Iranian Alert -- August 29, 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.

ElBaradei: Iran Was Shopping on Nuclear Black Mkt

Reuters
Friday, August 29, 2003; 2:50 AM

VIENNA (Reuters) - The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said in comments aired on Friday that Iran had shopped for nuclear components on the international black market and called on Tehran to be more "proactive" and "transparent."

In an interview on the BBC television program Hardtalk, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei also said that Iran's nuclear program had been going on far longer than the agency had realized.

Although he was not certain of the countries that made the equipment Iran had acquired on the black market, ElBaradei said he had a "pretty good idea" which ones they were.

"It could be one country, it could be more than one country," ElBaradei said. "They (Iran) told us they have got a lot of that stuff from the black market. It is through intermediaries. It is not directly from the country."

Media reports have named Pakistan, a nuclear weapons state that has refused to sign the nuclear 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as one of countries whose nuclear technology Iran is believed to be using.

Although he stopped short of accusing Tehran of lying to the U.N. agency, ElBaradei said Iran had failed to give the IAEA a complete picture of its nuclear program, which Washington says is merely a front for a secret atomic weapons program.

"They have not really been fully transparent in telling us in advance what was going on," ElBaradei said in the interview, recorded on Thursday and aired on Friday.

Asked if he believed Iran was running a secret weapons program, ElBaradei said: "It might be, it might not be."

"I need to really get the Iranians to tell me the full, complete story," he said. "And I would like Iran to be more proactive, more transparent."

He said that it would have been much easier to verify Iran's insistence its nuclear program is peaceful if it had given the IAEA a complete picture of its atomic plans from the beginning.

"It would have been easier for us to complete our job if we knew what was going on as early as the mid 1980s," ElBaradei said. "Now we have to go... 20 years back."

He repeated his call for Iran to quickly sign a protocol giving the IAEA the right to carry out intrusive, short notice inspections across the country.

"The international community's getting very concerned, very impatient," ElBaradei said about the situation in Iran.

He also agreed that countries such as Iran, pre-war Iraq and North Korea -- what President Bush has branded the "axis of evil" -- have had a history of misleading the world about their nuclear programs.

"They have been giving the international community the runaround," he said.

The IAEA Board of Governors meets next month to discuss the agency's recent inspections in Iran. The United States is pushing the board to declare Tehran in violation of its NPT nuclear safeguards obligations and report it to the U.N. Security Council, which can impose economic sanctions.

Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said on Thursday the Islamic Republic was ready to start talks on allowing snap U.N. inspections of its nuclear sites.

"We have written to the director-general (of the International Atomic Energy Agency) saying we are ready to start negotiations on the Additional Protocol," Kharrazi told CNN.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62712-2003Aug29.html

Iran and the AMIA Massacre

August 29, 2003
The Washington Post
Editorial/Op-Ed

Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Britain tried in earnest to woo Iran (for the past quarter-century, one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism) into joining an international coalition opposing al Qaeda. As he traveled to Tehran on September 24, 2001, for example, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw predicted a "new era" in relations with the Islamic regime. Now, 23 months later, the ugly reality is setting in: Iran has been harboring al Qaeda terrorists, and relations between London and Tehran have been hurtling steadily downhill in the wake of mounting evidence that Iran was behind the July 18, 1994 car-bombing of the Argentine Jewish Mutual Aid Association (AMIA) cultural center in Buenos Aires, in which 85 people died and nearly 300 more were wounded. It was perhaps the most deadly anti-Semitic incident worldwide since World War II.

Last Friday, Hadi Soleimanpour, Iran's former ambassador to Argentina, was arrested in Britain on a warrant issued by Argentina, which accuses him of conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the AMIA attack. Mr. Soleimanpour, who entered Britain on a student visa last year, was one of eight Iranians ordered arrested by an Argentinean judge, Juan Jose Galeano (a highly respected magistrate who has been vigorously pursuing the investigation for years) in connection with the massacre. Citing the seriousness of the charges and the risk of flight, a British judge ordered the former Iranian diplomat held without bail — at least until today.

Ever since the bombing nine years ago, both Washington and Jerusalem have charged that Iran was behind the AMIA attack. The charges received a strong boost last year when a deposition from Abdolghassem Mesbahi, a defector from Iranian intelligence, was leaked to the New York Times by Argentinian officials who were apparently upset with the slow pace of the AMIA bombing investigation. The allegations from Mr. Mesbahi, who defected to Germany in 1996, were explosive. He said that the Iranian government (which has loudly proclaimed its innocence) started planning the attack in 1992. Mr. Mesbahi alleged that the Iranian government paid Argentinian President Carlos Menem a million bribe to deny that Iran was involved in the crime. The money supposedly came from a million Swiss bank account fund controlled by then-Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. In March, Judge Galeano alleged that four top Iranian officials in Tehran (among them the former Iranian intelligence minister, Ali Fallahian) were involved in the bombing and asked Interpol to arrest them. Judge Galeano also alleged that elements of the Iranian-backed Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah participated in the attack.

To put it mildly, Iran is not taking this very well. Tehran has severed economic and cultural ties with Argentina, and a foreign ministry spokesman condemned Mr. Soleimanpour's arrest in Britain as illegal, asserting that it had been carried out under the influence of a Zionist regime. Leaving aside the usual bluster from Tehran, the situation is a serious one. The Iranian government clearly feels it is under siege: In addition to the terrorism charges, the International Atomic Energy Agency, under intense U.S. pressure, is demanding the right to carry out more intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities. Moreover, Iran cannot feel happy about the presence of more than 150,000 U.S. troops in next-door Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possibility that the mullahs could meet the fate of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. The noose may have started to tighten around the neck of the dictatorship in Tehran.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=08&d=29&a=1

Iran diplomat refused bail

An Iranian ex-diplomat has again been remanded in custody in London over a terror attack which killed 85 people in Argentina.
Hade Soleimanpour, 47, is wanted by the Argentine government to face charges that he helped plan the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires - the country's worst ever terror attack.

He was refused bail at Bow Street Magistrates court at an extradition hearing and will appear for a further hearing on 19 September.

Bail was turned down despite an offer by his government to put up £500,000 for his surety, and a further £205,000 from family and friends.

His lawyers said the Iranian government was prepared to "stake its own credibility" on the case.

District judge Christopher Pratt said the serious nature of the charges, and the diplomatic sensitivity of the case, meant bail would be refused.

The extradition attempt has strained relations between the UK and Iran, which claims the arrest is politically motivated.

Noisy protests

About 50 protesters, mainly allied to the National Council of Resistance of Iran - which opposes the current regime - demonstrated outside the court demanding Mr Soleimanpour's extradition.

They shouted "one last terrorist out of the UK" and unfurled a banner reading "It is time to bring Mullah's regime to justice for 450 terrorist attacks", as the ex-envoy entered the court.
When his wife later left the hearing, she was also shouted at - with one protester pursuing her down the road.

Mr Soleimanpour was arrested earlier this month at the University of Durham, where he has been working as a research assistant.

The Argentine authorities believe the 47-year-old - who was Iranian ambassador to Argentina at the time of the attack - was involved in planning and commissioning the bomb.

He has strenuously denied any involvement.

Iranian president Ali Mohammed Khatami has demanded his release and an apology from the UK government.

And last week Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Ahani visited London to discuss the matter with UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

The British government says it cannot intervene in what it calls a purely judicial, and not political, process.

Argentina is seeking the extradition of eight Iranian officials in total over the bombing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3191115.stm

EU to Press Iran on Nuclear Plans

August 29, 2003
BBC News
BBCi

The European Union is expected to put pressure on Iran to accept nuclear inspections when its foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, visits Tehran on Friday.

A spokeswoman for Mr Solana said he would underline Europe's growing concern about the nature of Iran's nuclear programme.

A leaked report earlier this week revealed the International Atomic Energy Agency's unease at finding traces of highly-enriched uranium at the Natanz nuclear facility.

Last month, the EU warned it could review its ties with Iran in September in light of the issue.

Enriching uranium is a way of purifying it so it can be used in nuclear fuel or in weapons.

Mr Solana is expected to press Tehran to quickly sign an additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that would allow unscheduled visits from inspectors.

Military secrets

Earlier this week, Iran said it was ready to start negotiations but wanted guarantees that inspectors would not be given total freedom of movement or violate military secrets.

Analyst Steven Everts, of the Centre for European Reform in London, told the BBC he expected Mr Solana's message to Tehran to be fairly tough.

"The EU will emphasise that Iran has to make a move, particularly on this additional protocol, which means accepting challenged, tough inspections," he said.

"There's no question of negotiating the precise context of the protocol - the protocol is a text which already exists. The question is whether Iran is willing to sign and implement it."

Tehran insists its programme is to generate electricity and is for peaceful purposes only, to satisfy its growing demand for power and prevent long-term energy shortages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3190319.stm

Germany's Schroeder Urges Iran To Cooperate With IAEA

August 28, 2003
AFP
IranMania

BERLIN -- German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder issued an "urgent appeal" to Iran Thursday to cooperate with UN atomic energy authorities by giving a full account of its nuclear program.

"I can only give the urgent advice to be open and truthful and lay things on the table," he told the foreign press association when asked about Germany's relations with Iran in light of international concerns about its nuclear program.

"The threats that would present themselves with a continued nuclear program for military use, if there ever was one, are very, very large and very, very worrying.

"Thus, my urgent appeal (is) to cooperate fully to clear up this matter with the relevant atomic energy authority and to hide nothing, nothing at all."

Schroeder said Iran was obligated to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and that Germany had complete faith in its director, Mohamed ElBaradei, to conduct a fair investigation.

He cited a European Union statement last month expressing its "growing concern" about the nature of Iran's nuclear program and warning that, without credible guarantees, it would review its economic ties with Tehran in September.

"We are interested in having good relations with Iran, but we also say clearly that we completely support the position that the European foreign ministers have formulated on the atomic question," Schroeder said.

Iran has come under increasing pressure, notably from Washington, to sign an additional protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allowing snap inspections of its nuclear facilities.

Concern over the issue resurfaced this week when a UN report said that inspections at Iranian facilities had turned up two different types of highly-enriched nuclear particles not needed in civilian atomic programs.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=17666&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

Put the Iraqis in Charge

August 29, 2003
The Wall Street Journal
Bernard Lewis

At first sight one would have expected that Afghanistan would be difficult, Iraq easy. In the one country, we ousted a religious regime, which had the prestige of having liberated the country from the plague of warlordism; in the other, we overthrew a universally detested Fascist-type tyranny. Afghanistan is a remote, mountainous country, with poor and difficult communications; Iraq consists largely of flat river valleys with quick and easy communication. Afghanistan has a strong tradition of regional independence and limited experience of central control; Iraq has known millennia of centralized government, run by a sophisticated and ramified bureaucracy. For these and other reasons, one might have expected that running Afghanistan would be difficult, running Iraq comparatively easy. In fact, the reverse has occurred. In Afghanistan, at first, things did indeed go badly, and there are still problems, both in the country and in the government, but they are manageable. Today with minimal help from the U.S., a central government is gradually extending its political and financial control to the rest of the country and dealing more and more effectively with the problem of the maintenance of order; in Iraq, after an easy and almost unresisted conquest, the situation seems to grow worse from day to day. While the Afghans are building a new infrastructure, Iraqis -- or others acting in their name -- are busy destroying theirs.

Why this contrast? America's enemies are the same in both places, with the same objectives. The main difference is that in Afghanistan there is an Afghan government, while in Iraq there is an American administration, and the cry of "American imperialism" is being repeated on many sides. Even the most cursory examination will reveal that this charge is ludicrously inept. America has neither the desire nor the skill nor -- perhaps most important -- the need to play an imperial role in Iraq. But the accusation -- and its resonant echoes in the Western and even in the American media -- serve a very useful purpose for those whose complaints and purposes against America are in reality quite different.

These anti-American forces fall basically into two groups. The first, and in the long run the more important, come from the camp of al Qaeda and related religious movements. For them, America is now the leader of Christendom, the ultimate enemy in the millennial struggle which they hope to bring, in their own time, to a victorious conclusion. In the writings and speeches of Osama bin Laden and of his allies and disciples, hatred of America is less significant than contempt -- the perception that America is a "paper tiger," that its people have become soft and pampered -- "hit them and they will run." This perception was bolstered by frequent references to Vietnam, Beirut and Somalia, as well as to the feeble response to subsequent terrorist attacks in the 1990s, notably on the USS Cole and on the embassies in East Africa. It was this perception which undoubtedly underlay the events of Sept. 11, clearly intended to be the opening barrage of a new war against the Americans on their home ground.

The response to this attack, and notably the operations in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, brought a rude awakening, and that is surely why there have been no subsequent attacks on U.S. soil. But the perception has not entirely disappeared, and has been revived by a number of subsequent developments and utterances. Compunction -- unwillingness to inflict as well as to suffer casualties -- is meaningless to those who have no hesitation in slaughtering hundreds, even thousands, of their own people, in order to kill a few enemies. Open debate is obviously meaningless to those whose only experience of government is ruthless autocracy. What they think they see is division and fear -- and these encourage a return to their earlier perception of American degeneracy. Such a return could have dangerous consequences, including a renewal and extension of terrorist attacks in America. By terrorist attacks, they believe, they will encourage those whose response is to say, "Let's get out of here" -- perhaps even procure the election of a new administration dedicated to this policy.

The other factor of anti-Americanism has quite a different origin, though there are areas of overlap. During the last few months the fear has often been expressed in Europe and America that democracy cannot succeed in Iraq. There is another, greater, and more urgent fear in the region -- that it will succeed in Iraq, and this could become a mortal threat to the tyrants who rule most of the Middle East. An open and democratic regime in Iraq, inevitably with a Shiite majority, could arouse new hopes among the oppressed peoples of the region, and offer a corresponding threat to their oppressors. One of these regimes, that of Iran , purports to be Islamic, and was indeed so in its origins, though it has become yet another corrupt tyranny.

Some of these regimes are officially classified as our friends and allies, and dealing with them presents a number of problems. There are no such problems in dealing with Iran , an avowed enemy, and undoubtedly a major force behind the troubles in Iraq, in Palestine and elsewhere. Some have argued that the remedy is to "build bridges" to the present regime in Iran. Even if successful, the best that such a diplomacy could accomplish would be to establish the same kind of friendship with Iran as we have with Saudi Arabia -- hardly model. More realistically, such overtures could certainly achieve two immediate results -- to earn the contempt of the government and the mistrust of the people. The calculation of the present regime in Iran is well known, and dates back to the first Gulf War. If Saddam Hussein had possessed nuclear weapons, the Americans would have left him alone, and he would have kept Kuwait and probably other places too. It was then that the mullahs decided that they must have these weapons, which would enable them to enjoy the same kind of immunity as North Korea. They are working desperately to that end, and the Middle East situation will take a significant turn for the worse if they are given the time to achieve it. Opinions may differ on how to handle them, but surely the worst of all options is the line of submissiveness, which can only strengthen the perception of American weakness.

* * *

What then should we do in Iraq? Clearly the imperial role is impossible, blocked equally by moral and psychological constraints, and by international and more especially domestic political calculations. An inept, indecisive imperialism is the worst of all options, with the possible exception of subjecting Iraq to the tangled but ferocious politics of the U.N. The best course surely is the one that is working in Afghanistan -- to hand over, as soon as possible, to a genuine Iraqi government. In Iraq as in Afghanistan, a period of discreet support would be necessary, but the task would probably be easier in Iraq. Here again care must be taken. Premature democratization -- holding elections and transferring power, in a country which has had no experience of such things for decades, can only lead to disaster, as in Algeria. Democracy is the best and therefore the most difficult of all forms of government. The Iraqis certainly have the capacity to develop democratic institutions, but they must do so in their own way, at their own pace. This can only be done by an Iraqi government.

Fortunately, the nucleus of such a government is already available, in the Iraqi National Congress, headed by Ahmad Chalabi. In the northern free zone during the '90s they played a constructive role, and might at that time even have achieved the liberation of Iraq had we not failed at crucial moments to support them. Despite a continuing lack of support amounting at times to sabotage, they continue to acquit themselves well in Iraq, and there can be no reasonable doubt that of all the possible Iraqi candidates they are the best in terms alike of experience, reliability, and good will. It took years, not months, to create democracies in the former Axis countries, and this was achieved in the final analysis not by Americans but by people in those countries, with American encouragement, help and support. Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress deserve no less.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus of Near Eastern studies at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response" (Oxford, 2002).

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=08&d=29&a=5

Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Hakim Killed in Car Blast

August 29, 2003
AFP
News24.com

Tehran - Iraq's best-known Shi'ite Muslim politician, Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Hakim, head of the Iran-backed Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI), was killed in Friday's car bomb attack in the central city of Najaf, the group's Tehran office told AFP.

The car bomb explosion killed at least 17 people and wounded scores more outside one of Shi'ite Islam's holiest shrines in the central Iraqi city of Najaf.

The corpses were picked off the ground outside the Tomb of Ali as blood-spattered casualties wandered around the square in panic moments after the blast in the holy city, 180km south of Baghdad.

Hakim, who spent about 20 years in exile in Iran before returning in triumph to Iraq earlier this year, "met a martyr's fate along with his bodyguards," Mohsen Hakim, political adviser to the ayatollah's brother Abdel Aziz, said.

Severals shops were gutted by the blast which struck as the faithful left after afternoon prayers on the main Muslim day of worship.

Smoke filled the area as five charred cars burned. One was thrown at least 100m.

People were buried beneath the rubble of a gate to the compound and two nearby restaurants and shops, which were flattened by the explosion.

Iraqi police supervised rescue efforts as a few US soldiers watched on.

Onlookers shouted: "Allahu Akbar" (God is Greater) every time a body was lifted from the heap of metal and brick.

Outdoor vendors and worshippers had gashes on their faces from flying glass.

An announcement over the mosque's loudspeakers urged residents to go to the local children's hospital to give blood.

The offices of firebrand anti-American cleric, Moqtada Sadr, were also damaged in the blast.

The gates of the mosque were shuttered and guarded by dozens of Iraqi police, while three fire trucks were positioned around the compound.

Police hauled away cars left in the area for fear that more bombs might be hidden.

The car exploded outside the shrine compound's southern gate where Hakim normally enters and exits on Fridays.

An angry crowd outside shouted slogans against fallen dictator Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party in the moments after the blast.

Hakim had denounced Saddam and the Ba'ath party during his sermon.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1409101,00.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.