Iranian Alert -- August 18, 2004 [EST]-- IRAN LIVE THREAD -- "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"

The US media still largely 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.” 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. I began these daily threads June 10th 2003. On that date Iranians once again began taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Today in Iran, most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Dept. Presses Case Against Iran

August 17, 2004
The Associated Press
Barry Schweid

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration will keep using diplomacy to try to end Iran's drive for nuclear weapons, but there is no sign yet that Iran - or North Korea - has decided to follow Libya's lead and abandon its dangerous goal, a senior Bush administration official said Tuesday.

"The path we are pursuing is the path of diplomacy," Undersecretary of State John Bolton said. He said the administration is working with European and other nations to seek a peaceful end to more than 18 years of a large-scale nuclear program by the Tehran government that poses a "grave threat" in the Middle East and beyond.

The diplomatic drive is focused on the United Nations, where the Security Council has the power to impose economic and other sanctions on Iran, he said.. "Never has the Security Council been so feared," Bolton said.

And by trying to rally other nations to call for Council sanctions, the administration is contradicting accusations of it having a go-it-alone foreign policy, Bolton said in apparent reference to attacks by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and other critics of the administration's overseas actions, especially the war against Iraq.

Bolton cited more than a half-dozen activities by Iran that he said could not be explained except as being part of a program to develop nuclear weapons. This included uranium enrichment and plutonium programs.

Iran has never explained itself to the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency and to European intermediaries, offering instead lies and deceptions,. Bolton said. "There isn't a thread of credibility," he said.

"If we permit Iran's deception to go on much longer it will be far too late," he said at a conference sponsored by the Hudson Institute, a private research group, and New Republic Magazine.

"This regime has to be isolated for its bad behavior," Bolton said.

Neither Iran nor North Korea, cited by President Bush along with Iraq as part of an "axis of evil," has made a strategic decision to give up nuclear weapons, he said.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/world/9423744.htm

Iran May Get Uranium From S. Africa Following Cooperation Deal

August 18, 2004
Ha'aretz
Gideon Alon

Iran and South Africa signed a memorandum of understanding on Tuesday on bilateral cooperation. The deal paves the way for the two countries to expand trade ties, and may include South Africa selling uranium to Tehran.

The memorandum was signed by South African Defense Minister Mosiuoa Lekota and his Iranian counterpart Rear-Admiral Ali Shamkhani. This was the first such visit by a South African defense minister to Tehran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

At Tuesday's signing ceremony, Shamkhani praised South Africa for its position on Iran's nuclear weapons program, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes. He said that the agreement will lead to the expansion of bilateral cooperation in all areas

Lekota reportedly said that making peaceful use of nuclear energy is the legitimate right of the Islamic Republic.

Brigadier General Yossi Kuperwasser, the head of Military Intelligence's research department, told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday that Iran is expected to have full nuclear ability by early 2007. Kuperwasser also said that Iran will purchase the technology it needs to enrich uranium by the first half of next year.

Iran said Tuesday it would destroy Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor if the Jewish state were to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. A senior commander warned that Iranian missiles could reach Dimona.

"If Israel fires a missile into the Bushehr nuclear power plant, it has to say goodbye forever to its Dimona nuclear facility, where it produces and stockpiles nuclear weapons," said the deputy chief of the elite Revolutionary Guards, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, in a statement.

Zolqadr was referring to the site of Iran's first nuclear reactor at Bushehr, a coastal town on the Gulf. Built with Russian assistance, the reactor is due to come on stream in 2005.

Iran says its nuclear program is strictly for the generation of electricity. But Israel and the United States strongly suspect Iran is secretly building nuclear weapons.

Zolqadr did not say how Iran would attack Dimona, but the head of the Revolutionary Guards' political bureau, Yadollah Javani, said Iran would use its Shahab-3 missile.

"All the territory under the control of the Zionist regime, including its nuclear facilities, are within the range of Iran's advanced missiles," Javani said in a separate statement.

Iran announced last week it had successfully test-fired a new version of the Shahab-3, which has a range of 1,296 kilometers. Israel is about 965 kilometers west of Iran.

Israel has developed with the United States the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system. It is said to be capable of intercepting and destroying missiles at high altitudes.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=465986&contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Iran, Undaunted by the Prospect of Sanctions, Presses Ahead with its Nuclear Program

August 17, 2004
EurasiaNet
Kamal Nazer Yasin

Iranian leaders have reached consensus on the country’s controversial nuclear program, deciding that the benefits of possessing atomic capabilities outweigh the possible consequences of flouting international opinion.

A hardening of the European Union’s anti-proliferation position apparently led Iranian leaders to conclude that a deal could not be achieved with the international community, under which Iran would have halted its nuclear research in return for security guarantees and economic assistance.

During the past two years, Iran’s nuclear program has been a subject of negotiations between Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Throughout the talks Iranian officials have sought to take advantage of differences in the US and EU stances on the issue. The United States, which views Iran as a member of the "Axis of Evil" embraces a hard-line position that favors coercive action to foil Iran’s nuclear research efforts. The EU, until recently, had been more accommodating, willing to explore incentives that would induce Iran to comply with international non-proliferation standards.

Following late July discussions in Paris with EU officials, however, Iranian leaders concluded that a "grand bargain" on the nuclear issue was beyond reach. Leading EU states – France, Germany and Great Britain -- were reportedly not receptive to a set of concessions that Tehran said it must receive for it to halt its nuclear program. Among the concessions sought by Iran were; a comprehensive security guarantee; access to purchasing conventional weapons from EU member states; a ban on nuclear weapons in the Middle East; and unspecified economic incentives.

According to a report in Kayhan, a newspaper controlled by Iranian hardliners, EU officials during the Paris talks hardened their position on the nuclear issue, demanding a guarantee that Iran would not withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The EU also reportedly sought a commitment from Tehran to provide information on all nuclear-related import-export activities, along with a requirement that Iran cooperate on efforts to combat terrorism and reduce regional tension. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

In assessing the latest Paris round of negotiations, Iranian leaders collectively decided to press ahead with the country’s nuclear program regardless of the possible international ramifications, in particular United Nations Security Council censure. Accordingly, shortly after the Paris meeting, Iran announced that it would resume the production of centrifuges used for enriching uranium.

"The gap between the Europeans and Iran has been widening steadily," said Jon Wolfstahl, deputy director of the non-proliferation program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "There is currently neither enough pressure on Iran to sop its program, nor enough incentive for it to reach agreement with the Europeans and the IAEA."

Since the start of August, Iranian leaders have sought to justify the country’s right to develop its atomic capabilities. On August 15, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told an assembly Iranian diplomats that the country was "following its logical objective of making peaceful use of nuclear energy," the official IRNA news agency reported.

On August 11, President Mohammad Khatami told a news conference that international actions would not deter Iran from pursuing nuclear research. "Even though we don’t want our case to go to the [UN] Security Council, if they [members of the international community] try to deprive us of our basic rights, both we and the people must be prepared to pay a price."

Iran reportedly resumed work on a nuclear program in 1984, reviving secretive efforts begun under the Shah prior to the Islamic Revolution. At the time of the program’s resumption, the country was in the midst of a bitter, eight-year war with neighboring Iraq. Officials in Tehran at the time felt nuclear capabilities were needed to neutralize the use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi military. Today, many Iranian officials continue to believe that nuclear capabilities would offer the best deterrent to a variety of potential security threats.

Iran’s nuclear research managed to remain underground until 2002. The IAEA quickly took up the matter after news of Iranian development efforts came to light. According to experts in Tehran, while there is consensus in the country’s political hierarchy on the need to develop a nuclear capacity, opinion is still divided on how that capacity should be utilized. Some leaders favor the development of nuclear arms, while others would limit the atomic capacity to civil applications. A few leaders would be willing to use the country’s full-fledged nuclear capabilities as a bargaining chip in future negotiations on global economic and political topics.

In deciding to carry on with nuclear research in the face of stiff international opposition, Tehran appears to believe that possible punishment will lack substantial bite. The Iranian policy calculus is driven by several geopolitical factors. For one, Tehran feels that the United States lacks the resources, given Washington’s preoccupation with Iraqi reconstruction efforts, to directly challenge Iran with retaliatory action.

Iranian officials also do not expect the UN Security Council to impose extensive economic sanctions on Tehran. They base their belief on the fact that global oil and gas prices are already at high levels, and that the United States and EU are unwilling to see costs rise. Sanctions that would take Iranian natural resources off the international market would likely add to the existing fuel shortage, potentially sending energy prices sharply higher.

In addition, Tehran does not appear concerned about the possibility of an Israeli air strike, such as the 1981 raid that derailed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions. Iran, according to experts in the country, has taken precautions against such preemptive action, spreading out its research facilities, placing some in urban areas and others in underground locations.

Wolfstahl, the non-proliferation expert, citing confidential sources, said the prevailing view within the Israeli government is that a military raid would stand an extremely low chance of success in deterring the Iranian nuclear program. "An air strike would only slow down Iran’s program," Wolfstahl said. "In the absence of perfect intelligence, [Iranian leaders] would be likely to restart the [nuclear] program in short order."

Editor’s Note: Kamal Nazer Yasin is a pseudonym for a freelance journalist specializing in Iranian affairs.

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav081704.shtml

IAEA Delays Iran Nukes Decision

May 18, 2004
Agence France-Presse
From Correspondents in Vienna

THE UN's nuclear agency will not rule in a report next month on whether Iran's nuclear program is of a military nature, nor will it recommend bringing the case before the UN Security Council, diplomats said today.

"I suspect that this will be another of those reports where there is no 'smoking gun' which would allow the hardline countries to send this to the Security Council," a diplomat said today.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is conducting a major probe into Iran's bid to generate electricity through nuclear power - seen by the US as a cover for secret weapons development.

However, the source said the report would not deliver "a so-called clean bill of health, which would allow Iran to say that they should be taken off the agenda of the board of governors" of the Vienna-based agency.

According to the source, neither will it contain conclusive findings about traces of highly enriched uranium discovered, which can be used to manufacture an atomic bomb, detected at facilities in Iran.

He said the IAEA had not yet concluded that the traces came from equipment bought on a black market network run by Pakistan's former nuclear chief scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, as reported by Jane's Defence Weekly this month.

"That source was not entirely correct - some of the samples support the idea that some of the protocols came from Pakistan but (IAEA inspectors) don't have the complete set of analysis and samples and are not yet able to say what Jane's said."

The IAEA inspectors "are not going to say in the report that the contamination came from abroad", he said.

The traces of 54 per cent-enriched uranium have been at the heart of an ongoing international dispute over whether Tehran has reneged on its obligations to inform the IAEA of all enrichment activities.

The Islamic Republic, which insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, says the traces were brought into the country on imported equipment and wants its dossier to be taken off the agenda of the UN nuclear watchdog.

The IAEA board is due to meet at the organisation's headquarters in Vienna from September 13.

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10483837%255E1702,00.html

Iran will Destroy Israel's Reactor if it Attacks Iran's

August 18, 2004
Dow Jones Newswires
AP

TEHRAN -- Accompanied by a warning that its missiles have the range, Iran on Tuesday said it would destroy Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor if the Jewish state were to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

"If Israel fires a missile into the Bushehr nuclear power plant, it has to say goodbye forever to its Dimona nuclear facility, where it produces and stockpiles nuclear weapons," the deputy chief of the elite Revolutionary Guards, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, said in a statement.

Bushehr, a coastal town on the Persian Gulf, is the site of Iran's first nuclear reactor. Built with Russian assistance, it's due to come online in 2005.

Iran says its nuclear program is strictly for generating electricity. But Israel and the United States strongly suspect Iran is secretly building nuclear weapons.

Israel has not threatened to attack the Bushehr reactor, but it has said it will not allow Iran to build a nuclear bomb. In 1981 Israeli fighters destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction outside Baghdad because it feared Iraq would acquire a nuclear weapon.

Israel has never confirmed nor denied having nuclear weapons, but it is widely believed to be a nuclear power. Its reactor at Dimona in the Negev Desert is said to be the source of plutonium for its alleged nuclear warheads.

Zolqadr did not say how Iran would attack Dimona, but the head of the Revolutionary Guards' political bureau, Yadollah Javani, said Iran would use its Shahab-3 missile.

"All the territory under the control of the Zionist regime, including its nuclear facilities, are within the range of Iran's advanced missiles," Javani said in a separate statement.

Iran announced last week it had successfully test-fired a new version of the Shahab-3, which has a range of about 810 miles. Israel is about 600 miles west of Iran.

U.S. officials say the missile, whose name means shooting star in Farsi, is based on the North Korean "No Dong" rocket. Iran says Shahab-3 is entirely Iranian-made.

With help from the U.S., Israel has developed the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system. It is said to be capable of intercepting and destroying missiles at high altitudes.

http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/quotes_news.asp?cpath=20040817ACQDJON200408171920DOWJONESDJONLINE000698.htm&selected=9999&StoryTargetFrame=_top&mkt=WORLD&chk=unchecked&lang=&link=&headlinereturnpage=http:/

Would Israel Strike First at Iran?

August 18, 2004
The Christian Science Monitor
Joshua Mitnick

Moments before dispatching Israeli pilots to bomb Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in June, 1981, army Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan is said to have depicted the importance of the mission in stark terms: "The alternative is our destruction.''

In ordering the lightning knockout, Israel served notice to its Middle Eastern foes that the Jewish state would act - even preemptively - to deprive them of a nuclear option.

Two decades later, the Osirak precedent endures. As the Bush administration steps up its rhetoric against Iran's nuclear program, the possibility of Israel following through on veiled threats to hit Iranian sites remains a wildcard.

But several Israeli experts say that the Osirak experience bears little relevance in the case of Iran and that the chances of a repeat strike are very low.

Unlike in the early 1980s when Israel found itself isolated in perceiving a threat from Iraq's nuclear program, the prospect of US-led multilateral pressure against Iran casts a unilateral strike in a more-problematic light.

With National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice warning last week that the US won't tolerate a nuclear Iran, Israel is much more likely to act in tandem with its most powerful ally rather than electing to go it alone, observers say.

"The circumstances are quite different,'' says Ephraim Kam, head of the Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel. "If Israel is going to take any move beyond the diplomatic move, there should be better understanding in the international arena that there is no way to stop the Iranians.''

Tehran admits it has sought so-called dual-use nuclear technology in order to generate electricity, but denies it aims to build nuclear weapons.

Repeat performance?

Even the very ability of Israel's military to repeat the decisive strike achieved at Osirak appears doubtful. While the Iraqi nuclear effort was concentrated at the Osirak plant, nuclear experts say the Iranians have dispersed their program at multiple sites, some of which are hidden underground.

That makes a repeat performance of the clean and decisive blow against Iraq almost impossible, analysts say. Not only is it unclear how Israeli forces would eliminate underground centrifuge installations, but the task of locating all of Iran's nuclear targets requires a high degree of intelligence and risk.

"I don't think there's an option for a preemptive act because we're talking about a different sort of a nuclear program,'' says Shmuel Bar, a fellow at the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. "A hit-and-run preemptive attack can't guarantee much success.''

Even so, first-strike offensives have been an essential element of Israel's defensive doctrine for decades - the most famous instance being the Israeli Air Force's destruction of Egyptian air bases to open the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. That approach still influences the Israeli defense establishment.

With Israeli intelligence agencies estimating that Iran will acquire nuclear weaponry by 2007, defense officials on occasion drop hints of a first strike. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz (who was born in Iran) said in a December radio interview that Israel would try to minimize civilian casualties in such an attack.

Last week, Israeli army Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon said in an interview with the daily newspaper Yediot Ahronot that Israel "can't rely on others'' in facing the threat from Iran.

Both countries have engaged in a cat-and-mouse game of missile tests in recent weeks. Iran has said it would strike at Israel with its ballistic missiles if Israel attacks its nuclear facilities.

"For Israel it's quite clear, that we're not going to wait for a threat to be realized,'' says Ephraim Inbar, head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. "For self-defense we have to act in a preemptive mode.''

Nevertheless, a lone Israeli strike reminiscent of 1981 seems less likely at a time when US forces are sitting in neighboring Iraq, officials and analysts say. By acting independently, Israel would be forgoing the intelligence and manpower of the better-positioned American military.

US complicity?

The Osirak strike generated a chorus of international condemnation that included US Secretary of State Alexander Haig and UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. But beyond a temporary halt in F-16 fighter jet shipments from the US, there was no lasting fallout.

Unlike 1981, the blame for such an attack today would not be limited to Israel. The US would be perceived in the Muslim world as being complicit - probably boosting the motivation of extremists to carry out terrorist attacks on Western targets.

"Certainly it would be seen as a continuation of what the Americans did in Iraq,'' says Bruce Maddy Weizman, a fellow at the Dayan Center for Middle East and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. "Israel and US are widely perceived to be acting in concert.''

For their part, Israeli officials argue that Iran's ambition is to use nuclear prominence to threaten Saudi Arabia, Europe, and US influence in the Gulf.

That position makes it harder to justify another Osirak, because such an action would contradict Israeli claims that Iran's nuclear program is a global threat rather than a regional one.

"We don't want to create the impression that it's on our shoulders,'' says Israeli legislator Yuval Steinmetz, chair of the parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee. "This time it's not up to Israel to save the world.''

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0818/p06s01-wome.html

Proud of what?
We had Hafez thousands of years ago, what do we have now? Certainly not respect

August 16, 2004
iranian.com

Arash Miresmaeili's refusal to compete with his Israeli counter part is another black mark for the reputation of Iranians around the world [News]. His irresponsible and ignorant decision has made the International Olympic Committee (IOC) question whether Iran should even be in the Olympics.

Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, Iranian pride, respect and image has taken a dive for the worse. First, with the US embassy hostage crisis, when people around the world saw at least some Iranians are capable of such a despicable act. During the eighties and nineties the regime's dismal human rights record became more revealing to the outside world, with the latest incident being the murder of journalist Zahra Kazemi.

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine approached me to discuss a little "problem" with his son. Apparently the little boy was telling his father that he did not feel comfortable revealing his Iranian nationality to his friends. My patriotic friend started lecturing his son. First, he gave the familiar "We come from a county with 6000 years of history" speech . Then he shifted to "You have to be proud of youe country as many famous poets like Hafez and physicians like Avicena have been Iranian."

As he was telling me all this, my right brain, being more logical than my left, kicked in. Exactly what do we have to be proud of? If we saw what has happened to Iran and how Iranians have behaved in the past twenty five years through objective impartial eyes, would we be really proud of being Iranian?

Exactly why should anyone be proud of the fact that Iran has produced people like Hafez and Avicena? On the contrary, it is deplorable that a country that has produced prominent figures is now ruled by a group of ruthless, uneducated clerics. We Iranians are a nation fixated with the past. We had Hafez thousands of years ago, what do we have now? Certainly not respect.

A recent survey revealed that regardless of the type of government, 40% of Iranians want the future government in Iran to be a religious one. When the West is making technological breakthroughs, our people are still hooked on the actions of fictitious religious figures like Mohamamad, Ali and Hossein who lived two centuries ago.

Instead of celebrating the bravery of our own heroes -- like the six-year-old who strapped grenades to his waste and blew up an invading Iraqi tank in Ahvaz, or the Mohamdi brothers who are emaciated by torture and disease just for wanting freedom of expression -- we celebrate the bravery of unknown individuals from another land and culture.

Isn't it shameful and ironic that one of the Persian kings, Cyrus the Great, was the first to write the first charter of human rights in an era when nations were massacring each other? Now, in the 21centruy, many countries have embraced the contents of the charter. Yet the country of Cyrus continues to trample on human rights.

How many of us really feel proud when westerners ask us about the murder of Zahra Kazemi and we have no rational answer to give them? How many of us feel proud when Iranians are being tortured and killed in prisons simply for disagreeing with the regime? Let's not forget the people who are doing such deeds are not American, Canadian or Spanish. They are Iranians brought upon by a revolution that all Iranians helped bring about.

Exactly what is there to be proud of in watching the leaders of our country on different news channels wearing strange looking robes with ragged clothing and exceptionally unattractive features? What is there to be proud when we see members of the Iranian women Taekwondo team is wearing the hejab underneath their gear looking like creatures in "Lord of the Rings"?

Let's not let our emotions dictate our judgments. Being Iranian these days is nothing to be proud. May be if we hit rock bottom will we wake up one day and try to fix our country and its image.

http://www.iranian.com/Pesar/2004/August/Olympics/index.html

Reason to be proud
I am proud that in Iran there are brave people who stand up against tyranny and corruption

Houman Younessi
August 17, 2004
iranian.com

Pessare Gol,

I read your article -- "Proud of what?" -- with interest. You certainly make an intriguing point. However, there are a few points that I need to highlight:

1. What is national pride anyway? And is it a positive thing? Should we not concentrate on our humanity? Nationalism concentrates on our differences, it divides rather than unite. In an extreme, it ultimately manifests itself in behavior such as Nazism, as the current jingoistic behavior of many Americans, as racism, as genocide, etc. Nationalism is often retrospective not progressive. It is stuck in the past instead of looking into the future.

Although it is useful to be aware of who one is and the basis and the essence of one’s cultural heritage, one should concentrate on becoming the best individual example of humanity he/she can be now and in the future, and not what he/she has done in the past (or even worse, what the people born in the patch of dirt in which he/she happens to have been born have been or done in the past).

2. Even if we took national pride in its progressive aspect, I must say the concept is extremely a relative one. Something that is cause for pride for one could be a source of embarrassment for another.

3. It is also interesting to note that for many people and nations, the source or cause for pride of the people and that of the government differ. You mention that in a country like Iran, there is nothing of which to be proud. Now this - if we are inclined to be given to nationalism and national pride - I think is only partially correct. There is very little - if anything - that the IRI has done of which one can be proud in this I agree with you.

However, over the twenty six years or so since the advent of the so called “Islamic Revolution”, there have been many Iranians who have achieved great things that make us all “proud” (by all I mean all members of the human brother/sisterhood). Usually these people have been fighting against the objectives of the IRI, hence my point. Besides, there are many other people of Iranian origin who as scientists, engineers, journalists, physicians, and artists have contributed enormously to make this a better world for us all. As a member of the human race, I am proud of every one of them.

So in response to your question; “How many of us really feel proud when westerners ask us about the murder of Zahra Kazemi and we have no rational answer to give them? How many of us feel proud when Iranians are being tortured and killed in prisons simply for disagreeing with the regime?” I must say that as a thinking, feeling human being... I AM. I am proud that in Iran there are brave people who stand up against tyranny and corruption, the same way that I am proud of all those who fight for freedom and justice everywhere. It has nothing to do with location of one’s birth.

And then there are a couple of other points:

4. Hafez was born circa 1320 AD and died in 1388 or 1389 AD. That is only around 700 years ago. We haven’t had Hafez for THOUSANDS of years as you suggest, only a few hundred years.

5. Your statement; “When the West is making technological breakthroughs, our people are still hooked on the actions of fictitious religious figures like Mohamamad, Ali and Hossein who lived two centuries ago.” makes no sense. Firstly you call Mohammad (whose name you mis-spell), Ali and Hossein as fictitious people. Do you know what the word fictitious means? It means fictional, fabricated, untrue, to simply put... made-up. So they could not have been fictitious and LIVED two centuries ago! Besides the fact that these individuals did have historical reality, they also lived not two centuries ago but about 14 centuries ago. They lived before Hafez!

6. Your statement; “like the six-year-old who strapped grenades to his waste and blew up an invading Iraqi tank in Ahvaz,” I hope the little boy did not do that. It would have made a mess of things. It would have thrown garbage and feces all over the place. Pessare Gol, you mean WAIST not WASTE. Get it right or you will not be a source of national pride.

7. Your statement; “Persian kings, Cyrus the Great, was the first to write the first charter of human rights in an ... ” is both weak from a logical/linguistic view point and is also historically inaccurate. A person who writes the first of anything is the first person to do so. Also Cyrus was not the first person to write a charter of human rights. His charter is amongst the best known, and it is amongst the first with an expansive “global” view, but it is certainly not the first.

http://www.iranian.com/Diaspora/2004/August/HY/index.html

Iran a Nuclear Threat, U.S. Says [Excerpt]

August 18, 2004
The Washington Post
Dafna Linzer

Iran told British, French and German officials last month that it could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb within a year, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton said yesterday in arguing the case for international pressure on the Islamic Republic.

In a speech at the Hudson Institute, Bolton characterized Iran as a grave danger. He said the U.S. strategy would be to isolate rather than "engage" with the country, a tactic European allies are still hoping will work.

Bolton's comments came as the Bush administration is preparing for a key meeting in Vienna. The United States hopes to persuade allies to further rebuke Iran and refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council, which can impose sanctions or embargoes.

"They've told the EU three [Britain, France and Germany] that they could produce, they could enrich enough uranium for a nuclear weapon within a year and they could produce nuclear weapons within the range of our own assessment, which is a way of threatening the Europeans to get them to back down," Bolton said of Iran.

It remains unclear whether Iran is capable of carrying out its threat. U.S. officials say Iranian diplomats may have been bluffing when they met with European officials in Paris in July. And there were discrepancies between Bolton's account and those of European and U.S. diplomats, who said that Iran's deputy negotiator, Hoseyn Moussavian, said Iran could start enriching uranium within a year, but it would take longer to enrich enough for a weapon.

France, Britain and Germany have been trying to persuade Iran through diplomatic means to give up its nuclear ambitions but have had little success. Iran insists its nuclear efforts are aimed at producing energy, not weapons, but it agreed to suspend questionable activities. That deal collapsed in June after Iran was rebuked by the IAEA for failing to fully cooperate with international inspectors.

Still, the European powers have been reluctant to go to the Security Council and want to avoid sanctions or the possibility of an oil-embargo. Their strategy remains negotiations and diplomacy, which Bolton indicated was increasingly failing.

"This regime has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not quote-unquote engaged," Bolton said.

European and U.S. intelligence estimates are that Iran is concealing its nuclear capabilities and could be five years away from building a bomb.

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have been scouring Iran for signs of a weapons programs and are trying to verify Iran's claims. They have uncovered some contradictions and omissions, but no direct proof of a weapons program. The inspectors are investigating nearly a dozen suspicious elements of Iran's nuclear program, including sophisticated centrifuge parts and equipment bought on a nuclear black market run out of Pakistan.

"It is the accumulation of this public and uncontradicted evidence, not just our own sensitive intelligence information, that leads us to our conclusions about Iran's true objectives," Bolton said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9726-2004Aug17.html

Iranian Talk Of an Attack On America

August 18, 2004
The New York Sun
Steven Stalinsky

There are growing indications that Iran may be planning an attack on American soil. These indicators are not secret - they appear in speeches, newspaper articles, TV programs, and sermons in Iran by figures linked to the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and other government officials, all discussing potential Iranian attacks on America, which will subsequently lead to its destruction.

A report on May 28 in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that an Iranian intelligence unit has established a center called "The Brigades of the Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening." The paper claimed that it had obtained a tape with a speech by Hassan Abbassi, a Revolutionary Guards intelligence theoretician who teaches at Al-Hussein University. In the tape, Mr. Abbassi spoke of Tehran's secret plans, which include "a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization." In order to accomplish this, he explained, "There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them."

It was reported that America expelled two Iranian security guards employed by Tehran's U.N. offices on June 29, after the mission was repeatedly warned against allowing its guards to videotape bridges, the Statue of Liberty, and New York's subway system. This was the third time the Iranians have been caught in such activities, which could be connected to the sites mentioned in potential plans to attack America.

Mr. Abbassi's speech further detailed that "[Iran's] missiles are now ready to strike at their civilization, and as soon as the instructions arrive from Leader [Ali Khamenei], we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations." In fact over the past few months, Mr. Khamenei has been vocal about the impending "destruction of the U.S." In May, he was quoted in the Iranian paper Jomhouri-Ye Eslami as saying that "the world will witness the annihilation of this arrogant regime." On July 5, in front of a crowd chanting, "Woe to the enemy if Khamenei commands me to wage jihad," Mr. Khamenei said, "If someone harms our people and invades our country, we will endanger his interests anywhere in the world."

Other Iranian religious leaders have also called for the destruction of America. The secretary general of the Guardian Council, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, appeared on Iran's Channel 1 TV on June 4 and said, "Every Muslim and every honorable man who is not a Muslim must stand against the Americans, English, and Israelis, and endanger their interests wherever they may be." When he added "They must not have security," thousands in the audience repeated chants of "Islam is victorious, America will be annihilated." On June 25,Mr.Jannati also led prayers and promised, "Anyone who confronted the revolution, the Imam [Khomeini], and our dedicated people eventually collapsed. America is the last one, and Allah willing it will collapse..."The following week Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani delivered the Friday sermon live on Channel 1, saying America will collapse like Genghis Khan's empire, "I say to you the American people...you will collapse, America will collapse."

"Time bombs within America" is how Iranian lawmaker Hamid-Reza Katoziyan described Muslims within America, who could be behind future terrorist attacks here. Speaking on Iranian TV channel Jaam-E-Jam 2 on July 27, Mr. Katoziyan warned: "The whole group of people belonging to the Arab community and...Muslims living in the U.S. are currently, in my opinion, in a special situation. Perhaps they do not walk the streets with weapons in their hands or attach bombs to themselves in order to carry out a suicide operation, but the thought is there."

Just as statements from Iranian religious and political leaders, as well as TV programs, have focused on attacking America, so has the print press. An editorial in the July 6 edition of the Iranian daily Kayhan, the conservative paper affiliated with Mr. Khamenei, issued another warning for the future: "...the White House's 80 years of exclusive rule are likely to become 80 seconds of hell that will burn to ashes...That very day, those who resist [Iran] will be struck from directions they never expected. The heartbeat of the crisis is undoubtedly [dictated by] the hand of Iran."

The report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States asks: "September 11 was a day of unprecedented shock...The nation was unprepared...How can we avoid such tragedy again?" Taking seriously Iran's threatening words and actions is an important first step.

http://www.nysun.com/

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.