Replies

IDF Intelligence Overheard Iran and Pakistan's Nuke Deals

00:28 Mar 03, '04 / 10 Adar 5764

A report by the New Yorker credits Israel with intercepting coded communication between Pakistan and Iran leading to the exposure of the international black market for nuclear-weapons material.

“Israeli signals-intelligence agency, known as Unit 8200, broke a sophisticated Iranian code and began monitoring communications that included talk between Iran and Pakistan about Iran’s burgeoning nuclear-weapons program,” says the New Yorker report. “The Israeli intelligence community has many covert contacts inside Iran, stemming from the strong ties it had there before the overthrow of the Shah, in 1979; some of these ties still exist.”

The report alleges that the reason no outrage has emanated from the United States over Pakistan’s recent pardon of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program – who recently admitted to being “solely responsible for operating an international black market in nuclear-weapons materials”- stems from a deal allowing U.S. troops to go after Osama Bin Laden in Pakistani territory.

It also draws an alarming picture of a web of deception and nuclear proliferation that has spread throughout the Arab world, with the main culprits seemingly immune to international action by merit of Pakistan’s cooperation in the U.S. war effort.

“The Israeli intercepts have been shared, in some form, with the United States intelligence community,” reads the report, “and they show that high-level officials in Islamabad and Tehran had frequent conversations about the I.A.E.A. investigation and its implications.”

The report concluded that, “It’s clear from the intercepts… that Iran did not want to give up its nuclear potential. The Pakistani response was, ‘Don’t give away the whole ballgame and we’ll look out for you’.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=58843

Let's Get Serious About Nuclear Proliferation

March 03, 2004
International Herald Tribune
Samuel R. Berger and Flynt Leverett

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush pledged in a speech Feb. 11 that America would "rise to the hard demands of dangerous times" - specifically, to prevent the world's deadliest weapons from falling into the hands of rogue regimes and terrorists.

The president's attention to nonproliferation issues is welcome, as is Libya's apparent renunciation of weapons of mass destruction. Yet a sustained and comprehensive strategy for dealing with the proliferation threat is still lacking.

We are losing the fight to stop the spread of nuclear-weapons capabilities to rogue states. In too many places, the approach to proliferation challenges is curiously complacent - marked by an inability to translate rhetoric into action.

Recent events have underscored the risk of nuclear breakout. The deal brokered by three European foreign ministers with Tehran last autumn is not stopping Iran's development of an infrastructure that could ultimately produce weapons-grade fissile material for nuclear bombs. Worse, Iran's foreign minister said twice last week that Tehran intends to sell nuclear fuel abroad.

The European approach is based on two premises: first, that Iran's nuclear program is motivated primarily by nationalist ambitions to achieve world-class technological prowess; and second, that Tehran would ultimately relinquish the militarily applicable parts of its program in exchange for international assistance in developing the rest of its nuclear agenda. Unfortunately, this represents more wishful thinking than reality. Compelling evidence suggests Iran's nuclear program is intended to give Tehran a nuclear-weapons hedge against what Iranians see as very real threats to their national security, and that Iran will not give up its nuclear aspirations until those concerns are addressed. Yet, the Bush administration stubbornly resists any suggestion of a "grand bargain" with Iran.

As for North Korea, Kim Jong Il has clearly slipped the bonds of the nonproliferation regime. Analysts may debate the number of nuclear bombs North Korea has built, but it is virtually certain that Pyongyang possesses considerably more reprocessed plutonium today than a year ago, on its way to potentially becoming the first nuclear weapons Wal-Mart for terror groups. Given this reality, the Bush administration's dithering on serious diplomatic engagement is inexplicable.

Recent disclosures about the activities of the Pakistani nuclear scientist and proliferation entrepreneur Abdul Qadeer Khan underscore additional risks. We know there are sophisticated clandestine procurement networks for nuclear fuels and technology. Yet the administration remains complacent in securing loose nuclear materials around the world and redirecting weapons scientists and assets to peaceful, constructive purposes.

The Nunn-Lugar initiative is designed to dismantle or transform potentially dangerous nuclear activities in the former Soviet Union. At present funding levels, it will not complete the job for more than a decade. Meanwhile, as Senator Sam Nunn has said, right now, "tons of poorly secured plutonium and highly enriched uranium - the raw materials of nuclear terrorism - are spread around the world."

What would a serious strategy for containing the spread of nuclear weapons look like?

First, it is time to define clear strategic choices for Iran and North Korea. Washington should publicly offer to normalize relations with Iran - including a commitment not to change its government by force - and help it integrate into the global economy, provided that Iran gives up, definitively and verifiably, its weapons of mass destruction programs and ties to terrorist organizations.

The United States also should lay out for North Korea the security guarantees and economic benefits it could expect for dismantling its nuclear weapons program and abandoning its nuclear ambitions - as well as make clear that further separation of plutonium will result in serious consequences, coercive if necessary. Only by defining North Korea's options in such stark terms, and demonstrating our willingness to get to Yes, can the United States marshal the regional and international support we will need if Pyongyang says No.

Second, we must deal with the crisis of unsecured nuclear materials around the world. We must globalize Nunn-Lugar programs and fund them at the levels necessary to do the job, which will be much greater than the administration's current budget envisions.

Third, it is time to close increasingly obvious gaps in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The president's proposals are fine as far as they go, but they do not go far enough. Tighter regulation of fuel cycle activities, keeping states under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency off the agency's board of governors, and mandating implementation of the Additional Protocol as a condition for nuclear imports are all essential steps. But we also need to make sure that if states provide assistance to others for peaceful nuclear energy, spent fuel rods are returned to international storage, under international supervision.

Further, we need to make it illegal for a state to withdraw from the nonproliferation treaty if its nuclear activities are under investigation. America should lead the UN Security Council in defining sanctions that would be imposed automatically on any state threatening to use the treaty as a springboard for nuclear weapons development.

As Bush stated Feb. 11, the consensus among nations that proliferation is intolerable "means little unless it is translated into action." But translating counter proliferation goals into action will take sustained American leadership and engagement, skillful diplomacy, and serious investments of political and financial capital. None of those have been forthcoming so far.

Samuel R. Berger, who was national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, is chairman of Stonebridge International. Flynt Leverett, who was senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from February 2002 to March 2003, is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution.

http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=132207&owner=(IHT)&date=20040302203734

Listen to the Iranians, They Know

March 03, 2004
Iran va Jahan
Michael Ledeen

Returning to a conversation.

Monday night, following the gruesome massacres in Najaf and Baghdad at Shiite holy places, Iranians took to the streets all over the country: Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz above all. The demonstrations had a double-pronged message. First, that the people care more about freedom than about the celebration of Ashoura, the grave day of mourning for the murder of Hossein, the grandson of Mohammed, and dozens of his followers. And second, to accuse the regime of having orchestrated the slaughter in Najaf and Baghdad. The first reports even suggest that some of the security forces were fighting on the side of the demonstrators, although such reports are often wrong.

We and our policymakers should listen to these brave Iranian demonstrators, for they know more about their tyrants than our own experts. They know that the mullahs have organized massacres in the past in order to advance their own interests. This happened in the runup to the Revolution, when a movie theater was set on fire and then blamed on the shah's secret service, and then again a few years ago when a Shiite shrine was bombed and then blamed on opponents of the regime. So the idea that a Shiite regime would resort to the mass murder of other Shiites is not at all preposterous to the people of Iran, and we should take it seriously. As we know from recent intelligence in Iraq (and as some of us knew two years ago), the jihadists — enthusiastically supported by the mullahs-are desperate to drive us out of Iraq, and will resort to anything that demonstrates American weakness, and that fosters civil war within the country.

The Iranians know their oppressors. If only our own leaders would listen.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200403021914.asp

Iraq's Terror Sources Reside Next Door

March 03, 2004
The New York Sun
Michael Ledeen

What does the terrible slaughter in Karbala and Baghdad demonstrate?

Just ask Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's leading Shiite religious leader: It shows that the Americans are unable to protect the faithful, to close the borders, to stop the terrorism. Or, you could ask the Iranian interior minister and the foreign minister, who for perhaps the first time in the history of the Islamic Republic were hard at work on one of the holiest days in the Shiite calendar. They, too, blamed America for the massacre of the Shiite faithful, of whom the great majority in Najaf were Iranians.

Everyone in Iraq knew that these days would be very dangerous, and they knew it without having read the now-celebrated "Zarqawi letter" that laid out the terrorists' design of fomenting a religious war in Iraq in order to be able to mobilize large numbers of people against the American-led coalition. And the Iraqis also know, even if they will not always say so, that the driving force behind the terrorists sits outside Iraq's borders, hence Mr. al-Sistani's condemnation of our failure to control his borders.

Those borders divide Iraq from Syria and Iran. And, as luck would have it, just a couple of days ago the two countries signed a mutual "defense" pact. In a way, it was redundant, since Damascus and Tehran have long cooperated in the terror war against us in Iraq, and, in another bit of bravado, they told us in advance that they were going to do it. The formal agreement was a bit of braggadocio, a defiant spit in the eyes of the coalition, followed by this latest horror.

There have been many complaints that Iraqi leaders, religious and secular, have a tendency to "tilt" toward the Iranian view of some matters. But suppose that you were an Iraqi public figure. You know that there are Iranian agents all over the country. You see that many of your colleagues from Ayatollah Khoi to Ayatollah Hakim to several members of the Provisional Authority to countless local officials, have been gunned down or exploded by the holy martyrs. You know that suicide terrorism was unknown in Iraq before its liberation, while Iran has made a cottage industry out of it. Would you make denunciation of Iran the cornerstone of your policy? There are few people brave enough to do that, even if Jerry Bremer fumes when they protect themselves against the assassins. Mr. Bremer is leaving soon; they're not so sure about the mullahs.

We will never have true freedom and stability in Iraq until the terror masters in Tehran and Damascus have been defeated and removed from power.

Iraqi leaders will necessarily and quite reasonably be intimidated by the terror masters until and unless we demonstrate that we are serious about the war against terrorism, and that we are determined and capable of taking the struggle to Damascus and Tehran.

It is a strategic error of enormous dimensions to focus all our attention on Iraq, thereby leaving the Iranian mullahs and the Syrian Baathists a free hand. It has just cost hundreds of lives in Baghdad and may well cost many more. If all goes badly, it may yet lead to our defeat in the region.

Our greatest weapon against the terror masters is not military, but political. Yesterday, as news of the Iraqi carnage reached Iran, thousands of people poured into the streets to demonstrate against the tyranny of Ali Khamenei and Hashemi Rafsanjani. At this writing, there are only scattered reports, but many of the demonstrators seem to be accusing the regime of orchestrating the massacres. They know what many Western leaders and pundits seem unable to grasp: that the mullahs are happy to arrange for the mass murder of their own people in order to advance their cause. And it has a delicious side benefit, at least in the eyes of the tyrants: they can then claim that they are victims of Al Qaeda.

Last night French television reported that "Iranians" had been arrested in Iraq in connection with the bombings. These early reports are often mistaken, but the French instincts in this matter are certainly sound. The targets, the timing, and the operations themselves (a sequence of suicide bombers at separate locations, and then grenades thrown from neighboring buildings) bear the imprint of a ruthless, professional intelligence service. This was not the work of leftover Saddam followers. It was part of the broader war, in which we are the major target but not yet a fully engaged protagonist.

http://www.nysun.com/

Rafsanjani Blames "Occupation Forces" for Explosions in Iraq

March 03, 2004
BBC Monitoring
BBC Monitoring Middle East

Tehran -- Chairman of the Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani here Wednesday [3 March] blamed occupation forces for Tuesday's bombing attacks which claimed lives of many innocent mourning Muslims in Iraq.

In a meeting with members of central council and officials at Imam Khomeyni Relief Committee, he said affection for Ashura, the 10th day of lunar month of Moharram which marks martyrdom anniversary of Imam Husayn (AS [peace be upon him]) and 72 of his close companions and relatives, and the teachings of Ah al-Bayt (Infallible Household of Prophet of Islam) will never diminish as a result of such terrorist acts.

Marking the first quarter of establishment of Imam Khomeyni Relief Committee which coincided with 'Charity Week', he termed the incidents in the holy cities of Karbala, Al-Kazimiyah and the Pakistani city of Quetta as renewing allegiance to the lofty goals and aspirations of Imam Husayn (AS).

Such organized crimes demonstrates the depth of outrage and enmity towards Shi'is, he said adding that choosing of such day for his criminal act proves that the perpetrators were afraid of the impacts of Ashura on the campaign against tyranny.

On probable complicity of extremist groups in such terrorist acts in the holy cities of Karbala and Al-Kazimiyah, he held the global arrogance and the US [A] in particular responsible for the incident.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Rafsanjani lauded the hard efforts of Imam Khomeyni Relief Committee in helping needy people in the society.

[Passage omitted: About the explosions and number of people killed]

Source: IRNA news agency, Tehran, in English 1341 gmt 3 Mar 04

Excerpt from report in English by Iranian news agency IRNA

http://www.monitor.bbc.co.uk/nfnews.shtml#fifth

Iranian Man Submits to Fatal Lashing to Save Sisters

March 03, 2004
CTV Television
Canada AM

CTV Television

Host(s): Seamus O'Regan

Guest(s): Richard Kurland, Immigration Lawyer; Nayer Mofidi, Sister of the Late Mohsen Mofidi; Nika Nahasti, Sister of the Late Mohsen Mofidi

O'REGAN: Could a clerical error by Canadian officials be responsible for the death of an Iranian man and the torture of his two sisters? A lawsuit launched by the family of Mohsen Mofidi alleges just that. They say that delays by Immigration Canada led to his death at the hands of Iranian authorities. Joining us now from Vancouver to explain their story for the first time to a television audience are Mohsen's sisters, Nika Nahasti and Nayer Mofidi, and immigration lawyer Richard Kurland.

Thank you very much for joining us, all of you. Richard, I'll begin with you and I'll ask you, you know, a clerical error from Immigration Canada caused what sounds to be a nightmare. Can you explain to me how this happened?

KURLAND: Yeah, in 1999 the mother came to Canada seeking asylum. The abuse she suffered was so severe that it merited international protection. Canada welcomed her as a refugee. She then submitted the form to become an immigrant. And on the form she put the names of her three daughters in Iran. A clerk in Damascus said it's the wrong form and made an error. Not withstanding the intervention of Immigration Canada here in Vancouver, the Justice Department and the Federal Court, this same clerk insisted on the wrong form right up to 2004. We don't understand how that happened. And the result, the girls were stranded. Regrettably, they were picked up by the Iranian morality police. The two youngest were incarcerated, tortured for 16 days. The youngest had her teeth broken in, in the back, beaten by chains. Confessions were obtained, of allegedly having a boyfriend. The confessions were used against --

O'REGAN: That was the crime here.

KURLAND: That's the crime. It's a moral crime. They were alleged to have had boyfriends. They gave confessions falsely, under torture. They put up their homes for bail so that they wouldn't remain in Iranian prison and wouldn't have to be lashed. And we did our best to get their immigrant visas, but we hit a stone wall at a clerk in a Damascus office.

O'REGAN: Let's talk about what happened to the brother.

KURLAND: Well, after the girls were brought to safety -- well, in order for the girls to arrive to freedom in Canada the brother self-presented to Iranian authorities. He was accused of aiding and abetting the conspiracy to have boyfriends. And then they rolled out the charges: possession of a satellite dish and the consumption of alcohol in medicine during the 1980s. He presented himself to detention and lashing so that his sisters could safely leave Iran without notice by the Iranian authorities. He sacrificed his life so that the girls could come to Canada.

O'REGAN: Nika, I want to ask you a question. I know your brother was buried in Tehran on Friday. We understand you tried to get his body released to bring him here?

KURLAND: Nika's English isn't strong --

NAYER MOFIDI: Yes, that's why I was translating it to her. Yes, we tried to bring his body here, but it didn't work out.

KURLAND: The Iranian government was not about to release a body that had been so thoroughly lashed that evidence would trigger an international investigation by any court.

O'REGAN: Nayer, do you believe that by turning himself in that your brother saved your sisters?

NAYER MOFIDI: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.

KURLAND: Did the brother, in turning himself in, result in saving your three sisters?

NAYER MOFIDI: Yes.

KURLAND: Nayer is the fourth sister, a Canadian, who was there. And she left because it's her brother who was presented for detention and arrested and subsequently lashed to death.

O'REGAN: I understand, Richard, that there was a private meeting held with the justice minister, the federal justice minister, last night. What happened there?

KURLAND: Oh, you guys are good. Irwin Cotler, the justice minister, tried to help this family and gave pragmatic compassion. But it's not the justice minister that issues visas to safety --

O'REGAN: No, it's Foreign Affairs.

KURLAND: It's not the justice minister that does our Canadian foreign policy. Canadian silence was the response to assistance for Mr. Mofidi. And Canadian silence as a policy tool didn't dismantle the Soviet gulag system and didn't address the evil of apartheid. Canadian silence from Bill Graham doesn't address the evil of the Iranian lash. One phone call from Mr. Graham to the government of Iran may have postponed that lashing.

O'REGAN: A hundred and twenty lashes each, for your sisters, Nayer. I'm just wondering, how do you feel right now? You must be, I can't imagine the emotions that you're feeling right know, Nayer.

NAYER MOFIDI: Devastated. I still can't believe that my brother is dead.

KURLAND: When the girls presented to the Canadian embassy and the Canadian embassy refused to give them any travel assistance or even a transit visa, we scrambled in Vancouver over a weekend to get their funds transferred electronically to Iran and in a panic got a transit visa for one week later to come to Canada. The American government on Monday morning received a formal, written request for assistance of the government of the United States to directly or indirectly help these girls. We cc'ed the Immigration Department. Suddenly it became, "Oh, those girls! Of course we can try and do something." It was the American intervention, the possibility of American intervention, that spurred Canada to action. And the only reason we had that one-week opportunity is after the girls met our Canadian embassy crew in Tehran and were examined by the medical officer whose hands were shaking as he examined the youngest one because her teeth were broken by chains during her incarceration, couldn't perform the examination after that. When they said no to helping a 19- and 22-year-old and a 21-year-old, fear prematurely caused their periods. And under Islamic law they could not be lashed the following day. That bought me one week's time. And that's why they're here. That's why they're here.

O'REGAN: Boy, oh boy. It's a little overwhelming. Nika, we're so glad that you're with us. Nayer, thank you very much for joining us this morning. We know this must be terribly difficult. Richard, we will follow this story. We appreciate the three of you taking part.

KURLAND: Thank you. And the girls are grateful to all of Canada for sanctuary. They are truly grateful. Thank you, everyone.

NAYER MOFIDI: Thank you.

O'REGAN: Thank you, thank you.

http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/news/World.html

Tehran Court Orders US to Pay 1.2 Billion Dollars in Damages

March 03, 2004
AFP
Aljazeera.Net

A Tehran court has ordered the United States government to pay 1.2 billion U.S. Dollars in damages in connection with military actions against the Islamic republic in the 1980s, a report said on Wednesday.

"We obtained a conviction against the American government to pay 400 million dollars for its part in the deaths on the martyrs Nasr Allah Shafiie and Nadir Mahdavi," lawyer Nassrin Niktash was quoted as telling the student news agency ISNA.

"We have asked the foreign ministry to follow this dossier to obtain payment," he said.

He said that Shafiie and Mahdavi were killed by US Marines in the 1980s, but the report did not elaborate.

According to ISNA, the court also ordered the United States to pay $800 million to two Iranians who were "kidnapped" by US forces and "suffered damage," also without elaborating.

Similar penalties

The verdicts come following a series of cases lodged against Tehran in US courts. The Islamic republic has been ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages following 21 such lawsuits.

In one of the most high-profile cases, a US court ruled last September that Iran had to pay more than $420 million to a dozen US victims of a 1997 bombing in Jerusalem carried out by the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas, which the court alleges is supported by Iran.

In March 2000, a US federal judge ordered Iran to pay $341 million to journalist Terry Anderson and to members of his family.

Anderson, who had been Beirut bureau chief for the Associated Press, was kidnapped by another Palestinian resistance group, Islamic Jihad, and held for more than six years.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/90C84965-A36A-41BF-AE69-E5601366FA8F.htm

Zarqawi Infiltrates Shi'ite Community

March 04, 2004
Middle East Newsline
MENL

BAGHDAD -- A leading Al Qaida-aligned insurgency leader has used Iranian nationals to infiltrate Iraq's Shi'ite majority community.

Iraqi and U.S. officials said Abu Mussib Al Zarqawi, regarded as the most lethal insurgent in Iraq, has succeeded in infiltrating agents into the Shi'ite community in several major cities of the country. They said Al Zarqawi has recruited Iranians to collect intelligence and transport suicide bombers to Shi'ite civilian targets.

Al Zarqawi, the officials said, has managed to collect information on a range of Shi'ite targets where U.S. forces have not been deployed. They said his agents have taken advantage of the uncoordinated security around Shi'ite mosques and other shrines, regarded as high-value targets because of the large number of people they attract. Al Zarqawi, the officials said, has also taken advantage of the refusal by Shi'ite mosque guards to cooperate with Sunni police deployed outside the houses of worship.

On Tuesday, in the bloodiest day in Iraq since the end of the U.S.-led war against the Saddam Hussein regime, about 200 Shi'ites were killed in suicide and other bombings in Baghdad and Karbala. The Shi'ites were marking the 10-day Ashura mourning period for the death of Hussein, the grandson of Mohammed, founder of Islam.

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/march/03_04_2.html