Iranian Alert -- March 15, 2004 [EST]-- IRAN LIVE THREAD --Americans for Regime Change in Iran

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”

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”

G-d bless you. I hope the Iranians kick their leaders out of power and hang them. I hope Bush helps them. If he does, he will get re-elected in a landslide... the poll boost will still be on-going by election day.

Important!
I am posting this thread at midnight, Eastern Standard Time.
If your have any comments on this change, please freepmail me.

DoctorZin

IRAN WARNED OF RECIPROCITY COUNTRIES THAT ACT AGAINST IT

TEHRAN, 14 Mar. (IPS)

Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the Iranian regime’s number two man reiterated Sunday that his country was determined to acquire advanced nuclear technologies and no force in the world can stop it on this way.

Speaking to Iranian and foreign correspondents, Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is the Chairman of the powerful Assembly for Discerning the Interests of the State (ADIS, or the Expediency Council) said all the regime’s leaders are unanimous that Iran must have advanced nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes, including the fuel needed for the atomic powered electricity plants.

But he said at the same time, Iran was ready to show everything to the world in order to dissipate concerns over its nuclear-related activities.

The cleric, who was celebrating the 25th anniversary of the ADIS, criticised the Resolution passed on Saturday by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Directors, describing it as "unexpected", especially after Iran had open cooperation with the Vienna-based organization.

On Saturday, the 35 Directors of the United Nations international nuclear watchdog approved a resolution without vote taking that deplores Iran’s hiding of some of its nuclear programs and equipments, used mostly for enriching uranium, but at the same time praised Tehran’s recent cooperation with the Agency.

"We were expecting them (the Directors) to express gratitude towards Iran, something that they did but at the same time they accused us and by doing so, they soured the taste of the thanking. That was a big mistake", he said.

The former president also sent a strong warning to all the nations that acted against Iran at the IAEA, saying what one must not forget these countries and the best way to deal with them was to reciprocate.

"However, as a result of the decision, the past confidence Iran had placed on the IAEA has vanished", Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani said, adding that one needed more time to rebuild confidence.

As about the same time, Mr. Hamid Reza Asefi, the senior spokesman for Iranian Foreign Affairs Ministry regretted the language used by the Directors in the Resolution, saying that in response, Iran had decided to delay indefinitely the next visit to Iran of the IAEA inspectors, that was due next week, coinciding with the long No Rooz holidays of the Iranian New Year, that starts on 21 March.

"Iran does not accept such a language and literature from any one and the postponement of the visit by international inspectors is in answer to the insulting language used in the Resolution", he told journalists during his weekly press briefing.

Like Hojjatoleslam Hasan Rohani, the Secretary of the Supreme Council on National Security who is also Iran’s senior negotiator with IAEA, Mr. Asefi observed that the Resolution does not impose any new commitments on the Islamic Republic and warned, "Anyhow, Iran would not accept any new engagements".

Here is the full text of the draft resolution submitted by the chairman of the IAEA board of governors, which was adopted without a vote:

The Board of Governors:

(a) Recalling the resolutions adopted by the Board on 26 November 2003 (GOV/2003/81), and on 12 September 2003 (GOV/2003/69) and the statement by the Board of 19 June 2003 (GOV/OR.1072),

(b) Noting with appreciation the Director General's report of 24 February 2004 (GOV/2004/11), on the implementation of safeguards in Iran,

(c) Commending the Director General and the Secretariat for their continuing efforts to implement the Safeguards Agreement with Iran and to resolve all outstanding issues in Iran,

(d) Noting with satisfaction that Iran signed the Additional Protocol on 18 December 2003 and that, in its communication to the Director General of 10 November 2003, Iran committed itself to acting in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol with effect from that date; but also noting that the Protocol has not yet been ratified as called for in the Board's resolutions of 12 September 2003 (GOV/2003/69) and November 2003 (GOV/2003/81),

(e) Noting the decision by Iran of 24 February 2004 to extend the scope of its suspension of enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, and its confirmation that the suspension applied to all facilities in Iran,

(f) Noting with serious concern that the declarations made by Iran in October 2003 did not amount to the complete and final picture of Iran's past and present nuclear program considered essential by the Board's November 2003 resolution, in that the Agency has since uncovered a number of omissions -- e.g., a more advanced centrifuge design than previously declared, including associated research, manufacturing and testing activities; two mass spectrometers used in the laser enrichment program; and designs for the construction of hot cells at the Arak heavy water research reactor -- which require further investigation, not least as they may point to nuclear activities not so far acknowledged by Iran;

(g) Noting with equal concern that Iran has not resolved all questions regarding the development of its enrichment technology to its current extent, and that a number of other questions remain unresolved, including the source of all HEU contamination in Iran; the location, extent, and purpose of activities involving the planned heavy-water reactor, and evidence to support claims regarding the purpose of polonium-210 experiments, and

(h) Noting with concern also in light of the Director General's report of 20 February 2004 (GOV/2004/12), that, although the timelines are different, Iran's and Libya's conversion and centrifuge programs share several common elements, including technology largely obtained from the same foreign sources,

1. Recognizes that the Director General reports Iran to have been actively cooperating with the Agency in providing access to locations requested by the Agency, but, as Iran's cooperation so far has fallen short of what is required, calls on Iran to continue and intensify its cooperation, in particular through the prompt and proactive provision of detailed and accurate information on every aspect of Iran's past and present nuclear activities.

2. Welcomes Iran's signature of the Additional Protocol, urges its prompt ratification, underlines the Board's understanding that, in its communication to the Director General of 10 November 2003, Iran voluntarily committed itself to acting in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol with effect from that date; and stresses the importance of Iran complying with the deadline for declarations envisaged in Article 3 of the Protocol;

3. Recalls that in its resolutions of 26 November 2003 and 12 September 2003 the Board called on Iran to suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, notes that Iran's voluntary decisions of 29 December 2003 and 24 February 2004 constitute useful steps in this respect, calls on Iran to extend the application of this commitment to all such activities throughout Iran, and requests the Director General to verify the full implementation of these steps'

4. Deplores that Iran, as detailed in the report by the Director General, omitted any reference, in its letter of 21 October 2003 which was to have provided the 'full scope of Iranian nuclear activities' and a 'complete centrifuge R&D chronology', to its possession of P-2 centrifuge design drawings and to associated research, manufacturing, and mechanical testing activities -- which the Director General describes as 'a matter of serious concern, particularly in view of the importance and sensitivity of those activities';

5. Echoes the concern expressed by the Director General over the issue of the purpose of Iran's activities related to experiments on the production and intended use of polonium-210, in the absence of information to support Iran's statements in this regard;

6. Calls on Iran to be pro-active in taking all necessary steps on an urgent basis to resolve all outstanding issues, including the issue of LEU and HEU contamination at the Kalaye Electric Company workshop and Natanz; the issue of the nature and scope of Iran's laser isotope enrichment research; and the issue of the experiments on the production of polonium-210;

7. Notes with appreciation that the Agency is investigating the supply routes and sources of technology and related equipment, and nuclear and non-nuclear materials, found in Iran, and reiterates that the urgent, full and close cooperation with the Agency of all third countries is essential in the clarification of outstanding questions concerning Iran's nuclear program, including the acquisition of nuclear technology from foreign sources; and also appreciates any cooperation in this regard as may already have been extended to the Agency;

8. Requests the Director General to report on these issues before the end of May, as well as on the implementation of this and prior resolutions on Iran, for consideration by the June Board of Governors -- or to report earlier if appropriate; and

9. Decides to defer until its June meeting, and after the receipt of the report of the Director General referred to above, consideration of progress in verifying Iran's declarations, and of how to respond to the above-mentioned omissions; and

10. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

ENDS IAEA IRAN RESOLUTION 14304

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2004/Mar_04/iaea_iran_resolution_14304.htm

Iraq Governing Council delegation heads for Iran

Baghdad, March 13, IRNA --

A high-ranking delegation from the Iraq Governing Council left here for Tehran Saturday morning to discuss possible avenues for bolstering mutual ties.

The current president of the council, Mohammad Bahr al-Uloum, heads the delegation, comprising a number of Iraqi ministers. During its five-day stay in Iran, the Iraqi delegation is scheduled to meet with a number of senior Iranian officials.

Iranian Charge d'Affaires to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi, who is accompanying the Iraqi delegation, said the visit is aimed at strengthening bilateral cooperation.

He said exchange of pilgrims for holy sites is among the most important issues to be discussed.

Kazemi Qomi noted that Iraq's minister of the interior and foreign minister are accompanying Bahr al-Uloum, saying the ministers would be conferring with their Iranian counterparts on security issues, foreign policy, regional and international developments.

The official termed this visit by the Iraqi delegation to Iran as important considering the recent domestic developments in that country which have great significance. An important development is the signing last week of the Iraqi interim constitution.

A high-ranking delegation of the Iraq Governing Council headed by the council's then president, Jalal Talabani, visited Iran in November 2003.

http://www.payvand.com/news/04/mar/1100.html

RETHINKING THE ARAB WORLD IN CAIRO

by Amir Taheri
Townhall
March 14, 2004

According to the Arab media the conference of Arab foreign ministers, held in Cairo recently, ended with "total failure."

The ministers, representing the 22 members of the Arab League, were supposed to approve a package of recommendations for the Arab summit scheduled to be held in Tunis at the end of March.

The package was expected to include three elements: a common Arab position vis-à-vis Washington's so-called "Greater Middle East Initiative"; a blueprint for reforming the Arab League itself; and a set of recommendations for internal political and economic reforms.

In Cairo it became clear that there would be no such package.

Contrary to the unanimous opinion of the Arab media, I think the Cairo ministerial conference, far from being a total failure, was something of a modest success.

Let us start with the Greater Middle East Initiative issue.

At the Cairo meeting, three views emerged with regard to the Arab response.

Some members wanted the conference to dismiss the American initiative as a blatant attempt at intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign and independent nations. Their argument was simple: Washington has no business telling us how we should run our domestic political and economic lives?

A second view belonged to those members who wanted the conference to extend a diplomatic welcome to the American initiative without committing the Arabs to any particular course of action.

The idea is that the United States has entered an electoral season and that President George W Bush should be treated as a lame-duck until his fate is known on 2 November. It is no secret that a majority of he Arab League members wish to see the back of George W and believe that, if elected president, John Kerry would prove more malleable.

A third view, held by half a dozen members, was that the American initiative must be sincerely welcomed and used as part of a set of ideas designed to attract Western diplomatic, political and economic support for an ambitious all-round modernisation programme of the Arab world.

The second issue that divided the conference concerned the reform of the Arab League. Everyone admitted that the league, created by the British as an instrument of their strategy in the Middle East, and later transformed into an arm of pan-Arabism wielded by Egypt, serves little or no purpose today.

We know of at least two members that want the league to be abolished outright.

The league's bureaucracy, led by Amr Moussa, a former Foreign Minister of Egypt, presented its own reform project. But this turned out to be a recipe for a massive expansion of the league's bureaucracy and budget without redefining its raison d'etre.

The league project envisages the creation of an Arab parliament, and half a dozen "councils" dealing with social, cultural, economic and technological issues. If implemented, the project will turn the Arab League into a gigantic paper-pushing machine modelled on the European Union but without the latter's mission and mandate.

While most members tried to remain polite in response to the project, some made it clear that it would be laughed out of the forthcoming summit.

Another project came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt while Libya and Yemen offered a verbal account of how they wished to reform the league. The conference also examined a more detailed reform project prepared by Qatar more than three years ago while Algeria expressed a few ideas of its own.

There was no agreement on any reform plan because the real question-what is the league for?- remains un-tackled.

The third, and tougher, issue that divided the Cairo conference concerned domestic political and economic reforms.

Here, too, the league membership divided into three groups.

One group consisted of members that pretend that their regimes are so perfect as to require no reforms. They know that reform becomes meaningful if different policies are introduced and implemented by different people. And, yet, they have no intention of doing things differently, let alone allowing others to do it. These guys remind one of the orchestra on the Titanic, playing the same tune while the ship is sinking.

A second group consisted of members that are prepared to offer minor concessions so as to avoid major ones. They regard a strategic reform deal with the US and the European Union as a means of both limiting the scope of changes needed and providing additional insurance for their own regimes.

Finally, a small number of members appeared to be genuinely committed to reform. These are the guys who know that their neck of the wood cannot remain the only spot on the globe where basic political, cultural and economic freedoms remain severely restricted.

By the year 2010 almost all members of the league will have joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO), thus committing themselves to a set of new rules that cannot be ignored let alone violated at will. At the same time, in all Arab states the new middle classes are beginning to discover their potential power and demand a share in the decision-making process.

Now, let us see why the Cairo conference could be regarded as a success.

The first reason is that the participants broke with a 50-year tradition under which all league conferences and summits had to end with a "position of unity."

Over decades league members have approved the most ill-considered, not to say dangerously stupid, positions simply because they confused unity with unanimity.

They have voted for policies that they knew were based on lies and could lead only to disaster, because none wished to be singled out as "the breaker of sacred unity." In some cases they have had to sacrifice the concrete interests of their own people in order to serve an abstract, and often non-existent, pan-Arab interest.

Obsession with unanimity prevented the members from telling the truth even when the Arab world was being marched into a trap by incompetent and irresponsible leaders. Anyone who stepped out of line, like Tunisia's Habib Bourguiba in his time, would be ostracised, or, as was the case with Egypt's Anwar Sadat, assassinated.

The Cairo conference must be seen as the first nail in the coffin of unanimity masquerading as unity.

Many members have passed on a simple message: we shall not endorse policies that contradict not only our own national interest but also the rules of reason!

And that, you can be sure, is a great coming of age for many Arab states that are fed up with being bullied by their bigger brothers in the name of unity.

The second reason why the Cairo conference was a success is that it refused to fudge the issue of the Greater Middle East Initiative. It was a wise move to wait and see what the American project actually consists of.

Grown-up Arab states should have no problem examining the project with a cool head, accepting parts that they judge to be reasonable and in their own national interest, rejecting parts that are not.

The Arab League could have a future only if it is reorganised on the basis of unity without unanimity and in the context of diversity. And even then it would have to look for minimum consensus on a small number of issues where full agreement is possible, allowing member states to pursue their own national policies in all other domains. To expect so many states with different geopolitical interests, economic systems, political structures, national aspirations, and cultural backgrounds, to adopt exactly the same policies on all issues is naïve, to say the least.

For the first time, the Cairo conference acknowledged that fact by showing that the Arab are not robots that think and move alike on all issues. And that, tome at least, looks like success.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian author of ten books on the Middle East and Islam. He's reachable through www.benadorassociates.com.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Taheri20040313.shtml

Does Iraq have a seat on the Arab League, or was it resigned due to the fall of the regime?

Iran is not a member.

Is there a stated reason why not?

Iraq has been a member of Arab League but Iran is not a member and just asked for a supervisory seat in the meetings.

The Iranians are not even Arabs.

Exiles say Iran has 2005 nuclear deadline

The Washington Times
14th of March 2004

LONDON, March 14 (UPI) -- An Iranian exile group claims Tehran has a deadline of 2005 to reach a capability to produce nuclear weapons, the Middle East Newsline reported.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran said in London the Iranian government decided to resume uranium enrichment at undisclosed facilities and accelerated its effort to achieve nuclear weapons capability.

The council said Iranian leadership made the decisions after Iranian National Security Adviser Hassan Rowhani met with the International Atomic Energy Agency in October.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a leading resistance council member, said the Iranian leadership met in early 2004 after the Pakistan nuclear network of Abdul Qadeer Khan became known. The network was reported to have provided technology, plans and components for the nuclear programs of Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Jafarzadeh said secret facilities were prepared to continue with uranium enrichment after the IAEA sought to inspect such facilities as Arak, which contains a heavy-water plant, and Natanz, with its hundreds of centrifuges.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040314-060226-9186r.htm

Good to see that there are some attentions to the recent uprising in Iran
---

Uprising in Iran, Hardliner Candidate Resigns

MND NEWSWIRE
14 March 2004

According to sketchy reports, an uprising has occurred in the northern Iranian city of Fereydunkenar.

Demonstrations are reported to have begun on March 13, in the small town in the northern Iranian province of Mazandaran.

The demonstrators attacked and were able to liberate a building used by the Islamic Republic's security forces.

By midday, the uprising had begun to spread to the city of Babolsar, where demonstrators were confronted by Mazandaran's provincial security forces. At this hour, the town of Fereydunkenar appears divided between the rebels and the security forces.

Eyewitnesses have reported that approximately 5000 people were demonstrating when regime forces opened fire on the crowd. At least 5 people have been killed and scores injured with bullet wounds.

In the wake of the attack, the crowd briefly gained control of a police station and released previously arrested demonstrators. Reports also indicate that the home and office of a local Mullah had been torched.

The erruption occurred as a result of three suspicious confiscated ballot boxes that led to the hardline victory in the recent elections. Ironically the hardliner candidate had announced that he did not need the people's vote to get elected. The candidate, Moghdad Najaf Nejhad, has reportedly resigned in the wake of the uprising.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0304/newswire031404-iran.htm

Iran May Harden Position Against IAEA

Associated Press
Sunday, 14th of March

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran indicated Sunday it could harden its position against the U.N. nuclear agency, a day after freezing international inspections to protest a critical resolution by the watchdog agency.

On Saturday, Tehran said it was indefinitely barring inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, hours after its 35-nation governing board adopted a resolution that said it "deplores" recent discoveries of uranium enrichment equipment and other suspicious activities that Iran had failed to reveal.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Sunday the resolution's tone "was unfair and insulting. We don't allow anybody to talk to us in such language."

He said no date has been set for when inspectors would be allowed back into the country, but first "realities must be taken into consideration."

"If realities are not seen, it's possible that the method of our cooperation with IAEA may change," Asefi told a press conference. "Barring the inspectors from visiting Iran should be interpreted in this context."

Asefi did not specify what actions Iran might take.

However, the spokesman later insisted Iran's "cooperation with IAEA is not being questioned. We are willing to cooperate because we are transparent in our intentions and goals."

The agency's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and senior U.S. officials planned to discuss the weekend's developments at a meeting Monday in Washington. ElBaradei also was expected to meet with President Bush.

Iran insists its nuclear activities are for the generation of electricity. The United States suspects Iran is undertaking a secret program to build nuclear weapons and had called for even harsher language in the resolution.

Diplomats familiar with the work of IAEA said that a lengthy ban on inspections would be a huge obstacle to the agency's efforts to deliver a judgment by June on the nature of Tehran's nuclear past and present.

But in Vienna, ElBaradei said he was sure Iran would overturn it soon.

"I'm pretty confident that Iran will understand that we need to go within the time scheduled, and the decision to delay the inspection will be reviewed and reversed within the next couple of days," ElBaradei said.

The U.S. envoy to the IAEA, Kenneth Brill, condemned the freeze.

"This is a measure of their 'full cooperation' — their postponing the very thing that they are called on to do by their obligations," Brill told reporters.

The United States has been lobbying for the IAEA to declare Iran in breach of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and to refer Iran's activities to the U.N. Security Council, where economic sanctions could be imposed.

The IAEA resolution holds off on taking such action until the board of governors meets again in June.

Asefi said he was certain that Iran's nuclear dossier will not be referred to the council because of "Iran's cooperation with IAEA, and the other reason is that we didn't conceal anything."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=8&u=/ap/20040314/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

Iran punishing itself by delaying inspections: IAEA

AFP[ MONDAY, MARCH 15, 2004 06:55:00 AM ]

WASHINGTON: Iran is punishing itself by delaying international inspections since this will prolong the UN nuclear watchdog's investigation of Tehran's atomic programme, the watchdog's head Mohamed ElBaradei said.

"It is not a question of punishing the agency. They will be punishing themselves if they delay things," ElBaradei told reporters yesterday on a flight from Vienna to Washington, where he is to meet on Wednesday with US President George W Bush.

The watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) adopted on Saturday in Vienna a US-backed resolution condemning Iran for hiding possibly weapons-related nuclear activities, drawing ire from Tehran, which suspended inspections.

Iran warned again yesterday it could revise the level of its cooperation with the international nuclear watchdog, but said it has no plans to pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also left open the return of IAEA inspectors, which Tehran suspended after the strong IAEA resolution against it, but said this would have to be renegotiated.

The IAEA, which verifies the NPT, has since February 2003 been working to determine whether Iran's nuclear programme is peaceful, or geared towards secretly developing atomic weapons as the United States has charged.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/560403.cms

Iran makes big strides in missile capability

Abu Dhabi |By Nadim Kawach, Bureau Chief | 15-03-2004

Iran has made big strides in building a military missile capability and is in the process of producing a long-range rocket that could fly as far as 5,000km.

Although it has sought missile technology from China, Russia and North Korea, Iran is now heavily reliant on its own resources and technology for home-made missiles and other military hardware, according to a UAE defence magazine.

Its missile industry programmes picked up after the 1980-1988 war with neighbouring Iraq, in which the bulk of Iran's defence capability was destroyed, said the Abu Dhabi-based Arabic language magazine Gulf Defence.

In study entitled Iran: the past empire…the present and future republic, the magazine said Iran was the world's fourth largest military power after the United States, former Soviet Union and China before the 1979 Islamic revolution overthrew its late Shah.

"Iran's military capability was crushed during the war with Iraq…after the war, it started to cooperate with North Korea, China and Russia to rebuild its defence capability…the focus has been on missiles after it was hit by Iraqi missiles during the war," said the study by Major General Ali Mohammed Rajab, a retired Egyptian army officer.

"Iran has made substantial progress in its military industries by producing home-made long range missiles, jet fighters and tanks despite the boycott and isolation which it is suffering…this shows how skilful the Iranians are in dodging the boycott and overcoming international political and military hurdles."

Citing international military sources, the study estimated Iran's armed forces at more than 545,000 troops, including 350,000 infantry soldiers, 50,000 air personnel and nearly 20,600 navy men. Its defence spending was put at an average 2.7 per cent of the gross domestic product over the past few years, one of the highest ratios.

With such a force, the study considered Iran as militarily superior to all GCC countries, adding that nearly 70 per cent of Iran's arsenal includes old US-made weapons.

Iran's first major home-made missiles include Shahin 2 and Iqab, with a range of between 60-150km. Medium-range missiles were then developed, with a range of between 500-600km and another updated generation with a range of 1,000 developed in collaboration with North Korea and Russia.

"Iran has also produced an advanced missile named Shehab-3 with a range of 1,300km and is 17-metre long…it is capable of carrying an 800-kg warhead….the missile is a product of technological cooperation with North Korea, Germany, Russia and China…this missile is a developed version of the North Korean Nodong missile, which is itself an advanced version of the Russian Scud," the study said.

"Iran is now in the process of developing strategic missiles with a range of 2,000km…it is called Shehab-4, which depends on the technology employed in the Russian Sandal SS-4 missile, which has a range of 3,600km….it can carry non-conventional warheads weighing between 250-500kg."

It said that missile would be followed by another one, the Shehab-5, with a range of 5,000km, which Iran says is designed to serve its space programmes.

To support such missile power, Iran is also trying to acquire advanced fighters, including the Russian-built Mig29 and Sukhoi 30 as well as T-90 and T-72 tanks. It is also building an advanced electronic air control and radar system covering Iran and other Gulf countries, part of Israel, southern Russia, Turkey and other areas.

The study said it believes Iran, which has been under international pressure over its nuclear programmes, is rebuilding its military arsenal for self-defence on the grounds most of its weapons have a defence rather than an assault nature.

"Iran wants to reach a situation where it can ensure relative security to its territory, sovereignty and infrastructure…the Iranian armed forces appear to be taking into consideration the political and security concerns of other countries and in return expect those countries to take into account Iran's defence and strategic needs," it said.

"Some regional countries see in Iran an extension of their efforts to face external threats and challenges….this runs counter to the intentions and objectives of some non-regional states which are working to spark rifts within the region…Iran's concept of building its defence capability is based on the need to remove fears by its neighbours as the bulk of its military industries have a defence nature, or to a lesser extent, a deterrent nature."

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=113979

Rôle of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran

Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily
Volume XXII, No. 46
Monday, March 15, 2004
© 2004, Global Information System, ISSA

Exclusive. Analysis. By Alan Peters,1 GIS. Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carter’s resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office.

The linkage between the destruction of the Shah’s Government — directly attributable to Carter’s actions — and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.

Pres. Carter’s anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carter’s name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract. previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.

The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was “trying to be helpful”. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.

According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.

The multi-billion dollar Bandar Mahshahr project would have made 10 percent “management fee” a huge sum to give away to Pres. Carter’s friends as a favor for unnecessary services. The Shah politely declined the “personal” management request which had been passed on to him. The refusal appeared to earn the Shah the determination of Carter to remove him from office.

Carter subsequently refused to allow tear gas and rubber bullets to be exported to Iran when anti-Shah rioting broke out, nor to allow water cannon vehicles to reach Iran to control such outbreaks, generally instigated out of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. There was speculation in some Iranian quarters — as well as in some US minds — at the time and later that Carter’s actions were the result of either close ties to, or empathy for, the Soviet Union, which was anxious to break out of the longstanding US-led strategic containment of the USSR, which had prevented the Soviets from reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.

Sensing that Iran’s exports could be blocked by a couple of ships sunk in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, the Shah planned a port which would have the capacity to handle virtually all of Iran’s sea exports unimpeded.

Contrary to accusations leveled at him about the huge, “megalomaniac” projects like Bandar Mahshahr, these served as a means to provide jobs for a million graduating high school students every year for whom there were no university slots available. Guest workers, mostly from Pakistan and Afghanistan were used to start and expand the projects and Iranians replaced the foreigners as job demand required, while essential infrastructure for Iran was built ahead of schedule.

In late February 2004, Islamic Iran’s Deputy Minister of Economy stated that the country needed $18-billion a year to create one-million jobs and achieve economic prosperity. And at the first job creation conference held in Tehran’s Amir Kabir University, Iran’s Student News Agency estimated the jobless at some three-million. Or a budget figure of $54-billion to deal with the problem.

Thirty years earlier, the Shah had already taken steps to resolve the same challenges, which were lost in the revolution which had been so resolutely supported by Jimmy Carter.

A quarter-century after the toppling of the Shah and his Government by the widespread unrest which had been largely initiated by groups with Soviet funding — but which was, ironically, to bring the mullahs rather than the radical-left to power — Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was echoed by the Head of Islamic Iran’s Investment Organization, who said: “We are hardly familiar with the required knowledge concerning the proper use of foreign resources both in State and private sectors, nor how to make the best use of domestic resources.” Not even after 25 years.

Historians and observers still debate Carter’s reasons for his actions during his tenure at the White House, where almost everything, including shutting down satellite surveillance over Cuba at an inappropriate time for the US, seemed to benefit Soviet aims and policies. Some claim he was inept and ignorant, others that he was allowing his liberal leanings to overshadow US national interests.

The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office had enough doubts in this respect, even to the extent of questioning whether Carter was a Russian mole, that they sent around 200 observers to monitor Carter’s 1980 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan to see if the Soviets would try to “buy” the presidency for Carter.

In the narrow aspect of Carter setting aside international common sense to remove the US’ most powerful ally in the Middle East, this focused change was definitely contrary to US interests and events over the next 25 years proved this.

According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, Jimmy Carter’s next attack on the Shah was a formal country to country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel. No longer couched as a personal request, the Shah was told he should heed the contract proposal if he wished to enjoy continued support from the US. In these perilous, political times which, could become much worse.

Faced with this growing pressure and threat, the monarch still could not believe that Iran, the staunchest US ally in the region, other than Israel, would be discarded or maimed so readily by Carter, expecting he would be prevailed upon by more experienced minds to avoid destabilizing the regional power structure and tried to explain his position. Firstly, Iran did not have 50-years of proven oil reserves that could be covered by a contract. Secondly, when the petrochemical complex in Bandar Abbas, in the South, was completed a few years later, each barrel of oil would produce $1,000 worth of petrochemicals so it would be treasonous for the Shah to give oil away for only $8.

Apologists, while acknowledging that Carter had caused the destabilization of the monarchy in Iran, claim he was only trying to salvage what he could from a rapidly deteriorating political situation to obtain maximum benefits for the US. But, after the Shah was forced from the throne, Carter’s focused effort to get re-elected via the Iran hostage situation points to less high minded motives.

Rumor has always had it that Carter had tried to negotiate to have the US hostages, held for 444 days by the Islamic Republic which he had helped establish in Iran, released just before the November 1980 election date, but that opposition (Republican) candidate Ronald Reagan had subverted, taken over and blocked the plan. An eye-witness account of the seizure by “students” of the US Embassy on November 4, 1979, in Tehran confirms a different scenario.

The mostly “rent-a-crowd” group of “students” organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.

When asked by the vigilante for the reason of this irregular movement, the stressed cleric replied that he had instructions to provide the US Embassy staff with enough time to destroy their most sensitive documents and to give the three most senior US diplomats adequate opportunity to then take refuge at the Islamic Republic Foreign Ministry rather than be taken with the other hostages. Someone at the Embassy was informing the Foreign Ministry as to progress over the telephone and the cleric was being told what to do over his radio.

The vigilante then asked why the Islamic Government would bother to be so accommodating to the Great Satan and was told that the whole operation was planned in advance by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s revolutionary Government with Pres. Carter in return for Carter having helped depose the Shah and that this was being done to ensure Carter got re-elected. “He helped us, now we help him” was the matter-of-fact comment from the cleric.

In 1978 while the West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi from the throne, Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would listen not to allow “Ayatollah” Ruhollah Khomeini and his velayat faghih (Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah Shariatmadari noted: “We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been achieved at such great cost and effort.”2

Pres. Carter reportedly responded that Khomeini was a religious man — as he himself claimed to be — and that he knew how to talk to a man of God, who would live in the holy city of Qom like an Iranian “pope” and act only as an advisor to the secular, popular revolutionary Government of Mehdi Bazargan and his group of anti-Shah executives, some of whom were US-educated and expected to show preferences for US interests.

Carter’s mistaken assessment of Khomeini was encouraged by advisors with a desire to form an Islamic “green belt” to contain atheist Soviet expansion with the religious fervor of Islam. Eventually all 30 of the scenarios on Iran presented to Carter by his intelligence agencies proved wrong, and totally misjudged Khomeini as a person and as a political entity.

Today, Iranian-born, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the dominant Shia leader in Iraq faces Shariatmadari’s dilemma and shares the same “quietist” Islamic philosophy of sharia (religious law) guidance rather than direct governing by the clerics themselves. Sistani’s “Khomeini” equivalent, militant Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was gunned down in 1999 by then-Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein’s forces. Sadr’s son, 30-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr, lacks enough followers or religious seniority/clout to immediately oppose Sistani but has a hard core of violent followers biding their time.

According to all estimates, the young Sadr waits for the June 2004 scheduled handover of power in Iraq, opening the way for serious, militant intervention on his side by Iranian clerics. The Iranian clerical leaders, the successors to Khomeini, see, far more clearly than US leaders and observers, the parallels between 1979-80 and 2004: as a result, they have put far more effort into activities designed to ensure that “Reagan’s successor”, US Pres. George W. Bush, does not win power.

Footnotes:

1. © 2004 Alan Peters. The name “Alan Peters” is a nom de plume for a writer who was for many years involved in intelligence and security matters in Iran. He had significant access inside Iran at the highest levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979.

2. See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, March 2, 2004: Credibility and Legitimacy of Ruling Iranian Clerics Unraveling as Pressures Mount Against Them; The Source of Clerical Ruling Authority Now Being Questioned. This report, also by Alan Peters, details the background of “Ayatollah” Khomeini, the fact that his qualifications for his religious title were not in place, and the fact that he was not of Iranian origin.

Great Post...!

U.S. troops kill man on Iran-Iraq border

The London Free Press, Canada
2004-03-15

BAGHDAD -- U.S. troops killed one uniformed man and injured another -- possibly Iranian border guards -- in a shootout on the Iran-Iraq border yesterday, the U.S. army said. U.S. soldiers based in Iraq were questioning two suspected fertilizer smugglers in a buffer area between two checkpoints when they were attacked by three men in green and brown uniforms, said a U.S. official in Tikrit, Iraq. The gunmen fired from the Iranian side of the border.

The U.S. troops returned fire, killing one man and wounding another, the official said. The third man fled.

The clash occurred northeast of the Iraqi capital Baghdad, but the exact location was unclear.

Meanwhile, roadside bombs killed four U.S. soldiers in Baghdad, raising to six the toll from attacks in Iraq this weekend, the military said yesterday.

Also in Baghdad, hundreds of Iraqis mourned the death of a Shiite politician's relative in a bomb blast in his shop Saturday.

In Washington yesterday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell defended the decision to go to war in Iraq, saying intelligence before the U.S.-led invasion was not "cooked," even though inspectors have not found banned weapons.

"We may not find the stockpiles. They may not exist any longer, but let's not suggest that we knew this," Powell said on ABC's This Week.

"We went to the United Nations, we went to the world, with the best information we had. Nothing that was cooked."

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/03/15/382622.html