[DoctorZIn]

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

[DoctorZIn]

Armitage Informs Senate of U.S. Policy Toward Iran

October 29, 2003
U.S. Department of States
Washington File

The United States intends to pursue a "flexible, dynamic and multifaceted" policy toward Iran in order to encourage the Iranian people's desire for greater freedom while countering negative policies of their government, such as pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorism.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee October 28 that Iran "is a country in the midst of a tremendous transformation, and I believe American policy can affect the direction Iran will take."

In his prepared remarks, Armitage said the Iranian people were now "engaged in a very rich and lively debate about the kind of society they want for themselves and for their children," including the desire for substantial economic and democratic reforms

With most of the population under the age of 30, Armitage said the Iranian people are "far more concerned about Iran's chronic unemployment than they are about Iran's past."

"The Iranian people should know of our support for their aspirations, but also that the full rewards of that support will only be realized once their government ends its destructive external and internal policies. We look forward to the day when the will of the people of Iran prevails," he said.

The deputy secretary listed U.S. concerns over what he termed the "negative and destructive policies and actions" taken by the Iranian government, namely its poor human rights record, its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, and its support for terrorist organizations.

These behaviors, said Armitage, undermine regional and international stability and security. He asserted that they "shake the confidence of the international community and deny the Iranian people the quality of life commensurate with the country's rich human and natural resources."

Iranian authorities use torture, arbitrary detention and excessive force to repress the freedoms of speech, association and religion, said Armitage.

Iran's pursuit and development of weapons of mass destruction have aroused international concern, said Armitage. Iran also "continues to be the world's foremost state supporter of terrorism," not only through support of organizations such as Hizballah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but the United States also believes elements of the Iranian government have helped members of al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam "transit and find safe haven in Iran," he said.

Iran must change its course on support for terrorism, said Armitage. "[R]esolution of this issue would be an important step in U.S.-Iranian relations and we cannot move forward without this step," he explained.

The United States, he said, does not seek conflict with Iran. However, to counter negative Iranian activities, the United States is employing sanctions, interdiction, law enforcement, diplomacy, and international public opinion, said Armitage. He said such measures "will be especially effective" if other countries participate in a sustained effort.

The deputy secretary also said that despite "significant unhelpful interference," Iran has taken steps to promote stability in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. He praised Tehran's pledges of material support to both countries and said the Iranians "continue to cooperate with regional counter-narcotics and refugee repatriation efforts."

The United States, he said, has encouraged such behavior by engaging in direct dialogue with Iranian authorities "on issues of mutual and immediate concern."

If it serves U.S. interests, "[w]e are prepared to meet again in the future," said Armitage.

The deputy secretary added that the United States is "always prepared" to change its policies toward Iran if the country ceases its support for terrorism and abandons its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Following is the text of Armitage's prepared remarks:

(begin text)

U.S. Policy and Iran

Richard L. Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State
Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC
October 28, 2003

As Prepared

Chairman Lugar, Senator Biden, Members of the Committee, as always, I welcome the opportunity to appear before this body to discuss the foreign policy priorities and challenges of the day. I particularly appreciate this opportunity to discuss Iran, given the high stakes of this very fluid situation and the importance and influence of U.S. policy on this matter. I look forward to a dialogue with you.

Iran is a country in the midst of a tremendous transformation, and I believe American policy can affect the direction Iran will take. This is a complex situation, but if you will allow a simplification: today in Iran, there is a struggle between destructive elements of Iran's society and leadership, who want to keep the country mired in a violent, corrupt, and insular past, and a forward-looking popular movement, which wants a more engaged and modern Iran to emerge. The fact that the Nobel Peace Prize was just awarded to an Iranian citizen is no aberration; rather it is a sign of the sweeping desire for change across Iranian society. Indeed, all Iranians stand to benefit from a modern state, one that draws on the strengths of free minds and free markets. American and international security and well being also stand to benefit. United States policy is, therefore, to support the Iranian people in their aspirations for a democratic, prosperous country that is a trusted member of the international community.

Given the complexities of the situation, it is no surprise that there is a range of views including on this Committee about how to best implement that policy. That is entirely appropriate. Indeed, a single, static, one-size-fits-all policy would not be appropriate in the circumstances. In order to best protect and advance U.S. interests, our policy needs to be flexible, dynamic, and multifaceted. That is why the President and this Administration are pursuing a policy that weighs the full range of options available to us, both through bilateral and multilateral means. We seek to counter the government of Iran s negative and destructive policies and actions, while encouraging constructive policies and actions and engaging in a direct dialogue with the Iranian people about the freedoms they want for their own country.

As President Bush noted when talking about Iran last week, not every policy issue needs to be dealt with by force. Secretary Powell also noted last week that we do not seek conflict with Iran. We will continue to pursue nonproliferation and other such control measures as necessary and we must keep all available options on the table, given the lack of clarity about Iran's future direction and ultimate destination. At the same time, we are prepared to engage in limited discussions with the government of Iran about areas of mutual interest, as appropriate. We have not, however, entered into any broad dialogue with the aim of normalizing relations.

There is no question that Iran is engaged in a number of destructive policies and actions. Our most pressing concerns are Iran's poor human rights record, nuclear weapons program, as well as chemical and biological weapons programs, support for terrorism, and interference in regional politics, particularly in the Arab-Israeli peace process. These behaviors, along with the government's oppressive and corrupt centralized economic policy, shake the confidence of the international community and deny the Iranian people the quality of life commensurate with the country's rich human and natural resources. These behaviors also undermine regional stability and have ripple effects across U.S. and international security. We are taking and will take the necessary measures to protect U.S. interests.

Across the board, the United States is actively countering such Iranian activities through a variety of tools, including sanctions, interdiction, law enforcement, diplomacy, and international public opinion. When necessary, we will act alone. The United States, for example, has a broad array of sanctions on Iran. This includes prohibitions on a range of exports and assistance, particularly to the military and to the oil industry, strict regulations on economic transactions, and targeted sanctions against specific entities in other countries that aid Iran's weapons of mass destruction programs.

We believe, however, that international and multilateral responses if sustained will be especially effective in meeting the challenges Iran poses to regional stability, disarmament and nonproliferation regimes, and the rights of its own citizens. As President Bush said last week, we have confidence in the power of patience and the collective voice of the international community to resolve disputes peacefully.

We are working with the international community to effect change in Iran's abysmal human rights record, for example. According to our own documentation and to international organizations, the government of Iran uses torture, excessive and lethal police force, and arbitrary detention to repress free speech, freedom of association, and religious freedom, among other abuses. We are actively seeking a resolution on the human rights situation in Iran in the U.N. General Assembly s Third Committee or at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

We believe a united international front is especially critical in dealing with Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program, about which there is widespread concern across the international community. We also remain concerned about Iran's biological and chemical weapons and ballistic missile programs. Our efforts to counter these programs include bilateral discussions with allies and friends, such as President Bush's meeting with Russian President Putin at Camp David, where the two leaders agreed on the goal of an Iran free of nuclear weapons. We consistently have urged our friends and allies to condition any improvements in their bilateral or trade relations with Iran on concrete, sustained, and verifiable changes in Iran's policies in this and other areas of concern. We think it is appropriate, for instance, that the European Union has conditioned progress in its Trade and Cooperation Agreement with Iran on movement in these areas.

Our international efforts also include the use of innovative and established multilateral tools. The Proliferation Security Initiative, for example, is a new counterproliferation initiative to interdict weapons of mass destruction-related shipments to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern. The nations involved in this initiative have singled out Iran and North Korea as countries of particular concern. We are, of course, also working through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to resolve critical international concerns about Iran s nuclear program.

Indeed, our close cooperation with Russia, the European Union, and a host of other countries has led to two very strong IAEA Board of Governors resolutions on Iran. Last week, the French, German, and British Foreign Ministers traveled to Iran in support of those resolutions. As a result of that mission, Iran declared its intention to sign an Additional Protocol to the safeguards agreement with the IAEA, provide full cooperation to the IAEA, and temporarily suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. We welcome this progress, but as British Foreign Minister Straw said, the proof of the value of the European agreement with Iran will depend above all on the implementation of what has been agreed. We are waiting to see if the information Tehran provided the IAEA last week will substantively meet the IAEA Board of Governors October 31st deadline for coming clean on its nuclear program. Our consultations with our allies on this matter are continuing.

We are also engaged in bilateral and multilateral efforts, from sanctions to direct appeals, to put a stop to Iran's support for terrorist organizations, which we believe includes al-Qaida. We believe that elements of the Iranian regime have helped al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam transit and find safe haven in Iran, despite Iran's official condemnation of these groups. Despite public statements that they would cooperate with other countries, the Iranians have refused repeated requests to turn over or share intelligence about all al-Qaida members and leaders they claim to have in custody. As the President made clear last week, Iran must change its course on this front; resolution of this issue would be an important step in U.S.-Iranian relations and we cannot move forward without this step. We will continue to press this issue from the highest levels of our government, as well as to encourage our friends and allies to press the Iranians.

In its support for terrorism, including by arming violent factions, Iran is interfering in the internal affairs of Afghanistan and Iraq, and especially in the fate of the Palestinian people. Indeed, Iran continues to be the world's foremost state supporter of terrorism, offering financial and logistical support to both Shia and Sunni terrorist organizations, including Hizballah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Through these abhorrent groups, Iran destabilizes the region and tries to stymie any movement toward peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict.

On the other hand, Iran says it wants a stable, unified neighbor in both Afghanistan and Iraq and despite significant unhelpful interference, has taken a few steps in that direction. This includes rhetorical support, by welcoming the end of the oppressive regime of the Taliban, which exported drugs, violence, and millions of refugees across the border into Iran. Iran also welcomed the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council. The Iranians have backed up that rhetoric with pledges of material support at both the Bonn and Madrid Donors Conferences and they continue to cooperate with regional counter-narcotics and refugee repatriation efforts.

Although we make no conclusions about the nature of Iranian intent, we have encouraged such constructive behavior by engaging in direct dialogue on issues of mutual and immediate concern. This dialogue has been limited in scope and produced some success in the Afghanistan context. The last such meeting was canceled after the May 12 Riyadh bombings, however, due to Iran's unwillingness to cooperate on the al-Qaida issue. The Secretary made clear at the time that we canceled only a meeting, not the process of discussing these issues with Iran. We are prepared to meet again in the future, but only if that would serve U.S. interests. Of course, we can remove any country from the list of state supporters of terrorism if that country is prepared to take the necessary steps. We are always prepared to respond if Iran changes its ways, in particular ceasing its support for terrorism and abandoning its weapons of mass destruction programs, by making corresponding changes in our own policies.

An important aspect of ongoing U.S. efforts to influence the direction of Iranian policy is encouraging the healthy development of Iran's civil society. We see many signs that the people of Iran want a different life and a more responsive government, and we believe we can encourage such developments through direct engagement with the Iranian public. An estimated 70 percent of the 68 million people in Iran are under the age of 30, and they are far more concerned about Iran's chronic unemployment than they are about Iran's past. Iranian displays of sympathy after the September 11th attacks and polls showing overwhelming desire for improved relations with the U.S. reflect strong popular sentiment, as do demonstrations and elections in support of reform. The government tries to blame any sign of dissent on outside agitators, but it is clear that the agitation in Iran is a genuine expression of a homegrown desire for change. Consider that thousands of ordinary Iranians spontaneously flocked to the airport to greet Shirin Ebadi two weeks ago when she returned to Tehran after the announcement of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.

We believe we can encourage the triumph of public resolve by engaging in direct communication with the people of Iran. We are doing this through Radio Farda, which operates 24 hours a day, and Voice of America (VOA) radio and television broadcasts into Iran. VOA has recently instituted a daily Persian television news program to Iran, in addition to its two weekly television feature programs. In May, the State Department brought on line a website in Persian and we continue to explore opportunities to incorporate Iran-related projects into our broader Middle East Partnership Initiative. Our Education and Cultural Affairs Bureau also supports cultural, educational, and professional exchanges.

We know our message is getting through. An average of 3,000 people already views our Persian website every day, for example. It is challenging to come by concrete measures of the audience for our television and radio programming inside Iran, but we do have evidence of a broad consumer base. The United States has no direct diplomatic presence in Iran, but we do have what we call a virtual embassy in the surrounding nations and beyond. Foreign Service Officers talk to Iranian citizens living and traveling across the region and around the world, collecting and sharing with us their observations. Based on such anecdotal evidence and on the direct contacts we get, particularly through the Internet, we know we have an attentive audience in Iran.

I firmly believe that our strategy will succeed in helping to push and pull Iran in the right direction, particularly with the close cooperation of other nations. But it is not up to the United States to choose Iran's future. Ultimately, I am most hopeful for that future because it is the people of Iran themselves who are providing the key impetus for change. Despite living under a regime that limits or denies its people even basic human rights, Iranians are engaged in a very rich and lively debate about the kind of society they want for themselves and for their children. They have made it clear that they want democratic and economic reform, accountability and transparency from their government, an end to corruption, religious moderation, and reintegration with the international community. The Iranian people should know of our support for their aspirations, but also that the full rewards of that support will only be realized once their government ends its destructive external and internal policies. We look forward to the day when the will of the people of Iran prevails.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2003&m=October&x=20031028170142namfuaks0.9644892&t=usinfo/wf-latest.html

[DoctorZIn]

Time for a "Helsinki Accords" for Iran

October 29, 2003
Iran va Jahan
Shaheen Fatemi

While on a panel discussion with two prominent members of the 'Deutscher Bundestag' in Berlin last week I was challenged to suggest an alternative to the current so-called "constructive dialogue" which I had said was going nowhere. During my entire recent visit to Germany which included talking to important and influential German government officials, leading members of the ruling party (SPD) as well as the opposition party (CDU), I was under the impression that while trade with Iran is very important for them, they do seem to be aware of the 'human rights' dilemma. I certainly believe that selection of Dr. Shirin Ebadi by Nobel Peace Award committee has further exacerbated this contradiction for all those who profess respect for human dignity while dealing with the Mullahs in Iran. Time and again, the same argument has been raised, "we know how bad things are in Iran, we hope to improve the situation by 'engaging' the government in our dialogue."

The questions that were raised by members of the audience at this gathering where the panel discussion took place were not much different from those that repeatedly have been asked by the members of the Iranian community in Europe from the leaders of the European Union:

What do you have to show for your years of "constructive dialogue" with this murderous, dishonest and totalitarian regime?

Why do you overlook the fact that leaders of this regime have been indicted for murder of innocent people in Germany, France, Switzerland and Argentina?

How do you expect "the post-liberation" Iranian nation to forget your continued moral and material support for this regime?

When I was challenged at this meeting to come up with an alternative for the present practice, I reminded the German deputies of another era when another generation of Western leaders was faced with an earlier version of totalitarian monsters in the Soviet Union and its Satellite States. At that time representatives of thirty-five nations gathered in Helsinki, Finland, in 1975 for a Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Final Act of the Conference, known as the Helsinki Accords, set forth a number of basic human rights by guaranteeing that:

"The participating States will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

They will promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural, and other rights and freedoms all of which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free and full development.

Within this framework the participating States will recognize and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practise, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.

The participating States on whose territory national minorities exist will respect the right of persons belonging to such minorities to equality before the law, will afford them the full opportunity for the actual enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms and will, in this manner, protect their legitimate interests in this sphere.

The participating States recognize the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for which is an essential factor for the peace, justice and well-being necessary to ensure the development of friendly relations and co-operation among themselves as among all States."


This accord was backed up with an organization of representatives of virtually all the states of Europe-with the exception of Albania-as well as the United States and Canada, committed to formalizing decisions on important questions affecting the security and stability of European continent as a whole. The Soviets wanted security of the post-WW II borders. The West, in return, was interested in obtaining safeguards for the observance of human rights behind the Iron Curtain. This major diplomatic agreement signed in Helsinki, Finland on August 1, 1975, by President Gerald Ford, General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Andrei Gromyko, was perhaps the most important first step towards liberation of Russia and Eastern European countries.

We see a clear historical parallel. The Iranian regime needs the Europeans for trade and diplomatic respectability in order to get out of its virtual isolation. Europe can in return ask for written and codified guarantees for the observance of human rights in Iran.

This seems to be the minimum decent thing to do.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=10&d=29&a=1

[DoctorZIn]

Iran and Syria told to stop foreign fighters going to Iraq

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
29 October 2003

President Bush yesterday demanded that Iran and Syria close porous borders that he claimed were allowing "foreign fighters" to enter Iraq and carry out terrorist strikes.

On a day which brought a fresh spate of attacks, including a suicide bombing that killed six, and the news that one of Baghdad's deputy mayors had been assassinated, President Bush blamed Ba'ath Party loyalists and foreign operatives for the ongoing violence.

"It is dangerous in Iraq because there are some who believe we are soft, that the will of the United States can be shaken by suiciders," Mr Bush said. "We are working closely [with Syria and Iran] to let them know we expect them to enforce borders to stop people coming across."

Earlier, his spokesman, Scott McClellan, said he would not want to speculate on who was behind the recent attacks, but added: "We're making it very clear to [Syria and Iran] that they need to also take action to stop that cross-border infiltration. And they know what those concerns are and we expect them to act to address those issues."

Military and intelligence officials are divided over who is responsible for the increasingly organised and coordinated attacks, which on Monday targeted the Baghdad offices of the Red Crossand several police stations. Thirty-five people were killed and 230 injured in Baghdad's bloodiest day since Saddam Hussein was ousted.

Mr Bush and his senior officials are involved in a determined PR campaign to try to persuade the American public that progress is being made in Iraq and that much of the positive news in not getting through the "media filter".

But he is not having it all his way. Last week he suffered an embarrassing defeat on Capitol Hill when the Senate voted to turn part of an $87bn request for Iraqi reconstruction into loans rather than grants. At the international donors conference in Madrid at the weekend much of the money pledged by other countries was also in the form of loans

Perhaps partly as a result of Mr Bush's visible difficulties in obtaining international support, recent polls suggested the American public is losing trust in the President's ability to deal with the situation in Iraq and prevent the US from being immersed in a quagmire similar to the situation in Vietnam 25 years ago.

Aware of the danger that both this and the escalating violence in Iraq represent to his re-election fortunes, Mr Bush used his Rose Garden press conference at the White House yesterday to repeat what has become a regular theme: that the so-called war on terror launched in the aftermath of the attacks of 11 September, 2001, now has its focus in Iraq.

"Basically, what they [the attackers] are trying to do is cause people to run," he said. "They want to kill and create chaos. That's the nature of a terrorist. That's what terrorists do. They're not going to intimidate America. The terrorists rely on the death of innocent people to create the conditions of fear that therefore will cause people to lose their will. That's their strategy. And it's a pretty clear strategy to me. It's in our interest that we do our job for the free world."

Mr Bush twice compared the assaults in Iraq to the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, though he did not claim Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the hijackings. He said: "It's the same mentality, by the way, that attacked us on 11 September 2001. Just destroy innocent life and watch the great United States and their friends and allies, you know, crater in the face of hardship. [We] must never forget the lessons of 11 September.''

One of the biggest challenges facing Mr Bush and his senior military advisers is the development of a realistic exit strategy from Iraq. While the White House has indicated it would like to reduce the current US military presence from 130,000 troops to around 50,000 within 12 months, most analysts say that is probably unrealistic given the current violence.

Mr Bush is regularly asked about his comments at the beginning of May when he announced an end to "major combat operations" in Iraq. Yesterday he declined to be drawn on when the US may be in a position to pull out of Iraq. "I think you ought to look at my speech," he said. "I said Iraq's a dangerous place. We got hard work to do, there's still more to be done."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=458316

[DoctorZIn]

U.S. Takes Softer Tone on Iran, Once in the 'Axis of Evil'

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Published: October 29, 2003

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 — The Bush administration assured Iran on Tuesday that the United States did not favor "regime change" in Tehran and signaled a new willingness to engage in a dialogue with Iran over its nuclear program, its alleged support of terrorism and other issues.

The administration's newly conciliatory approach toward Iran, enunciated by Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, resolved at least part of a contentious internal debate among aides to President Bush, administration officials said.

The officials said Iran's nuclear program and the safe haven it is said to have offered members of Al Qaeda remain major obstacles to improving relations but that entering into conversations with Iran on those and other issues was also considered urgent.

The change in tone comes slightly less than two years after Mr. Bush, in his 2002 State of the Union address, grouped Iran with Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil."

American envoys still held occasional talks with Iran until May, when Washington cut them off after a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia linked to groups based in Iran.

In his Senate testimony, Mr. Armitage said the United States "must keep all available options on the table" toward Iran. He did not specify these options, but they were understood to include the use of force if necessary.

"At the same time," he added, "we are prepared to engage in limited discussions with the government of Iran about areas of mutual interest, as appropriate. We have not, however, entered into any broad dialogue with the aim of normalizing relations."

Like North Korea, Iran has provoked an intense debate between hard-liners and advocates of diplomacy within the Bush administration. Many at the State Department favor diplomatic contacts because of the range of issues requiring cooperation with Iran.

The biggest point of contention within the administration is over Iran's nuclear program. Hard-liners, many of them at the Defense Department, favor a more confrontational policy toward Tehran, including sending the issue to the United Nations Security Council for consideration of possible sanctions.

Last week, however, a delegation of envoys from France, Russia and Britain won Iran's agreement to accept new international inspections of some of its nuclear facilities and to suspend production of enriched uranium, a fuel for potential use in making weapons.

The administration has been careful to say that these steps must be verified. A similarly skeptical response has followed Iran's promises to avoid contact with Al Qaeda.

Mr. Armitage said the administration believed that "elements of the Iranian regime" helped both Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam, which the administration links to Al Qaeda, "transit and find safe haven in Iran, despite Iran's official condemnation of these groups."

Administration officials say that, with anti-American violence rising in Iraq, it is imperative to deal with Iran over the future makeup of Iraq. The Iranian government wields influence on Shiite groups seeking to establish an Islamic government.

American officials have labeled as "unhelpful" some of Iran's recent actions in support of these groups.

Many administration officials say a Shiite-dominated government is inevitable in Iraq, partly because Shiites predominate. Some fear that a Shiite government that imposed its will on the Sunni minority would accelerate the violence in central Iraq.

Administration officials said Mr. Armitage's testimony was approved by the White House after a number of recent small steps by Iran, including reports over the weekend that it had released a list of Qaeda members, formerly based in Iran, who had been returned to their countries of origin.

There appeared to be disagreement in the administration over the significance of the list. One senior American official said that it indicated a small but positive step by Iran to address American concerns.

But another said it was merely a list of militants returned to Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries, with no indication of what happened to them after that.

Mr. Armitage said that, on the positive side, Iran had supported the American-led ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council, whose members were chosen by the American occupation authorities.

Iran also surprised some American officials by showing up last week at the Madrid conference of international donors to Iraq and contributing aid.

The Governing Council is discussing a deal to ship oil to Iran and receive electricity in return, one administration official said, a step that L. Paul Bremer III, the occupation administrator, has not yet sought to block.

Mr. Armitage was asked Tuesday by Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, if "regime change" was American policy in Iran. "No, sir," Mr. Armitage replied, adding that "our policy is to try to eliminate the ability of Iran to carry forward with disruptive policies."

Administration officials said one reason the United States does not favor changing governments as a solution in Iran is that any government — even a secular Western-oriented one — would probably continue the quest for nuclear weapons.

Mr. Armitage said that was a product of Iran's longstanding ambition to be a major force in the region and its self-regard as the modern heir to ancient Persian longings for greatness — what he called "an innate grandeur still in the dreams of Persepolis and all of that."

The other major issue is Iran's support of Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Islamic militant groups that have carried out attacks in Israel. Administration officials say they have made no headway on persuading Iran to end its support of these groups.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/international/middleeast/29DIPL.html?ex=1068008400&en=a3ba7afbf1355c2a&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[DoctorZIn]

Amir Taheri: Iranians talk of reforms as constitution fails

Gulf News
29-10-2003

In Iran's fractious politics there is one word on which almost everyone agrees. And it isn't even a Persian word. It is the Latin word "referendum", pronounced by Persians as refrandoom. (The Persian neologism of hameh-porsi, literally : asking everyone, has not replaced the Latin word.) These days almost everyone in Iran is talking about the need for holding a referendum; not always for the same reasons.

The argument is that the current constitution, hastily put together in 1979 in the heated aftermath of the revolution, is not working. The various mechanisms envisaged in the constitution for the exercise of power have produced a gridlock which prevents effective decision-making by a divided government. The only way out is to hold a constitutional referendum to approve amendments that would break the gridlock.

The current constitution is a rough translation of the constitution of the French Fifth Republic introduced by General De Gaulle. It, therefore, envisages a strong executive and a weak legislative with the status of the judiciary left murky.

The problem, however, is that the authors of the Iranian constitution added a number of articles that break the inner logic of the original French version.

The most important of these are articles related to the doctrine of the "Walayat Faqih" (Custodianship of the Jurisconsult). The articles give a single mullah, referred to as "The Supreme Guide", virtually unlimited powers thus rendering the constitution superfluous.

"The Supreme Guide" is elected for life by the so-called Assembly of Experts, a body of 90 mullahs, which also has the authority to remove him under highly unlikely circumstances.

Once elected, "The Supreme Guide" becomes the centre of power in the system. He is the head of state and must approve the heads of all three powers - the legislative, the judiciary and the executive.

Judiciary vs the executive

Some confusion is created because the head of the executive, known as president, is elected by direct universal suffrage. Nevertheless, the elected president cannot take office until an edict from "The Supreme Guide", approves his election. At the same time "The Supreme Guide" can always trigger constitutional mechanisms to dismiss the elected president.

"The Supreme Guide" can also dissolve the elected majlis or parliament. He can even suspend the basic rules of Islam, if and when he deems fit. No ruler in history has been given so much power as the Iranian"Supreme Guide" today.

The constitution contains other anomalies. It provides for a Council of The Guardians of Constitution, the equivalent of the French Constitutional Council. The Iranian council has a right of veto on all laws passed by the parliament. (The French version does not have such a right. It intervenes only if it is asked to determine whether or not any piece of legislation is in violation of the constitution.)

Iran's constitutional problems do not end there. Yet anther body, named The Council for the Discernment of the Interests of the System, can also intervene to stop or cancel laws passed by the parliament. In the past two years the council has even claimed to have the right to pass laws on its own without referring to the elected parliament.

The founder of the Islamic Republic, the late Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini, had initially opposed the enactment of any constitution. Under the system of "Walayat Faqih" that he offered there would be no elections, no parliament and no president. In his system "The Supreme Guide" would rule in the name of Divine Power. He would appoint a prime minister and a council of ministers to act as advisors and executors of his orders.

Khomeini was unable to get all he wanted because, at the time, he still needed the support of democrats, liberals and leftists to consolidate his hold on power. It was as a concession to them that he accepted the idea of having a constitution.

But at no point did he have the slightest intention of creating a constitutional system. And, for as long as he was alive, he acted as an absolute ruler with no regard for any constitutional constraints.

His successor, Ali Khamenehi, lacks the stature to continue the tradition. At the same time, the revolution is now but a faint memory for most Iranians. When Khomeini seized power in 1979, Iran had a population of 38 million. Today there are more than 70 million Iranians. This means that some two-thirds of Iranians were either not born or were too young to vote in the constitutional referendum that Khomeini organised almost a quarter of a century ago.

"A referendum would allow our people to decide what form of government they desire," says Shirin Ebadi, the winner of this year's Nobel Prize for Peace. The idea of holding a referendum has also received support from Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah who now leads the monarchist opposition, and the National Front, a grouping of dissidents built on the memory of Dr. Muhammad Mussadeq, the nationalist prime minister of the 1950s.

Some senior clerics, including Grand Ayatollah Ali Montazeri, are also calling for a referendum as a way out of the political impasse that could lead to violence.

"A referendum is better than a civil war," says Mohsen Kadivar, a pro-democracy mullah.

The idea of holding a referendum is also finding echoes within the ruling establishment. The Participation Front, a grouping that supported President Muhammad Khatami, has already called for constitutional amendment. And efforts are under way to form a new bloc of candidates for next March's general election under the banner of a referendum.

The idea of a referendum has also received support from the remnants of half a dozen leftist parties.

Despite wide agreement that a referendum is necessary, when it comes to what questions should be put to the people's vote, views diverge. The monarchists and the leftists want a referendum that would abolish the Islamic Republic altogether, replacing it either with a "constitutional monarchy" or a "People's Republic" in which religion has no place.

Revision of the constitution

Others, however, want a revision of the existing constitution. They want the position of "The Supreme Guide" abolished so that the Iranian system comes closer to that of its original model: the French Fifth Republic.

The directly-elected President of the Republic will be head of state and would have large powers, including that of naming the prime minister. But he would not have the power to suspend the constitution let alone interfere with the rules of Islam.

The most minimalist position on referendum is that of those who simply want the "Council of the Guardians of the Constitution" and the "Council for the Discernment of he Interest of the System" to be abolished. Such an amendment would leave the powers of "The Supreme Guide" intact while enhancing the powers of the elected president and parliament.

The referendum issue is likely to emerge as the key theme of next March's general election. Right now, however, prospects for a referendum appear rather dim. On the contrary, some hard-line theorists around Khamenehi are publicly calling for a suspension of the constitution and a period of direct rule by "The Supreme Guide". It may take some time before Iran makes a final choice between a peaceful referendum and violent regime change.

The writer, an Iranian author and journalist, is based in Europe. He can be contacted on his e-mail at amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=101492

[Pan_Yans Wife]

ping

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Pinging you to the active daily thread. Welcome!

[DoctorZIn]

U.S. Plans Funding Broadcasts into Iran

October 29, 2003
United Press International
Eli J. Lake

The State Department plans to fund some independent Iranian radio and television stations that broadcast into that country, a senior official told Congress yesterday.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the U.S. support for the private Iranian broadcasters would be on a "case- by-case basis."

The department would consider funding for these stations through the Middle East Partnership Initiative, a program started last year to support democratic movements in the Middle East and spur the region's authoritarian regimes to reform, he said.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, oversees the initiative and has received more than $100 million so far in funding for its projects.

Since last spring, the State Department and Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, have been locked in a battle over U.S. funding for U.S.-based satellite stations that broadcast into Iran and are run by Iranian exiles who seek to overthrow the Islamic Republic's theocracy.

Unlike current U.S. broadcasting into Iran that is overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the exile-run stations usually broadcast a much tougher line against the ruling mullahs in Tehran and have been more closely associated with the son of the late shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi.

One such station, Azadi (Freedom) TV, has been operating for the past year at a considerable loss.

"We needed the money like yesterday," the station's owner, Fariborz Abbassi, said in an interview yesterday. He said he raises on average around $25,000 a month from individuals in Europe and the United States, but his costs exceed $120,000.

In April, Mr. Brownback proposed legislation to set up a $50 million annual fund for Iranian democracy, with much of the money set aside for satellite stations, according to a former Brownback staff member who worked closely on the legislation.

Mr. Armitage's announcement yesterday "seems to be a new position" for the State Department, the official said. "Previously, they had opposed any of our efforts to reach out to these independent groups."

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031028-083513-7057r.htm

[DoctorZIn]

Memo From Iraq: We Will Be Free

October 29, 2003
Capitol Hill Blue
Ken Joseph Jr.

On a quiet afternoon in Baghdad I waited with some trepidation for a meeting with a member of the Preparatory Committee for the Constitution of the Iraqi Governing Council. This is the group charged with putting together the recommendations for the new Iraqi constitution.

I say with trepidation because after conversations with Ambassador Paul Bremer and sitting in on his testimony before Congressional Committees it seemed clear that the Iraqi constitution would be an Islamic one.

Critic after critic I spoke to was clear that the battle for a secular constitution for Iraq was over. Words such as "they are just going to have to live with it," referred to the minority Assyrian Christians, of whom I am one. As can be imagined, many Christians in Iraq are alarmed at the prospect of a post-Saddam Iraq being even worse than when he was in power, and that a secular dictator will be replaced by an Islamic fundamentalist regime.

The most important issue facing Iraq is in fact the constitution. If a secular constitution is put in place establishing the rule of law with a clear separation of church and state, then there is truly a future for Iraq. Having been born and raised in Japan I have lived the miracle of what an American-imposed constitution did for a nation in a similar state as Iraq now finds itself in. The constitution is critical.

Ambassador Bremer when asked the question "will the future Iraqi constitution contain the words 'Islam is the religion of the State' replied 'that is for the Iraqis to decide -- after all the British constitution is 'Christian.'"

His clear testimony, much to the consternation of the committee members was that they were doing the best to get a good, secular constitution for the Iraqi people but that as a Muslim country they really had no choice and could not insist.

Imagine my surprise when I began to speak with the representative from the very committee charged with making the recommendations for the constitution of Iraq.

"The committee will be recommending that there be no inclusion of any ideology or religion in the constitution."

I was expecting to get into an argument as to how Iraq must not have an Islamic constitution if there was any hope for the country to succeed. I was completely taken aback as the representative continued.

"If there is any mention of religion or ideology or a phrase such as 'Islam is the religion of the state,' it will be the death of democracy in Iraq."

Any such mention would disenfranchise half of the Iraqi population -- namely the women.

I could not believe my ears. I thought the Iraqi committee as had been clearly presented in Washington were going to put together a constitution that was Islamic. The Coalition was doing all it could to persuade them otherwise but it was a losing battle.

The representative continued: "The Iraqi people are secular and will never accept any mention of this in the constitution. We do not want to become like Iran.

"We just want to become like a normal country. We want a constitution that is secular and gives local autonomy. It is against the teaching of the Koran to allow religion's involvement in government.

"We have suffered for many, many long years under dictatorship and we will never, never lose this chance for democracy and freedom that has finally come to us."

I was stunned! Why was the message so different?

I then proceeded to explain the testimony of Ambassador Bremer before various congressional committees which I had attended as well as my personal conversation with him.

The response was immediate anger! "That is none of Mr. Bremer's business!"

Then the anger turned to surprise. "We thought the Americans wanted democracy to grow in Iraq? Why would they even think of an Islamic constitution?"

What could I say? I had no words! Why in the world would the Americans fight a war to liberate Iraq only to let the country fall into an Islamic government worse than the one it had before?

Well, there is hope. The Iraqis are more intelligent than we give them credit for and their message is simple. Do not speak for us. We will speak for ourselves. We will never allow victory to be snatched from us. We will be free.

(Rev. Ken Joseph Jr., an Assyrian has been in Iraq since before the war and is currently writing a book based on his experiences in Iraq entitled "I Was Wrong.")

http://205.177.120.143/artman/publish/article_3369.shtml

[DoctorZIn]

New Iran Information Revealed in Rafsanjani - Statoil Scandal

October 29, 2003
Nettavisen
Carin Pettersson

A letter sent by the former director of International affairs, Richard Hubbard, revealed that the acting executive director Inge K. Hansen is connected to the scandal in Iran. Furthermore, it is becoming evident that it was ex president’s son Rafsanjani who provided Statoil with information about the current situations in the country.

The plot thickens as the letter from Hubbard, which was revealed Tuesday, states that the acting executive director Inge K. Hansen was one of the five directors who agreed to enter into the controversial Iran agreement.

Hansen allegedly said that “1.5 million dollars annually is cheap for consultancy.”

However, the Statoil board still has confidence in Hansen, stated Kaci Kullman Five, acting chairperson, the Norwegian television channel Tuesday evening.

According to Hubbard’s letter, it is Medhi Hashemi Rafsanjani, the son of the powerful ex president in Iran, who is the actual advisor for Statoil in Iran. Horton Investments, the company which is listed as the official partner, is less important.

According to Hubbard, it was Rafsanjani who suggested that the consultant agreement should be directed through Abbas Yazdi and his company Horton Investments.

Medhi Hashemi Rafsanjani is referred to as “Junior” in Hubbard’s letter due to his status as son of the president.

The letter allegedly stated; “Junior” gave us good advice about the business conditions and current political relations. It was a great help.

According to the Norwegian financial paper Dagens Næringsliv, Richard Hubbard had a strained relation to Inge K. Hansen.

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article149737.ece

[DoctorZIn]

Slogans, cheers welcome Ms. Ebadi in high security speech at Amir Kabir University

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Oct 29, 2003

Slogans and cheers greeted, today, Ms. Ebadi, the first Iranian Nobelist, at the Amir Kabir University of Tehran.

The speech, organized under high security measures, focused on the promotion of rights and changes "from within" but was cut at several occasions by students who shouted slogans against the regime and its incompetent reformers.

These protests brought the speaker to try to justify her controversial declaration and even taking a nationalistic tone by offering her prize to Cyrus the Great (Founder of Iran) and to all those "who are in the jails for their beleives". The students slogans forced her as well to correct herself by stating that if she speaks about existence of rights, she's in reality comparing the "improvement of the rights situation with 20 years ago".

Ms. Ebadi is under sharp critisizms following her irresponsible comments praising Khatami for "his achivements and right to have won the Peace Prize" as well as calling for "reforms from within".

In less than 2 weeks following her awarding, many Iranians are qualifying her as a 2nd Khatami promoted by "mercantilist Europeans" in order to win time for the regime.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_3278.shtml

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Ping.

Join us at the Iranian Alert daily thread. Welcome!

[DoctorZIn]

Nobel Winner Says She Owes Award To Jailed Intellectuals

October 29, 2003
Dow Jones Newswires
The Associated Press

TEHRAN -- Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi praised modern and ancient enemies of the Islamic hard-liners who rule Iran, saying Wednesday she owes her award to those jailed here for their beliefs and to the example set by a sixth century B.C. pioneer of human rights in Persia.

Earlier this month, Ebadi, a lawyer and rights campaigner, became the first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Since then, Iranian reformers have looked to her to rally opposition to hard-liners who say the country's cleric-controlled system of government can't be changed.

After a speech Wednesday that drew wild applause from over 1,000 students at Amir Kabir University, Ebadi made a small but telling gesture: shaking hands with two men, Habibollah Peyman and Mohammad Maleki, both prominent dissidents. Under Iran's Islamic-inspired laws, it's a crime for men and women who aren't related to shake hands in public. Possible punishments range from jail to flogging.

In her speech, Ebadi named some of Iran's prominent jailed reformers and intellectuals.

"Let's remember those who are not with us because of their beliefs, including Hashem Aghajari, Abbas Abdi and Naser Zarafshan," she said.

Aghajari, a history professor at Tehran's Teachers Training University, was sentenced to death last year for questioning clerical rule in a speech. His sentence was reduced following nationwide protests and he now is serving a four-year jail term.

Abdi, a top member of the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front, is serving an eight-year sentence after being convicted in February of selling classified information to foreign intelligence agencies, a charge stemming from a poll he conducted showed strong public support for dialogue with the U.S.

Lawyer Zarafshan was found guilty last year on charges of divulging state secrets and illegal possession of a firearm after speaking out about the murders of Iranian dissidents. He is serving a five-year sentence.

Dozens of political activists, journalists and others have been jailed on vague charges of working against the Islamic establishment. Ebadi herself was convicted in a closed trial three years ago of slandering government officials. She spent three weeks in jail before being given a suspended sentence.

"The road to the peace prize was also paved through the pains and sufferings of people who have spent many years in jail because of their beliefs...long live all those who paved this road," Ebadi said Wednesday.

In her first press conference in Iran as a Nobel laureate, Ebadi earlier this month demanded Iranian leaders free all "political prisoners," including journalists and activists jailed for alleged crimes against the Islamic establishment. Wednesday, she said there has been no response from the leadership.

Ebadi, though, told the students not to lose hope that democratic reforms in Iran can be achieved peacefully.

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2003102919180010&Take=1

[DoctorZIn]

Photos Prompt Iran Attack Fears

October 29, 2003
Hendon and Finchley Times
Lawrence Marzouk

Reports that suspected Iranian terrorists have been photographing synagogues in the borough have fuelled fears that an attack is being prepared on a Jewish target.

Last week's Sunday Telegraph claimed that 20 Iranians, many of them students, were involved in surveillance operations on numerous buildings used by the Jewish community in London, and two have subsequently been deported. The article quoted unnamed intelligence sources speculating on a possible link to an al-Qaeda terror attack within the next few months.

Since then, the Sternberg Centre in East End Road, Finchley, which houses the New North London Synagogue (NNLS), has confirmed it was photographed in suspicious circumstances.

Brian Berelowitz, chairman of NNLS, said: "There was a photograph incident some time ago, about three months. The person was stopped. [When I heard of the Sunday Telegraph report] it worried me with the past incident."

He refused to be drawn further on details of the incident, including on whether there was a link to Iran or al-Qaeda.

The Community Security Trust (CST), which provides security measures for most of the UK's Jewish public sites, confirmed that at least one Jewish community building had been targeted, but refused to say which one or if other similar incidents had taken place.

A spokeswoman said: "We have been warned of a Jewish community building being photographed. We have a high level of security at the moment. We are asking members of the community to be very vigilant."

Mr Berelowitz said: "We will have to discuss what level of alert the synagogue takes. But we do not take the decision, the CST takes it."

Iran has a history of terrorist activity abroad as the sponsor of the militant Islamic group Hizbullah.

Hadi Soleimanpour, the former Iranian ambassador to Argentina, was arrested in Britain this August in connection with the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994 which killed 85 people.

Two Palestinian students, Jawad Botmeh and Samar Alami, were convicted of a car-bomb attack on a Jewish charity in Tally Ho Corner, North Finchley, in 1994, which injured four people.

Al-Qaeda leaders have urged terrorist cells to attack synagogues and Jewish sites, and two al-Qaeda-linked attacks last year were directed at Jewish targets in Mombasa, Kenya, and Casablanca, Morocco.

Barnet is home to the UK's largest Jewish community — around 46,000 — as well as an estimated 5,000 Iranians, many of them opposed to the current regime in Tehran.

Massoud Zabeti, from Golders Green, is a prominent member of the Iranian community with links to the Iranian opposition party and believes that these are clear signs of preparation for an attack. He said: "There have been surveillance operation against Iranian dissidents and foreigners for years — this is typical of how the Iranian regime operates. This is the type of thing which the Iranian people have been warning about for years.

"We should be more vigilant with what they are doing. If we are not more vigilant, there might be an attack."

But the Metropolitan Police do not believe an attack is imminent. A spokesman said: "We have no knowledge of that incident. Since 9/11, the level of threat is, and remains, very high. We do not discuss security matters."

If you see anything suspicious, call New Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist hotline on 0800 789321.

http://www.hendontimes.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.427533.0.photos_prompt_iran_attack_fears.php

[DoctorZIn]

Iraqi Council Blames Foreign Terrorists for Deadly Bombings

October 29, 2003
The New York Times
Susan Sachs

BAGHDAD -- Iraqi political leaders lined up behind President Bush today, blaming foreign terrorists for the latest wave of suicide bombings and calling on Syria and Iran to help control the violence by closing their borders.

"Our investigations and inquiries have revealed that a number of those who have executed the terrorist acts in Iraq have entered the country across the borders from neighboring countries," the Iraqi Governing Council said in a statement.

The reproach to Iran and Syria, both opponents of the occupation, signified a sharper new tone in the Iraqis' foreign policy toward their powerful neighbors.

Mr. Bush, whose administration selected the members of the transitional Iraqi government council, also blamed the attacks on outside militants and ousted members of Saddam Hussein's security forces.

American military commanders on the ground, however, have said they have not seen significant infiltration of foreign fighters into Iraq.

Even as insurgents widened their attacks this week to include clearly civilian neighborhoods, American military casualties also spiked with a new round of mortar attacks, roadside bombs and shootings.

The American death toll from the daily bombings now exceeds the number of American combat deaths in the war to overthrow Mr. Hussein's dictatorship.

Military officials said two soldiers with the Fourth Infantry Division soldiers were killed today and one was wounded when their tank hit an improvised bomb. They also said one soldier with the First Armored Division was killed and six others wounded in Baghdad in a rocket-propelled grenade attack.

The differing assessments of the presence of foreign fighters suggest that despite their concerns for Iraq's borders, the American-led occupation forces do not yet have a clear picture of who has organized and carried out the increasingly devastating attacks on coalition troops and Iraqi civilians.

The attackers certainly include some Iraqis from the old security apparatus who may be fighting out of loyalty to the deposed Baath Party or out of a sense of humiliation after Iraq's defeat, according to Iraqis familiar with the capabilities of their country's once-powerful military.

The occupation authority has at least one person in custody who was involved in the five coordinated car bombings in Baghdad on Monday, when at least 34 people were killed and more than 230 injured. The suspect was caught running from a sixth vehicle rigged with explosives.

Iraq's health minister, Khudair Abbas, said the would-be suicide bomber was carrying a Syrian passport, according to a report on the Arabic satellite news station Al Jazeera.

The bombers in four other explosions that took place in Baghdad that day, when at least 34 people were killed and 230 wounded, were apparently incinerated after detonating their explosives.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, meanwhile, said it would scale back its staff in Iraq but would not pull out entirely. Its office in Baghdad was hit in the Monday suicide bombings. Other aid groups had drastically reduced their presence in south and central Iraq after the United Nations headquarters here was attacked in August, and the United Nations maintains only a small staff now.

The Iraqi Governing Council, which said it would deliver its message directly to Syria later in the week, called on its "brotherly neighboring countries" to take a clear stand to condemn the attacks by guerillas. Syrian and Iran have also been under pressure from Washington to better police their borders with Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/international/middleeast/29CND-IRAQ.html

[DoctorZIn]

US Lawmakers Warn World Bank Against Lending To Iran

October 29, 2003
Dow Jones Newswires
Joseph Rebello

WASHINGTON -- U.S. lawmakers are growing increasingly alarmed by the World Bank's plans to boost loans to Iran despite new evidence that the country has secretly been developing technology that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

For three years, ever since the bank ended a seven-year hiatus in lending to Iran, lawmakers have mostly been silent over the loans. Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat, regularly grumbled about them but few of his colleagues joined him. That changed Wednesday, when several lawmakers denounced the loans and upbraided the Bush administration for failing to stop them.

"A country that's able to pursue a nuclear-weapons program hardly ought to be able to plead poverty when it comes to dealing with the needs of its people," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. "Secondly we have a regime that's violative of human rights internally, and of the requirements of civility between nations externally."

Frank said the loans could undermine popular support for U.S. participation in the World Bank. "This is a very serious warning...to other countries that have votes on the board of the World Bank," he said at a hearing. "If they continue, they will make the job of American cooperation with the bank, which I regard as a very desirable thing, much harder than it is."

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency recently found traces of highly enriched uranium at an underground nuclear facility that the country had kept secret for years. The IAEA said Iran hasn't lived up to the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which it signed in 1970, and gave the government an Oct. 31 deadline to provide a full accounting of its nuclear activities.

The World Bank, however, has shown no sign of suspending plans that call for disbursing nearly $1 billion in loans to Iran over the next few years. "We are trying to build relationships with Iran," World Bank President James Wolfensohn said in a speech Wednesday. "We are trying to support more moderate actions and we are doing some few projects there in relation to social projects."

Since 2000, the bank has approved $432 million in loans to Iran - over the objections of the U.S. government, which is required by Congress to vote against them. William Schuerch, a deputy assistant Treasury secretary, told lawmakers Wednesday that the government hasn't been able to persuade other leading shareholders of the bank to vote against the loans.

"The commercial opportunities in Iran, where U.S. companies could not compete due to U.S. sanctions, have been enticing to many of our G-7 partners," he said, referring to the Group of Seven industrial nations. Moreover, he said, European countries think the loans will bolster Iran's political reformers in their struggle with the hardline clerics that rule the nation.

But although Schuerch said the U.S. government hasn't been "fully successful" in stopping approval the loans, he suggested it has made significant progress in keeping the cash from flowing. So far the bank has released just $42 million of the $432 million in loans approved, Schuerch said.

"If I were going to be aggressive, I could try to assert the United States has been successful behind the scenes in order to stop the disbursement, or slow it down substantially," he said. But he said that assertion would have "particular problems with other shareholders."

The bank's managers, he said, would argue that the funds haven't been released because "Iran is a particularly difficult place to do business in, and they are having trouble getting started."

Schuerch nevertheless got an earful from lawmakers who said the Bush administration has either been too gentle or too inconsistent in its approach to Iran.

"There are moments in which we list them on the 'axis of evil,' say they're developing nuclear weapons (and) think it's a high priority to stop it," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat. "We know they're supporting terrorist groups, and yet we're giving them financial assistance. All I'm saying is for me it's a bit confusing."

Sherman, the California Democrat, asked Schuerch whether the government had threatened to retaliate against World Bank shareholders that voted for the loans. "Have we deprived them of a single hors d'oeuvre, or have we basically said you can vote the way you want to, you can subsidize the nuclear destruction of American cities if it ever comes to that, and you won't lose a single hors d'oeuvre?" he said.

Schuerch said the Bush administration hadn't threatened any country "with that kind of behavior." That triggered a heated exchange with Sherman. "This administration cares more about our banana exports - which we don't even grow here - than it does defending American security from this threat," Sherman said.

Schuerch replied: "I think you better count the number of troops that we have over in this part of the world, if that's what you think. This issue is much broader than Treasury or a few dollars out of an international institution...We have Americans next door to this country...dying day by day."

Some lawmakers have proposed legislation that would reduce U.S. contributions to the World Bank in the amount of the loans that it makes to Iran. But at the hearing Wednesday, Schuerch said the World Bank isn't an appropriate forum for resolving short-term political problems. Other experts who testified agreed.

"There are grave risks to U.S. interests if foreign-policy considerations dominate decisions about World Bank lending," said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Many governments oppose aspects of U.S. foreign policy, and they could be tempted to block U.S. loans allies," including Iraq, he said. The World Bank has proposed lending up to $5 billion to Iraq by 2007.

Ray Takeyh, a professor of national security studies at the National Defense University, said the suspension of World Bank loans to Iran wouldn't change its government's attitude toward the sponsorship of terrorism and the development of nuclear weapons.

"The trajectory of Iran's foreign policy and its overall conduct reveals that the theocracy responds only when it is confronted with multilateral pressure spearheaded by important commercial partners, particularly the European Union and Japan," Takeyh said. "A U.S. policy that encompasses American pressure and European determination will have far-reaching effects on Iran and extract important concessions from the theocracy."

-By Joseph Rebello, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9279; joseph.rebello.com

(Elizabeth Price contributed to this report.)

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2003102921260031&Take=1

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Join us in the daily Iranian Alert thread where you can learn the latest news and add to the commentary.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Welcome to the Iranian Daily alert thread that keeps everyone informed on the latest news, as well has containing excellent commentary on the student movement in Iran.

[DoctorZIn]

IRAN REPEATED CONDITIONS FOR IMPROVING TIES WITH WASHINGTON

PARIS 29 Oct. (IPS)

Iran cold shouldered recent American suggestions of adopting a "flexible, dynamic and multifaceted" policy towards Tehran, saying one "can not pose threats on the one hand and then call for talks on the other.

In a statement read to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Hermitage, the Under Secretary of State in charge of the Middle East said the United States intends to pursue a "flexible, dynamic and multifaceted" policy toward Iran in order to encourage the Iranian people's desire for greater freedom while countering negative policies of their government, such as pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorism".

However, he warned that relations would not improve until Iran hand over to the American Justice the members of the al-Qa’eda organisation it held in its prisons, stops supporting terrorist groups and renounces to producing nuclear weapons.

"The United States is always prepared to change its policies toward Iran if the country ceases its support for terrorism and abandons its weapons of mass destruction programs", Mr. Armitage told American lawmakers, pointing out that negotiations with Iran on issues of mutual concern, like Iraq or fighting drugs would continue at "low-level" and in "multi-party talks".

In response, Mr. Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, the Iranian government official spokesman said that the United States must take "practical steps" to improve relations with Iran. "We are looking forward to the US practical measures", he said, adding that Washington must end sanctions it had enforced against the Islamic Republic, free Iranian assets it has blocked and ends baseless charges in order to build confidence.

"You cannot pose threats on one hand, block Iranian national assets, fabricate charges against Iran and then call for talks", the official news agency IRNA quoted him as having told reporters on Wednesday in response to a question whether Iran accepts Armitage’s proposal to Iran to initiate talks.

For his part, President Mohammad Khatami found "nothing new" about the accusations made by Mr. Armitage.

Addressing reporters after attending a cabinet meeting Wednesday, in response to a question on US charges against Iran, the Chief Executive termed it as "baseless and outdated", IRNA reported.

"Iranian authorities use torture, arbitrary detention and excessive force to repress the freedoms of speech, association and religion", said Armitage, adding that Iran's pursuit and development of weapons of mass destruction have aroused international concern. Iran also continues to be the world's foremost state supporter of terrorism, not only through support of organizations such as Hizballah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but the United States also believes elements of the Iranian government have helped members of al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam transit and find safe haven in Iran".

Though some Iranian political analysts shared Mr. Khatami’s views, however, they said Armitage’s latest statement was "encouraging", specially in regard of his assessments of the Iranian political situation.

"Iran is a country in the midst of a tremendous transformation, and I believe American policy can affect the direction Iran will take", the Under-Secretary went on, quoting Mrs. Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian lawyer and human rights activist who won this year’s Nobel Peace prize that "changes in Iran must come from within the nation".

In his prepared remarks, Armitage said the Iranian people were now "engaged in a very rich and lively debate about the kind of society they want for themselves and for their children", including the desire for substantial economic and democratic reforms.

"The agreement reached last week in Tehran between the Iranian authorities with the foreign affairs ministers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom concerning Iran’s atomic projects has had diminished Washington’s concern over Iranian atomic projects for a great deal and paved the way for a more amenable atmosphere in relations between Iran and the United States", observed Mr. Hooshang Amir Ahmadi, the Chairman of the American-Iranian Council, that encourages rapprochement between Tehran and Washington.

He said though Mr. Armitage did not mentioned the situation of human rights in his remarks to the Senate, but it does not mean that the issue is no more a matter of concern for Washington.

"The Americans are advancing step by step. At present, their priority is Iran’s quest for producing nuclear weapons. This concern seems partly diminished after Iran pledged to the three European ministers that it would sign the additional Protocols (to the Non Proliferation Treaty) and suspend its uranium enriching programs", he added during an interview from New York with the Persian service of Radio France International.

The deputy secretary listed U.S. concerns over what he termed the "negative and destructive policies and actions" taken by the Iranian government, namely its poor human rights record, its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, and its support for terrorist organizations.

The United States, he said, does not seek conflict with Iran. However, to counter negative Iranian activities, the United States is employing sanctions, interdiction, law enforcement, diplomacy, and international public opinion, said Armitage. He said such measures "will be especially effective" if other countries participate in a sustained effort.

But Mr. Amir Ahmadi, who is also teaching Middle Eastern policies at New York universities, doubted the Iranian clerical-led regime could be more explicit in its conflictual relations with the United States.

Washington cut off all ties with the Islamic Republic and imposed unilateral sanctions after Iranian students stormed the American embassy in Tehran on 4 November 1979, taking 55 American diplomats and staff as hostages for 444 days.

However, officials from the two sides meet regularly in meetings over issues of mutual concerns, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, two Iranian neighbours where former governments hostiles to Iran had been toppled under American military interventions. ENDS IRAN US DIALOGUE 291003

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2003/Oct-2003/iran_us_dialogue_291003.htm