Iranian Alert -- October 24, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD PING LIST

The US media almost entirely ignores news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, “this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year.” But most American’s are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East.

There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. Starting June 10th of this year, Iranians have begun taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy. Many even want the US to over throw their government.

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.

In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.

This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.

I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.

If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.

If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.

PS I have a daily ping list and a breaking news ping list. If you would like to receive alerts to these stories please let me know which list you would like to join.

Put your nukes where your mouth is

Jonathan Power
The Statesman

For well over a year, the world has been so preoccupied by the argument over the micro picture, whether or not Iraq, North Korea and Iran were building nuclear weapons, that the big picture – that this is the right time to take a big step forward on worldwide nuclear disarmament – has been all but overlooked. Indeed, one can argue that the small picture worries are not that important, but the big picture worry – that Russia, the USA, Britain, France and China still have missiles ready to point at each other – is the one to lay awake at night about.
Certainly with Iraq there can now be little debate about its supposed nuclear weapons’ programme. The UN disarmament process following the 1991 Gulf war did its job better than Washington ever imagined. Whether Iran is or is not building nuclear weapons is an ongoing discussion among experts. It has every reason to, if one accepts the argument than an underdog who wants to challenge US interests or defend itself against its aggressive neighbour, Iraq, can easily persuade itself that nuclear weapons are the only thing that could dissuade outsiders from trying an attack. Yet, now that Iraq is disarmed, the question is who on earth would Iran need to use them against?
Probably we have to worry about North Korea even less. For all its isolationism, North Korea has no real active enemies it would use its supposed nuclear arsenal against. It has Washington on its back, but it is not actually militarily threatened. Indeed, it is the other way round, if anything. The US soldiers embedded close to its border are, in fact, hostages to be quickly killed in any military blow up.
As for India and Pakistan, from time to time they teeter irresponsibly on the brink of nuclear war, but horrific though it would be for those two countries if there were war, it would cause little danger to the outside world.
And even Israel, with its “eye for eye” culture, the only scenario the military planners have ever foreseen is to retaliate against a chemical Scud attack. Yet, if Israel unleashed its nuclear arsenal, it would lose all legitimacy as a nation. It would become a pariah that no one, not even the USA, would extend a helping hand to.
Does this mean we should relax about proliferation? Not at all. For the history of the Cold War teaches us how close we came to accidental war on a number of occasions and how, in a crisis, politicians can be tempted at least to threaten to use them, which convinces others that they are the currency of power. The more fingers there are on the nuclear button around the world, the more likely, by intent, malevolence, accident or insubordination, that they could be used with all the devastation they involve. Most of the arguments given above depend on rational decision making. But the Cuban Missile Crisis told us that human beings can get close to becoming irrational and irresponsible.
This is why we have the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In May 1995, the treaty, signed by 185 nations, was renewed indefinitely. But what should have been a landmark in arms control was more a mark of failure, of promises made and broken by the big nuclear powers, who solemnly undertook to move rapidly towards nuclear disarmament if the treaty were renewed. The recent disarmament treaty negotiated by presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin is riddled with holes. It lacks a schedule of phased reductions, allowing both sides to defer the promised cuts until 2012, when the treaty expires. The treaty does not require the elimination of a single missile site, submarine, warhead, bomber or bomb.
Nuclear disarmament seems an idealistic, even utopian goal. Richard Perle talks of the generals who advocate rapid nuclear disarmament – like George Lee Butler, the former head of US Strategic Command – as men “whose stars are not on their uniforms but on their eyes”. But then to see an end to the Cold War was regarded as utopian by an overwhelming majority of experts and politicians until the moment it happened.
In the 1960s, the late Herman Kahn, arguably the greatest nuclear strategist of all times, pondered pessimistically on the conditions necessary for returning to a nuclear-free world. He thought it would take a US-Soviet nuclear war followed by an immediate pact never to use them again. But Kahn said they must not have time to bury the dead, otherwise the old mistrust and enmity will quickly return.
But I think Kahn would be amazed to see how little enmity there is today between the old nuclear superpower rivals and indeed between both of them and the rising superpower, China. Not since 1871-1914 has there been so little active hostility between the big powers. This must be the time to get our grip on the issue of big power nuclear disarmament, for without that there is simply no credibility when dealing with would-be nuclear proliferators in the Third World.

http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=4&theme=&usrsess=1&id=25903

MEMRI

Part I:

On October 10, 2003, Iranian human-rights activist Shirin 'Ebadi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The following are excerpts from an interview with Shirin 'Ebadi which was published in the London-based Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat as well as reactions to 'Ebadi's award as they appeared in the Iranian media:

'Ebadi: Khatami Wasted Every Chance

'Ebadi granted an interview to Iranian journalist Amir Taheri which was published in the October 19, 2003 edition of the London-based Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. The following are excerpts from the interview: [1]

There Can Be Reform In Iran Without Violence Question: "…There were some who thought that you would prefer to remain in Europe."

'Ebadi: " The possibility of not returning [to Iran] was never on the agenda. Without the connection to Iran, my life has no meaning. I was not ready for what happened. I didn't even know that I was a candidate. As I said, from the beginning I saw the prize as a message from the international community, first of all, to the Iranian people, primarily to women, and then to the [entire] Islamic world. The content of the message is that human rights are the property of all human beings, and peace is possible only when these rights are respected."

Question: "Does the fact that you have won the Nobel Prize give additional momentum to the democratic movement [in Iran] whose activity seems to have lessened in recent weeks?"

'Ebadi: "This is my hope. The content of the message is that the struggle for human rights in Iran is not a private matter, and it reinforces civil society without which democracy cannot be achieved. Change takes place in society when the behavior of many within it changes. This is what is happening in our country."

Question: "Can the current regime be reformed without violence?"

'Ebadi: "Yes. I maintain that nothing useful and lasting can emerge from violence. Similarly, I think that we can act in the framework of the law, and aspire towards the required changes by means of constitutional measures. I have in no way ever done anything in violation of the law, because I support peaceful [change]. The number of people who want reform is constantly growing."

'In Iran – Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan There is an Internal Mechanism for Change' Question: "Some say that your winning is a political move on the part of Europe, which seeks to prove that political change can take place by means of 'flexible force' instead of the 'violent force' that the U.S. has used in Iraq and Afghanistan."

'Ebadi: "I disagree with this analysis. The situation in Iran is different than that in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was no mechanism for internal change in Iraq and Afghanistan; in contrast, it does exist in Iran. Europe realized that in order to stop the wars, human rights must be honored across the world. This is a principle, and a practical position."

Question: "You supported the election of Mohammad Khatami to the presidency. Do you still see him as a leader of the reform movement?"

'Ebadi: "I was one of millions who voted for Khatami, because if they did not do so the conservatives would have won the election. We had no alternative. Nevertheless, unfortunately, we must acknowledge that President Khatami has wasted all the historical chances given him, and the democratic and reform movements have bypassed him."

Question: "President Khatami said that your winning is not worthy of 'all the fuss.' What do you say to this?"

'Ebadi: " I respect the opinion of the president. People are free to have their own opinion about everything."

Question: "Some say that in time, you will become nothing more than a memory, like the Burmese leader Aung Suu Kyi, who also won the Nobel Peace Prize."

'Ebadi: "Burma is not my territory, but I know a great deal about Iran. Our matter is greater than me personally, or than any other person. We have a deeply rooted and developing movement for democracy and human rights, and it is supported in all sectors of society."

Top Indian Nuclear Expert Helped Iran Develop Nuke Plant

October 23, 2003
AFP
SpaceWar

New Dehli -- A leading Indian nuclear scientist is believed to have helped Iran build its nuclear power plant, a report said Thursday.

The Hindustan Times said Dr Y.S.R. Prasad took up an assignment in Iran after he retired in July 2000 as head of the Nuclear Corporation of India.

The revelations come as Tehran begins to yield to international demands to prove it is not developing nuclear weapons and to make a complete declaration of all its past nuclear activities.

Iran had promised Tuesday to provide the information following talks in Tehran with the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany.

The Hindustan Times, quoting from a classified government document, said Prasad, who spent years working on India's atomic energy programmes, did not seek government permission to go to Iran.

It said that while the scientist did not break any rules, the government was now seeking to make it compulsory for India's nuclear experts to seek government approval for foreign assignments.

It quoted government sources as saying that while New Delhi and Tehran do have a strategic partnership, they do not collaborate in nuclear programmes.

India stunned the world in 1998 by conducting five nuclear tests and declaring itself a nuclear power. Rival neighbour Pakistan conducted its own tests within days.

Meanwhile, a director of an Indian company accused of exporting chemicals to Iraq for its missiles programmes has been denied bail in a New Delhi court, the Press Trust of India news agency reported.

Hans Raj Shiv was arrested on Tuesday at Delhi's international airport when he arrived from a trip abroad.

He and his company NEC Engineers, are charged with aiding Saddam Hussein's attempts to rearm Iraq by supplying prohibited materials.

http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031023051623.vbyeqa4o.html

Iran's Parliament to Allow Closer Scrutiny of Nuclear Program

October 24, 2003
VOA News
Melanie Sully

Iran's vice-president says parliament will soon ratify and implement a legal agreement to allow tougher international scrutiny of Tehran's nuclear program.

Iranian Vice-President Masume Ebtekar said in an interview that there is a general consensus among all the political factions in the parliament to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"This is a clear indication of the sincerity of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran on this issue," she said. "It's clearly indicative of the fact that Iran is very strong on its right to pursue peaceful nuclear technologies for the benefit of the Iranian nation. The additional protocol will be signed. The date is up to the government and the parliament but it's expected to be quite soon."

The protocol will give IAEA inspectors expanded access to nuclear sites in Iran. The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency then has to decide whether Iran's nuclear program is peaceful, as Tehran claims.

Iran's readiness to sign the protocol followed a meeting earlier this week with the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany. The three countries offered Tehran the prospect of sharing modern nuclear technology.

As part of the deal, Iran also suspended its uranium enrichment program.

The United States has accused Iran of operating a secret program to develop nuclear weapons. The 35-nation board of the IAEA voted last month to give Iran until the end of October to fully disclose all details of its nuclear program. Iran delivered what it says is all of that information earlier this week.

But some western diplomats remain skeptical, and in the past U.S. officials have accused Iran of being inconsistent in the information it has provided about its nuclear program.

The Iranian vice-president, Ms. Ebtekar, said the United States has what she called an "historic misunderstanding of the Islamic revolution in Iran." The Europeans, she said, are easier to deal with.

"I think that the Europeans don't have the aggressive approach that, unfortunately, the Americans have pursued, and for that reason they've been able to negotiate and work very closely with Iran; and we've had excellent relationships with most European countries on an economic level, on a diplomatic level and at the cultural level," said Masume Ebtekar.

The IAEA board of governors meets at the end of November to decide whether Iran has answered all outstanding questions on its nuclear program. If not, the matter could go to the Security Council.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=EBE8812E-3FCD-47DB-907459B9201F75F1&title=Iran%27s%20Parliament%20to%20Allow%20Closer%20Scrutiny%20of%20Nuclear%20Program&catOID=45C9C78D-88AD-11D4-A57200A0

Al Qaeda's New Base
The Weekly Standard ^ | 11/03/03 | Jeffrey Bell

Osama bin Laden's men are operating in Eastern Iran. What are we doing about it?

AT A TIME when even nuances of Iraq reconstruction policy become flashpoints for bureaucratic infighting, causing competing leaks to spring from almost every precinct of the administration's foreign policy apparatus, the most consequential policy struggle of all is playing out in virtual silence. That is the debate over what to do about the fact that, for the first time since the fall of the Taliban regime in late 2001, major elements of al Qaeda seem to have acquired a new home. The address is eastern Iran.

This fact, and the nature of the debate surrounding it, was revealed in a thoroughly reported front-page article by Douglas Farah and Dana Priest in the October 14 Washington Post. According to a consensus of American, European, and Arab intelligence officials, the article said, the "upper echelon" of al Qaeda--including a favored older son of Osama bin Laden and the group's de facto secretary of war and secretary of the treasury--"is managing the terrorist organization from Iran."

The intelligence agencies, said the Post, have known about the relocation at least since May, when it was learned that the May 12 Riyadh suicide bombing that killed 35 people, including eight Americans, was conceived, planned, and ordered by high al Qaeda officials in eastern Iran. Around the same time, Saad bin Laden, Osama's son and heir apparent, operating from Iran, was linked to the May 16 bombings that left 45 dead in faraway Casablanca, Morocco.

This information vindicates George W. Bush's analysis of the war on terrorism. At each major decision point since 9/11, the president has pressed for an aggressive, comprehensive view of the enemy and of the moves needed to bring him down. He views the enemy as implacable, protean, and resourceful, bringing together diverse, seemingly contradictory elements that cross national and sectarian barriers to be united by one thing: hatred of the United States and a desire to weaken decisively our role in the world. Interestingly, the Post reports that the architect of the supposedly shocking link between the Shiite and Sunni wings of Islamism was Hezbollah strongman Imad Mugniyah, a Lebanese national responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans going back to the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983.

Above all, the linkup between Iran and al Qaeda supports what could be seen as the core premise of Bush war strategy: the pivotal role of anti-American rogue states--the "axis of evil"--in making it possible for the enemy to accomplish the mass murder of Americans and anyone who stands in the way of bringing this about. Surely it is no accident, in the analysis of the Bush White House, that a surge in al Qaeda activity and visibility coincides with its high command obtaining a new, more secure base. And what better host could al Qaeda have than a well-armed, well-financed Islamist government racing to obtain the nuclear weapons al Qaeda has never made any secret of wanting to use against America and its friends?

What to do? As with other major decision points since 9/11, the current debate is between the aggressive, comprehensive war strategy of the president and some of his top aides, and the cautious, incremental view of many of the military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials responsible for carrying it out. These officials tend to see most issues raised by the war as discrete and separable. Their views have a veneer of expertise and sophistication. Sunnis are not Shiites, they point out. Arabs are not Persians. Governments are not terrorist movements. Islamists don't like secularists. All very true, and yet Islamist warriors are today infiltrating into Iraq to fight side-by-side with Baath restorationists.

So, elements of the U.S. government, and of other governments, do not want to hold Iran accountable for allowing al Qaeda to establish a new global headquarters within its borders. So, the Saudis pursue diplomatic channels demanding extradition of the al Qaeda commanders, while our State Department delivers protests to Iran's utterly powerless president, Mohammad Khatami. Needless to say, these efforts get nowhere, and the excuse given is that the Jerusalem Force, the branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps tasked with sheltering the al Qaeda high command, is said to be somewhat independent of the rest of the Iranian government. Meanwhile, the State Department is described by the Post as "eager to renew talks with Iran on a variety of issues."

Amazingly, this polite, bureaucratic approach is supported by many of the same people who said, more than two years ago, that we needed a polite, bureaucratic approach in Afghanistan. The argument always had elements of truth: Al Qaeda was somewhat independent of the Taliban, after all. In the end, of course, these interesting but diversionary arguments were swept aside when President Bush ordered a full-scale air bombardment on the Taliban units defending Kabul. But while the U.S. military and State Department agonized over how soon and how thoroughly to bomb the forward positions of the Taliban's army, and how challenging it was going to be for the Northern Alliance to represent Pashtun tribal interests in the event of a swift military victory, precious days were wasted and al Qaeda commanders found plenty of time to escape.

Today, as always, the most effective ally of what could be called "micro" thinking is sheer bureaucratic inertia and risk-averseness. How, it is being asked, can we even think about what is happening in eastern Iran when we have our hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It would be foolish, of course, to minimize either the difficulties, or the paramount importance, of bringing peace and self-government to post-invasion Iraq and Afghanistan. But it would be at least equally foolish to minimize the danger to these efforts posed by a reconstituted and revitalized al Qaeda, newly headquartered in the Islamist rogue state that sits between Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, a central premise of the Bush war strategy is once again front and center. The president has repeatedly argued that the nexus between Islamist terror and potentially nuclear-armed rogue states poses the gravest of all dangers to the American people and their safety. If his past performance is any guide, the president will soon turn up diplomatic, political, and--if necessary--military pressure on the Iranian mullahs to break this nexus. One hopes this will happen soon, because what we've learned about al Qaeda's presence in eastern Iran suggests time is in short supply.

Jeffrey Bell is a principal of Capital City Partners, a Washington consulting firm.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/284nnvdo.asp

(excerpted from #32)

"This information vindicates George W. Bush's analysis of the war on terrorism. At each major decision point since 9/11, the president has pressed for an aggressive, comprehensive view of the enemy and of the moves needed to bring him down. He views the enemy as implacable, protean, and resourceful, bringing together diverse, seemingly contradictory elements that cross national and sectarian barriers to be united by one thing: hatred of the United States and a desire to weaken decisively our role in the world. Interestingly, the Post reports that the architect of the supposedly shocking link between the Shiite and Sunni wings of Islamism was Hezbollah strongman Imad Mugniyah, a Lebanese national responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans going back to the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983.

Above all, the linkup between Iran and al Qaeda supports what could be seen as the core premise of Bush war strategy: the pivotal role of anti-American rogue states--the "axis of evil"--in making it possible for the enemy to accomplish the mass murder of Americans and anyone who stands in the way of bringing this about. Surely it is no accident, in the analysis of the Bush White House, that a surge in al Qaeda activity and visibility coincides with its high command obtaining a new, more secure base. And what better host could al Qaeda have than a well-armed, well-financed Islamist government racing to obtain the nuclear weapons al Qaeda has never made any secret of wanting to use against America and its friends?"

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.