Iranian Alert - January 13, 2005 - Israeli think tank: Only U.S. can neutralize Iran

Freedom is the Only Viable Option for Iran

Posted on Wednesday, January 12 @ 04:00:00 EST by ramin

The Path to Greater Freedom in the Middle East Now Runs Through Tehran
By Peter Kohanloo
Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, Kohanloo was a major in International Politics with concentration in International Security Studies prior to his Matser studies in Central Asian Politics at the School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London. Currently, Kohanloo is an intern working for Dr. Michael Ledeen, Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC.
Iran Institute for Democracy
January 12, 2004
Photography showing a solidarity chain of Iranian students in protest to a speech by Khatami at Tehran University. Iran, december 2004.
Excerpt:
January 20, 2005 President George W. Bush will take the oath of office on the steps of the US Capitol for the last time... the beginning of his second presidential term... full of new opportunities for the advancement of liberty both at home and abroad... One of these opportunities is a golden one involving Iranians and their campaign for a secular, democratic government... Ever since the election of Mohammad Khatami as president of the Islamic Republic in 1997, Iranians have repeatedly proven their willingness to use non-violent methods to effect meaningful change. However, after having voted for “reformists” in a series of non-competitive elections (parliamentary, municipal and presidential) and having received nothing substantial in return (in terms of political and economic freedoms), they realized that reform within the current regime was and is impossible... The European triumvirate of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom is much more interested in preserving and expanding its role in Iran’s energy sector than in facing the current realities inside the country... If President Bush actually meant what he said in his 2002 State of the Union address (“…We know their true nature.”), then he should abandon support for the game currently being played by the Europeans and the mullahs and begin to extend genuine moral and political support to the people of Iran... A secular and democratic Iran at peace with her neighbors and fully integrated in the world economy would be a useful ally not only in the “war on terror,” but also in the “war for democracy” in the Middle East. The dramatic transition from an Islamist state to a democratic one would inspire democrats throughout the Muslim world... It is for these courageous individuals that President Bush, as leader of the free world, must show the necessary moral and principled leadership during his second term, for the path to greater freedom in the Middle East now runs through Tehran.

On January 20, 2005 President George W. Bush will take the oath of office on the steps of the US Capitol for the last time. That day will mark the beginning of his second presidential term, a four-year period full of new opportunities for the advancement of liberty both at home and abroad.
One of these opportunities is a golden one involving Iranians and their campaign for a secular, democratic government at peace with its neighbors and accountable to nobody but the Iranian people themselves. As millions of Eastern Europeans, Georgians, Afghans and Ukrainians have learned over the past three decades, freedom is never achieved without a price. And Iranians of all ages, genders, classes, and faiths have been paying a very heavy one now for more than a quarter of a century. The list of atrocious crimes committed by the ruling Shia clerics and their supporters against Iranians and others is far too long to include in this piece. But that does not mean that they have been forgotten. It is these unforgivable acts committed in the name of God that have led millions of Iranians to use whatever channels available to express their desire to breathe finally the fresh air of freedom.
Ever since the election of Mohammad Khatami as president of the Islamic Republic in 1997, Iranians have repeatedly proven their willingness to use non-violent methods to effect meaningful change. However, after having voted for “reformists” in a series of non-competitive elections (parliamentary, municipal and presidential) and having received nothing substantial in return (in terms of political and economic freedoms), they realized that reform within the current regime was and is impossible. And voting in these sham elections is not the only method to which they have resorted. Over the past years, Iranians have peacefully protested in the streets, staged sit-ins, boycotted elections (such as last February’s parliamentary election), participated in strikes (such as the teachers’ union strike that was violently disrupted during UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s trip to Tehran in 2002), gone on hunger strikes, and been in and out of prison (including the infamous Evin Prison). And not once did they receive the moral support they deserve from the international community.
To the UN there is no such thing as a freedom movement inside Iran. And the European triumvirate of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom is much more interested in preserving and expanding its role in Iran’s energy sector than in facing the current realities inside the country – that the vast majority of Iranians despise this authoritarian regime, that it is well on its way toward acquiring nuclear weapons (if it has not already done so) to secure its own power, and that it is the hub of terrorism in the world. President Bush has made a few comments supporting the pro-democracy movement in theory, but has done little to show for it. This is unfortunate because many Iranians, particularly the younger generation, took his words to heart and believed in him even when he did not take action.
To many it was a hopeful sign to have finally a US president who was willing to take a firm stand against terrorism. And decisive action followed the words of the president in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet, the issue of Iran quietly moved to the shadows. The president decided to let the triumvirate work it out for him. But work out what? What have all these meaningless agreements with the mullahs achieved in the end? Nothing. They have only contributed to a creeping sense of frustration and hopelessness for Iranians and their just cause.
If President Bush actually meant what he said in his 2002 State of the Union address (“…We know their true nature.”), then he should abandon support for the game currently being played by the Europeans and the mullahs and begin to extend genuine moral and political support to the people of Iran. He should also ensure that the Iranian people understand that the US government is unified on this issue and will not “cut a deal” with the mullahs that would let them remain in power. This would help assuage any fears that President Bush might abandon the people’s cause and ignore their enormous sacrifices for a democratic future.
A secular and democratic Iran at peace with her neighbors and fully integrated in the world economy would be a useful ally not only in the “war on terror,” but also in the “war for democracy” in the Middle East. The dramatic transition from an Islamist state to a democratic one would inspire democrats throughout the Muslim world. And it would be a huge blow to all those, whether they be Shia or Sunni, who were first encouraged by the Ayatollah Khomeini to promote the cause of jihad around the globe. That is why it is important for President Bush to support the establishment of democracy in Iran, perhaps even more so than in Iraq because it is the Iranian mullahs who are desperately trying to derail the democratic process in Iraq by supporting terrorism.
Freedom does indeed have a high price. Everyday hundreds of brave Iranians, Iraqis, and American soldiers are paying for it at the hands of the clerical dictatorship in Tehran. It is for these courageous individuals that President Bush, as leader of the free world, must show the necessary moral and principled leadership during his second term, for the path to greater freedom in the Middle East now runs through Tehran.

Iran warns IAEA not to spy on military sites
(AFP)

12 January 2005
TEHERAN - Iran warned on Wednesday it would not allow UN nuclear inspectors to “spy” on a suspect military site which the United States claims may be involved in covert nuclear weapons activities.
It also said it planned to resume soon the enrichment of uranium despite a deal hammered out last year with the European Union under which it agreed to freeze the controversial activity.
A team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrived in Tehran Wednesday to carry out inspections at the Parchin military facility which Iran had long kept off limits to the UN nuclear watchdog.
“We are watchful. We have allowed inspections into our military installations but we will not allow any espionage or the theft of information from our military sites,” Hossein Mousavian, the spokesman for Iran’s nuclear negotiations team, said in remarks carried by the Mehr news agency.
“It is not necessary for the inspectors to enter the installations. They are authorized to take samples outside (the buildings) using their equipment.”
According to student news agency ISNA, the IAEA team is due to stay in Iran for a week and start taking environmental samples from Parchin on Thursday.
Last week, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei announced that Iran had finally given the green light for his inspectors to probe Parchin. The IAEA has been seeking access to the site since July.
Tehran gave permission for inspectors to take so-called environmental samples from the Parchin site southeast of Tehran in order to disprove US allegations of secret weapons-related activities.
“To demonstrate that we have nothing to hide and that the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful, we have authorized the agency to take these samples,” foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Sunday.
Environmental sampling involves taking swabs or soil samples to detect the presence of nuclear activity.
Parchin is an example of a so-called “transparency visit” where the IAEA is going beyond its mandate under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to check if nuclear materials have been diverted away from peaceful use.
The United States has alleged that the Iranians may be working on testing high-explosive charges with an inert core of depleted uranium at Parchin as a sort of dry test for how a bomb with fissile material would work.
Tehran has strongly denied carrying out any nuclear-related work at the site, and insists its nuclear drive is merely aimed at generating electricity.
In addition, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Hasan Rowhani, said that Tehran will soon resume uranium enrichment under the supervision of the UN nuclear watchdog, ISNA reported.
“Suspension of enrichment is for a limited period to win the confidence of the international community and to reach an understanding with Europe for fullrelations in the political, economic, security and nuclear fields,” he was quoted as saying.
“Iran will not allow other countries to halt its enrichment program, and we will soon resume uranium enrichment under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” he said during talks with a visiting Japanese official.
Iran, accused by the United States of seeking to covertly develop nuclear weapons, agreed in November to freeze uranium enrichment activities in exchange for a trade and cooperation agreement with the European Union.
But tension remains notably because Tehran has agreed to maintain the suspension only as long as EU trade talks -- which resumed on Wednesday -- continue.
Iran insists it only wants to enrich uranium to low levels to produce fuel for atomic power stations.

UN nuclear inspectors in Iran
From correspondents in Tehran
January 13, 2005
INSPECTORS from the UN atomic watchdog arrived in Tehran today to visit a military site the United States claims may be involved in covert nuclear weapons activities, student news agency ISNA reported.

"The group of inspectors are to stay in Iran for a week and they will start taking environmental samples from Parchin on tomorrow," ISNA said.
Iran said on Sunday it had given the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) permission to take so-called environmental samples from the Parchin site southeast of Tehran in order to disprove US allegations of secret weapons-related activities.
Environmental sampling involves taking swabs or soil samples to detect the presence of nuclear activity.
"The question is not of a visit to the military installations of Parchin. The agency had asked to take samples from the green areas of Parchin because the Americans and others have made accusations," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters on Sunday.
"To demonstrate that we have nothing to hide and that the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful, we have authorised the agency to take these samples," he added.
Parchin is an example of a so-called "transparency visit" where the IAEA is going beyond its mandate under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to check if nuclear materials have been diverted away from peaceful use.
Last week, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei announced that Iran had finally given the green light for his inspectors to probe Parchin. The IAEA has been seeking access to the site since July.
Tehran has strongly denied carrying out any nuclear-related work at the site, and insists its nuclear drive is merely aimed at generating electricity.
The US has alleged the Iranians may be working on testing high-explosive charges with an inert core of depleted uranium at Parchin as a sort of dry test for how a bomb with fissile material would work.

DoctorZIn, I have posted few minutes ago my comment on a similar threat, but I'll post it again here. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Suppose Iran sends missiles on US from Lebanon or Iran... Can they do anything else? No they cant. For the matter, Israel can retaliate with its self made "Jericho" missiles or with its brand new self made "Popeye Turbo" cruise missiles. Also Israel can and will retaliate with the Israeli Air Force, while the Iranian Air Force has no capabilities to take over the IAF. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Some of the Records and Highlights of the Israeli Air Force: _______________________________________________________________________________________ ---November 30, 1947 until July 20, 1949- The War Of Independence: Although the Israeli Air Force was only born during the war, 18 enemy planes were shot down in dogfights. A single Israeli plane may have been shot down in a dogfight over the Galilee, but the exact circumstances of its demise were never established in certainty. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ---1956- The Sinai Campaign: Seven enemy planes were shot down in the course of the Sinai Campaign, without a single Israeli plane being shot down. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ---June 5, 1967- The Six Day War: Operation "Moked"- The destruction of the entire Egyptian air-force within 3 hours. By the end of the day the Syrian and Jordanian air forces were wiped out as well and the Iraqi air force was badly damaged. The IAF achieved a total air-superiority for the rest of the war, that ended with an amazing victory for Israel. The IAF shoot-down total at the end of the war was a claimed record of 469 enemy aircraft downed versus of its own 24 downed. _______________________________________________________________________________________---March, 1969 until August, 1970- The War of Attrition: 111 enemy warplanes were shot-down in dogfights by IAF pilots while only 4 IAF warplanes were shot down in dogfigths by enemy pilots. Also during the Cold-War, the Soviet Union held close relationships with the Arab nations; On July 30, 1970 the tension peaked: A large scale air brawl between IAF planes and MiGs flown by Soviet pilots occurred- 5 MiGs flown by Soviet pilots were shot down, while the IAF suffered no losses. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ---October, 1973- The Yom Kippur war: Despite the surprise attack launched by Israel's enemies- Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon in the most holy day for the Judaism- Yom Kippur, and despite the unprepareness for the new SAM air-defences, IAF shot-down 277 enemy warplanes, loosing only 5 warplanes of its own in dogfights and played a major role in Israel's victory. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ---June 7, 1981: The first and only attack in history of a nuclear reactor: The destruction of the Iraqi Osiraq nuclear reactor; Eight IAF F-16 fighters flew to Iraq and bombed the nuclear facilties of Osiraq. Among the pilots that took part in the attack was the late Ilan Ramon, Israel's first astronaut. _______________________________________________________________________________________---Obtaining the first shoot-downs for the American fighter jets, the F-15 and the F-16. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ---June 8, 1982- The Peace For Galilee operation (The Lebanon War): The destruction of the entire Soviet-Syrian air-defence system in Lebanon within few hours without a single warplane lost; Syria with the U.S.S.R built up an overlapping network of SAMs, and the density of SAM site locations was unmatched anywhere in the world including the U.S.S.R. itself. Also the IAF achieved in dogfights a total of 80 Syrian planes shoot-downs, without a single Israeli plane being shot down. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ---126 enemy planes were shot down in dogfights in the years between the wars - most of them in the 70`s. The IAF lost only 2 planes in dogfights between the wars, in 1959 and in 1964. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ---October 1985: On October of 1985, the IAF carried out the longest-ranged attack in its history. F-15s attacked and destroyed PLO headquarters at Hamam a-Shat on the shores of Tunis, in retaliation for the murder of three Israeli seafarers at Larnaka, Cyprus, earlier that year. 90% of the base's area was destroyed; dozens of terrorists were killed, and many others injured. _______________________________________________________________________________________---The only documented emergency landing of an F-15 with only one wing. A few months later, the damaged F-15 had been given a new wing, and returned to operational duty in the squadron. The engineers at McDonnell Douglas had a hard time believing the story of the one-winged landing: as far as their planning models were concerned, this was an impossibility. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ---In the United States Air Force and the air forces of several European countries, an ace is a pilot who has shot down 5 or more enemy planes. The Israeli Air force boasts 39 pilots who shot down 5 or more planes, and 10 of these have shot down more than 8 planes. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ---One of these pilots, Col. (Res.) Giora Even (Epstein), stands out as the unquestioned Ace of Aces, having shot down a record 17 (seventeen!) planes in the course of his amazing career. Epstein has held his record for 25 years, and needless to say - is a true IAF icon, and an object of veneration for generations of IAF pilots. And the record is not confined to the IAF: according to the Guinness Book of World Records, the world record holder for jet air victories is an American pilot who shot down 16 planes. Apparently, someone had better tell the Guinness guys about Giora Epstein. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ---687 enemy airplanes have been shot down in dogfights since Israel`s birth. Only 23 Israeli planes have been shot down by enemy planes since 1948 - a statistic which puts the dogfight victory ratio between Israel and its Arab neighbors at a whopping 30:1. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Sep. 22, 2003 | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS | Israeli air force pilots handily beat their German counterparts in "dogfights" in the first ever air force exercise between the two countries, an Israeli military official said Monday. The Israeli F-15 pilots, aided by special technology that Israel does not share or sell to other countries, beat the Germans by more than 100 "hits," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. In the past, Israel has beaten American air force pilots by similar margins, the officials added. Israel purchases U.S. warplanes without battle technology, installing its own locally made systems into the aircraft. The exercise was conducted over the past two weeks in the skies of Sardinia in Italy. ________________________________________________________________________________________ So, for a conclusion: Iran can cause some damage to Israel by launching its Shihab missiles, however the Israeli capabilities so strike back, as you have just seen yourself, are far greater than of Iran. I think that such an attack on their nuclear sites worth the risk. I would prefer to see 20 Shihab missiles in Tel Aviv than 1 nuke in Tel Aviv. ________________________________________________________________________________________

FRmail me to be added or removed from this Israel Defense Forces and Israel ping list. Here you will find news, articles and fascinating stories about the IDF and Israel.

DoctorZin Note: I just received this report from Alan Peters...

A quick look at Iran's Intelligence leaders

The Iranian Constitution states that in order to attain its objectives the country's foreign policy must be based on "Islamic criteria, fraternal commitment to all Muslims, and unsparing support to the freedom fighters of the world" (Article 3). Furthermore, "[Iran] supports the rightful struggle of the oppressed people against their oppressors anywhere in the world" (Article 154). These requirements, as well as a desire to export the revolution, are a primary factor behind Iran's support for what the United States identifies as terrorist organizations. Iran's more recent reliance on asymmetric warfare in its military doctrine, furthermore, underscores that such support will continue.

The U.S. State Department first identified Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism in January 1984, and it has borne that designation every year since despite Iran's denials of involvement. The State Department currently views Iran as the leading state sponsor of terrorism, according to its annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt). While Iran does not have an official "Ministry of Terrorism," the State Department report notes the involvement of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Intelligence and Security Ministry (MOIS) in terrorist activities, although it does not single out any individuals for involvement.

Distrust of the officer corps in the regular armed forces led to creation of the IRGC shortly after Iran's 1979 revolution (see Kenneth Katzman, "The Warriors of Islam: Iran's Revolutionary Guard," and Nikola B. Schahgaldian, "The Iranian Military Under the Islamic Republic."). Initially, the IRGC was headed by individuals with similar backgrounds in the opposition, including training in Lebanon. Mohsen Rezai headed the IRGC from 1981-97 and he now serves as secretary of the Expediency Council.

Some may debate the definition of terrorism, but there is no question that organizations openly backed by Iran are responsible for hundreds of deaths. Iran, therefore, is at least partially responsible for those killings.

The current head of the IRGC is General Yahya Rahim-Safavi, who served as deputy to Rezai. The deputy commander is Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr. Some observers believe that Zolqadr heads the IRGC's Qods Force, a special operations unit that is believed to be responsible for terrorist activities. The IRGC worked closely with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) and afterward, and it sent personnel to Lebanon in the 1980s to work with Hizballah.

A Revolutionary Guards Ministry headed by Mohsen Rafiqdust existed from 1982 until 1989. Rafiqdust would go on to head the Oppressed and Disabled Foundation, which continues to fund IRGC activities. Its overseas enterprises serve as fronts for IRGC operations (see "RFE/RL Iran Report," 21 June 1999). The background of the current head of the Oppressed and Disabled Foundation, Mohammad Foruzandeh, can be traced to the IRGC, too. Born in 1953, Foruzandeh studied at Tehran Teachers' Training College until his expulsion for antiregime activities. After the Islamic Revolution, he served as governor-general of Khuzestan Province. In 1986, Foruzandeh served as the IRGC chief of staff, and in 1993 he was appointed as defense minister by then-President Ali-Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani.

The Iranian parliament passed legislation on creating an intelligence agency in 1983, and the Intelligence and Security Ministry was established the next year in an effort to eliminate competition between numerous institutions and committees. Hojatoleslam Mohammad Mohammadi-Reyshahri headed the ministry from 1984 until 1989. Reyshahri served as chief judge of the Military Revolutionary Tribunal in the immediate post-revolution period. Reyshahri later served as prosecutor of the Special Court for the Clergy. In 1991, Reyshahri replaced Ahmad Khomeini as leader of the Iranian delegation to the Hajj pilgrimage. Reyshahri founded the Society for the Defense of Values of the Islamic Revolution in 1996 and stood as its candidate in the 1997 presidential election. In April 1997, Reyshahri was appointed to the Council for the Discernment of Expediency by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, and he is now a member of the Assembly of Experts. Reyshahri also heads the Shah Abdolazim shrine foundation.

The second intelligence and security minister was Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Fallahian-Khuzestani. He was born in Najafabad in 1949, and he studied theology at Qom's Haqqani seminary. After 1979 he served as a revolutionary court judge in Abadan. In 1981, he was appointed to the court in Bakhtaran, Kermanshah Province, and in coordination with the IRGC he participated in the dismantling of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization. Fallahian-Khuzestani was appointed to the leadership of the revolutionary committees in 1982. He began working at the Intelligence and Security Ministry in 1984 as a deputy minister, in 1986 he began work as prosecutor in the Special Court for the Clergy, and in 1988 he was made head of the Armed Forces Inspectorate. Fallahian served as intelligence and security minister from 1989-97. He currently serves on the Assembly of Experts.

The next intelligence and security minister, Hojatoleslam Qorban-Ali Dori-Najafabadi, had served as a legislator and did not have a background in intelligence or security affairs. He was welcomed as a "relatively liberal and pragmatic cleric," London's "The Times" reported in August 1997. A Friday Prayer leader, Dori-Najafabadi also served as a parliamentarian, member of the Assembly of Experts, head of the board of directors and secretary of the World Center for Islamic Science in Qom, and as a member of the Council for the Discernment of Expediency. He was forced to resign from the Intelligence and Security Ministry in 1999 over allegations that rogue elements within the ministry assassinated Iranian dissidents and intellectuals. Dori-Najafabadi currently serves on the Expediency Council.

The current intelligence and security minister is Hojatoleslam Ali Yunesi. Born in Hamedan in 1955, Yunesi studied in a Qom seminary. Because of his political activism, he was imprisoned by the monarchy several times, until he left for military training in Palestinian and Lebanese camps. After the revolution, Yunesi held a number of positions in the judicial arena. His background in intelligence work includes service as representative of the Armed Forces deputy commander in chief to the military intelligence department. Yunesi worked with Reyshahri in creating the Intelligence and Security Ministry. He served on the committee investigating the 1998-99 murders of intellectuals and oppositionists in Iran.

Authoritative information on the structure of the Intelligence and Security Ministry or the size of its workforce is not publicly available. It handles domestic and foreign intelligence activities, which includes dealing with neighboring states as well as relations with so-called "liberation movements" (for example, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas). It also addresses ethnic and sectarian issues within the country, and it monitors the clerical community and government officials. The Intelligence and Security Ministry, IRGC intelligence unit, and the IRGC's Qods Force work together (On the MOIS structure, see Wilfried Buchta, "Who Rules Iran? The Structure of Power in the Islamic Republic.").

One Iranian official, Hojatoleslam Ali-Akbar Mohtashami-Pur, makes no effort to hide his close association with Hizballah and other groups described by the United States as foreign terrorist organizations. He was ambassador to Damascus from 1981 to 1985, Interior Minister from 1985-89, and a parliamentarian in 1989-93 and again in 2000-04. He was closely involved with the creation of Hizballah and also with the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut. After he went to the Interior Ministry there was a bureaucratic tug-of-war over who would control the Liberation Movements Office.

Mohtashami-Pur is secretary-general of the International Conference to Support the Palestinian Uprising (Intifada), which was held in Tehran in April 2001 and June 2002. Representatives from Hizballah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Peoples' Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command participate in these events. Mohtashami-Pur has attended smaller events like this in Beirut and Damascus in the last four years.

Tehran consistently rejects accusations of involvement with or support for international terrorism and claims instead that it is a victim of this phenomenon. Some observers may debate the definition of terrorism, but there is no question that organizations openly backed by Iran are responsible for hundreds of deaths. Iran, therefore, is at least partially responsible for those killings.

Analysis: A Look At Iran's Sponsorship Of Terror Groups
By Bill Samii

Palestinian militants

The Iranian Constitution states that in order to attain its objectives the country's foreign policy must be based on "Islamic criteria, fraternal commitment to all Muslims, and unsparing support to the freedom fighters of the world" (Article 3). Furthermore, "[Iran] supports the rightful struggle of the oppressed people against their oppressors anywhere in the world" (Article 154). These requirements, as well as a desire to export the revolution, are a primary factor behind Iran's support for what the United States identifies as terrorist organizations. Iran's more recent reliance on asymmetric warfare in its military doctrine, furthermore, underscores that such support will continue.

The U.S. State Department first identified Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism in January 1984, and it has borne that designation every year since despite Iran's denials of involvement. The State Department currently views Iran as the leading state sponsor of terrorism, according to its annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt). While Iran does not have an official "Ministry of Terrorism," the State Department report notes the involvement of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Intelligence and Security Ministry (MOIS) in terrorist activities, although it does not single out any individuals for involvement.

Distrust of the officer corps in the regular armed forces led to creation of the IRGC shortly after Iran's 1979 revolution (see Kenneth Katzman, "The Warriors of Islam: Iran's Revolutionary Guard," and Nikola B. Schahgaldian, "The Iranian Military Under the Islamic Republic."). Initially, the IRGC was headed by individuals with similar backgrounds in the opposition, including training in Lebanon. Mohsen Rezai headed the IRGC from 1981-97 and he now serves as secretary of the Expediency Council.

Some may debate the definition of terrorism, but there is no question that organizations openly backed by Iran are responsible for hundreds of deaths. Iran, therefore, is at least partially responsible for those killings.

The current head of the IRGC is General Yahya Rahim-Safavi, who served as deputy to Rezai. The deputy commander is Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr. Some observers believe that Zolqadr heads the IRGC's Qods Force, a special operations unit that is believed to be responsible for terrorist activities. The IRGC worked closely with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) and afterward, and it sent personnel to Lebanon in the 1980s to work with Hizballah.

A Revolutionary Guards Ministry headed by Mohsen Rafiqdust existed from 1982 until 1989. Rafiqdust would go on to head the Oppressed and Disabled Foundation, which continues to fund IRGC activities. Its overseas enterprises serve as fronts for IRGC operations (see "RFE/RL Iran Report," 21 June 1999). The background of the current head of the Oppressed and Disabled Foundation, Mohammad Foruzandeh, can be traced to the IRGC, too. Born in 1953, Foruzandeh studied at Tehran Teachers' Training College until his expulsion for antiregime activities. After the Islamic Revolution, he served as governor-general of Khuzestan Province. In 1986, Foruzandeh served as the IRGC chief of staff, and in 1993 he was appointed as defense minister by then-President Ali-Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani.

The Iranian parliament passed legislation on creating an intelligence agency in 1983, and the Intelligence and Security Ministry was established the next year in an effort to eliminate competition between numerous institutions and committees. Hojatoleslam Mohammad Mohammadi-Reyshahri headed the ministry from 1984 until 1989. Reyshahri served as chief judge of the Military Revolutionary Tribunal in the immediate post-revolution period. Reyshahri later served as prosecutor of the Special Court for the Clergy. In 1991, Reyshahri replaced Ahmad Khomeini as leader of the Iranian delegation to the Hajj pilgrimage. Reyshahri founded the Society for the Defense of Values of the Islamic Revolution in 1996 and stood as its candidate in the 1997 presidential election. In April 1997, Reyshahri was appointed to the Council for the Discernment of Expediency by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, and he is now a member of the Assembly of Experts. Reyshahri also heads the Shah Abdolazim shrine foundation.

The second intelligence and security minister was Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Fallahian-Khuzestani. He was born in Najafabad in 1949, and he studied theology at Qom's Haqqani seminary. After 1979 he served as a revolutionary court judge in Abadan. In 1981, he was appointed to the court in Bakhtaran, Kermanshah Province, and in coordination with the IRGC he participated in the dismantling of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization. Fallahian-Khuzestani was appointed to the leadership of the revolutionary committees in 1982. He began working at the Intelligence and Security Ministry in 1984 as a deputy minister, in 1986 he began work as prosecutor in the Special Court for the Clergy, and in 1988 he was made head of the Armed Forces Inspectorate. Fallahian served as intelligence and security minister from 1989-97. He currently serves on the Assembly of Experts.

The next intelligence and security minister, Hojatoleslam Qorban-Ali Dori-Najafabadi, had served as a legislator and did not have a background in intelligence or security affairs. He was welcomed as a "relatively liberal and pragmatic cleric," London's "The Times" reported in August 1997. A Friday Prayer leader, Dori-Najafabadi also served as a parliamentarian, member of the Assembly of Experts, head of the board of directors and secretary of the World Center for Islamic Science in Qom, and as a member of the Council for the Discernment of Expediency. He was forced to resign from the Intelligence and Security Ministry in 1999 over allegations that rogue elements within the ministry assassinated Iranian dissidents and intellectuals. Dori-Najafabadi currently serves on the Expediency Council.

The current intelligence and security minister is Hojatoleslam Ali Yunesi. Born in Hamedan in 1955, Yunesi studied in a Qom seminary. Because of his political activism, he was imprisoned by the monarchy several times, until he left for military training in Palestinian and Lebanese camps. After the revolution, Yunesi held a number of positions in the judicial arena. His background in intelligence work includes service as representative of the Armed Forces deputy commander in chief to the military intelligence department. Yunesi worked with Reyshahri in creating the Intelligence and Security Ministry. He served on the committee investigating the 1998-99 murders of intellectuals and oppositionists in Iran.

Authoritative information on the structure of the Intelligence and Security Ministry or the size of its workforce is not publicly available. It handles domestic and foreign intelligence activities, which includes dealing with neighboring states as well as relations with so-called "liberation movements" (for example, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas). It also addresses ethnic and sectarian issues within the country, and it monitors the clerical community and government officials. The Intelligence and Security Ministry, IRGC intelligence unit, and the IRGC's Qods Force work together (On the MOIS structure, see Wilfried Buchta, "Who Rules Iran? The Structure of Power in the Islamic Republic.").

One Iranian official, Hojatoleslam Ali-Akbar Mohtashami-Pur, makes no effort to hide his close association with Hizballah and other groups described by the United States as foreign terrorist organizations. He was ambassador to Damascus from 1981 to 1985, Interior Minister from 1985-89, and a parliamentarian in 1989-93 and again in 2000-04. He was closely involved with the creation of Hizballah and also with the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut. After he went to the Interior Ministry there was a bureaucratic tug-of-war over who would control the Liberation Movements Office.

Mohtashami-Pur is secretary-general of the International Conference to Support the Palestinian Uprising (Intifada), which was held in Tehran in April 2001 and June 2002. Representatives from Hizballah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Peoples' Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command participate in these events. Mohtashami-Pur has attended smaller events like this in Beirut and Damascus in the last four years.

Tehran consistently rejects accusations of involvement with or support for international terrorism and claims instead that it is a victim of this phenomenon. Some observers may debate the definition of terrorism, but there is no question that organizations openly backed by Iran are responsible for hundreds of deaths. Iran, therefore, is at least partially responsible for those killings.

Thursday January 13, 04:56 PM

Israel doubts Iran nuke freeze deal
By Dan Williams
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli officials have voiced serious doubts in public for the first time over European Union efforts to persuade Iran to abandon what Israel and the United States see as a covert quest for a nuclear bomb.
Israel has never hesitated to condemn Iran's nuclear programme, but had been careful not to criticise the attempts of the Europeans to get Tehran to suspend key processes that could yield weapons-grade uranium or plutonium.
The Israeli foreign minister and military intelligence chief spoke out as the EU and Tehran negotiated political and economic rewards in exchange for agreement from Iran -- which has always denied it is trying to build an atom bomb.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog verified that Iran froze its uranium enrichment programme as promised under a deal last November, although the United States and Israel believe the Islamic Republic is using talks with the EU to buy time.
"They (Europeans) achieved an agreement now with Iran. We do not like it very much but still it is much better than it was before," Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said at a Jerusalem conference on Wednesday.
"We believe that it should be moved, should be transferred to the (United Nations) Security Council, in order to stop the Iranians from what they are doing," Shalom said in English.
Israel and the United States had long favoured bringing Iran before the Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear programme. Israel is widely thought to have nuclear weapons but has a policy of never confirming or denying this.
Iran first promised the EU's "big three" in October 2003 that it would freeze uranium enrichment, a process of purifying uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants or weapons.
But that deal fell apart last year after Iran resumed the production of centrifuges, machines that enrich uranium by spinning at supersonic speeds.
EU REVIVES TALKS
The EU trio successfully revived the talks with Iran late last year in a move that rescued Iran from a report to the Security Council, which could have brought further international isolation and painful economic sanctions for Tehran.
The Europeans want Iran to abandon all efforts to produce nuclear fuel, though Tehran has repeatedly said the freeze would be a temporary one, lasting for no more than a few months.
Shalom spoke after Major-General Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, chief of Israeli military intelligence, publicly predicted at a security seminar on Tuesday that Iran would be capable of producing atomic weapons independently within months.
"According to estimates, Iran is not currently capable of enriching uranium to build a nuclear bomb, but it is only half a year away from achieving such independent capability, if it is not stopped by the West," Zeevi-Farkash said.
"The Iranians can reach Portugal with nuclear weapons," Zeevi-Farkash said, referring to Iran's missile programme. "This doesn't worry the Europeans; they tell me that during the Soviet regime as well they were under a nuclear threat, and I try to explain to them that Iran is a different story."
Iran does not recognise Israel's right to exist. Israeli officials refer to the Iranian nuclear programme as an "existential threat" and have hinted Israel could resort to military force to stop its arch-foe getting the bomb.
Widely believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, Israel sent warplanes to strike the Iraqi reactor at Osiraq in 1981, driving Saddam Hussein's nuclear programme underground.
But Israel is increasingly isolated in its hawkish talk.
The expected resignation of U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, a hardliner on nuclear issues, may signal a shift in Washington to a less confrontational stance on Iran for President George W. Bush's second term, analysts say.

Torture in Iran

Joint motion for a resolution on torture in Iran
Doc. : B6-0036/2005, B6-0040/2005, B6-0044/2005, B6-0052/2005, B6-0054/2005, B6-0057/2005, B6-0058/2005
Debate/Vote : 13.01.2005
MEPs adopted a joint resolution by 104 votes in favour, 2 against with 5 abstentions reiterating their general opposition to the death penalty, and in particular strongly condemning the death sentences against and/or the execution of juvenile offenders, pregnant women and mentally handicapped persons. The House calls on the Iranian authorities to give evidence that they are implementing their declared moratorium on stoning, and demands the immediate implementation of the ban on torture as announced, passed by Parliament and approved by the Guardian Council. MEPs condemns the campaign by the judiciary against journalists, cyberjournalists and webloggers leading to the closure of publications, imprisonment, and, according to reports, widespread torture and forced false confessions, and calls on the authorities to release all those detained, prosecuted or sentenced for non-violent press- and opinion-related offences.
The House calls on the Iranian Parliament to adapt the Iranian press law and penal code in the light of Iran's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and, notably, to repeal all criminal law provisions concerning the peaceful expression of opinion, including in the press. Parliament calls upon the authorities to respect internationally recognised legal safeguards, inter alia with regard to persons belonging to religious minorities, officially recognised or otherwise. MEPs welcome the stay of execution concerning Hajieh Esmailvand, and reports that Leyla Moafi's case has been referred to forensic psychiatrists 'to examine her mental condition'; insists, however, that their alleged 'crimes' are not internationally recognisable criminal offences and that their prosecution does not comply with international human rights standards. Parliament insists that adult consensual sexual activity in private is covered by the concept of 'privacy' and calls for the immediate release of all persons held for such activity. MEPs welcome and support the EU-Iran negotiating process on nuclear issues, also as an occasion to promote progress in the EU-Iran political and human rights dialogues and EU-Iran economic and trade relations, and supports the Council in expecting action by Iran to address also other concerns of the EU, such as ending its support for terrorist organisations, improving respect for human rights and altering its approach to the Middle East peace process. Finally, Parliament hopes that the setting-up of its interparliamentary delegation for relations with Iran will enable it to engage in productive discussions with the Iranian Parliament and also with Iranian civil society;
Press enquiries:
Richard Freedman
(Strasbourg) tel.(33-3) 881 73785
(Brussels) tel.(32-2) 28 41448
e-mail : rfreedman@europarl.eu.int

Iran orders Nobel winner to court

Ebadi is the first Iranian and first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize

Iranian Nobel Peace prize laureate Shirin Ebadi has been summoned before a Revolutionary Court in Tehran.
Ms Ebadi, a lawyer and human rights activist, told the AFP news agency that she had no idea what the specific reason for the summons was.
She said she has not yet decided how to respond to the summons, which she has until Sunday to answer.
The 57-year-old Ms Ebadi received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 for her work on women's and children's rights.
"In the summons, it simply says that I must present myself to the court within three days to provide some explanations and that I will be arrested if I refuse," she added.
Since winning the Nobel Prize, Ms Ebadi has complained of increased threats against her and has been placed under police protection.
First woman judge
Shirin Ebadi came to prominence when she was appointed Iran's first woman judge. That distinction was removed after the revolution.
In 2000 she was accused of distributing the video-taped confession of a hardliner who claimed that prominent conservative leaders were instigating physical attacks on pro-reform figures.
She received a suspended jail sentence and a professional ban for this.
She has set up a non-governmental organisation, the Centre for the Defence of Human Rights, and represented several leading dissidents in their legal battles with the authorities.
Recently she has represented the family of Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian-Iranian photographer murdered in custody in 2003.

Published Thursday
January 13, 2005

Blood money saves Iranian woman who killed attacker

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A woman who spent seven years on death row in Iran has been spared execution by the family of the police chief she stabbed to death and mutilated for trying to rape her.
The death sentence for Afsaneh Nowrouzi had raised an outcry from activists in Iran and abroad. This week, following mediation by Iran's judiciary, the family of Behzad Moghaddam agreed to accept compensation of $62,500 instead of Nowrouzi's execution.
"With the efforts of judiciary officials, family members of the victim were persuaded to give up retribution in this case . . . in exchange for blood money," said Mohsen Yektan-Khodaei, a judiciary official.
Nowrouzi, a 34-year-old mother of two, is expected to be released from prison soon.
In 1997, she killed Moghaddam, the police chief on Kish island. Her lawyer said she also cut off his penis and placed it on his chest - a previously confidential detail.
The court rejected her self-defense claim, convicting her of murder.
The case highlighted how hard it can be for Iranian women to obtain justice against rapists.
Iran's Supreme Court initially upheld Nowrouzi's death sentence. But last year, under international pressure, judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi ordered a stay of the verdict. The Supreme Court then overturned the death sentence and ordered a new ruling from the Kish court. Meanwhile, mediators intervened with Moghaddam's family.
Nowrouzi or her family now must pay the compensation.

Fearing the Shia

Why the world of pseudo-realpolitik wants to postpone the Iraqi elections.
by Tom Donnelly
01/13/2005 12:00:00 AM

THE ESTABLISHMENTARIAN CRITIQUE of President Bush's policy in Iraq--and the scheming neocons for whom the president is supposed to be the Manchurian Candidate--is that they are blinded by ideology. There is, almost certainly, a grain of truth in this, but it comes from a profound belief in the American creed; it is the establishment that has the greatest difficulty in seeing reality in Iraq clearly.
It is, in fact, a near-ideological belief in conventional-wisdom circles that Iraq is poised on the edge of a civil war and that a truly representative government in Baghdad, reflecting the political will of Iraq's Shia majority, is a danger to the United States. One can almost hear the heavy sighs of regret at having deposed Saddam. Foggy Bottom in winter is a somber place.
The imminent Iraqi elections have brought these twinned canards to the fore once again. The fear of civil war in Iraq was and remains a matter of faith rather than reason. For a decade it was the basis of containing Saddam rather than canning him. Spooked that Iraq's repressed Shia and Kurds would take his hint at revolt seriously, George Bush I and his band of balance-of-power realpolitkers balked at marching on Baghdad. Brent Scowcroft, then national security adviser, still thinks that way. The other day he predicted "an incipient civil war." Worried, as ever, about the consequences of human liberty, Scowcroft suggests that "the Iraqi elections, rather than being a promising turning point, have the potential for deepening the conflict."
Reflecting the realist-leftist

alliance that most opposes the Bush "forward strategy of freedom," the editorialists of the New York Times were bound to agree with Scowcroft. On Wednesday, in "Facing Facts About Iraq's Election," they allowed as how much of the foreign-policy elite believes "that civil war is probably inevitable one way or another." The Times itself recommends postponing the January 30 elections to keep them "from being something more than just the starting gun for"--wait for it--"a civil war."
The editorial also faced the "fact" that Iraq's Sunnis are "estranged" from the emerging democratic process in Iraq. Somehow, the Iraqi Sunnis have made a miraculous leap from perpetrators to victims; postponing the election would "go a long way toward reassuring [Sunnis] that the Shiite majority was not planning to trample on their rights."
At least the Times stops short of arguing that majority rule is ipso facto a bad idea, or that letting Saddam loose would also soothe Sunni sensibilities. I guess we have to wait for his trial for that transformation.
There's more than simple fear of freedom at work here. For a long time conventional wisdom about Iraq has insisted upon conflating the differences among Iraqi and Iranian Shia. This Shia-fear stems not only from the American experience of the Iranian Revolution but from many decades of propagandizing by the region's Sunni autocrats and monarchs. But a clear reading of Iraq today reveals not a lumpen Shiatariat but a pluralistic political community ranging from Abdel Aziz al-Hakim to Ahmed Chalabi. What brings them together, after generations of "estrangement" from Iraqi politics, is the chance at a decent life, a taste of liberty, and the pursuit of some happiness.

Ordinary Americans might be forgiven for wondering why it is that toppling a dangerous dictator, liberating a violently suppressed majority, and electing a representative government was a strategic mistake whose consequences should be postponed as long as possible. You have to be a member of the foreign-policy elite to understand these things.

Tom Donnelly is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard.

Bush and Bolton
New York Sun - Editorial
Jan 13, 2005
If personnel is policy, one man to watch as Mr. Bush forms his second term administration is John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control. As the most prominent Bush loyalist and conservative voice at Foggy Bottom, his fate in the current reshuffle of senior administration posts will be tracked most keenly by friend and foe alike. In his four years in the job, he has become the diplomatic embodiment of America's fight against the attempt by rogue regimes and substate actors to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
It is Mr. Bolton who has dogged the Iranian mullahs at such forums as the International Atomic Energy Authority in Vienna. If he is fired or, at best, shifted sideways, it will be taken as a signal in Tehran and elsewhere that it's business as usual. They will conclude that the pseudopragmatists of the American foreign-policy establishment are in the ascendant and that the so-called true believers in the "Bush revolution" have had their day. If the administration cannot reward someone like Mr. Bolton, what signal does that send out inside the Beltway?
Mr. Bolton is often described as a "neoconservative" - a word that has become a derogatory term in Europe - but that is an inaccuracy. He is, in fact, a traditional conservative who first cut his political teeth in the Goldwater campaign of 1964. His first patron was James A. Baker III, under whom he served as assistant secretary of state and under whose tenure he worked successfully to secure the repeal of the U.N. General Assembly resolution of 1975 condemning Zionism as "racism." As befits one of America's preeminent experts on Edmund Burke, Mr. Bolton relies on experience and observation rather than first principles for his world view. He has looked closely at rogue states such as the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Democratic Republic of North Korea and found their behavior wanting time and again. Unlike most practitioners of foreign policy - and this is what does not endear him to the "professionals" -- he does not hesitate to say so. His forceful comments on the "Dear Leader" at the time of the 2003 six-nation talks earned the rebuke of Pyongyang, which declared him persona non grata and asserted that "such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in such talks."
It is fashionable to complain that we can never persuade first-rate people to enter public life any more. Mr. Bolton is one such, and it would be a great loss if no berth were found commensurate with his talents. He would make an extraordinary ambassador to the United Nations. It's not the only job we could think of for him, but it's one where he could make a mark like another great scholar-bureaucrat did in the 1970s - Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Australia deports Iranian man
Sidney Morning Herald - From AAP
Jan 13, 2005
An Iranian man who sought asylum in Australia after converting from Islam to Christianity has been deported to Tehran, where rights activists say his change of religion could endanger his life, a refugee advocacy group has said.
The man, in his 30s, was placed on a flight from Sydney to Dubai, from where he would be transported to Iran, said Ian Rintoul, a spokesman for the Refugee Action Coalition.
Rintoul said the man - whose identity was not released due to fears for his safety - had a "high likelihood" of being killed in Iran, where activists say Christian converts are routinely persecuted and often put to death.
"There are documented cases of people not getting out of Tehran airport after they've landed," Rintoul said. "So we have very serious concerns about this guy."
London-based Amnesty International said persecution of Christian converts was common in Iran, and that many Western countries consider this when assessing asylum requests.
"It's pretty much universally accepted in most countries that converts will face persecution if their conversion is discovered when they return to Iran," said Amnesty International's refugee coordinator in Australia, Graham Thom.
The man arrived in Australia by boat four years ago, and was held at detention centres.
The Department of Immigration declined to confirm if he had been removed from Australia.
A department spokesman said on condition of anonymity that all asylum seekers' claims were carefully assessed on their merits, and that no asylum seekers would be deported unless the government was satisfied they would not face persecution.
Such decisions "do not rely on sweeping and superficial generalisations that particular countries are either safe or unsafe for own nationals," the spokesman said.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Top News Story

Israeli think tank: Only U.S. can neutralize Iran

Freedom is the Only Viable Option for Iran

Iran warns IAEA not to spy on military sites

UN nuclear inspectors in Iran

DoctorZin Note: The following letter was writen by freeper, TZIM. Congrats!

Letters

US needs clean, strong hand in dealing with Iran

DoctorZin Note: I just received this report from Alan Peters...

A quick look at Iran's Intelligence leaders

Analysis: A Look At Iran's Sponsorship Of Terror Groups

Some may debate the definition of terrorism, but there is no question that organizations openly backed by Iran are responsible for hundreds of deaths. Iran, therefore, is at least partially responsible for those killings.

Torture in Iran

Iran orders Nobel winner to court

Blood money saves Iranian woman who killed attacker

Fearing the Shia

Bush and Bolton

Australia deports Iranian man

Nuclear units of Bushehr plant complete