Israeli withdrawal from the south).

Iranian and Syrian leaders made no secret of their intent, and Bashar Assad even gave an interview in which he brazenly informed us - and potential recruits to the jihad - that the terror masters would use religiously inspired insurrection, assassination and terrorism first to bloody and then to humiliate the West, and anyone who joined us.

Just a few days ago, Paul Bremer - the de facto governor of Iraq - complained at the large number of foreign terrorists flowing into the country, and he specifically labelled Iran as a prime mover.

He announced that intelligence officers from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard were actively organising terrorist operations. Yesterday's Financial Times carried a front-page story warning that thousands of Saudis were headed to Iraq to attack American and British targets.

Now perhaps more people will understand that the jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan is not limited to the citizens of one or two countries, but is waged against anyone who tries to make Iraq a free and successful country. The terror masters know that they would not survive successful democratic revolution on their doorsteps, because their own people would demand their own freedom.

The facts have been available for a long time, and no one should be surprised at the truck bomb attack on the UN's offices in Baghdad yesterday, which claimed the life of the UN Special Representative to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.

But, as human nature contains an unlimited quantum of hope despite millennia of intensely unpleasant experience, many will resist drawing the obvious conclusions and, even more, be reluctant to take appropriate action.

The jihad in Iraq is simply a continuation of the terror war against the West that saw its most recent apogee on September 11, 2001. That war has been on for more than a quarter-century, and the terror masters will continue to wage it until they have either won or lost.

This terror war is currently centred in the Middle East (although battles are also waged in South Asia), where we are engaged in a regional conflict with Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Until the regimes of those countries surrender or are removed, we will be attacked, both in the Middle East and in our own countries.

And we cannot buy our way out of this war by changing our policies on such questions as Palestine and Israel, or on the presence of armed forces on Saudi soil, or by going easy on the weapons of mass destruction programmes of Syria and Iran.

Indeed, those who see peace between Israel and Palestine as the most urgent issue in the region should be the most vigorous in supporting democratic revolution in Syria and Iran, since it is clear that a good deal of Palestinian terrorism has been organised by the mullahcracy in Teheran, and the terrorists have trained in Syrian-occupied Lebanon.

Other lingering misconceptions about the nature of the terror network have got in the way of clear understanding and hence of effective policy. The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and his British counterpart, Jack Straw, often speak as if they believe we could actually enlist Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran in the war against terror, which is rather like Roosevelt convincing himself that he could enlist Hitler and Mussolini in a war against Japan following Pearl Harbor.

That such serious and distinguished people have embraced a delusion of such magnitude testifies both to the cunning of the terror masters and the painful obligations that the truth imposes on the free societies of the world.

It would be nice to settle things at the negotiating table, and we are inclined to talk and talk, and walk last mile after last mile, to avoid the unpleasant reality that we are indeed at war.

Perhaps the bombing of the UN offices will clarify things, and spur the feckless critics of the war against terrorism to join us. The terror masters do not think that will happen. They expect that the flow of body bags will stimulate world public opinion to demand an end to the "occupation" of Iraq - which would transform Iraq and Afghanistan from humiliating defeats for the Islamists into glorious triumphs over the West.

The terror masters would then have demonstrated one of their central theses: that the crusaders and infidels of the West have no stomach for real fighting, and lack the tenacity and determination to prevail in this war.

That would be a catastrophe, especially because our victories against the Taliban and Saddam have threatened the terror regimes as never before. Particularly in Iran - the most powerful engine of the terror network - the overwhelming majority of the people desperately wish to be free, and passionately want to join the ranks of civilised countries.

Modest support of the Iranian people would probably bring the downfall of the mullahs, thereby removing the linchpin of the terrorist edifice. Without Iran, the Syrians would be unable to sustain the murderous activities of groups such as Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and both the Ba'athist regime in Damascus and the terrorists it has been supporting would be easy prey for their enemies.

The terror masters are wounded and frightened, but they are still on the battlefield and they are determined to prevail. They understand, correctly in my opinion, that it is all a matter of will. We have more than enough power to prevail, but we have yet to demonstrate the resolve to impose victory on our enemies.

Michael Ledeen is the author of The War Against the Terror Masters (St Martin's Press)
3 posted on 08/21/2003 12:16:38 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
Another Must Read article by, Michael Ledeen. -- DoctorZin

The war against terror can be won only if we have the will

By Michael Ledeen
(Filed: 20/08/2003)

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
4 posted on 08/21/2003 12:18:17 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran Press Service
By Mahan Abedin*
LONDON, 20 Aug.

One of the more encouraging features of the occupation of Iraq has been Washington’s desire to co-opt the country’s Shiites into the post-Ba’athist polity in a way that reflects their majority status. This has led the US to deal with the well-organized Shi’ite force in the country: the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).

However, this uneasy alliance has been beset with problems from the start. The raiding of numerous SCIRI offices and safe houses after the fall of Baghdad came amid a general harassment of SCIRI cadres and sympathizers, particularly members of its armed wing, the Badr Corps. Yet there are also strong indications SCIRI will prove to be a reliable partner for the US as it seeks to forge some kind of representative government in Iraq.

SCIRI grew out of a breakaway faction of the Al-Da’awa Party. Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Hakim led the faction, which left Iraq in 1980 and eventually settled in Iran. Hakim had been a member of Da’awa since the 1960s and was imprisoned three times in the 1970s. In Iran, Hakim established the Mojahedeen fil-Iraq, which was renamed the Office for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq in early 1981. This in turn metamorphosed into SCIRI in November 1982.

SCIRI claimed to be a coalition of Islamic and national forces, but in reality it was little more than a nucleus of old Da’awa activists who sought to challenge former Iraqi President Saddam Hoseyn. It modeled itself on a conventional liberation movement, developing both political and military wings.

At the beginning it was overwhelmingly dependent on Iranian patronage, but it would be wrong to characterize the link as a patron-client relationship. Influence was mutual as SCIRI gained considerable sway in the commanding heights of the Iranian state. A noteworthy example was Ayatollah Mahmoud (Hashemi) Shahroudi, who was a senior leader of SCIRI in the 1980s and is currently the head of Iran’s Judiciary.

On the political front, SCIRI failed to score significant points against the Ba’athist regime. Its open alliance with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war caused enormous damage to its credibility inside Iraq. Even within the Shi’ite community, SCIRI came to be seen, undeservedly, as an Iranian quisling.
Its lack of a presence in Iraq was debilitating and the Ba’ath regime’s intelligence apparatus easily contained whatever influence the SCIRI commanded.

Militarily, SCIRI did not perform much better. The problem was rooted in the council’s desire to develop a conventional military rather than clandestine guerrilla force. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards selected and trained Badr units and strong ties have persisted between the organizations for more than two decades.

Indeed, SCIRI participated in the war against Iraq alongside the guards. Its units were deployed in bases in Iran’s western Khouzestan, Ilam and Kermanshah provinces, and its main training center was located in a Revolutionary Guard centre outside Dezful. The Badr corps boasted a 15,000-man army, but in reality only 5,000 of these were professionally trained fighters.

The uselessness of SCIRI’s armed wing was underlined during the March 1991 uprising against the Ba’ath regime: Badr units were unable to participate effectively as they lacked clandestine resources in the southern and central Iraqi Shiite heartlands.

Ideologically, SCIRI is committed to the Velayat-e Faquih doctrine prevailing in Iran, which mandates clerical intervention in political affairs. Its strong Iranian links have ensured that some former and current SCIRI leaders and cadres are loyal to the theocratic component of the Islamic Republic.

Indeed SCIRI publications, particularly those connected to its armed wing, regularly publish photographs and sayings of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, and refer to him by the superfluous title “leader of the Muslim umma”. Hakim is usually present during Khameneh’i’s important speeches, nodding approvingly from the back rows.

Despite such behavior, SCIRI representatives take pains to assert they are not interested in establishing a theocracy in Iraq. Spokesmen have the unenviable task of reconciling the organization’s ideology with its practical agenda. Recently, SCIRI pledged its allegiance to a democratic system in Iraq. One of the council’s most erudite and articulate representatives, the UK-based Hamid al-Bayati, said in a May 2003 interview that a Shi’ite-led theocracy was inappropriate as it would not fully represent Iraq’s diverse communities. This is likely a genuine reflection of current SCIRI thinking. It must be remembered that despite its clerical core, SCIRI has in recent years developed a professional and technocratic cadre. Moreover its presences in Iraq will likely results in its coming under the influence of the Najaf religious schools - which have historically opposed Velayat-e Faquih.

Saddam Hoseyn’s downfall compelled SCIRI and the US occupation administration to work together. The US initially sought to curtail the activities of the Badr Corps by preventing its fighters from crossing the Iranian border. Politically, however, it gave SCIRI free rein, as evidenced by Hakim’s historic return in April.

Still, the Bremer administration remains suspicious of the council and its allies. These tensions are unlikely to result in a significant rupture. SCIRI’s ties with Iran form the basis of US reservations, but this influence is likely to wane as SCIRI finds it expedient to distance itself from Tehran. Moreover, SCIRI has had links with Washington since 1993, therefore is by no means unfamiliar to the US.

The US will have to deepen its relations with SCIRI if it is to end the marginalization of Iraq’s Shiites. This is largely dependent on engaging the forces representing the community. In the absence of viable alternatives, SCIRI represents a smart choice. Da’awa is also currently a US ally, but it is too small, fractured and secretive to play a significant role in Iraqi politics.

More ominously, the continuing US presence in Iraq could propel the movement led by the young cleric Muqtada al-Sadr into armed confrontation with coalition forces. SCIRI will be a very useful US ally in the face of such an eventuality. The upshot is that the US and SCIRI are likely to forge an ever closer relationship. ENDS IRAQ SAIRI 20803
5 posted on 08/21/2003 12:19:29 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; McGavin999; Eala; AdmSmith; dixiechick2000; nuconvert; Valin; Tamsey; seamole; ...
Iran President voices concern over arrest of book authors, publishers


President Mohammad Khatami on Wednesday expressed concern over the arrest of a book translator, a publisher, a critic of cultural works in the press and an official in charge of authorizing publication of the book, IRNA reported from Tehran.

In a letter to Minister of Culture and the Islamic Guidance Ahmad Masjed Jamei, the president urged him to follow up the case and bring it to an end.

President Khatami said in his letter that dealing with cultural works needs respective knowledge so that the publishers and writers who are the means of cultural development should not be dealt with irresponsibly.

He said that the judicial officials are expected to respect the law in dealing with the defendants who are working in the cultural sector.

The president appreciated the minister`s successful administration of the cultural sector and advised him to exercise patience to put the crisis behind.

Masjed Jamei had forwarded a letter to the president complaining about the judicial action against book writers, publishers which ignored the authority of the ministry bestowed upon it by the Supreme Council for Cultural Revolution.

"I`ve heard that a translator, publisher, book critic and an official in charge of authorizing the publication of books have been arrested. Since the judicial officials have not rejected their arrests, I hereby inform you that such arrests are taking place in defiance of the procedure approved by the Supreme Council for Cultural Revolution, and ask for your personal assistance in solving the crisis," Masjed Jamei said in letter to the president.

Author of `Iran`s Women Musicians` Toka Maleki, its publisher Jaafar Homai, cultural critic Banafsheh Samgis have received prison terms.

Translator of the book `Women behind Veil and Well-Dressed Men` Maliheh Moghazei and Ministry of Culture and the Islamic Guidance Director General Majid Sayyad have also received prison terms.
6 posted on 08/21/2003 12:22:38 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: DoctorZIn
Power of arms treaties erodes as danger grows

What ultimately is found in Iraq may determine future inspections, enforcement

The Associated Press

EDITOR'S NOTE: At their Millennium Summit three years ago, world leaders pledged to "strive for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction." This is the first in a three-part series taking stock of that effort at this critical moment, as the world awaits word of the truth about Iraq.


VIENNA, Austria - The global machinery for confronting the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons - the machinery of treaties and sanctions, inspectors and detectors - is sputtering and stalling, just as the dangers seem more real by the day.

In Vienna, a U.N. agency struggles through its 19th year with a frozen budget as it works to keep nuclear bombs from spreading worldwide. In a neighboring glass tower beside the Danube, experts hired to detect secret nuclear tests close up shop over weekends. Their treaty is on hold.

Plans to burn thousands of tons of fearsome chemical weapons, in the United States and Russia, have quietly slipped years into the future. The U.N. chemical inspector corps, meanwhile, is understaffed and politically handcuffed.

As for biological arms, negotiators recently labored for seven years on an enforcement regime - inspectors - for the 1975 treaty banning germ weapons. But the United States has now shut down those talks.

"There has been a disturbing gradual erosion of the established international norms on weapons of mass destruction," Kofi Annan, United Nations secretary-general, observed last February.

Others put it less diplomatically. "The Bush administration has severe allergies to multilateral activities," said arms-control scholar Amy Smithson in Washington, D.C.

That's because they often don't work, Bush administration officials contend. In a dangerous world, global treaties sometimes are just "words on a piece of paper" that have scant value, the U.S. undersecretary of state for international security said in an interview in Washington, D.C.

"The international regime that tried to enforce restrictions on Iraq obviously didn't succeed," John Bolton said. "And so one has to wonder whether international regimes that find opposition in the form of states party to the agreement are ever going to work."

What will work, President Bush contended last year, is the "path of action," the path that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, to eliminate its alleged "WMD" - weapons of mass destruction.

Inspections working?

But the last word on Iraq hasn't been heard.

The U.S. weapons hunters deployed in Iraq insist they're making progress. But the failure thus far to find large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, or an active nuclear bomb program, suggests that arms control may have succeeded, contrary to Bolton's view, and that U.N. inspectors may actually have defused the Iraqi threat over the previous decade before being swept aside by the war.

"Iraq is a major turning point in how to deal with WMD," noted chief U.N. disarmament researcher Patricia Lewis. If no major finds are made, it should boost the global credibility of arms control, including among Americans.

The fear of WMD is, above all, felt in America, target of a catastrophic terror attack two years ago.

The al-Qaida organization has shown an interest in using microbes as weapons, and advances in biotechnology may make it easier. Terrorists have already used chemical weapons, in 1995 in Tokyo's subway. But the fear focuses above all on nuclear bombs, wielded by terror groups or unfriendly states.

"The desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge," CIA Director George Tenet told U.S. senators in February.

Those desires are tracked, analyzed and, it is hoped, thwarted from quiet high-rise offices in the Vienna complex known as U.N. City, the riverside headquarters of the nuclear part of the machinery, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The IAEA verifies global observance of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, under which 183 nations pledge not to pursue atomic arms in exchange for a commitment from five recognized nuclear weapons states to dismantle their arsenals someday.

Complicating that picture, three nuclear weapons states remain outside the treaty - India and Pakistan, which have declared their arsenals, and Israel, which has never admitted to having one. One member, North Korea, says it is building nuclear bombs and is withdrawing from the treaty. Washington, D.C., says another, Iran, is secretly developing bomb technology. And tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium, the stuff of bombs, lie in Russia's poorly protected nuclear complex, a Soviet legacy.

Growing risks

The more such technology and bomb material spread, the greater the risk they will fall into the hands of "nonstate actors," terrorists.

To monitor activity and investigate claims, the IAEA has just 250 inspectors, little more than the number of engineers, scientists and other inspectors it fielded in 1985, when Washington forced a budget freeze, inflation-adjusted, on all U.N. agencies.

The IAEA has long complained.

"For $100 million a year" - the outlay for verification work - "the world wants assurances that 180-plus nations are not building nuclear weapons. That's equal to a few days' war in Kosovo," IAEA policy coordinator Tariq Rauf said in an interview.

The U.S. government does make grants outside the budget, but that money cannot be used for personnel and is sometimes restricted to buying U.S.-made equipment.

Now, after almost two decades, the treaty nations are expected in September to approve a $15 million increase, to a $260 million budget for 2004. Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei called that "long overdue," just a "first step in tackling the chronic underfunding of the IAEA."

The IAEA's workload is expanding beyond its traditional tasks of ensuring no nuclear material is diverted to weapons work by verifying amounts at power plants and related sites.

After the discovery of a secret bomb program in Iraq in 1991, a program later dismantled by the IAEA, the agency won broader powers, under an "Additional Protocol," to inspect a wider array of sites, from uranium mines on up the line, with short-notice inspections delving more deeply into nuclear plans and operations.

Additional Protocol

Governments are slow in accepting the intrusive inspections on their soil, however. Some are drawing a political line.

"Some are saying, 'I'm not going to sign the Additional Protocol unless we see progress toward disarmament," Rauf said - in other words, progress on the deal's other half, toward elimination of U.S., Russian and others' nuclear weapons.

Many now want to see timetables, 33 years after the Nonproliferation Treaty came into force, and treaty nations three years ago laid out "13 Steps" toward disarmament. The fate of those "steps" shows the state of arms control today.

Step No. 1 calls for putting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) into effect, a ban on testing that would make developing new nuclear weapons almost impossible.

The United States led the negotiations converting a moratorium into a permanent treaty in 1996. A "CTBTO" - a treaty organization - was established at U.N. City in 1997, with a staff of 273. More than two-thirds of a global system of 321 land and underwater monitoring stations have been built or are under construction. Expert teams and computer banks filling two floors here analyze seismic and other data for signs of nuclear blasts.

But in 1999 the U.S. Senate dealt arms controllers and President Clinton a sharp blow, rejecting the test-ban treaty. The Bush administration says it will not resubmit it for ratification. Without the United States, the treaty will die.

"Even if there's a suspicious event now, we can't legally do anything about it," said the monitoring system director, Gerardo Suarez. The data center's plans for around-the-clock coverage have been shelved.

'Weapons of choice'

The Bush administration also has abrogated the U.S.-Russian treaty banning anti-missile defenses, long championed by arms control advocates. And it is negotiating with Congress over developing new, small-scale nuclear weapons, and has laid out scenarios in which such bombs might be used against countries with no nuclear forces of their own.

All run counter to the disarmament "steps."

"We're saying to the rest of the world that nuclear weapons are not weapons of deterrence" - that is, to hold, not use - "but weapons of choice," Lawrence Scheinman, a top arms controller under Clinton, said in Washington, D.C.

If the United States breaks out of its nuclear moratorium and tests a new weapon, it would shake Annan's "established norms" even more, possibly spurring other states to consider going nuclear.

"The real bright line is testing," acknowledged the assistant U.S. secretary of state for arms control, Stephen Rademaker. "It's not something the United States would break out of lightly."

The U.S. leadership, for its part, points to last year's Moscow treaty sharply reducing U.S. and Russian strategic missiles by 2012, as a good-faith step toward disarmament. Critics note, however, that the treaty delays previously anticipated cuts, and it is "reversible" since the Americans and Russians will put retired warheads aside, not destroy them.

Washington, D.C., officials point out that others sometimes stall nuclear initiatives. The United States backs a treaty to ban production of enriched uranium or plutonium for bombs, but China has blocked it at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva by tying it to a proposed pact to demilitarize outer space. The Americans balk at that one.

Delays, obstacles and underfunding don't just trouble the nuclear arms-control machinery. The agency enforcing the ban on chemical weapons, under a 1997 treaty once held up as a model, is hobbled by international politics and weak finances, budget problems that one Bush administration official calls a "ticking time bomb."

Charles J. Hanley has reported on arms control issues for 20 years.
8 posted on 08/21/2003 12:24:40 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
I'm going to assume you are Parsi, and wish you a happy new year! The Iranian Revlolution Part II, needs a PR campaign here in the US to get the media's attention.
9 posted on 08/21/2003 12:29:03 AM PDT by USMMA_83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Chemical-weapons hunters hobbled by U.S., finances

Charles J. Hanley, The Associated Press

EDITOR'S NOTE: At their Millennium Summit three years ago, world leaders pledged to "strive for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction." This is the second in a three-part series taking stock of that effort at this critical moment, as the world awaits word of the truth about Iraq.

THE HAGUE, Netherlands - When they head out around the world with their cases of high-tech gear, their chemical suits, their global authority, the men and women from The Hague represent an agency viewed as a model for 21st century disarmament. But it's a flawed model whose problems run deep.

The young agency, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, enforces the 1997 treaty banning a tool of war that horrified the world in the last century. The birth of the OPCW spelled progress at a time when arms control was making little progress elsewhere.

But OPCW finances are weak. Its inspectors are checking less than 1 percent of potentially suspect chemical plants. The treaty timetable for Russia and America to destroy huge stocks of mustard gas, sarin and other deadly agents is slipping further into the future year by year.

Even the U.N. experts' ability to pull surprise inspections is stalemated, by order of the U.S. Senate. And the gear they tote is also compromised: The spectrometers - chemical detectors - are "blinded," intentionally limited in what they can detect.

The organization's former director-general, Jose Bustani of Brazil, complained it was hobbled by "political agendas" and "unilateralism," mainly from The White House. The Bush administration accused him of mismanagement and engineered his ouster last year.

Just last month, a U.N. tribunal ruled he was wrongfully dismissed on "extremely vague" allegations, and awarded him $57,000 in compensation.

The U.S. undersecretary of state responsible maintains the move was necessary. "We were able to get good management installed at the OPCW and the organization is now proceeding ahead with its mission," John R. Bolton said in an interview in Washington, D.C.

A year into his tenure, new OPCW chief Rogelio Pfirter of Argentina calls his agency "a good example of functionality." But Pfirter acknowledges fundamental weaknesses, too, the same that confronted Bustani. Another Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of his sensitive position, called OPCW's financial straits "a ticking time bomb" that might "possibly break this organization."

The Chemical Weapons Convention was the first treaty in history requiring elimination of an entire class of weapons under a timetable and under oversight of international inspectors. The vast majority of nations - 153 - are treaty members, but significant gaps exist, especially in the Middle East, where Israel, Egypt and other Arab states have failed to ratify it.

From their headquarters, a striking, drum-shaped building in this staid European capital, OPCW specialists armed with long lists of controlled compounds keep watch on a world of complex chemicals that destroy skin on contact, blind or choke, paralyze and kill, substances that nations packed into artillery shells, bombs, rockets and land mines for generations.

More than 200 chemists and other inspectors, of a total OPCW staff of 500, crisscross the globe checking on weapon storage sites and chemical plants to verify that munitions are being destroyed and industrial products are not being diverted. A typical "dual-use" product is thiodiglycol, a chemical usable in felt-tip pen ink or to make mustard, a gas that burns skin, lungs and eyes.

The treaty set a deadline of 2007 for the United States, Russia, India and South Korea - declared possessors - to destroy their chemical weapons.

At nine locations stretching from Johnston Atoll in the Pacific to Edgewood, Md., the U.S. Army held 31,280 tons of mustard and the nerve agents sarin and VX. The Army has incinerated or chemically neutralized about one-quarter of the stockpile, in a $24 billion program slowed by local disputes over safety and other delays.

The White House may have to ask the OPCW for a deadline extension. But Moscow has encountered much worse problems, eliminating only 1 percent of its stockpile thus far, and has requested a five-year extension to 2012. For one thing, the U.S. Congress, demanding a better accounting of Moscow's program, froze hundreds of millions of aid dollars meant for a giant neutralization plant in southern Russia.

Overseeing destruction takes up 80 percent of the inspectors' time, and Washington, D.C., and Moscow are far in arrears reimbursing those costs. On top of that, one-third of the 2003 member assessments due last Jan. 1 are still outstanding, deepening the hole in a budget already considered paltry - $77 million this year - by arms-control specialists.

"It's impossible to do the trick with that budget," Bustani, now Brazil's ambassador to Britain, said in an interview.

New director Pfirter, like Bustani a career diplomat, pointed up a worsening problem of balance: An upcoming "bulge" in U.S. and Russian destruction activity will put still more stress on his inspectors, leaving the more than 5,000 declared industrial chemical plants worldwide almost untouched.

"We're still inspecting too little," Pfirter said. "We're not even at 1 percent at the moment." Inspectors worry especially about small, versatile chemical plants in developing nations that could be quickly converted to military production.

Aggressive inspection would meet resistance. India and Pakistan, for example, object to talk of inspecting plants other than those making the most dangerous substances.

Other fundamental defects were built in at the OPCW's birth.

The U.S. Senate, in ratifying the treaty, decreed that the president could reject an OPCW "challenge," or surprise, inspection on U.S. soil. That defied treaty language and put a chill on any attempt by governments to demand such inspections anywhere. The legislation also claimed to exempt U.S. chemicals from testing in foreign laboratories, an option inspectors consider crucial for independent analysis.

"These exemptions deprive the inspectors of their two strongest tools. They're treaty-killing provisions," said arms-control scholar Amy Smithson at the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington.

A third tool was "blinded." Not wanting to give inspectors free run of chemical industries, to identify any compound they found, governments insisted their spectrometer software indicate only whether a sample matches one on a limited database of the most dangerous chemicals. Thousands of other harmful, often novel compounds are not detected.

"That really limited on-site analysis," said a former OPCW verification chief, Ron G. Manley of Britain.

In Washington, D.C., Undersecretary Bolton said the OPCW's long-term effectiveness "remains to be seen." Of the Senate "exemptions," he said: "I don't think they're an obstacle. Nobody worries about them. I haven't heard it raised."

One who worries is Patricia Lewis, director of the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research in Geneva. "I don't think they" - the U.S. leadership - "want to give any credibility to multilateral institutions that do the inspections," she said in an interview.

It was in Geneva nine months ago, as diplomats grappled with the threat of germ warfare, that the U.S. administration handed international advocates of inspection and verification one of their worst setbacks.

Charles J. Hanley has reported on arms control issues for 20 years.
10 posted on 08/21/2003 12:30:00 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Iran News
Cuba Stops Iran from Jamming US Broadcasts
Cuba has told the United States it stopped an Iranian diplomatic facility in Havana from being used to jam satellite broadcasts to Iran.
Aug 21, 2003, 05:56
11 posted on 08/21/2003 12:35:41 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
An interesting three part series. Here are the first two.
-- DoctorZin

Power of arms treaties erodes as danger grows

Chemical-weapons hunters hobbled by U.S., finances

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
12 posted on 08/21/2003 12:46:38 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
IRNA is upgrading its website and will move (but when?) to They now have news in Farsi, Arabic, English (as before) but have added news in Russian.

Those of you that know Farsi or Arabic can you compare if there are any differences in the text compared to the English version.
13 posted on 08/21/2003 12:50:02 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
This article seems not to have noticed that the Al-Da?awa Party is having a new round of turmoil with a possible split as Sadr junior is responsible for a lot of violence and will cause further fissions.

Remember the splits during the 70s and 80s among the communist and left wing groups in the West.
14 posted on 08/21/2003 12:56:21 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VeryUnprogressive
...LOL @ Democracy in a Muslim country. Are pigs flying yet?...

Ahhh, a newbie. Since you are new to the thread, I can only assume you haven't followed the events in Iran very closely.

Iran has a very strong movement struggling to replace the present regime with a secular democracy. They are pro-USA, pro-Bush. There are huge numbers of Iranians risking and losing their lives for the freedoms we enjoy.

I invite you to take a look at our past threads. See for yourself.

By the way, regarding your comment "LOL @ Democracy in a Muslim country. Are pigs flying yet?" didn't Britain have a similar attitude of our founding fathers, a few years back? Your comment reminded me of the cold war liberals who ridiculed the idea of the fall of the Soviet Union and its becoming a democracy.

Times change my friend.
15 posted on 08/21/2003 1:02:45 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: USMMA_83
...I'm going to assume you are Parsi, and wish you a happy new year! The Iranian Revlolution Part II, needs a PR campaign here in the US to get the media's attention. ...

I am not Iranian myself, but am committed to helping those struggling for democracy in Iran. I agree we need to develop a strong PR campaign. Want to help?

The news media has not given the events in Iran much attention yet. They will soon. We need to ensure they get the story right.
16 posted on 08/21/2003 1:07:38 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; DoctorZIn
I have no Idea about the languages on their webpage.
since many media, Iranians' and non-Iranians' use their news site, so they have to be accurate and correct.
Moreover, according to Yahoo and Google webpages, IRNA is a state-run News Source.
17 posted on 08/21/2003 1:37:42 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; DoctorZIn
Japan still keen on Iran oil field deal

SABC News, South Africa

Japan is still keen to strike a deal with Iran to develop a giant oil field,
but remains concerned about Tehran's nuclear programme, a Japanese Foreign ...,2172,64338,00.html
18 posted on 08/21/2003 1:42:16 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; McGavin999; Eala; piasa; Valin; nuconvert; Texas_Dawg; kattracks; RaceBannon; seamole; ..
A daily selection of views from the Middle East and North Africa, compiled and translated by The Daily Star

Deadly Iraq blast will broaden the circle of chaos

19 posted on 08/21/2003 1:50:45 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
The translation says a lot and thus it would be interesting to see if they have the same views in all langiages.
20 posted on 08/21/2003 2:32:52 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
Thanks for the link to the Daily star here is an article there from
Asharq al-Awsat (London)

The warm welcome extended in Iraq to Shiite Imam Hussein Khomeini, grandson of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of modern-day Iran, showed Washington was hanging great hopes on him, columnist Rida Mohammed Lari said Wednesday.
Khomeini was treated like a VIP and housed in a Baghdad palace that once belonged to former Iraqi strongman Ezzat Ibrahim Douri.
?There was even a warmer American welcome to Khomeini?s recent statements calling on the Americans to liberate Iran from its present rulers,? Lari added.
?The wide US support given to Khomeini?s call was aimed at justifying the legitimacy of the US role in Iraq, which was based on pre-war demands by Iraqi expatriates for intervention in Iraq.
?And now the same thing is happening with the Iranian expatriates calling for a US armed intervention in Iran to turn the tables on the authorities in Tehran,? she said.
?The overwhelming support given to Khomeini in Iraq was meant by the US administration?s hawks to curb the rising Shiite opposition to the US armed presence and to show the US public that Washington?s role was just as needed in Iraq as it was in Iran,? the columnist said.
Khomeini?s welcome was also important in refuting a recent report by a US congressional committee calling on US forces to leave Iraq ?to preserve their lives and safeguard America?s pride from being trampled if the forces have to be withdrawn in a hurry.?
The columnist suggested that a rising proportion of Americans are opposing the Iraqi war by ridiculing the democratic ideas that were advanced by the US administration to justify the war. A similar rising proportion of Americans are opposing the emergency law passed by US Attorney General John Ashcroft giving the authorities the right to detain and imprison US nationals without court trial making America?s democratic system even more flimsy.
The columnist claimed that the US was now preparing to go to war against Iran based on a false understanding that the Iranian community was divided into three tribes whose disagreement among themselves could bring about a civil war.
The US was once duped by Ayatollah Khomeini, who was helped by the US against the late shah. But after asserting his rule in Iran, Khomeini turned against the US and kicked it out after closing down the embassy and holding its diplomats hostages, Lari said.
21 posted on 08/21/2003 2:50:44 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
You are welcome.
22 posted on 08/21/2003 2:54:22 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: All
Middle East

Iran's case for nuclear weapons
By Erich Marquardt

For more than two decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been at odds with the foreign policy of the United States. But the bad blood started long before the Islamic Revolution.

The most significant clash between Iran and the US began shortly after the election of premier Mohammed Mossadeq, who took power in Tehran in 1951. Mossadeq, a nationalist, nationalized the oil industry and formed the National Iranian Oil Co. Because of this action, the United States and Britain engineered a coup in August 1953, overthrowing the democratically elected leader and replacing Mossadeq with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, referred to as the Shah, who ruled for 25 years. Shortly after taking power, the Shah allowed an international consortium of US, British, French and Dutch oil companies to operate its oil facilities and reap 50 percent of the profits.

Despite the Shah's close, friendly relationship with Washington and other Western governments, his brutal, autocratic methods of violently quelling domestic dissent with his dreaded security apparatus, the SAVAK (Sazamane Etelaat Va Amniate Kechvar, or Security and Intelligence Service), sparked a revolution in Iranian society led by conservative religious leaders. By overthrowing the US-supported government, therefore threatening US interests in the region, the new Iranian leaders quickly became enemies of successive US administrations.

Moreover, on top of earning the disregard of the world's only superpower, Iran also has found itself in a geographically volatile region. During the 1980s, Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party, invaded Iran in an attempt to conquer valuable territory such as the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway. The war was devastating to both the Iraqis and the Iranians. Since the end of that conflict in 1988, Iran and Iraq have had tense relations.

In addition to Iraq, Iran is also threatened by the region's most powerful state, Israel, which has a carefully defended nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. In 1981, Israel launched a surprise air attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in an attempt to dash Baghdad's goal of developing nuclear arms; Israel's aim was to preserve its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. It is clear that Israel would seriously consider similar action in Iran should Tehran come closer to developing nuclear arms.

To add to its security woes, Iran has been facing a rapidly changing balance of power directly on its borders. In 2001, the United States overthrew the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan. While the Taliban was still in power, Iran had little to fear from its eastern border; it faced an unorganized state constantly in the throes of civil war. Yet with the removal of the Taliban from power, Iran now faces a border area littered with US troops hostile to Tehran. In addition to Afghanistan, Iran also faces threats along its western flank with Iraq. While Tehran certainly did not bemoan the fall of the Ba'ath Party, it is justifiably concerned about its replacement: a US occupational force situated on its western border. Furthermore, if US objectives are realized in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran's current leadership will face a perilous future of being enveloped by unfriendly states beholden to US interests.

It is for these security concerns that the Iranian state would want to develop and acquire nuclear weapons. Already Iran has greatly improved its warhead-delivery capabilities, with the potential of launching missiles into Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel. If Tehran were to become nuclear-armed, it would end Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and also give Iran the capability of launching nuclear strikes on surrounding states. However, even with such a nuclear arsenal, Iran, like all nuclear-armed states, would most likely use its nuclear capability as a deterrent and not as an offensive weapon. Becoming nuclear-armed would increase Iran's foreign-policy leverage in dealing with US forces on its eastern and western borders, the State of Israel, and whatever new governments may form in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In addition to being concerned about US troops on its eastern and western borders, Tehran is worried about covert activities by US intelligence agencies in their quest to further the George W Bush administration's much-touted "regime change" policy in Iran, which was classified by the White House as being part of an "axis of evil". Such rhetoric began with the election of President Bush in 2000, in which a group of administration officials took office that had been abnormally antagonistic to the Iranian government and uncharacteristically friendly with the current hardline Likud government in Israel. These officials, often categorized as neo-conservatives, openly seek to remove the leadership in Tehran in an attempt to foster a US-friendly government in the oil-rich state, along with removing a potential threat to Israel, a firm US ally in the region.

Tehran is concerned that US and British support will bolster the power of Iranian rebels operating from Iraq. In fact, in 1997 Iran executed a series of air attacks in Iraqi territory in order to weaken these rebel groups; such an overt policy would be impossible now because of the US and British occupation.

Finally, with the unilateral invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq - with the latter invasion taking place in direct opposition to the United Nations and the global population - Tehran remains in the dark about the Bush administration's next move. Learning from these examples, Iran, like North Korea, another state that is part of the Bush administration's "axis of evil", knows that should it acquire nuclear weapons, it would be much more difficult for Washington to attack it. Any assault by Iran's current adversaries - the United States and Israel - would have to take into account the possible repercussions that come with attacking a nuclear-armed state capable of causing extensive damage to its opponents either with conventional or nuclear weapons.

While Iran's adversaries could attempt to launch a massive strike that would destroy its nuclear arsenal or its delivery systems, such a strike would require a 100 percent success ratio in order to be certain that a devastating retaliatory blow would not occur. Failure to eliminate a nuclear-armed state's second-strike capability could lead to unacceptable consequences on the side of the attacking state. If an offshore power such as the United States were to launch an attack, Iran could not initiate a conventional or nuclear attack on the US mainland, but it could easily strike US troops in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Therefore, it is clear that developing nuclear weapons is in the national interests of Tehran. While Tehran cannot openly develop nuclear weapons - because of the international outcry it would warrant - it can continue its research into peaceful nuclear energy while preparing for a possible day when it could quickly develop its first nuclear weapons and become a nuclear-armed state. Such status would shield Iran from a variety of outside threats - including ones emanating from its traditional rivals, the United States and Israel, but also from the newly formed governments in Kabul and Baghdad.

It will be important to monitor the reactions of the United States and Israel to Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology. How will these two states seek to preserve their power in the region? Does the Bush administration still retain the political leverage within the US domestic population to transform its current rhetoric into a tangible policy of removing Tehran's leadership? And will the State of Israel risk the potentially disastrous political and military consequences of attempting to preserve its nuclear monopoly in the region? It is these questions that will grow increasingly important in the coming months.

Published with permission of the Power and Interest News Report
23 posted on 08/21/2003 5:31:07 AM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Iran's Case For Nuclear Weapons
24 posted on 08/21/2003 5:33:03 AM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Good Article.
Thanks alot!
25 posted on 08/21/2003 5:39:23 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: All
Thursday » August 21 » 2003

Fifty years after coup
The shah of Iran came to power in a CIA-backed coup 50 years ago in a watershed event that colours the politics of the country to this day



The shah of Iran came to power in a U.S.-backed coup 50 years ago today. Until he was deposed in 1979, the shah enjoyed a close relationship with the United States. President John F. Kennedy (right) and Jackie Kennedy (far left) welcome the shah and empress of Iran at the White House in 1961.

When I was a little girl in Tehran, I used to think about the huge, powerful country on the other side of the globe - America.

My grandmother told me that if we dug a tunnel in our garden, we'd reach yegeh donya (another name for America). It was her way of teaching me how to map where America was and her answer to my questions about the country whose soldiers I saw in our streets.

As I grew older, I began to understand what has come to be remembered by Iranians as one of the most tragic events of the past 50 years: the 1953 CIA-engineered coup.

Today marks exactly half a century since the infamous CIA coup against the popular, secular, democratically elected prime minister Mohammed Mossadeqh. Mossadeqh became a hero for nationalizing Iranian oil. The coup brought the shah back to power, and what followed was a period of heavy American military presence, coupled with a clampdown on all groups from the left to the centre of the political spectrum. (The exception was the Islamists, who were regarded by the U.S. and the shah as a buffer against the spread of socialism.) Post-coup Iran was marked by torture, human-rights abuses and suppression of the media.

Political repression eradicated the possibility of creating a political party that could win over a democratic Iran in a post-monarchist era. This is why there were no political parties or leadership to take over when the shah's regime fell. The Islamists - considered "safe" by the Americans - made up the only existing grassroots organization with both direction and mass appeal, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini emerged as their leader.

Memories of the 1953 coup sent a group of students to the U.S. embassy to take U.S. hostages in an effort to prevent history from repeating itself. That was the beginning of a downward spiral in relations between Iran and America. Soon after, Saddam Hussein received support from the U.S. and Britain to attack Iran. In 1981, the People's Mujahedeen (MEK), a Marxist-Islamist group that would later collaborate with Saddam, waged a terrorist attack on the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, killing 72 members of parliament and the head of the judiciary. Later, the president and the prime minister were also assassinated.

The war and the death of some of the most highly educated and moderate factions of the Islamic Republic Party shattered the core of the Islamic republic and led to a resurgence of intense control over civil activities.

It took many years for moderation to slowly creep back onto Iran's political scene. It reached its apex with Mohammad Khatami's victory in the 1997 presidential election, which had a mass voter turnout. However, the persistent U.S. pressure on Iran for a regime change might force the face of moderation underground again. The U.S. supports monarchist politics and tolerates the MEK while simultaneously orchestrating international demands on Iran on the allegation that it possesses weapons of mass destruction. It is astonishing how, although the U.S. has found no such weapons in neighbouring Iraq, that accusation has been slowly but surely building support for a war of a different kind against Iran.

If current U.S. pressure continues, there are three possible frightening outcomes:

- A takeover by the MEK (an unlikely disaster).

- A return to the monarchy, which would amount to turning back the clock,

- A repeat of the scenario in Afghanistan or Iraq, which would incite a civil war and likely sweep the county into chaos.

I wonder what stories I'll tell my grandchildren about what the U.S. decided for Iran and why. They might never understand until they grow up, and I might be gone by then, buried with my stories about street battles, war and the tireless work that went into trying to give Iran a chance to be in charge of its own destiny.

Roksana Bahramitash, winner of the Canadian Social Science and Humanity Research Council Ross Award, is a post-doctoral fellow in the women's studies program at Concordia University.

26 posted on 08/21/2003 6:04:35 AM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All
Fifty years After Coup
27 posted on 08/21/2003 6:07:22 AM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; VeryUnprogressive
Excellent critique, DoctorZIn.

To expound further on your point. Those who said the people of the Soviet Union wouldn't ever rise up from the ashes of Communism, have a world view that offers compassion for the downtrodden, while saying at the same time that the people are too weak to handle democracy and freedom for themselves. Their emotional support rarely matures into assistance or strength. The naysayers do not want freedom to prevail, because freedom is contagious.

And, today, we hear that Iraq can only be rebuilt with more US soldiers. The leftists refuse to believe that the strength of the Iraqi people will determine their nation's future. We may or may not send more troops to Iraq. But, in the end, it will be the hard work of the Iraqi people that will be most needed.

I am reminded that GWBush recently said that when we consider America's birth as a nation, we think of the strength and convictions of the Founding Fathers. And Iraq itself does have leaders with the will and spirit equal to that of our own American Patriots while our nation was being born. We will have to be watchful for their emergence on the scene.

The examples throughout the globe are numerous. But, I believe the movement for democracy in Iran is bolstered greatly when they see the changes happening in Iraq. We can be patient and give them time. They already have the strength that they will need, when the moment is right.

Best wishes to you.
28 posted on 08/21/2003 6:28:41 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife ("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: All
Western Press Review: The Bombing Of UN Headquarters In Baghdad And 50 Years After Iran's Coup
Aug 20, 2003, 22:20

By Khatya Chhor

Prague, 20 August 2003 (RFE/RL) -- Press coverage today is dominated by discussion of the bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad yesterday, which killed at least 17 people including Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN's top envoy to Iraq. A few hours later, a suicide bombing in Jerusalem left at least 20 people dead and wounded over 100 others, prompting Israel to suspend all talks with the Palestinian leadership.

We also take a look today at attempts to raise awareness in Central Asia of the dangers posed by the sex-trafficking industry and America's long history of pursuing regime change, on the 50th anniversary today of the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran.


A "Washington Post" editorial today looks at yesterday's truck-bomb attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad, which killed at least 17 Iraqis and foreign workers, including the UN's top official in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, whom the paper calls "one of the most talented and dedicated United Nations diplomats of his generation."

Within hours, the editorial continues, "a bus bomb in Jerusalem killed at least 18 people and injured many more." The "Post" says both attacks were the work "of terrorists who saw nothing wrong with taking innocent life to make a political or propaganda point. Both were designed to "thwart the will of majorities," whether Palestinian, Israeli, or Iraqi.

The paper goes on to say the targeting of UN headquarters -- a "soft," or nonmilitary, target -- suggests that an internationalization of the U.S.-led occupation will not put a stop to attacks. This was not just an attack on the Anglo-American occupation. The UN headquarters in Baghdad housed hundreds of civilian workers from all over the globe who were dedicated to the humanitarian and reconstruction needs of Iraq and elsewhere in the world.

The paper says it has at times joined the chorus of international voices criticizing Washington "for its reluctance to involve UN or NATO forces more fully in Iraq." But "just as the terrorists will attack the United States wherever possible, [so] will they attack anyone who promotes peace and pluralism, whether under the flag of the United States or the United Nations."


A "Los Angeles Times" report by Maura Reynolds and Paul Richter discusses some of the possible long-term effects of the double bombings yesterday in Baghdad and Jerusalem. The bombing of UN headquarters in Iraq, they say, may further "dishearten Americans whose support is crucial for the reconstruction effort."

Moreover, such a high-profile attack might dissuade some nations from providing peacekeeping troops. The U.S. administration would soon like to rotate out tens of thousands of battle-weary U.S. troops and replace them with international forces. Nongovernmental organizations might now also prove less willing to take on new responsibilities in Iraq.

Reynolds and Richter say, "On a practical level, the bombing may increase the distance between Iraqis and those foreigners who are trying to rebuild the country by forcing the United Nations and nongovernmental groups to increase security. Until now, UN officials and others involved in the reconstruction had sought to distinguish themselves from U.S. military forces by interacting with Iraqis without bulletproof vests, weapons, or armored vehicles." Now this is likely to change, even as some are speculating that UN personnel may be relocated to Jordan.

But the authors say the Baghdad bombing could also ultimately help Washington -- "if it makes UN members feel that they are united in the same cause with the Americans" working in Iraq. While many countries did not support the invasion of Iraq, none really wants to see the reconstruction effort fail."


Yesterday's UN blast is also the subject of an editorial in the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung." The German daily calls it "one of the deadliest attacks ever directed at a UN facility," and says this development is "an explosive sign." The attack demonstrates how far the United States is from controlling the land it conquered. Moreover, the commentary predicts that such chaos will continue in the coming weeks.

The news of the latest attack overshadowed reports yesterday that Kurdish militiamen captured Iraq's feared former vice president, Taha Yassin Ramadan. But developments such as Ramadan's capture still do not promise the establishment of a long-term calm in the country or the assurance of basic needs such as electricity and the supply of fresh water.

The "FAZ" editorial says, given the current atmosphere in Iraq, there is little hope of meaningful progress in stabilizing the country -- if anything, it says, it is a sign "to the contrary."


Several items in today's "New York Times" comment on the Baghdad bombing yesterday. Staff correspondent Tom Shanker says although it is unclear whether the sabotaging of oil and water pipelines are in any way connected to attacks on the Jordanian Embassy and the United Nations, anti-occupation forces appear to be attempting "to depict the United States as unable to guarantee public order, as well as frighten away relief organizations rebuilding Iraq."

Following yesterday's UN bombing, "there is a growing belief that anti-American fighters, whatever their origin and inspiration, have adopted a coherent strategy not only to kill members of allied forces when possible, but also to spread fear by destroying public offices and utilities."

Shanker says attacks "on foreign embassies and the headquarters of international organizations, as well as water and oil pipelines, appear specifically devised to halt improvements in the quality of life for average Iraqis." And this poses an "acute" problem for U.S. forces in Iraq: "if Iraqis are afraid and unconvinced that their situation is improving, their hostility to the United States may grow."

Columnist Thomas Friedman of "The New York Times" says global and U.S. calls for international assistance in Iraq are misguided. In fact, he says, there are only two things that are needed: more American backup and more Iraqi representation. First, the U.S. occupation under L. Paul Bremer must be given more resources to get basic services functioning as quickly as possible. And then, he says, Iraqis must be put in charge.

Iraqi citizens "need to be seen to be solving their own problems," says Friedman. "They need to be manning the checkpoints because only they know who the good guys and bad guys are, and they need to be increasingly running the show so attacks on Iraq's infrastructure are seen and understood as attacks on Iraqis, not on [the U.S.]."

But most importantly, Friedman says, Iraqis must take charge because Iraq's "silent majority" is the "only potential friend" of the United States in the entire region. "Everyone else wants America to fail," he says. But the U.S. "[has] not empowered that Iraqi silent majority enough, and it has been too timid and divided to step forward yet." Their vocal support will only come "if America gets the basics right -- water, jobs, and electricity -- and lets Iraqis run things faster." Then the credit -- and the blame -- will be Iraq's alone.


In a contribution to "The Washington Post," former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke eulogizes his friend and colleague, Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was killed yesterday in the attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad.

Often described as "widely respected" and "charming," the Brazilian diplomat served over 30 years at the international body in various capacities worldwide.

Holbrooke calls Vieira de Mello's track record "remarkable." Since 1971 he served in Bangladesh following its war for independence, Sudan, postwar Cyprus, war-torn Mozambique, Peru, Lebanon, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, the Congo, Kosovo, and East Timor.

Vieira de Mello "always carried out his mission with charisma, charm and courage -- [and] sartorial perfection, no matter how difficult the terrain," Holbrooke says. He was reportedly "instrumental in convincing the American authorities in Baghdad that the Iraqi Governing Council needed to be more than just an advisory group" -- a foresight Holbrooke says was "a wise and far-reaching decision based in large part on Vieira de Mello's experience in Kosovo and East Timor."

He adds that Vieira de Mello at times could not understand why Washington so often sought to undermine the UN "instead of strengthening it."

Holbrooke writes: "As Americans learn -- too late -- about this great man, I hope they will recognize that he and the others who died or were wounded in Baghdad were part of a vast army of UN civilian personnel serving in often hellish conditions around the world."

(See link below for more)Western Press Review: The Bombing
29 posted on 08/21/2003 6:33:35 AM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
30 posted on 08/21/2003 6:37:38 AM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Regarding Friedman's call for the Iraqi citizens to police and protect themselves.

I don't remember which armchair general on FOX said this, but it made a lot of sense.

Apparently when trying to build up a police force, it is taking a great deal of time to first determine who should be accepted into the ranks, and then there is training.

The panelist on FOX said that in Vietnam, the US forces constantly recruited and members of the population to work for them, at a really quick pace. I think the main point the panelist was trying to make is that just by giving the Iraqi people the respect and confidence, they will be willing to show not only us, but their fellow citizens that they are ready and able to work for their nation's security.
31 posted on 08/21/2003 6:40:38 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife ("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: All
"Chairman of Iraq Governing Council invited to Iran"

Kuwait, Aug 21, IRNA -- Chairman of Iraq`s Governing Council Ibrahim Jafari said here on Wednesday that Iran has invited him to visit Tehran

Jafari, speaking at a news conference, stressed that Iraq will try to establish ties with its neighbors based on mutual interests and common historical affinities.

He further added that he is considering to also visit Romania, Russia and Spain.

"We want to have a good interaction with other countries, but this interaction must be carried out without threatening Iraq`s sovereignty and must not imply an interference in its internal affairs," said Jafari who is on an official visit to Kuwait.
32 posted on 08/21/2003 7:09:19 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot; DoctorZIn
A doing my best to keep up while babysitting bump!

You two make it much easier.

Thanks! ;o)

33 posted on 08/21/2003 8:07:38 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 (All power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat though.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
This just in...

We are being told that Radio Farda and also some Farsi websites are reporting shocking new information about the Death of Ms. Kazemi.

They claim she was raped before she died.

They say this is report will be confirmed by both Parliament Members and a Canadian attorney in Tehran, Mr. Modjtehadi.

They are also saying that an interrogator working for the Iranian Intelligence Ministry of Mr. Khatami cabinet is the person responsible for the incident.

34 posted on 08/21/2003 8:48:49 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Israel Lowering its Rhetorical Profile on Iran's Nuke Plans

August 21, 2003
Aluf Benn

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has ordered a lowering of Israel's posturing over the Iranian nuclear weapons program, in order to allow American diplomacy to work on the issue.

Against that backdrop, Gideon Frank, head of the Atomic Energy Agency, left for Washington this week to coordinate Jerusalem's position with the U.S. administration.

On September 8, the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is holding a critical session in Vienna to hear a report by IAEA director Mohamed El Baradei on his inspections mission to Iran.

The board will have to decide whether the Iranians have violated existing agreements Tehran has signed, and if so, whether to hand the problem over to the UN Security Council, something El Baradei would prefer not to do. He does, however, want Tehran to sign the "additional protocol," which would give IAEA inspectors much more leeway and teeth in their inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities. Tehran says it is studying the document.

Israel supports the demand for Tehran to sign the additional protocol, and also wants Tehran to cease its project to enrich uranium that can be used for nuclear weapons. For years, Israel warned the U.S., Russia and EU countries about the Iranian nuclear program, to little avail. But in recent months there are many signs of a fundamental change in approach by the international community. A series of revelations from the Iranian opposition about the Iranian nuclear program exposed a great deal of information that until then had only been known to insiders in western intelligence agencies.

In the wake of those publications, the IAEA joined the cause for tighter inspections in Iran. France tightened its exports of technology and the U.S. won an attentive ear in Moscow for Russia to delay its operation of the power station that Russian companies are building near the Iranian city of Bushehr.

With the mounting international attention, likely to increase as September 8 approaches, Israel decided to lower its own profile on the subject and stay out of the limelight on the issue. That should make it more difficult for the Iranians to deflect international criticism as an Israeli plot, while also helping to avoid "balanced" decisions that would link the inspections and limits on the Iranians with parallel restraints on Israeli activity.

Tehran is now trying to gain time in its talks with IAEA inspectors. Government sources in Jerusalem say the El Baradei report will be tougher than in the past, but not so vehement as to require moving the issue to the Security Council agenda. Frank will head the Israeli delegation to Vienna, which will participate in three forums: the treaty against nuclear testing, the board of governors (where Israel has observer status), and the general assembly. The IAEA will hear a proposal from the Arab bloc to condemn Israeli's "nuclear threat" and a proposal for making the Middle East nuclear-free. The condemnations have been voted off the agenda in recent years in exchange for an Israeli agreement to accept a nuclear-free Middle East, but Israeli policy is that will only be possible in the context of a general comprehensive peace for the region.
35 posted on 08/21/2003 8:58:34 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
Israel Lowering its Rhetorical Profile on Iran's Nuke Plans

August 21, 2003
Aluf Benn

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
36 posted on 08/21/2003 8:59:42 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
More than 12,000 Protest Letters to Iran over Human Rights Violations

August 20, 2003
Iran Weekly Press Digest
Iran WPD

Iran received within less than one year more than 12,000 protest letters over human rights violations, the Tehran press reported Wednesday. This is definitely not a source of pride for the system, said Mohmmad-Hussein Ziaifar, the head of the country’s human rights’ committee.

While warning of internal and external impacts of social repression, he referred to the press crackdown and said that many journalists see no meaning anymore in their job and have either immigrated or started to write for Internet sites.

“We decrease the legitimacy of the system with our own hands and make people gradually frustrated who in return react through boycotting the elections,” Ziaifar said, referring to the low turnout of the city council elections last February.

Also on the international level, he added, insecurity in the country has pushed many foreign companies to cancel their engagements or investment plans in Iran.

Ziaifar further said that two-third of the total population of 68 million are between 16 and 28 years of age and not following their demands would lead to an explosive atmosphere.

“The people should once and for all know whether the officials are on their side or just after more power,” the official said.
37 posted on 08/21/2003 9:01:10 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
More execution carried in southern Iran

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Aug 21, 2003

Official circles of the Islamic republic regime have announced the execution, on last Tuesday, of an individual named "Mohamad-Reza Gh." in the southern City of Kerman.

This new victim of the regime was charged of several
"crimes", such as, Drug Trafficking, Hooliganism and creation of illegal group.

It's to note that Kerman was scene of unprecedented and violent clashes during last June's uprising and that the labels used, by the regime against the victim, are those usually used against non-famous opponents intending a radical overthrown of the theocratic system.

Such labels, used against the victims, help the European and Japanese collaborators of the Clerical administration to justify the continuation of their business relations vis a vis their public opinions.
38 posted on 08/21/2003 9:02:56 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
More execution carried in southern Iran

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Aug 21, 2003

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
39 posted on 08/21/2003 9:04:21 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Iran Does Not Surrender

NefteGaz - Report Section
Aug 21, 2003

Today's position of Iran in petroleum export can be characterized as rather strong in spite of the fact that the export oil pipeline Baku – Tbilisi - Jeihan for transportation of Caspian petroleum to Europe soon will be put into operation.

The Iranian petroleum and gas industry can’t work effectively because of the strong pressure on the part of the United States on potential buyers. Teheran should find roundabout ways. The government of the country is going to use 300 kilometer oil pipeline, which will connect port on Caspian sea Neka with oil refining factory in the capital of the country. Due to opening of a new route, extraction of hydrocarbonic raw material on Caspian sea (daily through the route will be pumped over 150 thousand barrels) that will allow to balance the positions in Persian Gulf among the countries producing petroleum.

Capacities can be increased twice if to equip in addition some pump stations. According to the forecasts, the new pipeline will start operation at the end of August this year.
40 posted on 08/21/2003 9:06:03 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Here is a confirmation of my report on the rape of Ms. Kazemi, as well as important new details. -- DoctorZin

Killed Canadian journalist was raped during detention

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Aug 21, 2003

Reports are stating about the rape of Zahra Kazemi, the killed Canadian-Iranian journalist, by the Islamic regime's interrogators while she was in detention. Same reports are stating about the injection of chemical substances to her dead body in order to increase the decomposition cycle following her illegal burial which was made despite the formal objection of her relatives.

These claims are part of the report of a special team of the "International Jurists" sent to Tehran and will be forwarded to the Canadian government for its decision on what policy to adopt against the Islamic republic regime.

The Islamic regime had to allow the visit of the Watch team following a wave of pressure raised by the Canadian government and most NGOs.

Zahra Kazemi was captured, following last June's Uprising, by Commander Bahrami of Evin Political jail while she was taking picture of the regime's men beating on the relatives of arrested demonstrators.

She will die, under duress, as she refused to sign false confessions on a supposed role of "acting on behalf of foreign powers for the destablization of the regime".

Her crane will be broken by the regime's interrogators as she will return the slap in the face made by the infamous Judge Mortazavi known as the "Butcher of the Press".

Zahra Kazemi was of 54 years of age and native of Iran.
41 posted on 08/21/2003 9:08:18 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
Here is a confirmation of my report on the rape of Ms. Kazemi, as well as important new details. -- DoctorZin

Killed Canadian journalist was raped during detention

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Aug 21, 2003

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
42 posted on 08/21/2003 9:09:17 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Europe Needs the U.S. To Succeed in Iraq

August 21, 2003
The Wall Street Journal
Julian Lindley-French

Baghdad holds a clear message for Europe: The recent Shadenfreude over the Iraqi mire into which the U.S. has seemingly fallen is profoundly misplaced. Those Europeans now a-wallowing in the bath of "told you so" self-righteousness should pose themselves a hard question -- what's the price for European security if the U.S. fails?

Make no mistake, failure is in the interest of no European. Here are six reasons why.

- The political map of the Middle East: At one stroke the U.S., together with its British allies, has transformed the political map of the Middle East. By making it easier to find a political solution to the seemingly intractable conflict between Israel and the Palestinians the U.S. has for the moment ruled out a wider war in the Middle East that could have disastrous consequences for Europe's security.

The road map to peace will go nowhere without a strong U.S. presence in the region. Indeed, the American presence represents a defining moment in the long search for a settlement between Arabs and Israelis. Should the Americans be forced to leave Iraq prematurely, the consequences for the region and the world beyond would be disastrous. The chances for success would be immeasurably raised by the presence of a united, strong and openly committed Europe employing the combined diplomatic skills and military resources of both the EU and NATO.

- States of concern: The U.S. presence in Iraq serves notice to those in the region who have been playing a double game with the West. Syria is now effectively surrounded with Israel to the west, Turkey to the north and a U.S.-leaning Iraq to the east. Iran is now flanked to the west and east by U.S.-leaning administrations in Baghdad and Kabul with Turkey to the north. It is thus harder for Tehran and Damascus to support Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and their like and for Iran to pursue its dangerous nuclear program.

In spite of the belated efforts of the Saudi authorities, there are those in Saudi Arabia who threaten the West. So the U.S. presence in Iraq also reminds Riyadh that even greater efforts need to be made to stanch the flow of money and people from the kingdom into the coffers and ranks of al Qaeda and other extremist fundamentalist groups who do no justice to Islam. Syria and Iran are secretly engaged in a battle of wills with the U.S. on the ground in Iraq.

If the U.S. loses that battle, the ability of the West to influence such regimes will be badly weakened. Damascus and Tehran must be in absolutely no doubt about which side Europe takes.

- Economic development: Much of the hopelessness of the region stems from the appalling governance of elites content to reside in wealth while their peoples are mired in poverty. This must change but it is a vital interest to Europe to ensure such change does not trigger chaos and that the political transformation the Middle East must inevitably face is smooth. That will mean long-term aid and development together with a program for the construction of representative civil society and human security.

In short, the Middle East needs a new Marshall Plan or at the very least a controlled redistribution of the oil wealth that has for too long in the region benefited a few at the expense of the many. If Europe's much-vaunted "soft" approach to security is to mean anything then the EU must be in the vanguard of such engagement. Iraq should serve as a model for a new and constructive relationship between Arabs, Americans and Europeans and could, if managed properly, help put an end to centuries of mutual mistrust.

If handled badly it could simply add another layer of perceived Arab grievance. Like it or not, Europe's proximity and its past and present relationship with the Arab world will force it to play a greater role not just in the transformation of Iraq but that of the wider Middle East. There can be no security for Europeans by trying to somehow define themselves differently from the U.S. in an Arab mind for whom Europeans and Americans are one.

- Representation for the Arab people: It is a myth that the Arab world is unsuited to representative government. Under benign guidance, Iraq could become a beacon for the rest of the region. It will take time, effort and money. But having already gone to such effort to liberate the people of Iraq from a cruel dictatorship, it's now incumbent upon the victorious allies to give the Iraqi people the natural dignity of effective services and the political dignity of representation and control over their own affairs.

Europe has a wealth of experience in both reconstruction and democratization. Indeed, it is the story of much of Europe that since 1945 has been progressively transformed from dictatorship to democracy. This experience should give Europeans a leading role in bringing a culturally appropriate form of democracy to an area too vital to Europe's security interest for Europeans to ignore. The current situation is simply untenable. The Middle East must either transform or collapse.

- Oil: Middle Eastern oil is the life-blood of Western economies and is at least as important to Europe as to America. Oil, therefore, is a fundamental vital interest for Europeans and yet Europe is wholly dependent upon the U.S. for its protection.

At the very least, Europeans and Americans working alongside to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure sends a justified message that the West intends to protect its interests and is prepared to go to some lengths to do so. Europeans and Americans must make it abundantly clear that they are there to ensure the flow of Iraq's oil, not to steal its riches. Oil income must and will rightfully accrue to the Iraqi people. At the same time the West must never permit itself to be held hostage by Middle Eastern oil as it was in the 1970s.

- Deterrence: The U.S. went to war to lay to rest once and for all the myth that it is a weak hyperpower unable to take casualties in pursuit of its legitimate national security. First and foremost the war was an act of deterrence designed to send a strong signal to friend and foe alike about America's determination to act.

On the other hand, Europe has appeared weak and divided, encouraging those who are enemies of all Western democrats. Therefore, what happens over the next year in Iraq will decide the fate of this new deterrence and the extent of the West's influence over the Middle East.

If the U.S. succeeds then the credibility of America and the broader West will have been immeasurably strengthened in the minds of those inimical to both. If the U.S. fails then those who killed thousands of Europeans and Americans on 9/11 will have been tragically emboldened.

Here's the true price of failure. America and Europe will be effectively shut out of the Middle East. In their absence the chance of instability and chaos in Europe's backyard will increase dangerously. In such circumstances Europe will be confronted by a Middle East in which ever-more instable and dangerous regimes and groups will likely gain control over ever more destructive weapons.

It is a moment in history that the Americans call the tipping point. Europe as a whole must realize that. So a little less Shadenfreude and a little more realism is in order.

Mr. Lindley-French is a member of the faculty at the Geneva Center for Security Policy. This is a personal comment and does not necessarily reflect the views of the center.
43 posted on 08/21/2003 9:11:49 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Latvia Seizes Illicit Arms Shipment Bound for Iran

August 21, 2003

RIGA -- Latvian police and customs officers have seized 28 tonnes of military hardware labelled as farm machinery and ready to be smuggled to Iran, the security police said on Thursday.

The $500,000 shipment contained spare parts for tanks, night-vision instruments and armament parts, including anti-aircraft systems, a police official said, adding military experts were still investigating the contents of the shipment.

''After receiving information about the cargo, security police in cooperation with customs seized the cargo bound for Tehran in Iran,'' Assistant Security Police Chief Kristine Apse told Reuters.

''It was then discovered that the cargo consisted of goods for military purposes,'' she said.

Iran, branded part of an ''axis of evil'' by President George W. Bush, is subject to tough U.S. sanctions preventing the export of arms and spares for its forces. Washington also strongly discourages friendly nations from selling arms to Iran.

Apse said military experts believe the cargo was equipment earlier used by Russia that was still in working order and sent to Latvia by a Russian company.

Russia has been Iran's biggest arms supplier since the 1979 Islamic revolution toppled the U.S.-backed shah.

Apse said the cargo was more likely to be destined for guerrilla organisations rather Iran's regular military forces.

The United States accuses Tehran of arming and training militant Islamic groups across the Middle East. Iran strongly denies the charges and insists it offers only moral support.

Apse said the U.S. embassy in Riga had contacted the security police and offered assistance in the investigation.

She said Latvian authorities had not yet contacted their Russian counterparts and that no arrests had yet been made.

''There is also a Latvian company involved,'' she said, adding that several offshore companies were part of the illicit weapons transaction, but declined to elaborate further.
44 posted on 08/21/2003 9:13:04 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Cuba Blows the Whistle on Iranian Jamming

August 21, 2003
Asia Times
Safa Haeri

The Islamic Republic of Iran might lose one of its very few friends in the world, Cuba, which, according to American officials, has officially informed them that the Iranian embassy in Havana was the source of jamming programs send out by US-based Iranian radio and television stations aimed at mainland Iran.

The jamming related to Telestar-12, a commercial communications satellite orbiting at 15 degrees west, 22,000 miles above the Atlantic, which carries programs by the American government as well as by Iranian radio and television stations based in the US aimed at mainland Iran. The interference began on July 16, coinciding with the start of a new wave of pro-democracy protests led by Iranian students in Tehran against the country's clerical leaders.

At first, it was believed that the Cuban government, acting on demands from Iran's ayatollahs, was jamming the US government and private Persian-language radio and TV broadcasts into Iran, as the stations, based mostly in Los Angeles, had attracted an impressive popularity within Iran.

Satellite-broadcasting experts said at the time that since Tehran could not jam the Telstar-12, due to its stationary position, it made the request for friendly Cuba to do it instead.

But on Wednesday a spokeswoman for the US State Department said that Havana had informed them that the jamming was made by the Iranians in Cuba, using a compound in a suburb of the capital belonging to the Iranian embassy.

According to a source, the Cubans have now shut down the facility and presented a protest note to the Iranian government in Tehran, and the jamming stopped earlier this month. "Cuba informed us on August 3 that they had located the source of the interference and had taken action to stop it," Jo-Anne Prokopowicz of the State Department said.

"The government of Cuba informed us that the interference was coming from an Iranian diplomatic facility," she said, adding, "We will be following this up with Iran."

After denying that it was responsible for the jamming but pledging to investigate the US complaints in mid-July, Cuba told the US that it had found the source and that it had acted to stop it, she said.

The news surprised many Iranian observers, doubting Cuban leader Fidel Castro's "innocence" in the affair. "Being a fully police state, it is difficult to believe that the Iranians had introduced the sophisticated jamming equipment into Cuba without the knowledge of the Cuban authorities," Dr Shahin Fatemi, a veteran Iranian political analyst, told The Asia Times Online.

Noting that both Iran and the Marxist regime of Cuba shared the "same mutual hate" towards Washington, Fatemi, who teaches international economics at the American University of Paris, added, however, that if the information is correct, then it must be welcomed by all Iranians opposed to the present theocracy.

In his view, the Cuban decision could also be viewed as a signal from Castro to the Bush administration, which has labelled Iran as a part of an "axis of evil" along with North Korea and Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

According to Alireza Meybodi, a popular radio broadcaster at Radio Yaran in Los Angeles, Iranian authorities gave in the past jammed foreign broadcasts locally (in Iran) with mobile equipment bought from Russia, while using more sophisticated means installed in Cuba as well.

"This is quite obvious when we announce some of our programs beforehand, like one very recently concerning an interview with Hojjatoleslam Hoseyn Khomeini, the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, which was filled with locally-produced parasite [interference]," he indicated, adding that most of the foreign-based radio and television stations could be seen normally outside the capital Tehran.

About a dozen of Persian-language television and radio stations, run by Iranians opposed to the present Iranian regime, are beamed towards Iran, where a majority of the 70 million inhabitants is made of men and women under the age of 30, thirsty for modern entertainment programs - and news.

Though the regime has banned satellite dishes, it is estimated that more than 2 million households, using small and easily concealed equipment, receive the programs.

At the time of last month's student protests, Iran said that the US broadcasts into the country were interference in its internal affairs, and accused the US-based Iranian opposition of inflaming the unrest.
45 posted on 08/21/2003 9:15:53 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
Cuba Blows the Whistle on Iranian Jamming

August 21, 2003
Asia Times
Safa Haeri

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
46 posted on 08/21/2003 9:16:49 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; ...
Jihadis View Iraq as the Place to Slay the Great Satan

August 20, 2003
Los Angeles Times
Avigdor Haselkorn

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
48 posted on 08/21/2003 9:19:47 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife

Yes. They certainly seem to want to police themselves and have a much greater say in local and state affairs. I can understand that it's not a quick process selecting new "recruits" and weeding out the "bad" from the "good".
That's where the people themselves know best who can be trusted. And they will weed out the "bad elements" for their own safety and protection.

(nice to see you)
49 posted on 08/21/2003 9:41:35 AM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; nuconvert; seamole; onyx; Valin; McGavin999; AdmSmith
Weapons, Allegedly Destined for Iran, Seized in Latvia
Lisa McAdams
21 Aug 2003, 16:32 UTC

Security police and customs officials in the Latvian capital, Riga, have seized what was described as a sizable illegal shipment of weapons reportedly bound for Iran. Experts say the aging gear was likely bound for terrorist groups for the purpose of updating and repairing existing equipment.

Latvian police say the shipment, disguised as farm products, actually contained night vision goggles, spare parts for armored vehicles and anti-aircraft systems.

According to the police, the illegal cargo seized at Riga's airport weighs in at 28 tons and has an estimated value of $315,000. Authorities believe the shipment came from Russia and was destined for Iran.

No one has been detained in connection with the incident, which is under investigation.

Officials said the shipment attracted police attention because it did not include proper licenses authorizing export, and it failed to clarify the origin of the goods.

Authorities are investigating the possibility that the cargo was shipped by several offshore companies.

A police spokeswoman says authorities do not believe the cargo was meant to be used by the Iranian army, as the equipment was very old. But the spokeswoman says experts say the Russian military hardware could very well have been used to update or repair existing equipment belonging to terrorist organizations in Iran.

Iran is subject to U.S. sanctions preventing the export of arms and spare parts for its forces, having been declared part of an axis of evil by President Bush.

The United States accuses Tehran of arming and training militant Islamic groups across the Middle East, a charge Iran strongly denies.

Russia has been Iran's biggest arms supplies ever since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
50 posted on 08/21/2003 11:48:09 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 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