Replies

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”

Evidence of Iran Nuclear Plans Found

May 05, 2004
Gadsden Times
Barry Schweid, AP Diplomatic Writer

U.S. intelligence has determined Iran plans to continue to develop a full nuclear fuel cycle despite pressures from the Bush administration, an American official said Wednesday.

The program involves processing and enriching uranium in what Iran contends is an effort to generate electricity.

Administration officials are concerned that the move is linked to an Iranian quest for nuclear weapons, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Last week, diplomats from the European Union, France, Sweden and Japan agreed at a meeting with administration officials in New York that they are concerned, too, the official said. But he said they could not agree on how to deal with the problem.

U.S. officials said last week that Iran may be running a covert military nuclear program parallel to the peaceful one it has opened to international inspection.

In Berlin on Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said Iran would fulfill the promises it made about its nuclear program.

Working together, the foreign ministers of France, Germany and the Britain persuaded Iran last October to suspend uranium enrichment and give inspectors unrestricted access to its nuclear facilities. But recently, concerns have emerged that Iran may be backtracking.

"We will fulfill our obligations as far as our nuclear program is concerned," Kharrazi said after talks with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. "This is not an Iranian project, but a joint project by Iran, the European countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency. A success in this project will be a success for everyone."

http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040505/API/405050919&cachetime=5

Rafsanjani Says Iran Committed to Making Nuke Fuel Cycle

May 05, 2004
Reuters
Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN -- Iran will continue efforts to develop a full nuclear fuel cycle, despite U.S. pressure on Tehran to abandon a programme it fears may be used to make atomic bombs, a senior Iranian official said on Wednesday.

A senior U.S. official expressed surprise at the statement and said it would help Washington pass a tough resolution on Iran at a key meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog next month.

Iran has said it is trying to build a complete atomic programme comprising all facets of the nuclear fuel cycle from uranium mining to processing and enrichment.

Tehran says the resulting fuel would be used in nuclear reactors to generate electricity.

But many Western governments fear some material or equipment could be diverted to a military programme to make bombs.

"Running a nuclear fuel cycle is our nation's right," influential former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

"The Americans, with their evil intentions, confront Iran because they do not want Islamic countries to have modern technology," he said.

U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei has said the enrichment process itself has a deterrent effect, because the ability to get or make material useable in arms is key for making an atom bomb.

For this reason he has suggested amending the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to make it illegal for countries to develop the full fuel cycle.

"EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT"

A senior U.S. official who declined to be named told Reuters in Vienna the Iranian statement was "extremely significant" and surprisingly brazen, given that the IAEA Board of Governors will meet next month to discuss the agency's progress in verifying that Tehran's atomic programme is entirely peaceful.

"Why they were foolish enough to say this just ahead of the board of governors meeting, I don't know," the official told Reuters by telephone.

He said Washington did not necessarily expect the IAEA board to refer Tehran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions, though grounds for such a referral were clear.

But the official said Rafsanjani's statement "would help us get a strong resolution" condemning Iran's nuclear programme.

"You know, the Iranians are not cooperating with the IAEA," the official added.

Concerted international pressure following revelations last year that Iran had hidden potentially weapons-related technology for 18 years forced Tehran to agree to snap checks of its nuclear sites and to halt the enrichment of uranium.

But Tehran insists it will resume enrichment -- a process which can produce nuclear reactor fuel or bomb-grade material -- once it has cleared up doubts about its nuclear programme.

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said in Brussels on Tuesday that Iran was ready to answer all outstanding questions about its atomic plans before the June IAEA board session.

Iran wants its case removed from the IAEA's agenda after the June meeting, something Western diplomats say is unrealistic. "That's not going to happen," the U.S. official said.

(Additional reporting by Louis Charbonneau)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L05116522.htm

Mergers & Acquisitions

May 05, 2004
National Review Online
Aaron Mannes

Hezbollah tries to fill Hamas’s power vacuum.

Israel's elimination of the Hamas leadership — most recently Sheikh Yassin and Rantissi, but also several mid-level leaders — has created a power vacuum in Hamas, allowing Hezbollah, and its sponsors Syria and Iran, to move in. With the removal of Saddam, Syria and Iran are making a play to become the dominant powers in the region. To do so they need to do two things: kick the U.S. out of Iraq, and neutralize the region's strongest military power: Israel. Hamas has key assets to contribute to this Syrian-Iranian gambit.

Hamas's utility against Israel is apparent. With its network of schools and hospitals and its history of successful terror attacks, Hamas has street credibility not just among the Palestinians, but also throughout the Middle East. For the last several years Hamas has been split between the leadership in Gaza and the leadership in Damascus. The Damascus leadership, which disburses Iranian money within the organization, has grown closer to its patrons. The Gaza leadership hates Israel just as much, but tries to preserve its independence. As the effective Gaza leaders are eliminated the Damascus leadership has a free hand to run Hamas in accord with Iranian-Syrian goals.

Hezbollah has been providing technical and financial support to the Palestinian factions, and building its own network in the West Bank, Gaza, and among the Israeli Arabs since the late 1990s. According to the Israeli daily Maariv, with Arafat sidelined and his organization in disarray, most of the funding for the Arafat-affiliated al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades comes from Hezbollah. The minor Palestinian factions are already tied into the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad receives all of its funding from Iran. The secular "fronts" are based in Damascus and rely on Syrian support. By pulling Hamas into the fold, Hezbollah becomes the real power behind Palestinian violence.

With Hezbollah pulling the strings, Israel will face a coordinated campaign along three fronts. In addition to terror attacks, the Katyusha rockets threatening Israel's north could be augmented by artillery and rocket attacks from Gaza and the West Bank capable of reaching Israel's population centers and commercial airspace — effectively encircling Israel.

Hamas's assets will also be useful to Hezbollah and its patrons in Iraq, where they seek to undermine the American endeavor and create a weak Iraq dependent on Iran. Hamas has already opened offices in southern Iraq to foment anti-American activities. Gaza and the West Bank could be fertile recruiting grounds for jihadists wishing to fight the United States in Iraq.

Hamas has links to radical Sunni groups throughout the Middle East and could build relations between them and Shiite Hezbollah. Jordan — a key U.S. ally bordering Israel, the West Bank, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia — could be target number one. With a majority Palestinian population, Jordan is particularly vulnerable to Palestinian unrest, and Hamas has close ties to Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood and particularly the Islamic Action Front. Indeed, Jordan recently thwarted a massive terror attack. But another incident, in Kosovo — where a Jordanian policeman serving with the U.N. contingent shot and killed two U.S. policemen — is a warning that, even within the security forces that prop up Jordan's monarchy, there is unhappiness with the regime's pro-Western tilt. If Jordan fell into the Syrian-Iranian camp it would become a base for attacks on Israel, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

Finally, Hamas could augment Hezbollah's already formidable ability to launch terror attacks around the world. Hezbollah has already unleashed terror on Europe, the Middle East, and even Latin America — and attempted to do so in Asia. Hamas has an international fundraising network (particularly in the United States, where Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzuk lived for nearly 20 years) that can also be used to provide logistical support for terrorist operations and recruitment. The April 30, 2003, attack on a Tel-Aviv bar by two British citizens of Pakistani descent who were recruited into Hamas is a harbinger of this possibility. In another ominous sign, in November 2003, Israel arrested a Canadian citizen of Palestinian birth for training and plotting terror attacks in North America. This ability to recruit Westerners is an important asset in conducting international terror, which Hezbollah and its sponsors have already used effectively around the world.

Hamas personnel, resources, and "brand name" fit neatly into the regional and global plans of Hezbollah and its sponsors. To head off this threat, the U.S. should not merely support Israeli action against Hamas. The U.S. should be actively coordinating with Israel to neutralize and destroy Hamas, particularly by pressuring sponsors Iran and Syria. In the Middle East one often hears the old saying: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Surely, then, the enemy of my friend is my enemy. And Hamas's enmity is not reserved for Israel alone.

— Aaron Mannes is the author of TerrorBlog. This piece is adapted from his article in the April 2004 edition of the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mannes200405050929.asp

US 'surf safely' plan fails Iranians

P2pnet - Report Section
May 5, 2004

Anonymizer, a $29.95 service sponsored by the US International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) to help Iranians bypass much of Iran's Net censorship, is in fact stopping them from surfing altogether.

Far worse, "[...] despite IBB Anonymizer assurances that Iranian users can surf the Web "freely and safely," tests suggest the vast majority of traffic can be monitored by Iranian authorities and local ISPs, says the OpenNet Initiative.

"Iranian users may not be aware that their use of the service may identify them to Iranian government authorities as citizens wishing to view forbidden content, or as supportive of the ideas found within that content," it says.

The ONI is a new international research project involving researchers at the University of Toronto, Harvard University and the University of Cambridge and founded because the number of states seeking to control the Internet has risen rapidly in the recent years, says the ONI, going on:

"Mustering powerful and at times compelling arguments - 'securing intellectual property rights,' 'protecting national security,' 'preserving cultural norms and religious values,' and 'shielding children from pornography and exploitation' - extensive filtering and surveillance practices are being proposed and put in place to curb the perceived lawlessness of the medium.

"Although these practices occur mostly in non-democratic regimes, many democratic countries, led by the US, are also seeking to police the Internet."

In Unintended Risks and Consequences of Circumvention Technologies: The IBB's Anonymizer Service in Iran, the ONI says Irani guidelines for ISPs and users reportedly warn them to avoid all content seen as being in breach of social and cultural norms.

"In practice, the filtering of Iranian ISPs extends to cover political as well as pornographic web sites," says the report here

Last September the IBB sponsored the launch of a service through Anonymizer, "designed to allow Iranian Internet users to bypass much of Iran's national filtering regime," says the report, going on that in December 2003 and April 2004, it ran a series of tests to gauge the accessibility of sites through the IBB Anonymizer service.

"We found that many web sites blocked by Iranian ISPs could be successfully accessed through the IBB Anonymizer service," states the report.

"However, filters built in to the IBB Anonymizer service, intended to prevent Iranians from using it to view pornographic sites, also have the unintended consequence of blocking access to numerous non-pornographic pages and sites."

The problem, says the ONI, appears to be the IBB Anonymizer's unreleased list of automated "trigger" keywords applied to domain names before pages are shown to IBB Anonymizer users.

"These "trigger" keywords appear to generate a significant number of false-positive results, resulting in a significant amount of collateral blocking - 'overblocking' - of non-pornographic sites," it continues.

"For example, the IBB Anonymizer service blocks non-pornographic websites dealing with women's health issues because the keyword 'breast' is within their domain names. Likewise blocked is the anchor page for links to the U.S. Department of State's overseas missions - usembassy.state.gov - because it contains the trigger keyword "ass."

"The service also blocks almost any site containing the word 'asian' in the domain. Some of these apparently unintentionally blocked sites are themselves blocked within Iran, resulting in a situation where sites are effectively doubly blocked - by Iranian ISPs and by the IBB Anonymizer service."

The IBB and Anonymizer confirmed in separate e-mail exchanges with ONI researchers that the circumvention service is explicitly configured to block pornography, says the ONI, going on:

"They explained that this is intended to conserve available bandwidth and ensure availability of the service to Iranians who wish to visit non-pornographic sites. Several notable studies have pointed out the difficulty of implementing keyword-based filtering systems in such a way as to avoid the unintended consequence of 'collaterally blocking' non-pornographic sites.

"The keyword rules that drive the filters built in to the IBB Anonymizer service are not publicly known, making independent assessment of those rules and their implications more difficult. (Staff at Anonymizer, Inc., have declined to publicly disclose keywords or methods, considering them to be proprietary to the company.)

"Further, despite IBB Anonymizer assurances that its Iranian users may surf the Web freely and safely, our testing suggests that the vast majority of its traffic is exposed to monitoring by Iranian authorities and corresponding local ISPs. Iranian users may not be aware that their use of the service may identify them to Iranian government authorities as citizens wishing to view forbidden content, or as supportive of the ideas found within that content.

Filtered web sites include those having to do with women's health issues, the president of the US, a variety of NGO's, and popular hotel, email, and other commercial services.

"In addition, it appears that all domains registered in Malaysia (.my) and Tuvalu (.tv, popular domain suffix for television-related material) are blocked," says the report.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6067.shtml

German FM: Civilian nuclear technology, Iran`s mullahs legitimate right

May 5, 2004, 21:41

German FM Fischer said on Wednesday that nuclear program for civilian purpose is Iran`s mullahs legitimate right. In a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, he said that Germany supports Iran`s nuclear program and regards Iran`s signing up to additional protocol to Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a positive step to ensure safety of the nuclear activities.

Kharrazi appreciated initiative of the three European states (Germany, Britain and France) and said that Iran is keen on close cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to make sure the safety of its nuclear program.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_2237.shtml

N. KOREA MARKETS TAEPO DONG-2 MISSILE

LONDON [MENL] -- North Korea has begun marketing the Taepo Dong-2 long-range missile to Middle East clients.

Western intelligence sources said the most likely client to purchase the Taepong-2 is Iran. The sources said Teheran has been negotiating with Pyongyang for the purchase of the Taepo Dong-2 as Iran's first intercontinental ballistic missile as well as a space launcher.

"Iran wants an ICBM and China and North Korea are already helping in the development of engines," a senior intelligence source said. "North Korea could eventually reach a deal to sell the Taepo Dong-2 to Iran."

The sources said in 2003 North Korea discussed the Taepo Dong-2 with Libya and Syria. But they said neither country pursued the issue.

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/may/05_06_1.html

Iran says will keep its side of nuclear agreement

BERLIN (AFP) May 05, 2004

Iran reiterated Wednesday that it would stick to its commitments to cooperate with the UN's atomic energy watchdog over its nuclear programme, and urged EU countries to follow suit.

With International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors due to report on Iran's activities by the end of May, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said that "we will fulfil our commitments on the nuclear programme."

Speaking in Berlin after talks with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his ministerial counterpart Joschka Fischer, Kharazi added that "we hope that the European side will also be punctual in sticking to its commitments so this dossier can be closed for good."

He said success would be success for all "and a defeat would mean a defeat for all."

Fischer was one of a trio of EU foreign ministers who last year negotiated an agreement with Tehran under which Iran would allow a tougher IAEA probe to ensure it was clean of a covert nuclear programme.

In return, they dangled a carrot of peaceful nuclear assistance.

No details were made public at the time, but Iran continually refers to the terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) whereby signatories commit themselves to exchange peaceful nuclear techology.

Iran, however, has yet to be given the all-clear by the IAEA, and has been chastised for failing to disclose key elements of its programme.

Fischer said it was "crucially important" that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei was able to present a "positive" report, based on the inspectors' findings, to the body's board of governors next month.

"If we really want to make progress, then we really must have the complete implementation of the agreement, that is the most important point," he told a joint press conference with Kharazi.

Fischer insisted the EU was keeping to its side of the bargain, notably by not dragging the nuclear issue before the UN Security Council.

"We stand by the agreement but it must be precisely and fully implemented," he warned.

Tehran vigorously denies US and Israeli charges that it is seeking nuclear weapons, and is pressing for its dossier to be taken off the top of the IAEA's agenda during the June meeting -- something that most diplomats say is highly unlikely.

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040505145403.v229trtg.html

Chalabi Lashes Back at Critics As Furor Over Iran Ties Grows

By Forward Staff
May 7, 2004

Faced with a storm of attacks and uncertainty over its future role in Iraq, the Iraqi National Congress and its controversial leader Ahmed Chalabi are lashing back at their critics in America.

Chalabi's exile group-turned-political party issued a statement Monday denouncing what it described as "a CIA-orchestrated smear campaign," after Newsweek published allegations that the group had provided sensitive information to Iran that may endanger the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq. In addition to its escalating feud with the CIA and increasing claims that it fed false information about weapons of mass destruction in order to bolster the case for war, the INC has locked horns with the American-led administration in Iraq and U.N. officials in recent weeks.

In a sign that the group might be losing support among its neo-conservative advocates, Jerusalem-based attorney Marc Zell branded Chalabi a "treacherous, spineless turncoat," according to a piece written for the online publication Salon by Financial Times columnist John Dizard.

Zell, a former law partner of Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, told Salon that the Chalabi had failed to deliver on prewar promises that he would end Iraq's trade boycott with Israel, allow Israeli companies to do business in Iraq and advocate the rebuilding of a pipeline from Mosul in northern Iraq to Haifa.

Several other leading neo-conservatives, including Richard Perle, have maintained their support for Chalabi, a Shiite who was successful in cultivating support among Jewish hawks during the 1990s. But Zell's outburst could signal that the rapprochement between Chalabi and his more radical Shiite fellows in Iraq and in neighboring Iran is likely to unsettle many neo-conservatives, especially since most refuse any dialogue with Tehran. Chalabi's group, meanwhile, is vigorously defending its push for stronger ties with Iran.

Entifadh Qanbar, an INC spokesman, told the Forward that the group enjoyed a "strong relationship with Iran" alongside its "strategic relationship with the United States," adding that this was also the case of other parties in the Iraqi governing council, the 25-member body appointed by the United State to severe as a transitional governing power until sovereignty is handed over to Iraq on June 30.

The INC has operated an office in Tehran for years and Chalabi visited Iran twice before the war and again in December, meeting with senior government officials.

Qanbar insisted that Iran has been a "very good neighbor" in recent months, providing emergency gasoline and propane gas and opening its ports to Iraqi exports and imports.

In addition, the INC spokesman claimed, Iran was been helping to secure its border with Iraq by preventing terrorists from entering the country, contrary to claims made in recent months by the Bush administration.

Qanbar also defended the Iraqi governing council's role in the unfolding U.N. oil-for-food scandal. The council was recently found to be in possession of documents allegedly showing that the Hussein regime had used oil vouchers as a form of bribery to bypass U.N. sanctions and gain influence abroad, particularly with the U.N.'s oil-for-food chief. The council has refused to hand the documents over to the U.N. and its investigative commission, headed by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker.

Qanbar denied charges voiced in New York and elsewhere that his party, which controls the governing council's finance committee, was responsible for the decision to withhold the documents or that the move was linked to the INC's mounting disagreements with American and U.N. officials over Iraq's future.

Qanbar said the governing council is conducting its own inquiry and had ordered an audit conducted by KPMG and the British law firm Freshfields.

In recent congressional testimony and interviews, Claude Hankes-Drielsma, a financial adviser to the Iraq Governing Council with close links to the INC, accused the top American administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, of obstructing the inquiry into the U.N. oil-for-food program.

American officials in Iraq were quoted as saying they wanted to review the selection of KPMG and Freshfields to ensure the inquiry was immune from political pressure.

Observers said the tensions over the U.N. probe were part of a larger conflict pitting Chalabi against Bremer and the U.N. special envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi.

Brahimi, with the support of the Bush administration, recently proposed dissolving the governing council and replacing it with a temporary government of technocrats after the June 30 handover. Moreover, diplomats said Brahimi dislikes Chalabi, who, in turn, has branded Brahimi an "Arab nationalist."

Bremer has also recently reversed a policy strongly supported by the INC of excluding senior members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party from key positions. Chalabi blasted the shift, claiming it was akin to bringing back the Nazis into government just after World War II.

At a hearing last week of the House International Affairs committee on the oil-for-food issue, three lawmakers — Democrats Tom Lantos of California and Gary Ackerman of New York and Republican Ileana Ross-Lehtinen of Florida — expressed concerns that some of the charges against the U.N. were politically motivated.

The congressional criticism comes as Chalabi and the INC are already under fire for allegedly providing false intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The INC produced several defectors who gave information about WMDs that has proven to be false, intelligence sources and congressional reports have said.

This only deepened the INC's antagonism toward the CIA, a rift that dates back to the late 1990s following failed coup attempts against Saddam.

"The CIA has launched a campaign against us because they want to shift the blame for their failure in Iraq," Qanbar said, noting that the CIA had the means to vet the defectors and check the information they provided.

In addition, the INC has been at loggerheads with the State Department after officials there voiced misgivings about INC handling of American funding. The INC reportedly receives $340,000 monthly from the American government.

http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=staff200405051137

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

"There have been two unrests in two Iranian cities since Tuesday.

One is underway in the city of Jiroft, (South East of Iran), in Kerman province in reaction to killing a university student, according to Iranian media.
Confirmed sources like Baztab.com, Iran-emrooz.de and Iranian Student News Agency reports the clashes between students and police forces in the city.
Students rallied in the city til 2 AM and damaged some governmental offices and shouted slogans against the regime leaders.

The other unrest happened near the city of Neishabur, North East of Iran, where the Train blasts happened 2 months ago.
Baztab Persian website and ISNA News Agency confirm the reports that Hundreds of local residents blocked the railway for more than 3 hours and clashed with security forces in the region. The clashes left one dead."

Clashes erupt in Mahshahr

SMCCDI (Information Service)
May 6, 2004

Violent clashes erupted in Mashahr as the security forces attacked the peaceful protest gathering of the residents and especially the Mosharegeh villagers.

Clubs, chains, tear gas and even bullets shot to sky were used by the regime forces leading to injuries and arrests of several demonstrators.

Several security patrol cars and public materials were damaged in retaliation by the angry crowd.

The residents intended to protest the Kosaran Dam's plan and the presume damages that will made to their propreties.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6076.shtml

Are Academics Worth the Politics?: UC Davis Delegation to Iran

May 06, 2004
The California Aggie
Opinion

Recently, UC Davis administrators returned from an endeavor to form academic partnerships in Iran. Though the academic excellence of Iranian universities is not under suspicion, the appropriateness of ties with a country where we cannot ensure people's safety is.

Just last year Dariush Zahedi, a UCD alumnus and UC Berkeley lecturer, was secretly incarcerated for four months on charges of espionage while visiting his family in Iran before being released on bail.

In light of this fact, it appears unwise to go to Iran unless forming an academic relationship really can tear down walls between Americans and Iranians.

While UCD could profit both academically and financially from research collaboration with Iranian universities, it is unclear how the obstacles of partnership with these institutions could be outweighed by what is to gain. This endeavor should not be undertaken for diplomatic purposes, given that the U.S. government does not even maintain an embassy in Iran. UCD administrators' intentions must justify putting lives at risk in this politically unstable land.

The absence of an embassy illustrates the poor relationship between the two nations. This disparity leaves little for UCD to build on.

UCD Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef said academic relationships can break down barriers between people. If UCD aims to spread its academic reach as far as possible - despite any political obstacle - then the cause is noble. But good intentions cannot ensure that UCD does not support countries that refuse diplomacy and have the power to oppress academic freedom.

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran shouldn't keep UCD from extending its international scope, but the bottom line is the safety of UC personnel at Iranian universities. Researchers need to feel safe in Iran, and this may be a goal beyond UCD's reach. Zahedi is currently on bail awaiting trial in Iran. UCD administrators have not addressed Zahedi's situation, but it is essential they recognize his experience.

http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=4075

Belgian Sisters Return From Iran

May 06, 2004
BBC News
BBCi

Two girls at the centre of a lengthy international custody battle have returned to Belgium from Iran to be reunited with their mother. Sarah Pourhashemi, six and Yasmine 15, say they were taken to Iran by their father after their parents' divorce.

They escaped and spent five months in the Belgian embassy in Tehran before a diplomatic deal enabled their return.

Reports in Iran and Belgium say an international arrest warrant for the girls' father Salami is to be lifted.

Custodian

Mr Pourhashemi took the two girls to Iran from Belgium in August 2003, after taking them for a week-long holiday in Greece.

A Belgian court issued an international warrant for the father's arrest a month later and ruled the mother, Zarah, to be the sole custodian of the children.

But Iranian law does not recognise dual nationality and said that, as Iranians, the girls should be in the custody of their father.

Their return follows a visit to Brussels on Tuesday by Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, who said that a final decision on their fate was imminent after successful negotiations between the two governments.

The Associated Press news agency said Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel was at Zaventem airport to greet the girls on their return on Thursday.

Details of the settlement were not announced.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3689095.stm

You may be interested in this.

H. Con. Res. 398: expressing the concern of Congress over Iran's development of the means to produce nuclear weapons

46 . EXPRESSING CONCERN OF CONGRESS OVER IRAN'S DEVELOPMENT OF MEANS TO PRODUCE NUCLEAR WEAPONS -- (House of Representatives - May 05, 2004)

DoctorZin Note: Anyone heard of this before?

Kidnapped Iranian Cleric Murdered [in USA]

May 06, 2004
Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting
IRIB News

Georgetown -- The body of the Iranian cleric, kidnapped a month ago, was found in a shallow grave with gun-shot wounds to the head, police said Wednesday.

Hojattoleslam Mohammed Hassan Ebrahimi's body was found was in a grave in a sparsely populated sandy semi-forested area near an Indian reservation.

Ebrahimi, 35, died of two gunshot wounds to the head.

Police discovered the body late Tuesday in a three-foot (one meter) deep grave near the St. Cuthbert's Amerindian reservation, some 46 kilometres (29 miles) south-west of Georgetown.

No one has been detained in connection with the crime. Police said investigations were ongoing.

Ebrahimi was kidnapped late on April 2. He had a baby due within the next month.

http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=203605

The Worst Ex-President

May 06, 2004
FrontPageMagazine.com
Jamie Glazov

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Steven Hayward, the F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Senior Fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. He is the author of the new book The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry.

FP: Welcome to Frontpage Interview, Mr. Hayward. It is a pleasure to have you with us.

Hayward: Always fun to be on the Frontpage!

FP: Why, after all this time, should we be taking another look at Jimmy Carter?

Hayward: Two reasons. First, Carter has somehow managed to acquire the image, even among many conservatives who ought to know better, as "America's finest ex-president." In fact, he should be regarded as America's worst ex-president (though Bill Clinton has a long time yet to make his own bid for the title) for the way he has meddled ruinously in the foreign affairs of the nation, especially North Korea. Second, what might be called "Carterism"—a sentimental, neopacifist view of the world—has come to define the core ideology of Democratic party liberalism today.

FP: Are we witnessing the decline of the Democratic Party?

Hayward: Yes I think so. The Democratic Party has been in long-term decline since it lost its nerve in the mid-1960s and began caving in by degrees to its far left wing. People today forget, for example, that its most prominent liberals in the early 1970s like Hubert Humphrey, Edmund Muskie, and even Tip O'Neill, all expressed strong opposition to abortion on demand, yet today no Democrat dares voice any deviation from the radical feminist line. Carter was initially thought in 1976 to be a bulwark against this leftist slide--he had, after all, opposed McGovern in 1972--but he proved to be a vessel that ratified rather than resisted the Democrats' slide further to the left.

FP: What made you decide to write about Carter?

Hayward: I got sick and tired of hearing people describe Carter as "our finest ex-President." The same statecraft that generated his ruinous presidency has informed his post-presidential politics. If he had just stuck with building homes with Habitat for Humanity, he might deserve the accolade as our best ex-president. But he doesn't.

FP: Why don’t we start with Carter's general record. Give us a brief laundry list of his failures.

Hayward: He was a disaster on the economy, blaming high inflation, for example, on the character of the American people. But by far his worst failing was in foreign policy. His human rights policy led to human rights disasters in Iran and Nicaragua, and emboldened the Soviet Union to extend its reach further into the third world. The fruits of the Iran disaster are still very much with us today. The fall of Iran set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in September 11. If we had stuck by the Shah or his successors, the history of the last 25 years in the Middle East would have been very different (and the Iranian people would have been better off, too). For starters, the Soviet Union would have hesitated greatly over invading Afghanistan in 1979.

FP: Yes, Carter facilitated the coming to power of Marxists in Nicaragua and Islamist despots in Iran, Both of the new tyrannies by far surpassed the brutality of their predecessors. Meanwhile, by letting the Soviets know he wouldn’t lift a finger if they invaded Afghanistan, Carter spawned a war that ultimately saw one million dead Afghans, five million displaced, and a situation of evil that nurtured the Islamic hatred and militancy that ultimately turned on the West and gave us 9/11. How is it that a man who fertilized the soil in which so much evil grew remains completely unchastened?

Hayward: Carter is clearly intelligent in the SAT-score sense of the word, but he seems utterly incapable of learning anything from experience. Even Neville Chamberlain, the arch-appeaser of England in the 1930s, eventually came around about the Nazis, but Carter and liberals like him can't be shaken from their sentimental view of the world, even by something as stark as 9/11.

FP: So what do you think it is in Carter’s personality and ideology that engendered his disastrous record?

Hayward: Carter is a mixture of neo-Kantianism—that is, the philosophical view that your good intentions outweigh the practical consequences of your actions and words—and left-wing Christian pacifism that believes the use of force is always wrong. Although Carter, like most liberals, says that the use of force is always to be available as "the last resort," in practice Carter would never reach "the last resort." There is always one more negotiation to be held, one more appeal to the United Nations, etc. In one sentence, you might say that while Ronald Reagan believed in "peace through strength," Carter and other liberals like Kerry believe in "peace through talk." You'd think they'd have learned from history by now, but no.

FP: When you point out that Carter and other liberals like Kerry should have learned from history by now, a serious question comes to mind. Do you think these disastrous Democratic Party leaders such as Carter and Clinton are just plain stupid and naïve? Or is there actually an inner desire to harm and hurt their own country and society? Surely it can’t be a complete coincidence in terms of how much damage they actually do. Is there a malicious agenda in the heart of these individuals toward America? Some kind of inner self-hate?

Hayward: I'd like to think that is it mere stupidity and naiveté. However I fear it is something worse. I think there is at work what Malcom Muggeridge and others called "the great liberal death wish." I recently reread James Burnham's classic 1964 book, Suicide of the West, and it reads like a perfect description of the Carter-Kerry worldview that holds our own national interests in great suspicion and sympathizes with our enemies out of guilt. Burnham wrote the following: “If he [the liberal] thinks that his country’s weapons or strategy ‘menace peace,’ then Peace, he feels, not his country’s military plans, should take precedence.” This certainly explains Kerry's voting record on defense and intelligence, and Carter's own policy about arms during his presidency.

FP: Tell us what you think of Carter winning the Nobel Prize.

Hayward: Carter panted after the Nobe Peace Prize for years, seeing it as a means of gaining official redemption for his humiliation at the hands of the voters in 1980. He lobbied quietly behind the scenes for years to get the prize, and finally met with success in 2002 when the left-wing Nobel Prize committee saw an opportunity to use Carter as a way of attacking President Bush and embarrassing the United States. The head of the Nobel Prize committee openly admitted that this was their motivation in selecting Carter. Any other ex-president would have refused to be a part of such an obvious anti-American intrigue, but not Jimmy. Here we should observe that Carter conceives himself much more as a citizen of the world than as a citizen of the United States, and I think it is highly revealing that Carter is most popular overseas in those nations that hate America the most, such as Syria, where they lined the streets cheering for Carter when he visited.

FP: Yes, we had Syrians cheering for Carter and now our Islamist enemies are rooting for Kerry. I’ll be honest, I am horrified at the idea of Kerry winning the election and overseeing the War on Terror. This is a guy that appears to believe that people like Osama just need understanding and that those who hate us only do so because of what we do, and not because of who and what we actually are: free people.

Does Kerry have a chance in winning? How tragic will it be if he does?

Hayward: It is hard to predict this far ahead of the election, with the Iraq situation portrayed as volatile by our perverse news media. What this election will tell is whether the electorate remains as serious-minded about foreign affairs as it was during the Cold War, when a Democrat could not win the White House unless he seemed sufficiently robust on foreign policy.

People forget today that Carter ran to the right of Gerald Ford on foreign policy in 1976, attacking Kissinger and detente and even quoting approvingly Ronald Reagan in one TV spot he ran in the South. But then of course Carter lurched in the opposite direction once in office. I think a majority of voters today will see that Kerry is essentially frivolous or worse on foreign policy. If I am wrong about the soundness of a majority of voters, then Kerry will have a chance of winning.

FP: Let us suppose that you were invited to a political history conference in which the top scholars were asked to rate Carter as a President from a scale of 1-10 (10 being a superb president, 0 being an absolute disaster) and then to give a short verdict on his presidency and legacy, what would you say?

Hayward: He would get a zero. He has already been identified as such. Nathan Miller, author of The Star-Spangled Men: America's Ten Worst Presidents, ranks Carter number one among the worst. Miller wrote that “Electing Jimmy Carter president was as close as the American people have ever come to picking a name out of the phone book and giving him the job.” I concur. Everyone old enough recalls the high inflation under Carter, and his foreign record was just as bad. Henry Kissinger summarized it this way: “The Carter administration has managed the extraordinary feat of having, at one and the same time, the worst relations with our allies, the worst relations with our adversaries, and the most serious upheavals in the developing world since the end of the Second World War."

FP: Thank you Mr. Hayward, our time is up. It was a privilege to speak with you.

Hayward: My pleasure Jamie.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13265

THE U.N.'S POWER GRAB IN IRAQ

By AMIR TAHERI
NYPost

May 6, 2004 -- WITHIN the next week or so, the United Nations' special envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, is expected to unveil his plan for handling the transition in Baghdad. How America and its Coalition allies react to that plan could determine not only the future of democracy in Iraq but also the fate of President Bush's strategy for a new Middle East.

Judging by his statements so far, Brahimi is expected to ask that the United Nations be recognized as the brain of the Iraq project, while the U.S.-led Coalition provides the muscle, and the money.

The United Nations would not only pick the members of the transition government but would also dictate their mission. And, again, it would be the U.N., not the Coalition, that would decide the modalities of the general election planned for next year. The U.N. would also dicate the principles around which a new constitution is written.

For weeks, Brahimi and his aides have talked about the need for a "broadly based" authority in Baghdad to represent the restoration of Iraqi national sovereignty.

That is based on two false assumptions. The first is that the Iraq Governing Council is not representative enough.

In fact, the council is a broadly based authority that, with the exception of the Ba'ath, includes all political forces - from Communists to Monarchists, with liberals, democrats, social democrats and Islamists. The council has been endorsed by virtually all of Iraq's religious, tribal, social and community leaders. The only way that the United Nations can pro- duce a more broadly based authority is by including the Saddamites.

The United Nations has always resented the fact that it was not consulted in the Governing Council's formation. Later, the council made itself even less popular with the U.N. crowd by leaking information about alleged U.N. involvement in corrupt practices linked to the Oil-for-Food program. Last year, the United Nations instructed its staff in Iraq to keep their contacts with the Governing Council (whose members were branded "quislings" working for "the occupying powers") to a minimum.

The second false assumption behind the United Nations' position on Iraq is that the country has somehow lost its sovereignty, which must now be restored by Annan and Brahimi.

That is a strange view, especially coming from the United Nations - under whose rules a nation, even if occupied by foreign powers, does not lose its sovereignty. The United Nations' Security Council reiterated that fact in Resolution 1511, unanimously passed earlier this year.

The issue, therefore, is not Iraqi sovereignty but the powers needed to exercise it in an effective way. Right now those powers are mainly exercised by the Coalition Provisional Authority and not the Governing Council. To transfer those powers to the United Nations, rather than an effective Iraqi transitional authority, would not change the reality on the ground.

In normal life, he who pays the piper sets the tune.

Now, however, the United Nations is demanding that America and its allies should bear the cost of rebuilding Iraq (both in terms of lives lost in combating insurgents and terrorists, and taxpayers' money to the tune of over $100 billion), but have virtually no say in deciding the direction the Iraqi transition should take.

The talk at the United Nations is that Kofi (Annan) is getting Dubya off the Iraqi hook on the eve of the U.S. presidential election, and that all America should do is show gratitude.

Bringing in the United Nations has become something of a refrain for all those, from France's President Jacques Chirac to U.S. presidential hopeful John Kerry, who have no clue on Iraq, and little interest in that nation's future.

But giving the U.N. the leading role in Baghdad could be a recipe for disaster for all concerned, starting with the Iraqi people.

There is no guarantee that, once Iraq becomes a U.N. "problem," the American public would have any incentive in accepting further sacrifices in rebuilding a distant nation whose people would be regarded as ungrateful, if not downright unfriendly.

And without a massive American political, military and financial commitment, Iraq would have little chance of building a stable political system as part of a broader, long-term democratization program. The country could fall apart, be plunged into sectarian violence or, worse still, see another despotic regime emerge in Baghdad.

The impact of failure in Iraq on the region cannot be overestimated. Democratic aspirations throughout the Middle East would suffer a strategic setback, while a new era of instability could threaten energy resources vital to the global economy.

Failure in Iraq could encourage the mood of radicalism that has generated the most deadly forms of terrorism the world has witnessed. It could also trigger a new race towards the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms, throughout the region.

Iraq needs wholehearted American commitment at all levels for years to come. Building democracy in the Middle East, starting with Iraq, is neither a luxury nor a form of do-goodism. The stakes are high and the investment of political energy and money, not to speak of lives, in Iraq is worth making from the point of view of U.S. national security.

This is what President Bush said last November: "The establishment of a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed for the global democratic revolution." How true.

To succeed in Iraq, America must stay in the driver's seat, not as an occupying power but as an ally working closely with a representative transitional authority until a freely elected government is in place. Even then, such a government would still need U.S. support for years to come, just as did the governments of liberated Western Europe and Japan after the Second World War.

All this does not mean that the United Nations has no role to play. It can help organize and supervise the elections, and provide a range of services through specialized agencies such as UNICEF and WHO. A new Security Council resolution, committing the U.N. to rebuilding Iraq as a democratic state, could also be useful in diplomatic and political terms.

If Iraq is abandoned to the United Nations, be sure that the United States will have to return and fight another war in the Middle East within just a few years. The 2003 Iraq war of liberation had to be fought because America and its allies shrunk from finishing the 1991 war once they'd liberated Kuwait. Had the U.S.-led coalition marched on Baghdad in 1991 to depose Saddam Hussein and install a pluralist regime, the 2003 war would not have been necessary.

With strategic success in Iraq within grasp, it would be dangerous for America to let tactical fears dictate policy, and thus allow history to repeat itself.E-mail:

amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20231.htm

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

"DoctorZin,

Those two articles on NYTimes and Wash post have affected the media and people here.

Many moderate and reformist media printed them in Persian language without no censor and I saw that most Persian News/Political websites had the articles published in the first pages.

They were two good articles that brought hope back to us.

Thanks America!'

TV Series with Polygamy Plot Angers Iranian Women

May 06, 2004
Reuters
Parinoosh Arami

TEHRAN -- An Iranian television series in which a woman introduces a friend to her husband for marriage has outraged female activists in the Islamic state who say it encourages polygamy and reinforces prejudice against women.

Protest gatherings and editorials in feminist publications have singled out the "Another Woman" mini series, whose run on state monopoly IRIB ended last month, as a prime example of the broadcaster's negative portrayal of women.

"Promoting polygamy in television programs is a big insult to women here," reformist parliamentarian Akram Mosavarimanesh told Reuters.

Men in Iran, where Islamic law has been in force since 1979, can marry up to four permanent wives and as many "temporary wives" -- via religious contracts lasting as little as a few hours to several years -- as they wish.

Women, in contrast, require their husband's permission to work or travel abroad and enjoy far weaker divorce and custody rights than men.

But in a country where female graduates now outnumber men and many women run their own businesses and occupy senior management positions, female activists say practices like polygamy are outdated and should not be encouraged.

"Such measures aim to wreck attempts to further improve women's role in society," Mosavarimanesh said.

There are no official statistics on polygamy in Iran but sociologists say it is more common in small cities and rural areas where divorce and the discussion of marital problems outside the family are frowned upon.

Newly elected conservative parliamentarian Fatemeh Alia said polygamy can preserve family unity and helps ensure fewer women end up alone with no one to support them.

POLYGAMY NOT JUST FOR FUN

IRIB's steady diet of religious programing and tame dramas has been criticized by reformist officials for failing to attract young viewers who turn instead to foreign satellite programs and Western films on DVD which, although illegal, are readily available.

In "Another Woman," a woman who thinks she cannot bear children and also knows she is dying from cancer persuades her husband to marry her friend so he can have a child.
Leading female activist Marzieh Mortazi-Langhroudi said such plots were common and could influence some viewers' thinking.

"Women in cities may look at it as just a movie and laugh, but in some remote places couples think it is possible for them to solve their marital problems through polygamy," she said.

Writer Mehri Suvizi agreed. "There is a strong tendency in many television programs to promote temporary marriage and to prepare the conditions for society to accept second wives and polygamy," she wrote in the latest edition of her monthly magazine, Eastern Woman.

"Such programs ...threaten family foundations," she said.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5058231

Time to Deal With Iran [An Excerpt]

May 06, 2004
The Washington Post
James Dobbins

Iranian diplomats have shown up in Baghdad, reportedly at British government urging. London hopes that Iranian intervention can prove helpful in tamping down Shiite resistance to the U.S.-led coalition and in building support for an emerging Iraqi interim government. This must sound odd to American ears, accustomed to hearing the Iranian regime described as a member of the "axis of evil." But this would not be the first time Tehran has come to Washington's aid in the war on terror.

Before there was Operation Iraqi Freedom, there was Operation Enduring Freedom. Americans tend to think of that earlier campaign for the liberation of Afghanistan as a similarly U.S.-initiated and dominated effort. But in fact the war to displace the Taliban had been underway long before the United States became involved. It was being fought by a coalition consisting of Iran, Russia, India and the Northern Alliance. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States joined this coalition and, with the essential addition of U.S. air power, Northern Alliance forces were able to take Kabul and drive the Taliban from power.

Two weeks after the fall of Kabul, all the major elements of the Afghan opposition came together at a U.N.-sponsored conference in Bonn. The objective was to create a broadly based successor government to the Taliban. As the U.S. representative at that gathering, I worked both with the Afghan delegations and with the other national representatives who had the greatest influence among them, which is to say the Iranian, Russian and Indian envoys. All these delegations proved helpful. None was more so than the Iranians. On two occasions Iranian representatives made particularly memorable contributions. The original version of the Bonn agreement, drafted by the United Nations and amended by the Afghans who were present, neglected to mention either democracy or the war on terrorism. It was the Iranian representative who spotted these omissions and successfully urged that the newly emerging Afghan government be required to commit to both.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5838-2004May5.html