Iranian Alert -- March 9, 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.

Stand Up to the Mullahs

March 08, 2004
Telegraph UK
Opinion

The latest instalment of the long-running transatlantic tussle over Western policy towards Iran will be played out today in Vienna at the quarterly meeting of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Americans, as ever, want a tougher resolution off the back of the director-general's latest report, focusing upon the failures of the Islamic republic to come fully clean about its nuclear programme; the European governments, led by France and Germany, but with Britain not far behind, are more willing to accept that measurable, albeit imperfect, progress has been made. Everyone says they want a "tough resolution". The differences lie over what exactly "tough" means. The result is a dangerous lack of clarity that the mullahs are bound to exploit.

The Government's treatment of Iran resembles the way it handled the IRA during the "peace process": no matter what atrocities are committed, it always gives the Islamists "one last chance". And, as with the leadership of the republican movement, there has been an enormous investment in the Iranian moderates at the expense of almost every other consideration. Even though the policy of "constructive engagement" has been a failure - as exemplified by the increased marginalisation, after last month's election, of the reformists clustered around President Mohammad Khatami - the Foreign Office has been woefully slow in constructing alternative approaches based upon support for genuine democracy. Indeed, George W Bush implicitly recognised as much when he slapped down the political director of the Foreign Office, John Sawers, at a recent meeting at the White House. If the Government wants to signal a real shift in favour of Iranian democrats, a good start would be for the Prime Minister to welcome to 10 Downing Street Azar Nafisi, the author of the best-selling memoir Reading Lolita in Teheran.

The failure of policy is worse than just a rigid desire to hold on to the moderate nurse for fear of finding something worse. It is also based upon a fundamentally faulty analysis - that the current Iranian regime is a "big beast" in the regional jungle which will be around for some time to come and which must be handled with great care. This is manifested by the toleration in the British occupation zone in Iraq of the semi-overt presence of Iranian intelligence officers and such pro-Iranian terrorist groups as Hizbollah. British officials are so desperate to keep things sweet that they dramatically downplay Teheran's hand in the Iraqi insurgency - even though senior Jordanians (as well as Americans) are now very explicit about the violence wrought by the Iranians.

This "hear no evil" approach has served the West ill. After all, every time the Americans have sought to make overtures to revolutionary Iran - in 1979 after the fall of the Shah, in 1985-86 at the time of the Iran-Contra affair, and in 1996-97, when the Clinton Administration apologised for America's historic support of the Pahlavi dynasty - the Islamic Republic has read it as a sign of weakness. Why should we in Britain suppose that the clerics take us any more seriously than they do the "Great Satan"?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F03%2F08%2Fdl0802.xml

'The Conservatives are the Enemies of Social Freedoms'

March 09, 2004
Middle East Media Research Institute
MEMRI

Iranian Reformist Leader Reza Khatami: 'Reform is a Revolutionary Process;' 'The Conservatives Are the Enemies of Social Freedoms'

In an interview with the Egyptian government paper Al-Ahram Weekly, Dr. Mohammad Reza Khatami, the leader of Iran's largest political party, the Islamic Iran Participation Front, addressed the problems facing reformists in Iran.

Khatami, who is currently serving as first deputy speaker in the sixth Majlis (Iran's parliament), was banned, along with his party, from contesting the recent parliamentary elections. Khatami, 45, is the brother of Iranian President Muhammad Khatami and is married to a granddaughter of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and was one of the student leaders who occupied the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979. The following is the interview, conducted by journalist Mustafa El-Labbad:(1)
'Although We Lost the Election, We’ll Be Back in Power Within Four Years'

Question: "I am sitting here with you in the offices of the Parliament, as your parliamentary term is still running. When do you think I'll be able to meet you here again?"

Khatami: "This question calls for a note of explanation. After Muhammad Khatami won the 1997 elections, it became possible to speak of effective political parties in Iran, of parties with political programs. Since that time, 20 parties appeared, including ours, the IIPF. All these parties participated in the elections but their political roles varied.

"Our party participated in the elections and in political action. We have 250 party offices all over Iran. Our supporters come from all sections of Iranian society. All these factors make it hard for the conservatives to eliminate our party.

"But in a country such as ours, where democratic tradition is still fragile, it is hard for parties to reach the public in the way that has become common in Western countries. However, we will pursue our political objectives against all obstacles, and will use novel methods and tactics. It is very crucial for us to be an effective party in the 2005 presidential elections. Although we have lost these [parliamentary] elections, I believe we can get back to power within four or, at the most, eight years."

Question: "The parliamentary elections have revealed divisions within the reformist camp between the radical wing that you represent and the moderate wing represented by your brother, President Khatami. What are your comments?"

Khatami: "To answer this, we have to consider the outcome of the elections. You will notice that the radical reformists have won the support and sympathy of the Iranian people, because of our position in these elections and because we were prevented from contesting them.

"The moderate reformists thought that there was a possibility for reconciling the conservatives and the reformers. This made them lose not just the elections but the street and the public.

"Look at the low turnout in major cities such as Tehran. This was a negative vote. The conservatives won 20 to 25 per cent of the vote. This means that 75 to 80 per cent do not like the conservatives and do not embrace their views. By going to the elections under the terms of the conservatives and by agreeing to the ban placed upon many reformist candidates, the moderates have lost a lot."

'The Iranians Want Neither the Conservatives nor the Moderate Reformists'

Khatami: "Despite losing the elections, we are in a better position. As we can see, in the light of election results, the Iranians want neither the conservatives nor the moderate reformists. Despite all that has happened, we are a popular political current."

Question: "Do you think that relations between the radicals and moderates in the reformist camp can be mended?"

Khatami: "The recent elections have exposed the divisions among various currents and even within the reformist current.

"I think that the answer to your question is yes - but only once the other wing has reconsidered its position, made a clear assessment about the reforms it really seeks in the political system, and admitted its defeat and the defeat of its ideas in the recent elections.

"But if this wing were to reiterate the same old ideas and tactics, I believe that the gap between us would be hard to bridge."

Question: "Supporters of your party belong mainly to the urban middle class. What have you achieved for them in the past four years of your government?"

Khatami: "Let's be realistic. No government could possibly resolve Iran's immense problems within four years. And yet we have changed the economic infrastructure in a clear manner, led the process of privatization, changed the structure of taxes, and increased government income. Exports have been increasing at high rates.

"The economy grew by eight percent annually. This is a great achievement for us. Also foreign investment increased in a steady manner. We have created 800,000 new jobs.

"However, the enormity of Iran's social problems eclipsed these achievements. Iran needs three million additional jobs. No government can resolve that in four years. We will find that the new conservative government will not be able to resolve the social and economic problems as well as foreign policy. They will lead Iran to real crises within a very short time."

Human Rights and Democracy are Integral Part of Our Foreign Policy; We Want Normal Relations With All Countries Except Israel

Question: "How do you envisage Iran's foreign policy, regionally and internationally?"

Khatami: "Our main idea is to normalize relations with all countries of the world except Israel. We want stability and security in the Middle East and do not wish to interfere in a negative way in the current peace process. We accept what the Palestinians accept.

"But we have faced many obstacles that the conservatives placed in our path. Despite the fact that we could not establish full diplomatic relations with Egypt, the relations between the two countries and their governments are very good. The way Egyptians view Iran has positively changed thanks to our policy, and this is very important.

"Should the conservatives continue to repress the Iranian people, Iranian foreign policy will not be successful, for no country wants to have relations with a government that oppresses its people.

"Therefore, human rights and democracy are integral parts of our foreign policy vision. The success we have achieved over the past four years is under threat from the conservatives. Furthermore, the conservatives are enemies of social freedoms."

Question: "Why?"

Khatami: "Because they believe that social freedoms are against Islam. They are against music, theatre, and cinema.

"It is inconceivable that they grant their citizens even a part of these freedoms. The conservatives are united in repressing society and their opponents. They are also unable to normalize Iran's relations with the world.

"If they were to allow social freedoms and improve their relations with other countries, we would welcome their steps. It does not matter who is to accomplish this - be it us, or them. We will support them if they do that."

'The Occupation of the Embassy Was in Response to the Reactionary Conspiracies Against the Revolution'

Question: "In 1979 a group of students, led by you, occupied the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took its staff hostage. Now, a quarter of a century later, how do you view that event?"

Khatami: "These were hard times in the history of our revolution and must not be judged by the standards of 2004. We have to go back to that time to assess the occupation of the embassy in a sound manner.

"The Iranians supported the revolution - 98 percent of them did, according to the referendum on the constitution of the Islamic Republic. Iran suffered from disturbances in various regions, in Baluchistan, Turkmenistan, and Kurdistan. Foreign conspiracies against the revolution were at their peak. The country was in danger.

"Who was behind these troubles and disturbances? The Shah, of course, and the army was pro-Shah, as successive coup attempts proved. And who was the Shah's main supporter? It was the United States, which plotted to suppress the revolution.

"It was impossible for us to stand still. The occupation of the embassy was in response to the reactionary conspiracies against the revolution. The revolutionary students who occupied the embassy wanted to hold the hostages for four days only, not 444 days.

"After the first four days of the occupation of the embassy, it was the revolutionary government that prolonged the hostage situation and conducted a negotiating process that led to the release of these hostages."

Question: "Are you saying that the government prodded the students to take such action?"

Khatami: "No, this is not what I meant to say. What I am saying is that the timing of the release of the hostages and the evacuation of the embassy was up to the government.

"Generally speaking, the taking of the hostages and the occupation of the American embassy are things that can be justified in the context of 1979."

Question: "The student leaders who carried out this operation are the leaders of the reformist current in Iran now, including yourself, Vice President Masuma Ibtikor, Mohsen Mirdamadi, chairman of the National Security Committee in the previous parliament and Ebrahim Asghar Zadeh, leader of the Islamic Iran Solidarity Party. Is this a coincidence?"

Khatami: "The Iranian revolution was a popular revolution and no one can deny that. The vast majority of Iranians supported the occupation of the embassy.

"Also, the domestic situation in Iran changed completely after this action was carried out, and all military operations hostile to our revolution ended.

"We are now in a similar situation. The student leaders took the right decision at that time, just as they do now, through their support for political reform and its proponents in Iran. They are revolutionaries in the true sense of the word. There is no contradiction.

"Reform is a revolutionary process."

Egypt and Iran: Promoters of Democracy and Freedom

Question: "Finally, what message would you like to address to the peoples of our region?"

Khatami: "Democracy is the basic demand of our peoples. Freedom is the main leverage of democracy, and the relations among the countries of this region have to change.

"Egypt has led Arab and Islamic countries, and still does, in the process of modernization and development. It is capable of consolidating democracy in our region. The peoples of the region, as well as civil society groups, parties and governments, have to keep in touch in order to exchange expertise and learn from one another.

"This is in the interest of the region. We see the Egyptian people as a leading nation in the region. We do not deny their historic role and we look forward to cooperating with them for the benefit of a region that deserves better."

Endnote:

(1) Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt), March 4-10, 2004.

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD67604

HARD LINERS WANTS THE HEAD OF ALI AKBAR MOUSAVI-KHO’EINIA

Iran Press Service
March 8th 2004
Paris, France

TEHRAN, 8 Mar. (IPS) Mr. Ali Akbar Mousavi-Kho’einiha, a reformist lawmaker came under strong attacks from the conservatives-controlled media on Monday for his remarks in the Majles on Sunday, criticising the Assembly of Experts for not doing its job properly in controlling the actions and performances of the leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i.

As Mr. Kho’einiha was addressing the outgoing House, accusing the leader-controlled institutions such as the Council of the Guardians of trying to transform the Majles into a rubber stamp parliament, hard line deputies run towards him shouting insults, pulled away his microphone and tried to beat him, but were prevented by other reformist colleagues.

"Today like in old days, we are witnessing a parliamentary coup against a current that struggles for transformation, using intimidation, threats and disqualification in the seventh parliamentary elections in order to form a rubber-stamp Majles that would sit and stand up on call", the young Kho’einiha said referring to the rejection of hundreds of reformist candidates by the leader-controlled Council of the Guardians.

Mr. Kho’einia, an outspoken deputy who represents the Iranian students community and like a hundred other reformist deputies was disqualified, said the Expert Assembly should examine "if the leader and the Guardians were rightful in their decision and whether the mass disqualifications was based on justice and expedience".

His remarks, underlining that Mr. Khameneh'i had tacitly confirmed the CG in barring reformist hopefuls from the electoral race were broadcast live by state-run radio.

The Assembly of Experts, a body of 86 senior clerics which began an annual meeting in Tehran Sunday, is the only instance that elects the leader of the Islamic Republic and has also the power to dismiss him if he is deemed to be performing badly or is unfit to hold the office.

"What they (conservatives) are after is a Majles where no voice object to any wrong doing, where no one reveals any thing, where no illegality is controlled, where the Article 90 Committee (that looks into the matters related with prisoners and human rights) is no more a place for the oppressed ones, do not investigate on the police attacks on students, on the serial killing of intellectual dissidents, journalists, political activists and students, where no one stands up defending the rights of political prisoners, a Majles that says and does what the leaders like to see and hear", he went on amidst applauses of the reformists and shouts and insults from the conservative minority benches.

Some hard-line newspapers that usually speaks for Mr. Khameneh'i or reflects his views called on the Judiciary to bring Mr. Kho’einiha to court, as any criticism o Mr. Khameneh’i is considered a criminal offence.

"One common denominator with all the rejected lawmakers is that instead of accepting their failure, they attack the regime, its leaders and structures", observed the radical daily Keyhan, referring to Mr. Kho’einiha’s speech.

To protest the large-scale disqualifications, reformist deputies, including Mr. Kho’einiha, had staged a 20-days sit-in and offered mass resignation.

Observing that the Assembly of the Experts has the duty to control the governance of the leader and his performances, Mr. Kho’einia said one must ask if the action of the leader and the organs under his direct control, particularly during the "unjust, competition-free, unchallenged and illegal elections were in line with principles of honesty, good governance, justice and fairness?".

Answering his own questions, the young lawmaker observed that if the Experts would have done their job properly in supervising the actions of the leader and if the Majles would also have exercised more control over the government of the lamed Mohammad Khatami, it would be "possible to stop many of the wrongdoings".

"However, considering that the honourable members of the Assembly of Experts as well as those of the Council of the Guardians are appointed by the leader, there is few chances to see voices of the just reaching any ear", he said, proposing that "in such conditions, it is better to make away with all these farces and govern the nation with State Orders (emanating from the leader).

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2004/Mar_04/iran_khoeiniha_8304.htm

Iraqis Embrace Politics

March 09, 2004
New York Post
Amir Taheri

Although no date has been set for polling day, Iraqi politics has already shifted into election campaign gear. The most dramatic illustration of this so far came last Friday when five Shiite members of the Iraq Governing Council, the nation's interim authority, failed to show up at a ceremony organized to sign a constitutional draft.

The boycott was not announced until the last minute and thus achieved maximum impact. TV audiences throughout the country saw other members of the council milling around, consulting their watches, and in some cases biting their nails, while a group of 24 schoolgirls, dressed in folk costumes, waited anxiously to perform a special number written for what was to be an historic occasion but wasn't.

Some in the Western media saw the Baghdad boycott episode as "a major setback for U.S. plans in Iraq" and "a rupture between the Shiites and the United States." That was quickly proven wrong - the signing took place yesterday. What did these "analysts" miss?

The boycott's point was not to torpedo the draft constitution or to upset plans for the transfer of power to the Iraqis - nor even to make life more difficult for L. Paul Bremer, the American "pasha" who heads the interim Coalition authority.

The five who stayed away are the most experienced politicians among the 13 Shiites who make up a majority of the Governing Council. Iraq observers agree that almost all the "boycott five" will secure seats in the transitional government to be set up June 30 when the occupation period officially ends:

* Iraqi National Council (INC) leader Ahmed Chalabi has had close ties to the United States for decades.

* Abdel-Aziz Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), has done more than many to foster trust between the coalition and the Iraqi Shiites.

* Mohammed Bahr al-Oloum played a key role in the dialogue between the Shiite clergy and the coalition authorities.

* Ibrahim al-Jaafari, leader of the Al-Daawah (The Call) Party and Mouwafak al-Rubii, an independent politician, have emerged as moderate figures with genuine democratic aspirations.

Note, first, that only these five - of 13 Shiites on the Governing Council - decided to stay away. In other words, there was no collective Shiite action to postpone the signing of the draft, let alone derail the entire constitution scheme.

The boycott decision was taken late last Thursday after a grand meeting of Shiite religious, tribal, business and political leaders at the home of Grand Ayatollah Ali Muhammad Sistani, the primus inter pares of Iraqi clerics, in Najaf.

The meeting had been convened to work out strategy in the wake of the terrorist attacks against Shiites in Karbala and Baghdad last Tuesday.

Two Governing Council members briefed Sistani and other clerics about the constitutional draft and invited them to support the document. (Sistani and other ayatollahs have not been given a formal role in the constitutional process because most Iraqis agree that religion should not become directly involved in politics.)

They raised two objections. One concerned a mechanism by which the interim constitution could be suspended if two-thirds of voters in just three of Iraq's 18 provinces so decide. The measure was inserted as added assurance for the minorities, notably Kurds and Turcoman, who fear that the new Iraq, dominated by the Shiite majority, might threaten their legitimate aspiration to autonomy and cultural self-realization. Because some provinces are sparsely populated, such a mechanism could give a few hundred thousand voters a veto power.

The second Shiite objection concerned the composition of the presidential council that will supervise the period of transition: The Shiites will not receive the two-thirds share of the seats that they believe reflects their demographic position in the country as a whole.

In short, the objections concerned technical points that could be ironed out through negotiations.

What is significant is that the Shiite community has been almost unanimous in endorsing the constitutional draft. The Shiites have learned the lesson of 1918-1919, when they refused to cooperate with the British occupation authorities in setting up Iraq as an independent nation-state. As a result, the Shiites shut themselves out of politics for decades, ending up living in a country ruled by the Sunni Arab minority. (The British even imported a Sunni king for Iraq from neighboring Arabia.)

During the past few months, the politics of liberated Iraq has developed its own careful choreography.

This is how things proceed: The "pasha" puts his ideas in circulation. They are immediately attacked by everyone, most notably by the Shiites. Then all sides enter into negotiations that include a great deal of posturing. Eventually, a compromise emerges.

This is almost invariably rejected by Sistani, whose tactic has been to play the democratic card and to call for people power. Then follows another series of negotiations, which lead to new compromise. This is then endorsed by Sistani, often with a wink and a nod.

The tactic is to push the Coalition and the Governing Council to the edge, but not beyond.

The "boycott quintet" is using a similar ploy. They need to do three things at the same time:

* Keep the political process on course.

* Keep their popular base motivated and mobilized.

* Counter claims that they are mere puppets in an American game.

In other words, they are acting as any normal politician would do wherever decisions are not imposed by a despot or a dictatorial ruling clique. That is: The Iraqis are learning democracy on the job.

In the weeks and months ahead, Iraq is going to have a lot of politics with a great many cliff-hangers. Don't be surprised if Chalabi emerges as the leader of a movement to end "American occupation." It would also be no surprise if the next boycott is organized by the Kurds.

Iraqi politicians on all sides are beginning to learn how to use the full bag of tricks that comes with normal politics. The Shiites wish to highlight their numerical strength without scaring away other communities. The Kurds emphasize their 12-year experience in democratic self-rule and their privileged relations with Washington. Sunni Arabs seek to make the most of their administrative experience and the contribution they could make to the nation's new armed forces, diplomatic service and cultural life.

All in all, Iraqis seem to be developing a taste for politics, something they had been deprived of for almost half a century. And that, believe me, is a privilege that few other nations in the region enjoy today.

E-mail: amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com - www.benadorassociates.com

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20218.htm

Iran Demands Entry to Nuclear Club

March 09, 2004
Asia Times
Safa Haeri

Iran on Sunday surprised the international community, and above all the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), by seeking to join the world's atomic club, calling on its members for a prompt entry.

"We want Iran to be recognized as a member of the nuclear club, that means Iran be recognized as a country having the nuclear fuel cycle, and enriching uranium. This is very difficult for the world to accept," Hassan Rohani, the secretary of the Supreme Council for National Security (SCNS), announced ahead of an important meeting this week of the IAEA. Five countries are officially inside that club - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France.

The UN agency meets in Vienna to tackle Iran's and Libya's nuclear programs, which have been fed by a global black market linked to the father of Pakistan's atom bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan. The governing board will consider two resolutions during the meeting, expected to last until Friday.

The first is Libya's long-secret atomic-weapons program, which Tripoli has agreed to dismantle under the supervision of the IAEA. The second issue is Iran, long accused by Washington, among others, of using its atomic-energy program as a front to build a bomb.

Tehran insists that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and has called on the IAEA to leave it alone. "The case concerning Iran's peaceful nuclear activities should be completely closed at the IAEA board of governors and removed from its agenda," Rohani said on state television on Sunday.

He added that it was time for the IAEA, which launched an intensive investigation into Iran's nuclear program 13 months ago, to confirm the Islamic Republic's innocence.

The "request" for membership to the atomic club by Rohani, who handles the complicated, complex and controversial issue of Iranian nuclear activities and who conducts the difficult and tortuous talks with the IAEA, means that Iran has the capacity of making nuclear weapons, a potential that most US and European experts and intelligence services put at between three and five years to achieve.

Whatever the reasons that motivated Tehran's move, diplomats and experts say that Rohani's declaration not only will not appease international concerns about Iran's determination to set up a nuclear arsenal, but also convince the United States and the European Union to increase pressures on the Islamic Republic to stop all its atomic projects, or face drastic international sanctions.

In a report to be published at the end of this month, David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a US-based non-profit research organization specializing in nuclear matters, will disclose that Iran has the capacity to produce enough enriched uranium to build some 30 nuclear warheads a year.

In Tehran on Sunday, Rohani told the inaugural session of the Assembly of Experts, a body made up of 82 senior clerics that has the power to elect or dismiss the leader of the regime: "We have two goals ahead of us that we must achieve. One is closing Iran's nuclear dossier with the IAEA and bringing the board of governors to take it out of their agenda, and the other is to have Iran recognized globally as a nuclear country."

As Rohani was briefing the Experts, a hardline newspaper warned the IAEA to be "more realistic in its dealings with Iran or the whole game would be jeopardized", and an unidentified Iranian diplomat in Vienna threatened that Iran would resume uranium enrichment and revise its agreement to cooperate with the international nuclear watchdog if the dispute is not resolved in line with last October's agreement.

The envoy was referring to an accord signed on October 21 in Tehran between Rohani with the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany under which Iran agreed to sign the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and suspend enriching uranium in return for getting access to advanced nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes, like the construction of nuclear-powered electrical plants.

"Iran will not wait forever to restore its legitimate national right to pursue peaceful nuclear activities and will not accept that the IAEA continue its double-standard policies toward Iran," the diplomat added, quoted by Mehr, a news agency close to the ruling conservatives.

At the same time, and in an obvious coordinated campaign aimed at intimidating the IAEA's board of governors, Mohsen Rezai, the secretary of the powerful Expediency Council that is chaired by former president Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, said cooperation with the IAEA would become more difficult if the IAEA decided to limit Iran's peaceful and civilian nuclear activities.

Rohani, in his lengthy and detailed report to the Assembly of Experts, explained why he had to bow to the IAEA's demand to sign the Additional Protocol, revealing that in the event that Iran did not obey, "it would face the same fate as Iraq", meaning a possible military invasion of the country authorized by the UN Security Council.

"The pressures applied on Iran were so great that most of the world's leading industrial nations conditioned trading with us to the signing of the protocol, as seen in the Azadegan oilfields that the Japanese refused to develop," the SCNS influential secretary told a bewildered assembly. (See Japan, Iran sign major oil deal, US dismayed , February 20.)

However, Rohani expressed the hope that because of Iran's "clear-cut and full" cooperation with the IAEA, the board would not take the case to the Security Council for economic sanctions. "Even the Americans have indicated that they would not insist on the matter," he added.

Diplomats in Vienna said a draft resolution prepared by the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand does not mention the Security Council and balances criticism of Iran with praise for granting the IAEA access to sites and agreeing to suspend all activities linked to the enrichment of uranium.

The IAEA will also discuss technology and equipment for enriching uranium sold to Iran by Pakistan's Khan. According to a report by Malaysian police based on the apparent confession of a wealthy Sri Lankan who serves as a middleman, Khan sold Iran a number of centrifuges for US$3 million. But Tehran has constantly denied the accusations, saying that it obtained second-hand material on the black market, with no information about its origin.

IAEA inspectors who found traces of aluminum enriched with new equipment known as P-2 say Iran concealed this equipment from them, but the radical daily Keyhan on Sunday accused the agency of "gross lies and total dishonesty", reiterating that Iran had told inspectors about all of its activities and installations.

In a sharp-tongued comment, Hoseyn Shariatmadari, a high-ranking intelligence officer appointed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as editor, said that although the October 21 agreement with the foreign affairs ministers of Europe's big three was a choice between bad and worse, the IAEA, under pressure from the "US and Zionist circles has gone far beyond honesty in dealing with the Islamic Republic".

Quoting Khamenei as having warned the IAEA and the leading powers "not to try to challenge Islamic Iran's right to possess nuclear technology", Shariatmadari called on the authorities to be ready for "the big showdown" and urged lawmakers elected to the next Iranian parliament not to approve the protocol if the IAEA failed to accommodate Iran.

The additional protocol, which allows IAEA inspectors to carry out "instant" and unrestricted inspections of all Iranian nuclear installations and projects, has not yet been approved by the outgoing Iranian majlis (parliament).

According to Mehr, continuing accusations against Iran, despite its cooperation with IAEA inspectors, has irked the Iranian delegation, which has accused the agency of dealing with Iran in an "illogical manner ... There is nothing permanent. We signed the additional protocol ... and when to resume is in the hands of our system [the ruling Islamic establishment]," Rohani said at the assembly on Sunday, reiterating that Iran's atomic projects, like an electric plant that is under construction at the Persian Gulf port of Booshehr, with assistance from Russia, are for civilian purposes.

But Washington insists that Iran's ruling ayatollahs want to use atomic installations, and Booshehr, for advancing military aims.

The IAEA's latest report on Iran said that agency inspectors had unearthed designs and parts for the advanced P2 uranium enrichment centrifuge, capable of producing bomb-grade uranium at twice the speed of Iran's first generation P1 centrifuges. The agency also uncovered experiments in the creation of plutonium, which can also be used as the explosive in nuclear weapons, and polonium, which can spark a chain reaction in a nuclear weapon.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FC09Ak03.html

Iran Conservatives Warn on Nuclear Cooperation

March 09, 2004
Reuters
Ha'aretz

TEHRAN -- Angered by tough remarks by the head of the UN’s atomic watchdog, conservative Iranian politicians warned that Tehran may cease cooperation with nuclear inspectors, newspapers reported on Tuesday.

The attitude of conservative legislators, who regained control of parliament from reformists in elections last month, could jeopardize ratification of an agreement signed by Iran last year to allow intrusive snap checks of its nuclear facilities.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei criticized Iran on Monday for failing to declare advanced nuclear research and equipment which could be used to make atomic bombs.

One senior conservative legislator said Iran could follow North Korea's example by pulling out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

"Iran's threat about opting out of the NPT is serious," Hassan Qashqavi, member of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, was quoted as saying by the hardline Siyasat-e Rouz newspaper.

He said the IAEA board of governors' meeting which began in Vienna on Monday had been hijacked by U.S. interests.

"The pressure from America is mainly political and is aimed at depriving Iran of nuclear knowledge," he said. "This will lead Iran to reconsider its nuclear cooperation."

Iran insists its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity, not making bombs as Washington alleges.

Hardliners' objections to cooperation with nuclear inspectors had been more muted in recent months following Iran's decision last October, under intense international pressure, to agree to snap inspections, halt uranium enrichment and cooperate more closely with the IAEA

’Unfair picture’

Iranian officials last week called for the IAEA to remove Iran's nuclear program from its agenda, arguing that Tehran had done enough to prove it had no nuclear arms ambitions.

ElBaradei promptly quashed that request on Monday, saying there were still too many outstanding questions.

"They are giving Iran another deadline," the hardline Etemad newspaper said in a commentary. "Their main policy is to continue the game, not to end it."

The moderate Iran newspaper said Iran submitted an official letter of complaint to the IAEA board on Monday, arguing that the latest IAEA report painted an unfair picture of Iran's cooperation with the agency.

"The conclusion that there were some shortcomings cannot be justified," the newspaper quoted from the letter.

Hardline papers focused on what they termed the failure of European powers Britain, France and Germany to fulfil an agreement to provide Iran with peaceful nuclear technology.

"Any non-commitment by the agency and Europe...should trigger a response from Iran," newly elected conservative legislator Aladein Broujerdi told the hardline Jam-e Jam daily.

"Iran should not act beyond the framework of the NPT and it should not take steps to meet illogical demands," he said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=402846&contrassID=1&subContrassID=8&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

US, Europe Split On Iran's Failure To Declare Nuclear Ops

March 09, 2004
Dow Jones Newswires
The Associated Press

VIENNA -- The U.S. and allies at the U.N. atomic agency met with major European nations Tuesday to try and paper over key differences on whether Tehran is living up to its pledge to allow full perusal of its nuclear dossier.

A diplomat told The Associated Press that no common language had yet been found, adding he hoped a draft resolution acceptable to both camps could be agreed on by Wednesday, the last scheduled day of the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors' meeting.

It appeared clear, however, that the conference would have to be extended because of the transatlantic dispute.

"I'm hopeful for Thursday," IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei told The Associated Press. "We'll see."

As the meeting opened Monday, ElBaradei described both Iran and Libya - which has acknowledged having a weapons program and has pledged to scrap it -as being in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

While praising Tehran for some cooperation, he said he was "seriously concerned" about Iran's refusal to declare plans and parts for an advanced uranium enrichment system, calling it a "setback to Iran's stated policy of transparency."

Only Iran remains in the spotlight, with Libya apparently keeping pledges to dismantle its weapons program.

Washington, which is convinced that Tehran once wanted to make nuclear weapons and continues to harbor secrets, seeks tough language to dominate any resolution that might be adopted by the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors. U.S. officials at the meeting have been emphasizing recent suspicious discoveries by the IAEA that Iran provided explanations for only after they were found.

But Germany, the U.K. and France seek to emphasize Iran's progress in unveiling nuclear activities and cooperating with IAEA inspectors since the discovery last year of a secret uranium enrichment program and covert tests that could be applied toward making weapons.

Reflecting the rift, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton complained in a letter sent to the three European governments ahead of the meeting that their stance was hurting the common effort to get Iran to comply with its promises for full nuclear disclosure, diplomats told The Associated Press.

A U.S-proposed resolution text made available to the AP spoke of "serious failures" by Iran to reveal all and of "most serious concerns" about its activities - language considered too harsh by the Europeans. It also said Iran's declaration of past and present nuclear activities was "neither correct nor complete;" spoke of a "number of omissions," and "reserved consideration" of how the board would react - shorthand for possible future U.N. Security Council involvement.

Still Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA predicted U.S. attempts to push through a tough resolution would fail.

"Almost all colleagues in the IAEA think that we have done our best in our ability to work with the agency," Pirooz Hosseini told reporters.

In an IAEA report made public last month, Tehran was accused of continuing to hide evidence of nuclear experiments unearthed by agency inspectors. The dossier dealt Iran a setback in its efforts to convince the world that its nuclear program is peaceful and that it is fully cooperating with the U.N. agency.

The report mentioned finds of traces of polonium, a radioactive element that can be used in nuclear weapons and expressed concerns with the discovery of a previously undisclosed advanced P-2 uranium centrifuge system - a finding that the U.S. administration said raises "serious concerns" about Tehran's intentions.

Chief U.S. delegate Kenneth C. Brill told reporters he thought it was "striking that the more the agency learns the more the Iranians have to change their stories."

Iran has insisted its interest in uranium enrichment is only geared at generating power and not to arm warheads. To show good will, it has suspended its enrichment program and has also allowed IAEA inspectors broad access to its nuclear programs.

Iran requested an end of the international scrutiny of its past and present nuclear agenda ahead of the meeting, but ElBaradei said Tehran would remain on the agency's top agenda until all outstanding issues are removed.

The board also planned to discuss agency findings resulting from its probe of the complex black market network providing Iran, Libya and North Korea with technology that can be used to make nuclear weapons.

In contrast, a draft resolution on Libya is extremely complementary.

The draft, which also was provided to the AP, expresses "deep satisfaction," with Tripoli's openness, "welcomes the active cooperation," exhibited by Libya, and "congratulates" it for accepting full and intrusive IAEA inspections.

Still, it asks ElBaradei to report Libya's past transgressions to the Security Council - setting up a possible precedent for Iran - and the threat of future sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004030910310010&Take=1

The Folly of Dialogue Diplomacy

March 09, 2004
National Review Online
Elio Bonazzi

If the West doesn't stop Iran today, the consequences will be dire. The only way to prevent a potentially catastrophic outcome in the Middle East is to provoke regime change in Iran. The good news is that to achieve this goal no direct military intervention is required.

Simplicity, naivety, and deceitful complexity.

In every aspect of human life, new ideas, designs, and concepts usually go through three distinct phases. A good dose of naivety characterizes the initial phase of every project, intellectual enterprise, or model; the intrinsic novelty of the subject-matter forces engineers, politicians, and intellectuals to make naïve assumptions, which are progressively refined and adjusted, and new layers of complexity are added to the model, design, or political doctrine in order to better equip it to deal with complex realities.

Adding complexity, however, is only an intermediate phase. According to Antoine de Saint-Exupery, "Perfection (in design) is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but rather when there is nothing more to take away."

The best models, designs, and political doctrines are simple. But their simplicity is the fruit of a complex process, which started with naivety, grew through complexity and achieved a level of harmony and integrity possible only after redundancy was eliminated, internal coherence realized, and unnecessary entanglement discarded, all the while striving to capture the true essence of the problem under analysis.

Experience teaches that it is very rarely, if ever, that a successful engineering design, or political or economical doctrine, deviates from common sense, or is counterintuitive. If somebody tried to convince us that in order to achieve an egalitarian society we need to stop taxing the rich and tax more heavily blue-collar workers, we would smell the proverbial rat. A sophism is a plausible but fallacious argument. Unnecessary complexity is deceitful, and often used to muddy the waters and to erect smokescreens that allow unfounded theories to appear logical and coherent.

Which is exactly what certain diplomats and State Department officials are doing when they call for a dialogue with the Iranian mullahs. Their intent is to normalize relations with Tehran in order to seek an understanding — and possibly a deal — with the theocratic regime in exchange for the Islamic republic's cessation of its nuclear program.

According to this foreign-policy school of thought, which for lack of a better term we call "realist," the recent outcome of the Iranian national elections, which marked the defeat of the reformists and the triumph of the Islamic hardliners, is good news. The sophists of the State Department would like to convince us that now that the excruciating internal debate between the Leftist mullahs and the conservative establishment is over, the "pragmatic conservatives" are ready to cut a deal with the West over Tehran's WMD programs.

If we leave for a moment the realm of sophisms, and revert to simplicity and common sense, we realize that the analysis of the Iranian situation is straightforward. One doesn't need a Ph.D in political science to realize that the Iranians feel encircled — American and allied troops are in Afghanistan and in Iraq — and only the nuclear bomb would make the mullahs feel invincible. We are discovering almost daily that the Iranians are more advanced than originally thought in their nuclear plans. On several occasions, they deceived the European Union and the international nuclear watchdog about their true intentions to buy time and continue pursuing their covert nuclear program.

A common trick is to have one theocrat announce Iran's strict adherence to the nonproliferation protocols; and then, a day later, have a different top cleric state exactly the opposite. This happened, for example, last week: Hassan Rohani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, openly announced that an unspecified number of nuclear installations remain undeclared and that the Iranian authorities don't see the need to disclose all aspects of their nuclear program to the IAEA. But, only a few days earlier, the foreign minister of Germany, France, and Britain signed a last-minute deal in Vienna with Iranian representatives that once again stated Tehran's willingness to comply with the IAEA directives.

Why should we care what happens in Iran? Well, for starters, Iran directly sponsors Hezbollah terrorists in Israel, through Syria. Iranian killers are sent into Iraq to foment anti-American feelings. Iran represents today the single most dangerous threat to world stability. It represents an immediate threat to Israel and to the American troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The natural conclusion is that Iran cannot be "fixed." The only possible way out is a regime change. Anybody claiming that "engagement" with the theocratic fascists in Tehran could produce positive results is following the Yellow Brick Road, and is either a genuine victim of the mullah-orchestrated game of deception, or has ulterior motives.

To justify their willingness to continue a hopeless dialogue with the Islamist leaders in Tehran, foreign-policy realists use convoluted and abstract scenarios, which are inevitably counterintuitive. A typical example is their claim that the outcome of the latest Iranian elections is positive because, now that the "pragmatic conservative clerics" finally got rid of their internal opposition, it clears the way to important diplomatic breakthroughs. It is yet another example of deceitful and unnecessary complexity.

Occam's Razor is a logical principle attributed to the medieval philosopher William of Occam. Scientific knowledge is based on experience and self-evident truths, and on logical propositions resulting from those two sources. Occam stressed the Aristotelian principle that entities must not be multiplied beyond what is necessary. In science, the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected.

The basic facts are that the mullahs are developing the nuclear bomb and nothing will stop them. Hitler should have been stopped in 1936, as soon as he remilitarized the Rhineland in blatant breach of the Versailles treaty. The European nations failed to do so, and the end-result was World War II.

If the West doesn't stop Iran today, the consequences will be dire. The only way to prevent a potentially catastrophic outcome in the Middle East is to provoke regime change in Iran. The good news is that to achieve this goal no direct military intervention is required. No more American troops will have to die in a distant land. And the American taxpayers won't have to bear the costs of another expensive military campaign.

Simply declaring that the only U.S. policy towards Iran is regime change, and enforcing it at every level in the administration, would provoke shock waves in Tehran. A resolute and determined U.S. administration could release part of Iran's frozen assets, seized during the hostage crisis of 1979, and use them to fund the Iranian opposition movement, inside and outside of the country. The Islamic regime has lost popular support, and survives only thanks to a very efficient repressive apparatus, exactly like the Communist regimes in eastern Europe before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Imposing sanctions and isolating the regime would provide the final blow needed to overthrow the mullahs.

The strategy explained above is simple but not naïve. It follows the principle of Occam's Razor, is internally coherent, and is based on common sense, historical facts, and the will of the people of Iran. If today we miss this historical opportunity to bring peace and long-term stability to the Middle East, we will have to achieve the same goal in a few years, when it will be much more difficult, expensive, and onerous. If we let the sophists of the State Department have their way, the inevitable showdown with the Islamist regime will only be postponed, but not avoided.

— Elio Bonazzi is an Italian-born political scientist.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bonazzi200403090852.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.