Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iranian Alert -- September 9, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD PING LIST
The Iranian Student Movement Up To The Minute Reports ^ | 9.9.2003 | DoctorZin

Posted on 09/09/2003 12:04:36 AM PDT by DoctorZIn

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.

Thanks for all the help.

DoctorZin


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iran; iranianalert; protests; studentmovement; studentprotest
Discover all the news since the protests began on June 10th, go to:

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

1 posted on 09/09/2003 12:04:36 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread

Live Thread Ping List | DoctorZin

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

2 posted on 09/09/2003 12:05:30 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
IAEA Cites Iran On Uranium Work
Report Says Weapons Effort Is Cloaked

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 9, 2003; Page A09

Inspectors for the United Nations recently concluded that Iran has attempted to produce highly enriched uranium without properly disclosing it, which would be a serious violation of its nuclear nonproliferation agreements, according to a confidential report by the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The 10-page report, which recently began circulating among nonproliferation specialists in Washington, is written in bland diplomatic prose and buries many of its conclusions. But experts who have read the report said it provides damning evidence that Iran has quickly and secretly attempted to build a crash nuclear weapons program, and then tried to mislead U.N. investigators with contradictory and implausible explanations.

"As you read this report, the vastness and sophistication of the Iran program becomes apparent," said Joseph Cirincione, director of the nonproliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Anyone looking at this has got to conclude this is a nuclear bomb program."

In a speech yesterday in Vienna before the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors, Director General Mohamed ElBaradei urged Iran "to show proactive and accelerated cooperation, and to demonstrate full transparency by providing the Agency with a complete and accurate declaration of all its nuclear activities."

ElBaradei said "information and access [from Iran] were in some instances slow in coming, piecemeal and reactive, and at times the information provided has been inconsistent with that given previously."

The Bush administration has accused Iran of having a secret nuclear weapons program -- which Iran has vehemently denied -- but it has had trouble winning support for an IAEA resolution that would send the matter to the U.N. Security Council. But experts said the conclusions by the U.N. experts could help win support for tougher action against Iran.

"The significance is, this is a more objective measure of Iran's noncompliance," said Michael Levi, a nuclear physicist at the Brookings Institution.

Late last month, it was disclosed that IAEA investigators found traces of highly enriched uranium on some of the equipment examined in Iran. The Iranian government said the traces were residue already on the equipment when it was received from another country. But the report goes further and says the experts determined that Iran could not have built its massive gas centrifuge enrichment facility at Natanz, about 300 miles south of Tehran, without having first tested the equipment covertly with nuclear material.

"This is an egregious violation of their nonproliferation agreement," Levi said. "You are not allowed to enrich uranium secretly."

The report also says that in June, the IAEA board urged Iran not to introduce any nuclear material into the facility "as a confidence-building measure" while questions were being raised about Iran's nuclear ambitions. But just days later, on June 25, Iran began using nuclear material anyway in one machine and last month it expanded testing in other machines -- making it difficult to determine whether enriched uranium had been in the facility before June.

The report raises many questions about Iran's conflicting explanations for its programs, including its inability to provide original copies of design documents that might explain how Iran built such sophisticated equipment without secretly using nuclear material. The report also suggests that Iran provided an implausible explanation for why it is building a heavy water reactor that could be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium, but which Iran says is for medical and industrial purposes.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45116-2003Sep8.html
3 posted on 09/09/2003 12:13:06 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
IAEA Cites Iran On Uranium Work
Report Says Weapons Effort Is Cloaked

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 9, 2003; Page A09

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/978629/posts?page=3#3

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
4 posted on 09/09/2003 12:15:07 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
Russia under US pressure & fear of Iran's nuke reactor

MOSCOW, Sept 8 (AFP) - Russia appears to be dragging its feet over the construction of Iran's first nuclear reactor, partly due to US pressure but also out of its own safety concerns, analysts said.

As Tehran's nuclear program fell under the international spotlight Monday in a debate in Vienna, Iran insisted that it has fully cooperated with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and again denied it intended to acquire a nuclear arsenal. But it is Russia's involvement in Iran that has troubled many nations.

And Moscow's contradictory statements over the Bushehr nuclear project have left some wondering if President Vladimir Putin is in full control of the situation.

One of the main intrigues here is whether Russian officials pushing for the deal -- Russia is due to earn up to one billion dollars on the project -- will win over those who understand the diplomatic damage the Bushehr project may cause. Few, including Putin, are giving away clues.

Russia's atomic energy minister was quoted as saying that a key agreement on Iran's return of spent nuclear fuel to Russia may be signed soon. But he gave no date for the signing, although other Russian officials had earlier said the protocol may be signed this month -- perhaps even during the IAEA talks now underway in Vienna.

Close observers of the Bushehr negotiations said Russia was becoming genuinely concerned over Iran's apparent demands to keep the spent nuclear fuel for two years before it is returned here.

Western nations worry the fuel can be reprocessed to make nuclear bombs -- although most analysts agree Tehran still lacks the technology to attack another nation with such a weapon if it was ever developed. "Iran wants to keep the fuel for at least two years in its own storage sites," said Anton Khlopkov of the PIR Center military research institute.

"I think that Russia is delaying this not because of US pressure, but out of its own fears about the broader aspects of Iran's potential nuclear ambition." The analyst said any bomb made out of the spent fuel would be the size of "one or two rooms" -- and therefore impossible to launch on a missile.

But he added for the time being "the United States has not made any financial offers to Russia that would give it reason to halt the project." Other analysts pointed to confusion within the Kremlin's own ranks ahead of December's parliamentary polls and March presidential elections.

These involve debates not revolving around Iran but the very future of Russia's democracy and economic development. "There is no single center of power in Russia and there is fighting going on over various questions including Iran," said political and military analyst Andrei Piontkovsky.

"There are people in the Kremlin that want to ally themselves with the United States and those who want to oppose it at all costs," he said. "Putin does not belong to either of these clans -- but he is stranded between them.

Russia has no firm position concerning Iran because of internal struggles."

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=17859&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
5 posted on 09/09/2003 12:49:18 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: downer911; DoctorZIn; seamole; AdmSmith; Valin; McGavin999; Eala; yonif; RaceBannon; onyx
Iran denies exchanging detained al-Qaeda members

TEHRAN, Sept 8 (AFP) - The Iranian government denied accusations that it was seeking to exchange suspected members of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network detained in the Islamic republic.

We haven't suggested any trade deal regarding combatting terrorism with any country," government spokesman Abdollah Ramazanzadeh told reporters.

"Combatting terrorism is one of our goals because we have been the victim of terrorism," he added.Privately, a number of diplomats have said Iran has been trying to exchange al-Qaeda fugitives with detained members of the Iranian People's Mudjahedeen, a banned armed opposition group.

On Sunday, Germany's Welt am Sonntag newspaper reported that Tehran had made such an offer to the United States. Iran has acknowledged holding a raft of suspected al-Qaeda militants, including top leaders, but has refused to identify them.

Tehran has also launched negotiations with the home countries of these suspects but has said it would decide whether or not to extradite them.

It has also ruled out giving the United States access to them. Diplomats and Arab press reports have said the al-Qaeda members held in Iran include Osama bin Laden's son Saad, who has been stripped of his Saudi nationality; the movement's spokesman, Sulaiman Abu Gaith, a former Kuwaiti; and its number two and number three -- Ayman al-Zawahiri and Saif al-Adel -- both of them formerly Egyptian.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=17858&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
6 posted on 09/09/2003 12:53:39 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; McGavin999; Eala; AdmSmith; dixiechick2000; nuconvert; onyx; Pro-Bush; Valin; Tamsey; ...
Iran Under Fire for Suspicions It Wants Atom Bomb
Tue September 9, 2003 06:03 AM ET
By Louis Charbonneau
VIENNA (Reuters) - Washington is winning more allies at the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog to back a U.S. demand that Tehran come clean about its nuclear program, which some believe is a front to build an atomic bomb, diplomats said Tuesday.

The United States -- which labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil" with North Korea and pre-war Iraq -- along with Canada and Britain is pressing the U.N. agency's board of governors to demand at this week's closed-door meeting that Iran enable U.N. inspectors to get to the bottom of its nuclear program.

In a situation reminiscent of the run-up to the war on Iraq, Washington found itself isolated when it tried to push the board to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council for what it says is a clear breach of Iran's nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

But when U.S. officials dropped their Security Council plans, diplomats said most of the 35-nation Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) became ready to support a new resolution demanding Iran's "urgent and essential cooperation" with the IAEA.

The resolution will also call on Iran to quickly sign and implement a protocol permitting more intrusive, snap inspections, and to answer the IAEA's many outstanding questions about its uranium-enrichment program.

Some countries believe Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities could be at the heart of a secret weapons program, a suspicion fueled by the IAEA's recent discovery of traces of weapons-grade uranium at an enrichment facility in Iran.

Enrichment is a process of purifying uranium to make it usable in nuclear fuel, or when highly enriched, in weapons.

TEHRAN DENIES HAVING NUCLEAR PROGRAM

Tehran denies that it has a secret bomb program. It said the bomb-grade material came from "contaminated" machinery purchased abroad on the black market in the 1980s. This explanation has met with skepticism inside and outside the IAEA.

"To many, it is already clear that ... Iran is seeking the option of producing nuclear weapons through its own independent nuclear program," Jon Wolfsthal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote on his organization's Web site.

"Given its history of conflict with Iraq -- a state by no means guaranteed of a peaceful and stable future -- (and) perceived threats from Israel's and America's nuclear arsenals, Iran's position is understandable in some circles," he wrote.

Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Akbar Salehi, harshly criticized the U.S.-backed draft resolution -- now the focus of heated behind-the-scenes discussions in Vienna -- calling it a distortion of the truth, overly pessimistic and unacceptable.

"It's looking at things with pessimism," he told Reuters, adding that the resolution ignored the IAEA's praise of Iran's improved cooperation with the agency. "In other words, (it is) looking at the half-empty glass, and not the half-full."

A Western diplomat told Reuters that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei helped rally support for the new U.S.-backed resolution when he indicated his support for the draft in comments to reporters before Monday's session began.

"I'm going to strongly urge Iran to clarify all issues relevant to its (uranium) enrichment program to make sure that all its enrichment activities have been declared and (are) under agency verification," ElBaradei said.

"It is absolutely essential for Iran to cooperate actively and...demonstrate full transparency with the IAEA as early as possible," he said.

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3410842
7 posted on 09/09/2003 4:12:32 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; dixiechick2000; Enemy Of The State; Travis McGee; kattracks; rontorr; nuconvert; ...
Shots fired at British embassy in Iran again.

Tuesday, September 9

LONDON, England (CNN) – Shots have been fired for the second time in less than a week at or near the British Embassy in Tehran.

Foreign Office spokesman Ian Gleason told CNN that three or four shots were fired from the street at or near the embassy just before 1am local time on Tuesday.

He said there were no injuries and he was not aware of any damage to the building.

The shots come less than a week after a similar incident near the British mission in Iran's capital, amid bilateral tension between the countries after a former Iranian diplomat was arrested in Britain over the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Argentina that killed 85.

Britain closed its embassy in Tehran last Wednesday after shots were fired at it from the street. No one was injured in that shooting.

The embassy has been on a heightened state of alert since the current diplomatic crisis with Iran began.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said last week security had been beefed up around the compound and police were investigating the shooting, which he described as an "irresponsible act."

Last week's shooting took place just hours after the announcement that Iran had temporarily recalled its British ambassador, Morteza Sarmadi, for consultation over the dispute over the arrest of former diplomat Hadi Soleimanpour.

The Foreign Office in London has denied that Sarmadi's departure amounts to any downgrading of relations.

Soleimanpour, who is in custody at Argentina's request, has protested his innocence.

Iran says his detention is politically motivated. It has promised "strong action" and warned Britain that the issue would harm bilateral ties.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/09/iran.britain/

8 posted on 09/09/2003 4:16:16 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All
Bush warning to Iran and Syria


US President George W Bush has accused Syria and Iran of "supporting terrorists", adding that countries continuing the practice would be held accountable.

"Today Syria and Iran continue to harbour and assist terrorists," he said.

"This behaviour is completely unacceptable and states that support terror will be held accountable."

Mr Bush was speaking after a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi at his ranch in Texas.

Earlier, Israel said Iran was "trying to do everything" to build a nuclear weapon and would pose a threat to the whole world unless it was stopped.

Iran rejected the charge, saying it viewed weapons of mass destruction as a serious threat to its own security.

It repeated that its nuclear program was aimed at meeting the enormous energy demands of its rapidly developing economy.

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, speaking after a meeting with his European Union counterparts, said that Tehran refused to accept tough nuclear inspections and was continuing to enrich uranium.

"Iran now is trying to do everything to have a nuclear weapon and that is threatening not only the Middle East, it is threatening Europe, the southern part of Russia," he said.

"And I think the EU should take a key role in the last efforts to prevent them from having this ability."

But Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said that the country's nuclear programme was open to scrutiny by the UN nuclear watchdog agency and was considering signing a new protocol on weapons inspections with the body.

"It is clear for us that we do not have any programme for nuclear weapons production," said Kharrazi.

"Israel wants to justify its nuclear arsenal. They want to justify that they are under threat when the source of the threat is Israeli capabilities," he added.

http://www.itv.com/news/584381.html
9 posted on 09/09/2003 4:50:00 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All
Iran, Syria discuss bilateral ties

Damascus, Sept 9 - Iran and Syria discussed here Monday possible avenues for bolstering of bilateral ties in all areas.

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, in a meeting with Syrian Prime Minister Muhammad Mustafa Miro, pointed to political and economic bilateral cooperation at various levels and stressed expansion of ties.

"Tehran and Damascus have serious will and determination to expand economic relations particularly in those fields that Iran has great potentials for participation in infrastructural projects and its presence in private sector which should be noticed" Kharrazi said.

He assessed as "positive" the results of bilateral ties and political, economic and cultural agreements in line with the advices of two countries' leaders.

"Iran has modern potentials regarding capabilities of reputable and successful Iranian companies to participate in the reconstruction of power plants as well as production of automobile spare parts and petrochemical products," he said, adding "regular consultations between the two sides would play an important role in implementation of executive affairs."

Miro, for his part, pointed to historical and cultural commonalities between the two sides and said, Syria always attaches special importance to strengthening of relations with Iran.

"We are so pleased with progress and great efforts in various fields particularly in economic and trade ties and are ready to expand new areas for cooperation in order to activate joint economic commissions," he said.

http://www.iribnews.com/Full_en.asp?news_id=187680
10 posted on 09/09/2003 4:59:17 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All

Free Republic's 9-11 100 Hours of Remembrance
Click on the Link Above


11 posted on 09/09/2003 6:03:57 AM PDT by jriemer (We are a Republic not a Democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; McGavin999; Eala; piasa; Valin; nuconvert; Texas_Dawg; kattracks; RaceBannon; seamole; ..
UK, US stance on Iran unlike: Straw

London, Sept 9 - Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has reiterated that the UK government still disagrees with the US hostile policy towards Iran despite its closeness with the Bush administration.

"Some areas of foreign policy proposed by the government and supported by the house (of commons), such as our approach to Iran and to chairman Arafat, we happen to have disagreements with the United States," Straw told MPs on Monday.

The foreign secretary was responding to a question from labor MP Jeremy Corbyn, who asked him to 'declare some independence in our foreign policy rather than following George Bush from war to war'.

"After five months of occupation and now an increase in the deployment of British troops in Iraq, does the foreign secretary think it is now time to reconsider the closeness of British foreign policy to that of the Bush administration?" Corbyn asked.

The distinction between US and UK policy comes after the assistant editor of the Guardian newspaper, Simon Tinsdall, blamed Prime Minister Tony Blair personally for the recent deterioration of the UK relations with Iran.

"As over Iraq, Blair and his Downing Street machine have a habit of taking charge of the big foreign policy issues and Arguably, comprehensively fouling them up," Tinsdall said.

He argued that the diplomatic dispute did not arise solely from the arrest of former Iranian ambassador Hadi Soleimanpour in the UK, but from 'Blair's latest, clumsy foray into the delicate and complex world of international diplomacy'.

The assistant editor suggested that the 'unilaterally pre-emptive transformation of British policy on Iran' was sealed by the prime minister 'during a private Downing Street dinner with Israel's Ariel Sharon in July'.

http://www.iribnews.com/Full_en.asp?news_id=187717&n=31
12 posted on 09/09/2003 7:19:21 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; McGavin999; Eala; AdmSmith; dixiechick2000; nuconvert; onyx; Pro-Bush; Valin; Tamsey; ...
Remaining 'Axis of Evil' Nations Pursuing WMD

By Dale Hurd
CBN News Sr. Reporter
September 8, 2003

The two remaining 'Axis of Evil' nations -- Iran and North Korea -- are still working to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

(CBN News) -- While Iraq remains at the top of President Bush's foreign policy agenda, the rest of the president's 'Axis of Evil' - Iran and North Korea - is at work trying to build weapons of mass destruction.
But the Bush Administration is running into trouble trying to put pressure on Iran.

The United States will reportedly agree to a less strongly worded resolution at today's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors, because it doesn't think enough nations are ready to get tough with Iran.

Iran's chief delegate to the U.N. agency warned the world that too much pressure on Tehran will only worsen tensions. But Iran still faces some pointed questions, because it's widely viewed as staging a cover up.

The U.S. and many European nations worry about the dangers a nuclear Iran could pose to the Middle East -- and possibly the world -- if it passes nuclear weapons on to terrorists.

Meanwhile, a South Korean newspaper reports that North Korea may display a new long-range missile at a military parade on Tuesday. The missile is said to have a range of 2,500 miles. In another development, Reuters quotes German human rights activist Norbert Vollertsen as saying a North Korean biological weapons expert has been detained while trying to slip into the Australian consulate in China. Vollertsen says Ri Chae Woo planned to testify in the U.S. against Pyongyang's chemical and biological weapons program. Vollertsen says Ri has evidence of human experiments in North Korea.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/030908d.asp
13 posted on 09/09/2003 8:26:31 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Israel Keeping Eyes on Iran's Nuke Program

September 09, 2003
The New York Times
The Associated Press

JERUSALEM -- Israel has hinted at possible military action to stop what it calls a nightmare scenario -- nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran -- but for now is waiting for U.S. diplomatic pressure and closer international scrutiny to do the job.

On Monday, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is investigating suspicions of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program, demanded full disclosure from Tehran, including acceptance of snap inspections.

Iran insists its nuclear programs are only for generating electricity as oil supplies dwindle. It also has said its equipment was ``contaminated'' with enriched uranium by a previous owner.

But Israel estimates Iran is just two to three years from having nuclear weapons.

An Israeli government official said Iran does not yet have the right amount of enriched uranium, as well as some other chemicals, needed to build a nuclear bomb, but it has the ``know-how'' and the ability to develop the materials. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

The delivery method -- the long-range Shahab-3 missile -- was successfully tested in July, and experts said Iran is to begin serial production within two years.

If diplomacy fails, Israel, which is about 600 miles to the west of Iran, has made clear a military operation is feasible.

Israeli security officials said Iran's nuclear program is a focus of the army's five-year strategic plan, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has ordered the Mossad spy service to keep a close eye on the developments in Tehran.

``Any Iranian regime knows of course that Israel has the capability, the wherewithal, to deal with a military threat,'' said Zalman Shoval, an aide to Sharon. ``Hopefully, a military threat can be avoided, nipped in the bud ... before it begins and this is where the United States comes in.''

Israel has never confirmed being a nuclear power, but it is widely believed to have nuclear weapons.

In 1981, a fleet of Israeli warplanes flew some 460 miles over Middle Eastern deserts and mountains to Baghdad -- sticking close to the ground throughout the flight to avoid being picked up by radars.

The warplanes let loose a string of bombs, knocking out Baghdad's nuclear reactors and halting Saddam Hussein's progress in obtaining nuclear weapons.

At the time, the operation was internationally condemned, even by Israel's staunchest ally, the United States.

However, the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States have changed the rules.

U.S. troops have overthrown regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, both on Iran's borders, in less than two years. Tehran is aware that as a member of President Bush's ``axis of evil'' it could be next in line.

``Iran must cooperate fully. Iran has pledged not to develop nuclear weapons and the entire international community must hold that regime to its commitments,'' Bush recently said.

Iran apparently believes the attack could come from the United States or Israel and announced it was increasing its defense spending this year.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi recently warned Israel against embarking on an ``adventure'' similar to the 1981 strike, saying ``it will pay dearly'' if it does so.

The United States and Israel would most likely choose to carry out pinpoint strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, rather than a large-scale assault if forced to take military measures, said Ephraim Kam, a researcher with Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies. Kam released a study last week on Iran's nuclear capabilities.

``A combination of nuclear capabilities and long-range missile capabilities...combined with their position that Israel should not exist is a real threat,'' Kam said.

Suspicions about Iran's nuclear activities prompted IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei in February to tour Iran's nuclear facilities, including the incomplete plant in Natanz, about 300 miles south of Tehran. Diplomats said he was taken aback by the advanced stage of a project using hundreds of centrifuges to enrich uranium.

Another, larger uranium enrichment facility, is to be completed within the next few years, Western intelligence agencies discovered with the help of Iranian opposition groups.

ElBaradei has said that Iran's nuclear program has been going on far longer than the agency had realized and that it's possible Tehran had bought nuclear components on the ``black market.''

``I would urge Iran in the coming weeks to show proactive and accelerated cooperation, and to demonstrate full transparency by providing the agency with a complete and accurate declaration of all its nuclear activities,'' he said Monday in Vienna, Austria.

The United States is pushing the IAEA to report to the U.N. Security Council that Iran is violating nuclear safeguard regulations, opening the door to economic sanctions. Tehran recently signaled that it is open to negotiating terms for snap U.N. inspections of its nuclear sites.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Iran.html
14 posted on 09/09/2003 8:59:52 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Turkey Accused of Handing Over Kurdish Dissidents

September 08, 2003
AFP
IranMania

ARBIL -- An Iranian Kurdish opposition group accused Turkey of handing over 16 Iranian Kurdish dissidents to the Tehran government, putting their lives at risk.

"The Turks handed over to the Iranian (government) 16 Iranian Kurds who were formerly active in the Union of Kurdistan Revolutionaries (UKR) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) under an agreement between the intelligence services of the two countries," UKR secretary Hussein Yazdanpana told AFP.

"This puts their lives at risk," he said, adding that two Iranian Kurdish dissidents handed over by Turkey to the Islamic Republic were executed in January and November 2002.

Yazdanpana was speaking a day after his party issued a statement in this Iraqi Kurdish town charging that Turkish authorities had moved a number of Iranian Kurds from a refugee camp in Van in southeast Turkey to an area along the border with Iran as a prelude to their expulsion to the Islamic Republic.

The statement said the Iranian Kurds were registered with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and were living at the refugee camp in Van from where they intended to move on to a third country.

Yazdanpana accused the UNHCR of failing to prevent the expulsion of the Iranian Kurds and urged human rights organizations to intervene to protect more than 1,500 Iranian Kurds living in the camp. Iran has a six-million-strong Kurdish minority.

The two main Iranian Kurdish rebel groups active within the Islamic Republic are the leftist Komala, or Revolutionary Organization of Kurkish Toilers, and the rival KDPI.

After briefly allying themselves with the Islamic regime following the 1979 revolution, the rebels were ruthlessly crushed by Iranian security forces, particularly the Revolutionary Guards, in the 1980s.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=17860&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
15 posted on 09/09/2003 9:00:55 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Kharrazi Handed Khatami's Message to Al-Assad

September 08, 2003
AFP
IranMania

Damascus -- Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi in a meeting with the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad handed a message from President Khatami.

They also discussed bilateral ties and regional developments, including the Iraq crisis and Palestinian issue. Kharrazi said that consultations between Tehran and Damascus have always had important impact on bilateral ties and forging common views.

Assad said developments is the region mandate that Iran and Syria exchange views on various issues. He referred to the American `security quagmire` in Iraq, adding Syria has always maintained that peace and security in Iraq should only be established though national unity and withdrawal of occupiers from the country. He rejected any efforts `to legitimize the occupation of foreign forces over Iraqi sovereignty`.

Kharrazi said Iran regards the understanding of the Iraq`s situation as predicated on complexities of the country`s power structure and on the people`s aspirations. Initially, the US did not pay due attention to Iraq`s neighbors views and embarked on a course of unilateralism, embracing a security-laced strategy.

"But, the deteriorating situation in the country has forced the US to alter its position." The quickest way to resolve the Iraqi problem is to cede the affairs to the people and for the occupiers to leave the country, the Iranian foreign minister underlined. On another issue, Assad and Kharrazi discussed bilateral economic ties, notably the petrochemical and electricity sectors. Kharrazi arrived here Monday on the first leg of his three-nation tour which will also take him to Bulgaria and Bosnia.

Kharrazi, heading a high-ranking political delegation, is scheduled to attend a ceremony held by the office in Damascus of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to commemorate the late Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer Hakim.

Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer Hakim, the head of the Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution of Iraq (SAIRI), was recently martyred in a truck bomb blast when he was returning from Friday prayers in Najaf. Some 125 people were martyred in the blast. Kharrazi is scheduled to proceed to Bulgaria on the second leg of his trip.

In Sofia, Kharrazi and his entourage will explore various avenues for strengthening of mutual political, economic and cultural cooperation with Bulgarian officials. On the last leg of his tour, the Iranian foreign minister will review issues of mutual interest with Bosnian officials in Sarajevo.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=17865&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
16 posted on 09/09/2003 9:02:08 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Britain Rebukes Iran Over Embassy Gunfire

September 09, 2003
The Guardian
Staff and Agencies

Britain "protested strongly" to Iran today for not protecting its embassy in Tehran, after shots were fired at the building for the second time in a week.

Diplomats said three or four shots were fired at the embassy overnight. In a similar incident last Wednesday, the embassy was temporarily closed after shots were fired from a passing motorbike.

"We've protested strongly to the Iranian ministry of foreign affairs that security precautions taken by the Iranian authorities after last week's shooting did not prevent this further incident," a Foreign Office spokesman told Reuters.

"We consider it a further failure of our hosts' duty to protect the embassy under the Vienna convention. The embassy has called once again for an urgent investigation. We want to see those responsible brought to justice," the spokesman said.

Britain's ambassador in Tehran, Richard Dalton, was said to be in contact with the Iranian authorities over today's incident, but he was not aware of any arrests following the attack.

Last Wednesday, the embassy was closed after it came under fire from men on motorcycles. Five shots were fired at the building, hitting offices on the first and second floors. Nobody was hurt in the attack.

Non-essential members of staff and dependants were advised to leave the embassy due to the "increased threat" following the earlier attack.

The mission continued to offer a limited service but consular services are by appointment only. This precaution would stay in place following the new attack, said the spokesman.

The foreign office has yet to update its travel advice following the latest shooting, but after the September 3 incident it said: "The Iranian authorities are investigating the incident. Responsibility and motive for the attack are not yet known.

"We do not believe that there is an increased threat to private individuals as a result of this incident, but all British nationals should follow events closely and be especially vigilant."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1038625,00.html
17 posted on 09/09/2003 9:03:35 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
A Law to Outlaw Financing Outlaws!

September 09, 2003
Iran va Jahan
Shaheen Fatemi

Seldom the news from Tehran these days can surprise you. Practically any horrifying event, no matter how repugnant for the normal human beings, attributed to the Talebans of Tehran, is unconsciously dismissed as 'déjà vu.' Public proclamations by government officials during the so-called Friday prayers for killing of Americans and other Westerners has become so common that it is not even reported by the international media any longer. Public lashing of the youth, amputation of limbs, lapidation of women and men, and other forms of public executions all these have become so routine in case of the government of IRI that most people seem not to be shocked any longer. A few months ago there was a worldwide uproar about the verdict of a Sharia court in Nigeria against women who had been accused of adultery. The ensuing massive publicity given to this news forced the Nigerian government to back down and the victim's life (so far) has been spared. But in case of Iran, hundreds of such verdicts have been issued and enforced while the criminals in charge of the country continue to function with total impunity and to receive international respectability. The following news dispatch from Tehran might prove an exception to the above rule.

According to Radiofarda, A proposed piece of legislation will be presented to the parliament, by Mr. Khatami's government, in order to "cut off financial assistance to terrorist groups:" For a year officials of the ministries of Foreign Affairs, Economy, Finance and the Central Bank have been collaborating for the preparation of this legislation. According to the same source, Mr. Abdollah Ramazanzadeh, the government's spokesman added that if this law is passed by the parliament, IRI will cut off funding to those groups that 'it recognizes as terrorist.' He further adds that after the expected approval of the parliament, the approval of the Guardian Council is also required.

BBC, of course, has its own more polished version of the same news,

"Iran has announced plans for legislation to let it freeze terrorist-linked assets in line with its United Nations responsibilities.

If - as expected - the bill is ratified by parliament and by the hard-line Guardian Council, it will make Iran a member of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, which was created in 1999 and came into force in 2002.

That commits Iran to banning the collecting of money intended to support terrorist actings, and to answering calls by other signatories for help with tracking terror funds.

But while Al-Qaeda will be included on its list of banned organisations, a government spokesman said, Hamas - the Palestinian extremist group banned by the European Union over the weekend - will not.

Despite US accusations to the contrary Hamas is not a terrorist group in Iran's view, the Iranian spokesman said.

"Defence against aggressors and occupiers is the legitimate right over any nation, and you cannot label these movements as terrorist movements," said the spokesman, Abdollah Ramazanzadeh."

I have more trust in Radiofarda's version than the polished version of BBC, which omits the important point about IRI's own definition of 'terrorism.' What both sources miss is how shallow and hypocritical this entire gesture is. IRI abandoning terrorism is analogous to Mafia fighting crime. The foundations of this regime and its 'raison d'être' are amalgamated with terrorism. Terrorism and the Islamic regime have been born as Siamese twins. The creation of the Islamic Republic was an act of terrorism and its collapse would coincide with the end of terrorism. If the IRI really wants to abandon terrorism, it should begin at home by ending its reign of terror and by letting the Iranian people choose their own free form of government.

To better grasp the relationship between these two symbols of evil, just read the Preamble to the so-called Constitution of the Islamic Republic or more specifically take a good look at the Article 154 of the Constitution:

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has as its ideal human felicity throughout human society, and considers the attainment of independence, freedom, and rule of justice and truth to be the right of all people of the world. Accordingly, while scrupulously refraining from all forms of interference in the internal affairs of other nations, it supports the just struggles of the mustad'afun against the mustakbirun in every corner of the globe."


These archaic words such as "mustad'afun" and "mustakbirun" are pseudo-Marxist terminologies in Arabic for the 'proletariat' and the 'capitalists.' More specifically, Khomeini used to use the later as a reference to the United States.

This is just one of many references to open licensing of international terrorism. Not that this regime needs legal basis for its outrageous behavior. But such references further re-enforce the wide gap that separates this 'rouge' regime from other governments. A regime founded on lies, terror and deceit can never reform itself.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=09&a=10
18 posted on 09/09/2003 9:05:59 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
A Law to Outlaw Financing Outlaws!

September 09, 2003
Iran va Jahan
Shaheen Fatemi

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/978629/posts?page=18#18

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
19 posted on 09/09/2003 9:08:08 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn; downer911; onyx; nuconvert; McGavin999; seamole; AdmSmith; Valin; windchime; Tamsey; ...
U.S. Judge: Iran Liable for Beirut Blast

September 9, 2003, 12:34 PM EDT


WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has ruled that the government of Iran was responsible for the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 63 people, including 17 Americans, and awarded $123 million in damages to some of the U.S. victims and their families.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said the bombing on April 18, 1983 was carried out by the terrorist group Hezbollah with funding, weapons and training provided by senior Iranian officials.

In the 165-page opinion released late Monday, Bates concluded the bombing was part of Iran's campaign to remove the U.S. presence in Lebanon by killing American diplomats and servicemen and kidnapping civilians.

The bombing was the first major attack against any American embassy in the world and was followed only six months later by a massive suicide bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 American servicemen. That attack led then-President Reagan to withdraw U.S. troops from Lebanon.

The lawsuit is one of dozens filed against Iran under a 1996 U.S. law that allows Americans to sue nations that sponsor terrorism for damages suffered in terrorist acts. The Iranian government has not formally responded to any of the lawsuits.

In the embassy bombing case, Bates issued his ruling after holding a six-day evidentiary hearing in April.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-beirut-bombing-lawsuit,0,531625.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
20 posted on 09/09/2003 10:01:00 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All
U.S., backed by Canada, says Iran in non-compliance with nuclear treaty

GEORGE JAHN
Canadian Press

VIENNA (AP) - The United States accused Iran on Tuesday of violating the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty but said it is ready - for now - to give Tehran "a last chance" to prove it is not running a covert nuclear weapons program.

Backed by key allies, including Canada, chief U.S. delegate Kenneth Brill called Iran to task on the basis of a report outlining discrepancies between its past statements on its nuclear program and findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The report, by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, lists the discovery of weapons-grade enriched uranium and other evidence that critics say point to a weapons program.

"The United States believes the facts already established would fully justify an immediate finding of non-compliance by Iran," Brill said during a meeting of the agency's board. Still, he said, Washington is ready to give "Iran a last chance to drop its evasions" before pushing for punitive action.

The United States accuses Iran of working on a secret nuclear weapons program. Tentative plans to come down hard on Iran at the board meeting were dropped last week after the Bush administration decided that it would not find enough support at the conference.

The U.S. delegation had been pushing for a resolution finding Iran in non-compliance - a conclusion that would have brought the matter before the UN Security Council, which in turn could have called for sanctions.

Key U.S. allies expressed support for the U.S. position.

"The nature of Iran's nuclear program, coupled with its evasiveness, only makes sense in the context of nuclear weapons ambitions," said the chief Canadian delegate, Ingrid Hall.

"We are forced to conclude that Iran is in non-compliance," she said, adding that only Canada's "deference to the views of those who would give Iran another chance," kept it from pushing for Security Council involvement.

The European Union, in a statement for 28 countries - members and prospective members - said failure of Iran to honour its IAEA commitments of full openness was a matter of "grave concern."

Iran has suggested it may sign a protocol opening its nuclear programs to full and unfettered inspections by the IAEA.

But "the additional protocol very well depends on the outcome of the board," said chief Iranian delegate Ali Akbar Salehi, warning his country would have to rethink its position if "things are totally against" Iran.

The IAEA report to the board said traces of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium were found at an Iranian nuclear facility and also noted tests by Iran that experts say make little sense unless the country was pursuing nuclear weapons.

Tehran insists its nuclear programs are for generating electricity and says its equipment was "contaminated" with enriched uranium by a previous owner.

A U.S.-drafted resolution being circulated among delegates and shown to The Associated Press asks Iran to "suspend all further uranium enrichment, including the further introduction of nuclear material at Natanz," where the highly enriched uranium was found. The IAEA has made the same demand, as did Tuesday's EU statement to the board.

But Salehi said Iran could not do so, saying activities at Natanz were already controlled by the IAEA. He described other disagreements over the text as "minor."

ElBaradei toured Iran's nuclear facilities in February, including the incomplete plant in Natanz some 500 kilometres south of Tehran, where he was said to be dismayed by the advanced stage of a project using hundreds of centrifuges to enrich uranium.

Asked what he expects from the resolution, ElBaradei said he hoped "the board calls on Iran to accelerate its co-operation . . . and to make sure that in the next few weeks we should be able to clarify all the important issues that are outstanding."

Brill, in his address, accused Iran of "stalling and stonewalling" on the true aims of its nuclear activities.

"The more the agency has looked underneath the surface of Iran's program, the less the explanations offered have hung together in a plausible way," he said.

"Iran's co-operation with the agency has been at best episodic and reluctant, and has frequently featured delay, denial of access and misinformation," he said.

Salehi called Brill's comments "not appropriate."

Opening the conference of the 35-country board, ElBaradei said that although Iran has been showing increased co-operation, his experts still didn't have enough information to determine the nature of Tehran's nuclear activities.

ElBaradei pressed the Iranians for a complete list of all imported equipment and components they contend were contaminated as well as their countries of origin, the dates they were acquired and where they have been used or stored since.

The nuclear agency also needs to know more about Iran's uranium conversion experiments and its testing of gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, he said.

http://www.canada.com/news/world/story.asp?id=8DBDCFDF-B66E-4BD7-B9AE-C080FDECDF96
21 posted on 09/09/2003 10:03:07 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
Have you heard something about the ultimatum France, Germany and the United Kingdom want to announce against Iran? They call for a stop of the Nuclear Program and want to get full insight of the program until October.
22 posted on 09/09/2003 11:09:25 AM PDT by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Bush's Challenge

September 09, 2003
National Review Online
John F. Cullinan

In his Sunday evening address on postwar Iraq, President Bush set three overall objectives: establishing security; enlisting broader international support; and "helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future."

Whether or not any further international support for U.S. forces will be forthcoming on acceptable terms — or even prove helpful in that unlikely event — remains anyone's guess. But the ongoing violence in Iraq — and the mixed responses of Iraqi leaders — make clear that the president's other two aims can only be pursued in tandem and at once.

Hence President Bush's challenge to the Iraqi people and their leaders: "Now they must rise to the responsibilities of a free people and secure the blessings of their own liberty."

Nowhere was this challenge — and the uncertain response — more evident than in the aftermath of the horrific August 29 terrorist bombing in Najaf that killed at least 100 worshipers at Shiite Islam's holiest shrine. This attack was a deliberate strike at Iraq's fragile political center of gravity: its long-oppressed Shiite majority — roughly two-thirds of Iraq's 25 million citizens — and their mainstream clerical leadership. Its principal target was Ayatollah Mohammed Bakir Hakim, whose combined religious standing, political influence, and increasingly pragmatic views made him a pivotal figure among Iraq's most senior Shiite clerics, or mujtahids.

Hakim's assassination has left a vacuum in Iraqi religious and political life, especially since the only functioning Iraqi institutions — the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) and the senior Shiite clerical establishment — have plainly failed to assume responsibility for coming to grips with the ongoing crisis that threatens to make Iraq ungovernable.

Within hours of the Najaf atrocity, several IGC members reflexively blamed U.S. forces for not protecting a site from which they had been explicitly — and quite publicly — barred by the city's most-senior Shiite clerics. Some even held U.S. forces, rather than the perpetrators, responsible for all such violence: "They are responsible for all blood that is shed everywhere in Iraq." Another IGC member had this to say: "I think someone is writing up a statement, somebody, I'm not sure. We don't have a satellite, you know, that's one of the problems. The Americans should give us a satellite." The Americans should give us a satellite.

Bear in mind that the 25-member IGC frittered away the past two months while preoccupied almost exclusively with its own prerogatives: Electing nine rotating chairmen (where even Bosnia made do with just three); and expanding the number of ministries for the sole purpose of allowing each member to claim one post for his own faction. As for the IGC's work routine, an Iraqi staffer summed it up this way:

On the council, someone makes a suggestion, then it goes around the room, with everyone talking about it, and then by that time, it's late afternoon and time to go home. We don't get a lot done.

Similarly, the senior Shiite clerical leadership seems utterly paralyzed in the face of a grave Iranian-directed, Wahhabi-funded challenge to its own authority fronted by the opportunistic clerical upstart, Moqtadr Sadr.

Last week's abrupt policy reversal by the Bush administration in seeking greater U.N. involvement threatens to prolong this already-unacceptable period of stasis and drift. For at least some Iraqi factions will be tempted to continue sitting on their hands in hopes of playing off one set of foreigners against the other, a favorite regional pastime since Britain and France divided up the Near East after the First World War. The likely result is further postponement of painful but necessary steps to address Iraq's most pressing concerns, not least the worsening security situation.

To be sure, the overall absence of effective Iraqi leadership to date is partly the legacy of 35 years of ruthlessly effective dictatorship. Just five months have passed since Saddam's statue was toppled in Baghdad's Firdos Square on April 9. But Saddam's republic of fear lasted a full generation, during which a death warrant was the price for telling the truth, taking responsibility or exercising initiative. Survival in turn was a matter of conforming and escaping notice. Little wonder that Iraq's political class as a whole is so ill-prepared to exercise responsible or accountable political leadership; and that Iraqis more generally display an unbecoming sense of grievance and entitlement ("Let George do it") that NRO contributor Amir Taheri rightly characterizes as an unhelpful "room-service mentality."

To understand, however, is not to excuse. Business as usual is unacceptable. What is to be done?

1. Devolve explicit security responsibilities to the IGC. President Bush has now forcefully accepted the repeated calls of Iraqi political and religious leaders for Iraqis themselves to assume a larger share of security responsibilities. Last week's formation of a security liaison body between the IGC and the U.S.-U.K. Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) is an essential first step toward Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for designated areas and categories of sites (as Ahmad Chalabi spells out).

The trick will be to set realistic security challenges while increasing Iraqi capacity through coalition training and support — without creating private armies controlled by the various factions. But the overall aim is to introduce a much-needed element of accountability running from the cop on the beat to his local and regional superiors to the IGC's chosen interior minister — and ultimately to the IGC itself.

This approach is not an exercise in blame-shifting. It recognizes that Iraqis are better able than Americans to obtain the local intelligence and cooperation necessary to defeat the Baathist/jihadi insurgency. And it acknowledges that Iraqi security forces — like their political masters — must learn how to walk before they can run. Now is the time to intensify these efforts, beginning at the top, by holding Iraq's senior political leaders to the same standards of accountability as their local counterparts working on the ground throughout Iraq — often quite effectively — with young American military officers.

2. Speak plainly to Iraq's Shiite clerical establishment. Iraq's senior Shiite clerics still shrink from acknowledging that they are in a fight to the death with an internal faction backed by Iran and funded by Wahhabi money. This same faction is widely regarded as responsible for the April 10 murder of Abdul Majid al-Khoei, a prominent clerical moderate, and the August 24 bomb attack that killed three bodyguards of Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Saeed al-Hakim (the late Ayatollah Hakim's nephew). A not so gentle reminder is in order that Iraq's mujtahids stand to lose far more than does the U.S. unless they reclaim their fast-dwindling authority. For it's ultimately up to the clerical establishment, not the U.S., to face down this challenge and demonstrate its continued relevance.

Time is running short. NRO's Michael Ledeen reports that Moqtadr Sadr has been designated as the head of Iraqi Hezbollah by Iran's sinister de facto ruler, Mohammed Hashemi Rafsanjani; and the Washington Post's Anthony Shadid reports that a radical Sunni cleric (Ahmed Kubeisi) is funneling huge sums from "private" Saudi sources to Sadr (precisely the sort of Shiite-Sunni collaboration that many regional 'experts' blithely dismiss as unthinkable). A useful first step would be to put this word out on the street, where suspicion of Iranian designs runs high and hostility to Wahhabi influence and money runs higher still. A second is to end the studied public coyness regarding the presence of U.S. forces — just as the late Ayatollah Hakim risked his own prestige by deputizing his younger brother to serve on the IGC.

As in the case of the IGC, the threat of irrelevance and supercession — or worse — is a powerful incentive indeed.

3. Reach prompt agreement on the overall outlines of the new constitution. Whether Free Iraq succeeds or joins the ranks of failed states depends largely on getting the big constitutional issues right. If it has not already done so, the CPA would do well to make unmistakably clear that not everything is up for grabs; and that certain red lines and necessary features will shape any acceptable constitutional settlement. Vital and legitimate U.S. national interests are at stake, especially given the ongoing expenditure of blood, treasure and prestige.

The basic principle of any constitutional order is that of limitation. The essential means to the end of limited government are basic individual rights, reinforced by structural devices like separation of powers, checks and balances and federalism.

Few Iraqis will need much convincing of the virtues of limited government after suffering the vices of unlimited tyranny. Where consensus is less likely is in the application of the principle of limitation to the relationship between religion and the state, especially given the broad range of views on the subject within both the Sunni and Shiite traditions. This genuine diversity of opinion — as well as the presence of religious and ethnic minorities — precludes the new Iraqi state from possessing any competence to determine or enforce religious truth (specifically including any particular version of Islamic law).

This principle of limitation finds strong support in the particular historical experience and theological tradition of Iraq's Shiite community. Bitter historical experience of Sunni dominance — throughout the Arab world and in Iraq itself under Ottoman, British and Baathist rule — has bred considerable skepticism regarding an all-powerful, monistic state fusing political and religious authority in the manner of the former Sunni caliphate — or that of the present Shiite clerical tyranny in Iran. Shiite ambivalence toward state power is powerfully expressed in the basic theological premise holding all political authorities at best provisional, if not actually illegitimate. In this view, the proper role of the clergy is to safeguard authentic teaching from political manipulation; to mediate between rulers and ruled; and, above all, to shape the values of the community by teaching and witness.

In short, there's no necessary contradiction between an Iraqi state reflecting Islamic values — just as Toqueville's America reflected predominantly Christian "habits of the heart" — without also adopting and enforcing a single interpretation of Islam. There's a balance to be struck between Sudanese sharia and Swedish secularism that combines these elements: positive state neutrality, rightful autonomy for all religious traditions, and individual religious freedom. And now is the time to reach agreement on these general principles — in order to avoid unpleasant surprises, awkward faits accomplis and potentially disastrous recriminations.

Iraq's Shiites in particular are keenly aware that they have few well-wishers in the Arab and Muslim worlds, where their coreligionists are a small and often despised minority (not least in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan). Nor do Iraq's Arab neighbors wish to see a stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq emerge from the ruins of Saddam's tyranny. For Iraq's Shiites — and for Iraqis generally — the beginning of wisdom lies in deciding whether or not to stand with their natural allies against their common enemies.

— John F. Cullinan, a lawyer, formerly served as a senior foreign-policy adviser to the U.S. Catholic bishops.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-cullinan090903.asp
23 posted on 09/09/2003 11:28:14 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
U.S. Can't Afford to Lose

September 09, 2003
National Review Online
Max Singer

Iraq in its current borders has existed only since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, but its predecessors in the land along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers have played starring roles on the world stage since before biblical times.

So, in some ways, it is not surprising that Iraq may now be the hinge of world history, the turning point in the struggle to prevent militant Islam's attack on the West from getting out of hand and dominating the history of the first part of this century.

To understand how central militant Islam's war with the U.S. and the West could be, you have to think about what the world would be like if 9/11 turned out to be only a prologue and there were many large terrorist attacks by militant Islam in the U.S. and perhaps elsewhere in the West.

In the U.S., major successful terror attacks would result in multiplied security measures affecting the quality of life in U.S. cities, making the U.S. more like Israel and resulting in serious costs to the economy, sharp changes in relationships with resident Muslims, a dramatic reduction in willingness to receive Muslim visitors, and urgent and insistent demands on Muslim countries to stop hosting and supporting terrorist organizations.

The reactions to these efforts to protect America against terrorism, and the thrill many Muslims would feel on seeing the U.S. powerless to stop Muslims from wounding the U.S. would probably increase anti-American feeling in many Muslim countries and sharply reduce American (and perhaps European) willingness to travel in these countries.

In brief, there would begin to be a separation of part of the world from the Muslim countries. Such an escalation in the war of militant Islam against the West would dramatically reshape world affairs in ways that are difficult to imagine.

How dramatic the effect would be would depend on how much terrorism there was, but there are no guarantees that we will not have to face the equivalent of five or 10 September 11s a year, or even much worse.

We can't know how great this danger really is, but there is so much evidence that a much greater war with militant Islam is possible that we should build our policy around an effort to prevent that escalated war.

We know of the breadth and depth of hatred of the U.S. and the West in parts of a Muslim world which is so large that even 10 percent of it can be a major force. We saw on 9/11 that at least parts of militant Islam know no limits on what they are prepared to do against the U.S. And while there are widely different estimates of how much Muslim support there was for those who slaughtered Americans at the World Trade Center, it is clear that there was no general Muslim revulsion against such behavior, no broad community reaction that would rule out further attacks.

No one can be terribly confident that the defensive measures the U.S. has been taking within its borders since 9/11 will reliably protect against competent and determined terrorist organizations if they have safe havens abroad. And the existence of weapons of mass destruction multiplies the limits of destruction potentially possible.

Therefore there does not seem to be any prudent argument against Americans devoting themselves to preventing this war from getting out of hand. The only issue is to make sure that we do not, in trying to prevent the war from escalating, increase the danger instead of reducing it. But unfortunately it is not necessarily true that inaction is safer than action. And there is no chance that we can reduce the danger by being nicer to Muslims.

Why is Iraq so important? What are the two alternative results of the struggle in Iraq which could determine whether militant Islam's war against the U.S. escalates and becomes the center of world history for at least the next decades, or recedes into a threat that was mostly averted?

The first alternative could happen if the Iranians, Syrians, and Wahhabis succeeded in organizing enough Iraqi opposition to the U.S. presence to provide political cover for a terrorist war (which some would call a "guerrilla war") in Iraq against the U.S. and its Iraqi "collaborators." Initially, the terrorists would all be supplied and directed by outside agents (Iran, Syria, international Wahhabi institutions such as al Qaeda, and perhaps others) working largely through Iraqis.

As terrorism forces the U.S. to use harsher and harsher measures to protect its personnel, the amount of Iraqi support for demands that the U.S. get out of Iraq, and for terrorist actions against the U.S., might well increase. One or more genuinely independent Iraqi organizations demanding U.S. withdrawal could be created with perhaps some covert influence from the outside agents.

There would be substantial political support for the anti-occupation position from Western Europe, and from some Americans.

The U.S. would be in a very bad position. Muslims would see the U.S. as doubly weak. First, because it was not able to control Iraq. Second, because it would have allowed Iran, Syria, and the Wahhabis to defy American threats and organize terrorism against American troops. There would also be daily television footage of dead Iraqis and of U.S. troops "mistreating" Iraqi citizens — just like the pictures from Israel — stirring anti-U.S. emotions all over the Muslim world.

This could go on month after month, with little apparent hope for a way out. We would be both weak and provoking — a bad combination.

This danger could be overcome if the Iraqis were sufficiently united in support of the Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Popular unity against the terrorists would not necessarily bring terrorism to a complete halt, but it could hold it to a tolerable level, and it could make the U.S. position politically sustainable. But while logically the Iraqis should unite against the terrorists, it does not seem impossible that American enemies could succeed in sowing division among Iraqis who have not been free to practice mature politics for decades.

And, contrary to the myth that the only thing that really counts is "the hearts and minds" of the people, small groups that are well-organized, well-financed, and capable of killing, can have major effects on the political situation even if they have little "real" public support.

Even before Saddam was removed many predicted that Iraqi political unity could not be achieved without a new dictator, quite apart from any question of foreigners trying to sow division. While united Iraqi political support is more than possible we cannot be sure that it will be achieved. Disunity within the U.S. government has so far worked against the effort to create unity among Iraqis.

If the Iranian-Syrian-Wahhabi campaign to divide Iraqis and embarrass the U.S. in Iraq succeeds, Muslims will be encouraged to believe that fighting the U.S. can succeed and it is likely that we will not be able to prevent the disaster of an escalated war with militant Islam.

We should be clear that there is no substantial Iraqi movement or desire for the U.S. to leave Iraq now. While today there are plenty of Iraqi complaints against the U.S., the invasion was immensely popular. But there are broad and deep Iraqi feelings that Iraq should be governed by Iraqis, not Americans (and not the U.N.), and the sooner the better, especially if the U.S. stays to help. But, as sophisticated independent observers such as Amir Taheri report, it is clear that not many Iraqis want the U.S. to leave now or are in any sense inclined to take sides against the U.S. in a struggle with Iranians, Syrians, and Saudis.

The other side of the hinge of history, like the disastrous first scenario, starts with America's enemies choosing to make their stand against the U.S. with covert action in Iraq. This decision is what has made Iraq and the actions surrounding it potentially decisive.

When the danger of defeat becomes apparent it could lead the U.S. to realize that to protect itself it must act against its attackers, each of which have governments which are weak and unpopular and engaged in indefensible activities.

The U.S. has no choice about fighting to resist its enemies in Iraq, and it has a good chance of success. But that struggle may well become so difficult and uncertain that it would be imprudent for the U.S. not also to use political action against the attackers at home. None of the governments involved have broad public support at home, and all use brutal police-state measures to stay in power.

Iran is already included in the Axis of Evil. Syria is "terror central" and involved in many attacks against Americans, as well as in drug smuggling and forging U.S. currency. Saudi Wahhabis are responsible for a major share of the growth of radical Islamism all over the world.

If the sense develops among U.S. political leaders that we are in danger in Iraq and that Saudis are part of what is threatening us, it may well push a slowly developing U.S. movement toward a radical change in policy toward the Saudis over the top.

There are many political and economic measures the U.S. can take to further weaken the governments of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia (if it is not induced to stop Wahhabi support for actions against the U.S. in Iraq).

One of the simplest things the U.S. can do is to stop giving these governments legitimacy and support by having high-level contacts with Americans. The U.S. strengthens a government when the president or secretary of state talks to a leader of that government, regardless of what is said at the meeting. A government is weakened when its leaders cannot get appointments to see high U.S. officials. The U.S. does not have to let Iran use the Khatami branch of its regime to involve the U.S. in negotiations it can then use to show its internal opposition that the regime will survive with U.S. help.

Similarly, opposition leaders are strengthened when they get international attention, which the U.S. can easily provide. Local opposition groups can also be helped by money, by radio and TV broadcasts, and by other kinds of political action. The U.S. is a great power; there are many things it can do to undermine a weak and unpopular government.

It is quite plausible that within a year after the administration as a whole — including the State Department — decides to do what it can to encourage the fall of the governments of Iran and Syria, and if necessary Saudi Arabia, these regimes will have fallen to their internal enemies.

We can't count on democracy coming after. But it seems rather likely that most possible successors in Iran would not have the intense commitment to supporting terror and opposing the U.S. that the current regime does.

In Syria a new, non-Alawite regime would not have the same incentives to support terror and oppose peace with Israel that the current regime has as a result of being a minority regime.

While a new regime in Saudi Arabia could be more openly hostile to the U.S. it might well have trouble holding on to the eastern province, which contains all the oil, and where Wahhabis are an oppressive minority.

Whatever their inclinations, it seems reasonably probable that the successor regimes will conclude that it is imprudent to interfere in Iraq and to harbor or support terrorist organizations.

The result would be the end of the war against the occupation in Iraq, a good chance for a reasonable Iraqi government, and the successful withdrawal of the U.S. from Iraq.

Since Iran, Syria, and the Wahhabis are responsible for the majority of militant Islamic terrorism, changing these regimes would mean that most current terrorist organizations would be eliminated. At that point it would not be hard to get the minor Arab supporters of terrorism to stop doing so.

Pakistan would still be a problem, but less so with the removal of Saudi Wahhabi money and in the aftermath of American success in the Middle East.

This would likely lead the Islamic world to conclude that attacking the U.S. could achieve nothing, and therefore at most only fringe groups with no safe havens would try to make terrorist attacks against America. Although widespread Muslim hatred of the U.S. and the West would continue, the threat of escalated war by militant Islam would have been averted for now and there would be time for other trends within Islam to contest for leadership of the Muslim world, and for the processes of peaceful change and development to work as they have done in other parts of the world.

Today we need to understand that Iraq contains both possibilities: disaster and the big step that could prevent an escalated war with militant Islam.

Appreciating the danger will convince us to take the actions that may be necessary to prevent disaster. Appreciating the value and possibility of victory will help gain support during the difficult period before it can be achieved.

The danger in Iraq does not imply that it was a mistake for the U.S. to remove Saddam. There was no possibility of the U.S. inducing Arab governments to act strongly against terrorist organizations had Saddam been left in power.

The U.S. response to the danger of militant Islam must have three parts. First, defensive measures against terrorism in the U.S. Second, eliminating safe havens for terrorist organizations abroad — which means primarily inducing Muslim governments to stop harboring terrorist organizations and demonstrating U.S. willingness to use power. Third, a long-term effort to help moderate Muslims reduce the influence of militant Islam among Muslims generally.

Since militant Islam has chosen Iraq as its battleground against the U.S., two of the most likely outcomes are political action by the U.S. that helps produce new regimes in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, forestalling a great escalation in the war; or a defeat for the U.S. in Iraq which makes such a disastrous escalation virtually unavoidable. A third possibility is U.S. success in Iraq without changing regimes in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

As these regimes fear, such a success in Iraq may well lead indirectly, or by later U.S. political action, to the same result a little later.

— Max Singer is a fellow at the Hudson Institute and the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies of Bar-Ilan University. This piece originally appeared in the Jerusalem Post and is reprinted with permission.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-singer090903.asp
24 posted on 09/09/2003 11:29:42 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
U.S. Can't Afford to Lose

September 09, 2003
National Review Online
Max Singer

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/978629/posts?page=24#24

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
25 posted on 09/09/2003 11:30:37 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Iran Given 'Last Chance' Over Nuclear Inspections

September 09, 2003
The Telegraph
telegraph.co.uk

The United States has given Iran a "last chance" to prove to the United Nations that it is not developing nuclear weapons.

America has backed a draft resolution submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency by Britain, France and Germany that gives Iran until the end of October to allow the UN to inspect its nuclear programmes.

Washington had earlier tried to persuade the IAEA to rule that Iran has already broken the non-proliferation treaty it signed in 1970, sparking the possibility of the UN Security Council imposing sanctions on Tehran.

Kenneth Brill, the US ambassador to the UN in Vienna, told the IAEA's governing board that there was enough evidence to "fully justify an immediate finding of non-compliance by Iran".

But he said America had agreed to give Iran, which President Bush included in his "axis of evil" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a "last chance to stop its evasions".

The draft resolution, which must be passed by the IAEA 35-nation board, says that it is "essential and urgent" that Iran must "remedy all failures identified by the agency".

It was put forward after American diplomats criticised a report published earlier this week by Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA's director, for being too soft on Iran.

Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, told reporters that Tehran has no secret weapons programme and had gone "beyond our obligations" with the UN inspectors.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/09/uiran.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/09/09/ixportaltop.html

26 posted on 09/09/2003 11:31:16 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
Iran Given 'Last Chance' Over Nuclear Inspections

September 09, 2003
The Telegraph
telegraph.co.uk

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/978629/posts?page=26#26

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
27 posted on 09/09/2003 11:32:13 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
Iran: anti-Government demonstrators arrested in June, July to be executed

iranncrfac ^ | 9/8/03 | iranncrfac
Posted on 09/08/2003 1:04 PM PDT by Persia

Some of the people arrested during antigovernment demonstrations Iran in June and July have been executed, according to reports from inside the jails of the clerical regime....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/978342/posts

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail me”
28 posted on 09/09/2003 11:35:32 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: DoctorZIn
RAN ANNOUNCES ANTITERRORISM LEGISLATION. Iranian government
spokesman Abdullah Ramezanzadeh announced on 8 September that
legislation on eliminating financing of terrorist groups will be
submitted to the parliament this week, AP reported. He said officials
from the Central Bank of Iran, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and
the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance spent a year drafting
the bill, and if the legislature and Guardians Council approve it
Iran will become a member of the 1999 International Convention for
the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (see
http://www.un.org/law/cod/finterr.htm and
http://untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism/Conv12.pdf). "The bill seeks
to block any financing of groups Iran recognizes as terrorists,"
Ramezanzadeh said. He added that the Al-Qaeda network is on that list
of terrorists but Hamas is not. There is little international
agreement on which groups are terrorist organizations, and
furthermore, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes notes that
"the lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major
obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures"
(http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html). BS


HUSSEIN LOYALISTS REPORTEDLY ATTEMPT TO KILL SHI'A CLERIC IN IRAQ.
Unidentified gunmen on 7 September attacked the Al-Najaf home of a senior Shi'a cleric, Grand Ayatollah Bashir al-Najafi, "Iran Daily" reported on 9 September. Two of the ayatollah's aides were wounded,
as was an attacker who was subsequently arrested. Al-Najafi was not
hurt. Sadreddine al-Kubbanji, who heads the Supreme Council for the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq's office in Al-Najaf, said a man captured
at al-Najafi's home confessed to being a member of deposed President
Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen and to previously killing two U.S. soldiers
in Baghdad's Kazimiyah district, AFP reported on 8 September.
Al-Najafi is one of the Shi'a sources of emulation in Iraq -- the
others are Ayatollahs Ali al-Sistani, Muhammad al-Fayyad, and
Muhammad Said al-Hakim. BS

source: RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 7, No. 171, Part III, 9 September 2003
30 posted on 09/09/2003 1:03:41 PM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
I anticipate that the interrogation was not done with a cup of coffe.
31 posted on 09/09/2003 1:07:05 PM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
Iran Must Be Stopped Now

September 09, 2003
Arutz Sheva
Shalom Freedman

President Bush’s war on terror, which begin in Afghanistan and moved to Iraq, stands before its most critical and dangerous phase. For while it is not at all clear that the U.S. military, a good share of whose power is now in Iraq, is truly ready for it, it is very apparent who the central element in the axis of evil is. It is the state that is presently doing more now to promote terror throughout the world than any other - Iran.

The tentacles of Iran are linked to terror in a wide variety of places, from Afghanistan to the Phillipines, from Bosnia to Indonesia, and all through the Middle East. One of the central connections, the Iranian- Palestinian connection, takes many forms. The Iranians worked very hard to undermine the erstwhile Israeli-Palestinian cease fire. They are providing Hamas and the Islamic Jihad operational training in terror, and considerable funding. This is not a new connection, as the Iranians have provided support for suicide bombers, and were behind the infamous terror ship, the Karine A, with its fifty tons of munitions, which the Israeli navy seized at sea on its way to Arafat’s Gaza.

Iran has been responsible for the deaths of many American soldiers and citizens. Iran had its hand in the 1996 bombing that killed twenty-six American servicemen at the American Army base at Khobar in Saudia Arabia. It is behind the latest bombing of the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad. For over a decade, it has been attacking Americans, and it has taken American lives in, among other places, Sudan, Kenya, Somalia and Lebanon.

There are reports that many of Saddam Hussein’s people who fled with the American entry into Iraq took refuge in Iran and are now making their way back to war against the U.S. in Iraq. Iran funds and directs one of the most vicious of all terror groups, the Lebanese Hizbollah, which is involved in kidnappings and constant terror operations against Israel. Iran’s upgrading of the weapons of Hizbollah is a constant process. Iran is also linked very clearly to Al-Qaeda, and has provided refuge and terror training to many of its operatives, including those behind the most recent incident in Baghdad.

But above all, Iran endangers world peace because of its nuclear and missile programs. Israeli anti-terror experts, including former Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevi, have given evidence that, if it is not stopped, Iran will have a nuclear weapon by 2005. The Iranians, according to their Defense Ministry, are working to increase the range of their Shihab missle, which already has a range of thirteen-hundred kilometers. Their mullahs have spoken about their ability to incinerate the state of Israel with just one of their nuclear weapons. The Iranians have been less vociferous about pointing out that all of American forces in the Middle East, and a good share of European nations, will soon be under their nuclear threat. It appears that the diplomatic pressure the U.S. has applied to Russia, and other suppliers for the Iranian nuclear program has not been a total success, as the Iranians confidently march ahead.

And here it must be pointed out that Iranian propaganda and ideology, while it might occasionally move to try and throw the U.S. and the West into somnolence, is quite clear about its Islamic fundamentalistic agenda. It hates all secularity , and of course the center of the world’s secular culture, the democracy it despises, is its big Satan. It is determined to hit out at American interests wherever it can, and in whatever way it can.

It should be noted that Iranian leaders have at times pointed to their vast territory and large population and made the insane claim that while Israel could not survive a nuclear strike from Iran, Iran could absorb a nuclear hit from Israel and still be a viable state. This claim is insane, first because it so readily seems to be willing to absorb the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of its own citizens. But it is insane for another reason. It severely underestimates the capacity of Israel’s armed forces, including its second-strike capability. Nonetheless, the faulty intelligence and misjudgment of totalitarian leaders so aptly illustrated by Saddam Hussein may one day be Iran’s, as well. And such faulty judgment could lead to a disaster that is more than regional.

The unrest of the Iranian people, a desire of a good share of them to be free of the totalitarian regime of the mullahs, does not, according to most intelligence sources, have any real chance of succeeding by itself at this point. It would be folly for those threatened by Iran to wait for an internal revolution, which cannot, in the near future, defeat the totalitarian apparatus of the terror state.

Iran has to be stopped before its acts of terror lead to a global disaster.

If it were stopped, the terror state closest to it, which is perhaps as evil, but far less powerful and far more ready for internal transformation, Syria, would have to cut its terror activities. The forces of terror throughout the world would receive a devastating, if not wholly fatal, blow.

Again, it is not at all clear that the U.S. is ready to take this action now. Nor is it clear how willing the U.S. is to cooperate with Israel in such an operation. Again, the terror threat from Iran is a very large one to American lives and interests, but for Israel, it is a threat to its very existence.

What is clear, however, is that if the U.S. is to win the worldwide war on terror, then the present Iranian regime must be overthrown, and its weapons of mass destruction retired. If this is not done, the threat of nuclear conflagration and terror on a scale the world has never known will almost inevitably be realized.

http://www.israelnn.com/article.php3?id=2720

32 posted on 09/09/2003 3:27:29 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
"The Turks handed over to the Iranian (government) 16 Iranian Kurds who were formerly active in the Union of Kurdistan Revolutionaries (UKR) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) under an agreement between the intelligence services of the two countries,"
"The statement said the Iranian Kurds were registered with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and were living at the refugee camp in Van from where they intended to move on to a third country."

Apparently being registered with UNHCR means nothing.
33 posted on 09/09/2003 8:04:05 PM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
"The bill seeks to block any financing of groups Iran recognizes as terrorists," Ramezanzadeh said. He added that the Al-Qaeda network is on that list
of terrorists but Hamas is not. There is little international agreement on which groups are terrorist organizations,..."

"Iran recognizes as terrorists," - Kinda leaves a big loophole, doesn't it?
(Hezbollah on the list?)
34 posted on 09/09/2003 8:37:03 PM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Michael81Dus
This what you meant?

Iran May Get Last Chance to Open Nuclear Program; U.N. watchdog ready to approve a US resolution
Reuters ^ | 09-09-03 (excerpted)

By Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA (Reuters) - Governors of the U.N. nuclear watchdog appeared ready to approve a U.S.-backed resolution on Wednesday giving Tehran until October 31 to reveal the full extent of its nuclear program, diplomats said.

Japan, Britain, France and Germany joined forces with the United States by co-sponsoring the draft resolution demanding Iran demonstrate full compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Washington says Tehran has violated.

The toughly-worded draft, circulated at a closed-door meeting of the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) board of governors, also called on Iran to "suspend all further uranium enrichment activities."
35 posted on 09/09/2003 8:43:14 PM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
"Gholam-Hossein Mohammadi from Amol (northern Iran), who lived in Akbar-Abad district in the south Tehran suburb of Islamshahr, was executed together with two of his friends for participating in evening uprisings in June and July. The authorities informed their families a few days after they were hanged and warned them not to hold any mourning ceremonies.

On August 23, the state-run daily Khordad reported that a man by the name of Zaman was hanged in Kerman (eastern Iran). On the following day, Etemad, another state-run daily, wrote that the death sentence for a newly wedded 20-year-old woman was endorsed by the Supreme Court. The death sentence for Kobra Rahmanpour has been passed to sentence implementation department for execution."

Deepest condolences.


The current regime must be OVERTHROWN!
36 posted on 09/09/2003 8:55:29 PM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
My deepest sympathies to their loved ones.
37 posted on 09/09/2003 10:27:07 PM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife ("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
A not so gentle reminder is in order that Iraq's mujtahids stand to lose far more than does the U.S. unless they reclaim their fast-dwindling authority. For it's ultimately up to the clerical establishment, not the U.S., to face down this challenge and demonstrate its continued relevance.

I often thought with Iran being squeezed from the east and the west, that it's fall from within would be rapid.

The longer Iran meddles amongst the chaos of Iraq, the more dangerous it becomes for the Shiites, correct?

The coalition soldiers are behaving admirably, and they are making progress. But, it seems like time is moving so slowly. If this turns into a war of attrition, with al Qaeda making significan inroads, how will this further upset the precarious balance?

38 posted on 09/09/2003 10:32:53 PM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife ("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Exactly, thanks.
39 posted on 09/09/2003 10:57:14 PM PDT by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn
This thread is now closed.

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread

Live Thread Ping List | DoctorZin

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

40 posted on 09/10/2003 3:08:16 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson