Iranian Alert -- August 20, 2003 -- LIVE THREAD PING LIST

Thank you for the post. Always interested in the latest "spin" on this story.

"The government of Cuba informed us that the interference was coming from an Iranian diplomatic facility,"

I think we've heard this "story" before. Interesting that the dept. spokeswoman said it stopped.

Any validity to this, Dr? Are the U.S./Iranian stations able to broadcast again?

You must have read my mind......

Well here is another interesting story on the Cuban jamming, just to complicate things... DoctorZin

U.S. skeptical about Cuban claim on Satellite jamming
AP - World News
Aug 20, 2003

The Bush administration will likely begin using satellite transmissions of TV Martí to make the U.S.-funded broadcasts more readily available for Cuban viewers and less susceptible to Cuban government interference, a U.S. official said Wednesday.

''It's possible that this is going to be happening soon,'' the U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the Herald.

Cuba now easily jams regular TV Marti signals, broadcast from a balloon in the Florida Keys. Satellite broadcasts would be available via as many as 15,000 satellite dishes across the island.

U.S. broadcasters are meanwhile skeptical about the Cuban government's assertion that it had nothing to do with the interference with U.S. satellite television broadcasts to Iran, which jammed both U.S.-government and Los Angeles-based private programs for nearly a month.

The jamming of the Iranian signals ceased Aug. 3 after Cuban officials told the State Department the interference was coming out of an Iranian diplomatic facility in or near Havana. The Cuban government has denied any role in the disruptions of the Farsi-language satellite broadcasts to Iran, often critical of Tehran's Muslim theocratic government.

But broadcasters affected say the disruptions would be difficult to do without the government's knowledge.

''That equipment for jamming is not available at the market,'' Fariborz Abbassi, owner of one of the affected private Los Angeles stations, said in a telephone interview. ``I don't believe what the Cuban government is saying.''

The interruptions affected U.S.-funded Voice of America programs out of Washington and private broadcasts from Los Angeles.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_1849.shtml

Iran's Khatami says UN bombing to give "excuse to occupiers"

Reuters - World News
Aug 20, 2003

TEHRAN - Iranian President Mohammad Khatami condemned on Wednesday the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad as an "evil act" that would only give occupying forces an excuse to stay longer in Iraq.

Khatami said Tuesday's truck bomb attack, which killed at least 20 people, including top U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello, was "an evil act which has sown the seeds of further violence".

"Such terrorist acts will give the occupiers an excuse to stay longer in Iraq," Khatami said in a speech broadcast on state television.

Iran, while officially neutral in the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein, welcomed the fall of the Iraqi leader, hated for ordering his forces to use chemical weapons against Iranian troops during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

But the Islamic Republic, branded a member of the "axis of evil" by Washington, has denounced the occupation of Iraq by the U.S.-led forces as an attack on Islam.

"The West should be held accountable for...the losses inflicted on the Iraqi people," Khatami said....

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_1843.shtml

Funeral of some of the killed Semirom demonstrators lead to more unrest

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Aug 20, 2003

The funeral ceremonies of 4 of the killed Semirom demonstrators lead, today, to more unrest and clashes in this city.

Thousands of residents came into the streets to pay a mass tribute to some of theirs who have been killed by the Islamic republic regime forces.

Slogans shouted against the regime and its leaders lead again to sporadic clashes and chase and run which took place between young freedom fighters and the regime special forces and plainclothes men.

It's to note that the bodies of more than 22 other demonstrators are still kept by the regime and the official number of injured, anounced first as 60 and then as 150, is in constant rise. This number has been anounced, today, at over 250 by some of the circles affiliated to the so-called "reformists".

The official figure of deaths was anounced firstly as 6, then as 8 and now as 5, while the real number of deaths is more than 28 including at least 2 militiamen.

The situation in the city is very tense and is under military watch. But despite this unprecedented deployment of militiamen, sporadic shootings are heard during late nights and many Semiromis are using the darkness of nights in order to write, on the walls, or shout slogans against the regime....

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_1848.shtml

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

Who bombed the UN?

By Roger Hardy
Aug 20, 2003

Experts are debating whether the attack on the UN building in Baghdad was the work of remnants of the former regime of Saddam Hussein or Islamic militants linked to al-Qaeda - or even an unholy alliance of the two.

Post-war Iraq has certainly become a magnet for Islamists looking for a new arena in which to wage a jihad, or holy war, against America.

It is relatively easy for militants to enter the country.

They have reportedly included Saudi Islamists escaping the crackdown in their own country following suicide bombings in the capital, Riyadh, in May.

Only last week, Kurdish officials in northern Iraq reported the capture of 50 Islamists returning to the area from neighbouring Iran.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_1846.shtml

They were members of Ansar al-Islam, a group thought to have links to al-Qaeda.

US officials regard Ansar al-Islam as a possible suspect in the bomb attack against the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad two weeks ago.

Sanctions anger

Radical Islamists are fiercely hostile to the UN, which they see as giving a false legitimacy to US foreign policy.

But some Iraqi nationalists may have a similar view of the world body.

Iraqis deeply resented the stringent UN sanctions they suffered throughout the 1990s.

Many also saw the work of UN weapons inspectors as an infringement of their country's sovereignty.

So the attack could have had a nationalist or an Islamist motivation.

Although the immediate target was the UN, the attack's stark message was directed principally at the United States.

Whoever the perpetrator, the aim was to show that the country is ungovernable, and that the Americans are unable to protect themselves or anyone working with them.

In Iran, it pays to be a religious leader

By Nicholas Birch
Aug 20, 2003

TEHRAN — Two years ago, Hossein Yazdi was looking forward to a quiet retirement. Now he's back at work as one of Tehran's countless unofficial taxi drivers, trying to supplement a monthly pension of $65.

"Two pounds of meat costs $5 these days; most weeks my wife and I go without," he says. "If things carry on like this, people like us will soon be dying of starvation."

Daily conversation here turns with alarming speed to the daily struggle to make ends meet. Yet most economists consider the country to be relatively well managed.

"Iran has huge resources of oil and gas, and the rise in oil prices since 1999 from $10 a barrel to over $26 today has given the economy an immense boost," says Yves Cadilhon, head of the French economic mission in Tehran.

So what are many Iranians complaining about? A powerful group of clerics and merchants who, critics say, have a stranglehold on the economy.

Among the main bastions of clerical control are the bonyad, immense foundations built up after 1979 from wealth confiscated from Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Iran's last shah. Ostensibly "charitable" organizations, they frequently use their wealth — up to 35 percent of the economy, according to analysts — for questionable purposes. In 1997, for instance, one senior cleric and bonyad boss announced his institution was offering $2.5 million for the assassination of novelist Salman Rushdie.

Another bonyad based in the holy city of Mashhad, in northeastern Iran, has used donations from as many as 8 million pilgrims a year to buy up 90 percent of the arable land in the surrounding region. Controlled since 1979 by arch-conservative Ayatollah Abbas Vaez-Tabazi, the foundation also owns universities and a Coca-Cola factory.

Backed by President Mohammed Khatami, Iran's reform-minded parliament recently scrapped laws exempting the foundations from paying tax. Most observers doubt anything will change. Bonyad bosses, they say, can always fall back on privileged relations with Iran's banks, almost all state owned.

"Credit is rationed," explains Jahangir Amuzegar, who was Iran's finance minister in the 1970s, "and it's rarely private business that gets it."

For now, cash-starved businessmen like Ataollah Khazali, owner of a small smelting works outside Tehran, are obliged to turn for credit to members of the country's bazaari class, strongly pro-regime merchants who double as money lenders.

"Iran lacks liquidity; we do our best to remedy that," one bazaari says. One method, he explains, is the systematic backdating of checks.

The current head of the influential pro-bazaari Coalition of Islamic Associations, Habibollah Asgar-Ouladi, was commerce minister in the 1980s, a position he used to procure lucrative foreign-trade contracts for his brother. The family is now estimated to be worth $400 million.

"These bazaari are like a mafia, obeying no laws," says one clothes manufacturer, who buys all his fabric from them. "If one of them decides to boycott a company, they all do."

With Iran's chronic unemployment — officially 12.5 percent but probably closer to 20 percent — exacerbated by the arrival on the job market of 1980s baby boomers, analysts insist only a radical reworking of Iran's crony capitalism can stave off a crisis.

"The regime knows it has no choice but to liberalize," argues Saeed Laylaz, an assistant manager at Iran's largest car manufacturer.

But Amuzegar is more pessimistic. "It's not Islamic ideology that's holding the system up; it's the clerics' and bazaaris' hold on the economy," he says. "As long as they survive, so will the system." ....

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_1850.shtml

ping

"Iraqis deeply resented the stringent UN sanctions they suffered throughout the 1990s."

And the warehouses discovered full of food not delivered to the people, who's fault was that?
Maybe the U.S. should make a documentary for the Iraqi's, using taped footage of their own people, to demonstrate that we're not the bad guys; we opened the wharehouses, revealed their torturous prisons, helped dig up mass graves, etc. Maybe a little seeing would help the believing?

Thanks for your posts! Good to see you both!

Appreciate the report on your meeting with Brownback last night, Dr.Z.

Forget the hijab...it doesn't appear to be kosher.

Cuba needs to take care of that little jamming problem ASAP.

"Iran's supreme leader has said his country will never give up its nuclear technology under pressure..."

Okie dokie! Don't gripe when we come calling!

"... by attacking the United Nations the bombers may have made it easier for President Bush to convince European and Arab nations that they have a stake in a peaceful, stable Iraq."

That's good, as long as they are under our leadership, and France and Germany aren't involved.

F14, I couldn't pull up the link you posted.

Bump!

There were, also, warehouses full of medicine...enough to supply all of the hospitals in Baghdad.

Vermin!

Western Press Review: The Bombing Of UN Headquarters In Baghdad And 50 Years After Iran's Coup

http://www.iranian.ws/news/publish/article_307.shtml

WHY NUCLEAR WEAPONS MAY BE IN IRAN'S NATIONAL INTERESTS
By EurasiaNet
Aug 21, 2003, 06:07

Erich Marquardt
A EurasiaNet Partner Post from PINR

For more than two decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been at odds with the foreign policy of the United States. The most significant clash between the two countries began shortly after the election of Premier Mohammed Mossadeq, who took power in Tehran in 1951. Mossadeq, a nationalist, nationalized the oil industry and formed the National Iranian Oil Company. Due to this action, the United States and Great Britain engineered a coup in August of 1953, overthrowing the democratically elected leader and replacing Mossadeq with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, referred to as the Shah, who ruled for twenty-five years. Shortly after taking power, the Shah allowed an international consortium of American, British, French and Dutch oil companies to operate its oil facilities and reap fifty percent of the profits. Despite the Shahs close, friendly relationship with Washington and other Western governments, his brutal autocratic methods of violently quelling domestic dissent with his dreaded security apparatus, the SAVAK, sparked a revolution in Iranian society led by conservative religious leaders. By overthrowing the U.S. supported government, therefore threatening U.S. interests in the region, the new Iranian leaders quickly became enemies of successive American administrations.

Moreover, on top of earning the disregard of the worlds only superpower, Iran also has found itself in a geographically volatile region. During the 1980s, Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party, invaded Iran in an attempt to conquer valuable territory such as the disputed Shatt al Arab waterway. The war was devastating to both the Iraqis and the Iranians. Since the end of that conflict in 1988, Iran and Iraq have had terse relations. In addition to Iraq, Iran is also threatened by the regions most powerful state, Israel, which has a carefully defended nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. In 1981, Israel launched a surprise air attack on Iraqs Osirak nuclear reactor in an attempt to dash Baghdads goal of developing nuclear arms; Israels aim was to preserve its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. It is clear that Israel would seriously consider similar action in Iran, should Tehran come closer to developing nuclear arms.

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

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

In addition to being concerned about U.S. troops on its eastern and western borders, Tehran is worried about covert activities by U.S. intelligence agencies in their quest to seek the Bush administrations much touted "regime change" policy in Iran, which was classified by the White House as being part of an "axis of evil." Such rhetoric began with the election of the Bush administration in 2000, in which a group of administration officials took office that had been abnormally antagonistic to the Iranian government and uncharacteristically friendly with the current hard-line Likud government in Israel. These officials, often categorized as neo-conservatives, openly seek to remove the leadership in Tehran in an attempt to foster a U.S.-friendly government in the oil rich state, along with removing a potential threat to Israel, a firm American ally in the region. Tehran is concerned that U.S. and British support will bolster the power of Iranian rebels operating from Iraq. In fact, in 1997 Iran executed a series of air attacks in Iraqi territory in order to weaken these rebel groups; such an overt policy would be impossible now due to the U.S. and British occupation.

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

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

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

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

© Iranian.ws

http://www.iranian.ws/news/publish/article_311.shtml

Is U.S. openness costly?

August 20, 2003

Which country is the biggest potential threat to America? Russia? North Korea? Iran? You know the answer, but you'd rather not think about it. It's the People's Republic of China, a communist country of 1.3 billion people, with the capability of fielding 206,000,000 soldiers, most certainly the largest military force in history.
Why is it so hard to even think about a war with China? China is our trading partner. But things could change. We're not going to win a swift victory in a war with China with "shock and awe" bombing or with special operations forces who ride horseback and camelback into such a conflict. We're talking about the big-time, real heavyweight load in the world of potential enemies. Should we worry about it? Maybe....

We have a lot of high tech weaponry on our side. We have a well-trained military force -- the best in the world -- so why should we worry? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld does not seem openly concerned, but if the truth were known, the only way to defeat China in a war is with massive use of nuclear weapons, under the venerable, but still viable, strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction.

If we do have a strategy to defeat a huge enemy without nuclear weapons, I hope that we keep it secret. I am still reeling with anxiety over our openness in military-to-military exercises, real world coalition operations, and in high-technology transfers to communist countries. By embedding reporters during operations in Iraq, we won the battle for public opinion, but at what cost? Are potential enemies learning anything from our "openness"? Why are we turning our backs on the marketing of our industrial secrets overseas? A Northwest Indiana corporation, Magnequench, for example, is closing its doors and moving its operations to China. The company makes high-tech magnets for U.S. smart bomb guidance systems! How about a drum roll and a cymbal clash? Hello! Is anyone awake in our U.S. Trade Representative's office?

In the recently released The Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China, Chinese military doctrine now stresses elements such as "surprise, deception and preemption" to insure military victory. That is scary information. The Chinese have always stressed surprise and deception, but "preemption" is brand new in their doctrinal arsenal. Ironically, the Chinese might use their version of the U.S. military strategy of preemption, if military force is needed in its struggle to annex Taiwan, while sitting in peace talks with the U.S. and North Korea in Beijing.

This new and overlooked report cites high-level Chinese Generals who advocate the new strategy of preemption. It further states "China now believes preemptive strikes are its best advantage against a technologically superior force." It looks like our strategy in the successful Operation Iraqi Freedom has been copied by the biggest nation on earth.

My second biggest fear now is a preemptive strike by North Korea on South Korea. China, with its new strategy of preemption, is my number one threat. "The (preemptive) genie is out of the bottle," and there doesn't seem to be an effective way to put it back in. We will now have to live with the fear that others will use our own military strategy of preemption against their enemies, or perhaps against our friends, or even us. What will we do when it happens? Complain that they used our strategy without our permission? Put a lid on "openness" before it's too late.

Colonel Shaver is a retired U.S. Army officer who writes about military subjects, issues and national security strategy.

http://www.daily-journal.com/content/?id=32614

Re#36
This can be the same for Iran as well.
A preemptive attack on Iranian Nuclear Facilities by Israel or America.

The spectre of Operation Ajax

Britain and the US crushed Iran's first democratic government. They didn't learn from that mistake

Dan De Luce, Tehran
Wednesday August 20, 2003
The Guardian

Ignoring international law, Britain and the US opted for the high-risk strategy of regime change in order to pre-empt a volatile enemy in the Middle East. It was not Iraq, however, that was in the firing line but Iran, and the aftershocks are still being felt.
Fifty years ago this week, the CIA and the British SIS orchestrated a coup d'etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The prime minister and his nationalist supporters in parliament roused Britain's ire when they nationalised the oil industry in 1951, which had previously been exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Mossadegh argued that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves.

Britain accused him of violating the company's legal rights and orchestrated a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil that plunged the country into financial crisis. The British government tried to enlist the Americans in planning a coup, an idea originally rebuffed by President Truman. But when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, cold war ideologues - determined to prevent the possibility of a Soviet takeover - ordered the CIA to embark on its first covert operation against a foreign government.

A new book about the coup, All the Shah's Men, which is based on recently released CIA documents, describes how the CIA - with British assistance - undermined Mossadegh's government by bribing influential figures, planting false reports in newspapers and provoking street violence. Led by an agent named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, the CIA leaned on a young, insecure Shah to issue a decree dismissing Mossadegh as prime minister. By the end of Operation Ajax, some 300 people had died in firefights in the streets of Tehran.

The crushing of Iran's first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah, who relied heavily on US aid and arms. The anti-American backlash that toppled the Shah in 1979 shook the whole region and helped spread Islamic militancy, with Iran's new hardline theocracy declaring undying hostility to the US.

The author of All the Shah's Men, New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer, argues that the coup planted the seeds of resentment against the US in the Middle East, ultimately leading to the events of September 11.

While it may be reaching too far to link Mossadegh's overthrow with al-Qaida's terrorism, it certainly helped unleash a wave of Islamic extremism and assisted to power the anti-American clerical leadership that still rules Iran. It is difficult to imagine a worse outcome to an expedient action.

The coup and the culture of covert interference it created forever changed how the world viewed the US, especially in poor, oppressive countries. For many Iranians, the coup was a tragedy from which their country has never recovered. Perhaps because Mossadegh represents a future denied, his memory has approached myth.

On yesterday's anniversary, there was no official government ceremony honouring Mossadegh's legacy. Deemed too secular for the Islamic Republic, the conservative clergy never mention him. But at a time when the Bush administration expresses impatience with diplomacy and promotes "regime change" as a means of reshaping the Middle East, the anniversary recalls some unwelcome parallels.

The mindset that produced the coup is not so different from the premises that underpin the current doctrine of "pre-emption" or the belief that the war on terror can justify ignoring the Geneva convention, diplomacy and the sentiments of a country's population.

Veterans of the cold war in President Bush's administration are cultivating relations with Iranian monarchists in exile while Congressmen are calling for a campaign to undermine Iran's clerical leadership. Washington's tough rhetoric and flirtation with the Shah's son are a kind of nightmarish deja vu for the embattled reformists and students struggling to push for democratic change in Iran.

"Now it seems that the Americans are pushing towards the same direction again," says Ibrahim Yazdi, who served briefly as foreign minister after the Shah fell. "That shows they have not learned anything from history."

The reformists allied with President Khatami believe their country now faces another choice between despotism and democracy, and they worry that the combination of outside interference and internal squabbling within their own ranks could once again defer their dream. The more neo-conservatives attempt to pile pressure on Iran, the more ammunition they provide for the most hardline elements of the regime.

Beyond Iran, America remains deeply resented for siding with authoritarian rule in the region. It would be comforting to think "reshaping the Middle East" means promoting democratic rule. But if it merely allows for the ends to justify the means, then the spectre of Operation Ajax will continue to haunt the region.

· Dan De Luce is the Guardian's correspondent in Tehran

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1022065,00.html

The spectre of Operation Ajax

Britain and the US crushed Iran's first democratic government. They didn't learn from that mistake

Dan De Luce, Tehran
Wednesday August 20, 2003
The Guardian

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/967077/posts?page=38#38

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

bttt