Iranian Alert -- October 25, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD PING LIST

The US media almost entirely ignores news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, “this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year.” But most American’s are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East.

There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. Starting June 10th of this year, Iranians have begun taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy. Many even want the US to over throw their government.

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.

In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.

This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.

I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.

If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.

If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.

PS I have a daily ping list and a breaking news ping list. If you would like to receive alerts to these stories please let me know which list you would like to join.

Needed: A "Great Convention"?

October 24, 2003
National Review Online
Nikolas K. Gvosdev

Dealing with the present nuclear threat.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) framework is crumbling. It doesn't matter whether Iran, for example, agrees to new inspections or pledges to suspend enrichment programs, because once a country can say, "We have the technology," it can easily conceal components or begin work at sites that are not known to the inspectors. Nor is North Korea likely to open all of its facilities, even if it receives the security guarantees it has demanded as preconditions for any further talks on nuclear disarmament. Rather than discussing ways to patch an increasingly leaky roof, it is time to begin envisioning a new structure altogether.

Like the ABM Treaty, the NPT was a product of the Cold War. It took shape in a world where two nuclear superpowers with global reach had extended actual or tacit guarantees of protection for their allies and clients. There was a sense that regional conflicts — such as in East Asia or the Middle East — would be contained by the United States and the Soviet Union. It was also signed at a time when obtaining the technology needed to fabricate nuclear weapons was both prohibitively expensive and geo-strategically difficult — and the various nuclear powers had important incentives to try and prevent such weapons technology from spreading.

But most importantly, the NPT worked because most countries found it in their interests to abide by its provisions. A developing country like Brazil, facing no real external threat and subsiding under the hemispheric nuclear umbrella of its northern neighbor, saw no real benefit to expending scarce funds to develop such weapons — and such assessments hold true to this present day.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, a number of the assumptions that undergirt the treaty have fallen by the wayside. Nuclear-weapons technology is not so inaccessible as it was 30 years ago. And a number of regimes now have different perceptions of their security interests. A sign of the changing times was the decision by both India and Pakistan to move ahead with becoming full-fledged members of the nuclear club.

Ironically, it was America's two greatest military triumphs of the 1990s that did much to cause a number of regimes to reassess the value of the NPT. The overwhelming conventional superiority of U.S. armed forces in the first Gulf War of 1991 dashed any hopes that regional powers could employ the "stalemate" strategies utilized by Egypt and Syria in the 1973 Yom Kippur war against Israel — being able to "hold out" until cease-fires could be implemented, giving the weaker parties the ability to gain some wiggle room in subsequent negotiations. In other words, after 1991, it was clear that no state or combination of states possessed sufficient conventional military might that could withstand a U.S. assault.

There are a number of indications that the 1999 Kosovo war was decisive in convincing officials in places like Iran and North Korea to move ahead with their nuclear weapons programs. They concluded that the willingness of the United States to engage in a "humanitarian intervention" against Yugoslavia (for methods that appeared to be no more brutal than those employed by NATO ally Turkey in dealing with the Kurdish counterinsurgency) signaled that Washington would move against countries or regimes it did not approve and that lacked any credible deterrent. After all, a consistent refrain during the bombing campaign was that the Serbs did not possess anything capable of restraining Western militaries — a view reinforced by the outcome of the Second Gulf War.

If Iran and North Korea cross the nuclear threshold, there is likely to be a significant domino effect. A nuclear-armed Iran torpedoes any chance that Israel might be induced to give up its nuclear deterrent, and increases the possibility that neighboring states such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt may reconsider their own commitment to the NPT. Similarly, a North Korean nuclear arsenal calls into question whether South Korea, Taiwan, or Japan will also not seek the option of being able to produce nuclear weapons.

Unless the United States commits itself to full-scale invasions and occupations of both Iran and North Korea, there are no guarantees that "selected" military strikes can destroy all of the nuclear infrastructure of both countries. Indeed, the real danger is that targeted strikes may miss crucial institutions or facilities, especially since selected strikes would not be followed up by full-scale invasions.

Nor is it clear that either of the threshold regimes are likely to give up their entire nuclear program in exchange for security guarantees from the United States. Pyongyang and Teheran are all too aware that the U.S. preference is for regime change. One can already see the basis for hedging in statements by Dr. Hassan Rowhani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, that portions of the agreement with the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany would need to be approved by Iran's parliament at an undisclosed time.

Other major actors — the European Union, China and Russia among them — have an almost fatalistic approach to the problem; while decrying the possibility that Iran and North Korea may become nuclear powers within the decade, they seem almost fatalistically reconciled to its inevitability. Nor are these powers prepared, it seems, to plunge Iran or North Korea into the total isolation needed to send the strongest possible nonmilitary signal of disapproval. As long as Russia and the EU maintain strong trading relations with Iran and Beijing continues to prop up North Korea with shipments of food and fuel, U.S. sanctions efforts will fail.

Stephen Blank, writing in the Asia Times, pessimistically observes: "the experience of the 20th century and of current world politics tells us that if we really want to prevent someone from going nuclear, it is necessary either to physically destroy the weapons by preemptive strike, as Israel did to Iraq in 1981, or to occupy the country, as the post-1945 history of Japan and Germany tell us." Yet this is the consensus the United States will need to begin to build among the major actors.

Frank Herbert is best known as a science fiction author. But one concept drawn from his novels may be the foundation of a new approach to replace the failing NPT. In his universe, the "Great Convention" mandated that any use of nuclear weapons against human targets would result in the complete and total annihilation of the offending regime. If the NPT cannot prevent countries from deciding to "go nuclear," if the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) cannot stop all technologies and materials from reaching regimes intent on nuclearization, then a clear and definitive statement must be made from the United States, with allies if possible, alone if necessary. Rogue regimes must be placed on notice: any use of a nuclear weapon or nuclear-based device (such as a dirty bomb) will result in complete regime annihilation — no matter whether we have definitive proof of complicity or not. North Korea and Iran must be placed on notice that if they choose to cross the nuclear threshold, they cannot pass weapons to terrorists or third-party agents and disavow "any knowledge" of their actions. After all, it was a similar understanding that kept both the USSR and China from providing any nuclear materials to the scores of "liberation" movements that they sponsored.

Fear of actual annihilation, not weak international sanctions, might be the only thing to hold these regimes back from actually producing weapons. Writing in this fall's issue of The National Interest, Ian Bremmer, in an article tellingly entitled "The Art of the Bluff," maintains that the sine qua non of the regime in Pyongyang (and by extension, in Iran) is survival — and this guides their nuclear strategy.

The world thought it put the doctrine of MAD (mutually assured destruction) behind itself when the Cold War ended. Sadly, we may now be entering an era where regimes and countries are held hostage to the "good behavior" of their leaders. In an ideal world, we could fix the NPT framework and get it back on track. Practically, however, we need to start preparing for worse-case scenarios. Pretending that the nuclear club is not on the point of expansion is not healthy for our national security.

— Nikolas K. Gvosdev is a senior fellow for strategic studies at the Nixon Center and editor of In the National Interest.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gvosdev200310240909.asp

Al-Qa'ida May be Poised to Attack, US Warns

October 26, 2003
Independent
Andrew Buncombe

Concern about aterror attack occurring in Saudi Arabia, possibly imminently, was growing yesterday as the United States issued a warning that it could happen as early as today.

"The embassy continues to receive information that terrorist groups within the kingdom are still active and planning operations," the US embassy in Riyadh said. "It is [our] assessment that terrorist groups may place special operational significance on Ramadan, and American citizens are therefore urged to be particularly vigilant."

The US warning follows similar announcements by Britain and Australia that attacks against Western targets in Saudi Arabia are imminent. Ramadan, which involves a month of fasting, is due to begin today.

Britain's warning on Friday, that "terrorists may be in the final phases of planning attacks", echoed one issued by the UK authorities in May, just days before suicide bombers attacked Western compounds in Riyadh, killing 26 people.

"It doesn't mean we knew then something was going to happen," said one British diplomat in Saudi Arabia. "It meant the planning was in the last stages. The [advice] reflects the assessment that the threat from terror is serious."

While Britain has not advised its citizens to leave Saudi Arabia, it has warned against all non-essential travel to the country. The British defence giant BAe Systems, which employs 5,500 people throughout Saudi Arabia, said it had no plans to evacuate staff, however, and the Saudi ambassador in London, Prince Turki al-Faisal, complained that Britain should have consulted the kingdom before issuing its warning.

In the US, intelligence officials said there had been a recent steady stream of information suggesting plans for fresh attacks against Western targets, but no specific intelligence. Any British knowledge of an imminent or specific attack would be shared with the US and Australian authorities.

Since the attacks in May, the Saudi authorities claim to have been involved in a crackdown against Islamic militants, partly to counter criticism that the country had not done enough in the "war on terror".

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers behind the attacks in the US in September 2001 were Saudi citizens. Riyadh has been urged by many in the US to do more to counter terrorists.

A Saudi official said yesterday: "Saudi security forces are working hard to foil any terrorist organisation and have uncovered several cells in past weeks and thwarted all their plans to destabilise security."

Prince Turki said last week that two-thirds of the 600 people arrested on suspicion of having links to al-Qa'ida were still in custody.

US intelligence claims Osama bin Laden's son, Sa'ad, said to be in Iran, was involved in planning the attacks on Riyadh's Western compounds.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=457303

Pakistan Accepts Iran's Gas pipeline Offer, Asks India to Join Project
Hindustan Times ^ | Islamabad, October 24

Islamabad has accepted an offer from Tehran to lay a gas pipeline from Iran to South Asia, and said it would guarantee India uninterrupted supply if it joined the project. Pakistan's Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali made the pledge during a three-day visit to Tehran, a senior Petroleum Ministry official said on Friday on condition of anonymity.

But the project would go ahead even if India declined to be involved, Jamali said.

"The gas pipeline was to go to India via Pakistan. Since India is hesitating, Iran has offered to lay a pipeline uptil Pakistan, and we have accepted it," Jamali told a news conference after returning late on Friday.

India remains reluctant to leave itself dependent on Pakistan to ensure a secure supply of a vital resource, fearing the flow of gas could be severed during any escalation of hostilities.

But the latest discussion, reviving a proposal first raised in 1996, comes at a time when India and Pakistan are taking steps to improve relations and expand contacts between their citizens. On Wednesday, India offered a 12-point plan to increase travel and sporting ties.

The 2,600-km pipeline, projected to cost more than $ 3 billion if it extends to India, could help India overcome its energy deficit. Pakistan also would draw gas from the pipeline, and earn an estimated $ 600 million annually in transit fees for the gas to India.

The Petroleum Ministry official said that experts from Pakistan and Iran will start preparing a feasibility report for the project "very soon".

Pakistan produces about 70 million cubic meters of natural gas a day, but needs 96 million cubic meters. Experts have said Pakistan might face a shortfall of 8.5 million cubic meters a day of gas in 2010.

Jamali said Iran also agreed to supply power to Pakistan's remote tribal regions in southwestern Baluchistan, a province bordering Iran where most villages have no electricity.

Technical experts from the both countries will meet within two months to discuss details, he said.

Pakistan has also been discussing two other gas projects with Turkmenistan and Qatar. One project would carry natural gas from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan, a potential boon to the struggling Afghan economy.

Turkmenistan wants to take this 1,460-km pipeline to India. But, New Delhi has shown little interest for the same reason of security.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_431640,00050002.htm

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.