Replies

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”

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”

Foreign minister says Iran incapable of developing nuclear arms

By PETER JAMES SPIELMANN, Associated Press
NEW YORK (September 24, 9:03 p.m. PDT) -

Iran is able to mine and enrich its own uranium and can develop its atomic energy program independent on its own, but it does not have the technology to develop nuclear weapons, Iran's foreign minister said Wednesday.

Kamal Kharrazi also said Tehran will "hopefully not" withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as North Korea did. Last week, a leading hardline Iranian cleric said Tehran should withdraw from the nuclear arms control treaty.

"No, we do not have the technology to make a nuclear weapon," Kharrazi told a conference on Eurasian security and economic development held in conjunction with the U.N. General Assembly.

"We have the technology to enrich uranium. There is a difference between having the technology to enrich uranium needed for a power plant as fuel, and the technology to make a bomb."

The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna, Austria, has given Tehran until Oct. 31 to prove its atomic energy program is peaceful. Failure to do so means the issue could be referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible enforcement action.

Kharrazi accused the IAEA board of buckling to political pressure from the United States.

The IAEA said traces of enriched uranium that its inspectors found at Kalay-e-Electric Co. in west Tehran, which raised Western suspicions of a weapons program, needed more investigation to determine their origin.

Kharrazi said that before the IAEA reached a final conclusion, Washington rammed through the IAEA board a demand for Iran to prove it had no weapons.

President Bush declared in his 2002 State of the Union speech that Iran was part of an "axis of evil" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

With the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq toppled by U.S.-led military forces and North Korea a pariah state after it declared that it had a nuclear weapons program, Iran is worried that it might be the next country to face U.S. action.

U.S. analysts believe Iran is years away from a nuclear weapon, even with significant foreign assistance.

Kharrazi said Iran had developed high-speed ballistic centrifuges on its own to separate and enrich uranium from its own mines, and denied the technology was imported from Russia.

He said Tehran and Moscow will soon sign an agreement to return to Russia enriched uranium provided to develop the Iranian atomic program. But he added that Iran will be able to enrich its own uranium.

Kharrazi acknowledged that the capability to produce nuclear weapons would be a source of pride for Iran, but insisted that "Iran is pursuing enrichment technology for peaceful use."

On Tuesday, Iran's representative to the IAEA said Tehran remains willing to negotiate for IAEA inspectors to enjoy unfettered access to its energy plants but, in the meantime, it will scale back its cooperation with the U.N. watchdog.

"We have decided to fulfill our obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and not beyond that," Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's representative to the IAEA, told The Associated Press.

This would limit IAEA inspections to Iran's declared nuclear facilities.

In August, Iran allowed inspectors to visit the Kalay-e-Electric Co. after they were turned away two months before when they came to take environmental samples. Iran allegedly tested centrifuges, which are used to process uranium, at the site.

Kharrazi reaffirmed Wednesday that Iran is ready to negotiate with the IAEA the additional protocol allowing complete access to all nuclear sites. But he said the Bush administration would not accept any amount of proof that Iran's atomic program was peaceful.

When asked whether Iran might withdraw entirely from the treaty, as North Korea did before declaring its weapons program, Kharrazi replied only: "Hopefully not."

"We especially agree that the whole region should be free from nuclear weapons," he said.

http://www.tribnet.com/24hour/world/story/1009533p-7086784c.html

Iran rejects US extradition plea over al-Qaeda

By Guy Dinmore at the UN
Financial Times
Published: September 25 2003 1:29 | Last Updated: September 25 2003 1:29

Iran announced on Wednesday that it would soon put on trial suspected al-Qaeda activists, rejecting US demands that they be extradited to their home countries.

Kamal Kharrazi, the Iranian foreign minister, told a conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York that the suspects in detention had been accused of committing crimes inside Iran "so they have to be tried in our country".

Iran has previously extradited suspected al-Qaeda fugitives and their families to their countries of origin. Mr Kharrazi's announcement that Iran's own courts would deal with the issue is bound to antagonise the Bush administration, which wanted access.

Asked about Iran's nuclear programme, Mr Kharrazi said Iran was willing to negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency on the signing of the "additional protocol" that would allow a more intrusive inspection regime.

"In principle we don't have a problem with the IAEA," he said. Iran had neither the intention nor the capability of building a nuclear weapon, he said.

Statements by other officials over the past week indicated that Iran might reject international demands that it sign the protocol or even quit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Diplomats said the twin issues of the nuclear programme and possible co-operation between elements of al-Qaeda and hardliners in the Iranian security forces went to the heart of the power struggle within Tehran, which has resulted in the gradual marginalisation of reformists.

The US broke off official contacts with Iran in May, accusing the Islamic republic of harbouring senior al-Qaeda figures who had played a role in planning the May 12 suicide bombings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that killed more than 30 people, including several American defence contractors.

Mr Kharrazi gave no details of the identities or numbers of people who would be put on trial. They were under interrogation and their trials would start in the near future, he said. Iranians associated with them had already gone before the courts, he added, without giving details.

Mr Kharrazi said Iran had already handed about 100 suspects to Saudi Arabia and insisted Shia Iran had waged its own war against the fundamentalist Sunni Muslim al-Qaeda.

Jack Straw, UK foreign secretary, had a 30-minute meeting alone with Mr Kharrazi, in which they discussed the nuclear issue.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059480100356

BTTT

Iran Signals Readiness to Cooperate

September 24, 2003
The Washington Post
Glenn Kessler

NEW YORK -- Iran is prepared to work with the United States on a range of issues, especially Iraq and Iran's nuclear activities, if Bush administration officials "change their approach and bring in a new environment for cooperation," Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said.

Kharrazi, who is in New York to attend the sessions of the U.N. General Assembly, said he is puzzled by U.S. officials' attitude toward Iran -- which President Bush labeled part of an "axis of evil" in January 2002 -- and noted that it is "contrary to their own interests." Before the Iraq war, the administration had sought Iran's cooperation and then abruptly ended the talks in May. Kharrazi said restarting the discussions would be beneficial for both nations in the postwar period.

Kharrazi's comments, in an interview Tuesday evening, provide fresh evidence of what appears to be a growing eagerness by at least some segments of the Iranian leadership to reestablish a working relationship with the United States 24 years after the Iranian revolution. Jordan's King Abdullah visited Iran earlier this month and met with key governmental and religious figures. He said during a visit to Washington last week that he was struck by their interest in pursuing a dialogue with the United States.

Reading Iranian intentions is difficult, in part because Iran's government is a hybrid of reformist politicians and conservative clerics who frequently send mixed signals. But Kharrazi's comments are significant, given that he chose to make them during a rare visit to the United States.

Regarding Iran's nuclear program, Kharrazi said Iran is willing to sign an amendment to its nuclear nonproliferation agreement that would provide for unannounced inspections and enhanced safeguards, provided the Bush administration makes it clear that signing the additional protocol would end the debate over Iran's nuclear intentions. Administration officials have suggested that they want Iran to completely halt its nuclear program, saying it is part of an effort to build a nuclear bomb.

"We want to make sure the additional protocol would be enough and would solve the problem," Kharrazi said. "We don't have anything to hide because we do not have a program for producing nuclear weapons. Therefore, we are ready to be quite transparent. But we cannot let others deny our rights."

The policy toward Iran has at times deeply split the Bush administration, with some officials seeking a thaw and others, especially in the Pentagon, remaining deeply suspicious of the Iranians. The secret discussions over Iraq were suspended in May, administration officials said, because of allegations that Iran harbored al Qaeda officials implicated in the bombings of residential compounds in Saudi Arabia on May 13.

Since the bombings, relations between the United States and Iran have soured further over the continuing revelations about Iran's nuclear program. The Bush administration recently persuaded the International Atomic Energy Agency to set an Oct. 31 deadline for Iran to cooperate with an investigation into whether the program is a front for a nuclear weapons project.

Kharrazi said the Saudi bombings could not have been the reason for suspending the talks because the allegations of an Iranian connection to the attack were "false." He said Iran has seized al Qaeda members, placed them in jail, interrogated them and will bring them to trial "because they have committed crimes." But he said Iran has concluded through the interrogations that it is "baseless" to say that al Qaeda members in Iran were involved in the Saudi bombings. In fact, he added, Iran could be very helpful in the war against terrorism if the United States would seek its assistance.

Kharrazi, who was interviewed over tea and pistachio nuts at the Fifth Avenue residence of Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, acknowledged that the internal debates within the Iranian government and society can be lively, which some analysts have interpreted as signs of a split government. But he said the government seeks to achieve consensus on its foreign policy.

"When it is decided to mend relations, we are serious about that," Kharrazi said. "But the problem is there is no room for that now. The environment does not allow it because Americans are always trying to suspect us, always tried to humiliate us and pressure us."

Kharrazi added: "But if they change their minds, if they change their approach and bring in a new environment for cooperation, we would be ready to work with Americans and cooperate."

Kharrazi planned to have dinner tonight with Ahmed Chalabi, the current president of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council and a close ally of the Pentagon. "The Iranians are a positive influence," Chalabi said in a brief interview before the dinner.

Kharrazi noted that Iran and the United States have common objectives in Iraq, including opposing former president Saddam Hussein, making sure Iraq does not splinter into different countries and pushing for the establishment of a democratic government. He said that Iran wants to see a greater role for the United Nations in Iraq than the administration does, but that otherwise "there are many commonalities between Iran and the United States."

When the United States suspended the talks between U.S. and Iranian officials -- which had taken place in Geneva -- he said Iran had reached the "same conclusion" to end the discussions. "The Americans changed their minds frequently, and they don't stay committed to the decisions made at those meetings," he said.

He cited as one example an agreement between the two countries, made during their discussions over the postwar structure of Iraq, to establish a decision-making committee of officials representing seven Iraqi opposition groups.

"At the time, they agreed in the establishment of this body," Kharrazi said. "But later they changed their mind. They said, 'No, we are not interested. At most they can have an advisory role, but we are not going to give them the right to make decisions.' "

"At those talks," Kharrazi said, "we advised it is better to leave Iraq in the hands of the Iraqis. They were reluctant at first, but later on they understood. They know much less than us about Iraq, but we tried to educate them about the psychology of the Iraqis, the way to deal with them."

But, now, Kharrazi said, the Iranian government believes restarting the talks "would be very useful, as they were for Afghanistan," when Iran and the United States quietly reached agreements on the postwar government there.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=25&a=6

Iranian Charged in F-14 Export Attempt

September 24, 2003
The Associated Press
SF Chronicle

An Iranian man has been charged with attempting to export components for an F-14 fighter jet to his country, immigration officials said Wednesday.

Serzhik Avasappian, 40, was arrested on charges he attempted to ship the parts to Iran without obtaining an export license from the U.S. State Department.

Avasappian said he was a Tehran-based broker attempting to purchase the plane parts for the Iranian government, according to immigration officials.

Agents began negotiating with Avasappian in January 2002 over the export of the components, according to the criminal complaint. It alleges there was discussion of illegally exporting F-14 fighter jet parts, C-130A aircraft electrical and avionic upgrades, as well as the purchase and shipment of helicopters to Iran.

"While these components may appear relatively innocuous to the untrained eye, they are tightly controlled for good reason," Jesus Torres, interim special agent in charge, said in a written statement. "In the wrong hands, they pose a potential threat to Americans at home and abroad."

Although warned by agents that the controlled items could not be legally exported to Iran, Avasappian said they could be shipped to Italy and then moved to Iran, according to the criminal complaint.

Avasappian agreed to meet with agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to inspect the F-14 components, according to the complaint.

Avasappian arrived in Miami on a flight from London on Sept. 16. He was arrested Friday after a meeting with the undercover agents in which he agreed to contact Tehran to request the transfer of $15,000 to a bank, the complaint said.

Avasappian was being held at a federal detention center in Miami Wednesday. Attempts to determine if he had an attorney were unsuccessful late Wednesday.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/24/national2357EDT0898.DTL

Israel Mulls Mission Against Iran's Nukes

September 26, 2003
Middle East Newsline
MENL

TEL AVIV-- For the first time, Israel's military has raised the prospect of an operation to destroy Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

Senior government and military officials, alarmed by the failure of the international community to move against Iran, have issued warnings that Israel would consider unilateral action to stop Teheran's development of nuclear weapons. The clearest warnings yet came on the eve of another effort by the International Atomic Energy Agency to investigate suspected Iranian violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The suspected violations include the unauthorized enrichment of uranium.

"The fact that a country like Iran, an enemy [of Israel] and which is particularly irresponsible, has equipped itself with nonconventional weapons is worrisome," Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon said. "The combination in this case of a nonconventional regime with nonconventional weapons is a concern."

"At the moment there is continuing international diplomatic activity to deal with this threat, and it would be good if it succeeds," Ya'alon added. "But if that is not the case we would consider our options."

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2003/september/09_26_1.html

White House: Iran Has One Last Chance To Comply With IAEA

September 25, 2003
Dow Jones Newswires
Alex Keto

WASHINGTON -- In the wake of the discovery of traces of highly enriched uranium at a second nuclear site in Iran, the Bush administration said Thursday Iran has one last chance to comply with international demands to reveal its nuclear program.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the International Atomic Energy Agency has given Tehran until the end of October to talk about the extent of its nuclear program.

If Iran doesn't come clean on the issue, McClellan said, the U.S. is prepared to escalate the pressure on Tehran.

"This is one last chance for Iran to comply. And if it doesn't, then we believe it should be reported to the (U.N.) Security Council," McClellan said.

The IAEA said it found the traces of the weapons-grade material at the Kalay-e Electric Co., west of Tehran.

McClellan downplayed reports from Iran that it is considering pulling out of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, saying Tehran's position on this is unclear.

"I've seen different comments out of Iran," McClellan said.

"These are part of a long-standing pattern of evasion and deception to disguise the true nature and purpose of Iran's nuclear activities," McClellan said.

-By Alex Keto, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9256; Alex.Keto@dowjones.com

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=25&a=11

President Bush: Iran Shouldn't Have Weapons Program

September 25, 2003
Kansas City Star
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Thursday his talks with world leaders showed wide agreement that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapons program.

Bush said he plans to raise the issue during meetings over the next two days at Camp David with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and that it was a chief subject of many of his sessions with world leaders this week in New York.

"It is very important for the world to come together to make it very clear to Iran that there will be universal condemnation if they continue with a nuclear weapons program," Bush told reporters. "I'll tell you, the response was very positive. People understand the danger of the Iranians having a nuclear weapons program."

Bush's comments came as diplomats said that U.N. atomic experts have found traces of weapons-grade uranium at a second site in Iran, a development that heightened international concerns about the nature of Tehran's nuclear activities.

The diplomats said minute quantities of the substance were found by the International Atomic Energy Agency at the Kalay-e Electric Co., just west of Tehran. Earlier this year, U.N. inspectors found weapons-grade highly enriched uranium particles at a plant in Natanz that is supposed to produce only a lower grade for energy purposes.

Iran says its nuclear programs are to produce energy and that the traces of weapons-grade material were imported on equipment purchased from abroad. The United States and its allies argue the only purpose of Iran's nuclear efforts is for weapons programs.

Earlier, Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, denounced the discovery.

"These are part of a long-standing pattern of evasions and deception to disguise the true nature and purpose of Iran's nuclear activities," he said.

The U.N. agency has set an Oct. 31 deadline for Iran to prove that its nuclear program is for energy purposes as it claims.

The White House said it would support a referral to the Security Council if Iran does not comply with the U.N. demands.

"This is one last chance for Iran to comply," McClellan said.

The U.S.-Russia disagreement over Iran is one of several thorny topics hanging over the round of meetings scheduled between Bush and Putin at the president's retreat in the Maryland mountains.

The Bush administration says that Russian sales of technology to Iran are helping Tehran to develop a nuclear weapons program. Russia has denied that.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/6859996.htm

IRAN MUST FULFILL ALL ITS OBLIGATIONS WITH THE NPT: EL-BRADEH’I

LONDON, 25 Sept. (IPS)

With a little bit more than one moth to the ultimatum fixed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the Islamic Republic to sign the additional Protocol to the Non Proliferation Treaty and at the same time stop all its uranium enriching activities, Dr Mohammad El-Bradeh’i, the director of the Vienna-based international nuclear watchdog said if Tehran fails to comply with the demands, its case would be transferred to the United Nations for decision.

The IAEA’s 35 members Board of Directors on 12 September passed a resolution, formulated by Australia, Canada and Japan urging the Islamic Republic to sign the Protocol and inform the agency about all its nuclear programs.

Iran described the Resolution as being "politically motivated" and in a show of anger, announced it would continue cooperating with the IAEA and the NPT, but at the "minimum required" by its obligations.

"If Iran fails to comply with the Agency’s demands, including providing all the information concerning its nuclear activities before the fixed date, I would have no choice but to inform the Governors who, in turn, could send the question to the United Nations Security Council for decision", Mr. El-Bradeh’i told the Persian service of the BBC on Thursday.

Iran says its nuclear projects are for civilian purposes only and has no intention of building an atomic arsenal, as alleged by Washington and Tel-Aviv.

But in an address to the Government’s week on 15 September, president Mohammad Khatami explicitly, but indirectly, confirmed that Iran was determined to master the nuclear technology for its defence.

Two days ago, Mr. Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA confirmed that Iran has started enriching uranium at facilities in the central city of Natanz.

According to Mr. El-Bradeh’i, IAEA had started monitoring Iranian activities for uranium enriching since August 2002, urging Iran to provide all information on this activity, but so far information collected by the Agency from the Iranians are incomplete and unreliable.
"However, I hope that Iran would give a positive answer to the ultimatum and prove that its nuclear programs are for peaceful and civilian purposes" the Egyptian Director of IAEA added, according to the radio.

"My fear is that if Iran does not accept our decision, it would then have to deal with the United Nations Security Council which, in turn, would deal with the Islamic Republic as a threat to international peace and security", he added.

So far, Iran has not decided if it would accept the Resolution and sign the Protocol, but conservative newspapers that usually reflects the views of Ayatollah Ali Khameneh'i, the leader of the Islamic Republic have urged the authorities not to bow to the conditions and get out of the NPT all together.

But Iranian reformers say if the government was allowed to sign the Protocol, it would have escaped the Resolution, described by most of Iranian media as "humiliating".

El-Bradeh’i forcefully rejected Iranian accusations that the 12 September Resolution had been adopted under pressures from Washington and major European nations such as Britain, France and Germany, saying no pressure from anywhere and any power could influence IAEA’s decisions.

"The report we have filed on Iran’s nuclear activities is the result of more than one and a half year researches, inspections and studies", he said, assuring that "no one would contest its reliability.

According to Mr. El-Bradeh’i, now that his Agency has passed a resolution against Iran, the main question is no more the signing of the Protocol, but formal assurance by Tehran that it would respect the NPT to the letter and inform the IAEA about all its nuclear activities "without slightest omission". ENDS IAEA IRAN 25903

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2003/Sept-2003/iaea_iran_25903.htm

How to stop Iran's radical clerics from adopting the nuclear option

By Dr. Assad Homayoun
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Thursday, September 25, 2003

Dr. Assad Homayoun is president of the Azadegan Foundation, which advocates a secular democratic government in Iran and contributes to the formulation of U.S. foreign policy.

Geopolitically, Iran's quest for nuclear power is not out of the question.

Iran is located in a critical area, between two zones of energy, the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, which contains 70 percent of the world’s known oil reserve and 60 percent of its natural gas. It has a 1,570-mile coastline on the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman, with command of the strategic Strait of Hormuz. It rightly sees itself as a regional power.

Iran has borders with 15 countries, with no single strategic friend on its long borders. It has been invaded many times. Iraq invaded Iran in the 1990s, and used chemical and biological weapons, killing tens of thousands of Iranians. Iran has been also subjected to more missile attacks than any country in the past 50 years.

Iran already has one nuclear power on its border: Pakistan, which has half of Iran’s territory and twice its population. Pakistan could pose a grave danger to Iran if, for example, Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf was removed from power and Islamists gained control of the nuclear installations. Also Israel, India, Russia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the vicinity of Iran possess nuclear capabilities.

Iran is indeed an important force that can contribute immensely, for peace or for the destabilization of the region. Unfortunately the present Administration in Iran has chosen the latter.

Since the nuclear policy of Iran is becoming a significant international issue, an important question arises as to whether or not Iran should acquire military nuclear capabilities. Given the fact that Iran is located in pivotal strategic area with five nuclear powers in the immediate vicinity, we must understand Iran ’s defense deeds and consider what kind of defense policy Iran should adopt.

Iran can choose four roads for its national security and defense:

1. It can do nothing. This is not going to be an option. No government in Iran could agree to leave the country defenseless in light of the many historical invasions. As U.S. Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet stated in his recent testimony to the U.S. Congress, no Iranian Government, regardless of its ideological leanings, was likely to abandon a program to develop weapons of mass destruction.

2. Follow a nuclear-free zone policy. Several countries in the Middle East in the past several decades proposed regional non-proliferation agreements or a “nuclear weapons-free zone”. This notion has been discussed and was proposed and followed in the United Nations many time by Iran and Egypt in 1974, and in 1981, and by Egypt again in 1990, but did not go anywhere. A weapons of mass destruction-free zone (WMFZ) initiative is not possible in the region, and therefore it is not going to be an option. Israel will never give up its nuclear ambition, because it thinks it serves as deterrence for its survival against its hostile neighbors. [The same can be said for Pakistan and India.]

3. U.S. or NATO agreement/protection. There could be some agreement with the United States or NATO for Iran to come under some sort of defensive umbrella to guarantee its security in case of a possible threat. This option is neither possible nor practical, especially with a regime in power which has committed itself to support of international terrorism and the promotion of radical Islam. If Iran was controlled by a moderate democratic government, then this option could be a possibility, but never under the present administration.

4. The last option is that Iran becomes a military nuclear state. Presently, it seems that this is the policy of the administration in Tehran, and it is a policy which may be now coming close to reality. Iran has invested too much money, scientific, technological talent and pride in building its nuclear infrastructure, and it is unlikely to abandon completely its desire of acquiring nuclear technology.
The most likely promoter of nuclear policy is Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsansani, the former President, who is, more than anybody else, behind the broad spectrum of international terrorism. On several occasions in the past, he openly pronounced and spoke on nuclear weapon-related issues. Mr Rafsanjani, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, and other top leaders of the Islamic republic see nuclear weapons as a source of national power.

Significantly, however, they primarily think of nuclear weapons as an instrument to advance their radical fundamentalist and terrorist cause rather than for the national security and defense of Iran.

The problem is that, on one hand Iran needs to secure its defense in this pivotal strategic region which is volatile with many ethnic cultural and religious rivalries; while on the other hand neither the people of Iran nor the world could tolerate a nuclear theocracy which was the fountainhead of international terrorism and has based its rule on force, repression and the terror of its people.

What should be done?

Iran is close to the point of no return. Diplomatic and economic pressure will not be effective. Even the UN Security Council’s resolution will not change the decision of the clerical leadership of Iran to become a nuclear power.

In fact, it is possible that the [ruling clerics] have already secured or created some dirty bombs for terrorist purposes and have even secured a few existing nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union, to be mounted on their Shihab-3 missiles.

Some observers believe that it would be height of folly if the Iranian clerical Administration did not sign and ratify the IAEA's "New Safeguards Measures" known as “program 93 + 2”. I believe that even if the clerics decided to sign the New Safeguards Measures of IAEA, their regime would not ratify it. There would be many ways and means to escape from the watchful eyes of IAEA. Moreover, the new Protocols System is not foolproof, and even by signing the Safeguard Measures, the regime could avoid ratification. On September 12, 2003 , the Board of Governors of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a strongly-worded resolution which gave the clerics a deadline of October 31, 2003 , to dispel all doubt about their nuclear ambition. We have to wait to see the reaction of the clerics. Knowing the nature of the theocratic rulers, they may resort to dissimulation, which is allowed in Shi’a religious philosophy as a “pious fraud” to deceive and mislead, in order to buy time to reach a goal.

The best and most feasible way to solve the problems of WMD, terrorism and anti-peace activities of the Iranian clerical leadership is to support, openly and enthusiastically, the people of Iran who are ready and resolved to change the national leadership of Iran. I believe that the policies of U.S. President George W. Bush are in the right direction, but those policies should be implemented and followed in a unified way, openly and without wavering. This is the safest and the best option for the U.S. and Europe to achieve peace in the region and to help the Iranian people. I am sure that after the downfall of the clerical regime, a responsible government could come to some sort of arrangement with U.S. and NATO to guarantee the security of Iran and help remove the reasons for Iran’s drive to become nuclear. This would prevent the volatile region from entering into a nuclear arms race.

I firmly believe that it is time, and indeed the acme of patriotism, for the Iranian Armed Forces and the Revolutionary Guards, who are guarantors of integrity of Iran, to discontinue their support for the clerics' regime. They must help the people to establish a representative democratic government. They must come to their senses and prevent conflict with U.S. and possible attacks on Iranian military, technological and economic, installations.

Iran must be a perpetrator of peace, not terrorism.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_4.html

Lawmakers Probe Iraq Plans to Buy Electricity From Iran, Syria

September 25, 2003
The Associated Press
WBZ 4, Massachusetts

WASHINGTON -- About a dozen Democrats are asking the Bush administration to explain whether the interim government in Iraq is planning to buy electricity from Iran and Syria, two countries the United States has accused of supporting terrorism.

In a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, the House members said the U.S.-led provisional government may be better served by buying power from neighboring countries that are allies, such as Jordan or Turkey.

``The United States should not be doing business with the same governments that allow volunteers, foreign fighters and military equipment to cross its porous borders into Iraq unimpeded to kill American servicemen and women,'' said the letter spearheaded by Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. It was also signed by Reps. Barney Frank and William Delahunt, both D-Mass.

Emanuel said he hopes the administration agrees that Americans ``would not want their tax dollars to enrich two countries that top the Department of State's list of countries that support terrorism.''

Congress has imposed sanctions against Iran and Libya, and similar legislation calling for sanctions against Syria is pending.

Reports that Iraq was negotiating with Iraq and Syria were first reported by The Boston Globe.

Quoting a member of Iraq's governing council, the report said Iraq was negotiating with Syria, Iran and Turkey for electricity to augment its energy supplies.

http://wbz4.com/massachusetts/MA--Iraq-Electricity-gn/resources_news_html

Q&A With Iranian Foreign Minister

September 25, 2003
The Washington Post

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, who is in New York to attend the sessions of the U.N. General Assembly, answered questions from The Washington Post in an interview conducted in English Tuesday evening at the Fifth Avenue residence of Iran's ambassador to the United Nations. An edited transcript follows:

Q:What is your evaluation of the situation in Iraq? Is the political and security situation worsening and, if you believe it is, how fast is it deteriorating and what do you see developing over the next three to six months?

A: I think it is not promising. Americans made one mistake. They thought if the Iraqi people are against Saddam Hussein when American troops come to Iraq they will welcome them. But this did not happen. [Iran] is not happy because Iraq is occupied by American and British troops. The other people have same attitude and this is there psychology that they never welcome foreigners to govern their country. The reason that folks or people are engaged in these operations against American soldiers is that they justify that they resist against occupation. This argument is acceptable to the Iraqi people because they are occupiers. That is why I believe it would be in the interest of the United States to transfer the Iraqi affair to the United Nations. In that case the United States would be able to support the United Nations as other countries would be able and the president of the United Nations, as the main central role player, certainly would be the chief.

Q: Do you see issues where there is common interests for discussion, at least between Iran and the United States, on Iraq and if so what are those issue and what forum could best address them?

A: Yes, I believe there are common interests. Of course, there are differences. We both have been against the Saddam [Hussein] regime. We both believe that the territorial integrity of Iraq has to be maintained and the unity of Iraq. We both believe that democratic government has to be in place, elected by the people. So there are many commonalities between Iran and the United States. We had some talks with the Americans in Geneva. At those talks, we advised them that it's better to leave Iraq in the hands of the Iraqis. They were reluctant at first but later on they understood. They know much less than us about Iraq, but we tried to educate them about the psychology of the Iraqis, the way to deal with them. Still, I believe the best way to bring peace and security to Iraq is to have the United Nations as the central . . . player. Otherwise, it may get worse.

Q: Is there a role for the Governing Council in a transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis or in your view should the composition of a provisional government or a transitional administration be something that is started from scratch with a Bonn-like conference?

A: No, I believe the Governing Council can play their role. We have some kind of interaction with them. We sent our secretary general to Iraq to have a meeting with them because the Governing Council is composed of the leaders of opposition. Therefore they can play an important role. . . . Of course they themselves, as we are, are concerned about the way Americans are dealing with them. They prefer to be more independent to decide and act. . . . And therefore it can be considered as a positive step towards transfer of authority.

Q: Are they an adequate instrument as currently constituted to receive sovereignty now. Or would they need to be expanded or reformed in some way to be the right transitional government for an earlier transfer of sovereignty?

A: They can establish a committee to draft a constitution, put that constitution to a vote of the people, and . . . for election and transfer of power to the people. But this we believe has to be done under the auspices of the Untied Nations.

Q: You had referred to the talks in Geneva that you had had earlier this year. The [Bush] administration has announced that those talks had been suspended in May. I was wondering if those talks had ever restarted and if not would you have an interest in restarting those talks to discuss Iraq?

A: No, it has not been restarted. Since then we have not had any talks. Of course we had arrived to the same conclusion that while the Americans are changing their mind frequently and they don't stay committed to the decisions made at those meetings there's no reason to continue. But Americans announced termination of those talks.

Q: What were some of the issue that they changed their minds on?

A: We had discussed about the best way to transfer the affairs of Iraq to the Iraqi people. We had decided to established a committee out of leaders of opposition groups, a committee of seven persons. This is what was established later in an expanded form of 25 as the Governing Council. And at that time they agreed in the establishment of this body, but later they changed their mind. They said no, we are not interested in it. At most they can have an advisory role. But we're not going to give them the right to make decisions. And somehow they changed even their people. Up to that time, Mr. [Zalmay] Khalilzad [special presidential envoy] was the sponsor. Suddenly he was changed. There was no explanation. . . . And they suddenly said they were not interested in continuing. But in fact I believe those talks could be very useful as it was useful for Afghanistan. In Afghanistan we had talks in Geneva initially and what ever we decided in those meetings was later exercised. It was quite useful. The establishment of interim authority and transfer of power.

Q: One of the reason the administration had given for terminating those talks was they had alleged that there were al Qaeda members in Iran that were somehow implicated in the Saudi bombings. What is your response to that allegation?

A: That could not be the reason because it was false. Al Qaeda members were in Iran but in our custody. Any piece of information was used to arrest these people and we were very successful. Since then, they are in jail they are under interrogation and we are going to try them because they have committed crimes. . . .

Q: The Saudis claim that they would like those in your custody who are their nationals to be extradited to Saudi Arabia and that Iran has declined to meet this request. Is that true and if so why?

A: I'm not sure that if there is any Saudis among them, but if there have been any Saudis in the past they have been transferred to Saudi Arabia and they are happy with that. Of course they also spoke about more cooperation and if there would be any kind of information that would be helpful ..to transfer that information.

Q: As a result of those interrogations have you found out any more about those bombings in Saudi Arabia?

A: Not specifically about the recent bombings because as I understand they have autonomous groups of operators. They have general instructions and they do it by their own. So what was claimed by Americans that those who have been Iran have led this bombing is baseless. We arrived to this conclusion in interrogation.

Q: Can you provide us any indication about how your government intends to respond to the deadline that was announced by the ambassadors at the [International Atomic Energy Agency] in Vienna towards the end of October seeking Iran's agreement to these additional protocols?

A: Of course we will continue our cooperation with the IAEA because there are outstanding issues between Iran and the agency which has to be clarified. We of course have extended our cooperation with IAEA . . . in recent months. And this has been reflected in the report of the secretary general that Iran has increased its cooperation with the agency, by which I mean giving more access to inspectors of IAEA to visit different sites and even take environmental samples. These are of course further than our current commitments under NPT [nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] safeguards. But just to make and build up more trust and confidence we decided to do so. And this has been appreciated. Therefore we will continue to cooperate with IAEA. But then the question of additional protocols. First we want to make sure additional protocol are enough. The Americans have stated that the additional protocols may not be enough. Therefore this is a serious question in Iran. Why, if something is not enough, why should we. . . . So first we want to make sure the additional protocol is going to solve the problem.

Q: In the same report, the director general of the IAEA had requested in June that Iran not enrich any uranium plants. And yet even after that request was made, that Iran went ahead and enriched some uranium. There was a statement by Iranian ambassador to the IAEA that, even with signing the additional protocol, Iran wanted to continue building the Natanz plant.

A: Nothing is wrong to have enriched uranium facility provided it is just used for peaceful uses. It is forbidden to enrich uranium for producing nuclear weapons. And we are committed to that because we are a member of the NPT. But this is part of our right to have nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including enrichment of uranium to produce fuel need for our plants. So nothing is wrong to have enrichment facilities.

Q: But they did specifically request Iran not enrich that uranium

A: Yes, they did have this request. But we had already started the process of preparing the machinery to fit them with uranium UF6 gas [uranium hexafluoride, the gaseous form of the metal, which is used in centrifuges] before they asked us not to do it. It was started two days before they had asked us. . . .

Q: The fear on the part of the United States is that Iran could be under the NPT building a facility that can enrich uranium and then one day announce we're no longer a member of the NPT and we're going to produce this and use this fuel

A: This is a naive argument because the enrichment facility under the safeguard of IAEA, its monitored severely by IAEA people, especially when we accept additional protocol that means IAEA inspectors are free to inspect wherever they wish whenever they want.

Q: The additional protocol is something that you're committed to sign?

A: No, we want to make sure the additional protocol would be enough and would solve the problem. If it is enough and would solve the problem then the ambiguity would be removed from the mind. The question is why are the Americans saying that an additional protocol is not enough. They should be careful and they should yes it is enough and the inspection of IAEA clarified that Iran is going to do something illegal or legal. We don't have anything to hide because we do not have a program for producing nuclear weapons. Therefore, we are ready to be quite transparent. But we cannot let others deny our rights. And part of our right is to be able to enrich uranium to produce fuel needed for our power plants. We don't want to be dependent on outside because we have the knowledge. We have the minds we have the technology. Why should we be dependent on the outside.

Q: Are you close to making a decision about the additional protocol?

A: As soon as this would be clarified we don't mind to proceed.

Q: The United States has 120,000 troops on one border with Iraq. They have several thousands troops on the other side. How do you interpret American policy and intentions towards Iran. Does your government believe that the United States is preparing the ground for a military confrontation with Iran.

A: We really don't understand the policy of the United States toward Iran because they are [acting] contrary to their own interests. In fact their approach towards Iran is wrong. Iran has proved that it is very responsible and always tries to promote peace and security in that region. Iran has not invaded any other country, although it has been invaded by others. And Iran has tried to be very helpful in Tajikistan to promote reconciliation, in Afghanistan it has been very helpful. Our position of neutrality in the case of Iraq was helpful and we could misuse the situation and do many things, but we refrain because we believe that the security of Iraq is very important for us. So I believe the first thing to do for the Americans is to correct that policy and to look toward Iran from a positive angle. In fighting terrorism, for example, Iran can do a lot because we believe that the root cause of extremism and terrorism has to be dealt with. And that is another mistake of the Americans is that they think only by using military power they would be able to eradicate terrorism. But this is not the case. And so far it has been proved that it's not the best way to do it. It is true that you have to be serious against terrorist groups but more importantly we have to change the mind of the grass roots, we have to educate them, we have to give them models that would be acceptable. And what has been exercised in Iran can be that model, as a combination of principles of democracy and Islamic values.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=25&a=14

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”