Iranian Alert -- August 8, 2003 -- LIVE THREAD PING LIST

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.

The Tehran-Pyongyang axis

Washington Times
8.8.2003

While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was again visiting Tehran this week in an effort to persuade the regime to open its nuclear facilities to unannounced inspection, there were disturbing new accounts of heightened military cooperation between Iran and North Korea. First, the Los Angeles Times reported that North Korean military scientists were recently seen entering Iranian nuclear facilities, and were helping Iran test a nuclear warhead. So many North Koreans are presently in Iran working on nuclear and ballistic missile projects, the story said, that a Caspian Sea resort has been furnished for their use.

Then, just two days ago, a story in the Japanese newspaper Sankei reported that the two countries would likely reach an agreement in mid-October to jointly develop nuclear warheads. Also, under the agreement, North Korea will export Taepodong missile components for assembly in Iran. The story said that a North Korean arms export company was working on the deal, together with Iranian military and aerospace officials. Two months ago, Sankei reported that Iranian nuclear experts visited North Korea in March, April and May, possibly to learn from the communist regime how to be more successful in stonewalling IAEA inspectors.

If the reports turn out to be true, they would constitute just the latest sign of how Iran and North Korea, the two surviving members of the "axis of evil" mentioned by President Bush in last year's State of the Union, are collaborating in the production of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. For upwards of a decade, Pyongyang, which is in desperate need of money, has sold missile technology to Tehran in return for cash. North Korea, in turn (which has no economic activity to speak of aside from its weapons programs) uses the money to lower its production costs and invest in new weapons technologies which menace its neighbors. Iran, for its part, has obtained missiles which can threaten U.S. allies in the Middle East, such as Israel, Jordan and Turkey. Were Iran to acquire the Taepodong-2 missile (with a range of approximately 3,600 miles), it would be able to hit targets in much of Europe.

And if anything, the immediate situation looks even bleaker. Western intelligence estimates suggest that Iran may be just two years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon of its own. Were it to do so, it would obtain the ability to deter any military action against it by the United States in response to its meddling in Iraq and efforts to torpedo the Arab-Israeli peace process. As for North Korea, the Japanese government, in an annual defense report issued Tuesday, calls the DPRK the top security threat it faces.

On the positive side, the Japanese government's new awareness of the North Korean threat has spurred it to come out in favor of speeding up research on anti-missile defenses. Japan's new assertiveness and realism on defense is welcome. Washington should encourage Tokyo to play a larger role in helping protect the Pacific Rim from local predators.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030807-081836-8599r.htm

A Question of Numbers

August 08, 2003
Rouzegar-Now
Cyrus Kadivar

Rumours, exaggerated claims by the leaders of the Islamic revolution and a disinformation campaign against the fallen monarchy, not to mention Western media reports that the imperial regime was guilty of "mass murders", has finally been challenged by a former researcher at the Martyrs Foundation (Bonyad Shahid). The findings by Emad al-Din Baghi, now a respected historian, has caused a stir in the Islamic republic for it boldly questions the true number of casualties suffered by the anti-Shah movement between 1963 and 1979.

In the aftermath of the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, ordered the creation of the Martyrs Foundation with the sole purpose of identifying the names of the so-called "martyrs" and provide financial support for their families as well as those who had sustained injuries in the fierce street battles with royalist troops. The necessary funds were immediately raised from the assets seized from the high officials in the Shah's regime, many of whom had been executed after summary trials.

For many years the Martyrs Foundation collected the names of the victims of the anti-Shah revolution classifying them by age, sex, education, profession and address. The files were kept secret until 1996/7 when a decision was made to make public the figures on the anniversary of the revolution. At about this time, Emad al-Dib Baghi, was hired as a researcher and editor of the bonyad's magazine "Yad Yaran" (Remembering our Comrades) to make sense of the data. By the time his work had finished he was told that the names were not to be made public. The reason given was that to pursue the matter would run contrary to the statements made by the late Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors who claimed that "60,000 men, women and children were martyred by the Shah's regime."

Emad al-Din Baghi who left the Martyrs Foundation to write two books on the subject claims that the authorities felt that releasing the true statistics would simply confuse the public. So, officials continued to stick to the exaggerated numbers. During a debate in the Majlis at the height of the US hostage crisis, an Islamic deputy claimed that giving in to America would be an insult to the memory of "70,000 martyrs and 100,000 wounded who fought to destroy the rotten monarchy." In fact, by continuing the myth that so many people had been killed, the regime was able to buy a certain legitimacy for its "noble revolution" and excesses.

"Sooner or later the truth was bound to come out," Baghi argued. In his opinion history should be based on objective findings and not baseless rumours which was the root of the anti-Shah hysteria and street demonstrations in 1978 and 1979. The true numbers are fascinating because contrary to the official view they are quite low and highly disproportionate to the hundreds of thousands murdered in the last 24 years in the Islamic republic.

The statistical breakdown of victims covering the period from 1963 to 1979 adds up to a figure of 3,164. Of this figure 2,781 were killed in nation wide disturbances in 1978/79 following clashes between demonstrators and the Shah's army and security forces. Baghi has no reason to doubt these figures and believes that it is probably the most comprehensive number available with the possible exception of a few names that were not traced.

During the years separating the arrest of Khomeini on 5th June 1963 for instigating the riots against the Shah's White Revolution and his return from exile on 1st February 1979, most of the 3,164 victims were in Tehran, Rey and Shemiran and 731 were killed in riots in the provinces which constitutes 14% of the country. Most of the casualties were in central Tehran and the poorer southern areas. Of this number 32 "martyrs" belong to the 1963 riots who were killed in 19 different parts of the Iranian capital. All were male and from southern Tehran.

Despite this revelation all officially sanctioned books in Iran dealing with the history of the Islamic revolution write of "15,000 dead and wounded". Such wild figures have found its way in Western accounts.

Another myth is the number of those killed on Friday, 8th September 1978 in the infamous Jaleh Square massacre. On that day the Iranian government imposed martial law in Tehran after troops had fired at several thousand anti-government demonstrators in the capital. The opposition and Western journalists claimed that the massacre left between 95 and 3,000 dead, depending on widely varying estimates. Historians agree that the bloody incident was to be a crucial turning point in the revolution. Baghi refutes those numbers as "grossly inflated."

The figures published by Baghi speaks of 64 killed among them two females – one woman and a young girl. On the same day in other parts of the capital a total of 24 people died in clashes with martial law forces among them one female. Therefore, according to Baghi, the number of people "martyred" on Black Friday is 88 of which 64 were gunned down in Jaleh Square. These statistics are closer to the figures announced by Dr Ameli Tehrani (executed by the revolutionaries) who served in Prime Minister Sharif Emami's government. The Shah's officials repeatedly spoke of 86 people dead and 205 wounded in clashes.

But at the time nobody in Iran was prepared to believe the government version, says Baghi, himself an ardent revolutionary in those troubled days. Instead rumours turned into facts and made headlines further weakening the Shah's crumbling regime. Opposition leaders quoted figures as high as "tens of thousands" and agitators spread stories that soldiers had fired on the people from helicopters piloted by Israelis. Michel Focault, a leading French journalist, who covered the Jaleh Square wrote of "2,000 to 3,000 victims" and later increased the figures to "4,000 people killed" adding that the demonstrators had no fear of death.

The number of non-Muslims who died for the revolution was deemed by the Martyrs Foundation as "too insignificant" to be included in the list. Many of them were die-hard Marxist guerrillas who had fought running battles with the Shah's secret police known as Savak. In the 1970s the Shah's regime faced many threats from so-called Islamic-Marxist terrorists who carried out assassinations of top officials, kidnappings, bank thefts and bomb attacks on cinemas. Savak was given special powers to deal with this "terrorist" threat and appeared successfully ruthless in its "dirty war." Savak's crude brutality received a lot of criticism in the West. Amnesty International reported cases of illegal detention and torture.

But how many were killed? Baghi is methodical in the way he states numbers. Firstly, he claims that the total number of guerrillas killed between the 1971 Siahkal incident during which armed Marxists attacked a police station in a Caspian village and the February 1979 insurrection is 341.

The figure 341 is made up of 177 persons killed in shoot-outs with the Shah's security forces; 91 were executed for "anti-state activities"; 42 died under torture; 15 were arrested and "disappeared", 7 committed suicide rather than be captured, and 9 were shot while escaping. From among the guerrilla groups who died fighting the imperial regime the Marxist Fedayeen Khalq organisation suffered the highest losses. From the total figure of 341 killed, 172 were Fedayeens (50%); 73 Mujaheddin Khalq (21%); 38 fringe communists (11%); 30 Mujaheddin marxists before changing their ideology to Islamic (9%) and 28 Islamists (8%).

For completion sake, Baghi has added 5 other names to his long list. Four of them (Sadeq Amani, Reza Safar Herandi, Mohammad Bokharaie and Morteza Niknejad) were executed by firing squad after a military tribunal found them guilty of assassinating Prime Minister Mansour in 1965. The fifth name belonged to Reza Shams Abadi, a member of the Imperial Guard, who opened fire on the Shah as he came out of his limousine at the Marble Palace. The assassin was shot down by the king's bodyguards. By adding these five names to the 341 we get the figure of 346 non-demonstrators killed between 1963 and 1979.

In addition to the 32 demonstrators killed in the June 1963 pro-Khomeini riots two other persons were shot dead in the following weeks in an undisclosed part of Tehran. On 2nd November 1963 a certain Mohammad Ismail Rezaie was murdered in jail and on the same day Haj Mohammad Reza Teyb was shot by firing squad at the Heshmatiyeh army barracks.

The mysterious death of the famous wrestler Gholam Reza Takhti in 1967 was attributed to Savak but Baghi has established that Takhti committed suicide. Unfortunately, Baghi makes no mention of the Islamic philosopher Ali Shariati and the Imam's eldest son, Mustapha Khomeini. Both died of heart attacks in London and Najaf respectively. At the time of their deaths there were many rumours that they had been eliminated by Savak agents but subsequent evidence proves the opposite. Nevertheless, the negative effect on public opinion was tremendous and played a major role in eroding support for the Shah's regime.

In any case, by adding Takhti's name the total of those killed for underground action against the Shah's regime comes to 383 which added to the 2,781 "martyrs" would mean that 3,164 Iranians lost their lives in the revolution against the monarchy and not 60,000 as the Imam had stated. In time, other historians may take up the task of finding the truth about the countless people executed or eliminated during the brutal 24 years rule of the mullahs. But that will only be possible in a free Iran and the findings may prove to be a greater shock.

Rouzegar-Now
August issue

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news_en.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=08&d=08&a=1

Ayatollah Khomeini's Grandson:'The Iranian Regime Is the World's Worst Dictatorship'

August 06, 2003
Middle East Media Research Institute
MEMRI

The London-based Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that Hussein Khomeini, the grandson of the founder of Iran's Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, had left his place of residence in Iran's holy Shi'ite city of Qom to relocate to Iraq's holy Shi'ite city of Najaf, which is traditionally the seat of the highest Shi'ite religious authority, as a sign of protest against Iran's regime. [1]Hussein Khomeini, 46, called the Iranian regime "the world's worst dictatorship," and stated that the regime's heads, Supreme Leader 'Ali Khamenei and former president and current Expediency Council head Hashemi Rafsanjani"and everyone who has taken over the regime" since his grandfather's time "was exploiting his [Ayatollah Khomeini's] name, the name of Islam, and the religious regime in order to continue their tyrannical rule." Hussein Khomeini called for the separation of religion and state in Iran and expressed his expectation that the movement opposing the Iranian regime would gather momentum and turn into a popular movement.

The newspaper also noted that members of Iran 's Revolutionary Guards were now searching for Hussein Khomeini in Iraq because Iranian authorities fear that he could become a symbol of resistance to the Iranian regime. [2]The following are excerpts from Al-Sharq Al-Awsat's report:

From Qom to Najaf

According to the Al-Sharq Al-Awsat report, tensions between Hussein Khomeini and Iran's religious leadership increased in recent years after Hussein Khomeini publicly lent his support to the students and reformists and issued statements that the Fatwas issued by the Judiciary against the Iranian students, intellectuals, and writers opposed to the regime were illegitimate. [3]

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat added that Hussein Khomeini's move to Najaf, which was done without the knowledge of the Iranian authorities, sparked suspicion among Iran's conservatives, who are aware of the extent of Khomeini's influence in the religious seminary in Najaf and among the religious youth, as well as within reformist circles. According to a source close to the reformists, the Iranian authorities fear that Hussein Khomeini will become a new symbol of the religious opposition to the regime in Iran. [4]

According to the paper, from his temporary residence in a region of Iraq, prior to his move to Najaf, Hussein Khomeini stressed that Iran needed "a democratic regime that does not make use of religion as a means of oppressing the people and strangling society." He noted further that it was necessary "to separate the religion from the state," and "to put an end to the tyrannical rule of religion that was reminiscent of the rule of the Church during Europe's Dark Ages," and that "All those who took control of the centers of power of Iran after my grandfather are exploiting his name, the name of Islam, and the religious regime so as to continue their tyrannical rule."

'The World's Worst Dictatorship'

The paper also noted that Hussein Khomeini spoke of the dissatisfaction and the anger pervading the Iranian street, and that he considered the current religious regime in Iran to be "the world's worst dictatorship." According to the paper, Khomeini believes that Iran's escalating protest movement "would in not too long develop into a popular revolution, and soon we would see the great event, i.e. regime change." [5]

Khomeini, who has strong ties to some Iranian Revolutionary Guards commanders and members of the Iranian parliament and the Iranian security apparatuses, emphasized that he was continuing his struggle in order to bring about a change in the situation in Iran. He stated: "Freedom is more important than bread. If the Americans will provide it, let them come – but the Iranian people is capable of determining the fate of the current regime by itself… What we need is international sympathy and understanding for our legitimate needs." [6]

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat was informed that a squad commanded by a member of the intelligence service of the Revolutionary Guards known as "Assadi" had entered Iraqi territory the previous week in search of Hussein Khomeini, in order to assassinate him. An Iranian reformist source told the paper that Revolutionary Guards Deputy Commander Mohammed Baqir Dhu Al-Qadr had, in a meeting with top officials in the Revolutionary Guards Intelligence service, promised to put an end to the Khomeini phenomenon epitomized by Hussein Khomeini, just as his uncle, Ahmad Khomeini, was assassinated when he stopped supporting the regime and publicized his opposition to it. [7]

Najaf Versus Qom : Two Cities Holy to Shi'ites

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat noted that Hussein Khomeini's move to Najaf was considered a "painful blow" to the Iranian regime's years-long attempt to make Qom the capital of the Marja'iya, [8] as well as "a clear provocation to Supreme Leader 'Ali Khamenei." The paper added that since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, the idea of reviving Najaf's religious seminaries, opening new schools and rejuvenating the old ones, as well as the move by leading Qom clerics to Najaf, had attracted the attention of leading Shi'ite authorities who are opposed to the regime in Iran, as well as the attention of figures from the circle of Qom's religious seminary, which under the rule of Supreme Leader Khamenei is not independent. [9]

According to the paper, at the regime's order Iranian security authorities blocked sources of funding to the country's independent ayatollahs as long as they refused to accept Khamenei's authority, to consider him the Supreme Leader, and see him as the representative of the Master of Time. [10]

Four leading ayatollahs refuse to obey Khamenei: Ayatollah Hussein 'Ali Montazeri, Ayatollah Sadiq Ruhani, Ayatollah Yousuf Sani'i, and Ayatollah Muhaqiq Damad. [11]

The paper further reported that Hussein Khomeini spoke out against attempts by Sheikh 'Ali Ha'iri, who is close to the Iranian regime, [12] to impose the authority of Khamenei's control on the people of Najaf. Ha'iri, who is close to Maqtada Al-Sadr in Iraq , recently went to Iraq accompanied by personnel from the intelligence service of Iran 's Revolutionary Guards for this purpose. [13]

According to a source close to Hussein Khomeini, Khomeini considers Ayatollah 'Ali Sistani, Ayatollah Saeed Al-Hakim, and Ayatollah Fayadhi the "true Marja'iya" – that is, the true Shi'ite religious authorities. [14]

[1] The paper noted that while Hussein Khomeini is not a leading cleric, he does have special status and influence in Iranian society.

[2] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), July 29, 2003, August 4, 2003.

[3] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), August 4, 2003. The paper noted that Hussein Khomeini's relationship with Iran's regime had been tense since the death of his grandfather Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989, and that this tension had become public following the death of his uncle (and Ayatollah Khomeini's son) Ahmad Khomeini and following the disclosure that Ahmad Khomeini had been assassinated by Iranian intelligence agents. During his last years, Ahmad Khomeini, under the influence of his nephew Hussein, had begun to speak out against the policy of the ruling group in Tehran, i.e. former president and current Expediency Council head Hashemi Rafsanjani and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and accuse them of prolonging the war with Iraq in order to strengthen their rule and of removing Ayatollah Hussein 'Ali Montazeri from the position of designated heir of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini.

[4] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), August 4, 2003.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Marja'iya – the source of Shi'ite religious authority, whose conduct must be imitated.

[9] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), July 27, 2003.

[10] i.e. the Hidden Imam, the religious leader ofall generations.

[11] Ibid.

[12] The brother-in-law of previous Iranian intelligence minister Mohammad Mohamdi Rish'hari, close to Supreme Leader Khameini and today serving in his office and son-in-law of Iran's Experts Council head Ayatollah 'Ali Mashkini.

[13] Sheikh Al-Baydha'i and Sheikh Al-Ashkuri, of Khamenei's office and his helpers in this. Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD54803

Arms dealer in talks with US officials about Iran

By Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps in Washington
August 9, 2003

Pentagon hard-liners pressing for change of government in Iran have held secret, unauthorised meetings in Paris with an arms dealer who was a main figure in the Iran-Contra scandal.

Administration officials said at least two Pentagon officials working for the Undersecretary of Defence for Policy, Douglas Feith, have held "several" meetings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian middleman in United States arms-for-hostage shipments to Iran in the mid-1980s.

The officials who disclosed the secret meetings said the talks with Mr Ghorbanifar were not authorised by the White House and appeared to be aimed at undercutting sensitive negotiations with Iran's Government.

A senior Administration official said the US Government had learned about the unauthorised talks by accident.

The senior official and another Administration source said the ultimate objective of Mr Feith and a group of neo-conservative civilians inside the Pentagon is change of government in Iran.

The immediate objective appeared to be to "antagonise Iran so that they get frustrated and then by their reactions harden US policy against them".

The official confirmed that the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, complained directly to the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, several days ago about Mr Feith conducting missions that went against US policy.

A spokesman for Mr Feith's Near East, South Asia and Special Plans office, which sources said played a key role in contacts with Mr Ghorbanifar contacts, ignored an emailed inquiry about the talks.

The senior Administration official identified two of the defence officials who met Mr Ghorbanifar as Harold Rhode, Mr Feith's top Middle East specialist, and Larry Franklin, a Defence Intelligence Agency analyst on loan to the undersecretary's office.

Mr Rhode recently acted as a liaison between Mr Feith's office, which drafted much of the Administration's post-Iraq planning, and Ahmed Chalabi, a former Iraqi exilegroomed for leadership by the Pentagon.

Mr Rhode is a protege of Michael Ledeen, who was a National Security Council consultant in the mid 1980s when he introduced Mr Ghorbanifar to Oliver North, a NSC aide, and others in the opening stages of the Iran-Contra affair.

It is understood Mr Ledeen reopened the Ghorbanifar channel with Mr Feith's staff.

Mr Ledeen, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who backs change of government in Iran, would neither confirm nor deny that he arranged meetings with Mr Ghorbanifar.

"I'm not going to comment on any private meetings with any private people," he said. "It's nobody's business."

Mr Ghorbanifar, who is said to live in Paris,

was a link man to Tehran in the Iran-Contra scandal, in which Reagan administration officials diverted cash from secret sales of arms to Iran to bankroll Nicaraguan guerillas at a time when such aid was forbidden by Congress.

The senior Administration official said he was puzzled by the resurfacing of Mr Ghorbanifar after so many years. "It would be amazing if anybody in government hadn't learnt the lessons of last time around," he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145871467.html

Secret Talks With Iranian
Sources: Meetings 'unauthorized'

By Knut Royce and Timothy M. Phelps
WASHINGTON BUREAU; Staff writer Craig Gordon contributed to this story

August 8, 2003

Washington - Pentagon hardliners pressing for regime change in Iran have held secret and unauthorized meetings in Paris with a controversial arms dealer who was a major figure in the Iran-contra scandal, according to administration officials.

The officials said at least two Pentagon officials working for Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith have held "several" meetings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian middleman in U.S. arms-for-hostage shipments to Iran in the mid-1980s.

The administration officials who disclosed the secret meetings to Newsday said the talks with Ghorbanifar were not authorized by the White House and appeared to be aimed at undercutting current sensitive back channel negotiations with the Iranian regime.

"They [the Pentagon officials] were talking to him [Ghorbanifar] about stuff which they weren't officially authorized to do," said a senior administration official. "It was only accidentally that certain parts of our government learned about it."

The official would not identify those "parts" of the government, but a former intelligence official confirmed they are the State Department, the CIA and the White House, itself.

The senior official and another administration source who confirmed that the meetings had taken place said that the ultimate policy objective of Feith and a group of neo-conservatives civilians inside the Pentagon is regime change in Iran.

This second official said, "United States policy officially is not regime change, overtly or covertly," but to engage Iranian officials in dialogue over contentious issues, such as Iran's nuclear weapons program, and to press the regime to extradite al-Qaida operatives.

He said that the immediate objective of the Pentagon hardliners appears to be to "antagonize Iran so that they get frustrated and then by their reactions harden U.S. policy against them."

He confirmed that Secretary of State Colin Powell complained directly to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld several days ago about Feith's policy shop conducting missions that countered U.S. policy.

A spokesman for Feith's Near East, South Asia and Special Plans office, the controversial intelligence office that sources said played a key role in the Ghorbanifar contacts, did not respond yesterday to an e-mailed inquiry about those contacts. Newsday's inquiry was e-mailed at the spokesman's request.

The senior administration official identified two of the Defense officials who met with Ghorbanifar as Harold Rhode, Feith's top Middle East specialist, and Larry Franklin, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst on loan to the undersecretary's office.

Rhode recently acted as a liaison between Feith's office, which drafted much of the administration's post-Iraq planning, and Ahmed Chalabi, a former Iraqi exile disdained by the CIA and State Department but groomed for leadership by the Pentagon.

Rhode is a protege of Michael Ledeen, a neo-conservative who was a National Security Council consultant in the mid-1980s when he introduced Ghorbanifar to Oliver North, a National Security Council aide, and others in the opening stages of the Iran-contra affair.

A former CIA officer who himself was involved in some aspects of the Iran-contra scandal said that current intelligence officers told him it was Ledeen who reopened the Ghorbanifar channel with Feith's staff.

Ledeen, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and an ardent advocate for regime change in Iran, would neither confirm nor deny that he arranged for the Ghorbanifar meetings. "I'm not going to comment on any private meetings with any private people," he said. "It's nobody's business."

Ghorbanifar, who is said to live in Paris, could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Ledeen once described him as "one of the most honest, educated, honorable men I have ever known." But the CIA, noting he had failed four polygraph tests administered during the arms-for-hostages deals, warned its officers not to deal with him, asserting he "should be regarded as an intelligence fabricator and nuisance."

The senior administration official said he was puzzled by the resurfacing of Ghorbanifar after all these years. "It would be amazing if anybody in government hadn't learned the lessons of last time around," he said. "These guys [including Ledeen] should have learned it, 'cause they lived it."

Staff writer Craig Gordon contributed to this story.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usiran083405946aug08,0,779634.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print

U.S. Promises Democracy in Mideast

By Peter Slevin
Aug 8, 2003

Rice proposes a 'generational commitment'

The Bush administration made a broad pledge yesterday to spread democracy and free markets to the Middle East, promising to move beyond the recent focus on Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an ambitious but vaguely defined project to transform a troubled region.

Calling the development of freedom in the Middle East the “security challenge and the moral mission of our time,” national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the United States and its allies must make a “generational commitment” to Middle Easterners who live under oppressive and often corrupt governments.

In a speech to the National Association of Black Journalists in Dallas, Rice disputed “condescending voices” who say Arab cultures are not ready for freedom. Drawing on her girlhood in racially segregated Birmingham, Ala., she said: “We’ve heard that argument before. And we, more than any, as a people, should be ready to reject it.

“The view was wrong in 1963 in Birmingham,” Rice said, “and it is wrong in 2003 in Baghdad and in the rest of the Middle East.”

She offered few details of a project whose prospects have been greeted with widespread skepticism, particularly in the Middle East itself, where the depth of the administration’s spoken commitment to Arab democracy remains unproved. Historically, U.S. presidents have accepted the stability of autocratic rule.

The White House says that pattern must be broken. Beyond Baghdad, where the administration is spending $4 billion a month to establish security and a new government, officials are designing a mixture of approaches that range from grants and private arm-twisting to public criticism in troublesome cases, such as Syria and Iran.

‘SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM’

The goal years from now is a region of increasingly open societies, economic prosperity and representative government. But undemocratic rule remains the norm in a tense area where the United States has extensive oil interests and political relationships that it considers critical to the anti-terror war and Arab-Israeli peacemaking.

“It is a region,” Rice said , “where hopelessness provides a fertile ground for ideologies that convince promising youths to aspire not to a university education, a career or family, but to blowing themselves up, taking as many innocent lives with them as possible. We need to address the source of the problem.”

A central difficulty will be spurring change among allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia that have long been criticized for their human rights records. To make significant progress, the United States must also establish credibility from a low starting point, said independent analysts who predict Arabs will watch carefully to see how much money and political capital the administration invests in such ambitions.

“How much are we going to lean on Egypt to introduce democratic reforms?” said David R. Smock, a U.S. Institute for Peace director. “So much of the Arab world is looking to see whether we really believe in democracy, or whether we’re making strategic partnerships.”

Unlike the Palestinian Authority — in which the White House is intervening deeply in management issues — and other points on the globe from Burma to Venezuela, the administration has not yet called for elections or set specific democracy-minded targets in much of the Middle East. Nor has it often established terms for improved relations.

“The difficulty they face is, since their strategy is incremental change, the initial changes are not going to be very impressive,” said Patrick L. Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “They’re going to have to find ways of convincing Middle Eastern governments that they’re serious about this.”

Rice, in her Dallas remarks and an op-ed article in yesterday’s Washington Post, said the administration intends to work intently with Middle Eastern figures who “seek progress” on tolerance and prosperity. She said “patience and perseverance” will be required, and the long-range U.S. commitment would not be primarily military, but diplomatic, economic and cultural.

In Iraq, the Bush administration used force to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party government and is undertaking the United States’ most ambitious nation-building exercise since the 1940s. To entice and cajole others, Bush in May proposed creating a Middle East free-trade area in the coming decade. The State Department is reviewing $1 billion in annual aid to Egypt, and U.S. officials are telling their Arab counterparts that change will weaken radical Islamic movements.

The administration secured $145 million this year for democracy, education and economic initiatives in the Middle East. Many of the proposed projects are small. Plans include campaign seminars in Qatar and Jordan for women throughout the region. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and a group of U.S. judges plan to attend a workshop in Bahrain next month.

SUPPORT FOR MICRO-ENTERPRISES

Officials have begun briefing Congress on a proposal to spend $20 million this year and $30 million next year on a Middle East financial corporation. The State Department is supporting a proposal by Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.) to spend $15 million on a foundation to support civil society initiatives, such as strengthening an independent press.

A separate micro-enterprise project for women is on the drawing board and publishers are being sought to produce children’s books in Arabic. The administration is talking quietly with allies in Europe and elsewhere, hoping for significant support.

“We will work with our partners to ensure that small and mid-sized businesses have access to capital and support efforts in the region to develop essential laws on property rights and good business practices,” Bush said May 9. “By replacing corruption and self-dealing with free markets and fair laws, the people of the Middle East will grow in prosperity and freedom.”

Winning support in the Arab world poses a significant challenge, particularly given growing levels of anger toward a Bush administration widely seen in the region as arrogant and culturally tone-deaf. U.S. forces mounted invasions to overthrow Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. In the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Arabs are closing watching assertive new American efforts and questioning whether Bush will exert sufficient pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Smock described the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as “the touchstone” for Arabs and Muslims who will “look to see if we really are on the same side or not, and whether we stand for justice and liberation or not.”

A U.S. official who supports the president’s emerging policy singled out the stakes in Iraq. “If you don’t get Iraq right,” the official said, “nothing else matters much.”

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_1635.shtml

Iran Holding al-Qaida Men 'as Bargaining Chip with US'

August 08, 2003
The Guardian
Dan De Luce

Iran is using the senior members of the al-Qaida network it has detained as a bargaining chip in its war of nerves with the US, and will only allow their extradition in return for substantial concessions, sources in the political establishment said yesterday.

"Iran holds the golden key on the al-Qaida issue, and the US knows it," a source familiar with the senior leadership told the Guardian. "They need us."

Iranian officials privately acknowledge that Tehran is holding important members of the network - thought to include Saif al-Adel, an Egyptian who is believed to be the head of al-Qaida's military operations; Suleiman Abu Ghaith, its Kuwaiti-born spokesman; and Saad bin Laden, the son of the its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Reports in Saudi-owned newspapers have alleged that the network's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, may also be in Iranian custody. The government has officially confirmed it is holding some senior figures, but has declined to name them.

With Iran under intense US-led pressure over its nuclear programme, its role in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, al-Qaida members held in custody could provide invaluable leverage in negotiations with Washington.

Fleeing the attack on Afghanistan, hundreds of al-Qaida members crossed the border into Iran. Although some 500 have been extradited, some figures are reported to have received protection from Iran's revolutionary guard.

Whenever the extradition of al-Qaida members has been suggested by European diplomats, Tehran has protested that an exiled Iranian resistance group, the People's Mojahedin of Iraq, has received lenient treatment in the west .

Iranian sources and European diplomats say resolving the fate of this group is inextricably linked with any handover of al-Qaida suspects.

Iran has demanded the US take a firmer line against the People's Mojahedin, which has bases in Iraq and has staged attacks against Tehran. US-led forces have disarmed the group in Iraq and are questioning its officers in an attempt to glean intelligence about Iran.

French authorities recently staged a raid on the group's headquarters in Paris - a move praised by Iranian sources, who said it was part of an understanding under which Tehran would eventually allow the extradition of Algerian nationals linked to bombings in France.

"The US should take note of France's policy on this issue," one source said. French officials have denied a quid pro quo with Tehran.

Iran remains resentful at being named by President George Bush's as part of the "axis of evil", and some within its establishment remain opposed to handing over prisoners at any time.

"Iranian radical conservatives believe that we should cooperate with al-Qaida and turn them into another Hamas," said Saeed Leylaz, a political analyst at Sharif University. "The main policy of these radicals is to militarise the situation in Iran to survive, so they need America's hostility - and unfortunately the US adds fuel to their fire."

Tehran also has reason to fear the network if Iran is seen to be cooperating with the US, Iranian sources say. Saudi Arabia, too, fears al-Qaida's wrath.

Iran has developed close cooperation on security with Riyadh, and there is speculation that Tehran may eventually extradite al-Qaida members to Saudi Arabia.

If Iran is really holding some of al-Qaida's most powerful figures, it would be a serious setback for the organisation, three of whose military commanders have been captured or killed in the past two years.

Even so, its autonomous cells are still able to operate, experts say. The group is suspected of a role in the bombing on Tuesday of a US-managed hotel in Jakarta, which killed 16 people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1014346,00.html

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.