Iran US War

Majid Mohammadi, an Iranian Sociologist Refutes Neocons on Iran Intentions in Iraq

2005-08-21T07:03:00.000-07:00

NEWS ANALYSIS / The Iranian factor in Iraq insurgency / Country is influencing rebellion, U.S. says -- analysts not so sure: ""Iran is seeking security, regional influence ... and a market for (its) production," said Majid Mohammadi, an Iranian sociologist who is currently a resident in the Democracy, Development and Rule of Law project at Stanford University.

Critics also see Iran's influence in the drafts of Iraq's new constitution, which calls for Islamic Shariah law to be the main source of legislation and requests that Shiite clerics be granted special status, paving the way for Iraq to become an Iran-like theocracy.

"They want to have control over Iraq," said Michael Leeden, a consultant to the National Security Council under former President Ronald Reagan, and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Their favorite way of doing it would be to create an Islamic republic," said Ledeen, who has urged the overthrow of the Iranian regime.

But other analysts warn that Iran needs to be cautious in its policy toward its neighbor, with whom it waged a bitter, eight-year war in the 1980s that cost more than a million lives.

Wayne White, a former deputy director for Middle East and South Asia in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, said Iran's interests in Iraq should more closely coincide with those of the United States.

"Iran should have concerns over instability inside of Iraq because if Iraq fails and there's a civil war, Iran has a major mess on its western frontier that it should not want," said White.

However, Milani, of the Hoover Institution, says Tehran wants to see American troops bogged down in Iraq, because of fears of a possible U.S. attack on Iran -- an option President Bush raised last week when he said, in remarks about Iran's nuclear program, that "the use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country."

"The U.S. forces are so deeply entrenched (in Iraq) that the possibility of taking on another war -- with Iran -- is simply untenable," said Milani.

There is also the financial factor. The instability in the Persian Gulf region, combined with Iraq's weakened ability to pump oil, has kept the price of crude above $65 a barrel, "and that has been a godsend for the mullahs," he said.

"Tehran is very much interested in controlled chaos."

That chaos could easily get out of control, warn some analysts, especially if Iraq splits up. An independent Kurdish state in the north, for example, would encourage Iran's own 4 million Kurds to demand independence, said Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan.

But such concerns are "small potatoes" for Iran compared to the opportunity to wield greater power over the Persian Gulf region, argued O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution.

"Iran's situation is pretty good," he said. "But if they want to aim more ambitiously, I suppose they could try to splinter Iraq into three pieces, in the belief that a Shia country in the south would be too small to threaten them."

A smaller Shiite Arab state in the region could also provide Tehran with "potentially a kindred spirit on various matters," O'Hanlon said.

Despite Iran's denials, it is possible that the Islamic Republic is sending weapons to Iraq -- but to the Shiite militias in the south, such as the Badr Brigade, said Noyes.

Mohammadi agreed.

"Iran does not really need to send weapons to Sunni insurgents; they have enough," he said. "Iran is and has been willing to interfere with Iraq, but through (its) friends," such as the two biggest Shiite political factions, SCIRI and the Dawa party, Mohammadi said.

Yet, there is always the possibility that certain Iranian groups are supporting the insurgency in Iraq without the government's authorization, said O'Hanlon. One of them, analysts say, could be the Revolutionary Guards, Iran's militantly anti-American paramilitary force.

"You could also imagine Iranian hardliners saying: 'Let's go for broke,' " O'Hanlon said.

E-mail Anna Badkhen at abadkhen@sfchronicle.com."

Unrequited Love Source of US Policy on Iran - Rice Got Dumped

2005-06-30T05:34:00.000-07:00

Iran News - 'Unhappy love affair explains Rice view on Iran': " 'Unhappy love affair explains Rice view on Iran'

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - ©2005 IranMania.com

LONDON, June 30 (IranMania) - Perplexed by the vitriol of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's attacks on Iran, one lawmaker believes he has uncovered the secret of her enmity -- that she was spurned by an Iranian boyfriend at college, according to ISNA.

"The reason that the US secretary of state attacks Iran is because she had her heart broken by a young man from Qazvin while they were students," a confident Shokrollah Attarzadeh was quoted by the ISNA agency as saying.

Somewhat mysteriously, he added: "This is the result of an investigation by a woman MP, who cannot be named."

Qazvin is an unremarkable city 150 kilometers (90 miles) from Tehran, hitherto not known for playing a major role Iran-US relations, which have been frozen for a quarter of a century.

Attarzadeh did not offer any other details on the alleged affair or, for that matter, any interesting new proposal on how ties between the two arch-enemies could be warmed up.

Surprising as it may be, amorous explanations for diplomatic machinations are nothing new here.

It was rumoured last year that German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer hardened his tone towards Iran after acquiring a girlfriend who supports the exiled opposition.

The alleged leniency of International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohammad ElBaradei towards Iran's nuclear programme has also been explained by ... him having an Iranian wife."

Iranian daily advises president-elect to heed lessons of past polls

2005-06-26T20:40:00.000-07:00

Iranian daily advises president-elect to heed lessons of past polls: "Media Monitor

Iranian daily advises president-elect to heed lessons of past polls
Jun 26, 2005, 15:10 GMT

Text of unattributed editorial: "The secret of an election!", published by the Iranian newspaper Aftab-e Yazd web site on 26 June

The 3 Tir [24 June presidential] elections have surprised everyone. A little reflection however can turn our amazement into belief, and our beliefs into experience for the future.

Within six weeks, Dr Mahmud Ahmadinezhad will take charge of the executive branch. He can, and must, do much. But if his supporters and rivals fail to correctly understand the message of the 3 Tir elections, the country will suffer the same fate Iran and Iranians have suffered because certain victors of the [May 1997] elections and their rivals failed to understand the message of those polls.

Without the support of the right-wing faction, and without even the unified support of the dailies that claim to represent values and principles, Ahmadinehzad won more than 17 million votes, and is now Iran´s president-elect. While still challenged by the non-participation of some 30 million eligible voters, he can with his acts ensure that he will not only keep his 17 million votes but instill regret in many of the 30 million who did not vote for him. To attain those conditions, we would have to correctly analyse the elections, and ensure certain people do not hijack the polls for themselves and proceed to use them to settle scores and vent their frustrations. This writer would first congratulate the new president, then remind him of certain points, and ask him to carefully consider these points, to prevent anyone exploiting the nation´s startling vote.

1 - Aftab-e Yazd has been among Mr Rafsanjani´s most serious critics in past years. But in past days, it saw evidence indicating that he was stepping into the electoral arena with a new determination, and with changed programmes. This evidence prompted us to prefer him over his rival in the second round of elections. We stated in our editorial on [21 June]: "If Hashemi-Rafsanjani is precisely the same as in the so-called reconstruction period, then we cannot support him. But a look at his supporters and his programmes gives one the hope that one may look forward to a new period, when reformist views and efforts to resolve the people´s problems will come to have a suitable place in the presidential office."

But the reality is that what we believed was not accepted by a great many people, or there was an insufficient opportunity to convey that sense to the majority of the people. Or perhaps, as Mr. Rafsanjani claimed, a systematic campaign to discredit him, costing billions from the public purse, contributed to the situation. Whatever the case, people showed on 3 Tir that most politicians, political groups and papers have an inaccurate impression of their ability to make an impact on the people, who prefer their own convictions to the subjective interpretations of politicians.

On 3 Tir, the people did not for whichever reason accept the counsels and guarantees of Left and Right-wing politicians, national-religious activists, or cultural personalities on the efficacy of Mr Rafsanjani´s new programmes. Even the breadth of the range of Mr Rafsanjani´s new supporters, going from [the poet] Mahmud Dowlatabadi to Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli, could not change many people´s previous perceptions of the president of the reconstruction period.

In other words, faced on 3 Tir with two persons, one who had already shown his mettle and of whose record many were critical, and another with little experience of government but whose campaign proved attractive, voters chose the latter.

The election on 3 Tir showed that when people develop a negative perception of a politician, and when his supporters perhaps spend more time denigrating rivals than making sincere efforts to answer doubts and questions, people find enough of a motivation to ensure victory for his rival. That is what happened on 3 Tir. About 12 million people who had not voted for Ahmadinezhad in the first round, went to the polls with determination, and concerned at the possible repetition of certain past events, and presented him with their votes.

This happened before, though differently, on 2 Khordad 1376, when people showed that they rejected those who were doing everything to place their man in the presidential office. Now, the failure to understand the real reason for that startling vote for Khatami has made many of his supporters, who backed Rafsanjani this round, suffer the fate of their former rivals.

2 - If Dr Ahmadinezhad seeks success, he should accept that however competent and suitable he considers himself, his abilities had yet to be evidenced for many, and he only won [in the first round] the votes of 5.7 million people. We wrote earlier that even certain Tehran legislators from the Developers [and Ahmadinezhad allies] had yet to be convinced of the feasibility of Ahmadinezhad´s programmes and his ability to implement them. They preferred Qalibaf, Larijani and Rafsanjani in the first round to Ahmadinezhad. Even in the second round, some of these people, who had supported his conservative rivals in the previous round, did not directly support him, and Ahmadinezhad now owes his victory mostly to those who did not, for whichever reason, want Rafsanjani´s re-election.

A factor that can turn this negative vote to a positive and affirmative vote, is if Ahmadinezhad does behave the way he did on his television programme, which many voters found attractive.

Likewise he can study the programmes of rivals that also attracted the attention of voters, and turn concerns at the election of unwanted candidates into hopeful hearts at the end of the first round and the start of his work. He may thus turn those voters into supporters backing constructive programmes for the country´s future.

3 - Four years ago, many conservatives who today support the president-elect, expressed concern at the non-participation of some 14 million voters in elections for Mr Khatami´s second term. They said nothing about the absence of twenty-something million voters in the seventh parliamentary elections, and seem disinclined today to comment on the absence of 20 million or so in the two rounds of the present elections. Ahmadinezhad is now the president of all Iranians, including the 30 or so million people who did not vote or did not vote for him. His conduct can turn them into 40 million or more, or encourage them to reconsider their electoral conduct.

4 - Iran´s political groups have in turn faced a difficult test. They must realize that a four-year presidency will neither give them everything for ever, nor wipe off the face of life and history. Events of the past quarter century have shown that if people believe that politicians have changed, they will overlook their past or adjust their prejudices and once more place their trust in them, and correspondingly vote out more recently elected officials. Thus politicians can reconsider their past actions and those of rivals without fascination or resentment, and help people make a better choice in the future. Otherwise as in the past, people will again vote for those they believe have a less negative record. We shall write more on the recent elections.

Source: Aftab-e Yazd web site, Tehran, in Persian 26 Jun 05, pp1,2

BBC Mon ME1 MEPol kasz"

FT.com / Middle East & Africa - Rumsfeld casts doubt on legitimacy of Iran poll

2005-06-26T20:37:00.000-07:00

FT.com / Middle East & Africa - US casts doubt on legitimacy of Iran poll: " casts doubt on legitimacy of Iran poll
By Guy Dinmore in Washington and Gareth Smyth in Tehran
Published: June 26 2005 18:56 | Last updated: June 26 2005 18:56

The Bush administration on Sunday cast doubt on the legitimacy of Iran's newly-elected president, setting the stage for a more intense confrontation over the future of the Islamic state's nuclear programme and the direction of democracy in the Middle East.

Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, denounced the landslide victory of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, regarded by US officials as a hardline fundamentalist, as the result of a “mock election”.

Speaking on Fox News, Mr Rumsfeld admitted he did not know much about “this young fellow”.

“But he is no friend of democracy. He's no friend of freedom. He is a person who is very much supportive of the current ayatollahs, who are telling the people of that country how to live their lives. And my guess is over time, the young people and the women will find him, as well as his masters, unacceptable,” Mr Rumsfeld said.

The consolidation of power of all branches of the Iranian government in the hands of hardliners has been mirrored by a parallel struggle over policy inside the Bush administration. Washington's “hawks”, including Mr Rumsfeld and Elizabeth Cheney, who is in charge of state department policy on promoting democracy in the Middle East, have emerged on top.

Members of the US Congress who want the Bush administration to adopt a more forthright policy of “regime change” are likely to step up their efforts to reduce foreign investment in Iran.

Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, reflecting conservative suspicion over the motives of foreign investors, declared at his first press conference on Sunday: "In all fields, including oil, priority will be given to local investors.”

Mohammad Sadeq Kharrazi, Iran's ambassador to Paris who is involved in nuclear negotiations with the European Union, told the FT the new president would not bring “fundamental change” in either Iran's stance or the make-up of its negotiation team.

Patrick Clawson, senior analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that although key decisions in Iran remain with the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the election of a hardline president would add to US concerns that Iran could not be trusted with anything short of complete cessation of its uranium enrichment programme.

Mr Ahmadi-Nejad reiterated Iran's right to produce nuclear fuel for electricity generation.

EU leaders repeated their long-stranding demand that Iran should permanently end uranium enrichment, which it has suspended as a 'goodwill gesture' since October 2003.

Jack Straw, the UK foreign secretary, said there had been “serious deficiencies” in the elections, which had further damaged “an already flawed” process.

Mr Ahmadi-Nejad said diplomatic relations with Washington, suspended since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, could be reopened only if the US “gives up its hostility”. But he added that Iran “did not have considerable need for the US”.

This contrasted with campaign promises of improved relations made by Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president defeated by Mr Ahmadi-Nejad on Friday.

Additional reporting by Carola Hoyos"

POLITICS-US: Bush and Hawks Try Pre-Emptive Strike Vs. Iran Vote

2005-06-23T19:22:00.000-07:00

POLITICS-US: Bush and Hawks Try Pre-Emptive Strike Vs. Iran Vote: "POLITICS-US:
Bush and Hawks Try Pre-Emptive Strike Vs. Iran Vote
Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Jun 18 (IPS) - A familiar clutch of hardline U.S. hawks who led the march to war against Iraq have tried to carry out yet another pre-emptive strike. But this time it wasn't military.

As millions of Iranians prepared to vote for the successor to Pres. Mohammed Khatami Friday, the group, helped along by a strong denunciation by Bush himself, mounted what could only be described as an orchestrated public-relations campaign to discredit the elections even before they took place.

”Today Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world,” Bush declared in a statement issued by the White House Thursday afternoon. ”Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy.”

Bush's statements, which were echoed by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, and to a somewhat less categorical extent by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, offered some reassurance to the hawks, particularly some prominent neo-conservatives outside the administration who have pressed their own longstanding campaign for ”regime change” in Teheran with growing intensity.

At the same time, however, their own efforts to discredit the election at the eleventh hour highlight their growing concern that a new president in Iran may actually be someone with whom, as Margaret Thatcher first observed about incoming Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev 20 years ago, the West might actually be able to do business.

That concern rose sharply late last month when State Department officials quietly urged both the Republican Congressional leadership to hold off action on the Iran Freedom Support Act that would impose new sanctions on Iran pending ongoing negotiations between the so-called EU-3 -- Britain, France, and Germany -- and Iran over its nuclear programme.

”These guys want regime change,” said one knowledgeable source who asked not to be identified, ”and they're very worried about anything that could divert from that. They want to ensure that the White House won't get any funny ideas about making a deal with a new Iranian government.”

Thus, the hawks' mantra Thursday on the eve of the balloting, was that the elections won't make any difference because hardline elements led by the unelected supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and the Guardian Council, which did so much to hobble outgoing Pres. Mohammed Khatami and the reformists, will continue running the country regardless of who wins.

”Any normal person familiar with the Islamic republic knows that these are not elections at all...,” wrote Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in an article headlined ”When Is an Election Not an Election?” posted on National Review Online (NRO) Thursday morning.

”They are a mise en scene, an entertainment, a comic opera staged for our benefit. The purpose of the charade, pure and simple, is to deter us from supporting the forces of democratic revolution in Iran.”

That theme was echoed in a series of events and other columns published Thursday, including one, by Kenneth Timmerman in NRO (and reprinted Friday by the Washington Times) entitled ”Fake Election, Real Threats” in which he predicted that no more than five percent of eligible voters in Teheran would turn out.

Another appeared in the Washington Times by Nir Boms, vice president of the new Centre for Freedom in the Middle East and previously vice president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and Elliott Chodoff entitled ”Facing the Iranian Elections,” and a third in the New York Times by AEI vice president Danielle Pletka, entitled ”Not Our Man in Iran,” a reference to the front-runner, former President Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, whose presumed victory, she wrote, was due to the ”machinations of the mullahs.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Sam Brownback, a Christian Right leader close to both hard-line neoconservatives and Iranian-American followers of Reza Pahlevi, the ambitious, U.S.-based son of the former Shah, charged in a floor speech that the elections were ”bogus,” while at AEI headquarters across town, a discussion on the elections featured a presentation by founder of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, Mohsen Sazegara of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who predicted, ”No matter who wins the presidential elections, there will be no real changes in Iran's domestic or foreign policy.”

Despite the certainty with which these views were expressed, many U.S.-based Iran specialists, while agreeing that powers of Khameini and the Guardian's Council clearly circumscribed what an elected president could do, said that the depiction of the election as a sham was simplistic at best, a deliberate distortion at worst.

Contrary to Pletka's assertion that Rafsanjani was chosen by the mullahs, said Gary Sick, an Iran expert at Columbia University, ”Those who are closest to the actual election process have stated repeatedly that Rafsanjani was seen as dividing the mullahs and was not-so-subtly opposed in his candidacy by Khamenei.”

That view was echoed by Abbas Milani and Michael McFaul, directors of the Project on Iranian Democracy at the conservative Hoover Institution in California, in an article in Friday's International Herald Tribune. Rafsanjani and Khamenei, they wrote, ”now àare at each other's political throats,” signaling ”clear division within the ruling elite” of the kind that could well presage ”the beginning of political liberalisation.”

What's more, according to Milani and McFaul, Rafsanjani and Mostafa Moin, a reformist who is tipped to be Rafsanjani's likely rival in a run-off Jul. 1, have both gone further than Khatami ”in challenging the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic and its current leadership” and in advocating improved relations with the United States.

A close reading of the hawks themselves also disclosed serious inconsistencies. While insisting, for example, that ”millions of 'officially cast' ballots (were) manufactured weeks ago, to ensure the right guy wins and that enough votes will have been cast,” Ledeen confessed that even he didn't know who would win.

Like Pletka, Ledeen had assumed ”that Rafsanjani would walk away with it.” But since Khameini overruled the Guardian Council so that Moin (”a nasty pseudo-reformer”) could join the field, he was no longer so sure. Moin ”might be more convincing as he plays that most difficult role,” Ledeen went on: ”the moderate face of islamofascism.”

To some Iran specialists, such speculation serves only to demonstrate that, as in the run-up to the war in Iraq, some hard-liners are trying to fit the facts into their preferred policy.

”Michael Ledeen has never been to Iran; he speaks no Persian,” said Brown University Professor William Beeman, who observed the campaign in Teheran during the past week. ”He has minimal credibility in assessing the Iranian elections, or evaluating the political situation there.

”It is clear that the neo-cons are desperate to deny any credibility to the Iranian people in this election àby continuing to promulgate the image of helpless Iranians cowering under tyrannical rule -- the better to justify some kind of attack leading to 'regime change,”' Said Brown, author of a forthcoming book, ”The 'Great Satan' vs. the 'Mad Mullahs:' How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other.' (END/2005)"

Iran press: Guardian Council qualification process 'not political' - spokesman

2005-06-19T21:12:00.000-07:00

Iran press: Guardian Council qualification process 'not political' - spokesman: "Iran press: Guardian Council qualification process 'not political' - spokesman
Jun 7, 2005, 16:46 GMT

Political Affairs Desk: Referring to the way the Guardian Council is reviewing the qualification of candidates in the presidential elections, the Guardian Council spokesman announced: "The council's decision-making process is not at all political."

Gholamhoseyn Elham said: "From among the 1,014 people who have registered to participate in the elections, the Guardian Council initially determined who qualified as a "political dignitary," and in a second review determined whether they are religious and political dignitaries based on their record and what has been indicated in their dossiers. Later these candidates were discussed in the Council's meeting, where reports by official bodies, such as the State Inspectorate General Organization and the Judiciary, concerning the functions of some of them who have held executive responsibilities, which were taken into consideration. Overall, an independent, written, and secret vote was held in regard to every one of these individuals."

Likewise, the Guardian Council spokesman stressed that the Guardian Council is duty-bound to guarantee the qualities specified in Article 115 of the Constitution; therefore, in this case, disqualification is not mooted and what is relevant is whether the candidate qualified or not. Likewise, the Guardian Council spokesman considered that the law has determined the authority to establish qualifications, and by stating the status of the Expediency Council, as well as the eminent leader in determining the expediencies of the system, it pointed out: "If everyone were to want to become an authority in this regard, it will prove problematic for us."

Criticizing the views being propounded concerning the council's approach concerning the review of qualifications and the fact that at times this institution is introduced as a sector that is responsible for helping the principle-ists (osulgarayan) to reach consensus, and at other times, after the announcement of the names of those who have qualified, it is considered as an element responsible for bringing consensus in the reforms front and at yet another time it is introduced as the element responsible for damaging public participation, Elham said: "lf these demonstrate that the council's function is not influenced by political considerations."

In continuation, in regard to the fact as to whether or not the Guardian Council has interpreted the eminent Leader's letter to this council as a state decree, the Guardian Council spokesman said: "The council considers this letter as a state decree."

Likewise, concerning the Guardian Council's response to objections by those who have been disqualified by this council, by pointing to the careful measures taken by the council concerning the review of the qualifications of the 1014 registered candidates, which has been conducted based on their records and dossiers, he reiterated: "The law has made no mention of publicly stating the reasons as to why candidates have not obtained qualification."

Likewise, in regard to the reasons for not granting qualification to candidates who had obtained qualification in previous terms, the Guardian Council spokesman said: "The criterion for granting qualification is the current status of candidates and their record has influenced the decision-making process."

According to a report by ISNA [Iranian Student News Agency], in response to a question concerning the accuracy of the report related to the selection of the heads of supervisory boards of two townships from among the armed forces, Elham said: "The law does not forbid the presence of military forces in executive and supervisory areas." Regarding the fact as to whether there is the possibility of reconsidering the qualification of candidates, and should they commit a violation at this juncture, he said: "Usually this does not happen, but if the candidates' qualification is seriously compromised, according clause 58 of the election law the council can reconsider the qualification of candidates, but we hope that the need for this would not arise."

Further on in his remarks, in response to criticisms made concerning the way the Guardian Council announces the list of names of candidates who have gained qualification, the Guardian Council spokesman remarked: "The Guardian Council has the duty to announce the names of candidates who have gained qualification to the interior ministry and after this announcement by the council this ministry is obliged to inform the public of the names of candidates, on the basis of which the period determined for publicity officially begins."

Source: Iran website, Tehran, in Persian 29 May 05
BBC Mon ME1 MEPol lr
Copyright 2005 BBC Monitoring Service distributed by United Press International "

Iran Daily: First Vice President Aref greets the visiting Leader of Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim

2005-06-19T21:09:00.000-07:00

Iran Daily: "Unity Will Help Form Popular Iraqi Gov't

First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref (l) greets the visiting Leader of Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim in Tehran, June 15. (IRNA Photo)

TEHRAN, June 15--First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said on Tuesday religious authority and national unity will be effective in forming a popular government.
Aref made the remark during a meeting with the visiting Leader of Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, IRNA reported.
He said the Iraqi nation and government are able to handle their own affairs and achieve stability and independence. Aref added that security and stability of regional countries are inter-linked, adding that Iraq's stability will affect the whole region, including Iran.
"The two countries can cooperate in different fields such as economy, oil, railway and pilgrimage," he said, adding that the establishment of a joint commission would pave the way for assisting the Iraqi nation and promoting economic cooperation. For his part, Hakim appreciated the Islamic Republic's policies toward Iraq.
He hailed the massive turnout of Iraqis in election and also briefed Aref on Iraq's latest developments and problems, particularly in the fields of economy and reconstruction. Hakim said Iran enjoys cultural and religious privileges that other states are deprived of."

Iran Daily: Big Vote From the Minorities - Christians, Armenians, Nomads and Tribal Peoples and Sunni Vote in big numbers

2005-06-19T21:03:00.000-07:00

Iran Daily: "Rafsanjani, Moin Better Placed

Ahmadinejad Leading Rightist Vote
Heavy Turnout Belies Predictions
Second Round Imminent
Scenes of voting underway in Tehran on Friday (ISNA Photos)

TEHRAN, June 17--Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said on Friday a vote for any of the candidates of the ninth presidential election is a vote for the Islamic system, as widespread and heavy voting belied predictions that voter turnout will not exceed 50 percent.
Speaking to reporters after casting his vote at Imam Khomeini Mosque in northern Tehran, the leader said, "When we come to the polling stations to cast our votes according to the constitutions, it means that we are voting for the Islamic system."
The leader hoped that the next president would be able to solve the problems of the country and meet its requirements.
Referring to the mischievous moves of some western states to prevent Iranians from voting, Ayatollah Khamenei said such measures have nothing to do with the concept of Western democracy.
Preliminary reports of the voters' choice reveal that Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was the top choice for president and Mostafa Moin ranked second. Among the rightist candidates, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a better position compared to his rightist rivals.
In East Asia and in countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam, China, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, North Korea, South Korea and Japan, the following has been reported so far:
Moin tops the list with 575 votes while Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Ali Larijani, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen Mehralizadeh followed with 492, 117, 90, 73, 42 and 23 votes respectively.
Although voters in the tribal belt surprisingly showed their enthusiasm for Moin, the breakdown of votes in different cities is expected to be diverse.
And by all indications, the presidential election will most likely enter the second round for the first time in the history of the Islamic Republic.
Also on Friday, President Mohammad Khatami said after casting his vote that the negative propaganda of dissidents has had no impact on the people's wide presence in the election.
"The level of people's participation in election is satisfactory, despite the high volume of negative propaganda preceding the election," he said.
According to IRNA's correspondent at the Interior Ministry's Election Headquarters, President Khatami told Iranian and foreign reporters, "Those whose hearts beat for the grandeur and prosperity of Iran agree that the path toward grassroots democracy is lengthy and the process toward that end is gradual."
The president noted that in moving from a despotic, dependent society to an open, democratic one relying on religious and cultural norms, some people do not find the resulting developments to their liking and boycott the election, "which is their democratic right".
"I hope the dynamic presence of all eligible men and women voters in this election would ease the tough path toward institutionalizing democracy in this country, that is the fruit of the Islamic Revolution," he said.
Asked by a foreign reporter whether the outcome of this election would help promote democracy in Iran, Khatami said, "Elections are essentially the manifestations of democracy and I hope this one, too, would strengthen the foundations of democracy here."
He expressed hope that as in previous elections, the president would be elected during the first round of election.
Meanwhile, Zoroastrians of Yazd also joined hands with their compatriots to participate in the ballot exercise.
Khosrow Khosrawi told IRNA that voting is the duty of all citizens.
"Zoroastrians consider it to be their national duty to vote. We live in complete freedom in the Islamic system and we choose our president vigilantly," he said.
Esfandiyar Pirouzmand said, "It is our duty to participate in the vital undertaking. Voting is the indisputable duty of all Iranians who love their motherland."
Ardekan Electoral Headquarters designated a special ballot box for the comfort of Zoroastrians celebrating 'Nik Banou' (literally meaning Fine Lady) rituals at Chak Chak Temple. Some 10,000 people are participating in the five-day ritual that began on Tuesday.
About 6,000 Zoroastrians live in Yazd, Ardekan and Taft.
In another development, governor of Bandar-e Turkman said a large number of Sunnis showed up at polling stations in the early hours of Friday.
Members of the Armenian minority group turned out massively to cast their votes.
Christians throughout the country, along with their Muslim compatriots, took part in the election.
The Interior Ministry earlier announced 46,786,418 people are eligible to participate.
AFP reported that Iranians living abroad trickled to voting stations on Friday amid apathy, protests and calls by exile opposition groups to boycott Iran's presidential election.
An estimated 3 million Iranians live abroad, more than one-third of them in the United States and several hundred thousand in Europe."

Iran Daily: Israel Apologizes to US Over China Arms Sale

2005-06-19T20:57:00.000-07:00

Iran Daily: "Israel Apologizes to US Over China Arms Sale

BEIT-UL-MOQADDAS, June 19--Israel publicly apologized to the United States on Sunday over arms exports to China that have drawn criticism from Washington and strained US-Israeli security ties, Reuters reported.
"It is impossible to hide the crisis between Israel and the United States with regard to the security industries. We are doing everything possible to put it behind us," Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said on Israel Radio.
The dispute centers on Israel's sale of Harpy attack drones and other advanced technology to China that the Pentagon fears could tilt the balance of power and make it difficult to defend Taiwan, which Beijing deems a renegade province.
"If things were done that were not acceptable to the Americans then we are sorry but these things were done with the utmost innocence," Shalom said in comments that coincided with a visit by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
"The United States is our biggest ally and none of the things that were done with the intention of harming US interests," Shalom added.
The dispute has strained security ties between Israel and the United States, its main ally and provider of about $2 billion in annual defense aid, at a time when it seeks US assistance to help implement its planned withdrawal from Gaza.
Commenting on the arms dispute ahead of her trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories, Rice said Israel should be "sensitive" to US concerns on arms sales to China particularly given its close defense cooperation with Washington.
"We have had some very difficult discussions with the Israelis about this. I think they understand now the seriousness of the matter and we'll continue to have those discussions," Rice said.
An Israeli official is negotiating an agreement which would likely enable the United States to supervise Israeli arms sales to countries that Washington deems problematic, including China and India.
Washington torpedoed Israel's multi-billion dollar sale of Phalcon strategic airborne radar systems to China in 2000, citing concerns it could upset the regional balance of power.
US displeasure over the Harpy deal played a role in a decision in April to suspend Israel from involvement in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project."

Curt Weldon Book Warns of Iran (Curt Put Your Tinfoil Hat Back On The Aliens Are Controlling You)

2005-06-10T06:11:00.000-07:00

Lawmaker's Book Warns of Iran: "Lawmaker's Book Warns of Iran
Weldon Accuses CIA, Colleagues of Ignoring Secret Information

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 9, 2005; Page A08

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), whose flair for drama has included lugging around a replica of a suitcase-size nuclear bomb, alleges in a new book that Iran is hiding Osama bin Laden, is preparing terrorist attacks against the United States, has a crash program to build an atomic bomb and, as a Shiite country, is the chief sponsor of what is a largely Sunni-directed insurgency in Iraq.

In "Countdown to Terror: The Top-Secret Information that Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America . . . and How the CIA Has Ignored It," Weldon accuses the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and his colleagues on the House and Senate intelligence committees of ignoring his trove of information.

These secrets, he says, come from "an impeccable clandestine source," whom Weldon code-names "Ali," an Iranian exile living in Paris who is a close associate of Manucher Gorbanifar. Gorbanifar is a well-known Iranian exile whom the CIA branded as a fabricator during the 1980s but who was used by the Reagan White House as a middleman for the arms-for-hostages deal with Iran.

Switch Iran for Iraq, and Gorbanifar for Ahmed Chalabi -- an Iraqi exile whose claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were distrusted by the CIA but were embraced by the Defense Department and the White House -- and Weldon's book reads like the conservative argument for the invasion of Iraq.

Weldon, who has become a leading conservative voice on weapons of mass destruction and other defense issues, acknowledges this upfront, in a way: "The intelligence community may be avoiding Ali like the plague, despite his excellent intelligence, because they want to avoid, at all costs, drawing the United States into a war with Iran." But, of Ali's tip that Iran was planning a terrorist attack against a U.S. nuclear reactor that would destroy Boston, he says that "this alone is a reason for a military response, a legitimate casus belli."

The CIA and former intelligence officers vehemently dispute Weldon's charges.

"The CIA thoroughly pursued this issue and did so on more than one occasion," said CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise.

Other U.S. intelligence sources, who declined to speak on the record because, they said, Weldon is an influential member of Congress who might retaliate against the agency, said Ali is actually Fereidoun Mahdavi. His allegations and connections to Gorbanifar and Weldon were laid out in the April 1, 2005, issue of the American Prospect, a liberal magazine.

Weldon, who according to his book publicist was not available to give a comment yesterday, asserts in his book that the CIA first ignored Mahdavi and then threatened him.

Bill Murray, the former CIA station chief in Paris, said that, after interviewing Mahdavi on several occasions and investigating his claims, the CIA determined he was lying. Mahdavi never gave the CIA anything specific about Iran's weapons capability, terrorist activities or any of the other charges.

"He peddled the same stories to several other governments," Murray said. "He is a fabricator."

The CIA set up a clandestine channel of communications for Mahdavi, which he was supposed to use for talking with the agency and for sending information, said several former intelligence officials. He used it only twice, once to repeat vague information he had already supplied, and a second time to try to persuade the CIA to participate in his plot to overthrow the Iranian government.

"We tried to vet the information and never found anything that was credible," said Murray, who recently retired from the agency. He said he agreed to respond on the record because the allegations in Weldon's book are so absurd.

Mahdavi "wanted $150,000 to start," Murray said. "I gave him a cup of coffee. The American taxpayers work hard for their money. . . . I wasn't going to give him any of it."

Weldon's book is filled with "Dear Curt" memos from Mahdavi. One of his most urgent allegations is that terrorists were plotting to fly a hijacked Canadian airliner into the Seabrook Nuclear Reactor, which is four miles outside Boston. Weldon credits Mahdavi with thwarting the attack and points to the August 2003 arrest in Toronto of 19 men, most of whom were Pakistani and who were initially thought to make up a sleeper cell.

Within a month, however, the Toronto arrests were downgraded to a case of routine immigration fraud. Seven of the men remain in Canada and have applied for refugee status, arguing that the terrorist label they now have makes it impossible for them to return safely to Pakistan.

The chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees, as well as the House leadership, were briefed on the CIA's reports on Mahdavi, sources said. The lawmakers were not spurred to investigate the matter further.

A man who answered the phone yesterday at Mahdavi's residence in Paris said Mahdavi, 74, is very ill and could not respond to questions about Weldon's book."

Iran: Rice angry about Kharrazi's 'successful' Iraq visit - Irna

2005-06-03T11:07:00.000-07:00

Iran: Rice angry about Kharrazi's 'successful' Iraq visit - Irna: "Iran: Rice angry about Kharrazi's 'successful' Iraq visit Tehran, June 3, IRNA
9th Presidential Election-Rice
Iran reacted Friday to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's comments on IRI Presidential elections, arguing, "Ms. Rice is 'actually' angry about IRI foreign minister's successful visit of Iraq.

IRI Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Assefi added, "Rice feels belittled due to comparing IRI Minister of Foreign Affairs Kamal Kharrazi's successful visit with her own (almost simultaneous) visit of Iraq, that was ridiculed even in US media."
According to a Friday report by Information and Pres Bureau of the IRI Foreign Ministry, Assefi added, "Iran is, beyond doubt, not moving in line with the imposed plans drafted by the united States for the region, believing that the regional nations are politically mature enough to decide their own fates."
The comment was a response to US secretary of state's accusation that Tehran is not in line with US policies for the region Denouncing Rice's comments on Iran's Presidential Elections, Assefi said, "Her comments are not only undiplomatic since they are interference in Iran's domestic affairs, but also not to the point, due to her lack of knowledge about the way different organs have taken shape in Iran and their legal functions."
Foreign Ministry spokesman emphasized, "Vast participation of our people at upcoming presidential elections would be a resolute and to the point answer to US officials."
Rice had said in an interview that the United States' picture of the upcoming Iranian elections is bleak due to vast disqualification of hopefuls."

Gene Sharp's War Against Iran

2005-05-31T18:28:00.000-07:00

War by other means - The Boston Globe - Boston.com - Ideas - News: "War by other means
Boston's Gene Sharp learned how to turn nonviolence into a weapon - and helped quite literally change the world.
By Laura Secor | May 29, 2005

A CURIOUS THING started happening in the formerly Communist world in the year 2000. One after another, hated, repressive governments gave way to mass movements of nonviolent refusal. First there was Serbia, then Georgia, then Ukraine, and now Kyrgyzstan. It was as if a virus were spreading - one that led long abused populaces to wake up to their own power, which they could withhold from authorities to stunning effect.

But it wasn't a virus. Among other things, it was an 88-page booklet by a Boston scholar named Gene Sharp, which has circulated in local translation at the site of every one of these nonviolent democratic revolutions.

Called ''From Dictatorship to Democracy," Sharp's booklet lays out a theory of power that explains the mechanisms of dictatorship and their weaknesses. It also details the nuts and bolts of nonviolent resistance: which tools to use in order to undermine a regime's sources of power, how to sustain discipline in the face of violent response, and the crucial importance of entering such struggle as one would a military campaign, with a strategic plan. Tactics include demonstrations and posters, strikes and sit-ins, boycotts and campaigns of non-cooperation. Some of these techniques work to paralyze the society and thus convince rulers that they cannot govern without budging on the issues at stake - or that they cannot govern at all.

Sharp, now in his late 70s, has a gentle manner and an air of humility before a vast and complex world in which his ideas have attained powerful purchase. Since he began his work more than 50 years ago, he has essentially invented the study of nonviolent struggle. In 1983, he founded both a program on the subject at Harvard and the Albert Einstein Institution, which focuses, as he puts it, ''not on pacifism, not on any mahatma nonsense, but on pragmatic nonviolent struggle." His books - he has written some 13 of them, including the just-published ''Waging Nonviolent Struggle" - are written almost like textbooks. They betray no literary pretension; the language is clear but abstract, and they are designed to be read across cultures.

Even as Sharp's work reaches the height of its influence, the Albert Einstein Institution, which publishes educational materials, hosts workshops abroad at the request of foreign activists, and painstakingly manages and vets the translations of ''From Dictatorship to Democracy," has run out of funding and may be forced to close its doors in September. The staff has already been reduced from four to two employees, including Sharp.

I caught up with Sharp by telephone to his office last week.

IDEAS: How did you come to this subject?

SHARP: I grew into this topic in the very late 40s and early 50s. The Second World War was just over, and the Holocaust was new information. Stalin was still in Russia. There was European colonialism, racial discrimination in the United States, and the threat of war with nuclear weapons. And there had to be some better way. And so I began learning about nonviolent resistance. The literature was terrible, but the more I read the more I realized there was lots of substance here - and that we really didn't know much about it. And so bit by bit, I moved into the field, starting with a heavy study of Gandhi, not as a mahatma but as a political strategist. I grew increasingly interested in figuring out what made this kind of technique succeed or fail, and how it could be made more effective.

Later on I lived in Norway, where I met people who had taken part in the resistance during the Nazi occupation. One of the big insights I gleaned was that the pacifist position, which holds that you can just renounce violence, doesn't work. But if you don't have a realistic alternative, people will either capitulate in passive submission or they'll turn to the only kind of struggle they think is available, which is war and violence.

IDEAS: Which ideas did you modify as you witnessed history?

SHARP: At one stage I shared the view that it's necessary to have both the religious and the moral belief and the knowledge of the technique. And later on I realized that was not necessary at all. You could take only a political approach, only a pragmatic approach. And in many of the historical cases, that was indeed what happened.

IDEAS: Where have you seen your theories in action?

SHARP: We did some of them ourselves in very simple ways as undergraduates, at lunch counter sit-ins in Columbus, Ohio. I was in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania when their independence-minded governments were trying to exit the Soviet Union. I met with government leaders in all three countries, and they drew heavily on a book of mine that we then had the English page proofs of, called ''Civilian-Based Defense." I was also in Tiananmen Square with a friend of mine.

IDEAS: What do you think went wrong at Tiananmen?

SHARP: They had no plan, no strategy. It was more or less an accidental movement that then attracted great support. People kept flooding into the scene, and once they got there the people who had been leading it were sort of flooded out. Even after there'd been a decision to evacuate the square, new people decided to stay on because they hadn't had a chance to demonstrate yet. But they didn't have a plan.

People also really didn't understand the essential importance of withdrawing support from the system. We heard stories when we were there of civil servants within the government buildings throwing money out the windows for the resisters. But they didn't go on strike. And there were reports that some [soldiers] refused to shoot [demonstraters]. If that had happened on a large scale, it would've done it.

I was there that night. We'd just been to dinner and were walking back to the hotel across Tiananmen Square as the troops and the armored personnel carriers came in. We were inclined to sort of hide around the corner to look and see what was going on, but the local Chinese people scurried us out of there, and I guess that's why we're alive today. There was a lot of killing. It was really terrible.

IDEAS: How did ''From Dictator to Democracy" come into being?

SHARP: That booklet was originally written in 1983, at the request of a Burmese democratic exile who was living in Bangkok and editing an exile newsletter. It drew on previous work I had done, including on weaknesses of dictatorships and the nature of power.

The booklet was only written for the Burmese, but though I had been illegally in Burma two or three times in the area held by some of the resistance groups and ethnic minorities, I didn't really know Burma. You have to be very careful in writing about applying these theories to a country you don't really know. You can really mess people up.

IDEAS: The manual has been translated into Russian, Farsi, Chinese, Arabic, and other languages. Have you arranged these translations?

SHARP: They come as requests from activists within the countries. I didn't know at the beginning, but translations are dangerous. People may not really understand the phenomenon. They may not really know the equivalent terms in their own language, because the terms maybe don't exist.

IDEAS: I'm curious what you think about the potential use of training in this technique as a foreign policy tool by the US government.

SHARP: That's dangerous. What the government can do is provide money. And it doesn't.

IDEAS: The Albert Einstein Institution's president, Robert Helvey, led a workshop in Budapest for Serbian students prior to the ouster of Slobodan Milosevic. Where else have you held workshops?

SHARP: I did one about three years ago for Belarussians that had to be held in Vilnius, Lithuania. We did short-term things for Cuban exiles in Miami. It's been done for Venezuelans, and for Zimbabwe.

IDEAS: In your book there is a chapter on something you call political jujitsu, in which a regime uses violence against nonviolent resistance, and this backfires, creating deeper and more widespread defiance.

SHARP: When I was starting out this study the belief was, oh, this is fine for the Indians, they're all Hindus, they all believe in reincarnation so it doesn't make any difference if they get killed. Literally! But if you look at the Russian 1905 revolution, it's the same thing.

Political jujitsu will not work if the people get scared, if they don't know what to do, or if they don't understand that it's necessary to hold their ground and risk some danger. Guerilla warfare has huge civilian casualty rates. Huge. And yet Che Guevara didn't abandon guerilla warfare because people were getting killed. The same is true in conventional war, of course. But then they say if you get killed in nonviolent struggle, then nonviolent struggle has failed. Some people don't understand what they're doing and they say oh, we have to go over to violence.

IDEAS: Of course, nonviolent movements don't necessarily produce democracies. The Iranian revolution of 1979 was by and large nonviolent.

SHARP: Yes, but they didn't plan for the transition, and so various people who had their own ideas of what the new regime should be took over. Now we have this other booklet on the anti-coup, or how to block seizures of power and executive usurpations. That time after a successful nonviolent struggle is very dangerous.

Our work has had major influence in Iran, except that it hasn't got a movement quite succeeding yet. ''From Dictatorship to Democracy" is in Farsi on our website. The translation was all done inside Iran. That's dangerous, and people were gutsy enough to do it. But the booklet has been declared illegal to circulate in Iran. Still, the knowledge is there, and it fits into Persian history, like in the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 and then more recently in the struggle against the shah.

IDEAS: Is there any new insight that has jumped out at you from this recent spate of nonviolent dissolutions of governments?

SHARP: I think what is new is the recognition that this technique can be learned, and that knowledge about it can be shared to make the attempt to use it more frequent and more successful. And I think that's one reason this particular booklet keeps spreading.

Laura Secor is a writer living in New York."

COVER-UP - Col. David Phillips Excuses Human Rights Abuses in MEK Enclave

2005-05-31T08:31:00.000-07:00

Iran Focus-News - Special Wire - US commander in MeK enclave clears Iran group of abuse: "US commander in MeK enclave clears Iran group of abuse Mon. 30 May 2005

Washington, DC, May 30 - A United States Army colonel in charge of security for the enclave of the main Iranian opposition group in Iraq in 2004 joined a chorus of criticism directed at New York-based Human Rights Watch from academics, human rights activists, Parliamentarians, and Iranian exiles for its recent report that alleged the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK) abused some of its members.

Col. David Phillips commanded the 89th U.S. Military Police Brigade, which was tasked with guarding the MeK’s main base, Camp Ashraf, northeast of Baghdad, from January until December 2004. Phillips wrote in a letter to Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth that during that time he was given “numerous reports of torture, concealed weapons and people being held against their will by the leadership of the Mujahedin e-Khalq”.

“I directed my subordinate units to investigate each allegation. In many cases I personally led inspection teams on unannounced visits to the MeK/PMOI facilities where the alleged abuses were reported to occur. At no time over the 12 month period did we ever discover any credible evidence supporting the allegations raised in your recent report”, he wrote.

Phillips was reacting to a 28-page paper by Human Rights Watch which alleged that the MeK tortured its “dissident members” who criticised or sought to leave the organisation.

While stating that he would neither have tolerated such abuses outlined in the HRW report, nor would have sanctioned any acts on the part of the MeK to hold people against their will, Phillips said, “Each report of torture, kidnapping and psychological deprivation turned out to be unsubstantiated”.

Phillips noted that the MeK notified his brigade on a routine basis of people who desired to leave the organisation, transporting such individual to their gate. “At your request, I can explain in detail specific allegations and the subsequent investigation by my units. To my knowledge, as the senior officer responsible for safeguarding and securing Camp Ashraf throughout 2004, there was never a single substantiated incident as outlined in your report”, he said.

The colonel, now back in the United States and serving at Fort Hood, Texas, said in his letter that he was very familiar with the MeK leadership and personally knew many of the personnel in Camp Ashraf.

“I’ve visited male and female units on a routine basis. Sometimes these visits were announced, but most frequently they were unannounced inspections. My subordinate units would randomly select billets, headquarters, warehouses and bunkers for no-notice inspections. Not one time did they discover any improper conduct on the part of the MeK/PMOI. Also, the MeK/PMOI never denied entry to any of their facilities”, he added.

Phillips said that he believed that the May 18 report by Human Rights Watch was based on unsubstantiated information from individuals without firsthand knowledge or for reasons of person gain, adding that he had very extensive first hand knowledge of the MeK and the operations at Camp Ashraf and that his comments were based on a full year of on-location experience.

He went on to say that he had had one-on-one private conversations with individual members and discussions with large groups of the MeK, and at no time did any member, ranging from young male and females to the very senior leadership, ever report any of the type conduct outlined in the report.

Noting the dangerous situation in Iraq throughout 2004, Phillips said that in his opinion, Camp Ashraf was the safest place within his area of responsibility, adding that there was not one incident or combat injury to his forces there.

“I personally felt safe even when surrounded in a room by hundreds of Mujahedin. We always had open dialog and debated difficult subjects”, he said.

“I was exceptionally impressed with the dedication of the female units. These units were professional and displayed strong support for freedom, democracy and equality for women. The dedication of these female members was inspirational”, Phillips said.

“I never discovered a single incident where a female or male was held in the organisation against their will. I observed a total freedom of choice on the part of the members to either remain or depart from the MeK/PMOI”."

Xinhua - English

2005-05-31T08:26:00.000-07:00

Xinhua - English: "Iran boosts Islam to counteract US

www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-31 14:00:53
BEIJING, May 31 -- An Iranian newspaper says President Seyyed Mohammed Khatemi is working to boost Islam to counteract US advocated democracy in the Middle East.

Iran's Keihan newspaper reported Monday that Khatemi proposed in a Sunday speech that Middle East nations should protect democracy, liberty and development by adopting widely recognized political systems in the Middle East and that any reliance on external power should be discarded.

His proposal is an obvious objection to US President George W. Bush, who put forward the Democracy in the Middle East plan last year with an aim to spread democracy and capitalism in the region."

Musharraf�s statement on Iran at US' behest: MMA: South Asia : Hindustan Times.com

2005-05-31T07:43:00.000-07:00

Musharraf�s statement on Iran at US' behest: MMA: South Asia : Hindustan Times.com: "Musharraf’s statement on Iran at US' behest: MMA

ANI

Islamabad, May 31, 2005|15:02 IST

Advertisement

The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a conglomerate of religious parties in Pakistan, has said that President Pervez Musharraf’s recent statement regarding Iran’s nuclear programme could damage relations with the neighbouring country.

MMA president Qazi Hussain Ahmed said that Musharraf made this statement simply to please the US and its ally Israel. He described Musharraf’s statement as baseless.

"Iran has successfully defended its nuclear programme, but Musharraf’s statements would create problems for both Iran and Pakistan," The News quoted the Qazi as saying.

In a recent interview with a German weekly, Musharraf had admitted that Iran was nurturing ambitions of acquiring a nuclear bomb.

The Qazi said that the President was trying to become a witness against the brotherly Islamic state for supporting `Uncle Sam’.

The MMA also accused Musharraf of working at the behest of the US when he defamed and detained the country’s hero Dr AQ Khan, who is widely known as Pakistan’s father of nuclear technology."

Daily Times - Attack on Iran will have dire consequences: Musharraf

2005-05-27T17:43:00.000-07:00

Daily Times - Site Edition: "Saturday, May 28, 2005

Attack on Iran will have dire consequences: Musharraf

* Musharraf vows to eradicate terrorism and militancy

ISLAMABAD: President Pervez Musharraf has said pre-emptive military strikes against Iran would have dire consequences for the world.

In an interview with a German weekly, he advised against opening a new front, saying a pre-emptive military strike against Iran would result in massive devastation and unrest among Muslims.

He said Pakistan was opposed to nuclear proliferation and that it developed nuclear arms to counter an Indian threat. He said the situation was different in Iran’s case and that Israel and Iran did not have common borders. “Unlike Iran, we were facing a real threat,” he added.

President Musharraf said Iran was certainly desirous of developing nuclear weapons but said it should not do so.

Meanwhile, President General Pervez Musharraf vowed on Friday to eradicate terrorism and militancy, saying terrorists were tarnishing the country’s image. He told officials after inaugurating Pakistan Steel Mills Gate, “In the presence of the Pakistan Army, the entity of any Lashkhar or Jaish will not be tolerated.” He said the government was committed to stamping out militancy and terrorism and terrorists would not be allowed to play their dirty game in the country any more.

The president condemned the Bari Imam suicide bomb attack and said he was trying to remove misperceptions about the country, but such attacks continued to tarnish Pakistan’s image abroad.

Earlier, President Musharraf said the government had worked out a three-pronged strategy to control the spread of poverty, joblessness and increasing prices. The president said steps were underway to increase the rural population’s income and also to create job opportunities in urban areas. He added that the price hike was also being checked.

President Musharrafsaid the government’s strategy in rural areas had been highly successful. He said that cotton yield of 15 million bales and wheat yield of 22 million tons had generated Rs 60 billion, adding that motorcycles’ sale had increased 500 percent in rural areas. agencies."

Reuters.co.uk: WTO agrees entry talks with Iran, U.S. drops veto

2005-05-26T11:27:00.000-07:00

World News Article | Reuters.co.uk: "WTO agrees entry talks with Iran, U.S. drops veto
Thu May 26, 2005 6:17 PM BST

WTO Begins Talks With Iran
By Richard Waddington

GENEVA (Reuters) - The World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreed on Thursday to start membership negotiations with Iran after the United States dropped a long-standing veto.

The U.S. decision appeared to be the first tangible reward for Iran after it agreed on Wednesday to maintain its suspension of all nuclear activities in a deal with the European Union.

Mohammad Reza Alborzi, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, welcomed the breakthrough at WTO's General Council, whose 148 member states take decisions by consensus.

"I take note that a decision that has long been overdue has been now established," Alborzi said in remarks to the closed-door meeting.

Iran applied to join the WTO in September 1996 and its candidacy was first considered in May 2001. But Washington had blocked agreement ever since at 22 General Council meetings.

"Today this house with this decision has done service to itself by correcting a wrong," Alborzi said in his statement, which was given to journalists.

Iran's Commerce Minister Mohammad Shariatmadari told state radio: "Naturally, we are at the beginning of a long road."

Carlo Trojan, the EU's trade ambassador, welcomed the decision as "positive news". Joseph Akerman, a trade envoy from member Israel, said if Iran fulfils the basic principles of the WTO, "then they are welcome like any other country".

Linnet Deily, U.S. ambassador to the WTO, did not take the floor at the WTO talks, according to diplomats.

Amina Mohamed, Kenya's ambassador who chairs the General Council, told a news conference: "Universal membership is our goal and this brings us one step closer to it."

POLICY SHIFT

The United States accuses Tehran of wanting to build nuclear weapons and of supporting terrorism. Iran denies the charges.

But in a policy shift in March designed to bolster EU-Tehran negotiations, the United States offered Iran economic incentives to abandon its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons, including letting WTO accession talks start.

But that U.S. commitment was put at risk when Iran recently declared its intent to resume sensitive nuclear activities. An imminent crisis was averted on Wednesday when the so-called "EU3" -- Britain, France and Germany -- agreed with Iran on a two-month breathing space for a deal.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani told Iranian state television that the EU deal could still unravel if the Tehran government objected to the terms.

Iran has repeatedly said there are no incentives the West can offer that would persuade it to give up a nuclear programme it insists will only produce electricity, and not weapons.

But the green light to talks from the WTO, which sets the rules for world trade, does not mean that Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, will be joining soon.

Accession talks can take years, with Russia still negotiating its entry after a decade of discussions.

In all, 30 countries including Iran and Sao Tome and Principe, whose request was also approved on Thursday, are now in or about to start negotiations on terms of WTO accession. These include Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer.

Iran would have to accept much more openness in its trading system and would face tough questions about the subsidised energy supplies enjoyed by its domestic producers, experts say.

Syria, which applied in 2001, has yet to have its request taken up formally by the global trade watchdog amid continuing U.S. opposition, trade sources said."

Syria severs military cooperation with U.S. - NYT - Yahoo! News

2005-05-24T07:18:00.000-07:00

Syria severs military cooperation with U.S. - NYT - Yahoo! News: "Syria severs military cooperation with U.S. - NYT Tue May 24,12:14 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Syria has severed military and intelligence cooperation with the United States, its ambassador to Washington told The New York Times in an interview published on its Web site on Monday.

The ambassador, Imad Moustapha, told the newspaper in an interview given last Friday at the Syrian Embassy in Washington, that his country had, in the last 10 days, "severed all links" with the U.S. military and Central Intelligence Agency because of what he called unjust American allegations.

Moustapha said he believed the Bush administration had decided "to escalate the situation with Syria" despite steps the Syrians have taken against insurgents in Iraq, and despite the recent withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, in response to international demands.

"We thought, why should we continue to cooperate?" he said.

The comments were in response to Bush administration complaints that Syria was not doing enough to halt the flow of men and money to the insurgency in Iraq.

Moustapha said his government had done all it could to respond to American complaints, including taking steps to build barriers and add to border patrols.

Relations between Syria and the United States have been strained for months, and some Bush administration officials said Syria's level of cooperation had been dwindling even before the latest move to halt cooperation.

Bush administration officials said Syria's stance has prompted intense debate at high levels in the administration about new steps that might be taken against the Syrian government, The Times reported.

The officials said options included possible military, diplomatic or economic action. But senior Pentagon and military officials cautioned Monday that if any military action was ordered, it was likely to be limited, the report said.

"There's a lot of discussion about what to do about Syria and what a problem it is," the administration official, who works for an agency involved in the debate, told The Times."

Officers Plot Exit Strategy - Army Not Prepared To Invade Iran

2005-05-22T15:26:00.000-07:00

Officers Plot Exit Strategy - Yahoo! News: "Officers Plot Exit Strategy By Mark Mazzetti Times Staff Writer
Sun May 22, 7:55 AM ET

KILLEEN, Texas — Army Capts. Dave Fulton and Geoff Heiple spent 12 months dodging roadside bombs and rounding up insurgents along Baghdad's "highway of death" — the six miles of pavement linking downtown Baghdad to the capital city's airport. Two weeks after returning stateside to Ft. Hood, they ventured to a spartan conference room at the local Howard Johnson to find out about changing careers.

Lured by a headhunting firm that places young military officers in private-sector jobs, the pair, both 26, expected anonymity in the crowded room.

Instead, as Fulton and Heiple sipped Budweisers pulled from Styrofoam coolers next to the door, they spotted nearly a dozen familiar faces from their cavalry battalion, which had just ended a yearlong combat tour in Iraq.

The shocks of recognition came as they exchanged quick, awkward glances with others from their unit, each man clearly surprised to see someone else considering a life outside the military.

"This is a real eye-opener," said Fulton, a West Point graduate who saw a handful of cadets from his class. "It seems like everyone in the room is either from my squad or from my class."

More than three years after the Sept. 11 attacks spawned an era of unprecedented strain on the all-volunteer military, it is scenes like this that keep the Army's senior generals awake at night. With thousands of soldiers currently on their second combat deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan and some preparing for their third this fall, evidence is mounting that an exodus of young Army officers may be looming on the horizon.

It is especially troubling for Pentagon officials that the Army's pool of young captains, which forms the backbone of infantry and armored units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, could be the hardest hit.

Last year, Army lieutenants and captains left the service at an annual rate of 8.7% — the highest since 2001. Pentagon officials say they expect the attrition rate to improve slightly this year. Yet interviews with several dozen military officers revealed an undercurrent of discontent within the Army's young officer corps that the Pentagon's statistics do not yet capture.

Young captains in the Army are looking ahead to repeated combat tours, years away from their families and a global war that their commanders tell them could last for decades. Like other college grads in their mid-20s, they are making decisions about what to do with their lives.

And many officers, who until recently had planned to pursue careers in the military, are deciding that it's a future they can't sign up for.

The officers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan just wrapped up a year of grueling counterinsurgency operations — a type of combat the U.S. largely avoided after its struggle in Vietnam and that many in the Pentagon believe is the new face of war. They were in Iraq during last spring's uprisings in Fallouja and Najaf, June's transfer of power to an interim Iraqi government and block-to-block fighting during the retaking of Fallouja in November.

These officers have, in most cases, more counterinsurgency experience than any of their superiors. And they are the people the Army most fears losing.

The officers interviewed for this article are proud of what they accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they are generally optimistic that the two nations can eventually emerge as functioning, if unstable, democracies.

Those just returning from Iraq ended their combat tours on a positive note with successful parliamentary elections in January, which had been the singular focus of their deployment.

Yet their pride is tempered by uncertainty about what lies ahead in an unconventional war in which victory may never be declared.

"The undefined goals of the war on terror are making it really hard for the Army to keep people right now," Fulton said.

By the time they make captain, young officers are usually approaching the end of their four- or five-year commitment. Army spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty said the attrition rate for junior officers was not yet alarming, and the Army had several initiatives in place to help retain those deciding whether to make a career out of the military.

The Pentagon hopes that by next year, a significant troop reduction in Iraq will allow the Army to slow the pace of troop deployments, giving soldiers two years at home for every year in battle.

Yet Pentagon officials admit it is uncertain that this can happen by 2006.

"I still don't know if we can make it," said a senior Army officer at the Pentagon. "You tell me what Iraq is going to look like next year."

Meanwhile, the Army is dispatching combat units to Iraq and Afghanistan after soldiers have had just one year at home, a pace that is taking a toll around the country.

Timothy Muchmore, a civilian Army official at the Pentagon and a retired tank officer, said he was worried about an exodus of young officers. He summed up the problem this way:

"You take a junior officer, you send them overseas for a year. They win a lot of medals, and they're a hero. But when you send them back a second time, the odds go up that they won't make it home alive and it becomes even harder on their family. Are they any more of a hero for having served a second time? No.

"The guys returning from Iraq and Afghanistan believe they have done at least the minimum for the security of their country, and they are proud of their service," he said. "But the world is now their oyster."

Private-sector pitch

Inside the overheated conference room at the Howard Johnson in Killeen, Fulton and Heiple listened to a well-rehearsed pitch about what the world might have to offer.

At the front of the room, Andrew Hollitt, a beefy, gregarious former Army officer turned headhunter spoke in marketing terms about how eager private-sector employers were for young, combat-tested officers and senior noncommissioned officers.

"You are a commodity that brings a tremendous amount to the table," he told the packed room, sipping from a can of Budweiser. "I can sell something that I believe in. And it's people like you."

The Lucas Group was not trying to persuade them to leave the Army, Hollitt said, only to present them with another set of options.

"I am red, white and blue on the inside," the recruiter assured the capacity crowd.

In a telephone interview after the recruiting session, Hollitt said he had yet to see the same volume of young soldiers contact the Lucas Group as he did during the late 1990s, when the military drawdown forced the Pentagon to slash its numbers and push young officers out of the service.

At the same time, he said, the pace of Army deployments was clearly having an effect — and that the quality of those leaving was very high. "I am seeing the highest caliber of candidates now that I have seen in five years of doing this," he said. "The companies we work with are absolutely, unbelievably impressed."

Employers such as General Electric Co., Home Depot Inc. and others are always on the lookout for managerial talent, Hollitt said, and mid-level commanders tested in war are considered experienced leaders.

By the time they make captain, he said, the officers usually have command experience leading an infantry or armor company, which forces them to make life-and-death decisions on a daily basis.

After the session was over, Heiple and Fulton were wary about what they had just heard. And it was not that the average starting salaries of $50,000 to $70,000 were much more than they had earned in Iraq when combat pay and bonuses were included.

Instead, one of their biggest concerns about working in the civilian world was that it was "cheesier" and less serious than what they currently do for a living.

"I kind of worry that the corporate world is a lot like 'Office Space,' " said Heiple, referring to the 1999 movie that parodied American office park culture.

Combat experience

The 1st Cavalry Division was considered for the assault on Baghdad in 2003 but ended up staying stateside as commanders in Washington and the Middle East decided to pare down the invasion force.

When the division was notified that it would be heading to Iraq in 2004, a year after the fall of Baghdad, the 1st Cav's officers thought they had missed out on the action.

"I thought we were going to be the third string of the JV," Heiple said.

Far from being over, the war in Iraq had entered its bloodiest stage, and Heiple and Fulton's battalion was in charge of patrolling Baghdad's restive Al Rashid district. Their unit had the Sisyphean task of trying to secure Baghdad's airport highway, the road many in the battalion called the "shooting gallery" because of the constant attacks against U.S. troops.

Over time and through grim experience, they learned the brutal rules that govern counterinsurgency warfare.

They point with a certain amount of pride to a January incident that occurred soon after the battalion's most respected and indispensable Iraqi interpreter, Ethar, was assassinated.

Ethar had been lured to an insurgent safe house by another Iraqi interpreter who had been paid off by insurgents. There, Ethar was brutally beaten and shot in the head. Soldiers found his body while on patrol.

News of the death hit the battalion hard, and they planned their revenge. Acting on information from an Iraqi source, the battalion hit multiple targets around west Baghdad in a single night, which some of the battalion's officers only half-jokingly called "the night of justice."

"We took down the whole cell" in a night, Fulton recalled, capturing or killing all the insurgents on their target list.

"It was personal, and it felt really good," he added.

Heiple, a native of Jonestown, Pa., said he would not have traded for anything the experience of leading troops in combat or of earning the 1st Cavalry's trademark Stetson hat and gold spurs — given to cavalry soldiers when they have served in a combat zone.

Yet, with these achievements behind him, the Notre Dame graduate said he was looking for a life with more stability. Heiple decided while he was in Iraq that he would leave the Army when his commitment expires next month. He plans to move with his girlfriend to Austin, where he hopes to attend law school at the University of Texas.

Heiple's decision to leave the Army did not come suddenly. At 26, he felt his window of opportunity to change careers was closing. The more he thought about it, the more convinced he became that he wanted to follow a different path.

"I can only wait so long," Heiple said.

Fulton spent eight years of his youth in the Congo, where his father worked as a bush pilot. His family relocated to Haiti in 1990 and spent three years there before they were evacuated before U.S. troops landed on the island in 1994.

Fulton then moved to Redlands, Calif. When he was in high school there, the military piqued his interest and he visited an Army recruiting station. His test scores led one recruiter to suggest that he instead apply to West Point. During his senior year, the late Rep. Sonny Bono (R-Palm Springs) nominated Fulton for his military commission to the armed forces academy in New York state.

Fulton returned from Iraq in March and went on a cruise to Mexico with his wife during his 30-day leave. His wife, Fulton said, wants him to leave the military more than anything.

In June, the two will move with their 3-year-old son to Ft. Knox, Ky., where Fulton will begin a six-month course on commanding armored units.

He will still have a year left of his Army commitment when the course is completed, yet Fulton admits that given the Army's current pace of deployments, he is leaning toward leaving the service.

"If West Point didn't have a five-year commitment," he said, "I'd probably be pursuing something else right now. I know my wife would like me to choose something else immediately."

Careers in the balance

A college graduate with an Army ROTC scholarship usually owes four years of active duty to the military, along with a period in the Army Reserves or National Guard. A West Point graduate owes five.

Army officials know that if they are able to persuade captains to remain in uniform a few years past their initial commitment, the odds are good they will eventually commit to a full 20-year military career.

But in the words of one Army captain, a West Point graduate who spent 10 months in Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004 and plans to leave the Army next year: "A lot of guys making their decision at the five-year mark are not making their decision for [just] the next three years. They are making their decision about whether to make a career out of the military.

"The guys in my age group are looking ahead and deciding that's not a life they want to live."

Mid-level officers around the country are confronting the same choice. The 1-34 armor battalion of the 1st Infantry Division returned last year to Ft. Riley, Kan., after a year in Iraq's so-called Sunni Triangle, the region of heaviest conflict. The battalion is expecting to return to Iraq later this year, and many young officers are choosing to get out before then.

Capt. Eric Emerling, the battalion's fire support officer, is one of three captains who decided to leave after returning from Iraq. Emerling said he initially looked forward to a career in the Army. When he returned, his superiors offered him command of an artillery battery, a milestone promotion for a career officer.

But he and his wife decided in January that they did not want to commit to a future of "repeated deployments for the next 13 years."

"What tipped the scale is that I have a 2-year-old daughter. I want more stability for her," Emerling said by telephone, his little girl in the background competing for her father's attention. "I missed the first half of her life. I'm not willing to do that again."

The 27-year-old captain is moving to Connecticut, where he has a job with a landscaping company. He said he was concerned about the Army's future, with many of the military's young leaders planning their exits.

"I see how many people are getting out here at my local unit level. It's a bit of a worry," he said. "We lost a lot of lieutenants and captains."

Life outside the zone

Heiple and Fulton live in an apartment complex in Georgetown, Texas, an Austin suburb 30 miles south of Ft. Hood's main gate. When searching for housing after they returned from Iraq, they specifically sought apartments some distance from the base.

Killeen, with its infrastructure catering to thousands of soldiers and their families, provides constant reminders of military life. But in Georgetown, a soldier walking the streets in desert camouflage is a rarity.

The young officers are coming to the end of their post-deployment "reintegration" period — several weeks of administrative briefings and counseling sessions before they are allowed to leave post for 30 days to visit friends and family.

With their feet propped up on a coffee table piled high with newspapers, DVD cases and back issues of the Economist, Heiple and Fulton watch "Matrix Revolutions" on the recently purchased 50-inch flat screen television in the living room of their neighbor — Capt. Vincent Tuohey, another member of their battalion just back from Iraq.

With distractions such as basketball, bars and new electronic equipment, there is plenty for the young officers to focus on besides their time in Iraq, or on the steady stream of violent news out of the country.

Said Heiple: "You don't purposefully avoid the news. But you don't go out of your way to find it, either."

Tuohey, a Harvard graduate from Annapolis, Md., who earned a master's degree from Cambridge University in Britain, served the last year as an executive officer for a cavalry unit in west Baghdad.

Like all of the soldiers of the 1st Cavalry Division who just returned to Ft. Hood, Tuohey is readjusting to life outside a combat zone.

He is edgy sitting in traffic, having taught himself in Iraq to maneuver his Bradley fighting vehicle to avoid city traffic and the inevitable insurgent attacks. The first time he got into a car when he returned to Ft. Hood, his heart began racing and he broke out in a sweat.

Tuohey was a lieutenant during his deployment in Iraq and is proud that most of the decision-making for counterinsurgency missions fell to the Army's youngest officers.

"At no time before has the Army had LTs [lieutenants] who have made decisions like that on a daily basis," he said.

As he sees it, the military now has an entire generation of young officers who are battle-hardened and knowledgeable about battling insurgencies.

Even in Iraq, he said, senior commanders were keenly aware of those officers who might be considering leaving the military and applied various degrees of pressure to persuade them to remain in uniform.

They appeal to the sense of mission, Tuohey said, and the sense of purpose of military life that doesn't exist in the outside world. And they usually bring up an example of a friend who left the Army only to regret the decision.

Yet Tuohey, who was promoted to captain upon returning to Ft. Hood, said he was not sure whether he would stay in the Army when his commitment ended next year. He said he was tempted to work on Wall Street.

It's not the money he's after. It's the fact that an Army that was gutted after the Cold War was promising him a future of perpetual deployments fighting a war that could last for decades.

That is not a future he is sure he can commit to.

"What's the end point?" he asked. "When do you declare victory?""

BELLACIAO - Israel Plans Strike on Iran (brought to you by the makers of �Strike on Iraq�) - Collective Bellaciao

2005-05-19T21:19:00.000-07:00

BELLACIAO - Israel Plans Strike on Iran (brought to you by the makers of �Strike on Iraq�) - Collective Bellaciao: "Israel Plans Strike on Iran (brought to you by the makers of ’Strike on Iraq’)

Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant Uzi Mahnaimi
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme.

The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave “initial authorisation” for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert.

Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.

The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel’s way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed.

Tehran claims that its programme is designed for peaceful purposes but Israeli and American intelligence officials - who have met to share information in recent weeks - are convinced that it is intended to produce nuclear weapons.

The Israeli government responded cautiously yesterday to an announcement by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, that America would support Britain, France and Germany in offering economic incentives for Tehran to abandon its programme.

In return, the European countries promised to back Washington in referring Iran to the United Nations security council if the latest round of talks fails to secure agreement.

Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister, said he believed that diplomacy was the only way to deal with the issue. But he warned: “The idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us but for the whole world.”

Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, emphasised on Friday that Iran would face “stronger action” if it failed to respond. But yesterday Iran rejected the initiative, which provides for entry to the World Trade Organisation and a supply of spare parts for airliners if it co-operates.

“No pressure, bribe or threat can make Iran give up its legitimate right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes,” said an Iranian spokesman.

US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations.

Additional reporting: Tony Allen-Mills, Washington

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...

by : Uzi Mahnaimi
Sunday 15th May 2005"

Over our dead bodies!: Iran's Chalabi

2005-05-18T10:09:00.000-07:00

Over our dead bodies!: Iran's Chalabi: "Iran's Chalabi
1- Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea for people like Mr. Ledeen, whom still promote interference in Iranian affairs, to assess Mr. Sazgara's popularity among young Iranians before and after he came to the U.S to "seek help".

A good start would be to surf among Iranian blogs, have the posts translated to english, and count the pejorative words!

2- For my english speaking journalist friends who don't read Farsi and consequently cannot accurately decode the reactions among Iranian bloggers, I would like to add that Mr. Sazgara, despite all his past services to the reform mouvement and his often courageous stands (which made him popular among many students), has now been dubbed as Iran's Chalabi!
It is so unfortunate... "

ABC News: U.S. Sanctions Bill Hides Support for Terorism - Ros-Lehtinen Tied To Terrorists

2005-05-16T19:48:00.000-07:00

ABC News: Support for U.S. Sanctions for Iran Grows: "Support for U.S. Sanctions for Iran GrowsSupport for New U.S. Sanctions Against Iran Quietly Building in Congress
By KEN GUGGENHEIM Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON May 16, 2005 — As Iran appears to move closer to resuming nuclear activities, support has been quietly building in Congress for new U.S. sanctions, including penalties that could affect multinational companies and this country's foreign aid recipients.

The legislation would put the United States on a more confrontational course than the one pursued by President Bush. He has supported European efforts to offer Iran incentives in exchange for abandoning its nuclear program.

More than 200 members of the House of Representatives nearly half the body are co-sponsoring a bill that would tighten and codify existing sanctions, bar subsidiaries of U.S. companies from doing business in Iran and cut foreign aid to countries that have businesses investing in Iran.

Podcast: The AfterNote
Reid Says Showdown Imminent in Senate
The Note: A Man Soon Forgets That He Trod on a Lion's Tail . . .

More lawmakers both Republicans and Democrats are adding their names to the bill every week.

The measure faces big hurdles before becoming law, however. Support may not be as strong in the Senate, which is considering a more limited version. Key lawmakers in both chambers could block the legislation. The White House has not taken a position, but it generally opposes congressional efforts to steer foreign policy.

"We will have the perennial and traditional battle with the executive branch as to who can have a say on foreign policy initiatives," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., the House bill's main sponsor.

But momentum would likely build if Iran carries out its threat to resume some nuclear activities and its talks break down with Britain, France and Germany, which are negotiating on behalf of the European Union, or EU.

In Tehran, Iranian lawmakers instructed the government Sunday to develop a nuclear fuel cycle, which would include resuming the process of enriching uranium, which could be used in developing atomic weapons.

The legislation is expected to get a boost when one of the most influential lobbying groups, the American Israel Political Action Committee, holds its annual meeting in Washington this month. AIPAC has made the bill a high priority."

Iran Formally declares the U.S. "Not An Enemy"

2005-05-14T09:30:00.000-07:00

Iran Ruling Frees Man Jailed for Poll on U.S.: "May 14, 2005 latimes.com : World E-mail story Print Most E-Mailed

THE WORLD
Iran Ruling Frees Man Jailed for Poll on U.S.
From Reuters
TEHRAN — Iran has freed a leading political prisoner jailed for publishing a survey indicating that Iranians favored resuming dialogue with their supposed archfoe the United States, his lawyer said Friday.

Abbas Abdi was sentenced in 2003 to 4 1/2 years in prison for "selling intelligence to the enemy," referring to the poll, which found that three-quarters of Iranians wanted their country to have a dialogue with the U.S.

ADVERTISEMENT

But Iran's Supreme Court ruled last week that the United States was not officially defined as an enemy, and Abdi was released after 30 months in prison.

"This is an unprecedented ruling, because five senior judges, including a cleric, suggest the United States is not an enemy," said Abdi's lawyer, Saleh Nikbakht.

Abdi was one of the student leaders who took dozens of U.S. diplomats hostage at their Tehran embassy in 1979 and held them for 444 days. Like many of the former hostage-takers, Abdi became a reformist advocating warmer ties with the West.

Washington severed relations with Iran in 1980 as a result of the hostage crisis, and any suggestion of talks with the U.S. is highly sensitive."

Iran News - Iran producing its first locally-built submarine

2005-05-12T18:23:00.000-07:00

Iran News - Iran producing its first locally-built submarine: "Iran producing its first locally-built submarine

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - ©2005 IranMania.com
LONDON, May 12 (IranMania) - Iran has begun producing its first locally-built submarine, state media reported Wednesday, saying the vessel was designed to remain undetected and fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously.

The craft will boost Iran's inventory of submarines patrolling Gulf waters that according to foreign military experts includes up to six Russian-built SSK or SSI Kilo class diesel submarines, Iran Daily reported.

The defence ministry said the new submarine is called the Ghadir -- a religious holiday to mark the day Shiite Muslims believe the prophet Mohammad annointed Imam Ali as his successor.

The vessel, a prototype of which is undergoing tests, is designed for rapid deployment, said the ministry, which gave no further details."

The Observer | International | Iran ready to ignore US nuclear countdown

2005-04-30T19:43:00.000-07:00

The Observer | International | Iran ready to ignore US nuclear countdown: "Iran ready to ignore US nuclear countdown

Paul Kenyon penetrates the Islamic republic's most secret installations as weapons inspectors grow wary and America presses the UN for action
Sunday May 1, 2005
The Observer
Across a landscape scattered with snow, we drove along silent roads, past pitted fields, until the first gun tower came into view. A whole line of them followed the contours of the mountainside. What they're defending lies beneath, a warren of rooms and tunnels the size of eight football pitches. It's home to Iran's most sensitive nuclear facility, Natanz.
Iran says it is part of a peaceful nuclear energy programme, but it has been built underground in case of air attacks. The Iranians' worries are not far fetched.

In the minibus, the United Nations' nuclear inspectors swap stories of Iran's reaction to their presence. 'Whatever we do, they're behind us trying to record our movements and it's disturbing,' says one of the most senior inspectors, Chris Charlier. 'It's all part of the game.'

Charlier is a Belgian nuclear scientist who has travelled the world inspecting nuclear installations for the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], a nuclear arm of the UN. His conclusion on Iran is this: 'I believe they've tried to conceal their programme and their activities. And may be there are other things they're doing that we couldn't find. And that's why we're getting suspicious.'

The UN's suspicions about Iran went into overdrive 18 months ago. The Iranian Vice President, Reza Agazadeh, had just told the IAEA: 'Complete transparency of my country's nuclear activities is a serious commitment.' Then an Iranian opposition group operating outside the country tipped off the inspectors about Natanz, and other nuclear activities Iran had chosen not to declare.

Shortly afterwards, the inspectors asked for access to a nondescript warehouse in Tehran called The Kalaye Electric Company. At its heart were the highly-engineered centrifuges required to make nuclear fuel. The problem is, once a country has mastered enriching uranium for energy, it's not far off developing weapons grade uranium if it chooses. Which is why the UN inspectors wanted to test for nuclear particles. 'When they opened the door,' says Charlier, 'everything had been changed. There were new tiles to the roof, everything was brand new. It was still smelling of paint.'

More dramatic still was Lavizan, a suspected nuclear site on the outskirts of Tehran. It took two months for the inspectors to get access. When they arrived, the buildings, the equipment had gone. The satellite 'before and after' shot shows gleaming silver buildings being replaced by a triangle of rough brown earth.

Charlier is frank about what this pattern of behaviour means: 'The way they've been postponing, and trying to gain time, is suspicious. I don't think the IAEA has any facts to support the idea that they have a nuclear weapons programme, but the way that Iran has behaved in all those smaller issues has made the agency suspicious.'

The Americans are less cautious. 'There's no question that Iran is embarked on a project to acquire nuclear weapons,' says the assistant secretary of state for arms control, Stephen Rademaker. As in Iraq, there's no smoking gun but the circumstantial evidence leaves the US snorting in disbelief at anyone who doesn't share their conclusion.

Iran is unabashed by its apparent deceit. Its man at the IAEA is Syirous Naseri, a charismatic sharp-suited nuclear negotiator with an alligator grin, who appraised his handling of the American diplomats thus: 'If we talk to each other for five minutes we will have a fight.'

Naseri's position is that everything the inspectors have found is for nuclear energy. 'What we have is the right, an inalienable right to produce nuclear energy, not just to use but to produce nuclear energy,' he said.

He's right. Under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, each member state is supposed to share its peaceful nuclear technology with the rest. In theory that means that advanced countries, such as America, should be assisting the rest, Iran for example. The US sanctions imposed since the Islamic revolution, along with the West's traditional distrust of Iran, have put paid to that. Iran says that's why it has been so secretive. It went to the black market, built a multi-million pound nuclear programme and decided not to declare significant parts of it because, essentially, it knew everyone would be suspicious if it did. Simple. Nothing to worry about.

America doesn't buy it. It wants Iran referred to the UN Security Council as soon as possible. All that is preventing that from happening are the three European countries who believe there's still mileage in diplomacy. The UK, France and Germany have been in meetings with Naseri and his men for six months. The last round of talks was in London on Friday night. They persuaded the Iranians to temporarily suspend their nuclear enrichment programme.

But the Americans and Israelis are becoming impatient. There's a worry that these protracted negotiations with the Europeans are simply handing time to the Iranians to build a bomb. They have the centrifuges required - those they say are for making nuclear fuel - and they have the missile to launch them. So how long have we got before Iran goes nuclear? 'This issue is hotly debated among intelligent experts. We think it's measured in years, but not many years,' says Rademaker. Naseri is dismissive: 'Who are the Americans to say what we want to have, what we have, and what we should want? All they have done is made every effort that they could to deny us technology.'

With Iran determined to resume its nuclear enrichment programme and America equally determined that such a resumption will send it to the UN Security Council, this crisis seems certain not to be resolved by diplomacy alone.

· Paul Kenyon's documentary, 'Iran's Nuclear Secrets', is on BBC2 on Tuesday at 9pm."

Jerusalem Post - Iran to resume uranium enrichment

2005-04-30T15:29:00.000-07:00

Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World: "Iran to resume uranium enrichment
By ASSOCIATED PRESS

Iran said Saturday it is likely to resume uranium enrichment-related activities, a process it halted last year to build confidence in negotiations with European countries and avoid UN Security Council referral for possible sanctions.

Tehran's announcement came a day after talks in London with European negotiators yielded no results.

France, Britain and Germany, acting on behalf of the 25-nation European Union, are seeking guarantees Iran will not use its nuclear program to make weapons, as Washington suspects.

Top Iranian nuclear negotiator Hasan Rowhani was quoted as saying Tehran expects to restart enrichment activities - injecting uranium gas into centrifuges - at its uranium conversion facility in Isfahan.

"It's unlikely that uranium enrichment ... which takes place in Natanz, will be resumed, but it's likely that some activities at Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility will restart next week," IRNA quoted Rowhani as saying.

The central cities of Natanz and Isfahan house the heart of Iran's nuclear program. The Isfahan conversion facility reprocesses uranium ore concentrate into gas, which is then taken to Natanz and fed into the centrifuges for enrichment.

In Vienna, a senior diplomat close to the International Atomic Energy Agency said the U.N. nuclear watchdog had not been informed as of Saturday afternoon of Tehran's intention. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

The Europeans want Iran to permanently abandon enrichment, a process that can produce nuclear reactor fuel and, taken to a higher level, material for bombs. In return, Iran is being offered economic aid, technical support and backing for Iran's efforts to join mainstream international organizations.

Washington last month agreed to support the EU effort, but signaled Iran should quickly accept or face harsh UN Security Council sanctions. Iran insists its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and for generating electricity.

Iran says its November decision to suspend uranium enrichment-related activities was voluntary, temporary and not permanent, claiming it has a right to perform such activities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The Islamic republic has also warned that the talks with the Europeans would collapse if they don't yield results soon. Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi warned Thursday that "we will have no choice but to restart the uranium enrichment program."

Rowhani called the London talks "perhaps the last opportunity" for an agreement and acknowledged Iran and the Europeans had failed to achieve a compromise.

"The Europeans still insist on having more time to review the details of the plan (presented by Iran)," IRNA quoted him as saying.

Rowhani said Iran may also reveal details of its plan that provides legal, political and technical guarantees that its nuclear fuel activities will remain peaceful. Restarting some nuclear activities does not mean Iran will end negotiations with the Europeans, he added.

"Iran will continue talks and will keep its contacts with Europe," he said. US efforts to refer Iran to the Security Council were "meaningless," he added without elaborating.

Hossein Shariatmadari, a senior hard-liner and a close associate of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, urged his government to immediately pull out of the talks and resume all nuclear activities.

"From now on, giving an opportunity to the Europeans is waste of time and it will seriously damage the prestige of Islamic Iran," Shariatmadari said in an editorial in his hard-line newspaper Kayhan. "The prestige of our establishment requires ending the talks and resuming uranium enrichment."

On Friday, a senior British Foreign Office official said both sides had agreed to reflect on what they had discussed in the latest round and that talks would continue.

Meanwhile, two top German magazines reported a German company is under suspicion of selling weapons technology to Iran for use in its Shahab, or Shooting Star, medium-range missile program. The missile can carry a nuclear warhead and reach Israel and various US military bases in the Middle East.

Der Spiegel said the firm is suspected of delivering rocket-building technology to Iran as far back as 2002. Focus weekly magazine identified the company as Tira and said its deliveries were intercepted by the intelligence agents of an ally in late 2004 in the Mideast emirate of Dubai."

deseretnews.com | Iranian Americans wary of neocons' heavy-handed ways

2005-04-28T15:17:00.000-07:00

deseretnews.com | Iranian Americans wary of neocons' heavy-handed ways: "Iranian Americans wary of neocons' heavy-handed ways
By Jeet Heer and Laura Rozen
Los Angeles Times

With President Bush elected to a second term and the neoconservative architects of the Iraq war firmly in the driver's seat of U.S. foreign policy, Iranian Americans are contemplating a stark choice similar to that faced by Iraqi Americans a few years ago — whether they want to work with Washington to liberate their home country.
Although almost all Iranian Americans want to see democracy flourish in their native land, there are intense and divisive debates on how to achieve this goal and what a future Iranian government should look like. These debates are certain to grow only more intense in the coming months, as Iran's accelerating nuclear program vaults it to the top of the U.S. foreign policy agenda.
The activities of Michael Ledeen, one of the most prominent of the Washington neoconservatives advocating that the United States back a plan to overthrow the mullahs, illustrate some of the complexities of modern-day regime change.
Trained as a historian and now the "Freedom Scholar" at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor of the National Review, Ledeen first came to public prominence during the Reagan administration. While serving as a consultant to national security adviser Robert C. McFarlane, he became entangled in the arms-for-hostages trade that became part of the Iran-Contra scandal. It was Ledeen who brought the U.S. government into contact with the Parisian-based Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, who claimed he would be able to win the release of U.S. hostages held in Lebanon by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in exchange for U.S. weapons.
In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Ledeen has resumed contact with Ghorbanifar, as he has set about gathering information to lobby the Bush administration, private constituencies and public opinion to back a plan to destabilize the Iranian regime and support dissident forces. In a December 2001 meeting in Rome, first reported in Newsday, Ledeen introduced Ghorbanifar to two Pentagon officials interested in discussing the regime change idea.
In June 2003, one of those Pentagon officials, Harold Rhode, went to meet Ghorbanifar in Paris for further discussions — a meeting the Pentagon originally said was the result of a chance encounter.
On April 21, 2003, in the final days of the major combat operations in Iraq, Ledeen traveled to Los Angeles, where he spoke to a group of about 200 Iranian exiles. The event was organized by the owner of a Los Angeles-based Persian radio station, said to be sympathetic to the monarchists (the people surrounding the late shah's son, Reza Pahlavi, who lives in a Washington suburb).
"The Iranian diaspora is one of the richest diasporas in history," Ledeen told the audience, according to a tape recording of the event. "So as you contemplate the future of Iran, think first about how to organize the Iranian community and diaspora to raise money for Iranians in Iran to stage democratic revolution that we all know can succeed."
The private money, Ledeen explained, would jump-start a campaign of civil disobedience by providing financial support for the families of Iranian opposition and dissident leaders, enabling them to step up their campaign of resistance against the Iranian regime. Once the U.S. government saw the mass demonstrations, Ledeen said, it could then be persuaded to seriously back a regime change initiative.
"I think you can buy yourself a free Iran now for $20 million," Ledeen added. He also advised the audience on tactics to increase their lobbying influence in Washington.
Some Iranian Americans in the audience were dismayed by Ledeen's talk of the ease with which the oppressive Iranian regime that had driven most of them from their homeland could be overthrown. "It was insulting to every person sitting in that room," said one Iranian American journalist in attendance, who asked that his name not be used. "If it's such an easy thing to overthrow a government, then why have the Iranian millionaires not done it themselves?"
Among Iranian Americans, there's both a fascination and a wariness about neoconservatives such as Ledeen — as well as considerable uncertainty about what, if any, role the diaspora itself should play in any democratic revolution in Iran.
"I believe the future of Iran is in the hands of the Iranian people," the Iranian American journalist said. "The young people who have been sacrificing their lives, and their families."
The Ledeen initiative shows the contradiction of the neoconservative worldview: While seeking to liberate and empower the peoples of the Middle East it also makes them pawns in a historical drama in which they have little voice. The execution of this sort of radical foreign policy vision has often run roughshod over the details, as the aftermath in Iraq has shown.
No one is advocating a U.S. invasion of Iran at the moment, although clandestine support to Iranian opposition groups is on the table. For Iranian Americans, the present question is whether their home country should become a sequel to Iraq or if there is a way to democratize Iran without Washington's heavy hand.

Jeet Heer, who is based in Toronto, frequently writes for the Boston Globe and the National Post. Laura Rozen reports on foreign affairs and national security issues from Washington, D.C."

WorldNetDaily: Lunatic Scaremongering About Iran

2005-04-25T22:24:00.000-07:00

WorldNetDaily: Iran's imminent threat: "
Iran's imminent threat

Posted: April 25, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The news that Iran has successfully tested missiles capable of detonating nuclear weapons at high altitude – thus creating a devastating electromagnetic pulse attack that could cripple the United States – should be a wakeup call to all Americans.

It's one thing to face one Pearl Harbor sneak attack in the course of a war. It will be another to face two.

Unless President Bush gets serious about homeland security by securing the borders and preparing the nation's infrastructure against an EMP attack, there's little point in continuing the charade of screening airline passengers for cigarette lighters.

Our national security priorities are a sad joke.

We're running out of time.

We've been pretending too long that America is not really vulnerable. We're been pretending for too long that we can fight the war against evil Islamist totalitarianism on offense alone. We've been pretending we've made strides in securing the homeland since Sept. 11.

The truth is we've learned nothing since 9-11.

Iran will soon have the capability to even the playing field with the United States – reducing us to a second- or third-rate power with one primitive, but well-placed nuclear weapon.

That's the message of the scientists and experts who have been studying the threat posed by an EMP attack.

This is not a new threat. The Soviets studied their EMP options more than 20 years ago. But the Soviets understood there would be a big price to pay by exploding a nuclear weapon high above America and wiping out electronics and communications.

The enemy we face today believes it has a religious duty to destroy America. They see an opportunity like this like a ticket to paradise. Iran is not the only threat, but it probably represents the gravest – and the newest.

We need to be prepared to defend ourselves. That means government action to secure our vital infrastructure. And it means ordinary Americans making modest preparations, too, for such a calamity.

American's greatest strength – high technology – could easily become its greatest weakness.

It can be our Achilles' heel.

Put yourself in the place of the terrorist who hates America. What would you do?

Would you try to enter this country legally to destroy it? Or would you prefer to enter the country undetected through one of two borders that are left virtually unguarded?

If you had just one nuclear weapon, would you detonate in a major American city? Or would you detonate it over the country and send Americans back to a 19th-century lifestyle?

We're squandering billions and billions of dollars on homeland defense measures that only strip Americans of their liberties without making them one bit safer.

It's time to reverse course.

It's time to empower Americans in the fight against our enemies. It's time to enlist them in this fight. It's time to give them some leadership and marching orders. It's time to be honest with them. It's time to explain the vulnerabilities and correct them. It's time to recruit Americans to prepare for the inevitable battle here at home.

Jerome Corsi, author of "Atomic Iran," said it best when he learned of Iran's EMP threat: "Up until now, I believed the nuclear threat to the United States from Iran was limited to the ability of terrorists to penetrate the borders or port security to deliver a device to a major city. While that threat should continue to be a grave concern for every American, these tests by Iran demonstrate just how devious the fanatical mullahs in Tehran are. We are facing a clever and unscrupulous adversary in Iran that could bring America to its knees.""

Iran News - US should reassure Syria and Iran on Iraq: Clark

2005-04-25T22:17:00.000-07:00

Iran News - US should reassure Syria and Iran on Iraq: Clark: "US should reassure Syria and Iran on Iraq: Clark

Friday, April 08, 2005 - ©2005 IranMania.com
LONDON, April 8 (IranMania) - The key to US success in Iraq is to reassure Syria and Iran about Washington's intentions rather than trying to destabilize them, a former Democratic presidential candidate said.

According to AFP, American retired general Wesley Clark said President George W. Bush's approach to Syria and Iran encourages the two countries to work against US interests in Iraq and endangers already-overstretched US troops there.

"If you want to succeed in Iraq, you should isolate the battlefield. That's a basic rule of military strategy," Clark, who ran unsuccessfully for president last year and has taken a leading role among Democrats as a critic

of US policy in the Middle East, told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee.

Former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle adamantly rejected the idea of reassuring Iran and Syria, saying the two countries support terrorism and fear US success in Iraq because it threatens their governments.

"That's the last thing we should be doing," he said. "We will get no help from countries whose interests are diametrically opposed to our own."

Bush has hammered Iran on its support for terrorist groups and its nuclear ambitions, and pushed Syria's Baath party regime to withdraw from Lebanon. Administration officials also have criticized both countries for aiding insurgents in Iraq.

"Syria as well as Iran has a long history of supporting terrorist groups determined to sow division and chaos in the Middle East. And there's every possibility they will try this strategy again," Bush said last month.

"The time has come for Syria and Iran to stop using murder as a tool of policy and to end all support for terrorism."

Clark told lawmakers he also was concerned the administration's rhetoric would lead to the collapse of Syria's regime, saying Washington is unprepared to handle that possibility.

"We're going to destabilize at a greater rate than we can stabilize," he said. "I think this committee should be holding hearings right now on what the United States should do if Syria collapses, because that's clearly the policy.""

Iran's Khatami Says Army Ready to Repel Strikes

2005-04-18T11:41:00.001-07:00

International news from swissinfo, the Swiss news platform: "April 18, 2005 2:35 PM

Iran's Khatami Says Army Ready to Repel Strikes

By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mohammad Khatami said MondayIran had the military might to deter attacks against theIslamic state, which is under Western pressure over its nuclearprogram.

"Iran's armed forces are fully prepared to defend theIslamic republic," Khatami said in a speech at the annual ArmyDay parade.

"Iran is ready to pay any price but not yield to anyaggression and oppression," he said as army units marched past.

The United States and Israel accuse Iran of developingatomic weapons and have vowed to stop Tehran acquiring them.

But U.S. officials have played down media speculation theywere planning military action and Israeli Prime Minister lastweek said his country was not planning a military strike toprevent Iran from getting the bomb.

Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are limited to peacefulelectricity generation.

Khatami took the salute as thousands of army, navy and airforce troops passed the flower-covered stand at the shrine ofthe Islamic republic's late founder Ayatollah RuhollahKhomeini.

Dozens of U.S. and Russian-made warplanes, as well ashelicopters, flew over the shrine to demonstrate the country'scombat capabilities.

War veterans in wheelchairs carried portraits of Iraniancommanders killed in the 1980-88 war against Iraq.

"We are proud of our armed forces, especially the army,"Khatami said.

The parade included locally-made Zelzal and Nazeatmissiles, battle tanks and amphibious armored personnelcarriers, but Iran's medium-range Shahab-3 missile was not puton show.

Last October, Iran announced successful trials of itsShahab-3 ballistic missile with a range of 1,250 miles, puttingparts of Europe, as well as Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf,within reach.

Khatami also hit out at Washington's desire to promotedemocracy around the world, saying it couldn't be imposed onsovereign states.

"The world is faced by a worrisome situation with theexcuse of promoting democracy," he said. "Iran is anindependent country. It will never yield to expansionism."

Washington broke ties shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamicrevolution when radical students stormed the U.S. embassy inTehran and held 52 hostages for 444 days.

Reuters"

Iran's Khatami Says Army Ready to Repel Strikes

2005-04-18T11:41:00.000-07:00

Haaretz - Israel News - Sharon: "Iran is sensitive to pressure"

2005-04-18T07:02:00.000-07:00

Haaretz - Israel News - U.S. sending envoys to work on strengthening PA s Abbas: "U.S. sending envoys to work on strengthening PA's Abbas

By Aluf Benn

U.S. envoys will be arriving in Israel and the Palestinian Authority this week for a first-hand look at Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' political situation and to examine ways to help strengthen his rule in light of the increasing difficulties he faces.

Advertisement

The envoys - Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, and David Walsh, head of the Middle East department in the State Department - will meet with Abbas and with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. They'll be wanting to hear from Sharon what exactly he is ready to do to help Abbas.

Sharon delivered a dire picture of Abbas during Sharon's meeting with U.S. President George Bush during their Texas meeting this week, describing Abbas as a major disappointment. He was severely critical of Abbas' approach to politically coopt armed Palestinian organizations rather than clash with them militarily. Sharon argued that Abbas' approach strengthens the terror groups instead of dismantling them. Sharon described Abbas as positive, but as a failure when it comes to dealing with political and organizational problems.

Bush told Sharon that Abbas is the elected president of the Palestinian Authority and must be helped. He asked Israel to do what it can to strengthen Abbas. According to sources in Sharon's entourage, the American message was, "Show that Israel is doing everything it can and more to help him. Israel cannot be seen as being the reason for his collapse, if it happens."

The Sharon-Bush conversation did not include specific steps that Israel will undertake for Abbas but Sharon promised to examine what was possible within the limits imposed by security concerns. It was agreed that the details would be worked out during the visit by the two envoys, who did not get to see Abbas during their last visit because he was at the Arab summit in Algiers.

Bush spoke at length with Sharon about the importance of democraticization in the Arab world and said it was a necessary precondition for security, stability, prosperity and preventing terror. "Only a democratic country wants a good life for its citizenry, and thus turns into a building block of stability," said the president. Making the Middle East democratic, he said, "is a most important strategic move for a more secure future."

Sharon responded with a rare comment by him on regional efforts to promote democracy. "I have no doubt that if the Arab world around us were truly democratic, Israel would be able to take much greater risks than it can now," said Sharon.

The premier finished his visit to the U.S. yesterday with a round of interviews to the American media and is due home this afternoon.

On Tuesday he met with Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense who will be moving to the World Bank in the summer. They discussed the development prospects for Gaza after the disengagement.

Sharon kept up pressure for the Palestinians to coordinate with Israel on the disengagement, telling the the American press that if there is coordination, Israel will leave the buildings of Gush Katif standing, "but if there is no coordination, we will have to destroy the houses because we won't want to see the looting and destruction the Palestinians will do after we leave."

During his visit to Washington, Sharon told the media that Israel is not considering attacking Iran. In an interview yesterday with the Fox network, Sharon said that he keeps hearing reports that Israel is planning to attack Iran. "But we're not even thinking about it," he said. Sharon added that it is not Israel's responsibility to find a solution to the Iranian nuclear problem, which affects the entire world. During the visit, Sharon had presented Bush with the latest Israeli intelligence assessments of Iran's nuclear weapons program, and called on Bush to step up the diplomatic efforts to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb.

A source in Sharon's entourage said that Iran is sensitive to pressure, "and it is still possible to influence it."

Sharon's aides said predawn that Israel is not initiating or leading an offensive against Iran, but that Israel and the U.S. are partners in the struggle against its nuclear threat, Israel Radio reported.

The prime minister's aides said "there is very little time" and called to bring the issue up at the UN Security Council.

Bush, however, was reportedly unmoved by Sharon's account as much of the information presented to him was not new."

Iran urges action over threats to Aqsa Mosque - Irna

2005-04-17T14:57:00.000-07:00

Iran urges action over threats to Aqsa Mosque - Irna: "Iran urges action over threats to Aqsa Mosque Tehran, April 17, IRNA
Aqsa-Israel-Iran
Iran called Sunday for 'immediate reaction' by Islamic countries to Israeli threats to the al-Aqsa Mosque, calling a planned march of the Zionist extremists to the holy site as a 'premeditated scenario'.

Up to 175 MPs sent a letter to President Mohammad Khatami, urging action over the Zionist regime's plots regarding the al-Aqsa Mosque.

"The occupiers of the noble al-Qods, in an organized plot, are determined to harm al-Qods and even demolish it; for the first time, they have reached a degree of insolence where the head of the occupying regime has been calling for ownership to half of al-Qods in order to build a temple for the Zionists," they said in a part of the letter.

"Herewith, the signatories are calling for an active action of the government, Foreign Ministry and Your Excellency to confront this evil plot targeting the Islamic world," they added.

The MPs also proposed that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) hold an urgent meeting at the head of the state level in order 'condemn Israeli crimes and explore ways to confront' the latest plot.

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi also called for 'immediate reaction' of the Islamic countries to the perceived threats to the al-Aqsa Mosque.

"The Islamic countries must double their vigilance under the existing situation to thwart Israeli conspiracies," he said during a meeting with a group of Islamic ambassadors here.

Kharrazi called a planned mobilization of 10,000 Zionist extremists for march to the Noble Sanctuary a 'premeditated scenario and a political game in order portray (Israel's hardline Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon a man seeking peace'.

Extremist Zionists who make up a new group called 'Revava,' a Jewish word for 10,000, have stated openly that their goal is to storm the sensitive site in July.

Revava has said it will march to the site which it calls Temple Mount with some 10,000 members, aimed at 'reclaiming the holy site from its Muslim custodians'.

Israeli President Moshe Katsav has lent weight to the Zionist extremists' bid, calling to allow them to pray at the holy site.

Palestinian resistance groups have warned that violence would explode across the Middle East if the group tried to descend on the disputed area.

They say any extremist Zionist rally around the mosque would be tantamount to a declaration of war which would destroy an informal truce which has held since January.

Up to 10,000 Palestinians formed a mass human shield at the al-Aqsa Mosque against any possible threat to the site by Israeli extremists.

Noble Sanctuary or the Haram al-Sharif in Arabic, is the third holiest site in Islam, housing the Dome of the Rock as well as the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The esplanade houses the spot where Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) ascended to heaven. "

Xinhua - Iran raps US deadline on Iran-EU nuclear talks

2005-04-17T10:54:00.000-07:00

Xinhua - English: "Iran raps US deadline on Iran-EU nuclear talks

www.chinaview.cn 2005-04-17 23:29:37

TEHRAN, April 17 (Xinhuanet) -- Iran lashed out Sunday at a reported US deadline of next summer set for the ongoing nuclear talks between Iran and the European Union (EU)."The Americans had better look on the negotiations in their right positi on and watch the negotiators of the two sides do their jobs by themselves," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi told reporters at his weekly news briefing.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was quoted as saying on April 14 that Washington would only wait and see the bilateral nuclear negotiations going on until next summer."I don't want to put a timeline on it, but I think we probably want to make an assessment this summer and see where we are and see how far we've gone," Rice was quoted.

Rejecting the deadline, Asefi said Iran also opposes any prolongation of the talks and is trying to come to a quick conclusion.

"Tehran will not let the Europeans waste any time, and I hope that the new round of talks next Tuesday will yield a conclusion,"Asefi said.

The United States accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons covertly and supports a referral of Iran's case to the United Nations Security Council.

However, Washington has softened its stance recently and showed willingness to support EU's diplomatic efforts.

Iran, rejecting the US accusation as "politically motivated",has held five rounds of nuclear talks with the EU since itsuspended its highly sensitive uranium enrichment activities in November 2004 to "build confidence".

The ongoing negotiations have been stalled with uncompromisingstances of both sides.

The EU insists Iran should halt all its work on building nuclear fuel cycles, while Tehran claims it will never give up its legitimate rights to nuclear technology. Enditem"

Israel not in a positon to threaten Iran: Tehran

2005-04-17T06:54:00.000-07:00

Israel not in a positon to threaten Iran: Tehran: "Israel not in a positon to threaten Iran: Tehran
Tehran, Apr 17: Iran today rejected calls by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for a international coalition against Tehran, saying Israel was not in a position to threaten it.

"Comments by officials of the Zionist regime are not worth an answer," Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. "The Zionist regime is not eligible to express any ideas since it is the source of tension, crisis and trouble in the region."

He said Israel's actions show that the Jewish state is opposed to peace and security in the region and is instead intent on destroying regional trust.

Last week, Sharon said Israel would not mount a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and called instead for an international coalition to deal with it.

Sharon alleged that Iran was only months away from solving technical problems toward building a nuclear weapon. He said Tehran should be prevented from acquiring such arms.

Israel, an arch foe of Iran, has its own arsenal thought to include about 200 warheads deployed on ballistic missiles, aircraft and submarines, according to the Carnegie endowment for international peace. Israeli officials do not comment on the country's nuclear weapons potential.

The United States and Israel suspect Iran of using its once-covert nuclear programme to produce weapons and want it shut down.

Bureau Report"

WorldNetDaily: U.S., Israel preparing for Iran war?

2005-03-26T05:28:00.000-08:00

WorldNetDaily: U.S., Israel preparing for Iran war?: " U.S., Israel preparing for Iran war?

Posted: March 26, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's note: Jerome Corsi's sizzling new book "Atomic Iran," which was released this week, exposes how the terrorist regime bought the bomb ... and American politicians. For a limited time, you can order "Atomic Iran" from WND's online store for a steep discount – below Amazon's price!
Corsi's book had phenomenal pre-sales, with over 150,000 copies ordered weeks before its official release. The hot-selling book is already in its second printing.

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Beginning on March 10, units of the U.S. Army's European Command stationed in Germany have been in Israel to conduct joint exercises with the Israeli Defense Forces designed to test their combined ability to down an attack of Shahab-3 missiles launched from Iran against Israel.

Code-named "Juniper Cobra," these exercises test the linking of U.S. Patriot missile systems with Israel's Arrow-2 missile-defense systems. The Arrow-2 system is designed to intercept incoming missiles at high altitudes to reduce the fallout damage from nuclear warheads. The Patriot systems are a second line of defense, designed to intercept missiles at lower altitudes. Also involved in the exercises is a U.S. missile ship carrying Aegis anti-missile systems.

U.S. military authorities deny that the exercises have anything to do with the current tensions over Iran's apparently determined drive to develop nuclear weapons secretly. Still, the scenario being tested involves missiles launched against Israel from a "red" whose identity is supposed "unknown," even though the aggressors just happen to speak Farsi. The last Juniper Cobra operation was reportedly conducted in 2001, just before the start of the war in Iraq against Saddam Hussein.

The point of this combined exercise has not gone unnoticed in Tehran. Iran retaliated by announcing this week that tests of the Shahab-3 missile conducted in September of last year proved they had made breakthroughs in the development of the intermediate-range missile. The mullahs stressed that the September test fulfilled all technical expectations, proving fast and accurate at a range of 1,700 kilometers, more than enough to reach Tel Aviv.

In other words, the mullahs want to be sure we all know they have an improved version, a weapon maybe more sophisticated than Operation Juniper Cobra is testing against.

This Operation Juniper Cobra is not expected to end until mid-April. Put this together with what appears to be a convergence of U.S. carrier battle groups in the region, and the preparations for war are hard to miss.

No wonder we have had a barrage of war denials in recent days from President Bush, as well as Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon of Israel and Tony Blair of the UK. With U.S. military bases now surrounding Iran and approximately 150,000 seasoned U.S. Marines and Army forces in the region, speaking softly hardly conceals the reality of the big stick.

How credible could the mullahs pledge not to develop weapons be when almost every day another lie comes to light? This week there are new charges that Iran is still enriching uranium at a secret underground facility in the Parchin military complex outside Tehran.

Maybe President Bush has just decided to play the mullahs' own game. The president sounds very reasonable when he insists he prefers a diplomatic solution – a little too reasonable to be completely consistent with his second inaugural address or his State of the Union speech.

Terrorists like to talk to buy time, but this president is cagey, too. As the dance drags on, the internal dissent within Iran has a chance to grow, especially if senators like Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Representatives like Steve King, R-Iowa, succeed in building a congressional consensus that reaches in solidarity across to the opposition groups within Iran. Is it possible that we could see a protest in the streets of Tehran like the ones we just witnessed in Beirut?

Stalled talks can't last forever. What happens if the mullahs refuse to take active steps to destroy their centrifuge farms and dismantle their heavy-water facilities? Well, there is always the military option. That option is very obviously left on the table, even if the president doesn't talk about it very much."

Kansas City Star | 03/26/2005 | Iran Prepares to Face Threat of US Agression

2005-03-26T05:24:00.000-08:00

Kansas City Star | 03/26/2005 | Arms-buying spree by Iran worries U.S.: "Posted on Sat, Mar. 26, 2005

Arms-buying spree by Iran worries U.S.
Will weapons be smuggled into Iraq?
VIENNA, Austria — Iran is stockpiling thousands of high-tech small arms and other military equipment — from armor-piercing snipers' rifles to night-vision goggles — through legal weapons deals and a U.N. anti-drug program.

The program is outlined in an internal U.N. document and was described by arms dealers and Western diplomats.

The buying spree is raising Bush administration fears that the arms could end up with militants in Iraq. Tehran is also seeking approval for a U.N.-funded satellite network that Iran says it needs to fight drug smugglers, stoking U.S. worries that it could be used to spy on Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan — or any U.S. reconnaissance in Iran itself.

The United States has a strict embargo on most trade with Iran, which it accuses of supporting terrorist organizations and trying to build nuclear arms.

It has also imposed sanctions on dozens of companies worldwide over the past decade for supplying Tehran with equipment that could be used for nuclear or conventional warfare.

Much of the military hardware has been hard to hide.

Sales of tanks and anti-ship missiles by Belarus and China or helicopters and artillery pieces from Russia have been well documented by U.S. authorities and international nongovernment agencies.

Other weapons are smuggled and may be revealed only by chance — such as the consignment of 12 nuclear-capable cruise missiles delivered by Ukrainian arms dealers to Iran four years ago but divulged by Ukrainian opposition officials only recently.

The smaller weapons and related material Iran is amassing are of U.S. concern because of their origin — through U.N.-funded programs or technically advanced Western countries — and because they could harm U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan or ultimately Iran, which President Bush has not ruled out as a military target.

Iran says it needs the satellite network, high-tech small arms, night-vision goggles, body armor and advanced communications gear to fight drug smugglers pouring in from Afghanistan.

— The Associated Press"

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not Cowardly Like President Bush

2005-03-21T08:29:00.000-08:00

I would give my life to Iran if under attack- Khamenei -: "I would give my life to Iran if under attack- Khamenei
3/21/2005 8:00:00 PM GMT

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said he would give his life for his country.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Monday he was ready to give his life in battle if his country were attacked, accusing Washington of seeking any excuse to start a war.

Recently, both the United States and Israel have raised the issue of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, refusing to rule out air strikes to hinder what they claim to be Tehran's pursuit of atomic weapons.

Khamenei stressed he would remain in the public eye if war came, unlike U.S. officials whom he accused of fleeing for cover after the September 11 attacks.

"If this nation is tested by a bitter experience, I will wear battle fatigues and will be ready to sacrifice myself at the head of the nation," he told pilgrims in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.

"After September 11, there was no news of U.S. President George Bush and his deputies for two or three days. They went into hiding. I am not like that," he added in the speech broadcast on state television.

Although now mainly familiar in his clerical clothing, during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war when Khamenei was president, he was regularly seen in fatigues on his trips to the front line.

France, Britain and Germany have offered Iran economic incentives if it abandons work on its nuclear fuel cycle, activities that could give Iran the ability to produce highly enriched uranium fuel or plutonium for bombs.

"It is a fiction that Iran is making an atom bomb, it is not true," Khamenei said. "It is an excuse. If not this, Americans will find another excuse for conspiring against Iran, such as terrorism or human rights."

Later this week, both European and Iranian negotiators are scheduled to meet in Paris in order to assess progress in talks, which so far have remained deadlocked over Tehran's refusal to end uranium enrichment as demanded by the Europeans.

Iran contends atomic fuel is only needed for power stations such as the one it is building in the Gulf port of Bushehr."

Herald Sun: Iran 'needs US security assurance' [21mar05]

2005-03-21T05:22:00.000-08:00

Herald Sun: Iran 'needs US security assurance' [21mar05]: "Iran 'needs US security assurance'
From correspondents in Paris
21mar05

THE US needs to give Iran some kind of security assurance as Washington joins up with the EU to try to persuade Tehran to give up sensitive atomic activities, the UN's nuclear watchdog chief said today.

"I think when the issue of security comes up (in the EU-Iran talks), obviously the US will have to step in, because ... the Iranians will very much need the American and not just European (security) assurance ...," Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters on the sidelines of a conference on the future of nuclear energy.
"A discussion of regional security is very much not only a European affair."

France, Britain and Germany have offered Iran political and economic incentives if it permanently abandons all work on the nuclear fuel cycle, activities that could give Iran the ability to produce highly enriched uranium fuel or plutonium for bombs.

Washington, which accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons under cover of an atomic energy program, recently agreed to back the European Union efforts and offered to stop blocking Iran's entrance into the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and to sell Iran spare parts for its aging fleet of aircraft.

Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are limited to peaceful electricity generation, though it has acknowledged hiding much of its program from the IAEA for nearly two decades.

Mr ElBaradei said the Americans and Iranians would need time for any thaw in relations. He said it was more than 20 years since Washington severed diplomatic contacts with Tehran after the 1979 hostage crisis.

"You're trying to restore relations that have not been there for 20 years, you do not expect things that have gone sour for 20 years to be restored in two months. Everybody should be patient," he said.

Mr ElBaradei said the United States would eventually have to actively join forces with the Europeans and not merely support them if the initiative was to work.

"I've always said that at the appropriate time the US will have to be fully engaged," Mr ElBaradei said.

Negotiators from the EU's "big three" and Iran are scheduled to meet in Paris later this week to assess progress in the talks, which remain deadlocked over Tehran's refusal to end uranium enrichment as demanded by the Europeans."

Spy vs Spy in Tehrangeles

2005-03-21T03:49:00.000-08:00

Iran News: "Los Angeles Times March 20, 2005
L.A. Is a Den of Iranian Intrigue and Ambition
U.S. agents tap an incongruous mix of exiles for intelligence on Tehran. The jockeying for influence is intense, as is the skepticism.

Roozbeh Farahanipour was jailed and beaten during student protests in Iran in 1999. Today, he sits in a cramped office above a Persian-language bookstore on Westwood Boulevard, speaking in low tones about the pro-Tehran "agents" he says still dog him.

Two years ago, after hostile men confronted his Iranian activist group at public forums, he walked down the bustling avenue — past Persian restaurants, Persian pop music vendors and the publisher of the 1,200-page Iranian Yellow Pages — to the FBI office a few blocks away.
There, he said, U.S. agents pressed him for details on espionage and provocateurs.

Such relationships are the political currency of the real-life Casablanca that is "Irangeles," the largest Iranian community outside Iran. Here, across miles of urban sprawl, from Encino to Beverly Hills to Westwood, intrigue over who might be spying on whom abounds.

Los Angeles has become a key location for gathering intelligence on Tehran. A CIA station here has spent a decade recruiting informants among Iranian expatriates and businessmen who travel to Iran. The local FBI field office is wooing Iranians as sources — and investigating others as potential terrorists or spies.

This activity is growing in intensity as the Bush administration tries to learn more about Iran's nuclear ambitions and possible Iranian-sponsored terrorism in this country.

A mix of political causes and personal ambitions fuels Irangeles. As the Iranian New Year dawns, Reza Pahlavi — the late Shah of Iran's heir to the Peacock Throne — is holding court in Beverly Hills. Exile activists from as far away as Paris are meeting in Woodland Hills to create a "coalition of liberation." Iranian intellectuals in the San Fernando Valley are debating pro-democracy petitions circulating half a world away in Tehran.

Faced with the sudden prospect of relevance, exile activists are jockeying for recognition from U.S. policymakers. They are touting contacts with the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, the CIA.

They boast of tete-a-tetes with members of Vice President Dick Cheney's staff, and drop the name "Elliott" — as in Elliott Abrams, Bush's deputy national security advisor. They prominently display Christmas cards from Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback, an early backer of legislation that would provide financial support to the Iranian opposition. In Washington, they're making the rounds like actors looking for an agent.

Some Iranian exiles speculate that someone among them could emerge as the next Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi opposition leader who helped to spur the American invasion of Iraq with his now-discredited intelligence indicating that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed chemical and biological weapons.

It is precisely the specter of Chalabi that makes many U.S. officials cautious about appearing to endorse the Iranian exiles volunteering themselves now.

Gary Sick, who served on the National Security Council under presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan and was the principal White House expert on Iran during the hostage crisis, said he was skeptical that Los Angeles exiles could provide valuable intelligence.

"I just have very low regard for the quality of analysis and opinion coming out of the expatriate community in Los Angeles," said Sick, now a professor at Columbia University. "They despise the mullahs. They want to see them gone. And I think their wishful thinking overcomes rational analysis."

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and Iran specialist, shares Sick's skepticism but said it is possible that the CIA will obtain valuable intelligence from its contacts in Los Angeles.

"A lot of interesting Iranians travel outside of the country," he said. "A lot of Iranians come to the United States. There is a definite flow, and some of them may have information that is valuable."

In the political salons of Irangeles, it can be difficult to distinguish fact from rumor, boast from reality.

Over glasses of strong tea in Westwood, some activists brag about recruiting people back home to gather information on internal opposition and the Islamic republic's nuclear program — information they say they hand over to the CIA.

Farahanipour, 33, who worked as a journalist in Iran, flies to Washington regularly to appear on panels and meet with U.S. officials.

He is among the Iranian exiles who say they have lobbied U.S. officials to deny a visa to Iranian dissident Mohsen Sazegara, a founder of Iran's Revolutionary Guards — and to grant a visa to a recent emigre who worked at a nuclear installation.

"We sent some e-mails to the administration to let them know," Farahanipour said. "We call them and give them guidance."

Bush administration officials acknowledged conferring with him but asked not to be quoted by name. "The reluctance you're seeing is people don't want to seem like they're endorsing one group over another," one official said. "Some of the meetings are just, 'Let's see what they've got to say.' "

Living in Two Worlds

Neon lights in Persian script dance outside Farahanipour's office in the Westwood business district that is the heart of Irangeles, a visible manifestation of the diverse and complex ties between Iran and Los Angeles.

The 1979 revolution that overthrew the shah of Iran forced many of his supporters into exile in this country. Subsequent waves of immigrants have included many who initially welcomed the shah's ouster but became disillusioned by the fundamentalist turn of the revolution.

If one thing unites them, it is that many have a foot in both countries. When the Iranian soccer team wins a match in Tehran, people in Encino stand up and cheer. Students in Tehran use cellphones and e-mail to provide people in Los Angeles eyewitness accounts of protests.

People in Tehran call satellite television shows in the Valley to sound off — and are heard by viewers in Iran. Jewish Iranians re-create their Tehran communities at ballroom bar mitzvahs in Beverly Hills — and pressure Tehran to release Jews jailed as spies half a world away.

The opposition group with the most U.S. congressional support — the People's Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK — has been designated a terrorist group by the State Department.

Founded by leftists in the 1960s, the MEK allegedly supported the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, where 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. Though its leaders deny it, it has been accused of involvement in the murders of Americans in Iran. The group became an opponent of the Iranian government, forged an alliance with Hussein and took refuge in Iraq, where it surrendered voluntarily to U.S. forces in 2003.

In Los Angeles, it has a shadowy presence, with some sympathizers but a low public profile.

America's history in Iran is hardly unblemished, as Iranians of all stripes are quick to point out. In 1953, the CIA engineered a coup that ousted a democratically elected leader and reinstalled the shah.

That intervention and subsequent U.S. support for the shah left a legacy of relationships between U.S. intelligence agencies and Iranians loyal to the shah's heir, Reza Pahlavi, who agitates against the Iranian regime from Washington.

"There is a bridge that has never been broken," said an Iranian exile leader with historic ties to the shah. He spoke over kebabs and basmati rice at a Persian restaurant on Westwood Boulevard, a posh place with polished concrete floors and brushed aluminum accented by red and orange abstract paintings. Rhythmic rai music played in the background.

"We have a good relationship with the agency here. Any time we have good information on the regime, we give it to the agency," he said, referring to the CIA.

The leader, who asked not to be identified, pulled out four cellphones from the pocket of his Italian-cut navy blue suit and placed them side by side on the white tablecloth.

"I only have to answer two of them," he said. "Those are the ones used by my sources in Iran. We've received some information on the nuclear program, and it needs to be verified."

He said he meets with CIA officers in a West Los Angeles office or at the offices of his exile group to discuss how they can gather information on nuclear facilities or Taliban leaders from Afghanistan who have taken refuge in Iran.

"He passes the information to the agency, and they verify it," said his partner, a smartly dressed businessman who also claims to have regular contact with CIA officers.

The conservative leader pulled out a fax, written in wavy Persian script, from a "cell," dated Feb. 2. Its writers had identified more supporters in Tehran and had organized new cells in Isfahan and Shivaz.

The CIA declined to comment.

Courting Iranian Exiles

FBI officials view Los Angeles as a potentially rich intelligence source — a logical place for Iranian operatives to hide and raise money for Hezbollah, a Shiite extremist group backed by Iran that operates mostly in Lebanon. They're also afraid that if the U.S. attacked Iran, Hezbollah might stage an attack in Los Angeles or another city.

"The best place to hide a tree is a forest," said one counterterrorism official. "And in Los Angeles, we have a big Iranian forest."

So FBI agents give speeches to community groups, recruit covert informants, track suspected Iranian intelligence agents and investigate criminals and terrorists.

They also keep tabs on the temporary Los Angeles polling places set up so Iranian expatriates can vote in elections in Iran.

"When we located them, we would watch them and find out who was sponsoring each station," a former FBI agent said. "And we would investigate them and the people around them."

The FBI also tries to cultivate expatriates who travel between Iran and the United States so it can ask them to collect information.

"We were looking for where [Iran] was building nuclear facilities," the former agent said. "So you would ask these people to ask their friend in the industry for information."

The FBI's highest-profile investigation in Los Angeles has focused on the MEK. Seven Los Angeles-area residents have been charged with providing "material support" to the MEK through donations collected at Los Angeles International Airport. The Justice Department alleges that the money was used overseas to buy rocket-propelled grenades. The defendants say the donations went to destitute children in Iran.

Among those who have been entangled in the government's investigation of the MEK were the four Mirmehdi brothers. Jailed for the past 41 months by federal authorities on grounds that they had terrorist ties to the MEK, the brothers were released Wednesday.

The government's change of heart was so sudden that it left the Mirmehdis stunned, and elated. They plan to get on with their lives selling real estate in the Valley as they continue fighting the government's efforts to deport them.

"It was all very strange," said Mohsen Mirmehdi, 37. "After being locked up as terrorists for almost four years, we were told to leave the jail, or they would kick us out."

Los Angeles is not the only seat of intrigue.

In San Francisco, an Iranian student named Rooz found himself the subject of FBI scrutiny when he wrote a letter to a friend last year criticizing U.S. human rights abuses during the war in Iraq and stating that it was time for students to "get back to our mission."

His San Francisco attorney, Banafsheh Akhlaghi, said the FBI interpreted that language as a call to terrorism.

Rooz, who spoke on the condition that his last name not be revealed, said his statement referred to reviving a dormant student website.

The next thing he knew, Rooz, 25, a legal U.S. resident for 19 years, was jailed at an immigration facility in Florence, Ariz., while Department of Homeland Security officials tried to have him deported as a national security threat. Akhlaghi said it took her a month to persuade officials that Rooz was not, and he was freed.

Fomenting Dissent

FBI agents think twice before attempting such heavy-handed tactics in the upper echelons of Los Angeles' Iranian community, whose members live in Beverly Hills, Bel-Air, Encino and Santa Monica.

In a guest house behind the Tarzana home of a leader of the Constitutionalist Party of Iran, party members who favor a constitutional monarchy have set up a nerve center for their efforts to oppose the country's Islamic government.

"We have to keep the office secret because of the terrorist regime," said Farzad Farahani, an officer of the party, in a reference to the Iranian government. "We don't want a Molotov cocktail or an assassination."

Inside, a poster-sized photograph of Pahlavi — who the group would like to see crowned king of a future Iran governed by a prime minister and parliament — dominated the room. The television was tuned to a Fox TV program on "The Hunt for Bin Laden."

Foad Pashai, the secretary-general of the party — whose father-in-law's portrait of the shah's widow, Farah Pahlavi, dominates his living room — offered to call pro-democracy activists in Tehran. The phone rang a few times and a young activist named Mohammed answered — though he didn't tell them what they wanted to hear.

Mohammed said there were few supporters of the monarchy in Iran, and "I don't trust them."

The constitutional monarchists in the room, who believe the shah's son has a place in Iran's future, exchanged chagrined glances.

"The only trustworthy group is the student's movement," Mohammed said. "The students never worked with the regime or the shah. Iranian people trust them."

Recent arrivals from the student movement in Iran, such as Farahanipour, try to maintain a friendly distance from the Los Angeles monarchists and the MEK.

His group, whose English name is Iranians for a Secular Republic, envisions an Iran free of undue Western influence and its current religious leaders.

But fleeing into exile has not meant leaving behind Iran's historical baggage.

During Iran's June 2001 presidential elections, Farahanipour said, a member of his group was punched in a melee between supporters of the Islamic Republic and opponents at an absentee polling place set up at Loews Santa Monica Beach Hotel.

Almost every day, Farahanipour watches as a dapper elderly man — who people say was once a torturer for the secret police of the shah — takes his afternoon stroll in front of Farahanipour's office.

"They say he was a torturer for the Savak," Farahanipour said, referring to the shah's intelligence agency. "We see him all the time. Most people hate him."

In Irangeles, dreams of Iran's future are as pervasive as reminders of its past.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

An Iranian presence

Estimates of the number of Iranians in the U.S. and in Los Angeles vary widely. Not all Iranians indicate their Iranian heritage on census forms, and the diversity of Iranian ethnic minorities -- including Jews, Armenians and Kurds -- makes it difficult to identify Iranian surnames. Some estimates:

--

Iranians in the U.S.

Census Bureau: 330,000

Iranian Interest Section*: 900,000

--

Iranians in California (most are thought to live in the L.A. area)

Census Bureau: 159,016

Unofficial estimates: 500,000or more

--

Religious organizations:

Iranian American Jewish Federation

Iranian Muslim Assn. of North America

--

Political organizations:

Iranian American Republican Council

Iranian American Democrats of Los Angeles

--

In the Iranian Yellow Pages**:

20 Iranian television stations

2 Iranian daily newspapers

10 weekly and monthly magazines

200 Iranian attorneys

350 Iranian physicians

150 Iranian dentists

nearly 100 entertainers

* Represents Iran in Washington, D.C.

** Most listings are in Southern California.

Sources: National Iranian American Council; Iranian Yellow Pages

Graphics reporting by An"

::.angus reid - centre for public opinion and democracy.::

2005-03-21T03:43:00.000-08:00

::.angus reid - centre for public opinion and democracy.::: "Most In U.S. Rule Out War Against Iran

(Angus Reid Consultants - CPOD Global Scan) – Many Americans are concerned about Iran’s alleged nuclear program, according to a poll by TNS released by the Washington Post and ABC News. 62 per cent of respondents believe the country poses a threat to the United States.

After being branded as part of an "axis of evil" by U.S. president George W. Bush in January 2002, Iran has contended that its nuclear program aims to produce energy, not weapons.

In his Feb. 2 State of the Union address, Bush said Iran "remains the world’s primary state sponsor of terror—pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve." On Feb. 3, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed the American president’s comments, saying, "Bush is the fifth U.S. president to want to uproot the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic" adding that the country is "being attacked by the global tyrants."

On Mar. 4, former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani declared Iran "will certainly not refrain from its right to use peaceful nuclear energy."

When asked to assess a strategy that could prevent Iran from developing weapons, 44 per cent of respondents support offering financial incentives. More than 60 per cent of respondents are opposed to a bombing campaign or a military invasion to remove the Iranian government.

Polling Data

Please tell me whether you think Iran does or does not pose a threat to the United States. Would you say it’s a serious threat, or not serious?

Yes, serious
39%

Yes, not serious
23%

No threat
35%

To prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose:

Support
Oppose

Offering it financial incentives
such as aid money, or more trade
44%
53%

Bombing Iranian military targets
30%
64%

Invading with U.S. forces to remove
the Iranian government from power
26%
69%

Source: TNS / Washington Post / ABC News
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,001 American adults, conducted from Mar. 10 to Mar. 13, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent."

Netindia123.com: Pak may host US troops against Iran in return for F 16s!

2005-03-21T03:40:00.000-08:00

Netindia123.com: "Pak may host US troops against Iran in return for F 16s!
Lahore | March 21, 2005 3:28:58 PM IST

The U.S. State Department has confirmed that the issue of the sale of F-16 aircraft to Pakistan did come up during Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's recent visit to Islamabad, and in return Washington may have sought President Musharraf's cooperation in dealing with Iran.

According to a online report of Asia Times, Islamabad may have agreed to host US troops and intelligence assets near Pakistan's border with Iran in preparation for a possible attack on Iran and probably agreed to train American forces in Karachi in return for some kind of commitment on F-16 deliveries.

Rice, according to State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, thanked Musharraf for Pakistan's "superb support in the war on terror". The possible sale of F-16 fighter planes came up, Boucher said, but he gave no details, reports the Daily Times. (ANI)"

DEBKAfile - Iran Can Now Hit Israel with Dirty Bomb or Take Out Dimona

2005-03-20T18:30:00.000-08:00

DEBKAfile - Iran Has 12 Strategic Cruise Missiles: "Iran Has 12 Strategic Cruise Missiles

Interesting article. It makes the point that Iran can now retaliate if Israel attacks Iranian sites with the mistaken notion that Iran has a bomb project. But of course Iran has no bomb project, unlike Israel. JBOC

DEBKAfile Military Report
March 20, 2005, 9:27 PM (GMT+02:00)
The Ukrainian prosecutor-general Svyatoslav Piksun created a major international flap Friday, March 18, when he admitted to the Financial Times that 18 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, also known as Kh-55, had been “exported” - 12 to Iran and 6 to China in 2001. He could not explain how the “significant leak” of technology from the former Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal occurred, but said the missiles had been sold without nuclear warheads.

The X-55 has a ranged of 3,000 km and is capable of carrying 200 kiloton nuclear warheads. Launched from Su-24 long-range strike aircraft in the Iranian air force, it can put Japan, all of Russia and Israel within range. Piksun’s admission is the first official confirmation of the Ukrainian missile sale that was first made public last month by a Ukrainian parliament member.

Their acquisition heightens concerns about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The US embassy in Kiev is “closely monitoring” the investigation and demands the findings be made public in full. The Japanese embassy echoed the demand.

DEBKAfile’s Moscow sources reveal that the Ukrainian shipment to Iran included radioactive materials for making “dirty bombs.”

According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, the 12 strategic cruise missiles place the strategic ratio between the Islamic Republic and Israel on a completely new level. Iran shares this asset with only two other world powers, the United States and Russia. This weapon is used for destroying known relatively fixed-position targets, such as Israel’s Dimona nuclear center and population centers. Its guidance system combines inertial-Doppler navigation and position correction based on in-flight comparison of terrain in targeted regions with images stored in the memory of its on-board computer. The propulsion system is a dual-flow engine located underneath the missile’s tail.

Possession of the Kh-55 makes Iran’s Shahab-3 or its projected Shahab-4 missile programs irrelevant. Tehran may have given them exposure as a red herring to distract attention from its high-profile missile asset.

The breakup of the Soviet Union left about 1,000 missiles in Ukraine’s arsenal, half of which were meant to be turned over to Russia in the 1990s and half destroyed under a US-funded disarmament program. The 18 sold under the table slipped through the cracks of this accord.

The previous government in Kiev arrested and charged a local businessman for the illegal exports and his trial is still underway, the Ukrainian prosecutor said, adding that two Russian businessmen were suspected of masterminding the sale, one of whom, Oleg Orlov, was arrested last July in Prague in response to a Ukrainian warrant. Under the new government that took office in January, SBU chief Alexander Turchinov has reopened the investigation."

Xinhua - CIA has No Real Intelligence on Iran Because they do their Spying in Tehrangeles

2005-03-20T18:23:00.000-08:00

Xinhua - English: "L.A. becomes key location for spy operation on Iran

www.chinaview.cn 2005-03-21 03:03:34

LOS ANGELES, March 20 (Xinhuanet) -- Los Angeles has become a key location for US spy agencies' operation on Iran as their activities to gather information about the country's nuclear ambitions and possible links to terrorism are on the rise, a report said Sunday.

A CIA station in this second biggest US city has spent a decade recruiting informants among Iranian expatriates and businessmen who travel to Iran, while the local FBI field office is wooing Iranians as sources -- and investigating others as potential terrorists or spies.

This activity is growing in intensity as the Bush administration tries to learn more about Iran's nuclear ambitions and possible Iranian-sponsored terrorism in this country, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Faced with the sudden prospect of relevance, Iranian exile activists are jockeying for recognition from US policymakers, touting contacts with the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA.

Some Iranian exiles speculate that someone among them could emerge as the next Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi opposition leader who helped to spur the American invasion of Iraq with his now-discredited intelligence indicating that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed chemical and biological weapons.

It is precisely the specter of Chalabi that makes many US officials cautious about appearing to endorse the Iranian exiles volunteering themselves now.

Gary Sick, who served on the National Security Council under presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan and was the principal White House expert on Iran during the hostage crisis, said he was skeptical that Los Angeles exiles could provide valuable intelligence.

"I just have very low regard for the quality of analysis and opinion coming out of the expatriate community in Los Angeles," said Sick, now a professor at Columbia University.

However, a former CIA official said it is possible that the CIA will obtain valuable intelligence from its contacts in Los Angeles.

"A lot of interesting Iranians travel outside of the country," he said. "A lot of Iranians come to the United States. There is a definite flow, and some of them may have information that is valuable.""

Xinhua - US not support Israeli military strike against Iran: Rice

2005-03-17T14:43:00.000-08:00

Xinhua - English: "US not support Israeli military strike against Iran: Rice

www.chinaview.cn 2005-03-14 11:08:13
WASHINGTON, March 13 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States will not support a military strike by Israel against suspected Iranian nuclear sites, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday.

Responding to a report in the London-based Sunday Times newspaper that Israel may launch a unilateral attack on Iran if diplomacy fails, Rice told ABC television that Washington is committed to following a diplomatic course.

The United States has now, with the European allies, put forward a strengthened diplomatic hand for the European three to play, Rice said, referring to Britain, Germany and France.

"It really is now up to the Iranians to do what they need to do.Obviously, the president of the United States always has his options open, but we really do believe that this can be resolved diplomatically."

"What we've forged with Europe is a common front, a common approach to dealing with Iran that says Iran must not develop a nuclear weapon, that Iran's international obligations must be upheld," Rice told ABC.

"That means they cannot develop a nuclear weapon under cover ofcivilian nuclear power," she said.

"It says that if Iran is not willing to live up to those obligations, then there will be a supported referral to the (UN) Security Council." Enditem "

Israel cabinet authorises strike on Iran: report

2005-03-13T13:50:00.000-08:00

Israel cabinet authorises strike on Iran: report: "Israel cabinet authorises strike on Iran: report:
[World News]: Jerusalem, March 13 : The Israeli security cabinet has reportedly given "initial authorisation" to attack Iran if diplomatic efforts fail to halt Tehran's nuclear programme, Xinhua news agency reported.

The cabinet gave the nod for the attack last month and Israel Defence Forces had built a model of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant in order to practice assaults on the facility, Ha'aretz newspaper reported Sunday.

The report said Israel would use F-15 fighter planes and its air force's elite Shaldag unit in the attack.

The Israeli plan had been discussed with the US who indicated it would not block an Israeli attack on Iran if international diplomatic efforts failed to halt its nuclear projects, the London-based Sunday Times said in a report.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry said last week that neither threats nor incentives would alter pursuit of its nuclear programme.

The US accuses Iran of secret developing nuclear weapons and has threatened to refer its case to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.

Iran, which is in talks with the European Union to resolve the nuclear issue, denies the charge, claiming its program is for civilian purposes.

--Indo-Asian News Service"

Herald Sun: Aid deal emerges on Iran [12mar05]

2005-03-11T08:17:00.000-08:00

Herald Sun: Aid deal emerges on Iran [12mar05]: "Aid deal emerges on Iran

WASHINGTON -- The US is expected to make a huge policy shift and join Europe in offering Iran economic incentives to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

In return, Britain, France and Germany have agreed to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council if Tehran fails to give up its suspected nuclear weapons program -- a move that could mean sanctions.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said American and European views on dealing with Iran's nuclear program were converging.

The development came as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said nuclear terrorism was a real risk.

At a terrorism conference in Madrid, Spain, yesterday, Mr Annan called for a world treaty on terrorism that would outlaw deliberate attacks on civilians and establish a framework for a collective response to the global threat.

"Nuclear terrorism is still often treated as science fiction. I wish it were," he said.

Under the US/European plan, the US is expected to let Iran to join the World Trade Organisation and to buy spare parts for US-built planes.

The Europeans would pledge that if their negotiations with Iran collapse or if Tehran reneges on a promise to suspend nuclear enrichment activities, they will bring the issue to the UN.

Pakistan said for the first time that a disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan at the centre of a nuclear black market gave Iran centrifuges which could be used to make atomic weapons.

Tehran says its enrichment program would make low-grade fuel for power plants.~ Reuters/AAP"

The New York Times > Reuters > Washington > U.S. Panel Faults Intelligence on Iran Weapons - - NYT

2005-03-09T07:02:00.000-08:00

The New York Times > Reuters > Washington > U.S. Panel Faults Intelligence on Iran Weapons - - NYT: "U.S. Panel Faults Intelligence on Iran Weapons - - NYT
By REUTERS

Published: March 9, 2005
Filed at 0:17 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A presidential commission investigating prewar intelligence about Iraq's weapons has concluded that U.S. data on Iran's arms is ``inadequate,'' The New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing people who have been briefed on the panel's work.

In a report to President Bush later this month, the panel will describe American intelligence on Iran ``as inadequate to allow firm judgments about Iran's weapons program,'' the newspaper reported in an article posted on its Web site.

A spokesman for the nine-member commission declined direct comment on the New York Times report.

``The report itself isn't complete yet and the full details will be presented to the president,'' spokesman Larry McQuillan said.

Bush accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons and called it part of an ``axis of evil.'' Tehran insists its nuclear program is intended solely to generate electricity.

The New York Times report said one person who described the panel's deliberations and conclusions characterized American intelligence on Iran as ``scandalous'' given the importance and relative openness of the country, compared to North Korea.

The newspaper said its sources would not be more specific in describing the inadequacies. But it quoted former government officials who are experts on Iran as saying that American intelligence agencies have had little success in the kinds of human spying needed to understand Iranian decision-making.

The commission's report, after a 14-month investigation, was also expected to be sharply critical of American intelligence on North Korea. But some who have been briefed on the report said they regarded the record on Iran as more worrisome, The New York Times said.

The panel had unrestricted access to the most senior people and the most sensitive documents of the intelligence agencies, the newspaper said.

The commission was established to investigate flaws in the intelligence cited in launching the Iraq war. Claims that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were the main reason cited by Bush for the war."

Iran News - 'Iran not after nuclear & mass killing weapons'

2005-03-08T08:12:00.001-08:00

Iran News - 'Iran not after nuclear & mass killing weapons': "'Iran not after nuclear & mass killing weapons'

Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - ©2005 IranMania.com
LONDON, March 8 (IranMania) - Iran's Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Hassan Rowhani stressed that Iran is not after developing nuclear arms and mass killing weapons and recommended the US not to terrify the world with hollow allegations.

Making the remarks in a ceremony to commemorate the 400 martyrs of Bandar Anzali in north of the country on Monday night, he said that Iran was not, as a principle, in need of any forms of nuclear bombs.

He also stressed that Iran was not a lover of adventurism and never intended to enter wars with any country.

However, the SNSC secretary underlined, Iran needed new sciences, advanced technology and nuclear energy for its infrastructural and construction projects.

Pointing out that the world would never have even thought of seeing Iran as the owner of modern nuclear technology after 25 years of severe sanctions it has been suffering, he expressed that the fact that Iran never hired any foreign expert for its peaceful nuclear projects made a source of concern for the world.

He said Iranian scientists have now made the world admit that Iran is a scientific and technological power. According to Rowhani, the recent report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) mentions Iran as the eighth in the list of 13 world countries which are capable of manufacturing equipment needed in producing nuclear fuel.

He further remarked that the Iranian nation would confront any threats and resist any attacks."

Iran News - 'Iran not after nuclear & mass killing weapons'

2005-03-08T08:12:00.000-08:00

Reuters | former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani underlines no compromise on atomic fuel

2005-03-04T06:03:00.000-08:00

Reuters | Latest Financial News / Full News Coverage: " World

Iran cleric underlines no compromise on atomic fuel

Fri March 4, 2005 6:06 PM GMT+05:30
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran underlined its resolve on Friday to never abandon its nuclear fuel programme, with a leading politician saying U.S. and European Union demands for it to do so would only stir up trouble.

Washington accuses Iran of seeking to make nuclear fuel for atomic warheads, whereas Tehran says it is only needed for use in power stations.

Influential former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said Iran had only agreed to suspend its nuclear fuel programme as a confidence-building measure, after striking a deal with the European Union "big three" of France, Britain and Germany last year.

"After a few months, they repeated the same things and sometimes they clearly state that Iran should put an end (to its programme)," he told worshippers at Friday prayers.

The three EU states have been seeking an "objective guarantee" from Iran that its fuel will not be diverted into a weapons programme.

Some Europeans have said the only "objective guarantee" worthy of the name would be for Iran to stop making nuclear fuel domestically and rely wholly on imports.

"We tell the Americans, Europeans and (the International Atomic Energy) Agency that this kind of attitude will not bring about the desired outcome and will cause you trouble," he added.

"You cannot treat Iran like this, you cannot cross the line. This is the wrong path and will be counterproductive. We hope that wisdom and logic will defeat your arrogance and discrimination," he continued.

Iran insists that it has the right to the complete fuel cycle, enriching uranium mined in its central deserts into fuel. But the lion's share of fuel will have to come from Russia, a deal Moscow and Tehran signed on Sunday.

Iran has not only been angered by the stance of Washington and the Europeans but also by U.N. watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei who criticised Iran for not fully disclosing information on its nuclear programme.

"We gave them permission to inspect even more than what we were obliged to," he said.

Iran-EU nuclear talks will continue next week in Geneva, diplomats say."

FT.com / Home UK - Bush team to consider policy shift on Iran

2005-03-03T15:43:00.000-08:00

FT.com / Home UK - Bush team to consider policy shift on Iran: "Bush team to consider policy shift on Iran
By Guy Dinmore in Washington, Dan Dombey in Brussels and Gareth,Smyth in Tehran
Published: March 3 2005 02:00 | Last updated: March 3 2005 02:00

President George W. Bush meets members of his national security team today to discuss whether to adopt a big shift in US policy that would involve joining Europe in offering inducements to Iran to end enrichment of uranium.

A US official said he did not expect a decision to emerge from the first top-level session that stems directly from the commitment made by Mr Bush to "consider" the proposals put to him by European leaders last month.

Mr Bush's readiness to change course is seen as a vital test of the future of the transatlantic relationship. It also sparked an intense debate in Washington, with hardline conservatives expressing shock that Mr Bush might even contemplate a policy of de facto engagement with Iran even if conducted through the European Union.

However, senior officials argue that the US must form a united front with Europe over Iran. They reason that the US must prepare the diplomatic ground for joint action in the event - which they fully anticipate - that Iran breaks off the negotiations begun in 2003 with France, Germany and the UK and resumes its suspected weapons programme.

Possible incentives include allowing Iran to start talks on accession to the World Trade Organisation, unblocking sales of aircraft and spares, and possibly some kind of security initiative.

In return, the US wants from the EU a firm commitment on what action it would consider if Iran resumed the uranium enrichment development it mostly froze in 2003.

A senior Iranian official in Tehran told the Financial Times that while France was "open and understanding of Iran's position", Germany was "confused" and the UK was "taking a greater distance over the past 20 days".

"So far they have given us nothing. And if Iran is not given the minimum, then there is no choice for us but to leave the talks," he said. "The minimum is a certain number of centrifuges with which we resume enrichment."

Addressing a board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna yesterday, Jackie Sanders, the US representative, warned that it "cannot ignore forever its statutory obligation to report this matter to the United Nations Security Council".

Ms Sanders listed what she called a "startling list of Iranian attempts to hide and mislead, and delay the work of IAEA inspectors".

Mr Bush's meeting today will be with Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, and Stephen Hadley, national security adviser"

ABC News: Diplomats: Iran Building Tunnels for Arms

2005-03-03T09:43:00.000-08:00

ABC News: Diplomats: Iran Building Tunnels for Arms: "Diplomats: Iran Building Tunnels for ArmsDiplomats: Tunnels Being Built by Iran Aimed at Withstanding Devastating Attack
By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

VIENNA, Austria Mar 3, 2005 — Fearing airstrikes, Iran is using reenforced materials and tunneling deep underground to store nuclear components measures meant to make the facility resistant to "bunker busters" and other special weaponry, diplomats said Thursday.

The diplomats spoke as a 35-nation meeting of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency ended more than three days of deliberations focusing on Iran and North Korea, which are both accused of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Among criticisms of Iran's nuclear-related activities, an review presented at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency faulted Tehran for starting work on the tunnel at Isfahan without informing the agency beforehand.

The review said that following agency prodding Iran over the past few months has provided "preliminary design information" on the tunnel in the central city that is home to the country's uranium enrichment program. It said that construction began in September "to increase capacity, safety and security of nuclear material."

Asked for details on the tunnel, a diplomat familiar with Iran's dossier told The Associated Press that parts of it apparently would run as deep as half a mile below ground and would be constructed of hardened concrete and other reenforced materials.

Other diplomats said on condition of anonymity that such moves were clearly motivated by Iranian concerns of air attacks by the United States or Israel, which both accuse the Iranians of trying to secretly build nuclear weapons."

Iran News - Call for rationality instead of violation in region

2005-03-03T03:57:00.000-08:00

Iran News - Call for rationality instead of violation in region: "Call for rationality instead of violation in region

Thursday, March 03, 2005 - ©2005 IranMania.com
LONDON, March 3 (IranMania) - The final session of the 15th International Conference on Persian Gulf was held on Wednesday at the venue of Expediency Council building and in the presence of EC Chairman Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

In the meeting, Rafsanjani said it has been proved that the only way to have a durable security in the region is applying rationality and prudence instead of violation and threat, according to IRNA.

He added Iraq case showed that imposing force and invasion has no consequences except creating insecurity and inflicting damage. The EC chairman said,"If the world powers, including the US, did not show a green light to the Ba`th regime after the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi people could take their fate in their hands."

Rafsanjani expressed hope that in the new circumstances regional countries by resorting to spirit of cooperation and friendship maintain security as well as move towards prosperity, development and interaction with the rest of the world.

Referring to proposed issues in the conference, the EC chairman expressed hope that the consequences of the confab become operational. He noted that Iran is the most effective supporter of durable security in the region.

80 foreign delegates from 32 countries participated in the two-day international confab hosted by Institute for Political and International Studies affiliated with Foreign Ministry."

Israel is behind Push for US War With Iran - Kenneth Pollack

2005-03-02T08:33:00.000-08:00

Iran News: "TELLING IT LIKE IT IS
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Mar 2005, Vol. 24 Issue 2

A Jan. 12 panel discussion on U.S. policy toward Iran hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, DC and broadcast on C-SPAN ended with a statement remarkable for its frankness. In response to an audience question regarding the "Israel factor" in U.S. policy toward Iran, Kenneth Pollack, research director of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, responded:

"Look, I'll be very blunt...! know we all would like the Israelis to take care of this problem for us. They can't. That's why they are on such a war path. The problem Israel has is: a) they have the same intelligence problem we have. As I said, the Israelis, their intelligence analysts, also do not feel they know enough about the Iranian nuclear program to strike these facilities. Second, they have the tyranny of distance. Osiraq was in reach of Israeli F-16s, refueled once. Iranian nuclear facilities are not. Israel has 25 aircraft that can make it to the main Iranian nuclear facilities — 25 F-151s, that would be getting there on fumes — OK? They would probably be carrying bombs about the size of this water glass, because they would require that much fuel to get out there. I spent a lot of time with Israeli air force officers who were looking hard at this problem, and they all believed they cannot do it. And that is why you are hearing the government of Israel shouting so loudly, because they believe that the United States has been ignoring this problem for too long. They are deathly afraid that the Iranians are getting close. They know they can't take care of it, and they want us to do so.""

U.S. Reviewing Its Intelligence on Iran (washingtonpost.com)

2005-03-01T11:51:00.000-08:00

U.S. Reviewing Its Intelligence on Iran (washingtonpost.com): "U.S. Reviewing Its Intelligence on Iran
Council Working on New Assessments of Country's Rulers and Arms Programs

By Dafna Linzer and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 12, 2005; Page A12

The intelligence community is conducting a broad review of its Iran assessments, including a new look at the country's nuclear program, the future of its ruling clerics and the impact of the Iraq war on Tehran's powerful position in the region, according to administration officials and congressional sources.

Two separate reports -- a wide-ranging National Intelligence Estimate and a second memo focusing exclusively on Tehran's chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities -- will reflect an updated consensus within the intelligence community. The documents are meant to guide the Bush administration as it continues to deliberate on a policy for dealing with Iran and its nuclear ambitions.

The review, which began last month, comes after several weeks in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have challenged Iran to halt an alleged nuclear weapons program. The pattern and tone of the administration's comments have struck some as similar to claims made in 2002 about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Five months before the invasion of Iraq, the administration produced a National Intelligence Estimate that listed among its key findings that Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program, one of several errors in the intelligence community's prewar assessments.

Now, the intelligence community's past assessments on Iraq -- as well as its judgments on Iran and North Korea -- are under review by a presidential commission studying U.S. intelligence, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence recently warned CIA Director Porter J. Goss that it also will review the intelligence being gathered on Iran.

A senior administration official said yesterday that there will be "a rigorous scrubbing of the intelligence" before the new Iran assessment is complete, and that "extreme care" will be taken in reaching conclusions.

The last published intelligence report on Iran's program, released publicly in November, said that "Iran continued to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons." It went on to say, "The United States remains convinced that Tehran has been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program in contradiction to its obligations as a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty."

But it stopped short of concluding Iran has nuclear weapons, and did not include any details to clarify how the assessment was reached. Iran has maintained that its nuclear program was built for civilian energy purposes, not weapons.

The upcoming intelligence assessment was ordered by David Gordon, acting chairman of the National Intelligence Council, according to a senior administration official. The council, a group of government and academic intelligence experts, taps senior analysts from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and other components of the intelligence community to work on National Intelligence Estimates.

Administration officials said the intelligence estimate on Iran will be conducted without any input from Bush administration policymakers. "The policy people can't even look at until it's a finished product," one U.S. official said.

Bush administration officials are avoiding taking detailed public positions on Iran until the papers are completed and the administration decides on a policy, officials said. This is one reason, they said, that Rice last week refused to directly answer questions from reporters in Europe about whether the United States favors regime change in Iran.

According to officials, all of whom discussed the classified process on the condition of anonymity, the new estimates will examine the strength of Iran's clerical regime, the nation's economic strength and nuclear issues.

There is no deadline for the report's completion, but several officials said they expect the comprehensive review to be ready by March. The second document is also expected to be completed in the coming weeks. Known as a "memo to holders," it will focus only on Iran's weapons capabilities and will be for limited circulation among the most senior officials.

"It will reassess the timeline for getting nuclear weapons, reassess Iran's motivations and what it would take to make them give up fissile material capability," said one official.

Since 2003, Britain, France and Germany have been negotiating with Iran toward a deal to ensure that its nuclear energy program is not used for developing weapons. The United States has declined to join those talks.

Administration officials have increasingly questioned Iran's nuclear capabilities and intent. Cheney said on Fox News last Sunday that the Iranians claim their move to uranium enrichment is "only for peaceful purposes, although there's some evidence to suggest that they have military aspirations and they're trying to acquire nuclear weapons."

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a physicist who has studied the Iran program, said yesterday that much is known about Iran's nuclear efforts from inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency but that "there is no direct information on a decision to build nuclear weapons."

"They want a capability, but it's all inferential that they are building a weapon," he said. He went on to point out that much of the intelligence about Iraq having a nuclear program "was also inferential."

Staff writer Glenn Kessler contributed to this report."

Bush Seeking Ways to Reward Allies on Iran

2005-03-01T06:14:00.000-08:00

Bush Seeking Ways to Reward Allies on Iran: "Bush Seeking Ways to Reward Allies on Iran

Times Headlines

It's Bleak but It's Home

Judge Rules Terror Suspect Must Be Charged or Freed

Overhaul a Tough Sell, GOP Lawmakers Find

Montana Governor Isn't Cowed by Bush

People in U.S. Living Longer

more >

Most E-mailed

Tight Inventory May Send Region's Home Prices Surging Again

Treating hot flashes naturally

Inland Empire Sees Rise in Hate Crimes, Bucking Trend in State

> more e-mailed stories

By Sonni Efron and Alissa J. Rubin, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — In what could herald an important shift in U.S. policy, President Bush is considering ways to support the European allies who are offering Iran incentives in exchange for Tehran halting its nuclear programs, the White House said today.

But U.S. officials were noncommittal about how far the president was prepared to go to engage the theocratic Iranian regime that Bush once labeled part of an "axis of evil."

"The president is considering ideas that were discussed last week in Europe for moving forward on our efforts to get Iran to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons and abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Among the specific incentives that were discussed during President Bush's trip to France and Germany this month were allowing Iran to join the World Trade Organization and have access to spare aircraft parts, or possible aircraft sales, to replace Iran's aging commercial fleet, a European diplomat said.

In the past, the Bush administration has argued that Iran should not be bribed with economic and political incentives to abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which it signed. U.S. officials have also pointedly refused to endorse or take part in the negotiations by Britain, France and Germany, which have been negotiating with Iran to provide economic incentives in exchange for Tehran halting its uranium enrichment.

But the EU 3, as the three European nations are called, have been increasingly vocal in arguing that no deal can be reached with the Iranians without at least tacit U.S. support. Moreover, they have argued that even if the negotiations with Iran fail, it is better for the United States to have done everything possible to reach a diplomatic solution lest it later be accused of being a spoiler.

During Bush's visit to Europe last week, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder asked him to reconsider his position, and the American president agreed to think about it, U.S. and European officials said.

U.S. officials have accused Iran of using its civilian reactor program to mask a covert nuclear weapons program, and have been trying to have Iran brought before the United Nations Security Council for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But the U.S. lacks the votes for such a move by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nation's top nuclear watchdog.

The IAEA board met today in Vienna to discuss Iran's failure to provide information to the agency,

Mohamed El Baradei, the agency's director general, said Iran's failure to give the agency information and access to facilities in a timely manner had created a "confidence gap," and that the country needed to do more to provide agency inspectors with answers to several key questions.

"In some cases the receipt of information is still pending, which in turn delays our work. As I mentioned at the last board meeting, in view of the past undeclared nature of significant aspects of Iran's nuclear program, a confidence deficit has been created and it is therefore essential that Iran works closely with the agency in a proactive manner."

The IAEA meeting, which primarily will provide the organization's board members with an update on key issues, comes amid a swirl of discussions among Western countries about how to deal with what appears to be Iran's growing nuclear capability.

While Iran has said repeatedly that its nuclear activities are aimed only at the production of nuclear energy, the Bush administration alleges that the country is using the nuclear energy program as a cover for assembling the technology and expertise to build nuclear weapons.

Bush administration officials have pressed to refer the country to the U.N. Security Council for breaching the nuclear treaty. The Security Council has the authority to impose sanctions or institute an oil embargo, which would cut into Iran's revenues.

However, a referral to the Security Council would put Iran on a similar trajectory to that of Iraq. The United States asked the Security Council to authorize military action against Iraq. Unable to get the council to agree, the United States, acting with Britain, attacked Iraq with support from a few other countries.

In the case of Iran, three European countries have stepped in to try to craft a deal to stop Iran from continuing to enrich uranium in exchange for technology that the country wants and broader acceptance in the international community.

France, Britain and Germany are trying to find a combination of incentives that would make it worthwhile for Iran to suspend enrichment. As part of the negotiations, Iran declared a temporary suspension of enrichment activities as a show of good faith, but has also said it expects to resume enrichment shortly.

Enriched uranium can be used both to generate energy and in nuclear weapons. The former is permitted under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the latter is forbidden.

So far, IAEA inspectors have found no evidence of a weapons program in nearly two years, but because there are still a number of questions about the country's program, the agency is reluctant to give Iran a clean bill of health.

Since IAEA inspections began, the agency slowly pieced together evidence of a hidden 18-year-old nuclear program that Iran had not disclosed. However, much of the equipment Iran procured was so-called dual-use technology that can be used for civilian energy production and the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

A key issue is the sophistication of Iran's uranium enrichment technology and experimentation. Among the outstanding questions is whether Iran obtained the technology to enrich uranium or otherwise experimented with uranium beyond levels previously disclosed.

Efron reported from Washington and Rubin from Vienna."

The Force Bush Won't Use on Iran

2005-03-01T06:00:00.000-08:00

The Force Bush Won't Use on Iran: "Robert Scheer:

The Force Bush Won't Use on Iran
U.S. policy toward Iran is now a big, dangerous mess. President Bush again has backed us into a corner with his confrontational framing of every dispute as one of pristine virtue versus stark evil, putting us out of sync with our allies in Europe and probably giving the ayatollahs in Tehran a public relations boost at home.

In his State of the Union address, Bush singled out Iran as "the world's primary state sponsor of terror … pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve." For weeks we heard ominous warnings of war with Iran. Then, last week, Bush scoffed at the idea that we were going to bomb Iran as "ridiculous," even as he menacingly noted that "all options are on the table." Meanwhile, Europe continued to negotiate constructively with Iran to find a peaceful solution and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The sad fact, however, is that Bush's irrational policies and rhetoric have left the mostly fundamentalist leaders of Iran defending a more logical position than that of our own government on three counts.

First, it is our government that has long proclaimed the wonders of something called "the peaceful uses of atomic energy" to counterbalance the horror of having unleashed the power of the atomic bomb on Japanese civilians in World War II. In asserting its right to build nuclear power plants, Tehran is emulating the United States. The pact signed on Sunday in which Russia will supply the fuel for an Iranian nuclear power plant but Tehran will return spent fuel would seem to remove the threat that Iran's now fully constructed Bushehr plant will be producing nuclear weapons material.

Second, the U.S. has been woefully uncaring about nuclear proliferation except when it proves politically convenient, as with the false prewar claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq might be close to acquiring or producing nuclear weapons.

Another example came after 9/11, when Washington dropped anti-proliferation sanctions against Pakistan while Bush focused his wrath on Iraq. Ironically, it was back in 1987, when the U.S. was backing Hussein in his war with Iran, that Pakistan's top scientist first made overtures to sell nuclear technology to the ayatollahs in Tehran.

Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan's scandalous campaign to sell nuclear materials and knowledge to unstable countries such as North Korea and Libya, as well as Iran, was overlooked by successive U.S. administrations. Apparently, it was deemed too awkward to irritate our "allies" in Islamabad who helped us arm the mujahedin in Afghanistan against the Soviets, and, after 9/11, were enlisted to bring some of those same mujahedin to justice, including Osama bin Laden.

Even after the appalling extent of Khan's sales ring was exposed in 2003, little was done. The Pakistan government pardoned Khan and won't allow him to be interviewed by outsiders. Intelligence reports indicate that his black market mob may be operating again.

Finally, how can the president continue to escalate the rhetoric against Iran given that his invasion of neighboring Iraq has handed control of the country to Shiites trained in Tehran, like Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, as well as Kurds who have enjoyed significant Iranian support over the years?

So, tangled history aside, what should the U.S. do now about a repressive and potentially threatening government in Iran? The one thing Bush strangely has refused to do throughout the world: practice the principles of capitalism.

The model for such a policy, which emphasizes normal trade relations even with regimes that have religious and political obsessions different from our own, was most successfully employed by Richard Nixon in his famous opening to "Red" China, as well as in the detente period that should properly be credited with the ultimate fall of the Soviet empire.

The most powerful liberalizing forces the U.S. wields are not military, but economic and cultural. Though not as macho as trying to spread democracy through the barrel of a gun, normalization offers a better prospect of accomplishing that end, while saving billions of dollars and priceless lives."

'Pak soil not to be used for attack on Iran': South Asia : Hindustan Times.com

2005-03-01T05:52:00.000-08:00

'Pak soil not to be used for attack on Iran': South Asia : Hindustan Times.com: "'Pak soil not to be used for attack on Iran'

Associated Press
Islamabad, Pakistan, February 28, 2005|21:32 IST

Pakistan would not allow the United States to use its soil for military action against Iran, a government spokesman said on Monday.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Masood Khan said Pakistan supported efforts by Britain, France and Germany to negotiate with Iran for a peaceful resolution to the dispute over its nuclear programme.

"Our policy on this issue is very clear. We have said many times that we do not want a conflict in the region. We want the diplomatic option to succeed between all the parties," he told a news conference in the Pakistani capital.

"The prime minister said very categorically that we would not allow our soil to be used against the brotherly country of Iran under any circumstances."

Pakistan, a close ally of the United States in the war on terrorism, shares a 900-kilometer (560-mile) -long border with Iran. Washington accuses Tehran of covertly trying to build a nuclear bomb, which Iran denies. US President George W Bush has expressed support for the European efforts to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear programme, but takes a tougher diplomatic line and has not ruled out military strikes.

Pakistan has supported the United States in its fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan. It did not give military backing to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003."

U.S. Weighs Change of Tactics to Discourage Iran's Nuclear Aims

2005-03-01T04:07:00.000-08:00

U.S. Weighs Change of Tactics to Discourage Iran's Nuclear Aims: "U.S. Weighs Change of Tactics to Discourage Iran's Nuclear Aims
Bush and advisors have discussed joining European allies to offer Tehran incentives to freeze program that could yield weapons.

By Sonni Efron and Alissa J. Rubin, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — In what would mark a key shift in U.S. strategy, President Bush is considering joining European allies in offering Iran incentives to halt its nuclear programs that could be used to make weapons, U.S. officials said Monday.

Various incentives, including dropping U.S. objections to Iran's joining the World Trade Organization, were discussed by Bush's closest national security advisors at a meeting Friday after the president returned from a four-day trip to Europe, officials said. The administration is also considering providing spare parts for Iran's aging commercial airline fleet or even allowing commercial aircraft sales to Tehran.

No decisions have been made, however. If U.S. officials did agree to drop their objection to Iranian membership in the WTO, it would want short-term concessions from Iran in return, a State Department official said.

"People are thinking: Is there a way we can get something for it in the immediate term instead of just an atmosphere of goodwill from the Iranians?" the official said. "We may not get it. The sole reward may be getting a better relationship with the Europeans on Iran in general."

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was noncommittal about how far the president was prepared to go to engage the theocratic Iranian regime, which Bush once labeled part of an "axis of evil."

"The president is considering ideas that were discussed last week in Europe for moving forward on our efforts to get Iran to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons and abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions," McClellan said.

For nearly two years, the Bush administration has argued that Iran should not be rewarded with economic and political incentives to abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which it has signed. U.S. officials have refused to endorse or take part in negotiations by Britain, France and Germany, which are offering economic incentives in exchange for Tehran's permanently halting its uranium-enrichment program.

Enriched uranium can be used as fuel in nuclear power plants or in weapons. Tehran insists that its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes, but U.S. officials suspect the country is secretly aiming to build atomic weapons.

Before Bush's visit to Europe, Britain, Germany and France warned that no deal could be reached with the Iranians without at least tacit U.S. support. They said that by refusing to support the negotiations, Washington was undermining them, and they even accused some Bush administration officials of seeking to make the talks fail to justify military action against Iran.

The European nations have acknowledged that the negotiations may fail because Iran may be determined to become a nuclear-armed state. However, they have argued that the United States should do everything possible to try to reach a diplomatic solution.

During Bush's visit to Europe, both French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder asked Bush to reconsider his position. He agreed to think about it, U.S. and European officials said.

European diplomats said they believed that the proposal to offer Iran incentives was under serious consideration and hoped a U.S.-European agreement would be reached soon.

"We are very satisfied that the U.S. president, when he was in Europe, has told us that we can expect support for the European negotiations," German Embassy spokeswoman Martina Nibbeling-Wriessnig said. "There are talks [underway] about the ways in which the U.S. could support it."

French Embassy spokeswoman Nathalie Loiseaux was similarly upbeat. "It's positive signals, they come at the right moment, and it makes us optimistic," she said. "But we know that it's not going to be easy [dealing] with Iran."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to discuss details when she meets with the foreign ministers of Britain, Germany and France in London this week, the diplomats said.

The State Department official said Bush had been reassured by European leaders that they shared the U.S. view of Iran's intention to build nuclear weapons, and agreed that the negotiations were likely to fail.

The message from the Europeans, according to the official, was: "The Iranians have not shown a lot of goodwill and there's a good chance that this is likely to fail. The problem is … you are going to be blamed for the failure unless you make an effort that looks like you are supporting our effort."

Until now, the official said, the U.S. thinking was that "we were playing good-cop, bad-cop, with the U.S. being the bad cop. Now the idea is we both better be playing with the same carrots and sticks."

U.S. officials have been trying to have Iran brought before the U.N. Security Council for what it says are its violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But the U.S. so far has lacked the votes at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, to force the issue to the council. It also lacks the votes on the Security Council to impose sanctions against Iran.

At a quarterly board meeting of the IAEA in Vienna on Monday, Mohamed ElBaradei, the agency's director, said serious questions remained about whether Iran was hiding information on its nuclear program. Iran's failure to give the agency information and access to facilities in a timely manner, he said, had created a "confidence deficit."

IAEA inspectors have found no evidence of a weapons program in Iran in nearly two years of looking, but they say a number of questions remain about the country's activities.

The meeting came amid reports from diplomatic sources that as much as 18 years ago Iran was considering buying technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons. According to diplomats, suppliers offered Iran an extensive selection of technology, but the Iranians said they did not purchase it. Information about the offer was recently disclosed to the IAEA.

"Iran … showed us for the first time this offer they had, and that is good," ElBaradei told reporters. "But we still obviously have a lot of work to do to make sure that they only got what they told us … they got out of this offer."

A diplomat who monitors Iran said another key question is whether Iran is currently cleaning up the Parchin complex, a military site near Tehran where some experts believe Iran has been experimenting with nuclear material.

IAEA inspectors who tried to examine Parchin recently were allowed only limited access and were able to do only a small amount of the environmental sampling they had hoped to perform.

The IAEA has requested a return visit but no date has been set. The diplomat said it appeared that Iran was trying to decontaminate the site before a return visit by the IAEA.

Efron reported from Washington and Rubin from Vienna."

Reuters | Latest Financial News / Full News Coverage

2005-03-01T04:03:00.000-08:00

Reuters | Latest Financial News / Full News Coverage: "Large number of Iran opposition group defects - IRNA

Tue March 1, 2005 3:05 PM GMT+05:30
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Around 100 members of an armed Iranian opposition group returned to Iran on Monday, the largest group to defect since Iran announced a general amnesty in 2003, state media reported.

Shahriar Heydari, governor of the western Iranian border town of Qasr-e Shirin, told the official IRNA news agency late on Monday that another 133 members of the Mujahideen Khalq Organisation (MKO) would return to Iran with Red Cross assistance next week.

Formed in the 1960s, the MKO fled to Iraq in the 1980s after falling foul of Islamic leaders after the 1979 revolution. Consisting of about 4,000 active members it has carried out bombings and cross-border raids against state targets in Iran.

But its effectiveness has diminished in later years and its members were disarmed by U.S. forces who invaded Iraq in 2003.

Iran has said MKO members who had not committed major crimes against the Islamic Republic will enjoy an amnesty if they return. Several dozen have so far taken up the offer."

Iran News - Iraqis Kill Iranian Border Guards

2005-02-28T05:06:00.000-08:00

Iran News - Iran's Majlis Speaker pursuing border incident: " Iran's Majlis Speaker pursuing border incident

Monday, February 28, 2005 - ©2005 IranMania.com

Related Pictures

LONDON, Feb 28 (IranMania) - Iran's Majlis Speaker Gholamali Haddad-Adel on Sunday urged the ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense to follow up the case of the ambush of Iranian border guards by Iraqi bandits near Arvand Roud waterway.

Addressing an open Majlis session, the speaker underlined the need to prevent recurrence of such incidents, IRNA reported.

Five Iranian border guards were shot by Iraqi bandits from Iraqi territory when they were patrolling the region Friday morning. Two of the Iranian guards were killed while the other three were injured in the ambush. The injured were rushed to hospital in the provincial port city of Abadan, north of Arvandkenar, after they reached the shore."

Wary Iran readies for guerrilla war if U.S. invades

2005-02-27T05:17:00.000-08:00

Wary Iran readies for guerrilla war if U.S. invades: "Wary Iran readies for guerrilla war if U.S. invades
Sunday, February 27, 2005

By Borzou Daragahi, Special to the Post-Gazette

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran has begun publicly preparing for a possible U.S. military attack, announcing efforts to mobilize recruits in citizens' militias and making plans to engage in the type of "asymetrical" guerrilla warfare which has bogged down American troops in neighboring Iraq.

"Iran would respond within 15 minutes to any attack by the United States or any other country," said an Iranian official close to the conservatives who run the country's security and military apparatus.

Tensions between Tehran and Washington have been escalating over Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology. Tehran insists it needs nuclear power to meet its burgeoning domestic energy needs and to bolster its scientific community. Washington accuses Iran of using nuclear energy as a fig leaf for a weapons program.

France, Great Britain and Germany, also suspicious of Iran's nuclear ambitions, have insisted on strict inspections while urging Iran to give up potential weapon-making components of its nuclear program.

On his trip to Europe last week, President Bush said he supported European diplomatic efforts and labeled as "ridiculous" suggestions that the United States was getting ready to attack Iran. Nonetheless, he refused to rule out the use of military force to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The Pentagon recently revealed that it had upgraded its Iranian war plans as a matter of routine preparedness.

Meanwhile, Iranian authorities say they also are getting ready in case of war.

Newspapers have announced efforts to increase beyond 7 million the number of "Basiji" militia, which were deployed in human wave attacks against Saddam Hussein's army during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Iranian military authorities have paraded long-range North Korean-designed Shahab missiles before television cameras. Iranian generals have conducted massive war games near the Iraqi border.

One Western military expert based in Tehran said Iran was sharpening its ability to wage a guerrilla war.

"Over the last year they've developed their tactics of asymmetrical war, which would aim not at resisting a penetration of foreign forces, but to then use them on the ground to all kinds of harmful effect," he said, on condition of anonymity.

It remains unclear how much of the recent military activity amounts to mobilization and how much may be a propaganda ploy. Iranian officials and analysts have said they want to highlight the potential costs of an attack on Iran to frighten a war-weary American public and make U.S. officials think more than twice about launching one.

"Right now it's a psychological war," said Nasser Hadian, a University of Tehran political science professor who recently returned from a three-year stint as a scholar at Columbia University in New York.

"If America decides to attack, the only ones who could stop it are Iranians," he said. "Pressure from other countries and inside America is important, but it won't prevent an attack. The only thing that will prevent an attack is that if America knows it will pay a heavy price."

Iran is also attempting to give the impression that it is bolstering its conventional forces. Last December, Iran announced its largest war games "ever," deploying 120,000 troops as well as tanks, helicopters and armored vehicles along its western border. More recently, the Iranian press reported that the air force had received orders to engage any plane that violates Iranian airspace, just after reports emerged that American spy drones were monitoring Iran's nuclear sites.

"It is obvious that with Iran surrounded by the United States forces [in Iraq and Afghanistan] and America pressing the nuclear issue, Iran wants to make a show of force," said a Western diplomat in Tehran, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Iran's army includes 350,000 active-duty soldiers and 220,000 conscripts. Its elite Revolutionary Guard numbers another 120,000. Its Navy and Air Force total 70,000.

The armed forces can call on 2,000 tanks, 300 combat aircraft, three submarines, hundreds of helicopters and at least a dozen Russian-made Scud missile launchers. Iran also has an undetermined number of Shahab missiles based on North Korean designs with ranges of more than 1,500 miles.

Both outside military experts and Iranians concede that the country's antiquated conventional hardware, worn down by years of U.S. and European economic sanctions, would pose no challenge to the high-tech weaponry of the United States.

"Most of Iran's military equipment is aging or second rate, and much of it is worn," wrote military expert Anthony Cordesman in a December assessment.

At a recent military demonstration in the northwestern city of Qazvin, the western military expert said he spotted 30-year-old American-made M113 tanks. "Those tanks were able to go a few a meters in front of us," he said. "But in a combat situation? I don't know."

Still, Iran could create troubles for Washington and the world if war were to break out.

Iran's intelligence agencies have extensive overseas experience, experts say, and its highly classified Quds forces, which answer directly to Iranian leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are believed to have operations in Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Turkey, the Persian Gulf, Central Asia and North Africa, as well as Europe and North America, according to a December 2004 report prepared by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Within minutes of attack, Iran's air and sea forces could threaten oil shipments in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Iran controls the northern coast of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which oil tankers must navigate to get out of the Persian Gulf, and it could sink ships, mine sea routes or bomb oil platforms to block it.

Iran also could activate Hezbollah militia in Lebanon to launch attacks on Israel. Operatives could attack U.S. interests in Azerbaijan, Central Asia or Turkey.

"Iran can escalate the war," said Hadian. "It's not going to be all that hard to target U.S. forces in these countries."

But most analysts agree that the biggest trump card Iranians could play would be to unleash havoc in neighboring Iraq, where Iraqis who spent years in Iran as exiles are about to assume control of the government.

Although the U.S. alleges Tehran already has been meddling in Iraq, many brush off the current low-level infiltration as minor compared to the damage Iran could cause by arming Iraqi militias and providing them sanctuary, by backing extreme Islamist groups instead of the moderates it now supports, or by dispatching operatives across the long porous border to exacerbate the Iraqi insurgency.

Any Iranian retaliation "would surely start with attempts to mobilize Shiite partisans in Iraq to try to turn the Iraqi south into an extension of the insurgency in the Sunni triangle," said Gary Sick, a professor of Middle East studies at Columbia University and a former security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, in recent congressional testimony.

Despite rising tension, Iran remains quiet and there is little public evidence of a military call-up. It is unclear whether most young Iranian men -- more materialistic and middle class than the generation that fought for eight years against Iraq in the 1980s -- would fight with much enthusiasm against the United States.

Hamid-Reza, a 23-year-old clothing store manager who lost numerous relatives in the Iran-Iraq war, said he would definitely be willing to fight but feared that Iran would prove no match for the United States.

"What will I do?" he asked. "Get inside an inner tube and go fight against the American battleships in the Persian Gulf?""

If US Attacks Iran Key US Ally Will Not Hel

2005-02-25T03:56:00.000-08:00

ZAMAN DAILY NEWSPAPER (2005022516890): "Musharraf: If US Attacks Iran, We'll Remain Neutral
By Cihan News Agency
Published: Friday 25, 2005
zaman.com

Pakistani President Parvaz Musharraf has said that if the US attacks Iran over its nuclear armament, Pakistan will remain neutral.

Musharraf spoke at a conference in Islamabad where he said: "We hope the US doesn't attack Iran. In the event of an attack, Pakistan will remain neutral."

When a reporter asked Musharraf to comment on plans by some parties to gather a million people for a march in support of overthrowing the Musharraf administration, the Pakistani President said these people have failed in the past and will fail again."

BBC NEWS - Bush 'backed down on Iran threat'

2005-02-24T12:34:00.000-08:00

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Bush 'backed down on Iran threat': "Bush 'backed down on Iran threat'

Iran says US President George Bush has been forced to back down in his tussle with Tehran over its nuclear plans.
Mr Bush said on Tuesday the notion that the US was preparing to attack Iran to prevent it acquiring nuclear weapons was "simply ridiculous".

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said the US realised there was no support for its "unacceptable" claims against Iran, so had withdrawn its threats.

Iran denies it is trying to build nuclear weapons.

It says it only wants nuclear power for peaceful, energy-production purposes.

'Changed tone'

Mr Khatami said: "Sometimes America speaks with a sharp tongue.

"But this threatening language is not practical. They recently realised that such claims are unacceptable and could be problematic even for their own people. This is why they have changed their tone."

Iran says its nuclear activity has solely peaceful motives

"America is inexperienced and ill-informed, and it should not patronise us," he added.

Although Mr Bush dismissed talk of an imminent attack on Iran, he would not rule out a strike at some time, saying all options remained.

On Wednesday, in Germany, he said it was important the world should "speak with one voice" on Iran.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said: "We absolutely agree that Iran must say no to any kind of nuclear weapons."

Slow progress

The European Union has been taking the lead in diplomatic negotiations with Tehran.

It wants Iran to turn a temporary suspension of uranium enrichment into a permanent halt.

Mr Khatami said on Wednesday: "There are deep differences of opinion between Iran and the Europeans."

He said talks were progressing slowly, but he was "not pessimistic" that the two sides would reach agreement.

However, he once again refused to countenance an indefinite ban on enrichment activity."

ZAMAN DAILY NEWSPAPER (2005022316828)

2005-02-23T08:24:00.000-08:00

ZAMAN DAILY NEWSPAPER (2005022316828): "Bush Amused by Rumors about Iran
By Foreign News Services
Published: Wednesday 23, 2005
zaman.com

An atmosphere of mutual understanding dominated the press conference held after the EU-US summit, which was held following the NATO summit yesterday.

US President George W. Bush said the US considers the European project to be very important and said differences of opinions should be solved rationally.

Bush said some European allies "would like to continue their talks with mullahs in Tehran" and cited Germany and France as examples. He then said, "If Iran does not have any nuclear weapons, it serves all our interests."

Bush said, "Some people think that we are going to attack Iran. It is amusing, but all options are open.""

People's Daily Online -- Talk of US attack on Iran "ridiculous", says Bush

2005-02-22T18:19:00.000-08:00

People's Daily Online -- Talk of US attack on Iran "ridiculous", says Bush: "Talk of US attack on Iran "ridiculous", says Bush

US President George W. Bush said Tuesday in Brussels that the talk of US attack on Iran over its nuclear programs is "ridiculous".

He made the remarks at a press conference in the building of the Council of the European Union (EU) where he attended the EU-US summit meeting.

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," Bush said at the press conference jointly held with EU leaders.

However, he quickly added that all options remained open, noting that European countries were trying to seek a diplomatic resolution to the issue.

"All options are on the table," he said.

France, Germany and the United Kingdom are leading EU efforts in trying to solve the problem through peaceful means. They have been endeavoring to persuade Tehran to halt its uranium enrichment activities in exchange for better trade relations.

In a 30-minute speech delivered at the Royal Concert in Brussels on Monday, Bush reiterated US position that Iran must not develop nuclear weapons, falling short of saying whether his country would join in the EU peace efforts made in this direction.

Bush is on a fence-mending Europe tour. The issue of Iran's nuclear programs is high on his agenda."

Iran is no Iraq, says Kharrazi

2005-02-22T08:26:00.000-08:00

Iran is no Iraq, says Kharrazi: "Iran is no Iraq, says Kharrazi:
[India News]: New Delhi, Feb 22 : Iran asserted Tuesday that it is capable of defending itself against any US attack and that Washington's attempt to impose its form of democracy in the Middle East is an attempt to destabilise the whole region.

"We are capable enough to defend ourselves. They (US) know that Iran is very different (from Iraq)," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said.

He said the US was in the Middle East on the pretext of promoting democracy in the region, "but their goal is to destabilise the governments and countries in the region."

Kharrazi, on the last day of his three-day visit to India, was answering questions after delivering a lecture on "Importance of Indo-Iran Relations and Their Role in the Region" at a packed auditorium of the Indian Council of World Affairs here that included diplomats, scholars and opinion makers.

He welcomed the election in Iraq and hoped that it would eventually lead to restoration of sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

"But you should avoid the mistake of thinking that the Iraqis are happy with the change of Iraqi regime. They are not happy at all. They will be happy only when all the foreign forces are withdrawn from their country," Kharrazi said."

Chalabi or al-Jaafari for Prime Minister?

2005-02-22T04:56:00.000-08:00

Yahoo! News - Top Shiite Politicians Meet in Iraq: "Top Shiite Politicians Meet in Iraq

By MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Top Shiite politicians met at a heavily fortified building on Tuesday to choose between conservative interim vice president Ibrahim al-Jaafari and secular Shiite Ahmad Chalabi as their candidate to be Iraq (news - web sites)'s next prime minister.

AP Photo

AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq

Iraqi Shiites Weigh Possible PMs Amid Raids
(AP Video)

Latest headlines:
· Iraq Inches Closer to Naming Prime Minister
Reuters - 12 minutes ago
· Bush Wins Modest Support From NATO
AP - 21 minutes ago
· Car Bomb Kills 2 Iraqi Soldiers, Wounds 30
Reuters - 32 minutes ago
Special Coverage

If they fail to reach a decision — and so far neither al-Jaafari nor Chalabi have shown any signs of backing down — leaders of the clergy-backed United Iraqi Alliance will hold a secret ballot later Tuesday to decide the issue, said alliance member Ali al-Hashim.

"We will do our best to select one today," he said.

Meanwhile, two explosions echoed through the Iraqi capital at midday. A small plume of black smoke could be seen rising above the Green Zone, where Iraqi government offices and the U.S. Embassy are located.

Police Capt. Muthanna Hassan said one of the blasts was a car bomb that exploded as an Iraqi special forces convoy passed by, killing two soldiers and wounding 20 others. It was not clear what caused the other blast.

In western Baghdad, masked gunmen hurled explosives into a Shiite mosque in the Ghazaliyah neighborhood, police Capt. Sa'ad Jawad Kadhim said. The explosives failed to detonate and guards opened fire on the attackers, killing one and forcing the rest to flee, Kadhim said.

Also in Baghdad, Iraqi police foiled a suicide bombing attempt, arresting a Sudanese man who tried to detonate an explosive-laden belt inside the Adnan Khair Allah hospital in the north of the city, Interior Ministry Capt. Ahmed Ismael said.

It was apparently the second suicide mission involving a Sudanese. At least one man believed to be of Sudanese origin carried out a suicide bombing Saturday in Baghdad, part of a wave of violence across the country that killed 55 people on Ashoura, the holiest day of the Shiite calendar.

Also in the capital, a U.S. military convoy was hit in a roadside bomb attack in the southern neighborhood of Doura, police Lt. Haitham Abdul Razak said.

Elsewhere Tuesday, U.S. troops exchanged fire with gunmen in Samarra, 60 miles north of the capital. One Iraqi was killed in a mortar strike there, said Dr. Aala al-Deen Mohammed.

The violence, typical of recent months in Iraq, comes as Shiites prepare to take power there for the first time in modern history.

The Shiite alliance won 140 seats in the 275-seat National Assembly in Jan. 30 elections, and a two-thirds majority, or 182 seats, is needed to confirm a prime minister. That means the alliance will need to strike a deal with smaller parties to form the next government after choosing its candidate.

About two dozen top Shiite politicians were meeting at the Baghdad headquarters of the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Shiite politicians have been negotiating to decide their candidate for days.

Chalabi spokesman Haidar al-Moussawi said Monday that the most powerful man in predominantly Shiite Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, met with interim Finance Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi in the southern city of Najaf on Tuesday and gave his backing for whatever decision the alliance makes.

"Al-Sistani assured that whoever the alliance will choose, he will agree on him," al-Moussawi said.

Although supporters of Chalabi, who was once known for his ties with Washington, claim he had the support needed for the nomination, the vote between the two 58-year-old men was anything but a sure thing.

The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the main group making up the alliance, had tried to persuade Chalabi to quit the race, some of its senior officials said.

"We had hoped that we would agree on one person without the secret ballot, because we fear that such a vote will cause divisions inside the alliance," said Jawad Mohammed Taqi, a senior member of the group, known as SCIRI.

He added that "Chalabi seems very confident and he believes that when we hold a secret ballot he will get the majority. I believe this is an exaggeration."

Whoever wins the ballot, he will face interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, 59, whose party came in third after a Kurdish coalition and received 40 seats.

"My list nominated me for the prime ministership," Allawi, a secular Shiite, said Monday.

Al-Jaafari, the president of the Islamic Dawa Party, is also Western-oriented but is considered by many to be a cleric in a business suit.

Chalabi is a former exile leader who heavily promoted the idea that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had weapons of mass destruction. He later fell out with some key members of the Bush administration over allegations that he passed secrets to Iran.

Chalabi's candidacy could create problems for the alliance because of his vow to rid the government and administration of former members of Saddam's Baath party. Most Baathists are Sunni Arabs, who largely stayed away from the polls either as a boycott or out of fears of being attacked by militants.

Shiite politicians such as al-Jaafari have been quick to reassure Sunnis, who make up about 20 percent of the population but were favored under Saddam, that they will have a role in forming a government and drafting the country's first democratic constitution. Shiites make up about 60 percent of the population."

Iran readies military, fearing a U.S. attack / Tensions with Bush administration surge over Tehran's disputed nuclear ambition

2005-02-21T07:29:00.000-08:00

Iran readies military, fearing a U.S. attack / Tensions with Bush administration surge over Tehran's disputed nuclear ambition: "Iran readies military, fearing a U.S. attack
Tensions with Bush administration surge over Tehran's disputed nuclear ambition
Borzou Daragahi, Chronicle Foreign Service

Tehran -- Iran has begun publicly preparing for a possible U.S. attack, as tensions mount between the Bush administration and this country's hard-line leaders over Tehran's purported nuclear weapons program.

"Iran would respond within 15 minutes to any attack by the United States or any other country," an Iranian official close to the conservative clerics who run the country's security and military apparatus said on condition of anonymity.

The Tehran government has announced efforts to bolster and mobilize recruits in its citizens' militia and is making plans to engage in the type of "asymmetrical" warfare that has bogged down U.S. troops in neighboring Iraq, officials and analysts say.

Iran insists it needs nuclear technology to meet its burgeoning domestic energy requirements and bolster its scientific community. But the United States accuses it of using nuclear energy as a fig leaf for a weapons program.

"Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve," President Bush said in his State of the Union address earlier this month.

France, Great Britain and Germany, also suspicious of Iran's nuclear ambitions, have insisted on strict inspections and have urged Iran to give up components of its nuclear program, specifically its effort to establish what is called the nuclear fuel cycle, lest it provoke a military attack.

Fuel cycle technology has peaceful applications -- energy production and medicine, for example -- but it is also viewed as the foundation for weapons development.

The United States has criticized the approach taken by Europe and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, as too soft on Iran. Generally, however, Bush administration officials insist they support European diplomatic efforts, but refuse to rule out military options if Iran refuses to acknowledge and give up its alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

The Pentagon recently revealed that, as a matter of routine preparedness, it had upgraded its Iranian war plans, and the Washington Post has reported that unmanned U.S. drones have been flying over suspected nuclear sites in Iran.

Iranian authorities, too, say they have been getting ready for a possible attack. Newspapers have announced efforts to increase the number of the country's 7 million-strong "Basiji" volunteer militia, which was deployed in human-wave attacks during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Iranian military authorities have paraded long-range North Korean-designed Shahab missiles before television cameras.

The Iranian military also is attempting to give the impression that it is bolstering its conventional forces. In December, it staged a massive war game -- deploying 120,000 troops as well as tanks, helicopters and armored vehicles near its western border with Iraq. More recently, Iran's press reported that the Iranian air force had received orders to engage any plane that violates Iranian airspace, just after the reports emerged of U.S. spy planes monitoring Iran's skies.

One Western military expert based in Tehran said Iran was sharpening its abilities to wage a guerrilla war. "Over the last year, they've developed their tactics of 'asymmetrical' war, which would aim not at resisting a penetration of foreign forces, but to then use them on the ground to all kinds of harmful effect," he said, on condition of anonymity.

It remains unclear how much of the recent military activity amounts to a mobilization and how much is propaganda. Iranian officials and analysts have said they want to highlight the potential costs of an attack on Iran to raise the stakes for U.S. officials considering an assault and to frighten a war- weary American public.

"Right now it's a psychological war," said Nasser Hadian, a University of Tehran political science professor who recently returned from a three-year stint as a scholar at New York's Columbia University.

"If America decides to attack, the only ones who could stop it are Iranians," he said. "Pressure from other countries and inside America is important, but it won't prevent an attack. The only thing that will prevent an attack is that if America knows it will pay a heavy price."

Iran's army includes 350,000 active-duty soldiers and 220,000 conscripts. Its elite Revolutionary Guards number 120,000, many of them draftees. Its navy and air force total 70,000 men. The armed forces have about 2,000 tanks, 300 combat aircraft, three submarines, hundreds of helicopters and at least a dozen Russian-made Scud missile launchers of the type Saddam Hussein used against Israel during the 1991 Gulf War. Iran also has an undetermined number of Shahab missiles that have a range of more than 1,500 miles.

Yet both outside military experts and Iranians concede that the country's antiquated conventional hardware, worn down by years of U.S. and European sanctions, would be little match for the high-tech wizardry of the United States.

"Most of Iran's military equipment is aging or second-rate, and much of it is worn," Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, wrote in a December 2004 assessment of Iran's military.

The Western military expert said he spotted 30-year-old American-made M113 armored vehicles at recent military demonstration in the northwestern city of Qazvin. "Those tanks were able to go a few meters in front of us," he said. "But in a combat situation? I don't know."

Despite the state of its equipment, Iran could create myriad troubles for the United States and the world.

Its security forces include a number of intelligence agencies with extensive overseas experience and assets, experts say. Iran's highly classified Quds forces, which answer directly to Iran's spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are believed to have operations in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Turkey, the Persian Gulf region, Central Asia, North Africa, Europe and North America, according to a December 2004 report prepared by CSIS.

Within minutes of any attack, Iran's air and sea forces could threaten oil shipments in the Persian Gulf as well as the Gulf of Oman. Iran controls the northern coast of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which oil tankers must navigate, and could sink ships, mine sea routes or bomb oil platforms, according to the CSIS report.

Iran could activate Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, whom it supports, to launch attacks on Israel. It could have operatives attack U.S. interests in Azerbaijan, Central Asia or Turkey.

"Iran can escalate the war," said Hadian. "It's not going to be all that hard to target U.S. forces in these countries."

But most analysts agree that Iran's biggest trump card would be to unleash havoc in neighboring Iraq, where Shiites who spent years in Iran as exiles are assuming control of the government.

Although the Bush administration charges that Tehran already has been interfering in Iraq, many Iranians brush off the low-level infiltration as minor compared to the damage it could cause by allowing Iraqi militiamen to take heavy weapons into Iran, by backing the most extreme Islamist groups instead of the moderates it now supports, or by dispatching operatives across the long, porous border between the two countries.

Any Iranian retaliation "would surely start with attempts to mobilize Shia partisans in Iraq to try to turn the Iraqi south into an extension of the insurgency in the Sunni triangle," Gary Sick, professor of Middle East studies at Columbia University and former National Security Council adviser to then President Jimmy Carter, told a congressional panel last week.

Iraqi officials, wary of their country becoming a battleground for the conflicting ambitions of Tehran and Washington, concede the damage Iran could do in their country, which now hosts 150,000 U.S. troops.

"If Iran wanted, it could make Iraq a hell for the United States," Hamid al-Bayati, Iraq's deputy foreign minister, said recently."

News Hounds: Scott Ritter Says US Will Attack Iran in June

2005-02-21T04:34:00.000-08:00

News Hounds: Scott Ritter Says US Will Attack Iran in June: "News Hounds
We watch FOX so you don't have to.
February 20, 2005Scott Ritter Says US Will Attack Iran in June
From United for Peace of Pierce County, WA.

(Scott) Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism...

...Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration.
"

Yahoo! News - Couple Build Startup Into Blog Powerhouse

2005-02-20T06:39:00.000-08:00

Yahoo! News - Couple Build Startup Into Blog Powerhouse: "Couple Build Startup Into Blog Powerhouse

Sat Feb 19, 6:59 PM ET Technology - AP

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - Like so many other 20-somethings hoping to mine the Internet gold rush of the late 1990s, Mena Trott was thrown for a humbling loop by the dot-com bust, yet still craved stardom. Her unassuming husband, Ben, just wanted another computer programming gig in Silicon Valley's depressed job market. The couple's odd chemistry cooked up Six Apart Ltd., a startup that has helped popularize the "blogging" craze, with millions of people worldwide maintaining online personal journals that dissect everything from politics to poultry.

Related Quotes
GOOG
MSFT
197.95
25.48
+0.05
-0.17

Delayed Data
Providers - Disclaimer

The Trotts, both 27, have amplified the buzz about Web logs, or blogs, by making them easier to set up and write.

San Francisco-based Six Apart provides two widely used blogging tools — a software publishing program, Movable Type, and a hosted service, TypePad, for people who don't want to do the technological grunt work themselves.

Boosted by the recent takeover of another blogging service called LiveJournal, Six Apart now has 7 million users, including a substantial number who pay fees that range from $4.95 per month for TypePad's bare-bones package to thousands of dollars for licensing Movable Type to install on their own servers.

The revenue stream, which the Trotts declined to disclose, has enabled the privately held Six Apart to expand from just six employees in early 2004 to more than 70 with the LiveJournal acquisition, making the Trotts darlings of the blogosphere.

None of it would have happened if Mena hadn't grown bored during the post-boom doldrums of early 2001 and decided to write her own blog.

"I really needed a creative outlet," Mena said. "I figured I wasn't going to be famous in the real world, so I may as well try to be famous in the online world."

Mena gradually won fans with a quirky journal called Dollarshort. The blog shared the foibles of her youth and mused on eclectic topics like her disgust with people who clip their fingernails on public transit and her obsession with the 1972 disaster movie, "The Poseidon Adventure."

It was the kind of thing her taciturn husband would never do.

"Ben is shy and gets uncomfortable when people talk about him," said Andrew Anker, Six Apart's executive vice president of corporate development. "Mena gets upset when everyone is not talking about her every day."

As Mena blogged, Ben became frustrated in his search for a decent computer programming job. While unemployed, Ben began to work on the computer code that became Movable Type.

When 100 people downloaded Movable Type during the first hour of its release in September 2001, the Trotts decided to run their own business from their bedroom, drawing the inspiration for the company name from their nearly identical age — Ben and Mena were born six days apart in 1977.

"We were just looking for something to subsist on," Ben said. "We figured if we ever got 3,000 users, we would just close the (TypePad) service and make it invitation only."

But the Trotts — who at one point only wanted to make enough money to pay their monthly bills — benefited from being at the right place at the right time.

Venture capitalist Joi Ito stumbled upon TypePad and began exploring an investment in Six Apart, but had trouble convincing the Trotts that they should think big.

"They weren't getting out much back then, so they didn't realize how popular this thing was becoming," Ito said.

As part of his lobbying efforts, Ito arranged a meeting with a veteran executive, Barak Berkowitz, who listened to the Trotts' initial, modest business plan and told them that it sounded fine if they wanted to run the equivalent of a small corner store. The condescension infuriated Mena at first, but ultimately made her realize the company needed outside help to realize her dreams.

"We realized pretty quickly that we wanted to influence the future of blogging," Mena said. "We would have felt terrible if blogging became something big and we ended up only being a footnote."

The Trotts ended up selling a stake in the company to Ito and other venture capitalists for $11.5 million and Mena turned over the CEO title to Berkowitz, who keeps her happy by calling her "Queen."

Six Apart's early success is attracting some serious competition.

Software giant Microsoft Corp. is seeking to undercut TypePad with a free blogging service called MSN Spaces. Six Apart also faces another formidable rival in online search engine leader Google Inc., one of the companies where Ben unsuccessfully applied for a job in 2001. Google in 2003 bought another blogging pioneer, Blogger.

The potential of blogging itself elicits strongly divided opinions.

Denizens of the so-called blogosphere believe the practice is destined to revolutionize the way people distribute and get information, increasingly marginalizing traditional mass media outlets.

One blog created by three lawyers, Power Line, is widely credited with challenging last fall's "60 Minutes" report on President Bush (news - web sites)'s National Guard service, for which CBS News anchor Dan Rather later apologized. Other blogs posted first-person narratives and shared information on finding family members missing in the Asian tsunami disaster.

The Pew Internet and American Life Project finds that 27 percent of online adults in the United States read blogs, and 7 percent write them.

Critics, though, view all the fuss about blogs as the latest bout of Internet hyperbole, one that will eventually fade away ones readers realize they are rife with inaccuracies and mundane minutiae.

Mena dismisses the skepticism as misguided, insisting a blog doesn't have to be profound to be worthwhile. She believes most blogs are simply a convenient way to keep in touch with a small circle of family and friends, even if the content seems inconsequential.

As if to prove her point, Mena is taking a picture of herself every day this year and posting it to a blog frequented by a handful of people.

"It's not really hubris," Mena said of her daily portraits. "I'm just trying to create a record that shows my aging process."

___

On the Net:

Mena Trott's blog: http://mena.typepad.com/dollarshort

Trott's dormant blog: http://www.dollarshort.org

"

Boston.com Congress eyes funds for Iran dissidents - Peter W. Rodman met with Hossein Khomeini

2005-02-19T21:26:00.000-08:00

Boston.com / News / Nation / Washington / Congress eyes funds for Iran dissidents: "Congress eyes funds for Iran dissidents
Spending bill includes provision for $1.5m
By Bryan Bender, Globe Correspondent, 12/6/2003

WASHINGTON -- For the first time, Congress is set to approve government funds openly earmarked to help undermine the Islamic government of Iran by providing money for dissidents inside the country, according to US officials and specialists.

ADVERTISEMENT

The program calls for an initial $1.5 million to be spent next year to support the efforts of Iranians and Iranian organizations seeking to replace the government in Tehran with a democracy.

Though a relatively small amount of money, the funding carries great symbolic weight. Past efforts to use US government money to support Iranian dissidents have been sidetracked before reaching a final vote because of concerns that they would violate sanctions prohibiting any money from going to Iran, as well as an agreement in 1981, shortly after the release of US hostages in Tehran, to refrain from actively opposing the Iranian government.

But this time, Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican with close ties to the Bush administration who has long called for more active US efforts to weaken the Iranian government, has appended the funding provision to the so-called omnibus spending bill. The provision has already gone through negotiations of a House-Senate conference committee and is due to be formally approved early next week.

A spokesman for Brownback said the Bush administration knew the senator was inserting the provision and did not oppose it.

On Nov. 6, Bush announced that US policy would be geared toward supporting democracy for Middle East countries, but his administration's policy on Iran has stopped short of providing direct support for opposition leaders. White House and State Department leaders were unavailable for comment yesterday.

"It is clear from the regime's treatment of its own people that Iran is no democracy," Brownback told a group of Iranian Americans in July, in a speech his office provided to explain his position. "I understand that the State Department's job is diplomacy and the search for common ground. But now is a time for moral clarity, not excuses."

If it is approved by Congress, and then gets President Bush's signature, the provision could spark fierce debate over whether the United States is moving to an official position of supporting the overthrow of the clerics who govern Iran. Recently, the United States has dealt with Iran through a mixture of carrots and sticks, applying diplomatic pressure through European governments to negotiate inspections of Iran's nuclear program.

Under the bill before Congress, the State Department would be granted the approval to use funds for "making grants to educational, humanitarian, and nongovernmental organizations and individuals inside Iran to support the advancement of democracy and human rights in Iran," according to the House-Senate conference committee report.

The US government has approved similar funds, much of it spent by the nonprofit National Endowment for Democracy, to be used in other countries, particularly communist nations during the Cold War and more recently to support democracy movements in China.

Dissident groups have typically used the funds to oppose the regimes in those countries, including beaming unauthorized radio broadcasts calling attention to abuses and seeking a change of government.

But efforts to promote such opposition in Iran -- most recently a Brownback proposal this year to spend $50 million to fund expatriate Iranian radio and television stations broadcasting anti-regime programming -- have failed because of the legal concerns of opening up US coffers to back Iranian opposition groups.

The United States maintains sanctions against Iran that prohibit funds from being spent on Iranian goods and outlaws financial transactions with individuals inside the country. Meanwhile, in an agreement signed in Algiers in 1981, the United States, in naming Switzerland to represent its interests in Iran, pledged not to meddle in the internal affairs of the Iranian regime.

"It would be a significant change," Gary Sick, an Iran specialist at Columbia University and former staff member on the National Security Council in the Carter administration, said of the new program. Past attempts to provide money for Iranian dissidents "never succeeded and for the reason that they were viewed as either illegal or counterproductive," he said.

Other officials and analysts said that while the amount of money in the new bill is relatively small, it would nonetheless signal a more aggressive US stance in relation to Iran, which Bush has called a member of the "axis of evil" for its suspected pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and support of Islamic terrorist groups.

It could also prompt a forceful response from the Iranian government. In 1996, when The New York Times reported that $18 million was slated to be spent on covert activities designed to weaken the regime's grip on power, the Iranian government viewed it as a serious threat and took steps to counter it, according to Sick.

"The Iranians took it very seriously, and they began coming up with countertactics," including fanning anti-American sentiment in the government-controlled media.

It was never revealed whether the covert funds were used.

Brownback and others, however, believe the new money would be well spent. Iranian students launched a series of public protests in recent years, at least in part due to prodemocracy radio broadcasts by Iranians living outside the country.

Still, there remain fissures within the Bush administration on how to proceed with Iran. The State Department, which would receive the money, is believed to be less supportive of taking a more active role to destabilize the regime than the Pentagon, which has held a series of meetings with Iranian dissidents in recent years.

Pentagon officials have met with Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late shah of Iran, and Manucher Ghorbanifar, who came to prominence during the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages affair in the 1980s. Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter W. Rodman met with Hossein Khomeini, Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson who has broken with the ruling clerics, as recently as September.

Due to the State Department's opposition and questions about whether the contacts amount to covert activity that should be the responsibility of the CIA -- if any government agency at all -- the contacts have been curtailed, according to Defense Department officials.

Still, the Bush administration has stepped up its rhetoric against the Iranian regime in recent months, accusing it of seeking to destabilize Iraq and providing safe harbor from high-level members of the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

In his Nov. 6 speech commemorating the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, the president called for greater urgency in spreading democracy in the Middle East, saying "We've reached another great turning point -- and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement."

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company."

Iran preps for a possible war with U.S.

2005-02-19T06:59:00.000-08:00

Iran preps for a possible war with U.S.: "Iran preps for a possible war with U.S.:
[World News]: TEHRAN, Feb. 19 : Iran has begun preparing for a possible U.S. attack, or at least trying to dissuade Washington from such an attack by appearing to prepare for war.

Tehran has recently disclosed efforts to bolster and mobilize recruits in citizens' militias and making plans to engage in the type of "asymmetrical" warfare used against U.S. troops in Iraq, the Washington Times reported Saturday.

"Iran would respond within 15 minutes to any attack by the United States or any other country," said an Iranian official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Further, Iranian newspapers are reporting efforts to boost the number of the country's 7-million-strong "Basiji" militia forces, which were deployed in human wave attacks against Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

Some analysts say Tehran simply wants to highlight the potential costs of an attack on Iran to raise the stakes for U.S. officials considering such a move and to frighten a war-weary American public.

"Right now it's a psychological war," said Nasser Hadian, a University of Tehran political science professor who recently returned from three years at New York's Columbia University.

Copyright 2005 by United Press International"

Interfax > U.S. using relations with Iran to influence relations with Russia

2005-02-18T08:56:00.000-08:00

Interfax > Politics: "U.S. using relations with Iran to influence relations with Russia - Kosachyov
MOSCOW. Feb 18 (Interfax) - Head of the Russian State Duma Committee on International Affairs Konstantin Kosachyov said he thinks the United States is using the Iranian nuclear problem as a "bargaining chip" in its relations with Russia.

"The way I see it, the U.S. is not using this subject as a strategic resource, but as a 'bargaining chip' in its relations with Russia," Kosachyov told a Friday press conference in Moscow.

"The U.S.' firm position on Iran is being used to drive back and limit Russia's positions.""

Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Iran Explosion Sets Off Fears of Attack

2005-02-16T17:45:00.000-08:00

Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Iran Explosion Sets Off Fears of Attack: "Iran Explosion Sets Off Fears of Attack

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - An explosion in a southern city prompted instant fears Wednesday of a missile attack in an area where Iran has a nuclear facility, and Iranian authorities gave conflicting explanations for the blast - including Iranian friendly fire in a military area and construction work.

The explosion came hours after the country's intelligence chief confirmed U.S. drones have been flying over Iran for months to spy on nuclear and military facilities.

U.S. and Israeli officials denied involvement with the blast, but it spiked oil prices and showed how jittery the world is that growing international pressure would lead to an attack on Iran.

The explosion near the southwestern port city of Deylam, about 110 miles from the Bushehr nuclear facility, was reported by Iranian state television, which said it may have been caused by a fuel tank dropping from an Iranian plane. A government spokesman said the blast may have been caused by friendly fire.

Later, a top security official said the blast was part of construction work on a dam. The official, Ali Agha Mohammadi of the Supreme National Security Council, said Iran's enemies were not in a position to attack Iran.

``Such reports are mostly a psychological war,'' he said.

The United States accuses Iran of having a secret program to make nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear activities are for peaceful energy purposes.

The report of the explosion spread quickly, with some Iranians calling friends to tell them there had been an attack.

Reza Moghaddam, an engineer in the central city of Isfahan, called a friend in Tehran about rumors that the United States and Israel were attacking the Bushehr nuclear power plant.

Iran has been on the defensive recently about the possibility of military action by either the United States or Israel. Israel has warned that it may consider a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear installations along the lines of its 1981 bombing of an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor near Baghdad.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said a military strike against Iran was ``not on the agenda at this point,'' but President Bush has said his administration wouldn't take any option off the table.

However, Interior Ministry spokesman Jahanbakhsh Khanjani dismissed rumors of a hostile attack and noted that Iranian military aircraft routinely fly in the area.

``There is a big possibility that it was a friendly fire by mistake,'' he told The Associated Press. ``Several such mistaken friendly fire incidents have been reported there in recent days.''

A senior army official, speaking on condition of anonymity, denied there had been any anti-aircraft fire and said there were no military exercises in the area at the time. The official also said the explosion did not stem from a hostile attack.

``It's not very unusual that planes drop their additional fuel tank while flying but the general public assume it's a bomb or missile attack. The army is investigating the incident,'' he said.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there was no U.S. involvement, and CIA Director Porter Goss said he knew nothing about it.

Earlier Wednesday, Iran's Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi publicly confirmed for the first time that the United States has been flying surveillance drones over Iran's airspace to spy on its nuclear and military facilities.

``Most of the shining objects that our people see in Iran's airspace are American spying equipment used to spy on Iran's nuclear and military facilities,'' the minister told reporters.

His remarks confirmed a Sunday report in The Washington Post that quoted unidentified U.S. officials as saying the drones have been flying over Iran for nearly a year to seek evidence of nuclear weapons programs.

``These activities won't reveal anything to them,'' Yunesi said of the Americans. ``Our nuclear activities are open and very transparent. Our military activities are all legal.''

In December, the Iranian air force was ordered to shoot down any unknown flying objects. At the time, there were reports in Iranian newspapers that Iran had discovered spying devices in the pilotless planes that its air defense force had shot down.

``If any of the bright objects come close, they will definitely meet our fire and will be shot down. We possess the necessary equipment to confront them,'' Yunesi said.

Last month, Yunesi said the United States had been conducting aerial surveillance, but he mentioned neither drones nor nuclear and military sites.

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom told reporters in London on Wednesday that Iran will have the knowledge to build nuclear weapons within six months.

Germany, Britain and France are leading European diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to permanently abandon its uranium enrichment program, which the United States fears could be used to make nuclear weapons.

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi urged the European Union on Tuesday to put more effort into negotiations. Iran has warned it will resume all nuclear activities it has suspended if talks don't make progress by mid-March."

CNN.com - Iran Shoots Down U.S. nuke spy drone - Feb 16, 2005

2005-02-16T04:37:00.000-08:00

CNN.com - Iran: U.S. flying nuke spy drones - Feb 16, 2005: "Iran: U.S. flying nuke spy drones
Wednesday, February 16, 2005 Posted: 5:19 AM EST (1019 GMT)

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- The United States has been flying spy drones over Iran's nuclear sites, Iran's intelligence minister has been quoted as saying.

"Most of the shining objects that our people see over Iran's airspace are American spying equipment used to spy on Iran's nuclear and military facilities," The Associated Press quoted Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi as saying Wednesday

On Sunday, The Washington Post newspaper quoted unnamed U.S. officials as saying the United States has been using unmanned flights for the past year to gather intelligence on Iran's nuclear capability.

"U.S. spying activities over Iranian airspace have been going since a long time ago," AP quoted Yunesi as saying.

"These activities won't reveal anything to them," Yunesi said. "That's to say, it won't give them anything new."

"Our nuclear activities are open and very transparent. Our military activities are all legal," Yunesi said.

"If any of the bright objects come close, they will definitely meet our fire. We possess the necessary equipment to confront them," Yunesi said.

Last month, Yunesi said that the United States had been conducting aerial surveillance, but he neither mentioned drones nor nuclear and military sites, AP reported.

The Iranian air force was ordered in December to shoot down any unknown or suspicious flying objects in Iran's airspace, AP reported. At the time, there were reports in Iranian newspapers that spying devices had been found in a pilotless planes that had been shot down.

Meanwhile Wednesday, Iran's foreign minister, Kamal Kharrasi, was in Berlin for meetings with his German counterpart, Joschka Fischer. European and U.S. efforts to rein in Tehran's nuclear ambitions were expected to be the focus of the talks.

Iran suspended its uranium enrichment program last year under a deal struck with Germany, France and Britain. Tehran plans to decide soon whether to continue the suspension, which is monitored by U.N. nuclear inspectors.

On Tuesday, Kharrasi urged the European Union to make more economic and technological concessions to reach an agreement on Iran'snuclear activities.

"It needs more efforts, more seriousness, more confidence building to be evaluated as a fruitful and positive process," AP quoted him as telling reporters after discussions with the Luxembourg government, which holds the rotating EU presidency.

Conflicting signals
Following Sunday's Washington Post story, U.S. sources gave conflicting signals to CNN about the veracity of the report.

Three senior U.S. military officials disputed the article Sunday, but two well-placed U.S. government sources confirmed it, saying that the overflights have indeed been taking place.

The newspaper -- citing three U.S. officials -- reported that Washington has been using drones to look for evidence of nuclear weapons programs and to "detect weaknesses in air defenses."

Neither the CIA nor the Pentagon commented Sunday on the apparent discrepancy.

The Bush administration has been working to build international pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program, arguing that the country is operating a clandestine weapons program.

Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is designed for civilian energy production only.

Because U.S. intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction turned out to be wrong, some critics of the Bush administration have questioned whether U.S. intelligence on Iran can be trusted.

Britain, France and Germany have been holding talks with Tehran in an attempt to have Iran's uranium-enrichment program permanently frozen. The United States has said it would work with European countries in their efforts.

Meanwhile, Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on CNN's "Late Edition" Sunday that the United States is not flying drones over Iran.

But the Kansas Republican did say that unmanned aerial vehicles -- or UAVs -- have the capability to collect such intelligence.

"I think we ought to be using all of our capabilities in terms of collecting the intelligence we need," said Roberts, who recently commissioned his staff to conduct a review of U.S. intelligence on Iran, in order to avoid the kind of faulty assessments that preceded the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"It was a world community intelligence failure; we can't let that happen again," Roberts said.

Meanwhile, another U.S. senator said Iran was a greater problem than Iraq, and that America needed to have "all eyes on the ground that we can possibly get."

"They are a dangerous country," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Intelligence Committee's ranking Democrat. "They're much more sophisticated than Iraq."

Several U.S. military officials said they have no information on any U.S. operations over Iran.

A senior military official with knowledge of the region told CNN last week that there were no aircraft, including UAVs, flying over Iranian airspace.

He said no U.S. military aircraft were violating Iranian airspace and that the United States was keeping its assets 12 miles (19 kilometers) off Iranian shores.

In January, the Pentagon criticized an article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that said the United States had been carrying out reconnaissance missions in Iran for possible airstrikes as soon as this summer. (Full story)

In December, the Iranian newspaper "Etemaad" reported Iranian citizens' apparent sightings of unidentified flying objects.

People said they saw illuminated objects flying over eastern and western parts of Iran, including the cities of Bushehr and Esfahan.

The objects were flying at an altitude of about 30,000 feet, the report said.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Barbara Starr in Washington and journalist Shirzad Bozorgmehr in Tehran contributed to this report."

CNN.com - Officials debate US spying failure in Iran - Feb 12, 2005

2005-02-15T08:30:00.000-08:00

CNN.com - Officials debate spying history in Iran - Feb 12, 2005: "Officials debate spying history in Iran
Many informants were killed or imprisoned in 1990s
Saturday, February 12, 2005 Posted: 7:47 PM EST (0047 GMT)

Compare Mortgage Offers
Up to four free mortgage, refinance or home equity offers - one easy form.
www.nextag.com

$150,000 Home Loan for $625/Mo
Compare today's low refinance rates.
www.lowermybills.com

MyCashNow - $100 - $1,000 Overnight
Payday Loan Cash goes in your account overnight. Very low fees. Fast decisions....
www.mycashnow.com

GetSmart - The Smart Loan Choice
Complete one short online form and receive up to three free quotes. GetSmart,...
www.getsmart.com

RELATED
• Iran says it will repel invasion
• Rice: Iran must halt program
• Kay, Carter urge caution on Iran

YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Iran

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

Pentagon

United States

or Create your own

Manage alerts | What is this?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Dozens of CIA informants in Iran were killed or imprisoned in the early 1990s when the Iranian government discovered the U.S. intelligence operation, knowledgeable former U.S. officials told CNN on Saturday.

Iranian counter-intelligence agents uncovered the U.S. spy program, set up at the request of the Pentagon, the former officials said.

The events were first reported Saturday in the Los Angeles Times, which quoted unnamed former CIA officials.

Former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, whose recent congressional testimony sparked interest in the failed operation, told CNN on Saturday that the network of informants referred to in the Times article was "essentially wiped out" by "carelessness" at the CIA, though he did not know the details or exact timing of the incident.

He said he had heard about it after he left government from people who had first-hand knowledge of the operation. Perle stepped down from the Defense Policy Board last year.

On February 2, Perle, a critic of the CIA, told the House Select Committee on Intelligence of "the terrible setback that we suffered in Iran a few years ago, when in a display of unbelievably careless management we put pressure on agents operating in Iran to report with greater frequency and didn't provide improved communications channels for them to do it."

"The Iranian intelligence authorities quickly saw the surge in traffic, and as I understand it, virtually our entire network in Iran was wiped out," he added, using it as an example to support his argument that, in intelligence matters, "we're in very bad shape in Iran."

The former U.S. officials who spoke to CNN on Saturday called Perle's testimony "exaggerated," "inaccurate" in some details and "timed to mislead."

The CIA had no comment when contacted by CNN. A Pentagon spokesman said he had no information.

Pentagon requested spy network
One knowledgeable former U.S. official said that in the late 1980s, at the request of the Pentagon, then-CIA director William Casey set up a network of informants in Iran, designed to collect "low-level information on the situation on the ground."

The former official acknowledged the Iranians dismantled the spy network, but rebutted Perle's description of how the Iranians found out about the operation.

Another knowledgeable former U.S. official called the failure in Iran "not a particularly pretty story."

Both former U.S. officials said the United States has been successful in recent years in Iran and cited confirmation by the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, of U.S. intelligence on Iranian nuclear weapons-related sites.

The officials also said it is difficult to gather intelligence in Iran, which has an aggressive counter-intelligence program.

The former officials also noted that in the past Iran has executed accused spies, individuals the CIA said it had not heard of.

U.S. pressure on Iran
The Bush administration has been working to build international pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program, arguing that the country is operating a clandestine nuclear weapons program and not limiting its activity to civilian purposes.

Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is designed for civilian energy production only.

Because U.S. intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction turned out to be wrong, some critics of the Bush administration have questioned whether U.S. intelligence on Iran can be trusted.

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has said it is being "proactive" on intelligence-gathering capabilities in Iran. (Full story)

The United States has said it would work with European countries in their efforts. Britain, France and Germany have been holding talks with Tehran in an attempt to have Iran's uranium-enrichment program permanently frozen.

"Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a very destabilizing force in the world," President Bush said Wednesday.

Perle said he has "grave reservations" about the quality of CIA intelligence in the Persian Gulf, citing what he called "one failure after another," including not predicting either the Iranian revolution or Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

CNN's David Ensor contributed to this report."

Musharraf & Straw Opposes Use of Power Against Iran

2005-02-15T05:57:00.000-08:00

ZAMAN DAILY NEWSPAPER (2005021516583): "Pakistan Opposes Use of Power Against Iran
By Cihan News Agency
Published: Tuesday 15, 2005
zaman.com

Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf received the British Foreign Minister Jack Straw in Islamabad and said they were opposed to a war against Iran as a means of overcoming the problem of their nuclear program.

Straw arrived in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, yesterday (February 14) for a two-day visit. The British Foreign Minister met with both Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmoud Kasuri.

Spokesperson for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry Mesoud Khan made a statement concerning the meetings to the Cihan News Agency: "Yes, the issue of Iran's nuclear program was discussed during the meeting between President Musharraf and British Foreign Minister. President Musharraf stated that he was against using military force against Iran and supported a diplomatic solution for the conflict."

[08:53:00]"

VOA News - Report Details US Spy Flights Over Iran

2005-02-13T11:51:00.000-08:00

VOA News - Report Details US Spy Flights Over Iran: "Report Details US Spy Flights Over Iran By VOA News
13 February 2005

A published report says the United States has been flying drones over Iran for almost a year, looking for evidence of nuclear weapons programs and detect weaknesses in air defenses.

In Sunday's editions, The Washington Post quotes three U.S. officials as saying the U.S. military has been launching the unmanned surveillance flights from Iraq. There has been no U.S. comment on the report.

An Iranian spokesman Sunday again warned the United States not to attack its nuclear facilities. He also rejected a European proposal aimed at restricting Tehran's development of nuclear fuel.

Iran has said in the past it would stop plans to build a heavy water nuclear reactor, which can be used to make nuclear weapons-grade material as well as for nuclear energy.

But Sunday in Tehran, a foreign ministry spokesman said Iran will go forward with the heavy water reactor and will not replace it under any circumstances."

U.S. Uses Drones to Probe Iran For Arms (washingtonpost.com)

2005-02-12T21:51:00.000-08:00

U.S. Uses Drones to Probe Iran For Arms (washingtonpost.com): "U.S. Uses Drones to Probe Iran For Arms
Surveillance Flights Are Sent From Iraq

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 13, 2005; Page A01
The Bush administration has been flying surveillance drones over Iran for nearly a year to seek evidence of nuclear weapons programs and detect weaknesses in air defenses, according to three U.S. officials with detailed knowledge of the secret effort.

The small, pilotless planes, penetrating Iranian airspace from U.S. military facilities in Iraq, use radar, video, still photography and air filters designed to pick up traces of nuclear activity to gather information that is not accessible by satellites, the officials said. The aerial espionage is standard in military preparations for an eventual air attack and is also employed as a tool for intimidation.

The Iranian government, using Swiss channels in the absence of diplomatic relations with Washington, formally protested the incursions as illegal, according to Iranian, European and U.S. officials, all speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

A U.S. official acknowledged that drones were being used but said the Iranian complaint focused on aircraft overflights by the Pentagon. The United States, the official said, replied with a denial that manned U.S. aircraft had crossed Iran's borders. The drones were first spotted by dozens of Iranian civilians and set off a national newspaper frenzy in late December over whether the country was being visited by UFOs.

The surveillance has been conducted as the Bush administration sharpens its anti-Iran rhetoric and the U.S. intelligence community searches for information to support President Bush's assertion that Tehran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

The Washington Post reported Saturday that the intelligence community is conducting a broad review of its Iran assessments, including a new look at information about the country's nuclear program, according to administration officials and congressional sources. A similar review, called a National Intelligence Estimate, formed an important part of the administration's case for war against Iraq.

Bush's senior advisers, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said last week that a U.S. attack on Iran is not imminent but that the option remains available.

In late December, Iranians living along the Caspian Sea and on the Iraq border began reporting sightings of red flashes in the sky, streaks of green and blue and low, racing lights that disappeared moments after being spotted. The Iranian space agency was called in to investigate, astronomy experts were consulted, and an agreement was quickly signed with Russian officials eager to learn more about the phenomena.

But the mystery was laid to rest by Iranian air force commanders, some of whom were trained more than 25 years ago in the United States and are familiar with U.S. tactics. They identified the drones early last month, a senior Iranian official said, and Iran's National Security Council decided not to engage the pilotless aircraft.

That action is considered a major policy decision and reflects Iran's belief that an attack is unlikely anytime soon.

The U.S. National Security Agency, which conducts and manages overseas eavesdropping operations, said it had no information to provide on the reconnaissance missions over Iran.

The drones are one of several tools being used to gather information on Iran's nuclear programs and its military capabilities, U.S. officials said. The United States believes Iran is using its nuclear energy program to conceal an effort to manufacture nuclear weapons, but no one has found definitive evidence to substantiate that.

Iran is engaged in diplomacy with France, Britain and Germany aimed at ending a 2 1/2-year crisis over Tehran's nuclear ambitions that began when Iranian defectors exposed a large uranium enrichment facility in August 2002. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have been in and out of the country since then investigating nuclear facilities.

U.S. officials confirmed that the drones were deployed along Iran's northern and western borders, first in April 2004, and again in December and January. A former U.S. official with direct knowledge of earlier phases of the operation said the U.S. intelligence community began using Iraq as a base to spy on Iran shortly after taking Baghdad in early April 2003. Drones have been flown over Iran since then, the former official said, but the missions became more frequent last year.

The spring 2004 flyovers led Iran's military to step up its defenses around nuclear facilities in the southern cities of Isfahan and Bushehr, where locals first reported the UFO sighting. Defenses were added around those sites and others last month, Iranian officials said, after it became clear they were being observed by the drones.

A Dec. 25 article in the Etemaad newspaper, translated from Farsi by the CIA, reported on "the presence of unidentified flying objects in the Bushehr sky on a number of occasions, particularly in recent weeks." After Moscow experts were called in, the Russian daily Pravda reported on "UFO mania" sweeping Iran.

One U.S. intelligence official said different types of drones with varying capabilities have been deployed over Iran. Some fly several hundred feet above the earth, getting a closer view of ground activities than satellites, and are equipped with air filter technology that captures particles and delivers them back to base for analysis. Any presence of plutonium, uranium or tritium could indicate nuclear work in the area where the samples were collected.

The last drone sightings were in mid-January, about the same time that Iran's National Security Council met in Tehran to discuss them, according to an Iranian official.

"It was clear to our air force that the entire intention here was to get us to turn on our radar," the official said.

That tactic, designed to contribute information to what the military calls an "enemy order of battle," was used by the U.S. military in the Korean and Vietnam wars, against the Soviets and the Chinese and in both Iraq wars.

"By coaxing the Iranians to turn on their radar, we can learn all about their defense systems, including the frequencies they are operating on, the range of their radar and, of course, where their weaknesses lie," said Thomas Keaney, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and executive director of the Foreign Policy Institute at Johns Hopkins University.

But it did not work. "The United States must have forgotten that they trained half our guys," the Iranian official said. After a briefing by their air force three weeks ago, Iran's national security officials ordered their forces not to turn on the radar or come into contact with the drones in any way.

"Our decision was: Don't engage," the Iranian official said. Leaving the radar off deprives U.S. forces of vital information about the country's air defense system, but it also makes it harder for Iran to tell if an attack is underway.

The Iranian government lodged a formal protest through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, which passed it on to the State Department, a Bush administration official said. The complaint was then forwarded to the Pentagon and to senior Bush administration officials, the official said.

Asked last Sunday about Iran, Rumsfeld told ABC's "This Week" that he had no knowledge of U.S. military activities in Iran. Rice, who helped plan the Iraq war, said during her European trip last week that an assault on Iran was not on the agenda "at this time."

So far, the drones have added little information to Iran's nuclear file, according to U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the mission.

Estimates vary on when Tehran could build a nuclear weapon using material from its energy program. Iran has agreed to stop enriching uranium, a key ingredient for a bomb, while it is engaged in talks with Europe. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA, said if Iran resumes that work, it could have enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb within two years and could complete a weapon within three years.

Iranian officials have said repeatedly that their country has no intention of building nuclear weapons.

Staff writer Glenn Kessler contributed to this report."

The Seattle Times: US Threat Unifies Iran

2005-02-11T03:42:00.000-08:00

The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Iran leader vows "scorching hell" for attackers: "Iran leader vows "scorching hell" for attackers

By Reuters, The Associated Press; Reuters and Los Angeles Times

HASAN SARBAKHSHIAN / AP
TEHRAN — Iran, facing mounting U.S. pressure over its nuclear program, promised yesterday a "scorching hell" for any aggressor as tens of thousands marched to mark the 26th anniversary of its Islamic revolution.

A month after President Bush warned that the United States hasn't ruled out military action against Iran, President Mohammed Khatami responded before a crowd gathered on a snowy square in Tehran.

The U.S. accuses Iran of maintaining a nuclear-weapons program, which Iran says is for peaceful energy purposes.

"Will this nation allow the feet of an aggressor to touch this land?" Khatami asked at the crowd. "If, God forbid, it happens, Iran will turn into a scorching hell for the aggressors."

His statements drew chants of "Death to America!" from the crowd.

Khatami is widely recognized as a leader of a moderate faction in Iran. Indeed, Khatami himself indicated in his speech that the talk of a possible U.S. invasion was pushing him into a united camp with Iran's hard-liners against foreign meddling.

"The Iranian nation is not looking for war, violence and confrontation," Khatami said.

"But the world should know that the Iranian nation won't tolerate any aggression and will stand united against aggression despite differences," he said, referring to the internal divide in Iranian politics between reformers and the more conservative clerics.

Last week, Bush accused Iran of being "the world's primary state sponsor of terror," and last month he said his administration won't rule out using military force against Iran over its nuclear program.

Until Khatami's statements, some had pointed to a possible softening in Iran's position in recent comments made by Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hasan Rowhani, who said that his country wants to resolve its differences with the United States.

But in his speech yesterday, Khatami was adamant that Iran won't scrap its nuclear program. Iranian scientists worked hard to develop nuclear technology on their own and will not stop due to "the illegitimate demands of others," he said.

"We have decided to move toward scientific progress, including peaceful nuclear technology and we will continue this path," Khatami said.

Khatami said Iran's decision to suspend uranium enrichment in November was a voluntary sign of good will that should be reciprocated by the International Atomic Energy Agency and European negotiators pressing Iran for concessions on its nuclear program.

The suspension, policed by the IAEA, is aimed at building trust and avoiding U.N. Security Council sanctions.

Under an agreement reached with Britain, France and Germany, who negotiated on behalf of the European Union, Iran will continue suspension of its enrichment activities during negotiations with the Europeans about economic, political and technological aid. Iran has said it will decide in three months whether to continue its suspension."

Lt. Gen. Lance Smith: Iran not in U.S. crosshairs

2005-02-09T18:31:00.000-08:00

General: Iran not in U.S. crosshairs: "General: Iran not in U.S. crosshairs:
[World News]: WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 : A top Central Command official said Tuesday Iran and its nuclear sites are not the focus of special military planning or attention.

"I'm not spending any of my time worrying about the nuclear proliferation in Iran," said Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, deputy commander of CENTCOM. "At this stage, it seems to me that the diplomatic efforts that Secretary Rice is engaged with and what she's doing in her discussions with the European allies is adequate for our needs."

He said Iran is on his screen only insofar as it is trying to influence domestic politics in neighboring Iraq.

"We are seeing mixed activity there; some support, we think, for (Shiite cleric) Moqtada Sadr, some support in the political regime for their favorites that they hope will be in the National Assembly and those folks that they hope will influence the future government of Iraq. We're seeing the same thing to a smaller degree in Afghanistan," he said.

Smith said war plans for Iran are being updated, as they are routinely for every other country in his area of operations."

Solana: Military strike on Iran a “mistake”

2005-02-08T12:50:00.000-08:00

"Solana: Military strike on Iran a “mistake”
2/6/2005 11:30:00 AM GMT
Middle East Advertising by alClick Advertise Here

Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief warned Sunday that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be "a mistake".

A military attack on Iran "would be something I would not like to see taking place," Mr. Solana told Britain's ITV television network.

Asked about U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney's warning last month that Israel might launch a military strike targeting Iran's nuclear facilities without being asked to, Mr. Solana said:

"That would be a mistake. That will complicate enormously the situation," Mr. Solana said.

"Unilateral action of that nature I don't think will contribute to what is the aim of everybody ... I don't think at this point in time that it is worth thinking about that."

Although, there is widespread international suspicion that the U.S. might strike Iran, claiming that the Islamic Republic is covertly trying to develop an atomic weapons program, last week U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said a strike on Iran was "not on the agenda at this point", urging Europe to show "unity of purpose" with Washington in stopping Iran's nuclear programme.

The EU has initiated negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme, while the U.S., trying to refer Tehran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions, called for tougher stance.

EU big-three; France, Germany and Britain are trying to persuade Iran to suspend all activities related to nuclear enrichment.

Asked if he agrees that a U.S. military action against Iran was "inconceivable", remarks made previously by UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Mr. Solana replied: "I think at this point in time military action... is very difficult to conceive.

"I don't think that the United States has at this point of time the wish or the will or the capability to do that," Mr. Solana said."

“There is an eerie similarity to the events preceding the Iraq war,” David Kay

2005-02-07T17:12:00.000-08:00

Daily Times - Site Edition: "Kay warns US not to repeat Iraq mistakes in Iran

WASHINGTON: The US official who declared the White House’s hunt for illicit weapons in Iraq to be a failure driven by faulty intelligence has warned the Bush administration against repeating its mistakes in the current war of words with arch-foe Iran.

“There is an eerie similarity to the events preceding the Iraq war,” David Kay, who led the search for banned weapons of mass destruction in postwar Iraq, said on Monday in an opinion piece in The Washington Post.

“Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran would be a grave danger to the world. That is not what is in doubt,” he wrote.

“What is in doubt is the ability (of) the US government to honestly assess Iran’s nuclear status and to craft a set of measures that will cope with that threat short of military action by the United States or Israel,” Kay added.

US President George W. Bush justified the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by saying Saddam Hussein posed a threat because Baghdad had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was reviving its nuclear weapons program.

No such weapons were found. Kay told the Senate Armed Services Committee a year ago that US intelligence was “almost all wrong,” and later urged reorganization of the US intelligence services.

The US government accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear energy program, a charge Iran denies.

Remarks by top US officials including Vice President Dick Cheney recently stirred concern of possible military action against Iran, which Bush has called the “world’s primary state sponsor of terror.” However, the administration, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, has since stressed diplomacy with in public comments.

“Now is the time to pause and recall what went wrong with the assessment of Iraq’s WMD program and try to avoid repeating those mistakes in Iran,” Kay said in the Post.

He suggested Washington accept that it cannot prevent Iran from possessing the scientific knowledge for developing a nuclear weapon.

“It is nonsense to talk about eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities short of war and occupation,” said Kay, who urged the administration to rely on UN weapons inspectors to uncover any future weapons violations.

“The goal ... is to craft a set of tools and transparency methods that so tie Iran’s nuclear activities to the larger world of peaceful nuclear activities that any attempt to push ahead on the weapons front would be detectable.”

Kay recommended that the administration safeguard the quality of its intelligence on Iran by involving respected outside experts in its assessment."

Iran Daily - Nuclear Weapons Do Not Increase Power: Amb Zarif

2005-02-06T20:42:00.000-08:00

Iran Daily: "Nuclear Weapons Do Not Increase Power

Mohammad Javad Zarif

NEW YORK, Feb. 6--Iran's envoy to the United Nations, Mohammad Javad Zarif said here Saturday that nuclear weapons will not augment Iran's power.
Addressing a gathering of Iranian, Pakistani, Afghan and American Muslims, Zarif said the Islamic Republic does not seek to threaten international stability. "Iran has not launched a war in the past 250 years," IRNA quoted him as saying.
However, he added that "If there is any aggression against us, we will defend our territory bravely."
He referred to the impressive progress made by Iran in scientific and industrial fields particularly in nuclear technology, and said Iran's nuclear technology has improved due largely to the hard work of Iranian scientists and indigenous technology.
Political, cultural and economic pressures imposed on
Iran in recent years seek to discredit and dislodge a democratic government in the country, he said.
"Iran's capabilities will lead to both challenges and opportunities. We should turn the former into the latter."

Iran Daily: Mossad Spying From Iraq

2005-02-06T20:40:00.000-08:00

Iran Daily "Mossad Spying From Iraq

TEHRAN, Feb. 6--Israel's spy agency, Mossad, in cooperation with US forces in Iraq, has installed radars in the Island of Um al-Rassas near the city of Basra to monitor military and security operations in Iran, a report in the Al-Hayat daily's internet site said Sunday.
Quoting unnamed sources, the paper noted that the radars are equipped with sophisticated systems and technology, capable of monitoring operations by the army deep inside Iranian territory.
The systems set up on 50-meter pillars are reportedly 800 kilometers off the Iranian Port of Khorramshahr, and enables Mossad and the CIA to eavesdrop cellular phone conversations.
"Under the pretext of undertaking trade, commercial and humanitarian activities in Iraq, the Zionist regime has created an espionage network against the Islamic Republic," the Arabic-language paper said.
Al-Hayat also said US planes had repeatedly violated Iranian airspace in recent weeks."

USATODAY - Rafsanjani, the Champion of Peace, Grants Interview

2005-02-06T17:10:00.000-08:00

USATODAY.com - Iran's ex-president: U.S should show goodwill: "Iran's ex-president: U.S should show goodwill
In a rare and exclusive interview in Tehran Sunday, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's former president and the consensus frontrunner in June's presidential elections, talked with USA TODAY's Barbara Slavin about U.S.-Iranian relations, al-Qaeda, and Iran's alleged nuclear bomb program. (Related story: Iranian politician asks U.S. goodwill)

On how Iraq can become stable, former Iranian prime minister Rafsanjani says, 'the sole option is to leave Iraq to the Iraqi people.'
By Behrouz Mehri, AFP

Slavin: What's your view of elections in Iraq?

Rafsanjani: I think the elections have gone well, although there is so much insecurity in Iraq. So far during the counting of ballots, there has not been a significant complaint. We have to wait to see what the outcome of the counting is. We think that the best outcome would be what the people choose, and naturally, because the majority of Iraqis are (Shiite Muslims) Shia, it would be to the benefit of the people (if the Shiites win). The rest of the people of Iraq are (Sunni) Muslims and Assyrians. We are interested in the other Muslims of Iraq. The important matter is freedom. When the people choose what they want, it is good for them and for us.

Slavin: Has the United States done you a favor by getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

Rafsanjani: This is an historical irony. Both of them were the children of the United States. They sacrificed their children for the benefit of the others. But they were not very devoted children of the United States. When I was the president, several times I mentioned this to the United States, that if they show goodwill we would enter a dialogue with them. And I gave this directive to them, that if they free our assets in the United States, that would be a sign of goodwill. I have the same idea this time.

Slavin: What's your estimate of assets frozen in the US?

Rafsanjani: We don't have a clear record, but we think it was about $8 billion and with interest over 25 years, it has to be more. Instead he's (President Bush) used tough language. They (the United States) did not keep their word at that time — through Turkey, Japan and the Secretary General of the United Nations, they said that there would be some changes if we helped with the hostage crisis in Lebanon (during the Reagan administration and the arms-for-hostages deal). And they said if we help with the crisis, they would do a lot of positive acts. After we helped in those crises, they showed negative acts and the Japanese and Turks were ashamed.

Slavin: Would you be prepared to reopen a dialogue with the United States?

Rafsanjani: The first step has to be from the U.S. part. They have to show positive signs for us so we can believe they are sincere. The main thing would be our assets. That would be the best positive sign. This is a very wrong action that they have betrayed our trust. When I talk about the assets, that was at the beginning of the talks. I was president then. I'm not president now. When I said it, this would be a sign of goodwill to begin the talks.

Slavin: Should Iran show goodwill by using its influence over the Palestinian groups to stop violence against the Israelis?

Rafsanjani: The Palestinian groups do not listen to us. We only help them in a humanitarian aspect like other countries, but they have no obligations towards us.

Slavin: Are you satisfied with the nuclear talks with the Europeans and would you like the U.S. to join the process?

Rafsanjani: I'm not satisfied with the progress of the work, but I am happy that the talks are going on. It might have a negative effect if the United States joins.

Slavin: Are you concerned about all the tough statements from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other U.S. officials in recent days?

Rafsanjani: Miss Rice talks very tough. We have gotten used to this nonsense. Miss Rice is a bit emotional about this, and we predicted that she would have a more emotional approach to this.

Slavin: Do you see any difference between her and former Secretary of State Colin Powell?

Rafsanjani: They (Rice and Powell) might be different in the way they talk, but the policies of the United States are decided somewhere else.

Slavin: Have you ever visited the United States?

Rafsanjani: I have toured 20 states in a car (in 1974). I found the States a large, developed and rich country. I was surprised that they still look to smaller countries of the world to get benefits. That time I was in contact with Iranians, the students and my brother who was there. Now when I study about the States, there are interesting and capable people there. The technology and science are very impressive there. We don't have any bad memories of the people of the United States. If we have any problems, it's always with the government of the United States.

Slavin: What is the biggest problem facing Iran now?

Rafsanjani: We don't have a major problem right now in our country, and life is normal. Things like unemployment, which the youth are suffering from, and the rate of inflation — these are chronic conditions and we have to solve them.

Slavin: Many Iranians say they make just $200 a month, and they say that's not enough to live on.

Rafsanjani: $200 in Iran is the equivalent of $1,000 in other countries. In Iran, things like water, electricity and bread — the necessities of life — are cheaper compared to other places and there are a lot of subsidies. The purchasing power of the people is 3 times more than the GNP (gross national product) per capita because of subsidies.

Slavin: Have you decided to run for president (in the June 17 election)?

Rafsanjani: I haven't decided whether to run for the presidency or become a candidate. We would like for another person to come up, and with that person, they (the Iranian people) would become satisfied.

Slavin: If no one else emerges?

Rafsanjani: In that case, I might announce it, but we have 2 or 3 more months.

Slavin: People say you are the only one who can solve the problem with the United States.

Rafsanjani: I'm not the only one but I am one of them.

Slavin: The United States and Iran have had had lots of secret meetings, low level meetings. When will you be ready for high level dialogue? When you were president you indicated Iran was ready to have contacts with the United States.

Rafsanjani: When I said that I was ready (to have a dialogue with the U.S.) I was the president. If I again become responsible (for those matters), I would have to look at the situation again.

Slavin: But you've been quoted (in Iranian newspapers) as saying that all this talk with the Europeans is a waste of time —

Rafsanjani: I haven't said that.

Slavin: Isn't your real problem with the United States? You know the Europeans are never going to attack Iran.

Rafsanjani: We say they (the United States) wouldn't dare to attack us and they have tested it once (the failed hostage rescue in 1980). Before the U.S. was in Iran, they had all the means here and we threw them out with our bare hands.

Slavin: For Iran to develop, for it to have jobs and a complete end to isolation, don't you need the United States?

Rafsanjani: We do not trust the goodwill of the U.S. They have cut the ties.

Slavin: Didn't they have good reason because of the hostage crisis?

Rafsanjani: They admitted the shah (into the United States for medical treatment after he fled Iran). They started it. We did not treat the Americans badly. They left Iran in a relaxed mood. The embassy was active here after the revolution. We didn't have any problem with them. They started it.

Slavin: Would you be willing to invite high level members of congress such as (Senate Foreign Relations Committee leaders) Richard Lugar and Joe Biden to Iran?

Rafsanjani: They can come. We have no objection. If it is intended to be a serious visit, then we expect the U.S. would make a move to prove its goodwill, and that would be the kickoff point.

Slavin: Is there anything else the U.S. can do to show goodwill, or just unfreezing assets?

Rafsanjani: Goodwill can be indicated in various ways. I raised that particular example because at that time I was in charge. Today, I'm not in a position to present other possibilities.

Slavin: What about Iran's connection with al-Qaeda? There have been persistent reports that Iran has several high-level al-Qaeda people under house arrest in Tehran and won't turn them over.

Rafsanjani: Who created al-Qaeda? In fact they (the United States) were the ones who provoked al-Qaeda to come and give us trouble. These are all rumors (about high level al-Qaeda people here). When al-Qaeda was on the run from Afghanistan crossing through Iran, some were arrested and they are imprisoned. Some of them are charged with some actions in Iran.

Slavin: Some important ones?

Rafsanjani: You know these things, I don't. Several have been repatriated to related countries. Those who have remained are those who have committed crimes here and are awaiting trial. I would expect that you would forward a question to President Bush: Why terrorists who have committed crimes in Iran are not returned here? Worse yet, in your territory, they are permitted to enter your Congress, the U.N., and have lobbying and political activities, whereas no one can ever suggest that al Qaeda can ever have any activity in Iran. They are our enemies, too. You are aware of what (Jordanian al Qaeda leader Abu Musab) Zarqawi and his group have done to our friends in Iraq.

Slavin: How long will it be before Iraq is a stable country?

Rafsanjani: I assume that President Bush and (Defense) Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld would know this better. I have no idea what the U.S. intends to do further there and what would be the reaction of the Iraqi people. I only know that the sole option is to leave Iraq to the Iraqi people.

Slavin: If the U.S. leaves Iraq, won't Iraq become more unstable?

Rafsanjani: The problem is that the Iraqi people are facing atrocities from both sides — Zarqawi and also the American troops at times. The Zarqawi groups uses car bombs, the Americans use other bombs. You also know what they do in the prisons.

Slavin: What about Iranian prisons? I hear prisoners not very well treated there. You have arrested many students and web bloggers for expressing opinions.

Rafsanjani: I am essentially against any harsh approach to these issues in Iran. There is no need for such actions. Each department and institution has its own authorities and responsibilities, and they act on that basis. It is wrong to even compare such actions to what is done in Guantanamo or elsewhere by the Americans. They do not stand on a high moral platform to preach to others.

Slavin: You've said Secretary of State Condi Rice is very tough. What about President Bush?

Rafsanjani: Condi Rice talks tough but she cannot be tough herself.

Slavin: And Bush?

Rafsanjani: President Bush also has slips of the tongue often. One could really write a full editorial comprising these slips. I do not think it is correct or appropriate for someone in that high position as the president of the United States (to talk that way). The United States is a big country but unfortunately it seems it has the brain of a little bird not befitting the greatness of the country.

Slavin: Does Iran need or want nuclear weapons, given that Israel, India and Pakistan have them?

Rafsanjani: We are certain that we will never use such weapons, therefore they have no utility for us. Even during our war with Iraq, we could have employed chemical weapons but we refrained. I'm sure you must be aware of the casualties we faced (some 750,000 dead or wounded over eight years). It is unfortunate that I have to stress that your country is among those that have to share part of the guilt (because the United States supplied chemical munitions to Saddam Hussein during 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war).

Slavin: Is there anything more you want to tell American people about your views on United States?

Rafsanjani: The mere fact that I am sitting here talking to you is an indication that we have no differences with the American people. This would not happen with an Israeli journalist. We want good relations with the American people. There has to be a dialogue between the governments, but what can one do when your government has always wronged us? We need to see evidence that this process will be reversed.

Referring to leaders of the Mujaheddin Khalq, an anti-Iranian regime group that is on the State Department's terrorist list but many of whose members are under U.S. protection in Iraq."

CNN.com - Iran: Bush shouldn't point fingers on terror - Feb 6, 2005

2005-02-06T17:03:00.000-08:00

CNN.com - Iran: Bush shouldn't�point fingers on terror - Feb 6, 2005: "Iran: Bush shouldn't point fingers on terror
Sunday, February 6, 2005 Posted: 1941 GMT (0341 HKT)

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- President Bush has no authority to accuse Iran of sponsoring terrorism while the U.S. supports "Zionist terrorists" and runs military prisons that use "torture," Tehran's Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Sunday.

Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi's comments responded to last week's State of the Union address by Bush, when he said: "Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve." (Full story)

Asefi shot back accusations toward Washington, referring to Israel, alleged prisoner abuse at a U.S.-run prison in Iraq and treatment of detainees held as enemy combatants at the U.S. base in Cuba.

"The United States is supporting a Zionist terrorist group, but in order to combat terrorism, the United States must start within itself," Asefi said. "The issues of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons is a shame for the United States which will not be wiped out anytime soon."

"Those who support terrorism cannot talk about combating terrorism," Asefi said.

Bush also said in his address Wednesday that, "to promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists."

A U.S. State Department annual terrorism report released in April of 2004 said Iran "remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism" during the previous year.

It cited Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard and Ministry of Intelligence as being "involved in the planning of and support for terrorist acts," and said Iran continued to support Palestinian terror groups.

It also suggested that Iran pursued policies in Iraq that "ran counter" to U.S.-led military coalition interests, including providing safe haven for terrorists, advocating attacks against coalition forces and helping people with ties to the Revolutionary Guard infiltrate southern Iraq.

'Support for terror'
On Wednesday, Bush said the United States is working with European allies to convince Iran to give up its alleged nuclear ambitions and "end its support for terror."

For months, Britain, France and Germany have been negotiating directly with Iran to freeze its suspected nuclear weapons program. Iran insists its nuclear facilities are for peaceful purposes only.

Recently, Iran agreed to temporarily suspend enrichment of uranium -- which can be used to develop to nuclear weapons -- while talks continue with Europe about possible trade deals.

The Europeans have tried to persuade the United States to take a more active role in the talks, convinced that a U.S. offer to lift sanctions on Iran would be key to a permanent deal.

Asefi accused the United States of attempting to force an Iranian "crisis" and to disable talks with the Europeans to "humiliate" them and send them a message "that they don't have the power to resolve matters," The Associated Press reported.

'No longer without attention'
In his speech, Bush said, "there are still regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction -- but no longer without attention and without consequence."

However, on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said an attack on Iran over its alleged nuclear program is "not on the agenda at this point."

"We have many diplomatic tools still at our disposal and we intend to pursue them fully," Rice said after a London meeting with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

Rice warned that Iran must not "use the cover" of civilian nuclear power development "to sustain a program that can lead to a nuclear weapon." (Full story)

Asefi said, "such threats will not have much effect on the Islamic Republic and we will continue our path of sovereignty, independence and saying no to hegemony," Reuters reported.

Asefi said a new round of nuclear talks with the Europeans was set to begin Monday, AP reported, and Reuters quoted him as saying that negotiations were not deadlocked.

'America stands with you'
Also during Bush's address, the president spoke of expanding democracy in Iran. "As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you," Bush said.

During a tour of European and Middle East nations this weekend, Rice continued that theme saying: "The Iranian people should have a chance to determine their own future." (Full story)

Asefi said the Bush administration's suggestion that the people of Iran do not enjoy human rights and don't support their government will be proven wrong this week when millions of Iranians will take to the streets in marches celebrating the anniversary of Iran's 1979 revolution that overthrew the ruling shah.

Asefi suggested the United States remains bitter about the revolution, which resulted in Iranian student militants taking 52 Americans hostage at Tehran's U.S. Embassy. Iran held the captives for 444 days, until they were released and returned to the United States.

Journalist Shirzad Bozorgmehr in Iraq contributed to this report."

The Conservative Independent: Possible U.S. Military Initiatives Against the State of Iran

2005-02-06T14:12:00.000-08:00

The Conservative Independent: "Possible U.S. Military Initiatives Against the State of Iran

Scenario 1: The United States initiates a series of air strikes, that would include combined cruise missile and smart bomb technology, at selected nuclear facilities in Iran. American Special Forces follow closely with specific targeted land sorties. And Americans and Iranians die.

Scenario 2: In conjunction with the United States, Israel launches a massive air strike at specific Iranian nuclear development facilities, targeted for them by American Spy Satellite surveillance, and ground intelligence data obtained by Special Ops. And Americans and Iranians die.

Scenario 3: Israel initiates a limited target air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, followed rapidly by a more intense series of air strikes carried out by the American air force. These two air attacks are immediately followed up by a series of Special Forces ground attacks intended as a mopping up operation. And Americans and Iranians die.

There is little doubt that all of these possible scenarios can, indeed, deliver an immediate crippling blow to the Iranian nuclear weapons program. What they don’t take into account, however, is the political and strategic fall-out from such actions."

Leaders of Iran: War with Iran

2005-02-06T06:11:00.000-08:00

Leaders of Iran: War with Iran: "War with Iran
I received a nice note from a reader asking about the coming war with Iran. My feeling is that the war started with the overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953 and the puppet dictatorship of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. I have no objection to a Shah but if there is to be a Shah it must be up to the Persian people not the Americans. So rather than review the whole history of American cold war against Iran let me start with the current situation.

Israel is putting great pressure on the US to stop the Iranian nuclear bomb project. Iran denies a bomb project and the UN's IAEA finds no evidence of a bomb project. American Neocons are anxious to do Israel's bidding. The US Military is over extended with the war in Iraq and cannot wage a land war on Iran without recalling the inactive reserve and resuming the draft. This would not be popular with the US people. The Neocons counter with a plan to bomb Iran into submission without using troops. The plan counts on massive air superiority and the use of indigenous rebels to over thrown the Islamic Republic. The only candidates for the rebels are the Mojahedin-e Khalq - MKO. The US State Department lists the MKO as a terrorist group and it is currently illegal for the US Government to give them money.

The question then becomes can the US overthrow the Islamic Republic with a bombing campaign? There is intense pressure to rehabilitate the image of the MKO so that they can be funded to wage war in Iran. Even a small voice such as my own is under intense pressure to silence my voice on the MKO issue. I have received threats demanding that I stop publishing many of my pages. Unfortunately the IRI is not willing to furnish detailed information to show the evil that the MKO has done. If the IRI remains silent there is a good chance that the US will recognize the MKO and fund them. A sustained bombing campaign even if unsuccessful will be bad for the people of Iran.

What can the IRI do? Obviously anything that they can do to block the MKO is important. However more important is the speech that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei made Monday, July 5th 2004 in Hamadan. Ayatollah Khamenei said, "The Iranian people will cut off its hand without hesitation and endanger the interests of the aggressor everywhere in the world". What then can the Ayatollah Khamenei do to impact the US? A handful of thoughts come to mind. First of all closing or interdicting the Straights of Hormuz would block more than half of the worlds oil supply. The US Military is over extended in Iraq so raising a revolt among the Shia, against the US in Iraq would cause massive pressure. Afghanistan is quiet but vulnerable. A massacre of Americans would be easy to start. In 1978 then Afghan Army Captain Ismail Khan started a massacre in Herat that started the war that destroyed the Russians. President Kharzai controls only that part of the country that America guarantees him so a revolt is possible. A separate country taking in non-Pashtun Afghanistan is plausible. To the south the Baluch of Pakistani occupied Baluchistan are a bomb waiting to be ignited. Already there is growing agitation among the Marri and the Bugti Baluch against the Pakistani Government. Pakistan seeks to be all things to all people and treads a dangerous course betweens the demands of the US and the demands of Islam.

Does the US really want war? The Neocon faction does but there are changes in the second term. Doug Feith has resigned and Wolfowitz has reached the peak of his power and is receding. Rumsfeld is besieged. Rice as Secretary of State is steering an independent course. She was under pressure to make John Bolton her deputy but she declined. Rice is a voice of moderation and she has the President’s ear in a way Powell never did. At this point the US seems inclined to threaten but not start a shooting war.

What will Iran do? Clearly Ayatollah Khamenei is in control and what he wishes will come to pass. The upcoming Presidential race is problematic. As of now it seems clear that Rafsanjani will win unless Ayatollah Khamenei decides to stop him. The reformists are split and ineffectual. The movement is split into two parts, those who support Velayat-e Fiqh who have no public support and those who seek to overthrow the Government who are frozen out of politics by the Judiciary. The Conservatives seek to embrace a dangerous foreign policy. If Rafsanjani is out then I suspect that Velayati is a safe choice for the Islamic Republic. However Larijani seems to have the advantage unless of course Ayatollah Khamenei supports one over the other. If a reformist wins it would be 4 more wasted years like the last 8. If a Conservative wins then it could pressure the US to do something foolish. If Rafsanjani wins then he engineers a deal to normalize trade in exchange for verification of no bomb project.

At this point all I can do is sit back and watch the moves since it is in play now. I only hope that no more US servicemen have to die in foreign adventures that can be avoided and that no Iranians have to die for a bomb project that does not exist.
Barry O’Connell"

Reuters: Baluchi Freedom Fighters blow up Pakistan rail line to Iran

2005-02-05T20:43:00.000-08:00

Reuters AlertNet - Tribal militants blow up Pakistan rail line to Iran: "Tribal militants blow up Pakistan rail line to Iran
05 Feb 2005 19:19:22 GMT

Source: Reuters
QUETTA, Pakistan, Feb 5 (Reuters) - Suspected tribal militants blew up a railway track that links Pakistan with Iran in Pakistan's troubled southwest on Saturday, for the second time in a week, but caused no casualties.

The attack near the town of Noshki was the latest in a series of such assaults on state infrastructure by militants fighting for more autonomy in the southwestern province of Baluchistan. Noshki lies around 100 km (60 miles) southwest of the provincial capital Quetta.

Railway officials said around 3 feet (one metre) of the railway line was blown up about two hours and a half after a train from the Iranian border town of Zahadan to Quetta had passed. The train makes a round trip to Zahadan once a week.

On Thursday, militants detonated a bomb on the same rail line in Mastung, about 50 km (30 miles) south of Quetta.

In a separate attack on Saturday, a natural gas pipeline was blown up in the Dera Ghazi Khan district in the central Punjab province, close to Baluchistan, disrupting supplies to many areas.

Local police said the cause of the blast was not known but a spokesman for the Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA), a shadowy militant group, called journalists in Quetta and claimed responsibility for the attack.

Tribal militants have been conducting a low level insurgency against central rule in Baluchistan for decades but they have stepped up activities in recent weeks with a spate of attacks on state infrastructure, including gas fields and rail lines.

In the worst attack, as many as 15 people died on Jan. 11 after tribesmen fired rockets at Pakistan's main gas field at Sui, about 400 km (250 miles) southeast of Quetta, cutting off supplies for more than a week.

Analysts have warned the unrest could explode into a full-scale insurgency if not handled carefully.

The government has not ruled out taking military action against the tribesmen but at the same time has said it is seeking a political solution to the crisis."

Baloch insurgency can ring death knell for Indo-Iran gas pipeline

2005-02-05T08:57:00.000-08:00

Baloch insurgency can ring death knell for Indo-Iran gas pipeline: "Baloch insurgency can ring death knell for Indo-Iran gas pipeline:
[World News]: Islamabad, Feb 5 : It's a known fact that all is not quiet on Pakistan's Western front. But what perhaps is not known is that the simmering tension in Pakistan's Balochistan province is practically threatening to turn plans for the Indo-Iran gas pipeline via Pakistan topsy-turvy.

The Daily Times quoted a report in the Wall Street Journal as saying that the growing insurgency in Balochistan has the possibility of completely threatening plans for a transnational pipeline delivering natural gas from Iran to Pakistan and India.

Since a large part of the proposed four billion dollar pipeline will pass through large parts of Balochistan, and Baloch nationalist have recently been stepping up attacks on Pakistani government targets, the Pakistan Federal government is wary over matters relating to the security of the project.

Though the project has huge economic and political potential for India, as not only would Islamabad be netting a clean 500 million dollars annually from the project, but also, as Pakistan Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said, the project has the possibility of easing Indo-Pak tensions, experts believe that under the present circumstances, there was very little possibility of the project seeing light.

"In the present situation, one cannot guarantee the safeguard of the pipeline," the paper quoted a Pakistani expert involved in the project as saying.

Pakistani officials further said that though Islamabad was beefing up its military presence in the province to meet the threat, with Pakistani military police setting up checkpoints and paramilitary troops patrolling the streets of Quetta, the situation is deteriorating with each passing day.

"They are well armed and well trained in guerrilla war. The situation is serious," the paper quoted a senior Pakistani security official as saying. (ANI)"

Leaders of Iran: War with Iran

2005-02-04T10:58:00.000-08:00

Leaders of Iran: War with Iran: "Israel is putting great pressure on the US to stop the Iranian nuclear bomb project. Iran denies a bomb project and the UN's IAEA finds no evidence of a bomb project. American Neocons are anxious to do Israel's bidding. The US Military is over extended with the war in Iraq and cannot wage a land war on Iran without recalling the inactive reserve and resuming the draft. This would not be popular with the US people. The Neocons counter with a plan to bomb Iran into submission without using troops. The plan counts on massive air superiority and the use of indigenous rebels to over thrown the Islamic Republic. The only candidates for the rebels are the Mojahedin-e Khalq - MKO. The US State Department lists the MKO as a terrorist group and it is currently illegal for the US Government to give them money.

The question then becomes can the US overthrow the Islamic Republic with a bombing campaign? There is intense pressure to rehabilitate the image of the MKO so that they can be funded to wage war in Iran. Even a small voice such as my own is under intense pressure to silence my voice on the MKO issue. I have received threats demanding that I stop publishing many of my pages. Unfortunately the IRI is not willing to furnish detailed information to show the evil that the MKO has done. If the IRI remains silent there is a good chance that the US will recognize the MKO and fund them. A sustained bombing campaign even if unsuccessful will be bad for the people of Iran.

What can the IRI do? Obviously anything that they can do to block the MKO is important. However more important is the speech that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei made Monday, July 5th 2004 in Hamadan. Ayatollah Khamenei said, "The Iranian people will cut off its hand without hesitation and endanger the interests of the aggressor everywhere in the world". What then can the Ayatollah Khamenei do to impact the US? A handful of thoughts come to mind. First of all closing or interdicting the Straights of Hormuz would block more than half of the worlds oil supply. The US Military is over extended in Iraq so raising a revolt among the Shia, against the US in Iraq would cause massive pressure. Afghanistan is quiet but vulnerable. A massacre of Americans would be easy to start. In 1978 then Afghan Army Captain Ismail Khan started a massacre in Herat that started the war that destroyed the Russians. President Kharzai controls only that part of the country that America guarantees him so a revolt is possible. A separate country taking in non-Pashtun Afghanistan is plausible. To the south the Baluch of Pakistani occupied Baluchistan are a bomb waiting to be ignited. Already there is growing agitation among the Marri and the Bugti Baluch against the Pakistani Government. Pakistan seeks to be all things to all people and treads a dangerous course betweens the demands of the US and the demands of Islam.

Does the US really want war? The Neocon faction does but there are changes in the second term. Doug Feith has resigned and Wolfowitz has reached the peak of his power and is receding. Rumsfeld is besieged. Rice as Secretary of State is steering an independent course. She was under pressure to make John Bolton her deputy but she declined. Rice is a voice of moderation and she has the President’s ear in a way Powell never did. At this point the US seems inclined to threaten but not start a shooting war.

What will Iran do? Clearly Ayatollah Khamenei is in control and what he wishes will come to pass. The upcoming Presidential race is problematic. As of now it seems clear that Rafsanjani will win unless Ayatollah Khamenei decides to stop him. The reformists are split and ineffectual. The movement is split into two parts, those who support Velayat-e Fiqh who have no public support and those who seek to overthrow the Government who are frozen out of politics by the Judiciary. The Conservatives seek to embrace a dangerous foreign policy. If Rafsanjani is out then I suspect that Velayati is a safe choice for the Islamic Republic. However Larijani seems to have the advantage unless of course Ayatollah Khamenei supports one over the other. If a reformist wins it would be 4 more wasted years like the last 8. If a Conservative wins then it could pressure the US to do something foolish. If Rafsanjani wins then he engineers a deal to normalize trade in exchange for verification of no bomb project.

At this point all I can do is sit back and watch the moves since it is in play now. I only hope that no more US servicemen have to die in foreign adventures that can be avoided and that no Iranians have to die for a bomb project that does not exist.
Barry O’Connell"

Condoleezza Rice: Attack on Iran over its nuclear program is “not on the agenda at this point,”

2005-02-04T04:45:00.000-08:00

The Globe and Mail: No current plan to attack Iran, Rice says: "No current plan to attack Iran, Rice says

London — An attack on Iran over its nuclear program is “not on the agenda at this point,” U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

“We have many diplomatic tools still at our disposal and we intend to pursue them fully,” Ms. Rice told a news conference after a meeting with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

Asked if a military attack was possible, she replied that “The question is simply not on the agenda at this point.”

However, she warned that Iran must not “use the cover” of civilian nuclear power development “to sustain a program that can lead to a nuclear weapon.”

European governments have made it clear they would not support military action against Iran over its uranium enrichment program. The United States insists Iran intends to use the program to build nuclear weapons.

Britain, France and Germany have been holding talks with Tehran in an attempt to have the uranium enrichment program permanently frozen. But the Bush administration has been cool to the European diplomacy, preferring economic sanctions against Iran.

In his State of the Union speech Wednesday, U.S. President George W. Bush called Iran “the world's primary state sponsor of terror.”

At her confirmation hearings last month, Rice said the United States wants “a regime in Iran that is responsive to concerns that we have about Iran's policies, which are 180 degrees” antithetical to U.S. interests.

Iran's supreme leader on Thursday said that Mr. Bush's policies toward Iran would fail.

“America is like one of the big heads of a seven-headed dragon,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in Tehran. “The brains directing it are Zionist and non-Zionist capitalists who brought Bush to power to meet their own interests.”

Ms. Rice met earlier in the day with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, her first meeting with a foreign leader since taking over from Colin Powell as America's top diplomat. She is to visit several European capitals and the Middle East over the coming days."

World News Article | Reuters.co.uk

2005-02-02T04:50:00.000-08:00

World News Article | Reuters.co.uk: "

US says early days of Iran diplomacy
Wed Feb 2, 2005 04:38 AM GMT
Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS

By Saul Hudson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has not run out of patience with diplomatic efforts to end Iran's suspected nuclear arms program, despite tough talk from other U.S. officials, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says.

The U.S. diplomatic playbook included waiting to see whether European talks with Iran end the crisis, a fall-back option of reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council and working with partners such as Russia to delay its programs, she said.

"For a variety of reasons we are fairly early in the diplomacy," Rice said in an interview with two news agencies ahead of a trip this week to Europe.

Her remarks came after U.S. President George W. Bush last month refused to rule out a military strike, and Vice President Dick Cheney said Iran was at the top of the world's trouble spots. Cheney also warned that the region's biggest U.S. ally, Israel, could hit Iran's facilities.

That tough talk caused a stir in Europe, whose diplomats have questioned whether the comments were part of psychological pressure on Iran or a precursor to military action.

A sceptical Bush administration has rebuffed European pleas to join their talks. But Rice applauded Britain, Germany and France for negotiating Iran's freeze of uranium enrichment activities, which can help make bombs or generate power.

"The Europeans have embarked on an effort that we greatly appreciate," said Rice, who travels to Europe as part of a U.S. strategy to repair ties frayed over the Iraq war.

"We hope for the best. But the Iranians have not demonstrated over time that they have been particularly good about living up to their international obligations," she added.

She also said Russia's decision, which came after U.S. pressure, to delay delivering fuel for a nuclear reactor had hindered Iran's ability to develop weapons.

Iran denies U.S. charges it is pursuing a nuclear bomb and says its programs are only for peaceful power generation needed to keep up with its growing population.

Rice's patience is no surprise, despite the Bush administration's headline-grabbing rhetoric, said Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The administration has bet Iran's rulers are too unpopular to remain in power long, Clawson said. "There is an optimism within the administration that the Iran nuclear problem can be managed until such time as this Iranian regime falls apart," he said.

Still, Washington generally takes a harder line than the Europeans and wants Iran, which Bush grouped in an "axis of evil" with North Korea and pre-war Iraq, reported to the Security Council for possible international sanctions.

U.S. officials say that would increase pressure on Iran and push council members China and Russia to curtail arms and energy deals, respectively, which Washington believes could boost the Islamic republic's nuclear capability.

Despite the differences in tactics, Rice stressed the shared U.S.-European goal of making Iran give up its suspected nuclear arms programs.

"The Iranians are being told across the board that they cannot be responsible members of the international community and seek nuclear weapons under cover a of a civilian nuclear program," she said. "That's not acceptable.""

USATODAY.com - Rowhani Opens Door to Iran US Ties

2005-02-01T12:14:00.000-08:00

USATODAY.com - Iran open to ties with U.S.: "Iran open to ties with U.S.
By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's top national security official said Monday his government wants better relations with the United States, but he advised the Bush administration to stop threatening Iran and said his country will not yield to demands that it permanently stop its effort to enrich uranium — which the White House says is intended to make a nuclear bomb.

Rowhani: "The United States does not have the means or the power" to change the Iranian regime.
By Henghameh Fahimi , AFP

In a rare interview, Hassan Rowhani, Iran's equivalent of national security adviser and the nation's chief negotiator on the nuclear issue, repeated Iran's assertion that its nuclear program is only for the production of energy. Iran agreed in November to suspend efforts to enrich uranium, but Rowhani said the suspension could last only for "some months, not years," while Iran talks with Britain, Germany and France about concessions on trade and other matters.

Rowhani, a senior member of the Shiite Muslim clerical establishment that has ruled Iran since a revolution overthrew the U.S.-backed Shah in 1979, said Iran "would like to have a suitable atmosphere for both sides to move to a better place" after so many years of estrangement. "If the United States is after solving the (nuclear) problem, definitely there would be a way (to improve relations), but we don't think they are looking for a right solution," he said. "They usually use threats, and threats cannot be a basis for dialogue."

Vice President Cheney said recently that Iran's nuclear program puts it "right at the top of the list" of potential trouble spots for the United States. Condoleezza Rice, in Senate hearings before becoming secretary of State, called Iran an "outpost of tyranny." In 2002, President Bush labeled Iran a member of an "axis of evil" and has not ruled out the use of force to overturn Iran's theocratic regime.

Rowhani said neither Iran nor the United States was interested in direct talks over the nuclear issue now but that the United States was consulting with the Europeans and was well aware of the status of negotiations. He said the best way to guarantee that Iran would not build bombs was if it could develop "a close and comprehensive relationship" with the West. "The tone of their remarks has been unsuitable," he said. "The United States does not have the means or the power" to change the Iranian regime."