Iranian Alert -- September 10, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD PING LIST

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movment in Iran from being reported.

From jamming satellite broadcasts, to prohibiting news reporters from covering any demonstrations to shutting down all cell phones and even hiring foreign security to control the population, the regime is doing everything in its power to keep the popular movement from expressing its demand for an end of the regime.

These efforts by the regime, while successful in the short term, do not resolve the fundamental reasons why this regime is crumbling from within.

Iran is a country ready for a regime change. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary.

Please continue to join us here, post your news stories and comments to this thread.

Tehran Criticizes IAEA, Threatens To End Cooperation

September 10, 2003
Radio Free Europe
RFE/RL

Tehran -- Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi says Iran may reconsider its cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), if it is denied the right to a peaceful nuclear program.

In comments to the official IRNA news agency, Kharrazi accused countries on the IAEA board of governors of "arrogance" and of adopting an "extremist posture."

The IAEA is set to consider at a meeting in Vienna today a draft resolution that would give Iran until the end of next month to fully comply with its nonproliferation obligations.

The United States yesterday accused Iran of violating international nuclear nonproliferation agreements but agreed to give Iran another month to clear up questions about its nuclear program.

Iran says its nuclear program is aimed only at generating electricity. But IAEA inspectors say they recently found traces of highly-enriched uranium at an Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz.

Meanwhile, Kharrazi today concludes a two-day official visit to Bulgaria that will include talks with Foreign Minister Solomon Pasi, Prime Minister Simeon Saxecoburggotski and President Georgii Parvanov.

The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry says their meetings will focus on bilateral issues as well as on Iran's controversial nuclear program.

The United States says Iran is working on a secret nuclear weapons program. But Iran says its nuclear efforts are aimed only at generating electricity.

Iran and Bulgaria are both among the UN agency's 35 member nations.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/09/10092003083905.asp

Reza Pahlavi Uses Stamford Visit to Push Democracy For Iran

September 10, 2003
The Advocate
Mark Ginocchio

STAMFORD -- For a crown prince, there was something familiar and comfortable about Stamford for Reza Pahlavi.

"While driving on (Interstate) 95, I started thinking about how my mother used to live in Greenwich, and I, myself lived in Fairfield in 1984 before I relocated to Washington (D.C.)," he said.

Pahlavi, son of the late Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah, and heir to the ousted Peacock Throne, has been fighting against Iran's ayatollahs since his own exile in 1979.

Last night, at the University of Connecticut's Stamford campus, Pahlavi spoke of his ultimate goal -- creation of a democracy in Iran.

"Democracy has a universal message . . . can various people be subjected to it? The answer is yes," he said.

The lecture, sponsored by the Stamford-based World Affairs Forum, featured a standing-room crowd of more than 150 people, many who remember the overthrow of Pahlavi's father and its implications for the Middle East.

"We backed the shah and it seems like we always have a habit of choosing the wrong people," said Judy Peknik, a member of the forum, before the lecture. "But the people are oppressed now . . . it'll be interesting to hear what he has to say."

Waseen Fayyaz, a Stamford resident, said he was in his native Pakistan when the shah was overthrown and has since been interested in the Iranian situation.

"It is important to me, and I have some questions for him," he said. "I believe both our countries are facing similar issues."

Pahlavi said the people of Iran have long grown tired of the oppressive rule of the ayatollahs and have been looking to take control and choose their own leaders.

"The current regime has not delivered what the people want. They don't believe what they say anymore," he said.

But those in attendance were quick to remind Pahlavi that his father was thought by many to be oppressive and that it would be difficult to generalize what the majority of Iranians want.

Pahlavi said his fight for democracy is not for personal gain and he would not restore a monarchy unless a majority supported it. However, he said he believes that consensus can not be reached under the current system of government.

"I am asking for nothing more than to give Iranians the benefit of the doubt. Do we know what they want? Does the current regime even give them a chance to say? No, they do not," he said.

Pahlavi also used the evening as an opportunity to address the problems of state-sponsored terrorism and its connection to Iran. While he said he believes Iranians would not resort to such means, he does not put it past the current regime which he described as a "rogue nation" that "cannot be trusted."

"Hours after the attacks on September 11, Iranians were the first people with candle vigils . . . Suicide bombers and other terrorists take root in desperation and a lack of hope," Pahlavi said.

However Pahlavi is staunchly against any kind of U.S. military intervention similar to Iraq and Afghanistan because he does not feel it is necessary. But that didn't stop him from reaching out to his audience and asking for their assistance.

"You, as concerned citizens, must not be idle. In your own interest, they must talk to your government and ask for their support. Every voice counts," he said.

The cry for help reminded Pahlavi of an old saying in his native Farsi tongue:

"Drop by drop it goes and all of a sudden it becomes an ocean."

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-shah5sep10,0,6560483.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines

Amir Taheri: Britain's Iran policy of covert appeasement, overt criticism

10-09-2003
GulfNews

Until just a few weeks ago, Iran and Britain, having completed a diplomatic honeymoon, appeared to be destined for a mutually enjoyable partnership. Hours after shots had been fired at the British embassy building in the centre of Tehran, however, the British government recalled its ambassador Richard Dalton and announced the "temporary closure" of its embassy.

Iranian authorities said they did not know who was responsible. This seems incredible. Hundreds of people, including more than a dozen policemen supposed to be guarding the embassy, watched the whole bizarre episode. It is clear that the Islamic Republic wished to pass a "strong message", and in the only way it knows best: violence.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has invested greatly in courting Iran's ruling mullahs. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw visited Tehran four times in less than two years, equalling his Syrian counterpart, Farouq Al Shara.

Even before Baghdad had been liberated, both Blair and Straw announced that Britain would not join the US in any "regime change" move against Iran. In all his meetings with US President George W. Bush, Blair hammered in the theme of "constructive dialogue" with Iran as alternative to "regime change".

Ardent supporter

By last March, Britain had emerged as Iran's most ardent supporter in the European Union, assuming a role that Germany and France had played for more than two decades. The British assumed the leadership of efforts to conclude a trade agreement between the EU and the Islamic Republic. London also supported Tehran's bid to join the World Trade Organisation, despite Washington's reservations.

Relations got so warm that some of the ruling mullahs began to come to London for medical checkups while others dispatched their offspring to British schools. Some Khomeinist activists received scholarships to study at British universities. It was one such student who became the cause of a sudden end to the Anglo-Iranian courtship.

The man in question is Hadi Suleimanpour, who had enrolled at Durham University to study Islamic civilisation. Now in his early forties, Suleimanpour was no ordinary student. Having joined the Khomeinist revolution in his teens, he was one of the first to join the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a paramilitary force created by Khomeini in 1979 to crush his opponents. Suleimanpour served as bodyguard for various political mullahs and eventually ended up as Iran's ambassador to Argentina.

His tenure as ambassador coincided with the blowing up of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires that killed scores of Argentines, many of them Jews. Iran always denied any involvement and blamed Argentine pro-Nazi police and army officers. By the mid-1990s, the episode seemed to have been shelved.

Last year, an Argentine court reopened the case and ended up formally pointing the finger at Tehran. It issued arrest warrants for a number of Iranian officials - including Suleimanpour, who had just landed in Britain to start life afresh as a middle-aged student.

Contacted by Interpol, the British police picked up Suleimanpour without informing the Foreign Office in London. That led to what could only be described as a clash of political cultures.

Tehran's mullahs simply cannot understand that the British government may well be unable to just order the police to let Suleimanpour loose. They see the episode as part of a sinister "Zionist-Crusader" plot whose aim is to prepare international public opinion for a "regime change" plot against the Islamic Republic.

The mullahs' anger at Britain is partly understandable. After all, on many occasions, EU states have ignored their laws to let Iranian suspects escape police arrest. In 1996, a Berlin court issued an arrest warrant for Ali Fallahian, who was the Islamic Republic's Minister for Intelligence and Security at the time.

Fallahian had been charged with participation in the murder of four Kurdish dissidents in Berlin in 1992. When the warrant was issued, Fallahian was visiting Germany at the invitation of his counterpart, Brend Schmidbauer. Learning of the warrant, the German authorities arranged for him to fly back to Tehran before the police arrived.

The French have done even better. In 1994, Prime Minister Eduarad Baladur ignored a Swiss demand for the extradition of two Iranians charged with political murders in Switzerland and helped them fly back to Tehran - first class.

Before that, in 1986, President Francois Mitterrand allowed Tehran's key terror agent in Europe to return home without answering any questions by the French government's own anti-terrorist judges.

Even earlier, the Italian government ignored the fact that Tehran's embassy in the Vatican had become a centre of terrorism in Europe. Four Iranians involved in a series of assassinations in Italy were never troubled, although they had been called in for questioning by Italian courts.

Britain's own record wasn't so bright. John Major's government allowed an Iranian agent, convicted by a British court of murdering two Iranian dissidents in London, to return home after serving half of a three-year prison term.

He was received as a hero in Tehran and, when he became a candidate for parliament, based his campaign on his success in "eliminating two evil anti-Islamic elements" in Britain. There are similar cases concerning other European countries.

Biggest showdown

The biggest showdown, of course, concerned Salman Rushdie, the British-Indian novelist who was sentenced to death in a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. Defining the issue as "a matter of fundamental principle", the Europeans withdrew their ambassadors for a while, only to send them back later with "apologies" to Tehran. The issue was fudged to cover the cowardice of the Europeans. But the fatwa was never annulled.

Will the latest tussle between Tehran and London confirm the mullahs' opinion of the West? Sadly, yes.

EU Foreign Minister Javier Solana has just visited Tehran where he spent more time criticising the US and Britain for the "quagmire in Iraq" than telling the mullahs that they cannot send agents around the globe to kill people without, one day, being held accountable.

Almost two decades ago, Khomeini summarised his policy towards Western powers thus: Kick them in the teeth, and they will kiss your hand!

The writer, Iranian author and journalist, is based in Europe. He can be contacted at his e-mail at amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=97187

Iran May Review Cooperation with Nuclear Body

Wed September 10, 2003 03:30 AM ET
By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will be forced to review cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog if it is denied the right to a peaceful nuclear program, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told the official IRNA news agency Wednesday.

Kharrazi voiced the tougher Iranian government position as diplomats said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board in Vienna appeared ready to approve a U.S.-backed resolution giving Tehran until October 31 to reveal the full extent of its nuclear program.

"If the hawks gain the ground and ignore our legitimate rights for peaceful nuclear activities, we will be forced to review the state of play and the current level of cooperation with the agency," Kharrazi said without specifying who the hawks were.

Japan, Britain, France and Germany joined forces with the United States in co-sponsoring a toughly worded draft resolution which demands Iran demonstrate full compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

It also calls on Iran to sign and implement "promptly and unconditionally" an Additional Protocol on snap inspections.

Iran has said it is ready to start negotiations on signing the protocol that would allow more intrusive checks of Iranian facilities. But Iranian officials have said too much outside pressure could swing opinion inside Iran away from signing. Some hard-liners have called for Iran to scrap the NPT.

The United States has accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying its nuclear program is purely civilian, aimed at meeting surging demand for electricity.

"There is an apparent and deliberate attempt by some to torpedo the process of cooperation and remove the agency from the process," Kharrazi said, adding that the position of some states was "outrageous and irresponsible."

"The prevailing view seems to favor consensus. This can lead to accelerated cooperation on our part," Kharrazi said.

The draft resolution also called on Iran to "suspend all further uranium enrichment activities." Iran has said it wants to control the whole fuel cycle, from mining and processing the uranium ore to reprocessing the spent fuel.

Kharrazi said he was "surprised" at Canada's position in Vienna. IRNA said the Canadian governor had told the board the issue should be moved to the U.N. Security Council without delay, echoing a call previously made by Washington.

Kharrazi, who has said the nuclear debate should not be politicized, said Wednesday that Canada had "moved way beyond its traditionally principled views."

Iran is embroiled in a diplomatic row with Canada over the death in Iranian custody in July of a Canadian photojournalist.

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3417741

Draft Resolutions Call on Iran to Comply With IAEA Demands

Voice of America - World News
Sep 9, 2003

VIENNA - A resolution is circulating at the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in Vienna calling for Iran to comply with all the agency's demands by the end of October.

The draft resolution presented by Britain, France, and Germany calls for Iran to fully disclose details of its nuclear program, including what type of material and equipment it has imported. The resolution also calls for Iran to give full cooperation to IAEA inspectors, including the right to do environmental sampling, which can reveal contamination from nuclear material.

The draft would require Iran to fulfill all its obligations to the U.N. nuclear agency by the end of October.

Another draft presented by South Africa calls on Iran to remedy all failures to abide by IAEA demands, and to show full transparency on its nuclear program. But that draft does not set a deadline. The draft was circulated on behalf of the non-aligned movement, of which Iran is a member.

The IAEA is expected to vote on an Iran resolution during its meeting this week.

In Tuesday's session, the United States made a strong statement on Iran's nuclear record. Ambassador Kenneth Brill accused Iran of violating its nuclear safeguard obligations, and has long been providing false and misleading information regarding its nuclear ambitions.

According to the text of his remarks, Ambassador Brill said Iran has been "working in secret since the 1980s to develop sophisticated nuclear facilities." He dismissed Iran's claim that it is cooperating with the IAEA. Instead, the U.S. ambassador said Iran has "been stonewalling and stalling" so that results of important environmental tests are not yet ready.

He said Iran is in non-compliance with its obligations under IAEA rules. But Ambassador Brill said the United States also recognizes that many other nations want to give Iran one more chance.

The Iranian envoy Ali Akbar Salehi said Tehran had allowed more inspections than it is currently legally bound to allow, and is acting as if it had already agreed to an additional inspections protocol that the IAEA wants it to sign.

"This is what we have already done," said Iranian envoy. "In other words what has been taking place since June up to now, it is like, as if, we have provisionally applied the protocol on ourselves by allowing the agency to visit the places which are not in the framework of the current agreements we have."

The IAEA board of governors' resolution is expected to call on Iran to officially sign the additional protocol allowing for surprise nuclear inspections.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_2250.shtml

Iran faces October deadline

Sep 10, 2003
BBC

The UN's nuclear watchdog is considering setting a deadline for Iran to fully comply with its obligations under the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty NPT.

A draft resolution - drawn up by Britain, France and Germany - is being considered by the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at a special meeting in Vienna.

It says Iran should "remedy all failures identified by the agency" and "co-operate fully with the [the IAEA] to ensure verification of compliance with Iran's Safeguards Agreement by taking all necessary actions by the end of October 2003".

The draft was released hours after the US said Iran had clearly violated the Safeguards Agreement - part of the NPT which Iran signed in 1970.

"The United States believes that the facts... would fully justify an immediate finding of non-compliance by Iran," US ambassador Kenneth Brill told the board earlier.

But Mr Brill, who serves as ambassador to the UN in Vienna, said Washington had consented to other board member states' desire "to give Iran a last chance to stop its evasions".

The US accuses Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons and wants the UN agency to condemn it for violating the NPT.

Diplomats at the week-long meeting say a second draft submitted by South Africa does not mention a deadline, the BBC's Bethany Bell reports from Vienna.

Uranium worries

The closed-door session of the IAEA's governing board has been examining a report by its inspectors, which says traces of weapons-grade uranium were found at an Iranian nuclear plant.

Iran denies its uranium enrichment activities are part of an illegal weapons programme.

It says it is seeking to produce only low-grade uranium fuel to meet its energy needs.

The draft resolution requests that Tehran provide "a full declaration of the sources and types of all imported material and components relevant to the enrichment programme, especially imported equipment and components stated to have been contaminated with high enriched uranium particles".

It said third countries should "co-operate closely and fully" in determining who supplied Iran with the contaminated uranium.

It says Iran should allow IAEA inspectors free access for "environmental sampling" and resolve questions about gas centrifuges which could be used in enriching uranium.

Earlier, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei he hoped Tehran would sign up to an additional protocol that would allow intrusive snap inspections of its nuclear facilities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3094440.stm

U.S. Says Iran Violating Nuclear Treaty

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:01 a.m. ET
NY Times 9.10.2003

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The United States accused Iran on Tuesday of violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but said Tehran had ``a last chance'' to prove it wasn't running a covert weapons program.

Backed by key allies, chief U.S. delegate Kenneth Brill took 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 chief 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 noncompliance by Iran,'' Brill said at a meeting of the agency's board. Still, he said, the Americans were 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 it wouldn't find enough support at the conference.

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

A confidential U.S.-backed draft resolution submitted by France, Germany and Britain and obtained by The Associated Press urged Iran to ``provide accelerated cooperation'' with agency efforts to clear up questions over Tehran's nuclear program.

It also said Iran should ``ensure there are no further failures,'' in reporting obligations and ``suspend all further uranium enrichment-related activities, including the further introduction of nuclear material'' into a facility where IAEA inspectors found traces of weapons-grade enriched uranium.

Chief Iranian delegate Ali Akbar Salehi said Iran could not meet that demand, saying activities at the facility, at Natanz, were already controlled by the IAEA. He described other disagreements over the text as ``minor.''

While setting an October timetable, the draft threatened no consequences. Diplomats at the meeting said that if the draft was approved without substantial changes, Security Council involvement appeared more likely if the next board meeting in November found the Iranians not cooperating.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the Bush administration will continue to seek a strong resolution.

``We've been expressing our strong concerns about Iran's nuclear program,'' Boucher said. ``I think I described yesterday the number of issues, questions that have been laid out by the secretary general of the IAEA, and we do believe that the resolution needs to call on Iran to satisfy those requirements.''

Brill accused Iran of ``stalling and stonewalling'' on the true aims of its nuclear activities, and Washington's allies expressed support of 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 chief Canadian delegate Ingrid Hall.

``We are forced to conclude that Iran is in noncompliance,'' she said.

The European Union said Iran's failure to honor 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 Salehi, warning that his country would have to rethink its position if ``things are totally against'' Iran.

The IAEA report said traces of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium were found at the Natanz plant, about 300 miles south of Tehran. The report 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.

Asked what he expects from the resolution, ElBaradei said he hoped ``the board calls on Iran to accelerate its cooperation ... and to make sure that in the next few weeks we should be able to clarify all the important issues.''

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.

On the Net:

IAEA, http://www.iaea.org/worldatom

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Nuclear-Agency-Iran.html

Iran Angry Over Nuclear Pressure

September 10, 2003
BBC News
BBCi

Iran has warned it may review co-operation with the UN's nuclear watchdog if "extremists" prevail in current deliberations and eliminate Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy.

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi accused some Western countries of trying to destroy co-operation between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and exclude the agency.

His comments come as the IAEA's Board of Governors meets in the Austrian capital Vienna to consider a resolution setting a deadline for Iran to clarify questions about its nuclear activities.

Iran had a right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy and the position adopted by some countries on the board was irresponsible and arrogant, Mr Kharrazi said in a statement carried by the official Iranian news agency.

"There is an apparent and deliberate attempt by some to torpedo the process of co-operation and remove the agency from the process," Mr Kharrazi said.

"The prevailing view seems to favour consensus. This can lead to accelerated co-operation on our part."

Tough reaction?

Mr Kharrazi's reference to "some Western countries" most likely referred to Britain, France, Germany and Japan, the BBC's Jim Muir in Tehran says.

All these countries have joined the US in sponsoring a motion tabled on Tuesday which would give Iran until the end of October to fully clarify all outstanding questions about its nuclear programme.

Our correspondent says the minister's statement was opaque enough to leave options open, but was also a signal that if the resolution is carried in Vienna, Iran's reaction may well be tough.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3096168.stm

Iran's Last Chance

September 10, 2003
The Wall Street Journal
Review and Outlook

Iran's chief delegate to the International Atomic Energy Association cautioned Monday that putting too much pressure on Iran could backfire, saying if board members asked too much of Tehran there could be "unexpected, surprising consequences." There's a word for this: chutzpah.

A recent confidential report on Iran to the IAEA's board noted the traces of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium that were found at the Natanz Iranian nuclear facility. It also noted that Iran was conducting tests that make no sense unless the country was pursuing nuclear weapons. Then there were the discrepancies between past Iranian statements on the nature of its nuclear power program and IAEA findings.

"The U.S. believes the facts already established would fully justify an immediate finding of noncompliance by Iran," said Kenneth Brill, chief U.S. delegate to the IAEA yesterday in an address to the organization's board. Still, he added, Americans were prepared to give Iran "a last chance to drop its evasions" before calling for U.N. Security Council involvement.

The IAEA's findings spell noncompliance with Iran's NPT obligations. So why give Tehran another chance? Namely, it seems because of concerns that a tougher resolution, kicking the issue to the U.N. Security Council, would not get the agreement of Russia and other members of the IAEA's 35-nation board who are willing to give Tehran an infinite number of "last" chances. Nor has the Security Council proved enthusiastic about such confrontations itself.

An IAEA resolution backed by the U.S. but submitted by Germany, France and the U.K. demands that Iran "suspend all further uranium enrichment, including the further introduction of nuclear material at Natanz," according to a copy obtained by the Associated Press. The resolution also "calls on Iran to ensure there are no further failures to report material, facilities and activities that Iran is obliged to report," to the IAEA. It remains to be seen whether Iran will match its professions of good faith with deeds.

Meanwhile, Israel is watching from the sidelines with concern and has hinted at possible military action to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons if the U.S. and U.N. are unwilling to act. It was a similar pre-emptive act -- the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981 -- that deprived Saddam Hussein of the nuclear weapons he was working toward then. For that the world owed Israel a debt, though one it never acknowledged. Iran must not be allowed to go the way of North Korea -- or Iraq for that matter.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=10&a=6

What Iraqis Really Think

September 10, 2003
The Wall Street Journal
Karl Zinsmeister

America, some say, is hobbled in its policies toward Iraq by not knowing much about what Iraqis really think. Are they on the side of radical Islamists? What kind of government would they like? What is their attitude toward the U.S.? Do the Shiites hate us? Could Iraq become another Iran under the ayatollahs? Are the people in the Sunni triangle the real problem?

Up to now we've only been able to guess. We've relied on anecdotal temperature-takings of the Iraqi public, and have been at the mercy of images presented to us by the press. We all know that journalists have a bad-news bias: 10,000 schools being rehabbed isn't news; one school blowing up is a weeklong feeding frenzy. And some of us who have spent time recently in Iraq -- I was an embedded reporter during the war -- have been puzzled by the postwar news and media imagery, which is much more negative than what many individuals involved in reconstructing Iraq have been telling us.

Well, finally we have some evidence of where the truth may lie. Working with Zogby International survey researchers, The American Enterprise magazine has conducted the first scientific poll of the Iraqi public. Given the state of the country, this was not easy. Security problems delayed our intrepid fieldworkers several times. We labored at careful translations, regional samplings and survey methods to make sure our results would accurately reflect the views of Iraq's multifarious, long-suffering people. We consulted Eastern European pollsters about the best way to elicit honest answers from those conditioned to repress their true sentiments.

Conducted in August, our survey was necessarily limited in scope, but it reflects a nationally representative sample of Iraqi views, as captured in four disparate cities: Basra (Iraq's second largest, home to 1.7 million people, in the far south), Mosul (third largest, far north), Kirkuk (Kurdish-influenced oil city, fourth largest) and Ramadi (a resistance hotbed in the Sunni triangle). The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all.

- Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better.

- The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view -- "Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things" -- five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and women are significantly more positive than men.

- Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities -- neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran ; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S. -- the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five -- more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance.

- Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question.

- Perhaps the strongest indication that an Islamic government won't be part of Iraq's future: The nation is thoroughly secularized. We asked how often our respondents had attended the Friday prayer over the previous month. Fully 43% said "never." It's time to scratch "Khomeini II" from the list of morbid fears.

- You can also cross out "Osama II": 57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. And those opinions were collected before Iraqi police announced it was al Qaeda members who killed worshipers with a truck bomb in Najaf.

- And you can write off the possibility of a Baath revival. We asked "Should Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or should past actions be put behind us?" A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74% to 18% that Saddam's henchmen should be punished.

This new evidence on Iraqi opinion suggests the country is manageable. If the small number of militants conducting sabotage and murder inside the country can gradually be eliminated by American troops (this is already happening), then the mass of citizens living along the Tigris-Euphrates Valley are likely to make reasonably sensible use of their new freedom. "We will not forget it was the U.S. soldiers who liberated us from Saddam," said Abid Ali, an auto repair shop owner in Sadr City last month -- and our research shows that he's not unrepresentative.

None of this is to suggest that the task ahead will be simple. Inchoate anxiety toward the U.S. showed up when we asked Iraqis if they thought the U.S. would help or hurt Iraq over a five-year period. By 50% to 36% they chose hurt over help. This is fairly understandable; Iraqis have just lived through a war in which Americans were (necessarily) flinging most of the ammunition. These experiences may explain why women (who are more antimilitary in all cultures) show up in our data as especially wary of the U.S. right now. War is never pleasant, though U.S. forces made heroic efforts to spare innocents in this one, as I illustrate with firsthand examples in my book about the battles.

Evidence of the comparative gentleness of this war can be seen in our poll. Less than 30% of our sample of Iraqis knew or heard of anyone killed in the spring fighting. Meanwhile, fully half knew some family member, neighbor or friend who had been killed by Iraqi security forces during the years Saddam held power.

Perhaps the ultimate indication of how comfortable Iraqis are with America's aims in their region came when we asked how long they would like to see American and British forces remain in their country: Six months? One year? Two years or more? Two thirds of those with an opinion urged that the coalition troops should stick around for at least another year.

We're making headway in a benighted part of the world. Hang in there, America.

Mr. Zinsmeister, editor in chief of The American Enterprise magazine and holder of the J.B. Fuqua chair at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Boots on the Ground: A Month With the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq," just out from St. Martin's Press.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=10&a=7

"- The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view -- "Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things" -- five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and women are significantly more positive than men."

"- Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities -- neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran ; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S. -- the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five -- more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance."

"- Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question.

- Perhaps the strongest indication that an Islamic government won't be part of Iraq's future: The nation is thoroughly secularized. We asked how often our respondents had attended the Friday prayer over the previous month. Fully 43% said "never." It's time to scratch "Khomeini II" from the list of morbid fears."

"- You can also cross out "Osama II": 57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. And those opinions were collected before Iraqi police announced it was al Qaeda members who killed worshipers with a truck bomb in Najaf. "

Since Mr. Zinsmeister was working with Zogby at the time, it's hard to tell about the accuracy of the polling figures. However, the numbers will most likely be a revelation for those unfamiliar with sentiments in the region. Very interesting.

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.