Iranian Alert -- October 30, 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.

Iran Demands Concessions From U.S. in Return for Cooperation
By NAZILA FATHI

Published: October 30, 2003

TEHRAN, Oct. 29 — Iran said Wednesday that it would not share intelligence with the United States on operatives of Al Qaeda or hand over Qaeda suspects in Iranian detention and would resume dialogue only after the United States undertakes what it termed measures to build confidence.

It was not clear whether the United States would first have to restore diplomatic relations broken after the storming of the American Embassy in Tehran in the fall of 1979.

"You cannot threaten from one side and freeze assets from the other side; level accusations from one side and then request dialogue from the other side; we need to see America's practical steps," the government spokesman, Abdullah Ramezanzadeh, told reporters.

"They have leveled too many false accusations against us and they should stop that," he said. "They should also unfreeze our assets and lift the sanctions."

Mr. Ramezanzadeh was responding to comments made Tuesday by Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, who signaled American willingness to hold limited talks with Iran. Mr. Armitage, striking a conciliatory tone, also said that the Bush administration did not favor "regime change" in Iran.

By contrast, President Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address grouped Iran with Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil."

The United States severed talks with Iran after a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia in May which the United States said were linked to groups based in Iran. Iran has denied the assertion.

The United States had also asked Iran to turn over detained senior members of Al Qaeda. Mr. Ramezanzadeh said Wednesday that Iran had no security agreement with the United States to turn over the detainees. He said Iran had returned some detainees to nations with whom it had such security agreements and said the rest would be dealt with according to Iranian laws.

Iran announced this week that it had given to the United Nations the names of 225 Qaeda members it had arrested. It said that nearly 78 of them had been returned to their nations of origin.

"We believe that all countries should deal with terrorism and terrorist groups indiscriminately," Mr. Ramezanzadeh said. "We have also taken necessary measures against terrorism according to international regulations and do not need other countries to interfere in our affairs."

The government of President Mohammad Khatami has come under increasing pressure from hard-liners since last week, when the government reached an agreement with the foreign secretaries of Britain, Germany and France to allow more intrusive inspections of its nuclear sites and to suspend enrichment of uranium.

Hard-line militants, who oppose any restrictions on Iran's nuclear program, have accused the government and influential clerics who have sided with the government of undermining the nation's security.

"We are worried about the kind of guarantees that our negotiators have received over our national security and sovereignty," a group of militant students wrote in a letter, the Jomhouri Islamic daily reported today.

"How do we know that because of the nuclear agency's financial dependence on America, Iraq's experience would not repeat in Iran and American spies would not come under the guise of inspectors?" the letter asked.

The agreement needs to be approved by Parliament before it can be enforced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/30/international/middleeast/30IRAN.html?ex=1068094800&en=9987beb8ce406dbc&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Interview: 'Peaceful reform Iran's only option'

By Amir Taheri,
Special to Gulf News | 30-10-2003

The Nobel Committee's decision to name Iranian human-rights lawyer and activist Shirin Ebadi the 2003 peace laureate has turned her into a household name throughout Iran and the Muslim world.

Moreover, the 56-year-old Ebadi has become an alternative source of moral authority in Iran - and a rare figure of consensus in that fractious society. With the exception of the hardline Khomeinists who have branded her "an enemy of Islam," Ebadi has won praise from virtually all Iranians - from left to right. She now possesses a capital of goodwill that few others seem to have in Iran.

What will she do with it? Will she, as some opposition leaders clearly hope, lead a list of pro-democracy candidates in next March's general elections? Will she go further and become a candidate for the presidency in 2005?

These and many other questions were posed in a recent telephone interview conducted by Amir Taheri, editor of the French quarterly Politique Internationale, who also translated the interview from Persian. It is excerpted here.

Amir Taheri: A few weeks ago you left Tehran for Paris as just another traveller. Now you have returned to a hero's welcome, although some had believed you might decide to stay in Europe. What are your feelings?
Shirin Ebadi: There was never any question of not returning. Without my attachment to Iran, my life would have no meaning. I was not prepared for what happened. I did not even know that my name had been put forward for a Nobel.

But, as I said right from the beginning, I see the prize as a message from the international community to the people of Iran, especially to women, and, beyond them, to the Muslim world. The message is that human rights belong to all mankind and that peace is possible only if they are respected.

Will your Nobel prize mean a new start for the democracy movement which seems to have lost some steam in recent weeks?
SE: I hope so. The message is that fighting for human rights in Iran is not a lonely pursuit. It will also strengthen civil society, without which no democratisation is possible. A society changes when large numbers of its members change within themselves. This is happening in our country.

Can the present regime be reformed without violence?
SE: Yes. I think nothing of lasting value can come out of violence. I think we can work within the law and seek the changes that are needed through constitutional processes. I have never done anything illegal and support peaceful means. The number of people who want reform is rising all the time.

Some say your selection is a political move by Europe to show that regime change can come through "soft power" as against the American use of "hard power" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
SE: I don't share that analysis. The situation in Iran is different from Iraq and Afghanistan. There were no mechanisms for internal change in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iran, there are. Europe has understood that to stop wars it is necessary to ensure respect for human rights throughout the world. This is both a principled and a pragmatic position.

You supported the election of President Khatami. Do you still regard him as a leader for reform?
SE: I was one of millions who voted for Khatami because had we not done so, the conservatives would have won. We had no other choice. Unfortunately, however, I must admit that President Khatami has missed the historic opportunities he had. The reform and democracy movement has passed him by.

President Khatami has said that your prize is not worth "all that fuss." What is your reaction?
SE: I respect the president's view. People are free to have their own opinions on all subjects.

Some say that, with time, you might become a half-forgotten icon like Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese leader who also won the Nobel peace prize.
SE: I don't know about Burma. But I know about Iran. What is at stake is beyond me or any other individual. We have a deep-rooted and growing movement for democracy and human rights that has support in all sections of society.

And yet the situation in Iran seems blocked. In all elections, there are overwhelming majorities for reform. And yet there is no reform. Some people believe a new revolution is necessary.
SE: I think the era of revolutions has ended. Also, there is no guarantee that another revolution would provide something better than the one we had 24 years ago. After years of reflection I have come to the conclusion that revolutions never deliver what they promise.

What I am working for is a reform movement in all walks of life, political, social, cultural, and, of course, individual rights. Like me, the people of Iran are deeply disappointed with the Islamic Revolution. In the Islamic Revolution and the war with Iraq that followed, countless families lost their children and/or parents. The nation lost the flower of its youth.

Also, millions of Iranians were forced into exile. The cost of this revolution will take generations to absorb. The only way out is through peaceful reform. Khatami is not the only proponent of reform. The failure of his administration is not the failure of the reform movement. In any case Khatami's second and final term will come to an end. But that will not mean the end of our people's aspirations.

In practical terms, how do you think change could come in Iran?
SE: History is never written in advance. It is always full of surprises. Change could come through elections. What we need is an amended electoral law that allows citizens to vote for any candidate they wish.

If the present system continues and the Council of the Guardians of the Constitution retains its power to fix the elections, the Iranian people are certain to massively boycott the next general election in March 2004, just as they did in the recent municipal elections.

Should the Islamic Republic be replaced with a secular regime?
SE: There is some confusion here. What we have in Iran is not a religious regime, but a regime in which those in power use religion as a means of staying in power. If the present regime does not reform and evolve into one that reflects the will of the people, it is going to fail, even if it adopts a secularist posture.

I support the separation of state and religion because the political space is open to countless views and interests. This position is actually supported by the grand ayatollahs. So it is in conformity with the Shiite tradition.

There is some talk that you might lead a list of pro-democracy candidates in the next parliamentary election or even become a presidential candidate in 2005.
SE: I am a human rights militant and a lawyer and have no other agenda. I can tell you that I have no plans to stand for election. The prize given to me shows that the method I have used in the past two decades has been the right one. I am the friend of the powerless, the voice of the voiceless. I must prove that I am worthy of the honor bestowed upon me.

Some opposition figures, including a grandson of Khomeini, have called for American military intervention in Iran. What is your view?
SE: I am opposed to any foreign intervention in our affairs, whether political or military or in any other form. The people of Iran know their problems and know how to seek the solutions. All they need is moral and political support from the international community.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=101616

UN deadline on Friday for Iran

ArabTimesOnline
10.30.2003

VIENNA (AFP) - Iran is facing an international deadline on Friday to prove to the United Nations nuclear watchdog it is not secretly making atomic weapons, with UN sanctions a possibility if it fails to comply. Although nothing definitive will happen Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is to begin writing a report on Iranian compliance, with the matter to be considered at an IAEA board of governors meeting in Vienna on November 20.

The IAEA had on September 12 imposed the October 31 deadline on Iran to provide full disclosure of its nuclear program. At stake is whether the IAEA judges Iran to be in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and sends the issue to the UN Security Council, which could then impose punishing sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the United States, which has said Iran is part of an "axis of evil" of proliferating rogue states, expects Tehran to meet its international commitments. "They need to follow through on what they've committed to do," he said. Iran seized the diplomatic initiative when it delivered a report to the IAEA October 23 that it said answered all the agency's questions, just a week ahead of the deadline.

The IAEA has been investigating Iran's nuclear program since February but Tehran only issued the report after reaching an agreement with three leading EU foreign ministers. Iran admits in the report to failures in honoring nuclear safeguards commitments, Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's representative to the IAEA, said last week.

Salehi said the failures involved "some lab tests" but he said they were "not significant" and that "it is 100-percent clear that Iran has never been involved in anything that would indicate it was involved in a nuclear weapons program." The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany had come to Tehran October 21 to persuade Iran to come clean on its nuclear program and allow tougher inspections of nuclear sites.

Diplomats close to the IAEA said these three countries would now be in Iran's corner when the IAEA board of governors meets. The United States has already said that Iran is in non-compliance, charging it with dodging international safeguards controls by secretly trying to find ways to enrich uranium. But, said one Western diplomat, "the three (European) nations think Iran is willing to carry out some sort of commitment and should be encouraged."

In addition, it would take the IAEA "months, if not years" to verify information from Iran, if the IAEA judged that the report was a sincere and serious effort. This would seem to weaken the US hand in seeking condemnation of Iran. But a senior Western diplomat said that if "the Iranians are truly coming clean then they will have to report to the board and therefore to the world a number of activities that would be in clear violation of their safeguards obligations."

"That would suggest there will be grounds for a non-compliance resolution," the diplomat said. But others said this logic will not work if Iran does give facts on its program and then shows good faith by signing a protocol allowing unrestricted and unannounced inspections. Iran has said it will in the coming days inform the IAEA of its intention to sign the protocol.

Iran has also promised to suspend enrichment that can produce highly enriched uranium useable for nuclear fuel but also to make atomic bombs. Salehi said Iran was currently working through the modalities of suspending enrichment and that a halt was "probably a matter of weeks, maybe before or after the (next IAEA) board meeting".

A Western diplomat said "this talk of modalities raises concern that the Iranians may in fact be dragging out a process that could be resolved in a short amount of time." Another diplomat, however, said Iran had time. "Apparently the Iranians have made the choice at a very high level to cooperate with the IAEA," he said. The key is to see "how this translates into action," the diplomat said.

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/breakingnews/view.asp?msgID=3414

U.S. Would Be Open to Limited Iran Talks

The Guardian
By TERENCE HUNT

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States is open to talks with Iran on a limited basis, the Bush administration said Wednesday while insisting that any improvement in relations would require Tehran to hand over terror suspects.

Even as the administration raised the prospect of a dialogue, the United States said it would be watching to see if Iran complied with a Friday deadline to prove that its nuclear program is peaceful under terms set by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

``Our feeling has been and continues to be that they are not in compliance with their nonproliferation obligations and that, under those circumstances, the matter as a matter of course should be referred to the (United Nations),'' said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

The administration is debating whether to soften its hardline attitude toward Iran, a nation that President Bush branded as part of an ``axis of evil'' along with North Korea and prewar Iraq. Concern about Iran's nuclear program has aggravated U.S. suspicions about Tehran.

A day after an administration official signaled a more conciliatory approach, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, ``Our policy towards Iran remains the same.

``We are continuing to insist that they abide by their international obligations on nonproliferation, that they stop supporting terrorism and that they turn over to the countries of origin the al-Qaida terrorists that they are now harboring,'' McClellan said.

McClellan's comments followed testimony Tuesday by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said, ``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.''

McClellan called attention to Bush's comments earlier this month about Iran. ``He (Bush) said that Iran must change its course, change its behavior'' particularly with regard to terrorism, McClellan said.

``If they could resolve that issue, it would be an important step in our relations,'' the spokesman said. ``But we cannot move forward without that step. There are still serious concerns we have with Iran and they need to address.''

In Iran, government spokesman Abdollah Ramezanzadeh said that if the United States wants better relations, it could start by ending accusations that Iran supports terrorism. ``They have to avoid making irrelevant accusations against us,'' he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3325268,00.html

Iraq could offer common ground for US and Iran

Christian Science Monitor
By Michael Theodoulou | 30 October 2003

Iran has offered Iraq a line of credit and access to electricity and gas supplies.

TEHRAN, IRAN – Huge murals of the young "martyrs" who fell in the eight-year war with Iraq cover the sides of many buildings in Tehran. They are a constant reminder of the huge suffering inflicted on Iran by the devastating conflict Saddam Hussein unleashed in 1980.
Not surprisingly, Iranians are relieved to see the back of the Iraqi dictator. His removal has also enabled devout Iranians to visit Shiite holy places in Iraq, despite the dangers from mines and bandits.

For the fractured Iranian regime, however, the consequences of Mr. Hussein's fall and Iran's encirclement by US forces are far greater. The new situation presents opportunities as well as dangers that could shape both the internal power struggle and Tehran's relations with Washington.

American officials have accused Iran of trying to destabilize Iraq, but European diplomats in Tehran believe Iran has so far played a "reasonably constructive" role. Britain's former ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, agreed on Sunday, saying: "I think on the whole that they have been quite cooperative."

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazzi has also promised Iraq credit of up to $300 million and offered cross- border electricity and gas supplies. A stabilized Iraq could boost Iran's regional power as the ally of Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority.

By proving it can be an "anchor of stability" in Iraq, Iran could also reduce American hostility, analysts say. This could pave the way to an eventual restoration of ties with Washington, which polls show would be very popular with ordinary Iranians. US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said on Tuesday that Washington was prepared to restore limited contacts with Tehran, a change he tied to Iran sharing intelligence on Al Qaeda, a move Tehran has so far rejected.

Observers see Iraq as a potential patch of common ground between the two countries.

"Tehran has given the Iraqi governing council more legitimacy than any Arab country," a senior European envoy says. "Like the US, Iran wants an Iraq that is stable, prosperous, nonthreatening, and democratic, which would accord Iraqi Shiites their due weight in running the country."

While the US was willing to allow Iran to help in Afghanistan, neoconservative hawks in Washington appear determined to prevent Tehran from having any role in Iraq.

"This is a big mistake," another European diplomat in Tehran says. "It risks driving Iran down the very path America is so scared of. If Iran is not allowed to get involved positively, there is the risk it will do so negatively."

The European Union's policy of "conditional engagement" with Iran, using carrots and sticks in contrast to US threats, was seen to have paid important dividends last week.

Britain, France, and Germany persuaded Iran to comply with demands for tougher nuclear inspections and to suspend its uranium-enrichment project to ease fears that Iran's nuclear energy program was a cover for developing the bomb.

The international community should also take measures to address Iran's "strategic loneliness" to steer Iran away from feeling it might need a nuclear deterrent, the European diplomat says. "Iran has few serious friends. We should be looking at regional security structures to tie Iran in and give it the feeling that it's not out in the cold."

The disorder in Iraq has enabled hard-line media to portray the US as a blundering superpower that has suffered an ideological and strategic defeat.

"They are also portraying the whole occupation of Iraq as an anti-Islamic move by the United States and posing the question: 'Why should we respect international conventions ... when the US so openly violates every international convention?' " says Sadegh Zibakalam, a political science professor at Tehran University.

Radical hard-liners, such as Massoud Dehnemaki, who edits a newspaper but is suspected of being a leader of a feared Islamic vigilante group, say Iran's hostility to Washington has been vindicated.

"Twenty years ago, people were burning the US flag in Iran. Now it is being burned in other countries," he says. "Twenty years ago, we said the UN was under the control of America. Now all countries say this."

Yet those such as Mr. Dehnemaki are a radical minority.

"The majority of the conservative and reformist leadership would prefer to see a stable Iraq," Mr. Zibakalam says. Iran wants an end to the American presence next door, but is playing a stabilizing role, he adds.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1030/p07s01-wosc.html

Message from Iran Says Tehran Seeks Talks with Israel

October 30, 2003
Ha'aretz
Aluf Benn

Government sources are looking into a message from Iran that effectively says that Tehran wishes to open talks with Israel. Israel has asked a third party to make inquiries in Tehran and establish whether the message is serious.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom have been advised of the message, which was not delivered directly. Israel is deliberating whether the message is a sign of real change in Tehran.

Iran agreed last week to freeze its uranium enrichment efforts and allow surprise inspections in its nuclear facilities. But Israeli sources say the Iranian activity is problematic and that the road to change still seems very long.

Sharon sees no signs of moderation in Iran, or modification in its hostility toward Israel and its support for terror groups.

Sharon suspects it is convenient for the Iranians to hint at possible flexibility because of other problems they are facing, and that their statements regarding the nuclear issue should be put to the test.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said on Tuesday at the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee meeting that the United States is not out to change the Iranian regime, but only to change its behavior in matters like nonconventional weapons and toward Israel.

Armitage said Iran is the leading terrorist supporting state and that its statements about nuclear weapons should be regarded skeptically and require verification. He also spoke of the possibility of a dialogue between the U.S. and Iran.

European parliament members who visited Tehran recently reportedly warned Iran's supreme national security chief that Israel would attack Iran's nuclear installations if it rejects the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) demands.

The delegation formed the impression that Iran is very fearful of having its case transferred from the IAEA to the UN's Security Council, which is able to impose sanctions that could harm Iran's economy.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=355520&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Iran's Nuclear Enablers

October 30, 2003
FrontPageMagazine.com
Reza Bayegan

As the bearded fanatics of Tehran defied the international community and America pondered its options to inter their nuclear "energy" program, the dovish foreign ministers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom swooped into Iran and concluded a "peaceful end to Iran's nuclear ambitions." What seems to have been forgotten amidst all the Europeans' self-congratulation for "defusing" a major international crisis is that the Euro-Islamist pact is a meaningless agreement struck with an illegitimate government.

Ironically, the upshot of the meeting of the three European foreign ministers with the officials of the Islamic Republic in Tehran will actually make it easier for the mullahs to acquire atomic weapons. The signed agreement can be likened to a sigheh (a Shia term for "temporary marriage") that provides the protection of the law for prostitution and adultery. The three foreign ministers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom went to Tehran and signed an agreement that in effect will protect the Islamist regime's pursuit of WMDs. Guarantees pledged by the Islamic Republic to suspend the operations of its uranium enrichment plant, and submit to the IAEA's intrusive inspection regime, were never worth the paper they were written on. On October 22, only hours after confirming that his government would voluntarily suspend its enrichment program, Mohammad Khatami said that Iran would never give up its right to enrich uranium -- for "future nuclear power plants," of course.

Mohsen Mirdamad, head of the Parliament's National Security Committee, let the cat out of the bag. Mirdamad put the inherent impotence of the IAEA's surveillance into perspective, saying, "Accepting the protocols does not mean that we are obliged to execute it tomorrow. This is a complicated task and for some countries it has taken up to three years." It has been estimated that the Islamic Republic will be able to construct its nuclear bomb in less than two years, one full year ahead of the completion of the IAEA survey. By that time the inspection team will have nothing more to "survey"; atomic bombs in the hands of Iran will be a fait accompli.

We ask ourselves what then has been achieved after all this fanfare in the Iranian capital and joint communiqués of foreign ministers? Unfortunately, precious little has been accomplished to make the world a safer place. Furthermore, the opposing interests of Western powers have produced a powerful tonic that will likely prolong the life of Tehran's brutal tyranny and may endanger the Middle East or the entire world.

To understand why the Europeans, and especially France (which is more jubilant and optimistic about the deal than the others), took such a step at this moment and facilitated the membership of the Islamic Republic into the nuclear club, we do well to search for a link between this issue and the greatest source of trouble in the region: the Arab-Israeli conflict. The mission to the Iranian capital was to bring the desperado state under the protective umbrella of the IAEA and forestall any preemptive strike by Israel or the United States against nuclear facilities spread throughout the Iranian territory.

At the heart of rushing to the Ayatollah's rescue lies a European policy towards the Middle East that sharply differs from that of the United States. It is axiomatic of American foreign policy to box in the power and influence of terrorist-supporting regimes and to help secure a democratic Israel. Making sure that the Islamic Republic will never be able to acquire nuclear capability is absolutely essential to the security of both Israel and the United States -- and indeed, the entire West. The Europeans, however, do not seem to have the same anxieties.

For the French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, the bottom line is economics. The lucrative trade ties with countries that consider Israel their number one enemy will dictate the course of France's foreign policy in Iran as they did in Iraq for twenty years. Criticizing U.S. and Israeli security strategies in an interview with The Guardian on October 18, de Villepin points out Europe's close financial links with both sides of the Middle Eastern conflict, but particularly with the Arab world. A translation of this diplomatic language amounts to a declaration of support for the foes of America, Israel and Western progress. The "violent" American approach, he asserts, will create more hostility in the region. The "peaceful" French solution on the other hand will conciliate and pacify:

"We think that using force...is going to...give new reasons to some people [like al-Qaeda] to oppose us."

The above statement is more than a call for finding non-violent solutions; it is a sympathetic nod to political blackmail. This seemingly benevolent language intimates that previous al-Qaeda attacks were a reaction to, and a logical consequence of, misdeeds perpetrated by the Western world. According to de Villepin, the Western powers (read: the United States) must change its act to avoid supplying fresh reasons for terrorist groups to engage in "martyrdom."

The absurdity of the attitude expressed by the French Foreign Minister becomes clear when we realize that the only way for the Israelis to stop supplying fresh reasons to the terrorists is by dislodging their country into the sea. And Iran would not rest with Israel.

In fact, Iran is not content merely to persecute foreigners. While in the Iranian capital, Dominique de Villepin could have benefited from visiting political detainees in the notorious Evin and Towhid prisons. These men and women kept under despicable conditions for exercising their basic rights of free expression could have informed him that surrendering to tyranny and terrorism is a betrayal of all humanity. To pay such a ransom, to give up our freedom and betray our democratic dreams in pursuit of a sham arms control agreement, is as treacherous as it is craven.

Iranians with huge oil and gas reserves need no nuclear power program. What they urgently require is the restoration of their fundamental human rights. The three European foreign ministers trip to Tehran and the subsequent agreement reached with the government of the Islamic Republic only emboldened a major sponsor of global terrorism. And thanks to their efforts, the mullahs may one day help terrorists train the ultimate weapon upon Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. -- followed by Paris, Berlin and London.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10562

Hamas Joins Forces with Islamic Jihad

October 30, 2003
The Washington Times
Ramit Plushnick-Masti

JERUSALEM — The Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, with their operatives on the run, have increasingly forged a common front against Israel, and there are signs they are also being guided by Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas.

Days after issuing a joint statement calling for coordinated "resistance" against Israel, the two groups attacked an Israeli army base Friday in the Netzarim settlement in the Gaza Strip, killing three soldiers and reviving heated debate in Israel over whether to hang on to the Jewish enclave.

The two groups have cooperated to a lesser degree in the past, with militants joining forces at the local level, but last week's call for coordinated attacks signals closer ties — a consolidation that might make the groups more efficient and more difficult to bring down.

Adnan Asfour, a Hamas leader in the West Bank, said the alliance with Islamic Jihad is a response to Israel's increasing military pressure, including its hunt for members of the groups' military wings and, more recently, political leaders.

"With the expansion of Israel's circle of aggression, there must be an expansion of the circle of resistance," said Mr. Asfour, adding that other militant groups may be invited into an alliance.

Israeli officials are clearly concerned, especially by what some say is a growing involvement in the Palestinian territories of Hezbollah, a militant group backed by Syria and Iran. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and the army chief, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, told the Cabinet on Sunday that Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah are planning joint attacks in Israel.

Hezbollah spearheaded a successful campaign to end Israel's 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000, and can offer Palestinian groups a wealth of knowledge about everything from military training to arms smuggling.

"Cooperation with Hezbollah strengthens the Islamic Jihad and Hamas," said Boaz Ganor, an Israeli counterterrorism expert.

Since Israeli-Palestinian fighting erupted three years ago, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have carried out 15 joint operations, mostly gunbattles, according to Hamas.

The deadliest, a strike June 8 that also included the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a militant group with ties to Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, killed four soldiers before the gunmen were fatally shot.

The two groups' leaders convened a meeting Oct. 20, led by Khaled Mashaal, head of Hamas' political bureau, and Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, leader of Islamic Jihad.

A statement faxed that day to the Associated Press in Beirut said "the two movements agreed to confront the Zionist aggression on our people in Palestine and to urge all [Palestinian] factions and resistance forces to coordinate among each other to confront this aggression."

The extent of Hezbollah's involvement in the Palestinian territories remains murky.

Osama Hamdan, a Hamas leader in Lebanon, said Hezbollah had not been actively involved in attacks against Israel and the group was not present at the Oct. 20 meeting.

Mr. Asfour said Hamas leaders later met separately with Hezbollah representatives "for the purpose of political and public-relations cooperation."

Still, Friday's attack in Netzarim was the latest of a series of Palestinian attacks with Hezbollah's fingerprints.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad spent weeks spying on Netzarim, planning the attack and waiting for ideal weather conditions — a pea-soup fog — to move in. Two gunmen, one of whom escaped, burst into the soldiers' sleeping quarters, spraying machine-gun fire in all directions.

Hours later, the groups released a videotape showing Hamas gunman Samir Fouda, 21, who was killed, standing alongside his surviving Islamic Jihad compatriot, whose face was blurred to protect his identity.

Surveillance footage of the settlement — showing settlers' cars and bike riders moving along the town's roads — is reminiscent of images Hezbollah would release after successful attacks on the Israeli army.

Though Hamas and Islamic Jihad share a fundamentalist Islamic ideology, they have long been rivals and past efforts at cooperation have broken down.

Hamas is a large group with popular support, especially in the Gaza Strip, and includes a political wing that focuses on charity and welfare programs. The smaller Islamic Jihad, which has backing from Iran, sticks to violent activities.

As the U.S. war on terror has progressed, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have found themselves under heavy international pressure, with the United States and the European Union declaring them terror groups and freezing funds.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031029-113255-5270r.htm

We Missed Amnesty by 13 Days

October 30, 2003
The Evening Chronicle
icNewcastle

A family who claim they could be killed if they are returned to Iran have missed out on the UK's biggest asylum amnesty by just 13 days.

Sonbol Nazery, who said her life would be in danger if she was forced to go home, began to organise celebrations when the amnesty was announced by Home Secretary David Blunkett last Saturday.

She and her supporters believed it signalled the end of her three-year campaign to stay in the North East community which has taken her to their hearts.

But happiness turned to despair when they discovered the offer will apply only to families who sought asylum before October 2, 2000.

Mrs Nazery, who claims her brother was tortured to death in an Iranian prison, made her first application for asylum on October 15, 2000.

Now Mrs Nazery, husband Korosh and son Ceavash, eight, are relying on an appeal against the Home Office's refusal to grant them refugee status so they can stay in Fencehouses, near Houghton-le-Spring.

She said: "It's terrible news. We are saddened that we are losing out by only 13 days, but our fight will go on."

Houghton and Washington East MP Fraser Kemp, who took up her case, said today: "Despite her losing out in the amnesty, my representations to the Home Office on her behalf will continue."

He took up the case after her brother's death, saying it reinforced her application to stay in the UK indefinitely.

The Nazerys left behind a wealthy lifestyle when they fled from Iran three years ago. They decided to run when Mrs Nazery, a Kurd who had spent three spells in prison because of her opposition to the Iranian authorities, was tipped off that police would raid a political meeting she was to attend.

Parishioners at Our Lady Queen of Peace RC Church, Penshaw, have sign-ed a petition appealing to the Home Office to reconsider.

Petitions backing the family were organised by St Mary's RC School, Sunderland, and St Robert of Newminster RC Comprehensive Sixth Form College, Washington.

Members of the Bethany Christian Centre, run by evangelists in Houghton-le-Spring, also drew up a petition.

News that Mrs Nazery's brother had been killed in prison came in July, just days after she received a phone call saying he and his wife Mahien, son Pouya and daughter Helia, 10, had been captured fleeing Iran.

They had been heading towards Turkey in an attempt to avoid political unrest, common at that time of the year among Kurds opposed to the Iranian regime. His family were released on bail, but Sonbol's brother, Farahmand, a former member of the opposition party Komala, was held in prison for 10 days.

When the family asked to see him they were told he was dead. He had been tortured and relatives were ordered to bury him within two days.

An estimated 15,000 asylum seeker families will be eligible for the amnesty to save support payments and legal aid, said Mr Blunkett.

His official spokesman said most of the eligible families were failed asylum seekers who had exhausted the main appeals process but had not yet been deported.

He described the offer as a one-off exercise.

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/eveningchronicle/eveningchronicle/page.cfm?objectid=13572521&method=full&siteid=50081&page=1

King and Country

October 29, 2003
The Wall Street Journal
Bernard Lewis and R. James Woolsey

Following the recent passage of the Security Council resolution on Iraq, the key issue continues to be how quickly to move toward sovereignty and democracy for a new government. The resolution's call for the Iraqi Governing Council to establish a timetable by Dec. 15 for creating a constitution and a democratic government has papered over differences for the time being.

But there are still substantial disagreements even among people who want to see democracy and the rule of law in Iraq as promptly as possible. The U.S. sees the need for time to do the job right. France, Germany and Russia want both more U.N. participation and more speed -- a pair of mutually exclusive objectives if there ever was one. Some Iraqis call for an elected constitutional convention, others for a rapid conferring of sovereignty, some for both. Many Middle Eastern governments oppose democracy and thus some support whatever they think will fail.

* * *

There may be a path through this thickening fog, made thicker by the rocket and suicide-bombing attacks of the last three days. It is important to help Ambassador Paul Bremer and the coalition forces to establish security. But it is also important to take an early step toward Iraqi sovereignty and to move toward representative government. The key is that Iraq already has a constitution. It was legally adopted in 1925 and Iraq was governed under it until the series of military, then Baathist, coups began in 1958 and brought over four decades of steadily worsening dictatorship. Iraqis never chose to abandon their 1925 constitution -- it was taken from them. The document is not ideal, and it is doubtless not the constitution under which a modern democratic Iraq will ultimately be governed. But a quick review indicates that it has some very useful features that would permit it to be used on an interim basis while a new constitution is drafted. Indeed, the latter could be approved as an omnibus amendment to the 1925 document.

This seems possible because the 1925 Iraqi constitution -- which establishes that the nation's sovereignty "resides in the people" -- provides for an elected lower house of parliament, which has a major role in approving constitutional amendments. It also contains a section on "The Rights of the People" that declares Islam as the official religion, but also provides for freedom of worship for all Islamic sects and indeed for all religions and for "complete freedom of conscience." It further guarantees "freedom of expression of opinion, liberty of publication, of meeting together, and of forming and joining associations." In different words, the essence of much of our own Bill of Rights is reflected therein.

We need not shy away from the 1925 constitution because it establishes a constitutional monarchy. Understandings could readily be worked out that would not lead to a diminution of Amb. Bremer's substantive authority in vital areas during the transition -- some ministries may, e.g., transition to Iraqi control before others. In the document as it now stands the monarch has some important powers since he appoints the government's ministers, including a prime minister, and the members of the upper house, or senate. Many of these and other provisions would doubtless be changed through amendment, although the members of the current Governing Council might be reasonably appointed to some of these positions on an interim basis. Some new features, such as explicit recognition of equal rights for women, a point not clear in the 1925 document, would need to be adopted at the outset. During a transition, pursuant to consultations with Amb. Bremer and with groups in Iraq, the king could under the constitution appoint ministers, including a prime minister, and also adopt provisional rules for elections. The elected parliament could then take a leading role in amending the constitution and establishing the rules for holding further elections.

Using the 1925 constitution as a transitional document would be entirely consistent with permanently establishing as head of state either a president or a monarch that, like the U.K.'s, reigns but does not rule.

It is worth noting that monarchy and democracy coexist happily in a number of countries. Indeed, of the nations that have been democracies for a very long time and show every sign that they will remain so, a substantial majority are constitutional monarchies (the U.S. and Switzerland being the principal exceptions). And we should recall how important King Juan Carlos was to the transition from fascism to democracy in Spain. As odd as the notion may seem to Americans whose national identity was forged in rebellion against George III, there is nothing fundamentally undemocratic about a limited monarchy's serving as a transitional, or even a long-term, constitutional structure in Iraq or any other country.

Selecting the right monarch for the transitional government would be vitally important. Conveniently, the 1925 constitution provides that the people of Iraq are deemed to have "confided . . . a trust" to "King Faisal, son of Hussain, and to his heirs . . . ." If the allies who liberated Iraq recognized an heir of this Hashemite line as its constitutional monarch, and this monarch agreed to help bring about a modern democracy under the rule of law, such a structure could well be the framework for a much smoother transition to democracy than now seems at hand. The Sunni Hashemites, being able to claim direct descent from the Prophet Mohammed, have historically been respected by the Shiites, who constitute a majority of the people of Iraq, although the latter recognize a different branch of the family. It is the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, not the Hashemites, who have been the Shiites' persecutors.

The respect enjoyed by the Hashemites has been earned. They have had a generally deserved reputation for tolerance and coexistence with other faiths and other branches of Islam. Many Iraqis look back on the era of Hashemite rule from the 1920s to the 1950s as a golden age. And during the period of over 1,000 years when the Hashemites ruled the Hejaz, wherein the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina are located, they dealt tolerantly with all Muslims during the Haj, or annual pilgrimage. Disagreements and tension under Hashemite rule have never come close either to the bloody conflicts of many centuries' duration in Europe between Catholics and Protestants or to the massacres and hatred perpetrated by the Wahhabis and their allies in the House of Saud.

Recently in a brilliant essay in the New Republic, Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen has pointed out that tolerance and "the exercise of public reason" have given democracy solid roots in many of the world's non-European cultures, and that balloting must be accompanied by such local traditions in order for democracy and the rule of law to take root. The legitimacy and continuity which the Hashemites represent for large numbers of people in the Middle East, and the tolerance of "public reason" with which they have been associated, could provide a useful underpinning for the growth of democracy in Iraq.

Historically, rulers in the Middle East have held office for life and have nominated their successors, ordinarily from within the reigning family. This ensured legitimacy, stability and continuity, and usually though not invariably took the form of monarchy. In the modern era succession by violence has sadly become more prevalent. It would be reasonable to use the traditional Middle Eastern concepts of legitimacy and succession and to build on the wide and historic appreciation for the rule of law and of limited government to help bring about a transition to democracy. The identification of legitimacy with the Western practice of balloting has now occurred in many cultures around the world, but it may well occur sooner in Iraq if it is developed at least initially as an expanding aspect of an already legitimate constitutional order.

* * *

Some contend that a process that gave the U.N. a central role would somehow confer legitimacy. We are at a loss to understand this argument. Nearly 40% of the U.N. members' governments do not practice succession by election. In the Middle East only Israel and Turkey do so. Why waste time with U.N. member governments, many of them nondemocratic, working out their differences -- and some indeed fundamentally oppose democracy in Iraq -- when the key parties who need to do that are the Iraqis? Besides, real legitimacy ultimately will come about when Iraq has a government that "deriv[es] its just power from the consent of the governed." During a transition in which Iraq is moving toward democracy, a government that is operating under its existing constitution, with a monarch as called for in that document, is at least as legitimate as the governments of U.N. members that are not democracies at all.

Much would hinge on the willingness of the king to work closely and cooperatively with Amb. Bremer and to appoint a responsible and able prime minister. The king should be a Hashemite prince with political experience and no political obligations or commitments. In view of the nation's Shiite majority, the prime minister should be a modern Shiite with a record of opposition to tyranny and oppression. Such leaders would be well-suited to begin the process that would in time lead to genuinely free and fair elections, sound amendments to the 1925 Iraqi Constitution, and the election of a truly representative governing body. We would also strongly suggest that the choices of king and prime minister be made on the basis of character, ability and political experience -- not on the basis of bias, self-interest, grudges or rivalries held or felt by some in the region and indeed by some in the U.S. government.

Mr. Lewis is a professor emeritus at Princeton and the author, most recently, of "The Crisis of Islam" (Modern Library, 2003). Mr. Woolsey is a former director of the CIA.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106739137546587700-search,00.html?collection=wsjie%2F30day&vql_string=Bernard+Lewis%3Cin%3E%28article%2Dbody%29

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.