US warns Iran over alleged involvement in Iraq unrest

AFP - World News (via Yahoo)
Aug 10, 2004

WASHINGTON - The United States said it was concerned by suggestions that Iran is involved in deadly unrest in Iraq's Shiite holy city of Najaf and maintained it was not in Tehran's interest to foment instability in its neighbor.

"We have expressed our concern regarding this issue," deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said when asked by reporters about Iraqi Defence Minister Hazem Shaalan claim that militiamen loyal to radical cleric Moqtada Sadr are receiving weapons from Iran.

"Our position is that Iran has an interest in a stable and peaceful Iraq, as do the other states of the region," he said.

"As a neighbor of Iraq, it is our view that Iran should use its influence toward that objective and not to take any actions that would be destabilizing or otherwise contribute to elements that are not working for unity in Iraq," Ereli said.

He would neither confirm nor deny Shaalan's claim, denied by Iranian defense minister Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani, but noted that the United States was concerned that Iran might "not doing everything it can to help promote national reconciliation and stability in Iraq."

On Monday, Shaalan, speaking on the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite television station, said Iranian-made weapons have been discovered in Najaf and accused Iran of being "the number one enemy" of the Iraqi people.

On Tuesday, Shamkhani dismissed the allegations, maintaining that any Iranian weapons in Iraq were just leftovers from the eight-year Iran-Iraq conflict in the 1980s and denied any interference in Iraq's internal affairs.

Fierce clashes in Najaf between US and Iraqi government forces and Sadr's militia entered their sixth day on Tuesday.

The US military estimates that more than 360 insurgents have been killed in the fighting.

But a spokesman for Sadr has insisted that only 15 militiamen have been killed and 35 wounded, the majority from cluster bombs.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_7562.shtml

Weighing a strike on Iran

Washington Times - By James T. Hackett
Aug 10, 2004

On June 7, 1981, Israeli F-15 and F-16 fighter-bombers took off from Etzion Air Base in the Sinai, flew at low altitude across the Iraqi border and zeroed in on Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor. One minute and 20 seconds after the first bomb struck, the reactor lay in ruins. All aircraft returned safely.

Today, 23 years later, there is a growing view in Washington and Tel Aviv that a similar pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities may be the only way to prevent the fundamentalist mullahs from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

The Iranian threat to Israel, and to Middle Eastern stability, is serious and growing. Ten months of intensive diplomacy by Britain, France and Germany has failed to defuse the crisis.

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Israel has considered Iran its No. 1 enemy. On July 21, Israel's intelligence agencies submitted a joint report to the Cabinet that Iran could have a nuclear weapon by 2007. And Iran has made clear its main enemies are the "Zionist state" and its U.S. ally.

Every country that recently developed nuclear weapons has done so by generating highly enriched uranium or plutonium through the fuel cycle used for nuclear power. Tehran's claim it only aims to produce electric power is ridiculous. Iran sits on huge reserves of oil, is the second-largest Middle East petroleum exporter after Saudi Arabia, and has the second-largest natural gas reserves in the world after Russia.

The British, French and Germans brokered a deal with Iran last October under which Tehran would cooperate with international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, and suspend enrichment of uranium. In exchange, the U.N. Security Council would not take action against Iran.

The IAEA put seals on the centrifuges used to enrich uranium, but now Iran has directly challenged the IAEA and the European nations by removing the seals, and restarting production of new centrifuges. Once enriched, uranium can be used either to produce electric power or make nuclear bombs.

Iran's centrifuges are believed capable of making 20 to 25 nuclear weapons a year. Plutonium, a byproduct of the nuclear reactor, also can be used to make bombs. John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, recently told Congress that in a few years the Bushehr nuclear power plant Russia is building for Iran could produce enough plutonium for more than 80 nuclear weapons. Mr. Bolton also said that, if re-elected, President Bush would make Iran a priority.

India, Pakistan and North Korea have recently developed nuclear weapons, and Iran appears to be next. Israeli intelligence has long been warning Iran intends to produce a bomb, Washington has been calling for U.N. sanctions on Iran, and now even the wishful-thinking Europeans believe Iran is determined to produce nuclear weapons.

The best way to deliver such weapons is by a hard-to-stop ballistic missile, and Iran has an aggressive missile development program. Iran already operates the Shahab-3 missile that can carry a one-ton warhead more than 800 miles, putting Israel and much of the Middle East at risk. The Shahab-3 is a version of North Korea's Nodong missile and was developed from North Korean technology. The U.S. is helping Israel upgrade and test its Arrow missile interceptor, designed to stop slower and shorter-range Scuds, to give it some capability against the much faster Shahab-3.

Last December, Iranian officials denied earlier reports they were developing a longer-range Shahab-4. But Defense Minister Ali Chamkhani subsequently said Iran is upgrading the Shahab-3, and plans to launch its own satellite within 18 months. This is the same cover — calling a missile a satellite launcher — used by North Korea to explain its Taepodong-2 missile with intercontinental range.

Washington wants U.N. sanctions on Iran, but the Europeans are reluctant. And Russia and China, which have vetoes, are suppliers to Iran's nuclear program.

As the danger and Iran's defiance grows, U.S. and Israeli officials have begun talking about a possible strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, calling Iran the greatest danger to Israel's existence, has said, "Israel will not allow Iran to be equipped with a nuclear weapon."

This time, a strike by Israel's F-15s is likely to be much broader than the attack on a single plant at Osirak, Iraq. A strike probably would hit the nuclear plant at Bushehr, the centrifuges at Natanz, a reactor being built at Arak and possibly other targets. A pre-emptive strike can be avoided, at least temporarily, if the U.N. agrees to apply meaningful sanctions. If not, Iran may become the second member of the Axis of Evil to learn the folly of its arrogance.

James T. Hackett is a contributing writer to The Washington Times and is based in San Diego.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_7555.shtml

Did you see the article where Iran basically blackmailed the UK and Europe for nuclear materials and tecnology??

strange!

Iran seeks support from Europe on nuclear arms

AP , VIENNA, AUSTRIA
Wednesday, Aug 11, 2004

Iran has told Europe's leading powers that it wants them to back its right to nuclear technology that can be used to make weapons. US officials said the move has dismayed the Europeans and strengthens Washington's push for UN sanctions against Tehran.

France, Germany and the UK have not formally responded to that demand and others contained in a wish list made available to The Associated Press.

But diplomats said Monday that Iran's conditions effectively stall the European attempt to persuade Tehran to give up the technology that would allow them to make nuclear arms, pushing Europe closer to the US view that it should be hauled before the UN Security Council for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The Iranian demands, presented in the document last week to the European powers during talks in Paris, include:

A call on the EU Three to back Iran's insistence that it have access to "advanced [nuclear] technology, including those with dual use" -- a term for equipment and know-how with both peaceful and weapons applications;

A demand that they "remove impediments" -- current sanctions -- preventing Iran from having access to such technology;

An assurance that, once the European powers make such commitments, they stick to them even if faced with "legal [or] political ... limitations" -- an apparent allusion to potential Security Council sanctions on Iran;

Agreement by the EU Three to meet Iran's conventional weapons requirements;

And a commitment to push "rigorously and systematically" for a non-nuclear Middle East and to "provide security assurances" against a nuclear attack on Iran -- both allusions to Israel, which is believed to have nuclear arms and to have destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in a 1981 strike to prevent it from making atomic arms.

France, Germany and the UK last year had held out the prospect of supplying Iran with some "dual use" technology, but only in the distant future, and only if suspicions that Tehran might be seeking to make nuclear weapons were laid to rest.

With Iran still under investigation, the presentation of the wish list stunned senior French, German and British negotiators, according to an EU official familiar with the Paris meeting.

Ignoring the list, the Europeans instead urged Tehran to act on their pledge to clear up nagging suspicions about their nuclear ambitions by Sept. 13, when the International Atomic Energy Agency meets to review Iran's nuclear dossier, the official said.

In London, a Foreign Office spokesman declined comment on the negotiations with Iran beyond saying that the UK was "not prepared to stand by and watch them collect the necessary technology to make a weapon."
This story has been viewed 61 times.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/08/11/2003198307

READING EUROPE WRONG [Excerpt]

by Amir Taheri
New York Post
August 10, 2004

August 10, 2004 -- AS the American presidential election campaign moves into top gear, what looks like a double misunderstanding is taking shape on the two shores of the Atlantic.

Some on the American side, notably Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, seem to believe that a change of administration would suffice to heal the wounds of last year's diplomatic duels over Iraq. In fact, Kerry appears to have based his Iraq policy, which remains a mystery, on the assumption that it would win instant and practical support from countries such as France, Germany and Russia.

The misunderstanding is even deeper on the European side.

"With the Bush administration, nothing is possible," says a senior French diplomat. "Kerry, however, has shown that he lives in the real world."

Similar sentiments are aired by other European, notably German and Belgian, diplomats and politicians. They believe that Kerry will move fast to get the American troops out of Iraq, thus endorsing the French and German view that the war was a mistake from the start.

"We like Kerry's emphasis on multilateral efforts, consultation with allies and acting through international organizations," says a member of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder Social Democrat Party. "With Kerry in the White House, we would be able to reopen a host of issues, from the Kyoto Protocols [on gas emissions] to the international criminal court, both of which the Bush administration has opposed."

To be sure, both French and German governments are careful not to appear to be taking sides in the U.S. election. But they make no secret of the fact that they prefer Kerry. French President Jacques Chirac's party, for example, signaled this by sending a high-level delegation to last month's Democratic convention.

So, where is the misunderstanding?

On Kerry's side, it is in his assumption that France, Germany, Belgium and (to a lesser extent) Russia opposed Iraq's liberation not because of their own political calculations but because they were chagrined by President Bush's supposedly "cowboy" style. Kerry is also wrong to assume that these countries would reverse a policy for which they have fought so hard.

To persuade their publics that their opposition to the liberation of Iraq was right, the European governments involved in the anti-U.S. axis of 2003 portrayed the war as a cynical move by Washington to assert "imperialistic hegemony." They succeeded beyond their expectations: A majority of the people in those countries are opposed to any intervention in Iraq.

People like Chirac and Schroeder, now in deep political trouble at home, would not be able to offer a putative Kerry administration any meaningful support in Iraq.

Schroeder's party has lost every election held in Germany since last year, and appears to be sinking under the weight of domestic- and foreign-policy mistakes. A sudden switch to a pro-American stance on Iraq would alienate its last remaining support base on the left.

As for Chirac, his party's share of the popular vote dropped to 14 percent, an all-time low, in the most recent local and European elections. Plagued by internecine feuds and unable to develop a coherent strategy, the loose coalition headed by Chirac is in no position to abandon the only one of its policies, opposition to the liberation of Iraq, that remains popular, especially with Muslim voters that provide a key part of its support base.

So, here is a safe prediction: Even if Kerry is elected, the anti-Bush Europeans will not offer any meaningful support to the U.S. in Iraq. Instead, they will press Washington to eat humble pie and organize a speedy retreat from Iraq.

What of the misunderstanding on the European side?

To start with, there is the assumption that Kerry will aim at a quick departure from Iraq. This is not at all certain. Kerry has been dropping hints about a mysterious "secret plan" for Iraq. This has reminded some Europeans of Richard Nixon's "secret plan" for Vietnam in the 1968 presidential election.

Kerry's claim that he is using "the lessons of Vietnam" in shaping policy on Iraq is disturbing, to say the least. But there is, as yet, no reason for thinking that he is thinking of a cut-and-run policy in Iraq. If he were, there would be no need for a "secret plan": One does not jump out of a burning building in accordance with a plan, secret or otherwise.

Iraq is no Vietnam. And it is unlikely that Kerry could, even if he wanted to, persuade the American public that a replay of the "last chopper from Saigon" scenario is the best that the U.S., routinely described as "the only superpower in the world," can hope for in Iraq.

The anti-Bush Europeans must also remember that, even if Kerry wins the White House, it is unlikely that his Democratic Party will secure control of Congress at the same time. And a Republican-dominated Senate and House of Representatives are unlikely to embrace Kyoto and other schemes so dear to the Europeans.

There are other reasons why Kerry, if elected, would not be able to rewrite U.S. policy to please Chirac & Co. One reason is that the U.S.-led Coalition consists of 33 nations, including such important allies as the United Kingdom, Japan, Italy, Poland and Australia. A majority of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) support the key aims of U.S. policy in Iraq, as do a majority of the members of the European Union. It would make no sense for Kerry to antagonize a majority of U.S. allies simply to please a minority that opposed the liberation of Iraq.

A volte-face on Iraq will also discredit America in the region. Despite their usual tactic of speaking with a forked tongue, all Arab states were happy to see the end of Saddam Hussein.

Iraq's liberation has weakened reactionary forces in the regions, and forced some Arab regimes to embark on a course of (as yet modest) reforms. Any hint that a would-be Kerry administration is not prepared to stay the course in Iraq would encourage the supporters of the status quo, and scupper chances of further reform, let alone democratization in the region.

There is one more important reason why a Kerry administration would not be able to adopt the Iraq policies of Chirac & Co. This is the fact that Iraq now has a broad-based interim government backed by virtually all of that nation's political forces apart from diehard Saddamites and the offshoots of al Qaeda. By distancing itself from the interim government and its plans for elections next January, the Kerry administration, which would also be unable to make a deal with diehard Saddamites and al Qaeda gangs, could find itself with no interlocutors in Iraq. ...

E-mail: amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/6481

Bump!

A great link!

Story of Serbian's youth who resisted the dictatorship of Milosevic and brought him down in less than a year.

I wished the Iranian youth could use the same tactics and methods to bring down their damned dictators and prevent any foreign intervention.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/dictator/otpor/

http://www.otpor.com/start.php

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aSUmwmvm0Q9k&refer=top_world_news

Iran Official Admits to Aiding Zarqawi in Iraq, Al-Awsat Says

Aug. 11 (Bloomberg) -- An official in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard said he provided assistance to Abu Musab al- Zarqawi to conduct attacks in Iraq, Asharq al-Awsat reported, citing an unidentified Iranian official.

Brigadier General Qassem Suleimani, the head of the al-Quds corps in the revolutionary guard, told a seminar he helped Zarqawi carry out suicide attacks to serve the interests of the Islamic Republic, the London-based Saudi newspaper reported, citing an Iranian official who was at the meeting.

Zarqawi and as many as 20 members of his Ansar al-Islam group can enter Iran whenever they want through certain border points that stretch between Halabja in northern Iraq to Ilam in the south, Suleimani said, according to the paper. Zarqawi went to Iran a few months ago where he spent some time in an Iranian revolutionary guard training camp in the area of Mehran near the border with Iraq and later returned to Baqubah, north of Baghdad, the paper said.

Zarqawi, a Jordanian linked to al-Qaeda, is blamed by the U.S. for the murder in Iraq in May of Nick Berg, a U.S. citizen, whose beheading was shown on videotape. The U.S. raised last month its reward for information leading to Zarqawi's arrest to $25 million from $10 mill

The paper (Source of news) is a London based arabic language newspaper named "Al Sharq Al'awsat" which is not very reliable and trusted in quoting things from different unknown sources.

Iran Official Admits to Aiding Zarqawi in Iraq, Al-Awsat Says

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=av.QsBGSCP0g&refer=top_world_news

I don't deny what the mad regime of Iran is doing in Iraq today and we all know the reasons but this paper is not very trusted or reliable!

Maybe they (Saudis) are putting the blame on Iran, instead of cleaning up their home brewed salafist groups?

As you know, many groups and governments are involved in Iraq today!

Iran has probably more operatives in Iraq than the number of British forces there.

DON'T DRESS LIKE MODELS, Mullahs tell Iranian youth!

Doc, I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on what lead to the Iranian actions reported on in post #6.

Thanks for the ping!

Freedom now ~ Bump!

The Mullahs regime is getting crazy day by day! They won't stop until they destroy Iran totally.