Iranian Alert -- November 19, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD

Perle's words mark US anger at Iran

IRIB News
2003/11/19
03:05:21 È.Ù

Tehran, Nov 19 - Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said here on Wednesday that the anti-Iran remarks by Pentagon adviser Richard Perle in Berlin demonstrated the height of Washington's anger and arrogance.

Asefi said the US official has become confused and has made the remarks to express his personal feelings.

He stressed that the remarks showed Perle's unfamiliarity with Iranians.

"What can be understood from the remarks is that the official is not familiar with Iran and Iranians, and we are really sorry for the American people that such `idle-talking' officials are ruling their country.

"The most ancient nations enjoying the richest civilizations have always ignored such unimportant and idle-talking individuals," Asefi said.

He added that the performance of the US administration has already become a source of contempt for the American people.

"The American people should ask their incompetent officials why they are trying to cover up their humiliating setbacks in various corners of the world through wrath and insult?" he said.

Asefi further stressed that Iran considers the US administration to be a source of evil and a symbol of terrorism, stressing that a close look at the "black record" of US support for Israel's state terrorism and Washington's performance as the "sponsor of terrorism" clearly prove this reality.

http://www.iribnews.com/Full_en.asp?news_id=192758&n=32

IAEA officials were not immediately available for comment.

Their silence shows complicity, not the notion that they are dumbstruck by deception!

Iran Rejects Further IAEA Demands on Enrichment

November 19, 2003
Xinhuanet
xinhuanet.com

TEHRAN -- Iran will refuse any further demands from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to halt its uranium enrichment activities, a top national security official said on Wednesday.

"We have said clearly that any phrase in a resolution aimed at transforming the voluntary pledge by Iran to suspend uranium enrichment into a legal obligation will be unacceptable to us," said Iran's Supreme National Security Council Hassan Rowhani.

Rowhani made the remarks just one day before IAEA Board of Governors is to meet on Iran's nuclear program, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Iran in October agreed to accept IAEA demands to suspend uraniumenrichment, but made clear that the voluntary suspension was to show its goodwill to the international community and it reserved the right to resume the activity at any time.

Iran also pledged to sign and implement an additional protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which would allow IAEA inspectors to carry out more strict checks on its nuclear activity.

Tehran has also handed what it said all the documentation on itspast and present nuclear activities to IAEA.

But halting uranium enrichment is seen as crucial to preventing Iran from ever acquiring nuclear weapons. The United States and European Union are pressing for Iran to totally stop enrichment in return for guarantees of overseas nuclear fuel supply for Iran's nuclear plant.

Rowhani maintained that Iran's domestic production of nuclear fuel is totally legitimate, saying Iran was under no obligation to concede to demands that go beyond the NPT or additional protocol, because under the NPT, legitimate work on the nuclear fuel cycle ispermitted.

"We have said that after all this, our relationship with the agency should be normalized and we will not accept anything beyond the additional protocol and the safeguard clauses," Rowhani said.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-11/19/content_1187710.htm

Russia, Iran Put Off Nuclear Pact

November 19, 2003
VOA News
Voice of America

Russia and Iran have put off the signing of an agreement that would clear the way for Moscow to complete construction of a nuclear power plant in Iran.

Russia's Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev says Iran has not had enough time to work on an agreement on the issue of returning spent nuclear fuel to Russia. He said Tehran is busy preparing documents for the International Atomic Energy Agency on its nuclear program.

Russia has said it will not deliver any fuel for the plant until Iran signs an agreement.

The announcement comes one day before IAEA officials plan to meet to discuss Iran's nuclear program.

The United States has accused Iran of using its nuclear power program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iranian officials say they want to enrich uranium solely to generate fuel for nuclear power.

Iran agreed last month to suspend its enrichment of uranium and allow unannounced inspections of nuclear sites.

Some information for this report provided by AFP.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=485CECA8-F9FC-4CE8-9BE66887B4EF6103&title=Russia%2C%20Iran%20Put%20Off%20Nuclear%20Pact&catOID=45C9C78C-88AD-11D4-A57200A0CC5EE46C

U.S., IAEA Head Want Stronger Condemnation of Iran

November 19, 2003
Reuters
Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA -- The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog is worried that a draft resolution on Iran's past breaches of U.N. obligations is too weak, echoing U.S. criticism of the text as "deficient," Western diplomats said on Wednesday.

France, Britain and Germany have circulated a draft resolution, criticizing Iran's 18-year concealment of its atomic program from the U.N., to be discussed by the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) Board of Governors on Thursday.

Washington, which accuses Tehran of secretly trying to build nuclear bombs, says the draft lacks teeth. Diplomats in Vienna said IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei was also concerned about it.

"Dr ElBaradei has expressed his concern that the draft resolution as it stands does not sufficiently support the agency," a Western diplomat told Reuters.

Another diplomat said: "I'm confident the agency would want the resolution to take a clear stand against the Iranian breaches in the past."

In a new report on Iran, ElBaradei said it had been guilty of numerous breaches of its safeguards obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), including the undeclared production of plutonium and enrichment of uranium.

The draft chides Iran for "failures to meet safeguards obligations," diplomats familiar with the text told Reuters.

Secretary of State Colin Powell did not try to hide his disappointment with the draft.

"The resolution that I was aware (of) being presented by the EU three (states) was not adequate," Powell told reporters on a flight from Brussels to London to join President Bush on his visit to Britain.

"It did not have the trigger mechanisms in the case of further Iranian intransigence or difficulty," he said.

Powell said the draft was a matter of intense discussion and he said Washington was considering whether to abandon the quest for one entirely, saying: "If a resolution (is) totally inadequate, then maybe don't have a resolution right now."

Diplomats in Vienna said Washington was probably willing to compromise on the issue of whether to report Iran's breaches to the U.N. Security Council, which can impose sanctions, but not on whether to formally declare that Iran was in "non-compliance" with the NPT.

EXILES: IRAN STILL LYING TO IAEA

Shahin Gobadi, a spokesman for the exiled opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), told Reuters his group knew of further "recent violations" of Iran's obligation to report all its nuclear activities to the IAEA.

The NCRI, which has supplied accurate information about Iran's nuclear sites in the past but is listed as a terrorist group by Washington, said it would give details later on Wednesday.

The head of Iran's powerful Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rohani, warned that any resolution that instructed Iran to permanently stop enriching uranium would be unacceptable to Iran.

"Any sentence in the (IAEA) resolution that turns our voluntarily suspension into a legal commitment, will be unacceptable for us," the official IRNA news agency quoted Rohani as saying.

On October 21, the foreign ministers of France, Britain and Germany agreed to consider an exchange of technology with Iran if it suspended its uranium enrichment program and signed an NPT protocol permitting more intrusive IAEA inspections.

Washington says enrichment, the purification of uranium for use as nuclear fuel or in weapons, is at the heart of a secret Iranian weapons program.

Iran's ambassador to the IAEA Ali Akbar Salehi told Reuters the Islamic republic considered itself to have a right to carry out enrichment.

"This is our right. How can you deny the right that you have under all these different treaties and statutes?" he said.

(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Tehran and Gideon Long in London)

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20031119_96.html

President Bush mentioned Iran in his speech in London, today.

"My nation welcomes the growing unity of Europe, and the world needs America and the European Union to work in common purpose for the advance of security and justice. America is cooperating with four other nations to meet the dangers posed by North Korea. America believes the IAEA must be true to its purpose and hold Iran to its obligations.

Our first choice, and our constant practice, is to work with other responsible governments. We understand, as well, that the success of multilateralism is not measured by adherence to forms alone, the tidiness of the process, but by the results we achieve to keep our nations secure...."

The entire sppech can be read at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1024923/posts

How can this be said with a straight face?!

"We have nothing to hide, but will continue to do so!" UGH!

The Iranian regime are making the same gamble that Sadaam made. They are believing Europe will keep the US from taking action.

I find it interesting that, inspite of our state department, president Bush is again making it clear that the UN must hold Iran accountable for its action.

The Iranian regime are making the same gamble that Sadaam made. They are believing Europe will keep the US from taking action.

Has the regime noticed that Clinton isn't in office? Gambling on the IAEA as the ONLY force against them is foolish, at best.

The pressure needs to be increased on the WH. I know that Bush has a lot on his plate. But, if more support is shown to the demonstrators and activists within Iran, their strength will increase.

"Iran will fall from within." That is what I keep hearing. And I can see how that could happen, but a little nudge, here or there, even if it is done covertly, is called for.

We owe it to them. We say we hear them, and yet they may not believe us, unless we are louder. Because Americans are known for their freedom of speech, we owe it to those who suffer under the regime, to speak FOR them.

Just my two cents.

Cuba jammed Iranian-American satellite broadcasts to Iran for a month during the student demonstrations.

Iranian-Americans have 13 stations that beam into millions of homes in Iran, they regularly call for demonstrations. Cuba helped jam those stations at a critical time and due to pressure from the US stopped the activity.

I'm actually surprised at the tought stance the State Department is taking all the sudden.
impress.

Please take me off the ping list, please! Thanks :-)

Readers of this thread.

Please do not post requests to be added or deleted to this thread!

Please freepmail the ping author privately.
Thank You.

DoctorZin

A Free Iran Will Help Build Freedom in Iraq

November 19, 2003
The Baltimore Sun
Austin American-Statesman

The recent wave of attacks in Iraq has drawn attention to the involvement of foreign governments in that country. By far, Iran tops the list.

The question of who is behind the attacks notwithstanding, what is of paramount importance is to recognize what is the most dominant force laying the social, religious and political grounds for such attacks in Iraq. Who is the prime beneficiary of these attacks and continued chaos in Iraq?

According to Iranian government sources, Tehran has smuggled large amounts of weaponry into Iraq in the past two months, including mortars, anti-aircraft missiles, 106 mm guns, 107 mm multiple rocket launchers, RPG-7s and machine guns, largely hidden in agricultural fields and villages.

For months, the notorious al-Quds (Jerusalem) Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards has been working to spread its influence in the Shiite-dominated southern regions of Iraq with the ultimate goal of erecting a sister Islamic republic there.

After major military operations ended in Iraq, many Iraqi expatriates, groomed, trained and funded by the mullahs for years, were dispatched to the country to gain control of key local and government positions. They now dominate a major portion of southern Iraq, including Samavah, Meissan, Nasiriyah, Basra, Wasset, Karbala and Najaf provinces, according to sources with access to the Iranian government.

At least 2,000 Iranian and Iraqi clerics entered Iraq from Qom and Mashad in Iran. Truckloads of books, CDs and cassette tapes promoting Tehran's fundamentalist version of Islam accompanied them.

In late August, sources said, the commanders of the al-Quds Force and Iraqi surrogate groups met in Tehran and the oil-rich Iranian city of Ahwaz to work on a plan of action in Iraq, the sources said.

Part of the plan called for setting up cells in mosques and recruitment from all regions. Tehran pledged to provide logistic support.

In that meeting, the al-Quds Force commander, Brig. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, said that more instability, insecurity and U.S. casualties would benefit the Iranian regime.

The force also set up medical centers in various cities, including Najaf, Baghdad, Hillah, Basra and Al Amarah, to garner support among the local population, much the same way the Revolutionary Guards did in Lebanon's Bekka Valley.

Against this backdrop, as long as fundamentalists control the reins of power in Iran, their sphere of influence will inevitably spill into Iraq. In many ways, Tehran is the heartland of fundamentalism and terrorism, much as Moscow was for communism. With the mullahs out of power, fundamentalist thinking would wither away under the power of democracy and secularism.

The United States and the international community must be firm against Tehran and support the call by Iranians and the opposition movement for a referendum for regime change in Iran.

Giving in to Tehran's demands, including the bombing of Iranian opposition camps, did not deter the clerics' postwar meddling in Iraq. Accommodating them now would only invite further intervention, bringing Tehran a step closer to its dream of establishing an Islamic empire.

Democracy in Iran is a prelude to democracy in Iraq, not vice versa.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/auto/epaper/editions/wednesday/editorial_f3bb325d11510198001e.html

Sugar Daddies to Dictators

November 19, 2003
The Wall Street Journal
Mike Gonzalez

"Follow the money" is an old adage of American journalism, and it means that economic interest will eventually explain much human behavior. That France opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein because he owed millions to French banks adheres to this theory, for example. Less well known, but much more troubling, are key French financial links with other U.S. enemies around the globe. They raise the possibility that the Franco-American conflict over Iraq was just a beginning.

For France was not just Baathist Iraq's largest contributor of funds; French banks have financed other odorous regimes. They are the No. 1 lenders to Iran and Cuba and past and present U.S. foes such as Somalia, Sudan and Vietnam. This type of financing, incidentally, is shared by Germany, France's partner in the pro-Saddam coalition. German banks are North Korea's biggest lenders, and also enjoy that dubious status with notorious rogue states such as Syria and Libya.

But France is the most active. In Fidel Castro's sweltering gulag, French banks plunked down $549 million in the first trimester this year, accounting for one-third of all international credit to Cuba. The figure for Saddam's Iraq, where the opposition was gassed and buried in mass graves, is $415 million. But both of these pale in comparison to what French banks have lent Iran , which is building a nuclear arsenal: $2.5 billion.

The figures come from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, and were cobbled together and interpreted by Inigo More for Madrid's new hard-hitting think tank, the Real Instituto Elcano. As Mr. More says, "one could think that Parisian bankers wait for the U.S. to have an international problem before taking out their check books." His report can be read at realinstitutoelcano.org.analisis/360.asp.

Mr. More told me on the telephone that the figures are statistically significant. French banks seem to be almost anywhere U.S. banks are absent. They lend in 57 countries where the U.S. is not present, and are the main lenders in 23 of those.

The report does not bode well for Franco-American ties in the foreseeable future, and it offers additional reasons why Dominique de Villepin really ought to stop using the phrase "our American friends" every time he talks about the U.S., as he did again this week when he called on the U.S. to leave Iraq now. Nobody believes Mr. de Villepin thinks of the Americans as friends and he comes out sounding slippery and insincere. As French foreign minister he has helped craft a policy that is inimical to U.S. interests, but one that is in keeping with what France is becoming as a nation.

The policy of offering France as an alternative to the U.S. has had a deeply corrosive effect on the political relationship this year, something that will only increase as the U.S. continues its war on terrorism and as President George W. Bush enunciates a clear, idealistic and long-term policy of expanding freedom around the world.

But, as the banking figures attest, this vision of France extends beyond politics. Other evidence suggests that it has become deeply embedded in the French psyche and encompasses not just finance and politics but also culture, media and almost every other human activity. France, in all its manifestations, positions itself as an alternative to the U.S., and expects to profit from it.

In a small but telling example, it often shocks journalists newly hired by Agence France-Presse, especially non-French ones, to hear from veterans that the press agency must present the news from a "non-Anglo-Saxon perspective" -- that this is what clients want. Most seasoned journalists ask what that could possibly mean -- what is the "French perspective" in presenting who, where and how? It doesn't take a journalist without ideological blinders long to realize that what clients will use are the dispatches that are fastest, most accurate and well written.

French movie directors likewise go out of their way to position their product as the "un-cola" (or in this case the "un-Schwarzenegger.") In this industry, at least, it is clear that selling the "non-American" alternative has been a disaster. The plots of French movies can hang on a raised eye-brow or a twitched lip. The denouement, however, can come too late for the three people in the audience, who have fallen asleep by then. The result is that Hollywood rules the planet.

With banking the BIS does not say how profitable or competitive lending to dictators and demagogues has made French banks. But it's worth mulling the chicken and egg question here. As Mr. More suggests, perhaps in jest, it could be not that one should follow the money to discover French policy, but that the money has followed French foreign policy.

As with every country, some of France's lending practices can be explained away by its colonial past. It is preponderant in francophone Africa, while the U.K. is Asia's main lender and Spain Latin America's (edging out the U.S. even in Mexico). The past could explain the leading position French banks have in the communist dictatorships and kleptocracies of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

But no colonial linkage could explain Cuba (a colony of Spain), Iraq (Britain), Sudan (Britain) or Somalia (Britain and Italy). There must be something else.

Mr. More offers that it could be French "universalist thinking." U.S. banks could be restrained by laws and conventions against lending to certain countries, for example. This is then where French banks find a niche. Leaving aside the pro- and con- positions on whether sanctions have proved to be ineffective, at least the policy that produced them is not amoral. The niche explanation points to how pervasive the positioning of France as an alternative to the U.S. has become.

It is something not just for U.S. policy makers to reckon with. The rest of Europe, which has not asked to fight this battle (nor was it asked by Paris whether it wanted to), must also deal with the consequences.

Write to Mike Gonzalez at mike.gonzalez@wsj.com

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=11&d=19&a=9

FM Shalom: Iran Threatens us All

November 19, 2003
The Jerusalem Post
Jpost.com Staff

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom is meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Muhammad el-Baradei in Vienna to discuss the Iranian nuclear program, which according to Israeli sources will be reaching the point of no-return within a year.

Shalom's message to Baradei is that this threatens not only Israel but the world at large, and that Iranian diplomatic attempts to relieve international pressure are a pretense.

The agency is to meet tomorrow to decide whether to transfer the problem to the UN Security Council.

He also mentioned the possibility of future terror attacks in other places, including South-East Asia, North America, Europe and Turkey.

On Tuesday, Mossad chief Meir Dagan, testifying before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, warned that terrorists intend to target Jewish and Israeli sites in other cities on several continents.

He said that while the Mossad had received intelligence that terrorists were planning to attack Jewish targets in Turkey, there were no specific warnings.

Meanwhile, Minister-without-Portfolio Gideon Ezra (Likud) told the Knesset Wednesday that warnings have been received regarding possible terror attacks on Jewish targets in South Africa and other Western countries.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1069224478367&p=1008596981749

IAEA Board Set To Reject US Move vs Iran

November 19, 2003
The Associated Press
Dow Jones Newswires

VIENNA -- The U.N's nuclear agency is set to back a European initiative to reward Iran's sudden nuclear openness and not censure it for past cover-ups as the U.S. wants, diplomats said Wednesday.

Washington had hoped that the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency would effectively find Iran in violation of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty at its meeting opening Thursday.

But diplomats polled across the spectrum of the 35-nation board agreed on the eve of the conference that no more than three nations - Canada, Australia and Japan - actively supported Washington's stance.

Instead, said the diplomats, majority sentiment was in favor of a resolution being drafted by France, Germany and the U.K. Among those in support were key board members Russia and China, they said.

The draft minimizes nearly two decades of covert nuclear programs that the U.S. administration says points a nuclear weapons agenda, they said. Instead, it focuses on positive steps taken by Iran over the past few weeks as it tried to deflect international suspicions, including suspending uranium enrichment and agreeing to what are essentially intrusive inspections on demand by agency inspectors.

The three West European sponsors of the draft "want to see continued cooperation and transparency from Iran," a senior diplomat familiar with the resolution-in-the-making.

He said the draft would make clear that the board would not accept "repetition of past mistakes, deceit or tricks," and would urge Iran to open its nuclear programs immediately to pervasive inspections even before the agreement is formally ratified.

It would also ask Iran to maintain its commitment to suspending uranium enrichment - one of the activities that heightened suspicions when discovered early this year that Iran might have a weapons agenda.

While the Americans have no dispute with those demands, they are dismayed that the draft "glosses over" past deceptions like enrichment and experimental plutonium processing that they says puts Iran in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, the diplomats said

In a compromise, the American delegation in Vienna was said to be ready to give up on demands Iran be called to task by the U.N. Security Council. But it rejected the "mild tone" of the West European draft and its lack of "a triggering mechanism" - threat of future censure or punishment - in the event of further non-compliance, said one of the diplomats.

He said the lack of teeth in the draft is also alarming IAEA Director General Mohammed ElBaradei, who is normally above the fray at board meetings.

ElBaradei took the Iranians to task for effective "breaches" of the Non- Proliferation Treaty in a report written for the board that also said, however, that there was no proof Iran had a weapons agenda.

The agency had no comment. But a diplomat familiar with ElBaradei's thinking said he was looking for "a strongly worded report" that stops short of asking for Security Council involvement.

Traditionally, the board makes decisions by consensus, but the appeared increasingly unlikely late Wednesday, as the clock ticked down to the start of the meeting with no sign of a narrowing of the trans-Atlantic rift.

The diplomats said that the U.S. was ready to push for a meeting that ends without an Iran resolution rather than sign on to something it considered spineless.

The West Europeans fear that too much pressure would turn Iran from cooperation to confrontation. But several diplomats said that the dispute also reflected new West European independence of the U.S. along the line of Franco- German muscle-flexing in the failed attempt to scuttle the U.S.-led invasion of Iran earlier this year.

Washington was particularly dismayed that the U.K., its staunchest ally in Iraq, was siding with the French and Germans over Iran, they said.

The Americans see the draft as "another (European) chance to stick your thumb in the eyes of the United States," said a diplomat familiar with U.S. dismay.

Ahead of the meeting, an Iranian opposition group accused Tehran of continuing to deceive the IAEA. Firouz Mahvi of the National Council of Resistance of Iran told reporters in Vienna that agency inspectors toured an alleged nuclear site near Karaj that was in reality a decoy site.

IAEA officials said they could not immediately evaluate the claims and said the organization had a mixed record of accuracy.

The U.S. State Department lists the in-exile NCRI and its armed wing, the People's Mujahedeen, as a terrorist organization.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=11&d=19&a=12

Iran Official Criticizes US For Dissident TV Programming

November 19, 2003
The Associated Press
Dow Jones Newswires

HAVANA -- Iran's ambassador to Cuba criticized the U.S. government Wednesday for allowing Iranian exiles in California to broadcast dissident television programming via satellite to their homeland.

But during a news conference, Ambassador Ahmad Edrisian didn't directly answer reporters' questions about the U.S. government's complaints earlier this year that those signals were being jammed on the communist-run island.

"How does it dare to allow the transmission of programs that provoke rebellion in an independent country?" Edrisian asked of the U.S. government. "We ask the United States to stop its meddling in the internal affairs of an independent country."

The Cuban government in July denied it was intentionally causing interference in those signals, and the jamming reportedly stopped soon afterward.

Cuba for years has jammed signals from the U.S. government's Radio Marti and Television Marti, which includes programming that criticizes the government of Fidel Castro, who has been in power nearly 45 years.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=11&d=19&a=14

VOA-TV Gains Large Audience in Iran

November 19, 2003
VOA News
Voice of America

Voice of America's (VOA) Persian television programs, including a daily show that focuses on sought-after news and information, are reaching a remarkable 12 percent of Iranians over the age of 18, a new survey shows.

"News and Views," a 30-minute program launched only three months before the survey, along with two separate weekly Persian-language programs, are seen by about four million people each week via direct-to-home satellite, according to a nationwide telephone survey taken in September.

The survey of over 1,000 people also shows that the total audience for all U.S. international broadcasting products -- radio and television -- tops out at 18 percent of the adult population of Iran, a country where the government jams international radio broadcasts, bans television satellite dishes and censors all news. While VOA-TV reaches 12 percent of the over-18 population, Radio Farda has a 7 percent audience share and VOA Persian radio has 2 percent.

"It's amazing that in a country where viewing of satellite television is illegal, American-produced news shows in Persian can attract 12 percent viewership," said Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which oversees all U.S. non-military international broadcasting. He noted that "News and Views" has quickly proved popular, attracting a 6 percent audience.

"That Radio Farda has a 7 percent listenership is likewise remarkable considering the intense jamming of our radios by the Iranian government," Tomlinson said. Radio Farda, a joint project of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and VOA, is a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week service. Broadcast from Washington and Prague, it features at least 7.5 hours of news and current affairs programming daily as well as Western and Persian music aimed at a younger audience.

In less than a year, Radio Farda has gained an audience roughly comparable to that of the BBC, the survey showed. Started in December 2002, Radio Farda is broadcast to Iran on AM and shortwave as well as digital audio satellite and Internet. VOA Persian radio, featuring a news-driven format, is transmitted in the same fashion as Radio Farda.

Researchers said the number of Iranians who listen to or watch BBG programs is almost certainly higher than reported because of the understandable reluctance of respondents in Iran to answer questions about viewing habits over the telephone.

William Bell, U.S. international broadcasting's Director of Research, said the first-ever national telephone survey was "designed to get around restrictions involved in conducting face-to-face interviews" in Iran. "In particular, random household sampling is not possible in Iran, especially for surveys dealing with sensitive topics such as foreign radio and TV broadcasts."

VOA-TV's two other weekly Persian-language programs are "Roundtable With You," a 90-minute weekly current affairs call-in show, and "Next Chapter," an hour-long newsmagazine for younger viewers.

The BBG is an independent federal agency which supervises all U.S. government-supported non-military international broadcasting, including the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL); Radio Free Asia (RFA); Radio and TV Martí, Radio Sawa and Radio Farda. The services broadcast in 65 languages to over 100 million people in 125 markets around the world.

Nine members comprise the BBG, a presidentially appointed body. Current governors are Chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, Joaquin Blaya, Blanquita W. Cullum, D. Jeffrey Hirschberg, Edward E. Kaufman, Robert M. Ledbetter, Jr., Norman J. Pattiz and Steven Simmons. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell serves as an ex officio member.

For additional information, please call Joan Mower at (202) 260-0167 or (202) 401-3736 or send email to jmower@ibb.gov.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=11&d=19&a=15

The Unnoticed Alignment: Iran and the United States in Iraq

November 19, 2003
The Stratfor Weekly
George Friedman

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has quietly announced his recognition of the Iraqi Governing Council and acceptance of the U.S. timeline on the transfer of power in Iraq.

The announcement speaks to a partnership that will direct the future course of Iraq. The alliance is of direct short-term benefit to both countries: The United States gains a partner to help combat Sunni insurgents, and Iran will be able to mitigate the long-standing threat on its western border. What is most notable is that, though there has been no secrecy involved, the partnership has emerged completely below the global media's radar.

Analysis

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami did something very interesting Nov. 17: He announced that Iran recognized the Iraqi Governing Council in Baghdad. He said specifically, "We recognize the Iraqi Governing Council and we believe it is capable, with the Iraqi people, of managing the affairs of the country and taking measures leading toward independence." Khatami also commented on the agreement made by U.S. Administrator Paul Bremer and the IGC to transfer power to an Iraqi government by June: "The consecration of this accord will help with the reconstruction and security in Iraq,"

This is pretty extraordinary stuff. The IGC is an invention of the United States. The president of Iran has now recognized the IGC as the legitimate government of Iraq, and he has also declared Iran's support for the timetable for transferring power to the IGC. In effect, the U.S. and Iranian positions on Iraq have now converged. The alignment is reminiscent of the Sino-U.S. relationship in the early 1970s: Despite absolute ideological differences on which neither side is prepared to compromise, common geopolitical interests have forced both sides to collaborate with one another. As with Sino-U.S. relations, alignment is a better word than alliance. These two countries are not friends, but history and geography have made them partners.

We would say that this is unexpected, save that Stratfor expected it. On Sept. 2, 2003, we published a weekly analysis titled An Unlikely Alliance, in which we argued that a U.S.-Iranian alignment was the only real solution for the United States in Iraq -- and would represent the fulfillment of an historical dream for Iran. What is interesting from our point of view (having suitably congratulated ourselves) is the exceptionally quiet response of the global media to what is, after all, a fairly extraordinary evolution of events.

The media focus on -- well, media events. When Nixon went to China, the visit was deliberately framed as a massive media event. Both China and the United States wanted to emphasize the shift in alignment, to both the Soviet Union and their own publics. In this case, neither the United States nor Iran wants attention focused on this event. For Washington, aligning with a charter member of the "axis of evil" poses significant political problems; for Tehran, aligning with the "Great Satan" poses similar problems. Both want alignment, but neither wants to make it formal at this time, and neither wants to draw significant attention to it. For the media, the lack of a photo op means that nothing has happened. Therefore, except for low-key reporting by some wire services, Khatami's statement has been generally ignored, which is fine by Washington and Tehran. In fact, on the same day that Khatami made the statement, the news about Iran focused on the country's nuclear weapons program. We christen thee, stealth geopolitics.

Let's review the bidding here. When the United States invaded Iraq, the expectation was that the destruction of Iraq's conventional forces and the fall of Baghdad would end resistance. It was expected that there would be random violence, some resistance and so forth, but there was no expectation that there would be an organized, sustained guerrilla war, pre-planned by the regime and launched almost immediately after the fall of Baghdad.

The United States felt that it had a free hand to shape and govern Iraq as it saw fit. The great debate was over whether the Department of State or Defense would be in charge of Baghdad's water works. Washington was filled with all sorts of plans and planners who were going to redesign Iraq. The dream did not die easily or quickly: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was denying the existence of a guerrilla war in Iraq as late as early July, more than two months after it had begun. Essentially, Washington and reality diverged in May and June.

Fantasy was followed by a summer of paralysis. The United States had not prepared for a guerrilla war in Iraq, and it had no plan for fighting such a war. Search-and-destroy operations were attempted, but these never had a chance of working, since tactical intelligence against the guerrillas was virtually non- existent. All it did was stir up even more anti-American feeling than was already there. The fact was that the United States was not going to be in a position to put down a guerrilla war without allies: It had neither the manpower nor the intimate knowledge of the country and society needed to defeat even a small guerrilla movement that was operating in its own, well-known terrain.

At the same time, for all its problems, the situation in Iraq was not nearly as desperate as it would appear. Most of the country was not involved in the guerrilla war. It was essentially confined to the Sunni Triangle -- a fraction of Iraq's territory -- and to the minority Sunni group. The majority of Iraqis, Shiites and Kurds, not only were not involved in the guerrilla movement but inherently opposed to it. Both communities had suffered greatly under the Baathist government, which was heavily Sunni. The last thing they wanted to see was a return of Saddam Hussein's rule.

However, being opposed to the guerrillas did not make the Shiites, in particular, pro-American. They had their own interests: The Shiites in Iraq wanted to control the post-Hussein government. Another era of Sunni control would have been disastrous for them. For the Shiites -- virtually regardless of faction -- taking control of Iraq was a priority.

It is not fair to say that Iran simply controlled the Iraqi Shiites; there are historical tensions between the two groups. It is fair to say, however, that Iranian intelligence systematically penetrated and organized the Shiites during Hussein's rule and that Iran provided safe haven for many of Iraq's Shiite leaders. That means, obviously, that Tehran has tremendous and decisive influence in Iraq at this point - which means that the goals of Iraqi Shiites must coincide with Iranian national interests.

In this case, they do. Iran has a fundamental interest in a pro- Iranian, or at least genuinely neutral, Iraq. The only way to begin creating that is with a Shiite-controlled government. With a Shiite-controlled government, the traditional Iraqi threat disappears and Iran's national security is tremendously enhanced. But the logic goes further: Iraq is the natural balance to Iran - - and if Iraq is neutralized, Iran becomes the pre-eminent power in the Persian Gulf. Once the United States leaves the region -- and in due course, the United States will leave -- Iran will be in a position to dominate the region. No other power or combination of powers could block it without Iraqi support. Iran, therefore, has every reason to want to see an evolution that leads to a Shiite government in Iraq.

Washington now has an identical interest. The United States does not have the ability or appetite to suppress the Sunni rising in perpetuity, nor does it have an interest in doing so. The U.S. interest is in destroying al Qaeda. Washington therefore needs an ally that has an intrinsic interest in fighting the guerrilla war and the manpower to do it. That means the Iraqi Shiites -- and that means alignment with Iran.

Bremer's assignment is to speed the transfer of power to the IGC. In a formal sense, this is a genuine task, but in a practical sense, transferring power to the IGC means transferring it to the Shiites. Not only do they represent a majority within the IGC, but when it comes time to raise an Iraqi army to fight the guerrillas, that army is going to be predominantly Shiite. That is not only a demographic reality but a political one as well -- the Shiites will insist on dominating the new army. They are not going to permit a repeat of the Sunni domination. Therefore, Bremer's mission is to transfer sovereignty to the IGC, which means the transfer of sovereignty to the Shiites.

From this, the United States ultimately gets a force in Iraq to fight the insurrection, the Iraqi Shiites get to run Iraq and the Iranians secure their Western frontier. On a broader, strategic scale, the United States splits the Islamic world -- not down the middle, since Shiites are a minority -- but still splits it. Moreover, under these circumstances, the Iranians are motivated to fight al Qaeda (a movement they have never really liked anyway) and can lend their not-insignificant intelligence capabilities to the mix.

The last real outstanding issue is Iran's nuclear capability. Iran obviously would love to be a nuclear power in addition to being a regional hegemon. That would be sweet. However, it isn't going to happen, and the Iranians know that. It won't happen because Israel cannot permit it to happen. Any country's politics are volatile, and Iran in ten years could wind up with a new government and with values that, from Israel's point of view, are dangerous. Combine that with nuclear weapons, and it could mean the annihilation of Israel. Therefore, Israel would destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities -- with nuclear strikes if necessary -- before they become operational.

To be more precise, Israel would threaten to destroy Iran's capabilities, which would put the United States in a tough position. An Israeli nuclear strike on Iran would be the last thing Washington needs. Therefore, the United States would be forced to take out Iran's facilities with American assets in the region -- better a non-nuclear U.S. attack than an Israeli nuclear attack. Thus, the United States is telling Iran that it does not actually have the nuclear option it thinks it has. The Iranians, for their part, are telling the United States that they know Washington doesn't want a strike by either Israel or the U.S. forces.

That means that the Iranians are using their nuclear option to extract maximum political concessions from the United States. It is in Tehran's interest to maximize the credibility of the country's nuclear program without crossing a line that would force an Israeli response and a pre-emptive move by the United States. The Iranians are doing that extremely skillfully. The United States, for its part, is managing the situation effectively as well. The nuclear issue is not the pivot.

The alignment represents a solution to both U.S. and Iranian needs. However, in the long run, the Iranians are the major winners. When it is all over, they get to dominate the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. That upsets the regional balance of power completely and is sending Saudi leaders into a panic. The worst-case scenario for Saudi Arabia is, of course, an Iranian-dominated region. It is also not a great outcome for the United States, since it has no interest in any one power dominating the region either.

But the future is the future, and now is now. "Now" means the existence of a guerrilla war that the United States cannot fight on its own. This alignment solves that dilemma. We should remember that the United States has a history of improbable alliances that caused problems later. Consider the alliance with the Soviet Union in World War II that laid the groundwork for the Cold War: It solved one problem, then created another. The United States historically has worked that way.

Thus, Washington is not going to worry about the long run until later. But in the short run, the U.S.-Iranian alignment is the most important news since the Sept. 11 attacks. It represents a triumph of geopolitics over principle on both sides, which is what makes it work: Since both sides are betraying fundamental principles, neither side is about to call the other on it. They are partners in this from beginning to end.

What is fascinating is that this is unfolding without any secrecy whatsoever, yet is not being noticed by anyone. Since neither country is particularly proud of the deal, neither country is advertising it. And since it is not being advertised, the media are taking no notice. Quite impressive.

http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/index.neo?page=center&storyId=224937