Iranian Alert - January 9, 2005 - 25 years after revolution, Iranians eager to change regime

The Guardian story is a good one--but without the cite I cannot use it for distribution.

The Guardian story is a good one--but without the cite I cannot use it for distribution...

Freedom44 and I embed the links, I usually do so on the logo of the website and he usually puts a photo up of the top news story and embeds it there.

In this case the link is to the Guardian in the UK.

http://travel.guardian.co.uk/saturdaysection/story/0,8922,1385600,00.html

Sharon weighs peace with Palestine; fears Iran's nukes

By William Safire
A global coalition of the giving bolstered by American military ships and choppers that are able to deliver needed relief to sick and starving tsunami victims rightly dominates the news. In Asia, the cataclysm's aftermath pulls even warring factions together.
Not in the Middle East. Palestinians and Israelis must first resolve their internal battles before they can begin to make peace with each other.
In Gaza, the leading candidate to replace Yasser Arafat in Sunday's election, Mahmoud Abbas, known as Abu Mazen, has embraced the radical Arabs who want not peace but conquest. These terrorists are firing rockets and mortars at nearby Israeli civilians in the hopes of making Ariel Sharon's planned withdrawal of settlers appear to be a surrender to the warriors of Hamas.
When Israeli defenders returned fire this week, Abu Mazen called all Arab casualties "martyrs who were killed today by the shells of the Zionist enemy.'
He hopes to win extremists' votes by adopting their hate- filled rhetoric as well as Arafat's platform of a "right of return' of Arabs to overwhelm Israel.
Sharon hopes this is campaign oratory to increase the expected majority for Abu Mazen. But the Palestinian, by appeasing his fiercest faction of die-hards, is playing with fire. To reach a settlement, he will have to make compromises that these warring radicals totally reject which, if they refuse and rebel, would mean Palestinian civil war.
The Israeli internal split is not about the usual parliamentary politics. At the moment, Sharon's Likud-Labor majority needs a few religious-party votes that will be determined by a 95-year- old rabbi. If that is not obtained by the usual method (a U.S. metaphor of political pork is not applicable in this context), then Sharon will go to elections to demonstrate the will of the Israeli people.
The split in Israel goes to the nature of the Jewish state. Ultras among the rabbinate talk of advising Israeli soldiers to refuse to obey orders to eject settlers who refuse relocation from Gaza.
Civil disobedience, with acceptance of its consequences in law, is legitimate in a democracy; military disobedience to legal orders is beyond the pale.
Were it not for the Israeli Defense Forces acting loyally under discipline, rabbis with the right to worship in synagogues and to dissent in the public square would be the first to be driven into the sea by the Arab extremists now being pandered to by Abu Mazen.
If there is to be a settlement, both Arabs and Jews must assert majority rule, which means that soldiers follow the orders of elected officials. I have no doubt that Arik Sharon, with Shimon Peres at his side, will do that. I wish I could be as sure about Abu Mazen.
Sharon is hopeful. "In the past, I have shaken hands with Abu Mazen, and with him I can talk,' he told me the other night. "I would never shake Arafat's hand.'
He is also confident that he can carry out his disengagement during or after an election, if one is needed provided his counterpart on the Palestinian side makes certain that the thousands of Israelis making this painful exodus are allowed to leave in peace. I take that to mean he expects Abu Mazen to restrain his armed extremists by any means necessary.
Egyptians under President Hosni Mubarak are now proving helpful, Sharon said: "I managed to convince them to release an Israeli they held in prison for eight years for nothing, and that changed the atmosphere stopped the smuggling of antitank weapons into Gaza.' But what motivated Mubarak? "They are the most important country in the Arab world, and want to be recognized as a major factor.' Is that all? "They want to strengthen their relationship with the United States.'
What if, with Egypt's help, Abu Mazen is able to co-opt and pacify the Palestinian jihadists? And on the Israeli side, what if the other internal battle is resolved, and the settlers accept reality? Wouldn't a negotiated disengagement then resuscitate the road map?
The optimistic Sharon looked beyond the Arab-Israeli impasse to what he considers the threat to his nation's existence: "There is an 'axis of terror.' It runs through Syria and Hezbollah, which has 13,000 rockets deployed in Lebanon, to Iran. And Iran's nuclear missile program is today the greatest danger not just to Israel, but to the world.'
-- William Safire is a New York Times columnist. Write him at 229 W. 43rd St., New York, NY 10036.

A NEW MIDDLE EAST
[Excerpt]
By AMIR TAHERI January 9, 2005 -- A COUPLE of days ago, in Paris, I borrowed the crystal ball of a gypsy magician in Mont martre to steal a peep into 2005. ...
I cannot tell you what the events of 2005 will be. But I can tell you what the undercurrents that shape events are. The first concerns the concept of political power and its provenance. This is changing in a dramatic, though little noticed, way. Traditionally, power in the Middle East has been shrouded in mystical fog, its origins traced to divine will, military conquest, charismatic leadership and revolution. That view is now changing as more and more people in the region look to elections, that is to say the expression of people's will, as the proper origin of political power — a power exercised in the interests of the whole community.
The 2005 calendar is filled with dates for elections. Today, Palestinians go to the polls to elect a new president in their first truly pluralistic experience. And that is only the first step. Before the year is out they will also elect a new Parliament. Next door, Israel, too, is almost certain to have elections in 2005. Even with a grand coalition under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the people of Israel would have to be directly consulted on the momentous decisions in 2005. At the end of January the people of Iraq are scheduled to go to the polls in the first free election in their history. The importance of what is at stake cannot be overestimated.
Iraq is a key Arab and Muslim nation and the success or fail ure of its experiment will impact many other countries. What is happening in Iraq is the biggest political battle that the Arabs have experienced since they emerged as independent nation-states in the last century. On one side there are forces that want Iraq to become part of the global mainstream where elections are the sole means of gaining and losing power. On the other, we have all the forces of despotism, religious and secular, that are determined not to let Iraq choose a future through elections. Their position is clear: If we are not in power, Iraq should not exist.
After the Iraqi election, the focus will shift to elections in Saudi Arabia. These are limited in scope and, thus, may not attract the same attention. Nevertheless, the coming of electoral politics to Saudi Arabia is a revolutionary turning point in the political development of the kingdom. Despite reports of initial tepid interest, my guess is that by the time the voting schedule begins many Saudis would decide to give it a try. Seen against the background of the series of national dialogues organized last year, plus a timid but welcome opening in the media, the municipal elections indicate the willingness of at least part of the Saudi elite to stay the course of reform.
Next, we shall have parliamentary elections in Lebanon in May. These come at a time that Lebanon is moving to the center of international attention. The May elections could provide a mechanism for avoiding a major crisis with unforeseeable consequences. But they might also unleash forces that could threaten Lebanon's existence.
In May or June, Iran will hold presidential election. Some may dismiss Iranian elections as meaningless because candidates are approved in advance by the authorities that could also cancel the results. Such a view is short-sighted. Even choreographed elections matter as we saw with Muhammad Khatami's presidential victory in 1997. The ruling establishment could use the coming election either as an opening to civil society or as a switch to a policy of political iron-fist combined with economic liberalization — that is to say the Chinese model.
The year will also witness parliamentary and municipal elections in Afghanistan. The consolidation of the new Afghan state would not only help stabilize Central Asia but would have a positive impact on democratization throughout the region.
The second undercurrent likely to be with us in 2005 is terrorism in its many guises. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars served as needles that pierced old festering blisters. The destruction of the Taliban and the Saddamites forced terrorists of all ilks out of the woodwork to fight open battles. Having geared themselves for a gangrene strategy, that is to say low-intensity warfare to wear out Arab and Muslim societies over a long period, these terrorists were dragged into open combat in both military and political battlefields where their defeat, no matter how long it takes to accomplish, is certain.
The third undercurrent that merits attention in 2005 is the deepening desire for reform. For the first time ever, reform and changes have become the main themes of Arab politics. Last year dozens of conferences and seminars were held on the subject, and the 2005 calendar is dotted with many more.
Cynics would dismiss all these as nothing but a talk athon. But in politics, talk does matter. The change of Arab political discourse, from one obsessed with religious themes, to one concerned with matters such as economic development and educational excellence, is a leap toward modernity.
The political vocabulary of the Arabs, Iranians, Afghans and Pakistanis is changing to welcome new words and phrases such as opening, accountability, good governance, human rights, pluralism and diversity. Arab and other Muslim elites' fascination with the ideological triplets of Marxism, fascistic nationalism and Islamism is coming to a close, opening the space for the advance of liberal and democratic ideas. The women's prise de conscience and the young people's thirst for freedom and opportunity are among the factors that encourage hope for the future.
The next big idea for Arabs and Muslims may well be about the best way of joining the global mainstream as an active participant and not a real or imagined victim.
Having said all that, there is, of course, no guarantee that my predictions will prove right.
The Middle East may well turn out to be the only part of the world hermetically closed to the global trends of democratization, economic development and social change. The Iraqi election may be disrupted or, if it goes ahead, produce a majority for some version of religious fascism.
All the talk about reform and change may well end up as nothing but talk, a kind of political masturbation. The very idea of reform may etiolate under the impact of political lethargy and intellectual inertia.
None of the countries in our region is insured against the nastiest of surprises. The Middle East, as Gen. De Gaulle once observed, is designed to defy reality by living on the margin of probable impossibilities. My predictions could, indeed, prove to be nothing but images in Alice's mirror.
I hope they won't be.
I also hope that if I am right everyone remembers, and, if I turn out to be wrong, no one does.
Amir Taheri is an Iranian author of 10 books on the Middle East and Islam and a member of Benador Associates.

Iran To Grant Limited Access To Military Site
9 January 2005 -- Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said today that his country will allow the UN's nuclear watchdog to take environmental samples from outside a military site.

He said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be allowed to take samples from a landscaped area outside the huge Parchin military complex to eliminate all ambiguities over its controversial nuclear program.

The United States has alleged that the site southeast of Tehran is used for secret projects that could facilitate the development of a nuclear weapon.

"The discussion is not about visiting military installations," AP quoted Asefi as saying today. "To show that nothing other than peaceful nuclear activities are carried out in the Islamic Republic of Iran, we agreed to allow the taking of environmental samples from the green spaces in the complex."

The IAEA is expected to visit Parchin to take the samples in the next few days or weeks.

Asefi said Iran's decision to allow access of the site was made on a voluntary basis.

(AP/dpa/AFP)

That is a true story from inside of Iran, for sure!

"(IAEA) will be allowed to take samples from a landscaped area outside the huge Parchin military complex"

Lol. Wonder how long ago they "landscaped" that area?

This thread is now closed.

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

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