Iranian Alert -- March 29, 2004 [EST]-- IRAN LIVE THREAD -- Americans for Regime Change in Iran

The Iranian Student Movement Up To The Minute Reports ^ | 3.29.2004 | DoctorZin

[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”

[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”

[DoctorZIn]

IN AN UNPRECEDENTED MOVE, ARAB SUMMIT WAS POSTPONED SINE DIE

TUNIS, 28 Mar. (IPS)

The Arab world suffered one of its most humiliating defeat after Tunisia, the country that had hosted the Summit of the Arab League, due to start on Monday, abruptly cancelled the meeting, after Arab foreign ministers preparing the meeting’s resolution disagreed to endorse some proposals aimed at reforming the political structures of most Arab governments and regimes.

"This is a reflection of the depth of the crisis in the Arab world, a failure of the Arab system", the Beirut-based, English-language Lebanese newspaper "The Daily Star" quoted Mr. Shafeeq Ghabra, president of the American University of Kuwait and a political analyst as having commented.

"I think we are going to be living with such a crisis for the coming era. This is going to be a decade of changes and failures", he added.

There were differences on certain amendments and proposals that Tunisia presented and considered essential, Tunisian Secretary Hatef ben Salem was quoted saying. During a session on Friday, Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese diplomats opposed a reform plan because they insisted the conflict with Israel should take top billing, especially after the assassination of a militant Palestinian cleric, the French news agency AFP quoted some Arab diplomats as having explained.

This was the first time in the Arab League’s 57-year history that one of its meetings at the summit had been so abruptly postponed sine die, dealing the Cairo-based Organisation an unprecedented blow, Iranian political analyst noted.

In a statement run immediately after the Tunisian decision, Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa warned that the postponement in Tunis would have "dangerous consequences" for Arab unity. "All Arab nations shared the responsibility for the unprecedented postponement ordered by the summit host, Tunisian President Zine el Abidine ben Ali, and not just Tunisia. The situation is serious and immediate action must be taken", he added.

Arab leaders had hoped to use the event to re-launch an earlier proposal by Saudi Arabia presented at the last Arab Summit in Beirut offering Israel total peace in return for total Israel withdrawal from all Arab lands occupied since 1967 in the one hand and an Arab plan for political reforms against the American project of a "Greater Middle East". However, the killing of Sheikh Ahmad Yasine, the wheel-chaired, blind and paraplegic leader of the hard line Palestinian organisation HAMAS by Israel last Monday provoked widespread outrage in the Arab world, making it politically risky for some states to pursue a peace initiative with the Jewish State.

Jordan and Qatar wanted the Saudi plan to be revived, but they were opposed by Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt, informed sources said.

Tunisian Foreign Ministry official Hatem bin Salem told reporters the differences were "particularly over the issues of modernization and reform...to reactivate Arab institutions".

"Tunisia strongly regrets the postponement of this summit on which Arab and international opinion has pinned great hopes, considering the delicate situation through which the Arab nation is going and the deadlock of the Palestinian issue after the recent tragic events", the Foreign Ministry said in a written statement, cited by the official Tunisian news agency Tunis Afrique Presse.

Diplomats said Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali made personally the decision to call off the summit. MENA reported that ben Ali had refused to meet Arab foreign ministers who wanted to question him on his decision, which the news agency said had "surprised" them.

Some officials even accused President ben Ali of "annoyance" that several heads of state had declined to attend the summit.

In fact, a number of Arab leaders, including Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and six other heads of state had earlier decided to stay away from the summit.

The ministers had gathered In Tunis at the end of last week to prepare the agenda for the two-day summit, which was to begin Monday. But they were informed of the postponement late Saturday by Tunisian Foreign Minister Habib ben Yahia, who said the Summit was scrapped due to "differences of views" over reform measures.

An official source at the Tunisian Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed surprise at the attempts by some parties to ignore the real causes of the postponement of the Arab Summit, which was due mainly to the deep divergence of views on issues of substance and crucial choices that are closely connected to the aspirations of Arab citizens and the future of the Arab Nation.

In preliminary talks by Arab foreign ministers, Syria sought to block proposals for political reform and for endorsing Libya's move to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs, Arab diplomats said.

Syria also wanted to block a summit declaration advancing the 2002 Saudi initiative, they added.

"The Syrians acted as if they want to turn the tables on the whole summit", one Arab diplomat said.

On his part, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara’a said he regretted the postponement, adding President Bashar Assad had already been on his way to Tunisia.

In its project, Tunisia has underlined the necessity to emphasize the Arabs' commitment to the values of tolerance and concord and to the principle of dialogue among civilizations, their total rejection of extremism, fanaticism, violence and terrorism, and their determination to stand against these phenomena within a context of international cooperation and solidarity, in order to root out their causes.

"Despite the fact that the Tunisian proposals have won the support of a number of Arab countries, we are surprised as to the insistence of some other countries on marginalizing these questions that are fundamental, crucial and important for the process of development, modernization and reform within our Arab societies. Tunisia considers it necessary to include these questions within the Summit documents and to reach a consensus concerning them. This was, in fact, the position of the countries that supported the Tunisian project", TAP said in an obviously angry commentary.

"We are surprised as to the insistence of some countries on marginalizing these questions that are fundamental, crucial and important for the process of development, modernization and reform within our Arab societies." ... "It is surprising that we do not find in the draft...in its version before proposing the Tunisian amendment, any mention of the word 'democracy.' The absence of this word carries, in itself, significances that need no explanation", the Tunisian agency went on, adding:

"At a time when the Arab realities do not really need any description, in view of the numerous crises facing the Arab world and the requirements and challenges that must be taken up by all Arab countries, and after having mobilized all its political, material and human capacities to host the Arab Summit and to ensure its success and the adoption of decisions that respond to the aspirations of the Arab peoples who look forward to the Tunis Summit to constitute a turning point that represents a quantum leap in the process of consolidating common Arab action, at that very time, the Arabs miss another opportunity to appear before the world as an active regional grouping, capable of adapting to the changes surrounding it and of integrating within this crucial historical moment".

Following the unprecedented postponement of the Arab summit in Tunisia, Egyptian president Mubarak's office said in a statement Sunday it would host the Arab summit as soon as the 22 Arab nations could agree on a time.

"Egypt welcomes the convening of the summit in the country of the headquarters of the Arab League (Egypt) at the earliest possible time that can be agreed on," the statement said.

No new date for the summit was announced.

ENDS ARAB SUMMIT POSTPONED 28304

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2004/Mar_04/arab_summit_postponed_28304.htm

[nuconvert]

This is significant

[DoctorZIn]

ENSAFALI HEDAYAT’S OPEN LETTER TO THE IRANIAN NATION, OFFICIALS

TEHRAN, 28 Mar. (IPS)

In a new open letter to the Iranian nation and its leaders, detained journalist Ensafali Hedayat paints a gloomy picture of the conditions of his life in prison and harangues President Mohammad Khatami for his total indifference towards the fate of Iranians abused by the Judiciary and other organs of the Islamic Republic.

An independent reporter covering occasionally for foreign-based Iranian media like the American government-sponsored Radio Farda (Tomorrow), Mr. Hedayat was arrested last January on his return to Iran from Berlin, where he attended a conference of Republican Iranians and was jailed in Tabriz, the capital city of the Eastern Azerbaijan province on charges of espionage and activities against the interests of the Islamic Republic.

However, since his arrest, and despite several days of intense interrogations, he had not been tried and the Judiciary had produced no evidence for the charges that he claims are "utterly and totally baseless".

Because of his straightforward and uncompromising articles reporting on the situation in Iran, the authorities ordered all local media not to take any thing from Mr. Hedayat, forcing him to leave Tehran for his hometown of Tabriz, where he lives in a small, 2 rooms only house with his wife and two children.

But while all other Iranian journalists who also covered the conference were working for foreign-based Iranian press, Mr. Hedayat was the only one who had come from Iran and for this reason, not only he was often interviewed by other colleagues, but also contacted by many participants at the meeting that was also attended by a delegation from Iran.

Informed sources and friends believe that this is one of the reasons why the authorities are accusing him of espionage and collaboration with Iranian opposition organizations outside the country.

In his letter, Mr. Hedayat recalls that when arrested last summer, his interrogators had told him that he would be killed within six months or he should leave the country.

"And exactly six months latter, I was arrested, denied any legal rights reserved to prisoners. Does Mr. Khatami, who as President is the guarantor of the rights of the citizen of this country knows that a journalist named Ensafali Hedayat has been detained on totally baseless charges of espionage?

"Does the concerned authorities know that many of the young and certainly honest judges, like the one who has charged me, are acting under political pressures, keeping inmates in prison without producing any convincing documents or facts, just because of the pressures applied on them?

"Does Mr. Khatami and other concerned authorities know that a penniless prisoners like me is charged for heating his cold meals or getting much needed hot water to clean his wounds?

Does our dear President knows that some sick prisoners like myself are denied medical treatments? Does he and other officials knows that some political prisoners are kept behind bars for months without any justification?" he asked without expressing any anger, but "a bad feeling of sadness for myself and other Iranians victim of blunt injustice".

However, except a few Iranian internet newspapers based outside Iran, no domestic media, including the so-called pro-reform newspapers, published the open letter, written in Farsi.

Several international and foreign-based Iran organizations defending the rights of journalists, like the Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontieres (Reporters Without Borders) or the Association of Iranian Journalists Abroad (AIJA) based in Rome have, in faxes and e-mails to Ayatollah Ali Khameneh'i and President Mohammad Khatami, urged the Iranian clerical rulers to free Mr. Hedayat, as well as other journalists "immediately and unconditionally", but so far there has been no words from the authorities in Tehran.

Besides Mr. Hedayat, more than a dozen political activists, journalists, students, a prominent lawyer and a university professor are in prison, all of them accused of anti-State activities and propaganda, insulting the leader or Islam.

ENDS ENSAFALI HEDAYAT LETTER 28304

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2004/Mar_04/ensafali_hedayat_28304.htm

[F14 Pilot]

Iran resumes works on nuclear fuel cycle: official

Channel News Asia
29 Mar 2004

TEHRAN : Iran has resumed work on a key part of the nuclear fuel cycle, its atomic energy body chief announced, in an apparent step back from a deal with the UN nuclear watchdog to suspend all uranium enrichment-related activity.

Gholam Reza Aghazadeh told state television that "the experimental phase of the Isfahan processing installation has begun and by the end of this phase, in the next 20 days, experimental production at this facility will start."

"The uranium processing plant in Isfahan will produce all raw materials for the fuel cycle," he added.

The Isfahan installation is listed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF), where the refining of yellow cake takes place to produce materials that can be then used to produce enriched uranium.

In a European-brokered deal with the IAEA struck late last year, the Islamic republic agreed to suspend uranium enrichment -- and all related activities -- while UN inspectors delved into suspicions the country was using a bid to generate atomic energy as a cover for developing nuclear weapons.

Iran, under massive international pressure to maintain the suspension, has consistently emphasized its right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to resume the production of the fuel for peaceful purposes at any time.

Tehran also appears to be seeking to narrow the terms of its suspension, which the Europeans had hoped would effectively halt Iran's work on the highly sensitive nuclear fuel cycle.

Aghazadeh said the "voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment in Iran was a move to build trust with the IAEA, and based on the order of the Supreme National Security Council secretariat, the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation will suspend in the field of building parts and facility construction."

He did not elaborate, but state television only added in a commentary that the Isfahan facility, situated near the historic city in the centre of the country, was "not part of the deal with the IAEA" and had been declared to the body in 2000.

Iran's Supreme National Security Council is headed by Hassan Rowhani, the official charged with negotiations with the IAEA and who negotiated the deal with the European Unions big three: Britain, France and Germany.

Aghazadeh, who is also one of the country's vice president, confirmed that IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei would visit Tehran on April 6 for talks with "high-ranking officials".

And he said a team of IAEA inspectors presently in the country had visited an enrichment facility in Natanz, south of Tehran, on Sunday and would also visit the Isfahan installation.

In the state television report, Aghazadeh pointed to the "good relations" between Iran and the Vienna-based non-proliferation watchdog.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/77553/1/.html

[PhilDragoo]

Iran has obviously been deeply influenced by its chosen candidate Kerry:

We actually did suspend enrichment, before we resumed it.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Classic Dragoo wit! ROTFL

[DoctorZIn]

Tehran Cannot Trust EU: Expert

TEHRAN (Mehr News Agency)

An expert on European affairs, Majid Malekan, believes that European Union’s stance toward human rights condition in Iran is politically-motivated and it shows that the EU is under U.S. influence.

Malekan says the EU in fact tries to follow the U.S. approach toward legal issues and that Iran should take a positive and constructive policy toward the EU’s unfair and hostile resolution.

Comparing human rights condition in Iran with that of other countries including the Middle East, Malekan argues the charges against Tehran indicate there are fundamental differences between Iran and the U.S. and EU. He says the Europeans pose such issues in order to garner concessions from Iran.

He says Iran should regulate its ties with the EU on the basis of national interests and that Iran will cooperate with the Union so long as it is interpretable within this framework otherwise it should seriously revise its dealings with the EU in response to such hostile policies.

The charges show that the Islamic Republic cannot trust the European states but Tehran should continue its constructive dialogue with the Union for removing misunderstandings and solving problems that have surfaced under the U.S. influence, Malekan told the Mehr News Agency.

He maintains the EU has adopted a double-standard and discriminatory approach toward Iran. For example, he says the EU has closed its eyes to the developments in Iraq because of the U.S. occupation and crimes committed against humanity by the Zionist regime.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=3/29/2004&Cat=2&Num=007

[F14 Pilot]

Iranians in Brussels demanding human rights and democracy in Iran 2004-03-25

Iranians in Geneva protesting in front of the UN HQ. (Picture taken yesterday)

[windchime]

Bump!

[nuconvert]

COMBATING TERRORISM

An Essential War
Ousting Saddam was the only option.

BY GEORGE P. SHULTZ
Monday, March 29, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

We have struggled with terrorism for a long time. In the Reagan administration, I was a hawk on the subject. I said terrorism is a big problem, a different problem, and we have to take forceful action against it. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan agreed with me, but not many others did. (Don Rumsfeld was an outspoken exception.)

In those days we focused on how to defend against terrorism. We reinforced our embassies and increased our intelligence effort. We thought we made some progress. We established the legal basis for holding states responsible for using terrorists to attack Americans anywhere. Through intelligence, we did abort many potential terrorist acts. But we didn't really understand what motivated the terrorists or what they were out to do.

In the 1990s, the problem began to appear even more menacing. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were well known, but the nature of the terrorist threat was not yet comprehended and our efforts to combat it were ineffective. Diplomacy without much force was tried. Terrorism was regarded as a law enforcement problem and terrorists as criminals. Some were arrested and put on trial. Early last year, a judge finally allowed the verdict to stand for one of those convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Ten years! Terrorism is not a matter that can be left to law enforcement, with its deliberative process, built-in delays, and safeguards that may let the prisoner go free on procedural grounds.

Today, looking back on the past quarter century of terrorism, we can see that it is the method of choice of an extensive, internationally connected ideological movement dedicated to the destruction of our international system of cooperation and progress. We can see that the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 2001 destruction of the Twin Towers, the bombs on the trains in Madrid, and scores of other terrorist attacks in between and in many countries, were carried out by one part or another of this movement. And the movement is connected to states that develop awesome weaponry, with some of it, or with expertise, for sale.

What should we do? First and foremost, shore up the state system.

The world has worked for three centuries with the sovereign state as the basic operating entity, presumably accountable to its citizens and responsible for their well-being. In this system, states also interact with each other--bilaterally or multilaterally--to accomplish ends that transcend their borders. They create international organizations to serve their ends, not govern them.

Increasingly, the state system has been eroding. Terrorists have exploited this weakness by burrowing into the state system in order to attack it. While the state system weakens, no replacement is in sight that can perform the essential functions of establishing an orderly and lawful society, protecting essential freedoms, providing a framework for fruitful economic activity, contributing to effective international cooperation, and providing for the common defense.

I see our great task as restoring the vitality of the state system within the framework of a world of opportunity, and with aspirations for a world of states that recognize accountability for human freedom and dignity.
All established states should stand up to their responsibilities in the fight against our common enemy, terror; be a helpful partner in economic and political development; and take care that international organizations work for their member states, not the other way around. When they do, they deserve respect and help to make them work successfully.

The civilized world has a common stake in defeating the terrorists. We now call this what it is: a War on Terrorism. In war, you have to act on both offense and defense. You have to hit the enemy before the enemy hits you. The diplomacy of incentives, containment, deterrence and prevention are all made more effective by the demonstrated possibility of forceful pre-emption. Strength and diplomacy go together. They are not alternatives; they are complements. You work diplomacy and strength together on a grand and strategic scale and on an operational and tactical level. But if you deny yourself the option of forceful pre-emption, you diminish the effectiveness of your diplomatic moves. And, with the consequences of a terrorist attack as hideous as they are--witness what just happened in Madrid--the U.S. must be ready to pre-empt identified threats. And not at the last moment, when an attack is imminent and more difficult to stop, but before the terrorist gets in position to do irreparable harm.

Over the last decade we have seen large areas of the world where there is no longer any state authority at all, an ideal environment for terrorists to plan and train. In the early 1990s we came to realize the significance of a "failed state." Earlier, people allowed themselves to think that, for example, an African colony could gain its independence, be admitted to the U.N. as a member state, and thereafter remain a sovereign state. Then came Somalia. All government disappeared. No more sovereignty, no more state. The same was true in Afghanistan. And who took over? Islamic extremists. They soon made it clear that they regarded the concept of the state as an abomination. To them, the very idea of "the state" was un-Islamic. They talked about reviving traditional forms of pan-Islamic rule with no place for the state. They were fundamentally, and violently, opposed to the way the world works, to the international state system.

The United States launched a military campaign to eliminate the Taliban and al Qaeda's rule over Afghanistan. Now we and our allies are trying to help Afghanistan become a real state again and a viable member of the international state system. Yet there are many other parts of the world where state authority has collapsed or, within some states, large areas where the state's authority does not run.

That's one area of danger: places where the state has vanished. A second area of danger is found in places where the state has been taken over by criminals or warlords. Saddam Hussein was one example. Kim Jong Il of North Korea is another.

They seize control of state power and use that power to enhance their wealth, consolidate their rule and develop their weaponry. As they do this, and as they violate the laws and principles of the international system, they at the same time claim its privileges and immunities, such as the principle of non-intervention into the internal affairs of a legitimate sovereign state. For decades these thugs have gotten away with it. And the leading nations of the world have let them get away with it.

This is why the case of Saddam Hussein and Iraq is so significant. After Saddam Hussein consolidated power, he started a war against one of his neighbors, Iran, and in the course of that war he committed war crimes including the use of chemical weapons, even against his own people.

About 10 years later he started another war against another one of his neighbors, Kuwait. In the course of doing so he committed war crimes. He took hostages. He launched missiles against a third and then a fourth country in the region.

That war was unique in modern times because Saddam totally eradicated another state, and turned it into "Province 19" of Iraq. The aggressors in wars might typically seize some territory, or occupy the defeated country, or install a puppet regime; but Saddam sought to wipe out the defeated state, to erase Kuwait from the map of the world.

That got the world's attention. That's why, at the U.N., the votes were wholly in favor of a U.S.-led military operation--Desert Storm--to throw Saddam out of Kuwait and to restore Kuwait to its place as a legitimate state in the international system. There was virtually universal recognition that those responsible for the international system of states could not let a state simply be rubbed out.

When Saddam was defeated, in 1991, a cease-fire was put in place. Then the U.N. Security Council decided that, in order to prevent him from continuing to start wars and commit crimes against his own people, he must give up his arsenal of "weapons of mass destruction."

Recall the way it was to work. If Saddam cooperated with U.N. inspectors and produced his weapons and facilitated their destruction, then the cease-fire would be transformed into a peace agreement ending the state of war between the international system and Iraq. But if Saddam did not cooperate, and materially breached his obligations regarding his weapons of mass destruction, then the original U.N. Security Council authorization for the use of "all necessary force" against Iraq--an authorization that at the end of Desert Storm had been suspended but not cancelled--would be reactivated and Saddam would face another round of the U.S.-led military action against him. Saddam agreed to this arrangement.

In the early 1990s, U.N. inspectors found plenty of materials in the category of weapons of mass destruction and they dismantled a lot of it. They kept on finding such weapons, but as the presence of force declined, Saddam's cooperation declined. He began to play games and to obstruct the inspection effort.

By 1998 the situation was untenable. Saddam had made inspections impossible. President Clinton, in February 1998, declared that Saddam would have to comply with the U.N. resolutions or face American military force. Kofi Annan flew to Baghdad and returned with a new promise of cooperation from Saddam. But Saddam did not cooperate. Congress then passed the Iraq Liberation Act by a vote of 360 to 38 in the House of Representatives; the Senate gave its unanimous consent. Signed into law on October 31, it supported the renewed use of force against Saddam with the objective of changing the regime. By this time, he had openly and utterly rejected the inspections and the U.N. resolutions.

In November 1998, the Security Council passed a resolution declaring Saddam to be in "flagrant violation" of all resolutions going back to 1991. That meant that the cease-fire was terminated and the original authorization for the use of force against Saddam was reactivated. President Clinton ordered American forces into action in December 1998.

But the U.S. military operation was called off after only four days--apparently because President Clinton did not feel able to lead the country in war at a time when he was facing impeachment.

So inspections stopped. The U.S. ceased to take the lead. But the inspectors reported that as of the end of 1998 Saddam possessed major quantities of WMDs across a range of categories, and particularly in chemical and biological weapons and the means of delivering them by missiles. All the intelligence services of the world agreed on this.

From that time until late last year, Saddam was left undisturbed to do what he wished with this arsenal of weapons. The international system had given up its ability to monitor and deal with this threat. All through the years between 1998 and 2002 Saddam continued to act and speak and to rule Iraq as a rogue state.

President Bush made it clear by 2002, and against the background of 9/11, that Saddam must be brought into compliance. It was obvious that the world could not leave this situation as it was. The U.S. made the decision to continue to work within the scope of the Security Council resolutions--a long line of them--to deal with Saddam. After an extended and excruciating diplomatic effort, the Security Council late in 2002 passed Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam one final chance to comply or face military force. When on December 8, 2002, Iraq produced its required report, it was clear that Saddam was continuing to play games and to reject his obligations under international law. His report, thousands of pages long, did not in any way account for the remaining weapons of mass destruction that the U.N. inspectors had reported to be in existence as of the end of 1998. That assessment was widely agreed upon.

That should have been that. But the debate at the U.N. went on--and on. And as it went on it deteriorated. Instead of the focus being kept on Iraq and Saddam, France induced others to regard the problem as one of restraining the U.S.--a position that seemed to emerge from France's aspirations for greater influence in Europe and elsewhere. By March of 2003 it was clear that French diplomacy had resulted in splitting NATO, the European Union, and the Security Council . . . and probably convincing Saddam that he would not face the use of force. The French position, in effect, was to say that Saddam had begun to show signs of cooperation with the U.N. resolutions because more than 200,000 American troops were poised on Iraq's borders ready to strike him; so the U.S. should just keep its troops poised there for an indeterminate time to come, until presumably France would instruct us that we could either withdraw or go into action. This of course was impossible militarily, politically, and financially.

Where do we stand now? These key points need to be understood:

• There has never been a clearer case of a rogue state using its privileges of statehood to advance its dictator's interests in ways that defy and endanger the international state system.

• The international legal case against Saddam--17 resolutions--was unprecedented.

• The intelligence services of all involved nations and the U.N. inspectors over more than a decade all agreed that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to international peace and security.

• Saddam had four undisturbed years to augment, conceal, disperse, or otherwise deal with his arsenal.

• He used every means to avoid cooperating or explaining what he has done with them. This refusal in itself was, under the U.N. resolutions, adequate grounds for resuming the military operation against him that had been put in abeyance in 1991 pending his compliance.

• President Bush, in ordering U.S. forces into action, stated that we were doing so under U.N. Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687, the original bases for military action against Saddam Hussein in 1991. Those who criticize the U.S. for unilateralism should recognize that no nation in the history of the United Nations has ever engaged in such a sustained and committed multilateral diplomatic effort to adhere to the principles of international law and international organization within the international system. In the end, it was the U.S. that upheld and acted in accordance with the U.N. resolutions on Iraq, not those on the Security Council who tried to stop us.

The question of weapons of mass destruction is just that: a question that remains to be answered, a mystery that must be solved. Just as we also must solve the mystery of how Libya and Iran developed menacing nuclear capability without detection, of how we were caught unaware of a large and flourishing black market in nuclear material--and of how we discovered these developments before they got completely out of hand and have put in place promising corrective processes. The question of Iraq's presumed stockpile of weapons will be answered, but that answer, however it comes out, will not affect the fully justifiable and necessary action that the coalition has undertaken to bring an end to Saddam Hussein's rule over Iraq. As Dr. David Kay put it in a Feb. 1 interview with Chris Wallace, "We know there were terrorist groups in state still seeking WMD capability. Iraq, although I found no weapons, had tremendous capabilities in this area. A marketplace phenomena was about to occur, if it did not occur; sellers meeting buyers. And I think that would have been very dangerous if the war had not intervened."
When asked by Mr. Wallace what the sellers could have sold if they didn't have actual weapons, Mr. Kay said: "The knowledge of how to make them, the knowledge of how to make small amounts, which is, after all, mostly what terrorists want. They don't want battlefield amounts of weapons. No, Iraq remained a very dangerous place in terms of WMD capabilities, even though we found no large stockpiles of weapons."

Above all, and in the long run, the most important aspect of the Iraq war will be what it means for the integrity of the international system and for the effort to deal effectively with terrorism. The stakes are huge and the terrorists know that as well as we do. That is the reason for their tactic of violence in Iraq. And that is why, for us and for our allies, failure is not an option. The message is that the U.S. and others in the world who recognize the need to sustain our international system will no longer quietly acquiesce in the take-over of states by lawless dictators who then carry on their depredations--including the development of awesome weapons for threats, use, or sale--behind the shield of protection that statehood provides. If you are one of these criminals in charge of a state, you no longer should expect to be allowed to be inside the system at the same time that you are a deadly enemy of it.

Sept. 11 forced us to comprehend the extent and danger of the challenge. We began to act before our enemy was able to extend and consolidate his network.

If we put this in terms of World War II, we are now sometime around 1937. In the 1930s, the world failed to do what it needed to do to head off a world war. Appeasement never works. Today we are in action. We must not flinch. With a powerful interplay of strength and diplomacy, we can win this war.

* * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Shultz, a former secretary of state, is a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. This is adapted from his Kissinger Lecture, given recently at the Library of Congress.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004882

[F14 Pilot]

Persian New Year enjoyed in Southland

LA Daily News
By Alex Dobuzinskis
28th Mar 04

Hundreds of Iranian-Americans picnicked at Conejo Creek Park on Sunday in an age-old celebration of the coming of spring, while similar celebrations were held throughout the Southland.

Rassoul Ghavimi spent the day with family and friends, feasting on kebab, feta cheese and traditional foods from Iran. Ghavimi, 52, got to the park at 6:30 a.m. and planned to be there until it closed.

"Because we want to have fun, we want to enjoy (the day) as much as possible," said Ghavimi, who is from West Hills. The picnicking was part of the celebration of the Persian New Year, which happened March 19.

Traditional belief holds that 13 days after the new year starts -- an unlucky number -- people should spend the day outdoors to avoid negativity. Iranian-American families picnicked a few days early because the 13th day of their new year would fall on a workday.

Iranian-Americans on Sunday also picnicked at Balboa Park in Van Nuys and at Mason Park in Irvine.

Authorities in Iran disapprove of the celebration of the Persian New Year, which has its roots in Zoroastrian beliefs that preceded the spread of Islam to the country.

"They tried for 25 years to stop it, but they couldn't," said Casey Amini, 50, of Woodland Hills.

Amini was with a group that was celebrating with a mix of food and a water pipe with apple-flavored tobacco. Also on the picnic table were some lentils in a pan that had been allowed to sprout over the past few weeks. Tradition holds that the unmarried should tie knots in the sprouts in the hope of finding someone to marry.

Sima Walker of Moorpark was at the park with her husband and her mother. Walker's mother is the only member of her family who joined her in America from Iran. At a similar celebration in Iran, there were often as many as 150 family members.

"We miss that," Walker said.

Her husband, Craig Walker, 55, also enjoyed the festivities.

"Beautiful park, great day, wonderful celebration, great food," he said.

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2048104,00.html

[DoctorZIn]

EU in a Quandary Over Khatami's Failure to Apply Reforms

March 29, 2004
Khaleej Times Online
Agencies

BRUSSELS -- The EU faces a dilemma over Iranian government's failure to carry out reforms.

"Iran is a test case for EU foreign policy," said Steven Everts of the London-based Centre for European Reform think-tank. "It is a chance to demonstrate that Europe does not just champion the rule of law, but is prepared to act tough to enforce it."

The EU also wants to show the US that might is not necessarily right.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2004/March/middleeast_March761.xml&section=middleeast&col=

[DoctorZIn]

Irish Diplomat to Hear Iran Complaint

March 29, 2004
RTÉ News
rte.ie

An Irish diplomat has been summoned to the Iranian Foreign Ministry to hear a complaint about what the ministry described as irresponsible criticism by the EU of Iran's human rights record.

State media and the Irish Embassy in Tehran said the first secretary, Aidan Cronin, was called in to hear an official protest by the Foreign Ministry's legal affairs director.

Ireland is the current holder of the EU presidency.

Last week the EU told the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva that it had seen little improvement in human rights in Iran, which Brussels has effectively made a precondition to improving trade ties.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0329/iran.html

[DoctorZIn]

Does Iran Have Enough Centrifuges?

March 29, 2004
Dow Jones Newswires
The Associated Press

TEHRAN -- Iran has stopped building centrifuges to win the world's trust over its nuclear program, the head of its Atomic Energy Organization said Monday.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh said the suspension of the construction of centrifuges had been ordered by the country's Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top decision-making body.

Iran suspended uranium enrichment last year under strong international pressure over the aims and dimensions of its nuclear program. But it continued to build centrifuges, which are used in enrichment, despite criticism that this violated the spirit of its pledge to cease enrichment.

State television quoted Aghazadeh as saying on its Web site: "The Islamic Republic of Iran has voluntarily expanded (the enrichment) suspension to include the production of components and assembly."

An official of the Atomic Energy Organization explained that this referred to centrifuges and said it had been done to build greater trust with the U.N. agency, the International Atomic Energy Organization, and with Iran's European partners.

"So far, we had suspended injecting gas into centrifuges as part of a deal reached with the European countries," the official told The Associated Press, referring to the enrichment suspension. "Now, we have voluntarily suspended production and assembly of centrifuge machines."

The official spoke on customary condition of anonymity.

The move came as IAEA inspectors carried out checks on Iran's nuclear facilities.

IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei says Iran has much to do before the U.N. agency can give its nuclear program a clean bill of health.

ElBaradei hopes to present an assessment of Iran's nuclear activities to the IAEA board of governors in June.

In his comments Monday, Aghazadeh said ElBaradei would visit Iran on April 6 to "finalize any issues that may remain unresolved."

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004032910120003&Take=3

[DoctorZIn]

Iran Breaks Ban on Uranium Processing

March 29, 2004
The Media Line
themedialine.org

Iran has continued its work to refine uranium at its nuclear plant in Isfahan despite an agreement signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), announced the country’s atomic energy agency on Sunday.

The announcement followed the arrival of IAEA inspectors in Iran on Saturday, after a two-week delay caused by a dispute between the agency and the Islamic republic.

Iran signed a pact with the IAEA last year, vowing to stop the enriched-uranium-refining cycle, which is for fuel production or nuclear weapons. Iran claims it has always used the refined uranium for fuel production.

However, the IAEA has not expressed opposition to this activity since Sunday, according to news reports.

Iran and the IAEA have been at odds for several months, as Iran wavers between opening itself to external nuclear inspections and sticking to its own plans.

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty last year, after extensive negotiations with international officials. The pact permits the production of nuclear fuel.

Much of the impetus for the inspections stems from the U.S.’s claim that Iran is secretly producing nuclear weapons.

http://themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=5366

[DoctorZIn]

Zarqawi, Getting Around

March 29, 2004
National Review Online
Michael Ledeen

Who bombed Madrid, and other interesting questions.

According to a usually reliable French investigator and author, Spanish authorities are now convinced that the Madrid massacre was organized by our old friend, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi has also been credited for being one of the major organizers of the terror war against the Coalition in Iraq, and was named by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his presentation to the Security Council prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom as a key al Qaeda leader, with ties to the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.

A busy and very wicked man, in short.

As memories are short, let's review the bidding on Zarqawi. I first wrote about him here on December 12, 2002, when I came across an article in the German newspaper Die Zeit. That article cited court documents drawn from the depositions of a Palestinian terrorist who was cooperating with German authorities. The terrorist revealed that Zarqawi wore several hats: He was a top officer of al Qaeda, and the leader of a terrorist group known as al Tawhid, and he lived and worked in Tehran. He noted that Zarqawi was a key figure in the "reorganized al Qaeda" (reorganized after the debacle in Afghanistan) and was "one of the major coordinators of Iranian-sponsored terrorism in Europe."

Al Qaeda's Iranian connection led German investigators to another important discovery: Al Qaeda and Hezbollah — arguably the world's most dangerous terrorist organizations — were working hand in glove. Die Zeit said that German intelligence had become aware of meetings between Osama bin Laden and Hezbollah's chief of operations, Imad Mughniyah.

A few months after I wrote that article, documents surfaced in Italian court cases that showed Zarqawi's involvement in terrorist networks in Milan and other northern Italian cities. And just last week, the Corriere della Sera reported that Zarqawi's name had surfaced in recent investigations into al Qaeda's efforts to recruit radical Muslims in Italy for guerrilla and suicide attacks in Iraq. And, like the German documents, the Italian evidence led straight back to Tehran, whence Zarqawi had issued orders to his agents in Italy.

As NRO noted at the time, Secretary Powell's speech to the Security Council actually proved more than the administration wished, since Powell was only trying to justify action against Iraq, and did not mention the Iran connection. But now that Zarqawi's name has surfaced in connection with Madrid, anyone who is serious about waging war against terrorism must find a way to deal effectively with the mullahcracy in Tehran.

The Corriere della Sera carried extensive excerpts from an interview with an al Qaeda terrorist currently serving time in an Italian prison, and if he is to be believed, a lot of the conventional wisdom on al Qaeda is gravely misleading. The man in question — a Tunisian identified as "Ahmed" — was actively involved in planning massive bombing attacks in Italy many months before September 11, 2001. One of these schemes was discovered by Italian intelligence in October of that year, leading to several arrests and the shattering of "Ahmed's" group. Another was foiled by Tunisian authorities, but the terrorists in North Africa had already sent a shipment of explosives to Italy, which has still not been found.

"Ahmed" also spoke of plans as early as January, 2000, to bomb the main railroad station in Milan on one of the busiest days of the year — December 24, for example. The creation of a clandestine terrorist network capable of such operations had begun in 1997.

These revelations have apparently been confirmed by Italian authorities, who have efficiently dismantled a series of terrorist cells all over the country, even as they warn that terrorist attacks on Italian soil are likely. They remember that Spanish intelligence officials were murdered in Iraq several months before the Madrid bombings, and that Italian carabinieri were killed in a suicide bombing in Nasiriyah a few months ago.

But there are broader, and far more important conclusions to be drawn from the recent information coming from Spain and Italy. For if "Ahmed" is telling the truth, then the targeting of European cities has nothing at all to do with the liberation of Iraq, or European support for American foreign policy, or even with the nature of the government in one European country or another. In 1997, when "Ahmed" began his work, Italy had a left-wing government, and Operation Iraqi Freedom was six years away.

As I have been arguing for many years now, September 11 did not mark a watershed in the terror war against the West. That war is properly dated to September, 1979, when the Aytaollah Khomeini seized power in Iran, branded the United States "the great Satan," and declared war against us. Iran continued to wage that war through the Beirut bombings and hostage seizures of the mid-80s — conducted by the Iranian surrogate, Hezbollah — and collected allies along the way, including al Qaeda.

Today Iran is either on the verge of, or has actually accomplished the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and is speeding ahead on bigger and better delivery systems. Yet Western policy toward Iran is either feckless or eager appeasement. Each revelation of the Iranian hand in terrorism is either ignored or shrugged off, and each new discovery of Iran's nuclear-weapons program is greeted with disappointment as action is postponed to the next meeting of the toothless International Atomic Energy Agency.

No wonder that, as the news of the Madrid bloodbath reached Tehran, a celebration was held in the residence of the Supreme Leader, and the turbaned rulers congratulated Ali Khamenei on the great event.

Instead of debating the details of past failures, our leaders should devote their energies to preventing the next September 11, which, you can be quite sure, is receiving enthusiastic support from our self-proclaimed enemies in the Islamic republic of Iran.

Faster, please.

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen is Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200403290858.asp

[DoctorZIn]

Zarqawi, Getting Around

March 29, 2004
National Review Online
Michael Ledeen

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1106975/posts?

[freedom44]

Iran: Channel 4 'Dispatches' torture victim denied medical treatment in prison
Amnesty International is extremely concerned for the health of an Iranian man who has been imprisoned, tortured and denied medical treatment after he talked to a Channel 4 'Dispatches' television team last year. Earlier this week the organisation issued an Urgent Action appeal on his behalf.

Arzhang Davoodi, 46, was arrested between August and October 2003 and severely beaten after criticising the Iranian authorities in a secretly filmed television documentary Iran Undercover – Inside the Hidden Revolution, broadcast on Channel 4 television on 2 December 2003. He spoke to a 'Dispatches' journalist about political prisoners and the death of Canadian-Iranian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi who died in custody after she was arrested for taking photos outside Evin prison in 2003. Reports on the Iranian internet news site Peyk-e Iran state that Arzhang was tortured and held in solitary confinement for 100 days during his detention at Band 325, a prison facility run by the Revolutionary Guard. Arzhang suffered a broken shoulder blade, bleeding in his left eye, deafness, a broken jaw and broken teeth. A reported medical assessment required treatment of his eyes, ears and teeth, as well as physiotherapy for his shoulder, yet the authorities have allegedly provided no such treatment. During the winter, he was kept in a room with air conditioning turned on all night. According to his family, officials at the prison will not grant him permission to obtain medical treatment. Since 17 March Arzhang Davoodi has been detained at Salon 8 of Evin prison, a section of the prison that has no medical facilities. Amnesty International believes that this move is deliberately designed to prevent Arzhang from accessing medical treatment. Amnesty International UK Media Director Lesley Warner said: "Arzhang Davoodi appears to have been brutally beaten simply for speaking to a foreign reporter. "Amnesty International members around the world are urgently asking the Iranian authorities to end any ill-treatment and give Arzhang immediate and unconditional access to medical treatment. "We are also asking why Arzhang Davoodi is still in prison despite the payment of bail." Arzhang Davoodi's family has paid bail of 50 million Tomans (US$59,380) as requested by the Iranian authorities for his release. However the authorities are now refusing to release him claiming that his file is "not complete." Although he has been allowed to make telephone calls to his lawyer, his lawyer is not entitled to access his client's file until formal charges have been brought. It is presently unclear whether these charges have been brought.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/15266.html