Iranian Alert - October 11, 2004 [EST]- IRAN LIVE THREAD - "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"

The Islamic urge to vote

[Excerpt] New York Post-by Amir Taheri
Oct 11, 2004

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1241290/posts?page=20#20

Implications of New International Consensus on Lebanon

October 11, 2004
Radio Free Europe
Gary Gambill

Great Power recognition of Syrian hegemony in Lebanon formally came to an end in early September when the UN Security Council called for the withdrawal "without delay" of all foreign forces, the disarmament of all paramilitary groups, and the constitutional election of a new Lebanese president. Although virtually ignored by the mainstream Western media, UN Security Council Resolution 1559 has far-reaching implications for the Middle East.

The international community had been conspicuously silent about the world's sole remaining satellite state since invading Syrian forces swept away the last remnants of Lebanon's First Republic in October 1990. Western governments initially turned a blind eye to this seizure in exchange for Syria's decision to endorse Operation Desert Storm and participate in the Arab-Israeli peace process, but it was Syria's success in pacifying the war-torn country and maintaining postwar political stability that ensured tacit international consent for the occupation throughout the 1990s.

The unraveling of tacit international consent for the occupation came about as the result of a policy alignment between the United States and France, who jointly co-sponsored Resolution 1559 and vigorously lobbied other council members to win their approval (or decision to abstain). Cynical Lebanese political commentators liken this rare display of trans-Atlantic solidarity to a solar eclipse. When different motivations propel governments into alignment on an issue, the diplomatic equilibrium may be spectacular, but it is usually fleeting due to the multiplicity of independent variables sustaining it. In this case, however, Franco-American consensus on Lebanon will not be so easily undone.

The United States began rescinding its recognition of Syrian hegemony in March 2003, when Secretary of State Colin Powell used the term "occupation" (hitherto absent from U.S. diplomatic parlance on Lebanon for over a decade) to describe the Syrian presence in Lebanon. This policy shift, along with parallel pressures on Syria to stop sponsoring terrorist groups and developing weapons of mass destruction, was essentially a punitive response to Syrian intervention in Iraq, culminating in the Bush administration's decision to impose economic sanctions earlier this year.

In Paris, this escalation of U.S. pressure on Syria was seen as a window of opportunity to advance French interests in Lebanon. The top grievance of the French, who have long-standing historical ties to Lebanese Maronite Christians, was the obstruction of Lebanon's economic recovery by its Syrian-backed president, Emile Lahud. In the fall of 2002, France persuaded international donors to provide over billion in debt-relief assistance to Lebanon, in return for relatively modest economic-reform pledges. However, fearing that a more open economy would weaken their political power, Lahud and the security establishment prevented Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri from implementing any of these pledges.

In France, which once treated Assad as a modernizing reformer worthy of two state visits to Paris, this precipitated a strategic (not merely punitive) decision to begin publicly denouncing the occupation early in 2004, often in conjunction with the United States. The French policy shift greatly increased U.S. leverage over Syria by facilitating broader European and international coordination on Lebanon, which in turn precipitated a U.S. shift from punitive to strategic pressure.

There was a time when either major Syrian concessions to the United States on Iraq or limited accommodation of French interests in Lebanon could have disrupted the formation of this diplomatic equilibrium, but Assad missed the deadline. In recent months, Syria began taking limited steps to reduce terrorist infiltration of Iraq, but they were not sufficient to prompt a reevaluation of policy in Washington. France would have been satisfied had Syria allowed Lahud's departure from office this fall at the end of his six-year term (as the Lebanese Constitution requires), but Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was too concerned that Lahud's departure would strengthen Hariri, a billionaire who has strong U.S., European, and Saudi ties, and lead him to gravitate further from the Syrian orbit.

Syria's decision in late August to force the Lebanese cabinet and parliament to amend the constitution and extend Lahud's term was the final straw. French officials, who had loudly criticized U.S. economic sanctions on Syria as heavy-handed, now advocated a much more painful (and irreversible) form of international censure -- the first Security Council resolution in two decades to dispute Syrian control of Lebanon.

Assad will not simply comply with Resolution 1559. Since the early 1990s, the cash-strapped Syrian government has grown more and more financially dependent on remittances from over 1 million Syrian workers living in Lebanon, favorable asymmetric trade relations, and kickbacks from institutionalized corruption -- none of which can be preserved for long if Syrian troops depart. The Assad regime cannot survive without its Lebanon lifeline -- unless it either carries out major economic reforms at home (of which it appears manifestly incapable) or receives substantial foreign aid (which doesn't appear forthcoming).

In recent weeks, Syria has frantically sought to disrupt Franco-American consensus by accepting a range of U.S. demands concerning Iraq and carrying out a limited redeployment of Syrian troops from Lebanon. But Resolution 1559 has been met with considerable support in the Arab world -- Jordan and the six Gulf Cooperation Council states even brought forth an unsuccessful motion in the Arab League to endorse Resolution 1559. In such an atmosphere, Washington will not want to be seen as backsliding on its commitment to Lebanese sovereignty.

Syria's biggest problem, however, is that Resolution 1559 is making Lebanon ungovernable. Domestic opposition to Syrian hegemony has long been checked by international approval of the occupation. When asked why they have been unable to mount a more robust challenge to Syrian authority, Lebanese opposition leaders typically cite the muted international reaction to the arrests of over 200 anti-Syrian activists in August 2001. Ordinary citizens are much more willing to participate in public demonstrations against the occupation if they know that a massive crackdown by the authorities will elicit a torrent of international criticism.

Even within Lebanon's traditionally quietist political elite, challenges to Syria are mounting. The traditional Christian political elite is now voicing its opposition to Syrian hegemony more strongly than ever before. They have been joined by Druze leader Walid Jumblatt and his political allies, who voted against Lahud's term extension in parliament and subsequently withdrew from the cabinet. Hariri, the most powerful Sunni politician in Lebanon, is widely expected to step down as prime minister and join the opposition. Only those who see no political future for themselves in a postoccupation, pro-Western Lebanon still display unswerving loyalty to Damascus. If the current international consensus endures, Syria's rump satellite regime in Beirut will be not be able to maintain its grip on power without resorting to a level of coercion likely to further isolate both countries and precipitate their economic collapse.

(Gary Gambill is a political analyst at Freedom House and adjunct professor at College of Mount Saint Vincent in New York City)

IRAN AND SYRIA TO CONFRONT U.S.

President Khatami arrived in Damascus on 7 October in a last-minute addition to a trip that had already taken to Algeria, Sudan, and Oman (see below). Khatami told Syrian television, according to Syria's official SANA news agency, that U.S. and Israeli "pressure on Syria, Iran, and Lebanon is nothing new. It always existed. Cooperation among us would drive this pressure away from all of us." Khatami told Hizballah's Al-Manar television that the three countries are coordinating their activities to withstand such pressure. What Khatami referred to as Israeli and U.S. "pressure" is UN Resolution 1559, which calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon and the disarming of militias there.

Khatami and Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi discussed Israel's allegedly "inhuman operations" against Palestinian Arabs, as well as Iraq and the Darfur crisis in Sudan, with President Bashar al-Assad, Vice President Abd al-Halim Khaddam, and Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara, SANA reported. After the meeting, Khatami visited the shrines of Zeinabieh and Ruqayyah (the sister and daughter of the third Shi'a imam). This was Khatami's third visit to Syria since taking office. (Bill Samii)

Russian Ruminations on The Prospect of a Nuclear Iran

October 11, 2004
Radio Free Europe
Mark N. Katz

While some Russian observers maintain stoutly that there is no evidence that Iran is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, others privately indicate that Moscow recognizes this is exactly what Tehran is trying to do. Furthermore, the administration of Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly concerned about the implications of a nuclear-armed Iran for Russia.
Moscow, though, does not see itself as able to stop this from happening. But others may be able to.

During a recent conversation in Moscow, one Russian scholar with close ties to the Kremlin stated that Putin sees himself as being in a dilemma regarding Iran. On the one hand, he does not want to see Tehran acquire nuclear weapons, both because of the threat from Iran this might pose to Russia and because this could encourage proliferation of nuclear weapons to other Middle Eastern countries that have -- or may eventually have -- governments more hostile to Moscow.

On the other hand, the source said, while Putin realizes that the nuclear reactor Russia is building for Iran in Bushehr will help Tehran acquire nuclear weapons, he does not want Russia to stop work on it. To do so would be seen as Moscow backing down to U.S. pressure. Further, those in the Russian nuclear industry and others who want to continue building the reactors are arguing that, if Russia stops work at Bushehr, U.S. or other Western firms might step in to finish the reactor and build others if, say, there is an Iranian-U.S. rapprochement similar to the recent Libyan-U.S. one. The source also said that statements by prominent U.S.-based organizations, such as the independent Council on Foreign Relations, calling for an Iranian-U.S. rapprochement are viewed by the Kremlin as evidence that such a rapprochement might soon occur. According to him, Putin does not understand that such statements have little influence over U.S. foreign policy, and that even if the U.S. president wanted to change course on Iran, getting Congress to lift U.S. sanctions against Tehran would be extremely difficult -- and without such a move, an Iranian-U.S. rapprochement is unlikely.

Another Russian observer, a specialist on nuclear issues, said that Moscow should never have signed the deal with Iran to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor, but since it did so, the Putin administration feels that it must finish the job. But Moscow, he too argued, is increasingly nervous about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The best solution to this problem, according to him, would be for what has already been built at Bushehr to be destroyed either by the United States or Israel.

The Putin administration, the observer predicted, would publicly denounce such a move in the strongest terms, but would actually be relieved. For this would both end the Iranian nuclear weapons program and forestall any unwelcome -- from the Russian perspective -- U.S.-Iranian rapprochement. Russia would offer to rebuild Bushehr -- if Iran would pay for it again. Even if Tehran did, this project would take years and years to complete.

When asked about reports that Tehran has hidden, hardened facilities that would enable the Iranian nuclear program to survive even the destruction of Bushehr, the nuclear specialist responded that, while he believes Iran does have other facilities where it is working on nuclear weapons, the spent fuel from the Bushehr reactor would still be needed to fabricate them. Thus, without Bushehr, there can be no Iranian nuclear weapons. Iranian statements that it has hardened facilities elsewhere are apparently intended to convince the United States that an attack on Bushehr would not end the Iranian nuclear program -- even though it actually would.

But it would be better for Moscow, he said, if Bushehr were to be destroyed by Israel and not the United States. A U.S. attack on Iran would whip up anti-American hysteria in Europe and elsewhere that would be difficult for Moscow not to go along with without appearing acquiescent or even complicit in the destruction of Bushehr. An attack on Iran by Israel, by contrast, would allow Moscow to condemn Tel Aviv while maintaining reasonably cooperative relations with Washington.

Such sentiments by observers, of course, do not necessarily reflect a desire on the part of the Putin administration to encourage the destruction of Bushehr. Indeed, when a Russian Foreign Ministry official was asked whether it would better for Moscow if this were undertaken by the United States or by Israel, he pointedly responded, "By neither!" What these statements do reflect, though, is a growing Russian unease about the prospects of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons as well as the sense (whether accurate or not) that Moscow cannot do much to prevent this.

Mark N. Katz is a professor of government and politics at George Mason University. This piece is based on conversations he had in Moscow in September with several Russian scholars.

Saudi Arabia invites Iran to counter-terrorism conference

Sun Oct 10, 6:07 PM ET

RIYADH (AFP) - Saudi Arabia invited Iran to attend an international counter-terrorism conference it plans to host in February, the official SPA news agency reported.

AFP/HO/File Photo

It said the kingdom's ambassador in Tehran delivered the invitation from Crown Prince and de facto ruler Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz to Iranian President Mohammad Khatami (news - web sites).

Saudi Arabia announced last month that it planned to host the conference in Riyadh from February 5 to 8. It has invited the United States to take part.

Washington accuses Iran of being the world's leading "state sponsor of terrorism."

Saudi Arabia, hit by a string of terror attacks which have killed around 100 people and wounded hundreds more since May 2003, has cracked down on suspected Al-Qaeda extremists blamed for the violence.

'Hyenas of the Tehran desert' to stand trial

October 11 2004 at 02:58PM

Tehran - Nineteen Iranian police officers have been reprimanded for "shortcomings" in investigating two men due to stand trial this week for kidnapping, raping and murdering 20 children in the desert south of Tehran.

An announcement seen on the Iranian police website on Monday said seven of those reprimanded were also referred to the judicial body dealing with the police. The statement did not say what punishment the officers faced.

The police have been accused of incompetence after two men working in a brickworks in Pakdasht, an impoverished town south of Tehran, allegedly carried out 20 child murders over a period of more than one year

The two men, Mohammad Bijeh and his alleged accomplice Ali Baghi, were arrested last month. Their trial is due to begin on Tuesday, but will be held behind closed doors, according to press reports.

They then allegedly stunned their victims with blows from a stone

The case has drawn huge media attention, with one reader writing into a newspaper asking for the alleged serial killers to be burned alive in a brick furnace.

The press has dubbed them "hyenas" or "vampires of the Tehran desert", while President Mohammad Khatami has ordered his interior minister to personally investigate the case.

The men allegedly lured children into the desert south of Tehran by saying they were going to dig out rabbits or foxes from their burrows.

They then allegedly stunned their victims with blows from a stone, sexually abused them and buried the bodies in shallow graves. The pair also allegedly placed dead animals near their victims' bodies to cover up the smell of the rotting corpses.

"To see blood makes me feel euphoric," one of the alleged killers, Bijeh, has been quoted as saying by the press. He has reportedly stated that he was abused by his mother and wanted to see other children suffer.

'To see blood makes me feel euphoric'

"I talked to him and he was upbeat. There were no signs of remorse and guilt," Bijeh's lawyer, Dabir Daryabeyghi, told the Shargh newspaper.

If convicted, the pair face execution.

In addition, Tehran's Governor Ali Akbar Rahmani has also announced that the government will compensate the families of the victims by paying the "blood money" that the killers usually have to fork out.

Blood money stands at 220 million rials (about R164 000) for a male, and half that for a female. - Sapa-AFP

MORE THAN 200 SUSPECTS ARRESTED IN LATIFIYA Oct 11, 2004 Baghdad, As-Sabah Relying on accurate intelligence information reported by the departments of the ministry of interior, the security political observers said that the Iraqi guard and police in coordination with the multi national forces have arrested more than 200 Arab, foreign and Iraqi suspects through cordoning Latifiya or the so-called the death road. Notably, As-Sabah was the 1st paper that indicated to death triangle and the existence of terrorist groups on the manner of Talban in the site extended between the city of Latifiya until Haswa in which it shared same geographical unit and natural passages with Falluja , Jbala and Selman Pack.The police source said that the US forces and Iraqi guard and police arrested 27 suspects of Jordanian, Syrian and Iranian nationalities through the raids launched on the city of Yousufiya the outskirts of Latifiya . The crack down runs in the course of eliminating armed men and pulling out the heavy weapons." The US forces launched extensive crack downs on Yousufiya in which the national guard and police accompanied by 60 machineries ranged among tanks , armored vehicles , jet fighters and helicopters were chased the gunmen who took this city as a base for their military operations" .The Iraqi police source said. http://www.alsabaah.com/iframe.php?file=http://www.alsabaah.com/English.html

Immigrants Raise Voices for Democracy(Mid Eastern American Convention for Freedom and Democracy)

Dr. M.Z. Jasser
American Islamic Forum for Democracy

Oct. 10, 2004

Since World War II, nearly every Middle Eastern nation has been under the smothering vise of ruthless tyrants, autocrats and monarchs.

Only since 9/11 has American foreign policy begun to show it understands there is a definite connection between Middle Eastern despotism and Islamo-fascist terrorism.

Yet, the ones most familiar with these systemic human rights abuses in the Middle East have been silent for years. Those Americans who escaped Middle Eastern tyranny during the last 40 years have until now been incomprehensibly silent.

Sept. 11, 2001 woke up America to the dangers of theocracy and despotism in the Middle East. It has also awakened the slumbering community of Middle Eastern immigrants.

The reasons for our past silence are manifold. Some Middle Eastern Americans have feared retribution to family in their ancestral lands. Some fear for their own safety. But many have simply not seen any viable alternative to the secular dictatorships, because the Islamo-fascists are waiting in the wings.

On the first day of this month in Washington, D.C., the first Middle Eastern American Convention for Freedom and Democracy took place. It was sponsored by the newly formed Center for Freedom in the Middle East, and included a consortium of more than 20 liberty-minded organizations of Middle Eastern Americans.

This meeting was nothing less than historic. It brought together first-, second- and third-generation immigrants who share a common ancestral heritage and whose lands remain governed by these malignant despots.

We shared a common love for the freedom and liberty we have experienced in America and yearned to bring these ideals back to our brethren in Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Iraq, to name a few.

We also clearly identified organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida as terrorist organizations that must be combated.

We agreed that it is the duty of we who have enjoyed freedoms here to help our brethren break free of the murderous ideologies that have suffocated them for so long. The truth also is that the tribal culture of the Middle East has hijacked the religion of Islam. We see this most clearly in the case of Wahhabism and Salafism, which has been at the center of this war on terrorism.

It is finally clear, at least to those of us in attendance, that the liberation of the Middle Eastern peoples will also be the liberation of Islam from the terrorist ideologies that have proven so helpful in propping up these despotic autocrats and monarchs.

The conveners all agreed that our American founding principles are universal. They are not limited to any particular culture, faith or place. It became unanimously clear to all that any Middle Eastern state that wants its people to flourish must have separation of religion and state, protection of minority rights and a fundamentally tolerant and spiritual environment for its citizens.

Such a gathering of Middle Eastern Americans had never happened. It sent a new collective message that the future belongs to the secular democrats in the Middle East and not the authoritarian theocrats.

Our American soldiers and the coalition of the willing of more than 30 nations have been fighting for freedom in Iraq. Thousands have given their lives to free the Iraqi people. To that the conveners expressed their everlasting debt and acknowledged their responsibility to lead this effort in winning this war of ideas in the Middle East.

At the center of this global confict is not "terror," which is only a tactic, but rather a competition between theocracy and secular democracy. To those of us who know the freedom of religion in America, there is no system of government that comes close to empowering the faithful as here. No meeting of this sort could have happened anywhere else but in America.

[M. Zuhdi Jasser is a Phoenix physician and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (www.aifdemocracy.org). AIFD is a member organization of the Center for Freedom in the Middle East (www.middleeastfreedom.org), which sponsored the Oct. 1 Middle East American Convention for Freedom and Democracy.]

http://www.aifdemocracy.org/pages.php/1020

This thread is now closed.

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

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