Iranian Alert -- March 9, 2004 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD --Americans for Regime Change in Iran

The Iranian Student Movement Up To The Minute Reports ^ | 3.9.2004 | DoctorZin

[DoctorZIn]

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.

DoctorZin

[sheik yerbouty]

Fine. Order some barium enemas for the mullahs..

[nuconvert]

U.S., Europe Agree on Draft Resolution on Iran's Nuclear Activities

Mar 9, 2004

By George Jahn /
Associated Press Writer


VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Accepting painful compromises, the United States agreed with key European nations on Tuesday to tone down criticism of Iran for its continued nuclear secrecy.
Washington also accepted a draft resolution containing some praise of Tehran's willingness to open its nuclear programs to outside inspection.

Both sides signed off on the draft document prepared for a high-level conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency after days of grueling negotiations aimed at finding the proper mix of praise and criticism.

The United States insists Iran is interested in making nuclear weapons. Washington wanted the meeting to condemn Iran for not fully living up to pledges to reveal all past and present nuclear activities while keeping open options for future involvement by the U.N. Security Council.

France, Germany and Britain, however, wanted to focus on Iranian cooperation with the IAEA that began only after the discovery last year that Tehran had plans to enrich uranium and secretly conducted other tests with possible weapons applications over nearly two decades.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters negotiations continued on final language. The text of the document still must be approved by all 35 nations of the IAEA board of governors.

But with the trans-Atlantic rift resolved, the greatest hurdle to agreement on Iran appeared to be out of the way.

The compromise reflected the obstacles faced by Washington in its effort to deal harshly with Iran.

When the issue first came up before the board last year, the United States pushed to have Tehran called before the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions, arguing that Iran had violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

But it has been repeatedly forced to back down in the face of widespread resistance at the board. The consensus text, made available to the Associated Press Tuesday, made no direct mention of the Security Council.

The text criticizes Iran for not fully living up to its pledge to be completely open about past and present nuclear activities.

It "notes with the most serious concern that ... (past) declarations made by Iran ... did not amount to the correct, complete and final picture of Iran's past and present nuclear program."

The text also slams Iran for "failing to resolve all questions" about uranium enrichment, which can be used to make weapons, saying the agency "deplores" the lapse.

But it praises Iran for signing an agreement throwing open its nuclear programs to full and pervasive IAEA perusal and "recognizes" Iran's cooperation with agency investigations, even while calling on Iran to "intensify its cooperation."

In Tehran, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said he hoped the IAEA ultimately would come to agree with Iran's assertion that all its nuclear activities are "for peaceful purposes."

The rift over Iran had led to unusual strains between Washington and its key European allies. U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton complained in a letter sent to the French, German and British governments 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.

"That, of course resulted in some pretty harsh words in reply," to Washington, a senior European diplomat told AP.

In Washington Tuesday, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters that the board should "state clearly that Iran has not yet addressed fully the long-standing concerns about its nuclear activities.

"We need to send a strong signal to Tehran that it cannot refuse to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency with impunity."

Besides Iran, Libya is also on the agenda, with ElBaradei describing both nations as being in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

But with Libya acting on pledges made last year to scrap its programs for weapons of mass destruction, the focus at the meeting was on Iran.

In an IAEA report last month, Tehran was accused of continuing to hide evidence of nuclear experiments, leaving it to agency inspectors to unearth them. 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.

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.

While praising Tehran for some cooperation, ElBaradei said he was "seriously concerned" about Iran's refusal to declare plans and parts for the P-2 enrichment system, calling it a "setback to Iran's stated policy of transparency."

In contrast to the mixed review of Iran, a draft resolution on Libya is generally complimentary.

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.

"There is no case to keep Libya on the agenda," Chief Libyan delegate Giuma Ferjani told the AP. Libya was scheduled to sign an agreement with the agency on Wednesday, opening its nuclear program to full IAEA perusal.

Iran, too, insists it wants its nuclear dossier closed - something ElBaradei has said would not happen until all suspicions about past experiments are dispelled and future openness is assured.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAMVRYHMRD.html

[PhilDragoo]

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"

Alrighty, then let "the big showdown" commence:

Khamenei receives Western response.

[DoctorZIn]

This just in from a student inside of Iran...

"Doc,
400 Schools are closed due to Teachers' strike.
30% of Iranian teachers are at strike now in Iran.
We will hear more on this."

[DoctorZIn]

Iran's Nuke Program Must be Defused

March 09, 2004
Boston Herald
Peter Brookes

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The Board of Governors of the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), meeting this week in Vienna to discuss Iran's increasingly troubling nuclear program (again), should keep that principle in mind.

The latest problem: discrepancies between what Iran declared on its nuclear program in October and what the IAEA actually found on the ground. Iran clearly didn't give the world community the Full Nuclear Monty.

Tehran's claim that its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes is ringing increasingly hollow: Nuclear weapons appear the true goal of the mullahs as led by Ali Khamenei. An Iran bristling with nuclear weapons wouldn't bode well for U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Seeing through the fog of Tehran's nuclear antics, John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said, ``We are not going to reduce the pressure on Iran . . . We think the Iranians are still trying to conceal a clandestine nuclear weapons program.''

Supporting Bolton's claim, an IAEA inspection report said Iran omitted P-2 (Pakistani) centrifuge drawings, used for enriching uranium, contradicting Tehran's (supposedly) comprehensive October declaration. Iran, not surprisingly, claims it was a bureaucratic oversight. A pretty significant oversight . . . unless, of course, you're trying to paper over a clandestine weapons program.

The IAEA report also outlined other suspicious activity. Inspectors also found traces of highly enriched uranium (HEU), enriched beyond that needed for power-plant fuel. (The burning question: How much has been enriched already?)

IAEA chief Mohamed El Baradei seemed confident that Iran would finally fulfill its promise to suspend uranium enrichment. It pledged to do so last fall in a deal brokered by France, Britain and Germany - the ``EU (European Union) Three'' - in return for the matter being not hauled before the U.N. Security Council.

Of course, Tehran denied it manufactured the uranium. IAEA inspectors are rightfully skeptical.

Tehran has moved to muster the support of the EU Three by telling the IAEA that it has agreed to a ``fuller'' suspension of its uranium-enrichment program. We'll see what that means.

A thumbs-down vote by the IAEA this week could kick the issue to the U.N. Security Council and lead to painful, multilateral economic sanctions against Iran. It could also further delay an impending EU-Iran trade deal, which is contingent upon Iran's good nuclear behavior.

Of course, Tehran's nuclear treachery didn't prevent France from recently initialing a $2 billion oil-exploration deal with Iran.

The question is: What to do?

The administration clearly has its hands full with Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan and terrorism. There is a reasonable argument for letting the EU Three's position of gentle coercion play out a bit more.

Problem is, time is on Iran's side. The longer they can keep the program going, the more progress the mullahs can make toward the bomb.

The prospects for keeping the Iranian Pandora's box closed look pretty bleak. The Iranian case is particularly troubling because of the regime's sponsorship of international terrorism and its alliance with Syria.

Multilateral sanctions might work. Libya is (seemingly) turning over a new leaf because of them. North Korea is begging for aid because of sanctions. Sanctions clearly hurt Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs.

But continued threats, without genuine action, are as meaningless as Iran's promises have proven to be. Keeping the bomb in the box is a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.

( Peter Brookes is a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He is reachable at peterbrookes@heritage.org. This column first appeared in the New York Post. )

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=388

[DoctorZIn]

Pupils Join Striking Teachers Against Security Forces

March 09, 2004
Iran va Jahan
IRVAJ Network

London -- Pupils in a school in Hamedan, west Iran, joined ranks with their striking teachers and repelled the Islamic Law Enforcement Forces (LEF).

The LEF had targeted the Kothar school in Hamedan, and wanted to intimidate the striking teachers to go back to the classrooms, but the pupils who were outraged by watching the way their teachers were being treated, attacked the LEF and drove them out of school.

The protests soon spread outside the school and the pupils targeted government buildings. LEF anxious about the protests spreading and in fear of more people joining the pupils retreated and were content on containing the protests inside the school.

This morning, there are reports of more students protesting in support of teachers in Jomhouri Ave. Tehran.

In Ardebil and Isfahan the strikes are reported to be solid, and there are irregular classes in the rest of the country.

In Karaj, 700 female students joined their striking teachers.

Iran's teachers are now in the third day of their strike and have vowed not to teach until their demands are met.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=03&d=09&a=10

[DoctorZIn]

Iran Teacher Strike Forces Many Schools to Close

March 09, 2004
Reuters
Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN -- Iranian teachers striking over pay have forced scores of schools nationwide to shut down in the Islamic Republic's biggest industrial dispute for at least two years, teachers and parliamentarians said on Tuesday.

Though frustration over low pay and poor living conditions are widespread in Iran, nationwide strikes are rare in the oil-rich country where hardline judges tolerate little dissent.

Teachers said the strike had not been orchestrated by any labour organisation but had caught on by word of mouth. Labour unions are typically weak and disorganised in Iran.

"We're getting news that most schools are closed because of the teachers' strike and more will be closed until their demands are met," said a parliamentarian, who asked not to be named.

Teachers, who began the strike last week, staged protests outside schools in many cities, including the capital Tehran.

"We should be respected and have better salaries to be able to teach the next generation," said Alosh Hosseini, a 43-year-old father of three who earns a month as a teacher in the northwestern city of Urumiyeh.

"With this salary I cannot even pay my rent," he said. Like many of his colleagues in the public sector, Hosseini has been forced to take a second job driving a taxi to make ends meet.

While teachers said the strike was not politically motivated, some analysts said it could spark a wider crisis.

"It might lead to a political crisis because teachers' influence extends from the working class to the intellectual elite," said Hossein Mirzamani, a political science lecturer at Tehran University.

But another analyst said it was unlikely the strike would spread to other sectors and the approaching Iranian New Year holiday beginning on March 20 would deprive the strike of much momentum.

While Iran's economy has grown strongly in recent years, state employees in particular often complain their low wages are constantly eroded by inflation running at around 16 percent.

Last week, scores of teachers gathered in front of parliament and chanted slogans against the authorities for ignoring their demands.

The main association for school teachers, last week warned of the consequences of a lengthy strike. "This event might lead to a national challenge and ignorant officials are responsible," the Teachers' Organisation said in a statement.

Education Minister Morteza Haji on Saturday promised to resolve the dispute, the official IRNA news agency said.

"There is no cause for anxiety. The problem will be solved in the next days," he said, without elaborating.

http://www.reuters.com/newsChannel.jhtml?type=worldNews

[DoctorZIn]

US, EU Agree on Draft Resolution on Iran's Nuke Activities

March 09, 2004
The Associated Press
George Jahn

VIENNA, Austria -- Resolving intense differences, the United States and key European countries on Tuesday agreed to praise Iran for opening much of its nuclear program to outside inspection while censuring Tehran for continued secrecy in some areas.

Both the Americans and Europeans accepted a draft resolution prepared for a high-level conference of the International Atomic Energy agency after days of gruelling negotiations aimed at finding the proper mix of praise and criticism. The United States insists Iran is interested in making nuclear weapons. It wanted the meeting to condemn Iran for not fully living up to pledges to reveal all past and present nuclear activities and keep options open for future involvement by the UN Security Council.

France, Germany and Britain, however, wanted to focus on Iranian co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency that began after the discovery last year that Teheran had plans to enrich uranium and secretly conducted other tests with possible weapons applications over nearly two decades.

The text still must be accepted by all 35 countries of the IAEA board of governors. Still, with the trans-Atlantic rift resolved, the greatest hurdle on agreement on Iran appeared to be out of the way.

The consensus text, made available to The Associated Press, criticizes Iran for not fully living up to its pledge to be completely open about past and present nuclear activities.

It "notes with the most serious concern that ... (past) declarations made by Iran ... did not amount to the correct, complete and final picture of Iran's past and present nuclear program."

The text also slams Iran for "failing to resolve all questions" about uranium enrichment, which can be used to make weapons, saying it "deplores" this lapse.

But it praises Iran for signing an agreement throwing open its nuclear programs to full and pervasive IAEA perusal and "recognizes" Iran's co-operation with agency investigations, even while calling on Iran to "intensify its co-operation."

The rift over Iran had led to unusual strains between Washington and its key European allies, after U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton complained in a letter sent to the French, German and British governments 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.

"That, of course resulted in some pretty harsh words in reply," to Washington, a senior European diplomat told the AP.

Besides Iran, Libya is also on the agenda, with IEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei describing both countries as violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

But with Libya acting on pledges made last year to scrap its programs for weapons of mass destruction, the focus at the meeting was on Iran.

In an IAEA report last month, Tehran was accused of continuing to hide evidence of nuclear experiments, leaving it to agency inspectors to unearth them. The dossier dealt Iran a setback in its efforts to convince the world that its nuclear program is peaceful and that it is fully co-operating with the UN 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.

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.

While praising Tehran for some cooperation, ElBaradei said he was "seriously concerned" about Iran's refusal to declare plans and parts for the P-2 enrichment system, calling it a "setback to Iran's stated policy of transparency."

In contrast to the mixed review of Iran, a draft resolution on Libya is generally complimentary.

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

"There is no case to keep Libya on the agenda," Chief Libyan delegate Giuma Ferjani told the AP. Libya was scheduled to sign an agreement with the agency on Wednesday, opening its nuclear program to full IAEA perusal.

Iran, too, insists it wants its nuclear dossier closed, something ElBaradei has said would not happen until all suspicions about past experiments are dispelled and future openness is assured.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1856&ncid=737&e=6&u=/cpress/20040309/ca_pr_on_wo/nuclear_agency_iran

[DoctorZIn]

Iran Still Poses Threat

March 09, 2004
The Times
Bronwen Maddox

The upbeat mood of this week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) did not seem to be dampened by the volley of demands and warnings yesterday from Iran.

But it should have been. True, it was understandable that there was a sense of relief as the countries that make up the board of governors gathered yesterday for their quarterly meeting.

Libya, which dominated the agenda, has come in from the cold, revealing a ten-year-old secret nuclear weapons programme and agreeing to dismantle it. On Iran, the IAEA found at least as many points to praise as to condemn. In trying to combat proliferation, these are achievements.

All the same, the tone of the declarations that the board is preparing on both countries seems too ready in its praise and optimism. The important question about the Libyan case is whether it is a model for persuading other countries to reject the nuclear path. It is hard to see that it is, apart from rare cases -and Iran does not look like one.

In a long agenda confronting the governors yesterday, it was inevitable that Libya and Iran would dominate. On Libya, members have reached something like consensus and the report that will go to the United Nations Security Council is now almost complete.

However, it is said to be fulsome in praise, almost to the point where some members are discomfited. Libya, after all, broke all its obligations as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

That sin appears to have been forgiven in the outpouring of relief. It is comical how both the United States and Europe find it possible to take Libya as justification of their rival theories of how to combat proliferation.

For the US, Libya's about-turn would not have taken place without the spectacle of the fate of Saddam Hussein. For Britain, France and Germany, so pleased to have persuaded Iran to open its doors to more inspections, it is proof of the power of diplomacy and the attractions of trade.

There is no point trying to adjudicate whether the carrot or the stick had more effect. The point is that even for a small, relatively poor country, it took the coincidence of both to persuade it that it should change course. For all the swell of optimism that this has produced, it is hard to see that this produces easy lessons for fighting proliferation -and certainly not in Iran's case.

In his report to the board of governors, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General, found two points in Iran's favour. It had co-operated with the IAEA since October, giving inspectors access to sites, scientists and paperwork at its request. It has also, as of last week, agreed to suspend uranium enrichment, the most controversial part of its programme, as the technique could give it the means to make a bomb.

Against that, ElBaradei cited research work on enrichment using centrifuges that Iran had failed to disclose to the IAEA and which raised worrying questions about whether Iran was really in pursuit of nuclear weapons, despite its denials.

This equivocal tone is reflected in the report to the Security Council that the governors are preparing (although the wrangling continues). It is not gushing, but nor is it damning.

True, the co-operation is not to be dismissed. Iran has not refused the IAEA access, but nor has it been as open as it claims. It is disingenuous for Iran to argue that it was not required to reveal "research work", given its pledge, in its own words, to reveal "the full scope of Iranian nuclear activity", including "a complete centrifuge research and development chain".

Iran does not, however, seem to acknowledge the alarm that these omissions have caused. It demanded yesterday that its case be taken off the agenda of the IAEA board of governors on the ground that it was fully cooperating, a pitch that ElBaradei immediately rejected.

It is impossible, too, to overlook Iran's warning yesterday that it was suspending enrichment only temporarily. This is not the deal that Britain, France and Germany thought that they had extracted last year.

The US, Britain, France and Germany are applying to Iran exactly the same carrots and sticks as they applied to Libya. If you are an optimist, you would say these are working.

But the lesson of Libya may be that it is only in very exceptional circumstances that a small, relatively poor country can be deflected from its course. The message from Tehran yesterday was that the inducements on offer are probably not enough -and may never be.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/

[DoctorZIn]

Iran: Official Warns on Iranian Youth Unemployment

March 09, 2004
World Markets Research Centre
Simon Woodward

A government official was quoted yesterday as stating that unemployment among young people (15-29-years old) is in the region of 31%. The figure is well above official estimates of unemployment, with the government estimating overall unemployment at 12.8%. Around 70% of the Iranian population is under 30-years old.

Significance: The government has spent considerable sums in recent years trying to bring the unemployment problem under control. However, it appears to be failing in its attempts, with the IMF and others criticising the level of liquidity being subsequently generated within the economy.

Following their victory in last month's legislative elections, the conservatives have promised that when they take control of parliament in June they will continue with economic reforms and tackle the unemployment problem. With the need to create 800,000 jobs a year, however, they face a sizable task.

http://www.wmrc.com/

[DoctorZIn]

Two More Iranian Papers Shut Down

March 09, 2004
Agence France Presse
AFP

Iran's judiciary has shut down two weekly newspapers, but has offered a reprieve to a reformist daily paper closed for publishing a text critical of the Islamic republic's supreme leader if it apologises, reports said Tuesday.

According to the Iranian Association of Journalists, the latest closures bring to 102 the number of publications shut down by the judiciary - a bastion of the religious right-wing - since 1998.

The latest victims of the crackdown on the press were Time, a weekly tabloid with a sensationalist content, and The Pen of the Teacher, which covers academic issues, the student news agency ISNA reported.

The academic paper drew the wrath of the courts over its coverage of a strike by the teaching profession over demands for back pay and wage rises, its director Mohammad Khaksari told ISNA.

And Time - not to be confused with the US weekly news magazine of the same name - was closed for immoral writings, with its director Shahram Mohammad Nia also receiving a six month suspended jail term.

On the eve of the controversial February 20 elections - from which most pro-reform candidates were barred - the judiciary also closed down the Islamic republic's two main reformist papers, Shargh and Yas-e No.

The two papers had dared to publish a protest letter questioning the role in the mass disqualifications of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, criticism of whom is a criminal offence in Iran.

Shargh has since been allowed to resume publication, after its editor acknowleged he should not have published the unprecedented attack written by reformist deputies.

"Because it has recognised its error, the judiciary has permitted it to appear again," judiciary spokesman Gholamhossein Elham told ISNA.

"Yas-e No was banned for the same reason, but if this newspaper follows the path of Shargh the ban will also be lifted," he added.

A leading member of the Iranian Association of Journalists said the constant threat of reprisals from the courts was killing off good journalism.

"The system's pressure on journalists has brought a self-censorship that harms creativity and enthusiasm," he complained.

"In these conditions, journalists feel more comfortable with blind conformity than with bringing out an original and interesting product for the public."

However, new publication permits have been issued. Outgoing female reformist MP Jamileh Kadivar has been authorised to start up a daily newspaper entitled The Women's Voice, after a precursor - simply entitled Woman - was shut down.

And a member of the liberal opposition, former MP Azam Taleghani, has been given permission to publish a monthly entitled Pilgrim.

According to the Paris-based press rights group Reporters Without Borders (RSF), 11 journalists are currently in jail in Iran.

http://www.afp.com/english/home/

[DoctorZIn]

The Paradox of Anti-Americanism in Iran

March 09, 2004
Middle East Review of International Affairs
Patrick Clawson

This article analyzes the roots of anti-American sentiment in Iran, considering the impact of Islamism, nationalism, Third Worldism, and nativism on Iranian ideology and rhetoric following the country's 1979 Revolution. In addition, the author looks at the extent to which this sentiment has reversed itself on the popular level over the past several years and why that has occurred.

While anti-Americanism has deep resonance in the Arab world, the situation is quite different in Iran, where the United States has in recent years become profoundly popular.

One indicator was the September 2002 poll commissioned by the Iranian Majlis' National Security Committee which found that 74 percent of Iranians favored resumption of relations with the United States and 46 percent felt that U.S. policies on Iran were "to some extent correct," despite the fact that Iranian media constantly harped on Bush's "axis of evil" remark in his January 2002 State of the Union speech.(1) The Ayandeh Institute pollsters who conducted this poll, Abbas Abdi and Hossein Ali Qazian, were sentenced to jail terms of eight and nine years respectively for "publishing nonscientific research."

Why this change from the days of the 1978-1979 revolution and 1979-1981 hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran when millions of Iranians poured on to the streets to chant "Death to America?" It is worth understanding why this change has happened both as a case study of regime propaganda and the response by public opinion as well as its importance in the regional context.

The Iranian Exception

The principle reason for pro-American sentiment in Iran today is that the United States is a staunch opponent of the hated clerical regime. Bush pointed to this factor when in his 2002 State of the Union he explained his "axis of evil" remark by condemning "an unelected few [who] repress the Iranian people's hopes for freedom."(2)

There are fewer better explanations for why so many Iranians today are pro-American than Bush's July 12, 2002 statement:

The people of Iran want the same freedoms, human rights, and opportunities as people around the world. Their government should listen to their hopes. In the last two Iranian presidential elections and in nearly a dozen parliamentary and local elections, the vast majority of the Iranian people voted for political and economic reform. Yet their voices are not being listened to by the unelected people who are the real rulers of Iran. Uncompromising, destructive policies have persisted, and far too little has changed in the daily lives of the Iranian people.... There is a long history of friendship between the American people and the people of Iran. As Iran's people move towards a future defined by greater freedom, greater tolerance, they will have no better friend than the United States of America.(3)

As one astute observer of the Iranian scene summed up his impressions from two years of travel around Iran, "America's greatest allies in Iran are the hardliners themselves; their constant anti-American rhetoric has made the United States even more popular among the Iranian people."(4)

That said, the failures of the reform movement have also done much to drain anti-Americanism out of the Iranian system. The hopes for reforms from within the Islamic Republic, which were so high after the unexpected 1997 landslide victory of President Muhammad Khatemi, have died. Khatemi proved unwilling or unable to bring about meaningful change and the clerical hardliners have reasserted control, shoving aside the president and parliament to run the country through the judiciary and the revolutionary institutions (such as the Revolutionary Guard Corps), which report directly to Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i.(5)

Khatemi's dream had been to inaugurate "a dialogue of civilizations" based on people-to-people exchange with Americans and other Westerners, but without official government-to-government relations. But Khamene'i and his faction explicitly and repeatedly rejected such a shift, refusing also to change Iran's policies to which Washington objected.(6) The reality was that the hardliners who control power blocked even this people-to-people initiative. Not even friends of revolutionary Iran could get visas to visit the country. As was the case with so many others of his policies, Khatami's attempt to modify the revolution's anti-Americanism--into opposition to U.S. government policies combined with friendship with the American people--failed.

The aftermath of the U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq provided remarkable evidence about how far the pro-American sentiment has gone.(7) On June 22, 2003, the Iranian newspaper Yas-e Now published a remarkable poll that had originally appeared on the "Feedback" web page of the Expediency Discernment Council, run by former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Those polled were given the question, "What are the actual demands of the Iranian people?" and a choice of four answers. They responded as follows:



13 percent chose the answer "solutions to the problems of people's livelihood, and the continuation of the present political policy"--in other words, the current hardline stance.

16 percent chose "political reforms and increases in the powers of the reformists."

26 percent chose "fundamental changes in management and in the performance of the system for an efficient growth"--a position often identified with Rafsanjani.

45 percent chose "change in the political system, even with foreign intervention."
The fact that 45 percent of respondents endorsed foreign intervention if necessary is all the more surprising considering two factors: first, the continued imprisonment of 2002 pollsters Abdi and Qazian; and second, the ominous rumors circulating in Iran that the United States is considering an invasion of the country, though these had no basis in fact.

If the poll showed mass opinion, two interesting letters indicated that many in the elite are concerned about how far pro-Americanism has gone.(8)

On Muhammad's birthday (May 19, 2003), 196 prominent clerics and intellectuals issued an open letter to "express our complete dissatisfaction with the rulers in Iran." The sharp criticism focused on "the unelected institutions" which are "united against the wishes of the people"--phrases that echo those used by Bush. The letter warned that present policies "might provide an excuse to some groups who desire freedom to sacrifice the independence of the country," in other words, a U.S. invasion might be welcomed. It added, "We must learn a lesson from the fate of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and understand that despotism and selfishness is destined to take the country down to defeat."

On May 25, 2003, forty percent of the Parliament (Majlis) members signed a letter to Supreme Leader Ali Hossein Khamene'i. The letter carefully refrained from any criticism of Khamene'i, but its tone was otherwise tough. It warned, "Perhaps there has been no period in the recent history of Iran as sensitive as this one [due to] political and social gaps coupled with a clear plan by the government of the United States of America to change the geopolitical map of the region." Insisting on "fundamental changes in methods, attitudes, and figures," the letter warned, "if this is a cup of hemlock, it should be drunk before our country's independence and territorial integrity are placed in danger." The hemlock phrase was used by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to explain his 1988 decision to end the war with Iraq.

Neither of the two letters was mentioned in Iranian newspapers, television, or radio because of a ban imposed by the Supreme National Security Council, chaired by President Muhammad Khatami. (This ban belies the commonly held notion that Khatami-era Iran enjoys press freedom.) The Council's concern appears to be the spreading mood in Iran that the country is at risk of a U.S. invasion because of provocative actions by the hardliners. It is interesting to observe that such perceived risk emboldens reformers to step up their criticism of hardliners, contrary to the theory widely heard in the West that U.S. pressure hurts reformers. Indeed, there is by now an established pattern in which U.S. criticism of the hardliners is seized upon by reform elements as a reason why repression should be eased, so as to create national unity and to deprive Washington of a pretext for attacking Iran.(9)

What has occurred in Iran is much deeper than a reflexive "enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitude. The last few years has seen a far-reaching debate among wide sectors of society about the basic issues of Enlightenment thought. On issue after issue, intellectuals have come to argue for the values which America champions, from rule of law to free speech and representative government. Interestingly, many arguments are heard for the state to stay out of religious affairs. A leading intellectual has written a book ‘from prison, no less’ arguing that democracy is incompatible with a state religion.

Hossein Mostafa Khomeini, the grandson of Aytollah Ruhollah Khomeini and himself a prominent cleric, speaks eloquently, from the podium of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, about the importance of individual liberties and a secular state, while applauding America as the embodiment of these values.(10) Indeed, when asked, "What do you think is the best way for the government of the United States to behave in order to encourage the liberation and the freedom of the people of Iran?" Khomeini responded:

The best way is for the United States to help the movement towards democracy, democracy in Iran. They should look at this issue very seriously and not as dispassionately as they have been, waiting for something to happen and then get involved.... One should think how deep the problem and the pressures are in Iran on the Iranian people, that there are so many of them who in fact crave for some sort of foreign intervention to get rid of this calamity.

It is no exaggeration to say that America has won the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iranian people, and the hardline clerics have lost.

At the same time, though, there does remain much anti-Americanism in Iran. In particular, three strands of anti-Americanism bear closer examination:

Proud Iranian nationalists are suspicious that the United States wants to block Iran from what they see as its natural place as leader of the region.

Leftist Third World socialist ideas shaped the entire generation now running Iran, clerics as well as secular intellectuals (though this ideology has no attraction for the young).

Traditionalists, a group that goes far beyond just religious conservatives, are deeply hostile to any implication that U.S. influence--directly or otherwise--would subvert Iran's traditional culture and lifestyle.

Nationalism

For American intellectuals, it is an article of faith that Iranians became anti-American because of the 1953 overthrow of Muhammad Mossadegh. For instance, James Bill writes, "After its part in the overthrow of Muhammad Mosadegh in 1953, the United States found itself the object of growing Iranian criticism... Iranians of all political persuasions increasingly formed a negative image of the United States."(11) Mark Gasiorowski argues that after Mossadegh's overthrow, the Shah was able to hold power only because he was a client of the United States, lacking domestic legitimacy.(12)

The reality of the matter is rather more complex. For one thing, Mossadegh's overthrow came in no small part because of his increasing isolation on the domestic political scene. As Barry Rubin wrote, in the final months, "Kashani [a major clerical figure] went over to the opposition; whole sectors of the National Front [the political movement that had supported him] broke away; and dozens of deputies resigned."(13) Mossadegh may have God-like status among leftist foreign intellectuals, but, as Rubin noted, "In the days after Mossadegh's removal, the shah and Zahedi [the new prime minister] seemed as popular as the National Front leader [Mossadegh] had ever been.(14)

Indeed, the clerical establishment then and now--as well as in the intervening years--have been largely hostile to Mossadegh. That said, there can be little doubt that many Iranian nationalists were profoundly disappointed at Mossadegh's failure and that, as the Shah became more authoritarian, memories of the bad parts of the Mossadegh legacy faded as a legend of a golden age grew.

The nationalism of which pro-Mossadegh sentiment was a symbol was by no means necessarily Marxist, much less Communist. Some of these nationalists were in fact more sympathetic to the clergy than to the left. A good example was the first prime minister after the 1979 revolution, Mehdi Bazargan. Indeed, the first post-revolutionary government was full of such figures from the reconstituted National Front, such as Hassan Nazieh, who became chairman of the National Iranian Oil Company.

This nationalism was profoundly skeptical of the United States, but willing to work with it, so long as Iran got the respect it felt it deserved. During the heady days after the revolution when they were an important part of the power elite, the National Front leaders virtually never attacked the United States. Indeed, in the summer of 1979, Deputy Prime Minister Abbas Amir Entezam was working to normalize relations with the United States.(15)

This nationalist strand had broad support. The hardline cleric Ayatollah Muhammad Beheshti acknowledged in 1980, "It has to be confessed that there are several million Iranians who prefer a liberal government to a militant Islamic government."(16) It was against this liberal nationalism that the Islamic clerics had to wage a vigorous campaign in 1979-81. Indeed, the taking of the American embassy in September 1979 was as much directed against the domestic liberal element as it was against the United States.(17)

The great fear among the revolutionary hardliners--the clerical element that won out and the leftists who wanted the revolution to go further than the liberals had taken it--was that the liberals would reconcile with the United States and establish a democratic, market system consistent with many U.S. values, though with Islam as a state religion. Indeed, the increasingly desperate attempts during 1980 by the Bazargan government to resolve the U.S. embassy hostage crisis were precisely because it saw how anti-Americanism was being used to undermine their position--starting with the December 2, 1979 ratification of the cleric-empowering, liberalism-ending Constitution.

In other words, the fear was that the heirs of Mossadegh--the new National Front--would work with America and for American-style values. That is hard to reconcile with the view that America's overthrow of Mossadegh is the root of Iranian anti-Americanism.(18) Nationalism may be a factor in Iranian anti-Americanism, but it is much less significant than two other elements, namely, Third Worldism and nativism.

Third Worldism

Third Worldism is that mix of socialism and anti-imperialism which blames the West, especially America, and the local elites which work with it for the shortcomings in developing countries, offering a vision of a more equitable and prosperous society once the evil West is forced to give up its death grip on the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It is hard to overestimate Third Worldism's influence on Iranian intellectual life between 1963 and 1988.

The "outstanding intellectual" of Iran in the 1960s was Ali Shariati.(19) While studying for his doctorate in sociology and Islamic studies in Paris, he translated Fanon, Guevara, and Sartre and was injured demonstrating against the Algerian war. Returning to Iran in 1965, he lectured at the Husseinieh-i Ershard, a Tehran religious meeting hall financed by the heirs of Mossadegh's movement.

Shariati's lectures before his 1977 death, interrupted by jail time from 1972 to 1975, were extraordinarily popular, circulating on cassette and in transcription. He was the most popular writer on Islam for pre-revolutionary young, urban Iranians.(20) His theme was that Islam was the answer to the evils of capitalism in Iran. Shariati made Islam hip, in no small part by his connecting Islam to Third Worldism, including to political and cultural anti-Americanism. He also disassociated Islam from the clerics, whom he and his audience saw as backward. Not surprisingly, the clerics once in power devoted much effort to undercutting Shariati's influence.

While the clerical establishment hated Shariati, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took a neutral stance, being well aware of Shariati's popularity among the young. Presumably in response to the enthusiasm for anti-Western Islam seen in the Shariati phenomenon, Khomeini began to use many Third Worldist phrases.

Whereas his 1963-64 polemics against the Shah which led to his exile were in no small part directed against leftist reforms ‘land reform and women's suffrage’ his discourse by the late 1970s made Islam sound compatible with Marxism. Ervand Abrahamiam provides numerous examples: "The lower class is the salt of the earth;" "In a truly Islamic society, there will be no landless peasants;" "We are for Islam, not for capitalism and feudalism."(21) Abrahamiam explains how Khomeini changed traditional Shiite interpretations:

Instead of paying occasional lip-service to the 'meek,' he aggressively espoused the general rights and interests of the mostazafin ["a loose term used to depict the general populace: the meek, the poor, the masses," Abrahamian explains]. Instead of talking of institutional reforms, he called for thorough political and cultural revolutions. Instead of preaching quietism, he exhorted the faithful to protest.

It is in this context that Khomeini fit his campaign against America. No longer confining himself to his 1960s complaint against American decadence, he now used language which sounded like it came from Marxist propaganda:

They [the Pahlavi government] have given all our oil to foreigners, Americans and others. They gave that all to the Americans, and what did they get in return? In return they received arms in order to establish military bases for Mr. America. We gave them both oil and military bases.(22)

This marriage of Third Worldism with Islam was the potent mixture which fueled the Iranian revolution. The Third Worldist element, essential to winning the support of urban youth, dictated that this revolution would be profoundly anti-American, not just anti-Shah.

Once the Shah was overthrown, the clerics devoted themselves to consolidating power at the expense of not only the liberal nationalists but also the Marxist left. By 1983, they had destroyed the secular parties, such as the pro-Soviet communist Tudeh party and the Fedayeen Guevarist guerrilla group.(23) But the clerics' main fire was directed against the Mojahedin (the People's Mojahedin of Iran, PMOI, or Mojahedin-e Khalq, MEK).

This was no small event. By mid-1981, the Mojahedin newspaper had become the most widely read in Iran, and they were able to regularly draw many tens of thousands into the streets for protests against clerical rule--plus they made an alliance with Iranian President Bani Sadr against the clerics.(24)

The clerics hit back hard. Not content with their street toughs attacking the left, the clerics threw tens thousands of leftists in jail, torturing many. By the account of Khomeini's designated successor, ten thousand were killed in one month alone. Bani Sadr had to flee the country in June 1981, taking off for Paris in the presidential plane along with Mojahedin leaders with whom he then cooperated politically for several years.

The ferocity of the attacks led the Iranian left and intellectual circles generally to hate the clerics as their main enemy. The West no long seemed as terrible as it once did. Indeed, since the clerics made anti-Americanism a defining characteristic of their rule, the left slowly moved away from anti-Americanism. By the late 1980s, the Mojahedin were presenting themselves as the great friends of the United States and American values.

In short, one of the hardline clerics' accomplishments is that they drained Third Worldist anti-Americanism out of the Iranian intellectual and cultural scene.

Nativism

Pro-traditionalist thinking or Nativism has strong roots in Iran. One of the most important modern Iranian authors, Jalal al-Ahmad, wrote an influential book in 1962 entitled Gharbzadegi--a made-up word usually translated as "Westoxication." His theme was how Iranians are abandoning their traditions to ape the West, at the cost of losing their culture and history.(25)

His argument was rooted in leftism: "By providing a passionate eulogy for a passing era and its customs, Gharbazedgi articulated a Third-Worldist discourse very much skeptical of what the West had to offer."(26) While his work was not specifically anti-American, it was no great leap for his readers to see that the fascination with America which was so palpable in 1960s' Iran was the most obvious aspect of what al-Ahmad was attacking. Complaints about the loss of socio-cultural identity as well as reinforcement of traditional values were major themes of Iranian intellectual life from the late 1950s on.(27) Indeed, Boroujerdi describes the 1960s and 1970s as "the heyday of nativism," showing how its influence was powerful in academia.(28)

Al-Ahmad was a secular, leftist intellectual who nevertheless recommended making use of Iran's religious traditions as the most effective vaccine against Western influence.(29)This strand of thinking became a major element in the formation of the Third Worldist-religious alliance which was central to the success of the 1978-1979 revolution. The cement holding them together was one part the secular left's embrace of cultural traditionalism, plus one part the clergy's embrace of Third Worldist anti-imperialism. These two strands came together to make a powerfully anti-American mix.

In other words, the nativist element in Iranian anti-Americanism is more than religious reactionaries rejecting the modern world and all its ways for age-old traditions: Iranian nativism is also the cry of the secular intellectual wanting to preserve Iran's poetry, music, paintings, and traditions. This makes Iranian nativism extraordinarily different from cultural conservatism in much of the Arab world because it includes a defense of Iran's secular culture.

Arab cultural conservatism is more closely tied to religion and opposes local secular culture. For instance, Saudi cultural conservatism is a rejection of modern science as much as of modern rock music or Hollywood films. Abdel Aziz Bin Baz, the long-time official religious leader of Saudi Arabia argued until his 1999 death that Muslims have a religious obligation to hate Jews and Christians in general.(30) To be sure, Bin Baz rejected American values, but that was part and parcel of his general opposition to modern thought. He wrote a book on the theme that anyone who believes that the earth revolves around the sun should be killed (this from the man who had to approve all textbooks used in Saudi schools).

Some Bin-Baz-like attitudes can be found in Iran. For instance, once the clerics consolidated their rule in the early 1980s, they banned all singing in public (or on the radio) by women. Indeed, the only allowed style of male singing was determinedly old-fashioned. But that is not the only direction in which the clerical nativist impulse could go. When in the 1960s, Khomeini objected to the playing of Western-style music on Iranian radio, he complained that not enough was done to promote Iranian culture.(31) And within a few years after taking power, the Islamic Republic gave a boost to the Iranian film industry, seeing Iranian films as a counterweight to Western influence.(32) The Iranian filmmakers, who were generally leftists of a strongly anti-American bent, were acceptable to the Islamic Republic's hardliners so long as their films drew the young away from Western influence.

But as in so many other areas of Iranian life, this anti-Western/anti-American alliance of the modern left and the traditional clergy has come apart. Now, the filmmakers are harassed by an Islamic Republic that dares not openly ban them but which detests them because they mock the hypocrisy and corruption of the hardline clerics.

The history of Iranian cinema in many ways parallels that of Iranian intellectual and cultural life in general. Whereas anti-Americanism was a prominent strain across the political spectrum in the 1970s and well into the 1980s, the hatred for the hardline politicized clerics has become the driving force of the last decade. In that context, anti-Americanism is subordinated, though not entirely gone.

MERIA JOURNAL Volume 8, Number 1 (March 2004)

- Patrick Clawson is the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The author of more than thirty scholarly articles on the Middle East, Dr. Clawson's most recently edited the publication How to Build a New Iraq after Saddam (The Washington Institute, 2003). Dr. Clawson has also been a senior research professor at the Institute for National Strategic Studies of the National Defense University and a research economist at the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and Foreign Policy Research Institute.

MERIA is a project of the Global Research in International Affairs

NOTES

1. This episode is discussed in Nazgol Ashouri, "Polling in Iran: Surprising Questions," PolicyWatch No. 757 from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, May 14, 2003. 2. .
3. The statement can be found at .
4. Afshin Molavi, "Iran: Reformist Blues, Economic Woes," PolicyWatch No. 678 from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, November 19, 2002.
5. The best explanation of Iran's peculiar system--in which each official institution is shadowed by a more powerful revolutionary institution--is Wilfried Buchta, Who Rules Iran? The Structure of Power in the Islamic Republic (Washington: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2000).
6. Cf. Patrick Clawson, "Khatami's Dialogue with America, Not with Washington," PolicyWatch No. 293 from The Washington Institute, January 8, 1998.
7. This episode is described in Patrick Clawson, "Reading the Popular Mood in Iran," PolicyWatch No. 770 from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, July 7, 2003.
8. This episode is described in Patrick Clawson, "Iran: Demonstrations, Despair, and Danger," PolicyWatch No. 766 from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, June 11, 2003.
9. For an analysis of this reaction to Bush's "axis of evil" speech, see Ray Takeyh, "Iran: Scared Straight?", PolicyWatch No. 622 from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, May 3, 2002.
10. .
11. James Bill, The Eagle and the Lion: The Tragedy of American-Iranian Relations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), p. 5.
12. Mark Gasiorowski, U.S. Foreign Policy and the Shah: Building a Client State in Iran (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991).
13. Barry Rubin, Paved With Good Intentions: The American Experience and Iran (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 80.
14. Rubin, op. cit., p. 88.
15. Rubin, op. cit., pp. 285-291.
16. Quoted in Rubin, op. cit., p. 306.
17. The fear expressed by the hostage-takers was that the United States would work with the liberals to stage a coup, which they compared to the overthrow of Mossadegh. Cf. Massoumeh Ebtekar, Takeover in Tehran: The Inside Story of the 1979 U.S. Embassy Capture (Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2000), e.g., p. 52.
18. For a discussion of some of these issues, see Barry Rubin, "Regime Change in Iran: A Reassessment," MERIA Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2 (June
2003)
19. The phrase is Ervand Abrahamian's, from Iran Between Two Revolutions
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), p. 464. His analysis of Shariati continues to p. 473.
20. On his popularity and its central role in the 1979 revolution, see Abrahamian, Iran Between Two Revolutions, p. 534. See also Ali Shariati, Marxism and other Western Fallacies (translated by Richard Campbell;
Berkeley: Mizan Press, 1980). His works are analyzed in depth in Nikpey, op. cit., pp. 99-180.
21. Ervand Abhrahamian, The Iranian Mohahedin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 22, which is also where the following quote comes from.
22. Quoted in Peter Chelkowski and Hamid Dabashi, Staging a Revolution: The Art of Persuasin in the Islamic Republic of Iran (New York, New York University Press, 1999), p. 39.
23. As described in great detail in Maziar Behrooz, Rebels with a
Cause: The Failure of the Left in Iran (London: I.B. Taurus, 1999).
24. The definitive account of the Mojahedin's role in this period is Abrahamian, The Iranian Mohahedin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 186-245.
25. The best study of al-Ahmad's relation to Third Worldist thought--specifically Fannon--is Amir Nikpey, Pouvoir et religion en Iran contemporain (Paris: L'Harmattan, 2001), pp. 86-92.
26. Mehrzad Boroujerdi, Iranian Intellectuals and the West: The Tormented Triumph of Nativism (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1996), p 68.
27. Negin Nabavi, Intellectuals and the State in Iran: Politics, Discourse, and the Dilemma of Authenticity (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2003), pp. 28-64.
28. Boroujerdi, op. cit., p. 132, as part of a chapter on academic nativism, pp 131-155.
29. Nikpey, op. cit., pp. 92-97.
30. His writings and his influence are analyzed in detail in Antoine Basbous, L'Arabie Saoudite en Question (Paris: Perrin, 2002), especially pp. 125-140.
31. Vanessa Martin, Creating an Islamic State: Khomeini and the Making of a New Iran (London: I.B. Taurus, 2003), p. 115.
32. Homuz Key, Le cineman iranien (Paris: Karthala, 1999), especially pp. 83-96 and 239-266, and Mamad Haghighat, Histoire du cinema iranien
(Paris: Cinema du reel/Centre Georges Pompidou, 1999).

http://meria.idc.ac.il/

[DoctorZIn]

Iran Denies Nuclear Violations

March 09, 2004
Reuters
Louis Charbonneau and Paul Hughes

VIENNA/TEHRAN -- Iran says it has not violated the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but Washington and top EU states are close to agreement on a U.N. resolution strongly hinting Tehran has a weapons program.

"It is a mistake to say that Iran has violated its commitments and Tehran will definitely not accept it," Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told the official IRNA news agency on Tuesday as the U.N. nuclear watchdog's Board of Governors met.

International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei criticized Iran on Monday for failing to declare advanced "P2" centrifuges that can be used to make atomic bombs and said both Iran and Libya had violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Diplomats said negotiators for the European Union's "Big Three," France, Germany and Britain, agreed with counterparts from the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand on the text of an IAEA resolution to be sent to capitals for comments and possible revisions.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the resolution would signal to Tehran it would be punished if it continued to defy the IAEA but stopped short of reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

"We're not looking for a formal noncompliance resolution at this time, but we're seeking a strong resolution that keeps pressure on Iran to comply with all its obligations," he told reporters.

Iran says its program is purely peaceful, but the draft refers to ElBaradei's finding in his February 24 report that "most of the workshops used in Iran's centrifuge enrichment program are 'owned by military industrial organizations.'"

Tehran's U.N. delegation submitted a letter to the IAEA board saying this part of the report was "not correct" and only "three out of 10 workshops" belonged to the defense industry.

WESTERN QUESTIONS

"(Iranians) say the program is civilian, but there are doubts," said one Western diplomat, declining to be named.

"If it is civilian, why did they produce plutonium, why did they produce polonium-210, why are workshops owned by military industrial organizations?" the diplomat said, referring to weapons-usable items found by the IAEA in Iran.

The IAEA usually seeks to adopt resolution by consensus and diplomats said the agreement on the text of the resolution was not final.

With scant support for a stronger censure, Washington has decided to put off reporting Iran to the Security Council. The United States expects continued IAEA inspections will unearth more evidence that will build its case for going to the world body's council, a senior State Department official said.

"More of these inspections, more of these efforts can clarify what we pass on to the U.N., when we do," the official, who asked not to be named, said. He added it was a "logical conclusion" Iran would eventually be referred to the council.

He said the resolution negotiations were "going along properly" and after working on the draft with Germany, France and Britain, the United States had begun trying to get other nations on board.

Diplomats from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which has 13 out of 35 seats on the board, said it was unclear if the draft would be acceptable to them or if it was even needed.

"We don't believe a resolution was necessary," Malaysian ambassador Gulam Haniff told reporters on behalf on the NAM.

"It's important that this be passed by consensus," he said.

The draft praises Tehran for signing the Additional Protocol in December permitting IAEA snap inspections of nuclear sites, but calls on Iran's parliament to ratify it quickly.

Iran's hardline commentator and newspaper editor Hossein Shariatmadari said Tehran should consider following North Korea's example and quit the NPT if the IAEA did not wrap up its 13-month probe of Iran soon.

The draft, put forward by Australia and Canada and backed by the United States and New Zealand, made a clear comparison between Iran and Libya saying they got similar nuclear equipment "from the same foreign sources."

But Kharrazi said Iran and Libya, which admitted to its programs in December and has begun dismantling them, should not be compared.

"Comparing Iran and Libya is incorrect," he said. "Libya has officially announced that it was pursuing nuclear weapons and this is a violation of the NPT, but Iran has not been pursuing nuclear weapons and (has) not violated the NPT."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040309/325/eo40b.html

[DoctorZIn]

Iran Moves Uranium Enrichment to Secret Plants

March 09, 2004
Reuters
The New York Times

VIENNA -- An exile who has previously released key nuclear information about Iran said on Tuesday Iranian leaders decided at a recent meeting to seek an atom bomb "at all costs" and begin enriching uranium at secret plants.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, who disclosed in August 2002 that Iran had a hidden uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy-water plant at Arak, told Reuters his new information came from the same "well-informed sources inside Iran."

He was a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran before the United States, which lists it as a terrorist organization, closed the NCRI's Washington office last year.

He said the Islamic republic's top leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, gathered after the father of Pakistan's atomic weapons program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, admitted leaking nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

"At this recent meeting, they decided to join the nuclear [weapons] club at all costs," Jafarzadeh said, adding that the leaders decided it was "vital for the survival" of the country.

"They set a timetable to get a bomb by the end of 2005 at the latest," he said, speaking from Washington.

Iran has repeatedly denied trying to develop atomic weapons, saying its nuclear program is purely peaceful. Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said on Tuesday that Tehran had not violated the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Jafarzadeh said the people at the meeting said they would have to stop enriching uranium at Natanz, as Tehran had promised France, Britain and Germany in October. But in order to make the weapons-grade uranium needed for a bomb, they decided to move their enrichment to smaller secret sites in the country.

"They will heavily rely on smaller secret enrichment sites at Karaj, Esfahan and at other places," he said.

Jafarzadeh said Tehran was in a better position to hide the full extent of its centrifuge enrichment program from United Nations inspectors now it was able to build centrifuges domestically, without relying on imports.

The allegations came as the governing board of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meets in Vienna this week to discuss a resolution on Iran's failure to inform the IAEA about its advanced centrifuge enrichment research.

Jafarzadeh said the Iranian leaders also agreed at their secret meeting to adopt a generally "aggressive and confrontational approach" with the IAEA before "muscling their way to the finish line to get the bomb."

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-iran.html

[DoctorZIn]

IAEA TO PASS A STRONG RESOLUTION ON IRAN

TEHRAN-VIENNA, 9 Mar. (IPS)

Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister Kamal Kharrazi on Tuesday dismissed as "wrong" the allegations made by the UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohammad ElBarade’i that Iran had breached its commitments and warned it will "not accept" being declared as having violated nuclear safeguards agreements or being compared to Libya".

"It is wrong to say that Iran has violated its commitments, and Tehran will certainly not accept this, as it is also an error to compare Iran to Libya, because Libya officially declared it was seeking nuclear weapons, which constitutes a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)", he was quoted by the official Iranian news agency IRNA, in reaction to Mr. ElBrade’i accusing the Islamic Republic and Libya for being "in breach of their obligations under the safeguards agreement" of the NPT.

"In view of many years of violation of non-proliferation obligations by Libya and Iran, I am asking for the provision of information and a full measure of transparency", Mr. ElBradeh’i had stated on Monday to the Agency’s Board of Directors that had rejected a key demand from Tehran to take the Iranian case off its agenda, voicing "serious concern" at omissions in Tehran's declarations about its nuclear activities.

"I am seriously concerned that Iran's October declaration did not include any reference to its possession of P2 centrifuge designs and related R&D (Research and Development), which in my view was a setback to Iran's stated policy of transparency", Dr. ElBarade’i told the 35 members Board.

He also singled out Tehran's failure to mention that it had designs for advanced centrifuges capable of producing highly enriched uranium for use in a nuclear reactor or, potentially, in an atomic weapon.

But Kharazi said the IAEA chief was merely referring to "failures, which are very different to violations."

"Most of these failures are in the past and are being corrected," the Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister said.

There was also an angry reaction from Mr. Hoseyn Moussavian, Iran’s former ambassador to Germany who now is a close aide to Hojjatoleslam Hasan Rohani, the influential Secretary of Iran’s Supreme Council for National Security and main negotiator with the IAEA.

"For several years, Iran has been fully cooperating with the agency, so we do not expect these kind of statements from Mr. ElBaradei," he said, adding that Tehran hoped the IAEA chief's "serious error" would be "corrected".

"The case concerning Iran's peaceful nuclear activities should be completely closed at the IAEA Board of Governors and removed from its agenda", Mr. Rohani, had said during the inaugural session of the Assembly of Experts, an all clerics 86 seats body that convenes twice a year and had the power the elect or dismiss the leader of the regime.

He also called on the Atomic Club to admit Iran as a full member, as it is mastering the full circle of nuclear processing, including enriching uranium.

His demand surprised nuclear experts as membership at the Atomic Club means that one can also produce nuclear weapons, something that Iran insists adamantly that is not the case.

But Mr. Elbradeh’i said the issue would be removed from the agenda "when we are done with all the issues that are outstanding".

"The main issue is the nature of Tehran's enrichment program and the origin of highly enriched uranium found by U.N. inspectors last year" he added.

According to an IAEA report made public last month, Tehran was accused of continuing to hide evidence of nuclear experiments unearthed by agency inspectors, dealing 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.

Iranian Ambassador to Austria who now also represents his country to the Vienna-based international nuclear watchdog Pirooz Pirhoseyni told reporters that Tehran was the victim of a "war of propaganda" and the press had misquoted Iranian officials last year as saying the October dossier was complete.

"At the time...we were not obliged to announce some of our researches, as we had not finished them" he explained.

However, he promised that Iran’s nuclear projects would be open to IAEA inspections saying, "we will give the Agency all the information it considers important to know, according to the additional Protocol that Tehran has signed last December, but has not been approved by the Parliament.

American ambassador Kenneth Brill shot back, telling correspondents he thought it was striking that the more the agency learns the more the Iranians have to change their stories.

Correspondents in Vienna said contrary to their previous stand, Britain, France and Germany that has achieved an agreement with Mr. Rohani last October for Iranian signing the Additional Protocol to the Non Proliferation Treaty and suspending enriching uranium have now coming closer to American position, calling for a more stringent resolution by the IAEA on Iran.

In a bold article on Sunday, "Keyhan", a hard line Iranian newspaper close to Ayatollah Ali Khameneh'i, the regime’s leader, urged lawmakers at the next Majles to reject the Protocol if the IAEA, "under pressures from the United States and Zionist circles continue with its biased, irrational and dishonest treatment of the Islamic Republic".

Iran insists it is building a nuclear program purely to generate electricity. The United States accuses Tehran of systematic deception and says it is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.

ElBaradei urged Tehran to ensure full transparency and help restore international confidence by "taking the initiative to provide all relevant information in full detail and in a prompt manner."

Revelations in recent weeks that a top Pakistani atomic scientist sold nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea and Libya have intensified international concern that "rogue states" or terrorists could get their hands on weapons of mass destruction.

Instead of Iran, the Board of Governors got Libya out of its agenda after Colonel Mu’ammar Ghaddafi unexpectedly renounced all Libya’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in December and called on Iran and North Korea to follow his example.

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said Russia took delivery Monday of an air cargo of highly enriched uranium removed from Libya as part of Tripoli's disarmament.

She told reporters the uranium was 80 percent enriched, very close to being pure enough to use in a nuclear weapon. Russia would now blend it down into low-enriched uranium.

Fleming also said Libya, along with Niger, would sign an Additional Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on Wednesday, permitting instant and unrestricted inspections to verify its future compliance.

ElBarade’i informed the Board about "an extensive international network of black-market proliferators", telling the governors that export controls needed to become "broader and tighter", and mechanisms must be put in place to ensure the agency was told of all sensitive nuclear or nuclear-related technology transfers.

He said he would soon appoint expert groups to look at the possibility of setting up regional centres to tighten control over activities like nuclear fuel production, processing of weapons-usable material and disposal of waste.

"The nuclear non-proliferation regime remains under stress, and a range of measures will be needed to restore confidence in its effectiveness", he said.

ENDS IRAN IAEA NUCLEAR 9304

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2004/Mar_04/iran_iaea_nuclear_9304.htm

[Pan_Yans Wife]

The UN Sec. Council wouldn't do anything, anyway. The UN is useless, as with Iraq. Time for a new "coalition of the willing".

[DoctorZIn]

This thread is now closed.

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”