Iranian Alert -- February 11, 2004 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD --Americans for Regime Change in Iran

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.

Looking back on Iran's revolution

BBC
Tuesday, 10 February, 2004, 19:13 GMT

As Iran marks the 25th anniversary of the revolution which saw the US-backed Shah ousted by supporters of the Islamic leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, two people with contrasting experiences describe how the event changed their lives.

Mashallah Shams-ol-vaezin, revolution supporter-turned-dissident

Mashallah Shams-ol-vaezin, born to a traditional religious family, was 19 when the Shah was ousted. On hearing the news, he returned to Iran from exile with excitement and optimism. More than two decades later, a prominent reformist editor, he found himself jailed by the ruling regime having seen several of his newspapers closed.

Shamolvaezin: 'The revolution devoured its children'
"I was in Karachi when the news broke out. A few months previously, I had fled Iran after fleeing the garrison where I was performing my compulsory national service.

"I decided to flee when Ayatollah Khomeini said that serving the Shah's government was prohibited by Sharia law. I did not want to face the people as a soldier. I was planning to go to France.

"But I returned to Iran after the revolution. I thought that the people's ideals were going to be made reality."

"The revolution took place so quickly. I was wondering whether it would attain its goals - independence and freedom. But the tremendous and joyful victory left little room for any doubts. There was an inner sense of satisfaction."

A few years later, Mr Shams-ol-vaezin became the editor-in-chief of the country's leading newspaper at the time.

He became disillusioned when fighting for freedom of speech brought him into conflict with the ruling regime.

"When I was jailed in an Islamic Republic prison, I came to believe that revolutions devour their children.

"I also came to believe that the Islamic revolution was an exception. It not only devoured, but also chewed and crashed and digested its children.

"I am an example of such children. I was seriously distressed. I had committed no crime, I was loyal - but still I was imprisoned at the notorious Evin prison with a group of other innocent people."

On his release from prison last year, Mr Shams-ol-vaezin stopped working as a journalist.

Dariush Homayoun, information minister under the Shah

Former information minister and newspaper publisher Dariush Homayoun, now aged 70, was one of the Shah's key aides. In the dying days of the Shah's rule, about 20 top officials were sent to prison in the hope of staving off the regime's collapse. Mr Homayoun was one of them.

Anti-Shah protests mounted until the regime collapsed
"I survived at the end only because I was in jail. We heard shots from outside the prison and then somebody said that it was over, the regime was gone and we were free.

"My first concern was my own security. I did not want to be arrested again. So I handpicked a few people to contact. Only my father and a friend of mine knew where I was after I escaped from the prison.

"I stayed in Iran for 15 months. Then my father was arrested and I feared that he might speak abut my whereabouts under pressure. So I left my hiding place. One week later, revolutionary guards stormed it.

"Then my friends helped me to get out of the country. On the way out, I came to understand my fellow countrymen once again and to find out what a great people they are. I owe a lot to the people who helped me."

"During the days I spent in my hideout, I was thinking about the future of my country. I feared that my worst nightmares would come true.

"I feared that the leftists and the Islamists would take over the country. I kept thinking about the reasons why all this had happened. How could the people become so unbelievingly backward?"

Homayoun still hopes to return to Iran, one day. He says he never thought he was going to stay abroad for such a long time. "But this is politics," he says. "You cannot be sorry about it."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3476851.stm#dariush

Iranian-Americans in LA protest Iran's hard-line government

SFGate
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
(02-10) 22:55 PST LOS ANGELES (AP) --

Thousands of Iranian-Americans rallied in opposition to Iran's hard-line government Tuesday to mark the 25th anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

Nearly 3,000 attended a rally outside the federal building in Los Angeles' Westwood section, police said. About 1,500 then marched while calling for a boycott of Iran's legislative elections on Feb. 20.

Iran's governing council recently disqualified hundreds of reformist candidates. The action drew strong protests from reformist lawmakers and criticism from President Mohammad Khatami, but several attempts to get all candidates reinstated failed.

Tuesday's protests were designed to show solidarity with reformist candidates, many of whom are pledging to boycott the election, activists said.

Protesters also want Western nations to distance themselves from Iran's oppressive government.

"The message is change," said Iman Foroutan, a spokesman for the Iran of Tomorrow Movement, a reformist group based in Los Angeles. "The people in Iran are ready to take matters into their own hands. All they need is ... moral support and pressure from other countries on the government."

The protest, held by a coalition of opposition groups and media outlets, coincided with this week's 25th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution, during which religious clerics overthrew the American-backed shah and seized power. The hard-liners promised democracy but have ruled with an iron hand.

The three-hour march snarled traffic but was peaceful, police Sgt. Terri Brinkmeyer said. No arrests were made.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/10/state0155EST0208.DTL

How Iran spilled the beans implicating Pakistan
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-2-2004_pg7_50 - see also http://www.iht.com/articles/128041.html and http://www.isis-online.org/

WASHINGTON: Until the middle of January this year, Iranian officials continued to insist that they obtained sensitive centrifuge drawings and components through “intermediaries” and that they did not know the original source of the items.

According to David Albright and Corey Hinderstein of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), Iran had many other important suppliers. Individuals and companies in Europe and the Middle East also played a key role in supplying Iran’s centrifuge programme. China was the most important supplier to Iran’s programme to produce uranium compounds, including uranium hexafluoride, the highly corrosive gas used in centrifuges. Although Iran encountered many difficulties in making and operating centrifuges, postponing by many years the construction of a pilot centrifuge plant, it appears to have secretly achieved self-sufficiency in centrifuge manufacturing by the mid and late 1990s.

The ISIS experts said although Western intelligence agencies detected many of Iran’s sensitive procurements, they missed some key ones. Because it had only incomplete information, the United States had trouble convincing its allies until 2002 or 2003 that Iran’s effort to build secret gas centrifuge facilities had reached an advanced state. Lacking actionable information or intrusive inspections, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was unable to determine until recently that Iran had significantly violated its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Mr Albright and Mr Hinderstein said that in 1987, Iran made a significant breakthrough, obtaining a complete set of centrifuge drawings and some centrifuge components. This specific procurement may have been part of a much larger package that helped Iran understand and build centrifuges. “Armed with component specifications and drawings, Iran would be able to design and implement a strategy to develop a reliable centrifuge and create a manufacturing infrastructure to make thousands of centrifuges. It would be able to find foreign companies to make specific components, often unwittingly. In parallel, it could locate companies that would sell the equipment Iran needed to make the components itself,” they pointed out.

The ISIS team said Iran acquired drawings of a modified variant of an early-generation Urenco centrifuge built by the Netherlands. Some experts familiar with these drawings have assessed that, based on the design’s materials, dimensions and tolerances it is a modified precursor to the Dutch M4 centrifuge. IAEA inspectors noticed that someone modified the design in distinctive ways. In addition, the original drawings were shown to inspectors and their labels are in English, not Dutch or German. According to intelligence information, the design resembles one built by Pakistan in the 1980s and early 1990s that is sometimes called the P1. In addition, the centrifuge components Iran bought match those bought by Pakistan. There was other evidence that pointed to Pakistan as the source of the drawings and of at least some of the components. Much of the highly enriched uranium that the IAEA found in Iran by taking environmental samples may be consistent with material produced in Pakistan.

Last autumn, Iran provided the IAEA with a list of five middlemen and company officials who, it said, provided the drawings and other key items. Iran characterised these middlemen, who are European and Middle Eastern, as putting together orders—buying items from various companies and delivering them to Iran.. Iran’s statement to the IAEA implied that one or more of the three Germans who were identified as middlemen obtained a classified centrifuge design from Pakistan and sold it to Iran. Mr Albright and Mr Hinderstein said that in late 2003 Iran provided the IAEA with a long list of equipment suppliers, including when the equipment was purchased. Iran has also not removed or otherwise hidden nameplates that contain company names and serial numbers. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, many of the items Iran wanted were loosely controlled by national or international export controls. Between 1993 and 1995, it received enough components through middlemen to build 500 centrifuges. It is from centrifuges made from these imported components that traces of highly enriched uranium have been found by the IAEA, at both the site at Natanz and at Kalaye Electric in Tehran. —Khalid Hasan

The dangers of Gaddafi
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/02/11/dl1102.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/11/ixportal.html
(Filed: 11/02/2004)

It is a median position perfectly in tune with Tony Blair's determination to straddle transatlantic divisions. In receiving the Libyan foreign minister in Downing Street yesterday, he was rewarding Muammar Gaddafi for abandoning plans to develop weapons of mass destruction.

That concession, announced last December, was a tremendous coup for American and British diplomats, backed by the demonstration in Iraq of their willingness to use military power against rogue states. In dealing with Libya, Britain has taken the lead in offering incentives, from re-establishing diplomatic relations to agreeing to a meeting between the Prime Minister and Col Gaddafi. Washington, by contrast, abstained on the vote authorising the lifting of United Nations sanctions and has kept its own embargo in place, pending what George W Bush has called "verification of concrete steps" towards disarmament.

As with Iran and Syria, Mr Blair, while staying in close touch with the Americans, has adopted a more conciliatory approach. This plays well with those within the Labour Party and the European Union who would damn the Prime Minister as being Mr Bush's poodle.

Yet Mr Blair's record of "constructive engagement" with recalcitrant Islamic states is not impressive. The reformers in Iran, on whom Britain pinned its hopes, appear to be heading for defeat in next week's parliamentary elections, and the promise of change in Syria offered by the death of Hafiz al-Assad has not been fulfilled by his son, Bashar.

Nobody would deny that Col Gaddafi has travelled a long way since his designation by Ronald Reagan as "the mad dog of the Middle East": the surrender of the Lockerbie suspects, compensation for the victims, renunciation of terrorism, and now the abandonment of WMD.

Even so, Britain has still to receive a satisfactory explanation of the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984. And although the regime in Tripoli has changed, it remains a dictatorship with a poor human rights record. Taking a leaf from Washington's book, the Prime Minister should beware lest his enthusiasm for the middle way runs ahead of reality.

Iranian-Americans in LA protest Iran's hard-line government
Associated Press
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/7925111.htm
Posted on Wed, Feb. 11, 2004

[No pics yet, alas!]

LOS ANGELES - Thousands of Iranian-Americans rallied in opposition to Iran's hard-line government Tuesday to mark the 25th anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

Nearly 3,000 attended a rally outside the federal building in Los Angeles' Westwood section, police said. About 1,500 then marched while calling for a boycott of Iran's legislative elections on Feb. 20.

Iran's governing council recently disqualified hundreds of reformist candidates. The action drew strong protests from reformist lawmakers and criticism from President Mohammad Khatami, but several attempts to get all candidates reinstated failed.

Tuesday's protests were designed to show solidarity with reformist candidates, many of whom are pledging to boycott the election, activists said.

Protesters also want Western nations to distance themselves from Iran's oppressive government.

"The message is change," said Iman Foroutan, a spokesman for the Iran of Tomorrow Movement, a reformist group based in Los Angeles. "The people in Iran are ready to take matters into their own hands. All they need is ... moral support and pressure from other countries on the government."

The protest, held by a coalition of opposition groups and media outlets, coincided with this week's 25th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution, during which religious clerics overthrew the American-backed shah and seized power. The hard-liners promised democracy but have ruled with an iron hand.

The three-hour march snarled traffic but was peaceful, police Sgt. Terri Brinkmeyer said. No arrests were made.

Note: Rushdie has found a great way to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the the Islamic Revolution that led to a fatwa against him...

A Valentine wedding for Rushdie?
RASHMEE Z AHMED

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2004 03:12:55 AM ]

LONDON: Salman Rushdie’s endlessly fascinating love life is yet again the talk of the town as literary London’s bitchiest rumour mills whirr about the magical realism of a married man getting ‘engaged’ to his delectable girlfriend.

Lakshmi with Rushdie

Rushdie’s live-in girlfriend of four years, the long-limbed, divine-featured Padma Lakshmi , has reportedly been seen wearing a bling-bling rock on the third finger of her left hand, i.e. the engagement one.

The huge, square-cut diamond was apparently ordered from a New York jeweller.

An inveterate gossip masquerading as a journalist for The Daily Telegraph newspaper, asked Lakshmi if she was soon to be the fourth Mrs Salman Rushdie.

Upon which, Lakshmi, arguably Chennai’s most famous export to Manhattan, coyly offered that eternal expectation of married bliss: "I guess so".

The only snag, of course, is the continuing health and good spirits of the third Mrs Rushdie, writer Elizabeth West.

Joint inquiry starts into Iran plane crash in UAE

Wednesday, February 11, 2004

Representatives from the United Arab Emiratesand Iranian civil aviation authorities began Wednesday investigating the causes of an Iranian Kish Airlines plane crash in the UAE that killed 43 people.

"The Iranian delegation, which arrived in Dubai on Tuesday evening, began this morning meeting with the UAE's General Civil Aviation Authority," the head of Sharjah's civil aviation authority, Abdul Wahab Mohammed al-Roomi, told AFP.

The plane crashed as it was coming in to land in Sharjah on Tuesday, killing 43 people on board and leaving three survivors as it narrowly missed a residential area before plunging to the ground.

"A representative of Sharjah's civil aviation authority took part in the meeting," said Roomi, adding that "the number of crash victims has not changed," while one of the three survivors is still in critical condition.

The Kish Airlines Fokker 50 twin-turboprop aircraft had an Iranian crew of six while the passengers included 12 Iranians, 12 Indians, four Egyptians, two Algerians, two Filipinos, one Bangladeshi, one Cameroonian, one Nepalese, one Nigerian, one Syrian, one Sudanese and one UAE national, according to a passenger manifest Roomi said was sent by Iranian airport authorities.

The flight had come from Iran's Persian Gulf island of Kish when it went down in an open area sandwiched between the villas of a crowded residential zone about two miles (nearly four kilometres) from the airport, on the border between Sharjah and Ajman, another emirate in the seven-member UAE federation.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=22495&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

Iran's President Criticizes Conservatives
By BRIAN MURPHY (AP)
February 11, 2004

In a sharp attack against the vast powers of ruling conservatives, Iran's president on Wednesday called the restriction of political freedoms a "threat to the nation" that could be hard to contain.

The warnings by President Mohammad Khatami - made during events marking the 25th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution - could increase the intense political friction ahead of Feb. 20 parliamentary elections that many reformers plan to boycott.

Khatami bowed to pressure from the powerful theocracy and agreed to hold the elections. But he has described the voting for the 290-seat parliament as unfair because thousands of reformist candidates have been blocked from running.

"Elections are a symbol of democracy if they are performed correctly," Khatami told crowds gathered in a huge square to celebrate the collapse of the Western-backed monarchy in 1979. "If this is restricted, it's a threat to the nation and the system. This threat is difficult to reverse."

The elections have touched off one of Iran's deepest political crises since the revolution.

More than 3,000 pro-reform candidates were originally disqualified by the 12-member Guardian Council, which has the authority to block people seeking high public office. Liberal lawmakers countered with sit-ins and protests. The council later reinstated about 1,100, but reformists said that was insufficient.

A major boycott - urged by a wide-ranging coalition from activists to academics - would likely return control of parliament to conservatives. The backlash, however, could lead to huge political rifts and greater street demonstrations calling for ruling clerics to relinquish some of their virtually unlimited controls.

Iran's largest reformist party, Islamic Iran Participation Front, has joined the boycott camp. The party is led by the president's younger brother, Mohammad Reza Khatami, who is deputy speaker of parliament and one of those barred from the election.

Reformists won control of the parliament in 2000 for the first time since the Islamic Revolution. But hard-liners have used their control of unelected bodies such as the Guardian Council to thwart attempts to liberalize Iran's political system and relax its strict Islamic social code.

In his speech, Khatami called for a "third way" avoiding Western-style models and a Taliban-like system led by "those who don't consider the rights of the people ... and oppose freedom and democracy using religion."

"Blocking the demands of the people and their right to vote ... causes frustration, especially among the young," he said.

The official election campaign period opens Thursday. Khatami has not made it clear whether he will support the boycott movement.

"For the prosperity of the nation, I don't know any path other than reforms," he said. "Whether I succeed or not and whether obstacles keep preventing me from fulfilling my promises or not, I know no other path and won't choose a path other than reforms."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2004/feb/11/021102003.html

Iran's mullahs protests EU criticisms

Feb 10, 2004 EUpolitix.com

Iran's ambassador to Brussels, Abolgasem Delfi, has fired off a letter to European Parliament chief Pat Cox protesting the attitude of some MEPs towards Iran.

According to reports on the Iranian News Agency, the letter stresses that this month’s parliamentary elections in the Islamic republic is an internal affair and foreign interference will not be productive.

The letter reportedly underlines that any interference in the February 20 elections would not help to strengthen Iranian ties with the European Parliament.

Iranian diplomatic sources say the text notes that Iran has its own ways to solve difficulties in relation to the poll.

A decision last month by Iran's ruling Guardian Council to ban up to 80 sitting MPs and roughly 2000 aspiring parliamentary candidates from the elections sparked international criticism.

The European Parliament is to debate the elections in Iran on Thursday and will vote on a resolution it adopted a text on Iran calling for an immediate revision by the Guardians' Council of its decision to bar some candidates from the elections.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_1687.shtml

Foreign Cellphone Bidders Still in Running in Iran

By BORZOU DARAGAHI
February 11, 2004
The New York Times

Tehran- As Iran's traditionalists and modernists continue their political struggle, the government, faced with growing demand for mobile phone service and an unreliable, overburdened state-run network, is moving ahead with its plan to hand control of a second network to one of five foreign-led consortiums that have made a short list of bidders.

The prize has its costs, of course. The winner must pay Iran's telecommunications ministry a concession of 300 million euros (about $380 million) immediately and agree to give up to 25 percent of revenues to the state. It must also do business in a country with much political infighting and a sketchy legal framework for foreign investment, a place where Islamic codes restrict marketing content and a United States embargo weighs heavily.

Still, industry analysts say Iran's large, largely underserved and largely youthful market means room for growth. Only 4.3 percent of Iran's 67 million people subscribe to the Telecommunications Company of Iran, which runs the sole, state-owned mobile service now available. With its mere 2.9 million mobile accounts, the company has annual mobile revenues of about $425 million.

"Iran is a good deal," said Mohamed-Tahar Djafri, an analyst with the Global Insight economics consultancy who is based in Abu Dhabi.

Mr. Djafri said Iran's commitment to reforming capital repatriation and ownership laws should make it friendlier to foreign investors within six or seven months. "In any other market that size, the concession would be more," he said. "If it weren't for the embargo, it might be $700 million."

Iran, emerging from decades of economic and political isolation, has begun adopting privatization and foreign investment as strategies to combat high unemployment and encourage economic development. And while major telecommunications players already have footholds in Middle Eastern countries - even neighboring war-torn Iraq - Iran, the Mideast's second-largest country after Egypt, is up for grabs.

The five finalists here are consortiums. One is led by the Orascom Group of Egypt, another by the Istanbul-based Turkcell, a third by the MTN Group of South Africa, and another by Mobilkom, Telekom Austria's mobile unit. The fifth bidder is a joint venture of the Mobile Telecommunications Company of Kuwait, known as MTC; a Kuwaiti rival, Wataniya Telecom; and Deutsche Telekom's mobile unit, T-Mobile International.

The license will allow the winning company to set up five million lines by 2005. The contract will be renewable every five years for the next 15 years, with no competition guaranteed for at least two years. Final bids covering companies' proposed revenue split with the government were due this week; a provisional winner is to be announced on Feb. 23. Each bidder must also have a local partner with a minimum 20 percent stake.

Vodacom of South Africa had also qualified but dropped out of the running. Company officials declined to comment, but analysts said that Vodacom's financial backers may have feared running afoul of Washington's trade embargo on Iran or had other political concerns.

MTN officials declined to comment on rumors that it, too, would pull out of the tender, because of the quick deadline and a lack of clarity on regulatory and financial issues.

Analysts also said that Iran's relatively comprehensive landline network of one line for every five residents makes for a potentially less profitable mobile environment than in some other emerging markets.

Still, Iran's economy - and household disposable income - has grown steadily in the last few years. And the Arab Advisors Group, a consultancy based in Amman, Jordan, predicted that 23 percent of Iranians would have mobile service by 2007.

Experts say Iran's demographics are its biggest selling point. According to the National Organization for Civil Registration, nearly two-thirds of the total population is under 30, a group particularly attractive to mobile services companies.

Besides, MTN, Turkcell, MTC, Wataniya and Orascom are flush with cash from successful recent ventures in undeveloped African, Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries. T-Mobile and Mobilkom, having built networks in Europe, are thought to have greater technological expertise as well as deep pockets.

Iranian mobile phone service, introduced in the mid-1990's, is a patchwork of mismatched technology that has provided unreliable, poor service at high cost. Iranians must wait as long as a year and pay $500 to the state-owned company. Access can cost as much as $1,200 on the open market, not to mention the costs of a handset and subscriptions, making the service mostly unaffordable in a nation with a per capita income of $2,000.

Last year, however, the government awarded a contract to create a prepaid service with $25 activation fees to a joint venture of the Rafsanjan Islamic Industrial Complex, an Iranian consortium that dabbles in everything from pistachios to telecommunications, and Tele2 of Sweden, a telecommunications company operating in 23 countries, with Ericsson providing the technology. The project, which could provide six million additional lines, has been stalled by legal wrangling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/business/worldbusiness/11iran.html?ex=1077166800&en=c8c7075e25973088&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

How Charles Became a Political Pawn

February 11, 2004
The Daily Express
Paul Callin

As prince Charles faced the sun-baked heat of Riyadh yesterday it became increasingly clear that his whistle-stop tour of some of the Middle East's most controversial states is more than his usual glad-handing exercise.

Although the main reason has been touted as humanitarian, his appearance in the oil-rich state raises the question of whether the Prince is being used as a political pawn.

Quite simply, should the Prince of Wales be involved in a blatant political manoeuvring at a time when the Middle East is still a boiling cauldron of intrigue? Charles is known to have close links with the Saudi royal family, has made many private trips there and makes no secret of how much he enjoys himself there.

But this is a country which is known to have acted as a fundraising centre for Osama Bin Laden.

Critics of the Prince's visit have also pointed to Saudi Arabia's atrocious human rights record.

He has gone there in his role as President of the Red Cross. In Iran, which he visited on Monday, he was clearly moved at the sight of endless rows of tents housing survivors of the recent devastating earthquake in Bam which killed 43,000 people.

He was deeply anguished to learn that the rich citrus groves and date orchards could not be harvested because too many of the farmers had died. All this is commendable sympathy from the Prince but there can be no doubt that the trip has heavy political overtones.

The hand of the Foreign Office is clearly behind his brief visits to Iran, Iraq and now Saudi. His was the first visit to Iran by a member of our Royal Family since the abolition of the monarchy under Ayatollah Khomeini 25 years ago. While officials at Clarence House pressed the line that the trip was "totally nonpolitical" it's difficult to see how this could be the case.

BRITAIN is keen to foster close relations with Iran despite its past turbulent relationship with the West. The US is less keen on Iran and still considers it part of the "axis of evil". Is Charles being "used" in some sort of diplomatic ploy? Unfortunately, the recent disqualification of many reformist candidates means that the forthcoming elections in Iran will not be free or fair. It is unfortunate that Charles's visit seems to endorse this status quo.

The use of the Royal Family for political reasons is always dangerous. The royals should not be seen to venture in this arena, however well-meaning the mission may be. They should always be seen to be well above politics and the Foreign Office should not be able to bend the unwritten rules whenever it feels so inclined.

Although Prince Charles may well have strong political opinions of his own, he is constitutionally forbidden to be seen entering that contentious arena.

There is absolutely no harm in the Prince visiting British soldiers in Iraq and boosting morale among troops who are in a state of constant peril - although there is often a sense of weary cynicism among squaddies at such grand royal appearances. I have accompanied Prince Charles on such lightning trips in the past and, while they provide magnificent photo opportunities, the effect on the troops is not as electric as would be believed.

Soldiers, by their very hard-pressed nature, tend to grumble and the sudden appearance of Prince Charles in desert fatigues is often greeted with apathy.

There can be no doubt, though, that the Prince's advisers have seized on this entire visit as yet another image-enhancing exercise for him.

Since his divorce from Princess Diana, and particularly following her death, Prince Charles has suffered badly in the public perception.

Most recently, the Paul Burrell affair and his curious relationship with his former aide Michael Fawcett have all but held him up to public ridicule. His angry explosions over small matters, even his insistence of having a valet press his toothpaste out on to a brush - plus a myriad other revelations - have not helped his public image.

Many continue to see him as a spoilt, over-indulged middle-aged man who is deeply frustrated at not really having anything to do. There is also the question of Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles over whom the nation seems divided. Since the shadow of the late Princess Diana continues to loom over their relationship, a large section of the country remains strongly anti-Camilla.

Many people still blame her for breaking up the Prince's marriage.

It is a sad fact that, whatever Charles does in his unhappy life, he will face strong criticism. This Middle East visit is a case in point.

One wonders about the quality of his advisers when it came to weighing the pros and cons of the trip.

Surely they would have seen that it could only have raised the matter of political interference in an area that needs the most delicate handling.

Nor is he helped by his good friend Nicholas Soames, Tory defence spokesman, telling Radio 4's World At One that the visit "sends all sorts of good and valuable signals and is very much in the national interest".

In fact, the signals are those of princely political pawn-usage - and are a dangerous precedent. Judging from reports, it seems the Iranian people - though courteous - were less than impressed by the Prince's presence. On hearing that Prince Charles said that "my people in Britain are praying for you", one farmer observed that mere words were not enough.

As he put it: "It is no use if visitors just come, see what has happened and then go off. We still need help in irrigation and housing."

THE Prince should measure this sentiment up against the usefulness of his visit - and whether, in future, he should allow himself to appear to at the beck and call of the Government for blatantly political reasons. He must never be allowed to stray into an arena that can only cause him grief and further tribulation.

Nor should he allow his advisers to be so consumed with polishing his public appeal that they ignore the constitutional implications.

In Iraq, the Prince did not visit Baghdad, which with the everpresent threat of suicide bombers and anti-Western feeling was considered too perilous. Instead, he flew to the troops in Basra - though a spokesman admitted: "We don't normally take the Prince to places as dangerous as this." Let's hope that in future the Prince's advisers take notice that danger comes in many guises.

http://www.express.co.uk/

North Korea Holds Rally to Mark Islamic Revolution in Iran

February 11, 2004
BBC Monitoring
BBC Monitoring Asia-Pacific

Pyongyang -- A rally and film show were held here on Tuesday [10 February] on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran.

Text of report in English by North Korean news agency KCNA

Pyongyang, 11 February -- A rally and film show were held here on Tuesday [10 February] on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran.

Ri Won-il, minister of labour who is chairman of the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]-Iran Friendship Association, said in his speech that the Iranian people put an end to monarchism and won a victory of Islamic revolution through all-people resistance under the leadership of Imam Khamene'i.

He noted that after victory the Iranian people have vigorously struggled for the sovereignty of the country, the territorial integrity and the national dignity and honour and prosperity, bravely smashing the moves of imperialists.

Saying that the Korean people should always stand by the Iranian people in the accomplishment of the just cause to defend the sovereignty of the country from imperialist aggression and interference, he noted that the Korean people would work hard to boost the friendly and cooperative relations with Iran.

Jalaleddin Namini Mianji, ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the DPRK, in his reply said that the leading officials of Iran have paid deep attention to the development of the relations with the DPRK.

The mutual visits of lots of delegations of the two countries in various fields and contracts, agreements and pacts signed in the process have tightened the bonds of friendship between Iran and the DPRK, he said.

He said that the Iranian government supports the government and people of the DPRK under the wise guidance of Kim Jong-il are making progress in various domains and struggling to reunify the country despite all forms of imperialists' pressure.

He hoped for a peaceful negotiated settlement of the nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula. The participants in the rally saw an Iranian feature film.

Source: KCNA news agency, Pyongyang, in English 0418 gmt 11 Feb 04

http://www.monitor.bbc.co.uk/

Bush Plans to Focus on Fuel Ban to End Spread of A-Bombs

February 10, 2004
The New York Times
David E. Sanger

WASHINGTON -- President Bush is to announce a new proposal on Wednesday to limit the number of nations allowed to produce nuclear fuel, senior administration officials said Tuesday. He will declare that the global network in nuclear goods set up by Abdul Qadeer Khan, developer of Pakistan's bomb, exposed huge gaps in accords to stop the spread of nuclear weapons technology, they added.

In an afternoon speech at the National Defense University, they said, Mr. Bush will call for a re-examination of what one official called the "basic bargain" underlying the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty: that those states that promise not to pursue nuclear weapons will receive help in producing nuclear fuel for power generation.

Iran admitted last year that it had cheated on that agreement for 18 years, secretly building uranium enrichment facilities, though the country denied that it intended to produce weapons. North Korea abandoned the treaty last year and declared it was making nuclear arms.

Dr. Khan's network secretly sold equipment to both countries, and to Libya, American and Pakistani officials have said.

The administration officials said Mr. Bush would not call for a reopening of the 1970 treaty, which one said would be "too hard." Instead, he will appeal to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, 40 countries that sell most nuclear technology, to refuse to sell equipment to any country that is not already equipped to make nuclear fuel, either by enriching uranium or by reprocessing spent fuel for plutonium.

But the officials did not describe any new enforcement mechanisms.

In a briefing on Tuesday evening, one administration official said Iran and North Korea were examples of "regimes which have cynically exploited loopholes in the existing treaty" to build up their capacity to produce weapons-grade nuclear fuel.

While proliferation experts have long agreed that the treaty is flawed, Mr. Bush's proposal is bound to raise protests from developing nations, which say the United States and, by extension, the other declared nuclear states — Britain, France, Russia and China — are trying to extend their rights to produce weapons while denying that status to other states.

In addition to those five, Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and North Korea is believed by American intelligence agencies to have at least two and perhaps several more.

Israel is a particularly difficult case for the United States because it has never declared its nuclear ability and has never signed the nonproliferation treaty. Its Arab neighbors and Pakistan have said that any reopening of nuclear regulation should start with forcing Israel to sign the treaty.

In the briefing, the official also said Mr. Bush would discuss for the first time the details of how Dr. Khan's network operated, being careful to praise President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan and to portray Dr. Khan, the former head of Khan Research Laboratories, as a rogue scientist.

Another administration official said Mr. Bush would cast the Khan case as a victory for American intelligence operations, describing "how we uncovered the reach of the network, how we identified the key individuals, how we followed the key transactions, and how we monitored the movement of material and recorded conversation and penetrated operations."

The director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, made a similar case last week, and administration officials clearly hope the story of the intelligence surrounding the Khan network will be a counterpoint to criticisms of how Iraq's weapons program was misjudged.

Mr. Bush is also to identify B. S. A. Tahir, a Sri Lanka-born trader who moved to Dubai as a child, as the "other major node" in the Khan network.

It was Mr. Tahir, who divides his time between Kuala Lumpur and Dubai, who negotiated with a Malaysian company called Scomi to produce parts for high-speed centrifuges, which enrich uranium, Scomi officials have said. It was the interception of one such shipment to Libya in October that allowed American intelligence officials to present Pakistan with evidence about Dr. Khan.

In recent days, efforts to reach Mr. Tahir in Malaysia have been unsuccessful. He owns 49 percent of a computer company, S.M.B. Computers, in Dubai, according to Dubai government documents. Scomi officials have identified him as one of the men who negotiated the deal under which they produced the parts.

Mr. Bush's speech will mark the first time Mr. Tahir has been publicly identified by the United States as a major player, though intelligence officials have mentioned, on background, what they say was his central role in arranging the transfer of centrifuge components from Malaysia to Dubai and on to Libya.

Mr. Bush's proposals appear to be intended to crack down on states like North Korea and Iran without reopening negotiations that could limit the United States' own ability to produce nuclear fuel for weapons and power, or stop allies like Japan from producing such fuel for power plants. China says Japan's program could be diverted to weapons.

He is expected to implicitly reject, for example, an alternative proposal by the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, for an international organization to control the production of all nuclear fuel and how it is used.

The Bush adminstration has already, in effect, dismissed that approach as unworkable, in part, experts say, because it would limit Washington's ability to produce fuel for its nuclear arsenal.

Mr. Bush's insistence on moving ahead with research on a new class of so-called bunker-busting nuclear weapons has been cited by his opponents — including many in Europe — as an example of a double standard in which he seeks to stop other states from building weapons while continuing to improve the American arsenal.

The official also said in the briefing that Mr. Bush would propose expanding the Nunn-Lugar program, in which Congress appropriates funds to destroy weapons and retrain former Soviet weapons experts.

His plan would extend the program to scientists in other nations, including Iraq. But Mr. Bush will propose no new financing, and no expansion of the program is included in the budget he sent to Congress last week. Democrats say the existing program is underfinanced.

Mr. Bush will also call for an expansion of the Proliferation Security Initiative, a loose affiliation of countries, organized by the United States, to intercept unconventional weapons. The seizure of the Libyan shipment in October was the biggest single success, though other equipment has been seized on the way to North Korea.

In the briefing, the administration official said Mr. Bush would propose several changes to the internal operations of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The agency, which has had rocky relations with the Bush administration over Iraq, did not know that Mr. Bush planned to speak on nonproliferation until informed by a reporter on Tuesday.

The official said Mr. Bush would call for a new committee within the agency to monitor compliance with "safeguards" agreements, which allow inspection where nuclear fuel or weapons work may be conducted.

He will also call on the agency's board to bar from it any country under investigation. Iran was a board member throughout a confrontation last year over allowing full inspections of its facilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/politics/11PREX.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Iran is Moving Into Afghanistan

February 11, 2004
National Review Online
Jed Babbin

With Karzai's permission, Iran is establishing terrorist bases in Afghanistan.

Last Saturday, the Iranian government made an extraordinary announcement. The mullahs' Islamic Republic News Agency said that they had completed construction of ten "border outposts" inside the Harat province of Afghanistan. According to the report, these are in addition to others all along the border, inside Nimrouz, Sistan, Baluchestan, and Farah provinces. That the mullahs are doing this at all — with the apparent consent of the Karzai government and without any objection from us — is simply astounding. In effect, Karzai has invited them in to foment terrorism and insurgency against our forces and against his struggling government.

Iran is the central terrorist nation. Hezbollah — the terrorists who operate as functionaries of Syria — are backed and paid for by Tehran, as are several other terrorist organizations. Iran has admitted that several of the al Qaeda leadership are in Iran, supposedly under arrest, but more likely being given sanctuary and assistance. Iran, already well armed with missiles and WMD, has built several nuclear "research" sites, many of which are well buried to protect them from air strikes. They don't want to be the recipients of a message from Israel like the one that destroyed Iraq's Osirak facility in 1981.

As Undersecretary of State John Bolton explained last November, Iran's nuclear program is — despite what the Clouseaus of the International Atomic Energy Agency say — working hard to develop nuclear weapons. Enriched plutonium, which even the IAEA managed to find at one Iranian nuclear site, has no peaceful purpose. More than two years ago one of Iran's leaders, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, said that if the Islamic world can get nuclear weapons it should use them on Israel, because they can destroy Israel while the Islamic world would survive a nuclear counterattack. These are the people Karzai is inviting into his country.

The Iranians are being quite clever, saying that their Afghan outposts will be manned by "special police" for a campaign against poppy cultivation. Iran's interest in poppy production is the same as its interests in nuclear weapons: They don't plan on using nukes on themselves, and they have an active antidrug campaign that works against the heroin traffickers who try to sell their wares in Iran. But others cross Iran from Afghanistan to reach heroin labs in eastern Turkey and in the northern Kurdish region of Iraq. Heroin sales are used to finance terror. Intercepted al Qaeda shipments of heroin prove that well enough. The Iranians' having antidrug cops inside Afghanistan may aid them in stopping some shipments to local drug sellers, but it will also allow them to provide safe conduct for those shipments that are meant for their terrorist allies and operatives.

By allowing the Iranians in, the Afghans are providing them with the best cover they can get: a legal right to operate inside Afghanistan. The Iranians will catch a few "suspect" druggies to show the world that they're good guys. To better achieve their "mission" against poppy growing, Iranian forces will range over large areas of Afghanistan. They will claim that any interference in any of their operations is unlawful and only helps the drug smugglers. If American troops interfere in their terrorist operations, the Iranians will fight. There will be small skirmishes between Iranian "police" and our special-ops troops. But the Iranians don't want an open war against the United States, at least not yet. So they will complain to the Karzai government, which, having trapped itself, will have to ask us to leave the Iranians alone. The whole mess may end up in another drawn-out U.N. debate, which will blame America for helping the drug smugglers. We can't let it get that far.

At this writing, there are still about ten thousand American troops and eight thousand NATO troops in Afghanistan, trying to stabilize the country so that democracy can take hold. Facing them — or, more accurately, operating in the shadows all around them — are the resurgent Taliban, al Qaeda, and agents of both the Pakistani and Iranian regimes. Pakistan's military intelligence agency — the ISI — was instrumental in the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan and is allied with terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. Iran is more powerful, and thus more of an immediate threat to Afghanistan. The dozen Iranian outposts are also a direct challenge to the American and NATO forces. They will have to be watched every moment, and movement of people beyond their immediate vicinity will have to be stopped. This will tie up many of our special-ops troops, who are also out chasing the Taliban remnants and bin Laden himself.

The Iranians are setting themselves up to take Afghanistan by stealth, gradually and certainly. They will use their outposts to smuggle al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, as well as weapons and money, in and out of Afghanistan. They must be stopped with whatever force it takes. Otherwise, Iran's presence will grow, and so will its interference in the Afghan government's ability to establish security for its own people. The Iranians are preparing to fight a guerilla war against the Karzai government and the Western forces now in the country. They are readying the battlefield for a coming fight on their terms. We cannot allow this to proceed, and we need to force them out, but before we can we must persuade the Karzai government to reverse itself and deny the Iranians permission to enter Afghanistan.

If Afghanistan is free — or at least free of the Taliban regime for the time being — it is to President Bush's credit. But in Afghanistan, like Iraq, the battle is far from over. Karzai must act quickly and withdraw his permission for the Iranians to bring any police or troops into Afghanistan. The Iranians should be told to pack up and get out of town by sundown. If they don't, they should be evicted with whatever force may be required. Closing these outposts will not end infiltration from Iran, but it will make a stealthy invasion much harder.

— NRO Contributor Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration.

http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200402110915.asp

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.