Posted on 10/12/2004 9:31:38 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
The US media still largely ignores news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, “this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year.” As a result, most American’s are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East. In fact they were one of the first countries to have spontaneous candlelight vigils after the 911 tragedy (see photo).
There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. I began these daily threads June 10th 2003. On that date Iranians once again began taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Today in Iran, most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy.
The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.
In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.
This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.
I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.
If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.
If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.
DoctorZin
A variety of sources have confirmed that the Iranian and Syrian governments, plus major Islamist groups, are continuing to debate whether to proceed with a major new terrorist attack in the West, and specifically the US, before the US elections on November 2, 2004.
GIS sources reported that the Islamist movement was engaged in intense strategic discussions about a new “spectacular” offensive against Western, specifically US targets. Critically, GIS sources added that these discussions involved the Islamist-jihadist movement’s chief state sponsors, including Iran and Syria. On the question of the proposed forthcoming Islamist offensive, GIS sources detailed: “[Government officials in] Damascus and Tehran, and [Islamist leaders in] Islamabad are in on the debate and are having major input.”
This internal debate, although couched in theological terms, was described by GIS sources as “extremely pragmatic”. The debate appeared to be attempting to discern the probable reaction by the US electorate to a pre-election strike, as well as what Washington’s response could be, and the degree to which such a strike would threaten the security of the sponsoring states. It also attempted to discern the anticipated reaction from the Muslim world to the extreme violence and bloodshed being proposed. As a routine, tactical matter, the preparedness and durability of the operational and support cells necessary to facilitate such a strike were also under review, although it appeared as though the debate focused much less on capability — about which many in the Islamist-jihadist community seemed to exude an air of confidence — but the review also considered the strategic ramifications of a new mass-casualty “spectacular”.
On this point, GIS sources stressed that it remained within the power of the sponsoring states to prevent the anticipated strikes. As one source noted: “If the sponsoring states really want to stop the attacks, they can do so on their own in more than one way.” Of particular concern to the Government of Pakistan was the possibility that a “spectacular” attack — which would inevitably involve Islamist networks operating from Pakistan — might push Washington into a position where it would stake US-Pakistani relations on the Pakistani ability to secure Osama bin Laden, as opposed to the current more general counter-terrorism cooperation. The US Bush Administration had repeatedly articulated its perception of Pakistan as a key ally ever since Pres. Pervez Musharraf’s decision to help US military efforts to remove the Taliban administration in Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania.
Regional reports, notably a leaked Iraqi intelligence report published in the Iraqi daily al-Watan on September 22, 2004, stating that Abu Musab al- Zarqawi was preparing cells for attacks in Western Europe, were somewhat misleading. GIS sources revealed that Zarqawi does not directly control significant assets in Western Europe, but that non-Iraqi or non-resident Islamist fighters who had fought under his command in Iraq, some under the general banner of Jamaat al-Tawhid wa’l-Jihad (Unity and Jihad Group), had been reintegrated into Islamist units upon return to their home countries. These operatives answered to their local commanders in Western Europe and, on major strategic decisions, to the Islamist-jihadist leadership — specifically Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri — and their associated state sponsors. These cadres awaited directions from the above noted high command structure on future strategically significant operations.
Also of concern to the US Bush Administration were the late September 2004 maneuverings of a former “ally”, Iraqi National Congress (INC) President Ahmad Chalabi. GIS sources claimed on October 11, 2004, that Chalabi had assumed the rôle of foreign affairs and national security advisor to Moqtada Sadr. GIS sources explained that this move was, in many ways, a direct result of the resolution of the Najaf crisis and the subsequent US backed negotiations between Baghdad and Sadr’s Jaish al-Mahdi which saw the October 10, 2004, opening of a five-day “grace period” during which fighters in Baghdad’s Sadr City turned in heavy and medium weapons to the interim Government in exchange for promised amnesty arrangements and an accepted political rôle for Moqtada Sadr in the “new Iraq”.
The Najaf resolution had virtually excluded involvement by the Administration of Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and elevated the Qom-based Ayatollah Al- Sayyid Kadhem al-Haeri into a theological position equal to that of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, legitimizing Iranian influence in Iraqi Shi’ite affairs.
Further, the subsequent deal with Moqtada Sadr had convinced many in the region that, as one GIS source put it, “Moqtada — not the US — is so far the winner. Chalabi knows that Iran is winning and he’s using Moqtada as the gateway.”
That argument that Ahmad Chalabi saw Moqtada Sadr as a conduit to legitimacy and relevance emphasized the degree to which Sadr and his sponsors in Tehran had consolidated their victory in Najaf, in spite of devastating US operations against the Jaish al-Mahdi in the Shiite holy city which had seriously degraded the militia’s fighting capability and operational readiness and, tactically, threatened to render the group an irrelevant military force. The political failure which had followed Washington’s measurable military success had paved the way for Chalabi’s alleged “defection”. As well, the aggressive campaign which had been waged against him by Washington through press leaks which accused the INC leader of providing Iran with intelligence on Coalition forces and the August 8, 2004. Arrest warrants were issued against both Ahmad Chalabi and his cousin, Salem, by the Iraqi Central Criminal Court of Zuhair al-Maliky. These actions followed the late April 2004 “options memo” drafted by the US National Security Council (NSC), and presented at the White House, entitled “Marginalizing Chalabi”.1
Washington’s posture toward issues in central Iraq also continued to vary. By early October 2004, it had become increasingly evident not only that US negotiations with Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq had secured few of Washington’s apparent aims, and that the US Bush Administration was now increasingly aware of this fact. The immediate result of this perceived failure appeared to have been the US decision on September 31, 2004, to deploy a force of some 5,000 Coalition forces (3,000 US, 2,000 Iraqi) to “re-take” the Sunni triangle town of Samarra. While some had anticipated the Samarra operation as a precursor to further action in insurgent-controlled Iraqi population centers, particularly Fallujah, there now appeared to be significant hesitancy to conduct such operations until after the November 2004 elections, in spite of the US Bush Administration’s apparent reading of the situation on the ground.
The Bush Administration had long ago abandoned any hope for success from the ex-Ba’athist composed “Fallujah Brigade”, initially organized and deployed in April 2004 to manage the security situation in Fallujah without the need for a US military intervention. The Fallujah Brigade almost immediately began cooperating with the armed insurgents controlling the city, including, in some instances, turning over weapons and divulging the limited intelligence they had been provided by Coalition Forces.
A second US attempt to pacify Fallujah without an “invasion” had been less well publicized, but equally instructive. Following the perceived success in Najaf, the US attempted to impose a similarly organized settlement with the Sunni leadership of Fallujah. To this end, GIS sources reported, Washington sought to open a channel to a prominent Fallujah-based Ikwhani known as Abu Abdullah. Abu Abdullah, Washington appeared to believe, was in control of a number of armed networks operating both inside Fallujah and throughout the so-called Sunni Triangle. Regional reports indicated that Abu Abdullah’s forces were comprised mostly of former Ba’athists, potentially former Saddam Fedayeen. Based on the “good work” which Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani had done in resolving the August 2004 Najaf crisis, the US Bush Administration sought to open at least one channel to Abu Abdullah through Ayatollah Sistani. These talks continued through at least early September 2004.
Yet, the situation in Fallujah remained unchanged and the Abu Abdallah channel gained the Coalition absolutely no ground, largely because the Sunni cleric had been fundamentally misunderstood by his interlocutors. As GIS sources noted in late September 2004, Abu Abdallah — while extremely influential in Fallujah and, to an extent, throughout al-Anbar province — did not control significant military forces, at all, much less forces comprised of former Ba’athists. The latter expectation, that the forces were Ba’athist, appeared to have given Washington and particularly the CIA false hope; that because his forces were not committed “foreign fighters”, they might be swayed. In fact, while Abu Abdullah’s “forces” — if they could be called that — were negligible, his status as an Ikwhani cleric precluded him from reaching a deal with Coalition forces regardless of the terms offered. Abu Abdullah, and the circles he influenced, were committed Islamists who continued to view the Iraqi intifada in terms of it being a single component of a global jihad and not, as the CIA appeared perceive their position, a nationalist struggle. Thus, the talks had been virtually doomed from the start and further evidenced to many Iraqis that Washington continued to fail to understand the complex situation on the ground.
Moreover, the US decision to use Ayatollah Sistani as an intermediary had reinforced a growing sense among Iraqis that Washington would continue to overestimate the influence and centrality of the Grand Ayatollah. The Sunnis of Fallujah and its surrounding environs paid virtually no heed to Ayatollah Sistani and attempts to interpose the senior Shi’ite spiritual authority into perceived Sunni “internal affairs” had been met with what should have been expected resistance.
Iraqi confidence in the US had been further eroded by concern that a potential US Kerry Administration and (in light of comments by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on October 10, 2004, during a surprise visit to Iraq) perhaps even a second Bush Administration might attempt to quickly reduce US troop strength in Iraq following the January 2004 Iraqi elections.
The goal, apparently, continued to be to reduce the “footprint” of the Coalition occupation force.
Yet, as former consultant to the Strategy Unit of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s cabinet, Christopher Catherwood, noted to GIS: “It is not the size of the ‘footprint’ that matters. Just look at the small number of US forces that had been present in Saudi Arabia throughout the 1990s. Yet, even largely constrained to a single base, the reaction by many Saudis and Islamists was the same as though a full-scale occupying force had been deployed to Saudi soil.” Catherwood, the author of a new history entitled Churchill’s Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq, based on his research of the Chartwell Papers at Churchill College, Cambridge, added that he saw distinct similarities between Churchill’s to effectively “garrison” British ground forces to reduce the British military footprint — and, more importantly, expenditure — and the current discussion about “drawing down” troop levels to affect Iraqi perception of the Coalition presence. Even the US resort to airpower to combat the Islamist forces of Fallujah further mirrored Churchill’s efforts in the “Mesopotamian rebellion” of 1920 to rely on the Royal Air Force to subdue the insurgent threat.
While Washington had secured significant victories in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Tehran and its Islamist allies appeared cognizant that they had entered a critical period during which they apparently believed they retained the ability to affect the US November 2004 election and, potentially, reshape the strategic playing field of the region by decisively striking out against the US and the West. The question remained as to how the Islamist-jihadist movement would decide to act on this perceived capability and whether the West would confront the state sponsors of the planned offensive before it was too late.
Footnote
1. Inside the Takedown, Brian Bennett & Michael Weisskop;
Time, June 7, 2004.
10/12/2004 4:01:00 PM
To: Assignment and National desks, Daybook Editor
Contact: Aryo Pirouznia of Student Movement Coordinating Committee for Democracy in Iran, smccdi@daneshjoo.org or 972-504-6864 or Fax: 972-491-9866
News Advisory:
When the Student Movement Coordinating Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI) -- http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_8640.shtml -- and its coordinator, Aryo Pirouznia, uncovered evidence that totalitarian Iran's American propagandists were channeling hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Kerry campaign, SMCCDI shouted it from the cyber mountain tops. The Kerry Campaign is now desperately trying to distance itself from one of its Iranian-American "Trustees" and his highly questionable lawsuit against SMCCDI.
These propagandists know that the best defense is a good offense, and Hassan Nemazee filed a $10 million suit against SMCCDI and Pirouznia in Texas in March and immediately adopted a strategy of delay until after the presidential elections. Perhaps because it knows the suit would embarrass the Democrat nominee, Nemazee has sought to postpone if not avoid answering questions about his suit in a deposition. Thanks to a counter-suit, faith in democracy, and a clear-headed judge in Texas who refused the delay, SMCCDI is going public with the evidence.
Joining SMCCDI are two journalists: Insight Magazine's Kenneth Timmerman and the author of the bestselling "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," Dr. Jerome Corsi -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895260174/104-0642313-4295949 -- who is writing a book based on the Kerry-Namazee nexus.
Corsi, Timmerman, SMCCDI, and their legal counsel will hold a press conference, "The current Iranian Regime's Influence on Senator John Kerry's Presidential Campaign," -- http://www.regimeinfluence.com/ -- at the National Press Club on Thursday, October 14, 9:15 AM, in the First Amendment Room on the 13th floor.
The event is scheduled to be satellite uplinked for US-based TV and radio networks. Those interested must call 214-906-8181, on Wednesday, in order to obtain the downlink references or to check the SMCCDI's Website -- http://www.daneshjoo.org ("Public Statements" section).
Key statements by the Kerry Campaign on Iran
Before the Council on Foreign Relations in December 2003, Kerry announced "As president, I will be prepared early on to explore areas of mutual interest with Iran, just as I was prepared to normalize relations with Vietnam a decade ago."
Then the Kerry Campaign sent out an email that somehow made its way to the government-controlled Mehr News Agency in Tehran, where it was trumpeted as evidence of his resolve to patch things up with the mullahs. "It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States," the message read, "to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world. America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others."
Kerry's senior foreign affairs advisor, Rand Beers, confirmed the message was genuine, saying: "I have no idea how they got hold of that letter, which was prepared for Democrats Abroad. I scratched my head when I saw that. The only way they could have gotten it was if someone in Iran was with Democrats Abroad." (R. Beers' statement was made in an interview with K. Timmerman which was published by Insight Magazine on March 1, 2004.)
Then in the first Presidential Debate Kerry said, "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes."
Statement by Hassan Nemazee at AIC Fundraiser
Hassan Nemazee spoke at an American Iranian Council (see page 6) dinner declaring that the AIC "does not attempt to explain or rationalize the position of the government of Iran, nor does it attempt to do so for the government of the United States. Its mission is to educate both sides and to attempt to establish the basis and the vehicle for a dialogue which will ultimately lead to a resumption of relations." (Nemazee's statement was made on June 1, 2002, at the San Francisco Ritz-Carlton Hotel in presence of Sen. Kerry during an AIC event organized for boosting relations with the Mullahs' regime).
If Kerry registered any protest against this assertion that the United States should normalize relations with one of the worlds bloodiest dictatorships, it was not recorded.
-0-
/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
West ponders a last chance for Tehran
VIENNA: Western nations are considering making one last try to get Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities that could be used to make nuclear weapons, although the US has its hands tied until the November 2 presidential election, diplomats said yesterday.
"There is indeed the idea from the G8 to make a last try on Iran," ahead of a November 25 meeting of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at which a deadline falls for Iran to suspend enrichment and answer all questions about its nuclear ambitions, a diplomat close to the IAEA said.
The diplomat said there could be "a package" offer, which might include giving Iran access to imported nuclear fuel, but that Iran would in return have to totally suspend its own work on the nuclear fuel cycle.
In Iran, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi called on the European Union yesterday to come up with proposals that could end the stand-off between Tehran and IAEA but repeated the country's refusal to give up sensitive fuel cycle work.
"The Europeans have not respected their commitment, and it is time that they took a step and presented proposals that respect our legitimate right to use civilian nuclear technology."
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=93953&Sn=WORL&IssueID=27207
Posted Tuesday, October 12, 2004
TEHRAN, 12 Oct. (IPS) Russia joined Britain, France and Germany, known as the European Union’s “Big 3” demanding the Islamic Republic to heed the international community for suspending enriching uranium, a vital process in the chain of producing nuclear weapons.
Moscow made the call during the just concluded visit to Tehran by Russia’s Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov who, according to well-informed diplomatic sources, had “very openly and clearly” warned his Iranian interlocutors of the dangers it would face if it did not stop nuclear activities.
In private talks with Iranian officials, Lavrov made it clear that if Iran did not satisfy what the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would ask Iran to do at its forthcoming meeting, Iran’s issue would be “most probably” sent to the United Nations Security Council for decision, sources told Iran Press Service in Tehran.
But according to the official news agency IRNA, Hojjatoleslam Hasan Rohani, the influential Secretary of Iran’s Supreme Council on National Security (SCNS) and senior negotiator with both IAEA and the European Trio told Lavrov that Iran would remain committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its additional protocol “only if Iran’s use of peaceful technology is recognised”.
“Iran looks upon trust-building measures as positive, but only on the condition that Iran’s legitimate and legal rights are respected internationally”, the cleric, tipped as being one of the conservatives candidates as the next Iranian president added.
The Board of Directors of the international nuclear watchdog on 18 September had urged Tehran to abandon enriching uranium or it might face sanctions by the United Nations Security Council, a measure Moscow, like Berlin, London or Paris, is opposed, but might drop its opposition in case the Islamic Republic continue with the enriching process.
But in a total disdain to the Resolution, Mr. Qolamreza Aqazadeh, the Head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation revealed on 20 September in Vienna that Tehran had enriched 37 tonnes of yellow cake into hexafluroide gas.
The process continues unabated.
Foreign affairs ministers of Britain, France and Germany who initiated on 20 October last year an agreement with Tehran over suspension of uranium enriching against transfer to nuclear technologies for peaceful means became more and more menacing in recent months against Iran and have gone closer to the harsher line suggested to them by the United States.
Under the agreement signed by Mr. Rohani, who is also Europe’s and IAEA’s senior negotiator on Iranian controversial nuclear issue, Iran also agreed to sign the Additional Protocol to the Non Proliferation Treaty, a clause that allows international nuclear inspectors full and unconditional access to all Iranian nuclear-related sites and projects.
Iran's conservative-dominated Majles, or parliament is menacing of not ratifying the Additional Protocol if the international community goes ahead forcing Iran to stop all enriching activities.
In a statement last week, Mr. Fischer told Iran of “not committing any mistake” thinking Europe and IAEA were not serious in their warnings over Iranian nuclear activities.
But on the surface, Lavrov adopted a more conciliatory attitude towards his hosts, indicating that he also was not in favour of seeing Iran’s case at the IAEA going to New York for consideration, as pushed by Washington, but opposed by the so-called Big 3.
"To start thinking of any scenario which is not constructive to our point of view is premature and could be counter-productive", Lavrov said at a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart Kamal Kharrazi in Tehran on Sunday 10 October, referring to the possibility of Iran’s case with the IAEA being transferred to the UN’s Security Council.
"We will be expecting the cooperation between Iran and the IAEA to continue", Lavrov said, adding that enjoying the benefits from nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes was Iran’s full right.
But a defiant Kharrazi corrected him, pointing out that, "It is Iran's legitimate right to master nuclear technology including uranium enrichment".
At this point, Lavrov urged him to reconsider, saying "As (Russian President Vladimir) Putin has suggested before, it is better if Iran listens to the agency's call. This is better for everyone".
"There is no talk of stopping it. It's not something Iran can accept", Mr. Kharrazi replied, stressing however that Iran was ready to give whatever assurances were required to show that it will not use nuclear technology to make atomic weapons.
While Iran insists that its ongoing nuclear projects are for generating electricity, the United States and Israel accuses it of wanting the technology for military aims.
According to press reports from Tel Aviv, the Jewish State, -- which the ruling Iranian ayatollahs do not recognise the existence to the point that never mention it by its name of Israel, using “the Zionist Entity” instead in their official language – is seriously considering the option of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities in a repeat of what it did with Iraq in 1981, profiting from the war the now imprisoned Iraqi dictator Saddam Hoseyn had started with its neighbour, then in full revolutionary turmoil due to the unexpected quick victory of Islamic Revolution of 1979 led by the late Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini against the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Western diplomatic sources say if the Security Council decides of harsh measures against the Islamic Republic, it would face a Russia veto, adding however that in case Tehran continue pushing with its enriching uranium activities, Moscow would have no other choice but abstaining, an attitude China, another nation suspected of nuclear cooperation with Iran, might also take.
“If Iran continue rejecting IAEA’s demands, then it would be difficult for Moscow to support Tehran at the UN”, one Iranian analyst told Iran Press Service, adding that a Security Council sanction would “very seriously” harm Russia’s financial interest in Iran, where it is building the country’s first nuclear reactor in the Persian Gulf port of Booshehr at a cost of some 800 million US Dollars.
The light-water 1,000-megawatt project was originally due to come on stream in 1998, but now experts say it would not be finished before late 2006.
Foreign affairs ministers of the 25-members European Union during their last meeting held on Monday in Luxembourg, offered the Islamic Republic “carrots and sticks”, stating that while they would not accept the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, which could destabilise the Middle East, but at the same time are ready for joint diplomatic efforts with Russia and the United States to avert that risk.
“We want to continue the process as the EU and to formulate a package. We rejected the option of Iran becoming a nuclear power as dangerous,” German Foreign Affairs Minister Joschka Fischer said as the ministers instructed EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana to prepare the package to encourage Tehran to cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog.
And to thwart the bloc’s other nations that accuse the “Big 3” of monopolising the talks with Iran, the ministers agreed that Solana would join the Britain, France and Germany in diplomacy towards Iran to ensure that the whole bloc was better associated with the negotiations.
The incentives could include assistance with Iran’s peaceful energy programme, sources said.
In an interview with the Hong Kong and Bangkok-based “The Asia Times Online”, Mr. Hoseyn Moussavian, Head of the SCNS’s Foreign Policy Department considered as Mr. Rohani’s “mouth piece” had called on France and Germany, but also Britain and “why not” the United States to invest in the multi-billions project.
According to some Iranian analysts, the “package” might as well hint to the West’s readiness to participate in Iran’s plans for building six other nuclear-powered electricity plants.
Citing unnamed U.S. and European diplomats, “The New York Times” reported on Tuesday that the Bush Administration is holding talks with European allies on a possible package of economic incentives for Iran as part of efforts to persuade Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment, offers that could include access to imported nuclear fuel.
Diplomats told the Times that while the Bush Administration had not endorsed any incentives for Iran, it was not discouraging the EU from assembling a package that the administration would consider after the U.S. presidential election on 2 November for likely presentation to Tehran later in the month.
According to the newspaper, the incentives under discussion would allow Iran to import fuel for the civilian reactor it is building at the Persian Gulf port of Bushehr with assistance from Russia and may lift curbs that are blocking Iran from importing spare parts for its ailing civilian airline, consisting partly by ageing American-made Boeings.
“Iran will only remain committed to international nuclear safeguards if it is allowed to master the entire nuclear fuel cycle and enrich uranium” Mr. Rohani was quoted as saying on Monday, rejecting rejected demands to stop all other activities related to uranium enrichment, like building centrifuges and converting raw uranium.
In an interview with the British news agency “Reuters” on Saturday 9 October 2004, Mr. Moussavian, who also is the spokesman of Iran’s delegation at IAEA talks said Tehran was even willing to listen to ideas from the United States, such as one put forward by Senator John Kerry to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
"Iran welcomes any constructive proposal from any American candidate", Mr. Moussavian said, asked about suggestions that a Kerry government would be willing to supply Iran with nuclear fuel for power generation if Tehran abandons its own fuel-making capability.
In their last debate, both Mr. Kerry and President George W. Bush described as “very dangerous” Iran’s efforts to become a nuclear power and wowed to use “every ways and means” to prevent it.
“If it become necessary to address Iran in a very strong way, one can be sure that we (democrats) would go for the harshest of ways”, Sen. Kerry assured, accusing Mr. Bush of having indirectly allowed Iran to continue its nuclear projects while the (Bush) Administration was busy with Iraq.
Earlier, the Democrat’s nominee for the top job had said that in case Iran abandons its plans for nuclearisation, he could consider offering the country atomic technologies for civilian uses, including producing much needed electricity.
However, Mr. Moussavian latter denied the declaration attributed to him by Reuters, saying Iran had no negotiations with the United States.
On the controversial issue of nuclear fuel for Bushehr station, held up for several months amid a dispute over pricing and the return of spent material, Lavrov hinted that Moscow and Tehran were in the final stages of reaching an agreement on the supply and return of nuclear fuel for Iran's first nuclear reactor "in the near future".
Iran says it doesn't have facilities to store the spent fuel. Moscow wants to pay in order to take back the fuel to Russia.
As Lavrov was leaving Iran, a high-ranking delegation from the IAEA arrived in Tehran for fresh talks aimed at resolving the dispute over Iran's nuclear activities; Iran’s state television reported Tuesday.
The six-member delegation, headed by the Agency’s deputy director general Pierre Goldschmidt, is expected to stay in Iran for the whole week and would again be raising the issues of traces of highly enriched uranium found here as well as Iran's work on advanced P2 centrifuges, the hard liner’s controlled television added, quoting Goldschmidt as saying he hoped to carry out site visits, as well as discuss a possible visit to the Parchin military zone near Tehran that has been cited as a possible site of covert nuclear activities.
ENDS IRAN NUCLEAR 121004
 |
|||
|
|||
|
WASHINGTON - Envoys from the Group of Eight industrialized nations are to meet this week to discuss offering incentives to Iran in a last-ditch effort to get the Islamic republic to suspend its uranium enrichment activities that could be used to make nuclear weapons, State Department officials said.
|
The department will host talks on Friday between mid-to-senior ranking G8 diplomats to go over options for dealing with suspicions that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian atomic power program, the officials said.
The meeting is part of the G8's consideration of ways to get Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment work as a deadline for Tehran to comply with demands from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to suspend enrichment and answer all questions about its nuclear ambitions looms next month, the officials said.
The G8, which comprises Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States, is looking at a package deal for Iran in which it would be given access to imported nuclear fuel but would totally suspend its own work on the nuclear fuel cycle in return, according to diplomats close to the IAEA.
Friday's meeting will gather "political directors" from G8 foreign ministries who get together frequently to discuss nuclear non-proliferation issues, the State Department officials said.
However, neither US Secretary of State Colin Powell nor his deputy, Richard Armitage, would attend, they said. US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton is likely to be the highest-ranking diplomat in the talks, they said.
Iran's nuclear ambitions have become a major topic in the US presidential campaign with Democratic challenger John Kerry berating President George W. Bush for failing to deal with Tehran while going to war with Iraq on faulty intelligence.
Diplomats in Vienna, where the IAEA is headquartered, say the Bush administration has not yet signed off on any package and had thus far been reluctant to be involved in defining any possible incentives.
One diplomat said Washington was unlikely to commit until after the November 2 election.
"The day after the election, things will be clearer," the diplomat said.
The New York Times reported Tuesday that the United States is holding talks with European allies on a possible deal with Iran that would give Tehran access to imported nuclear fuel in return for suspension of uranium enrichment activities.
The New York Times reported earlier Tuesday that while the Bush administration had not endorsed any incentives for Iran, it was not discouraging Britain, France and Germany from assembling a package which might also lift certain economic sanctions on Iran, in particular allowing it to import spare parts for its ailing civilian airline.
Any US support for incentives, even if offered by the Europeans, would mark a significant shift in the administration's policy toward Iran's nuclear program, which it has said should be sent to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
Powell, Bolton and others have been saying publicly for the past month that it is past time for Iran to be referred to the Security Council.
White House Sounds Out Europeans on Iran
Tuesday October 12, 2004 11:16 PM
By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration will talk with European allies later this week about possible economic incentives to Iran if it agrees to suspend the enrichment of uranium, a key step in the production of nuclear weapons, U.S. officials said Tuesday.
While the Bush administration has not yet taken a stand on whether to dangle such incentives before Tehran, a high-profile meeting with allies on the issue would mark a significant shift in U.S. strategy and could have implications in the presidential race.
In the meantime, the administration continues to insist that Iran must stop developing nuclear weapons or face sanctions from the United Nations.
On several occasions, the administration has tried to take the dispute to the U.N. Security Council. Another attempt is virtually certain after a meeting in late November of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency if Iran has not complied by then.
Working with European allies to resolve a major security problem is the sort of multilateral diplomacy that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has charged is lacking in the administration. President Bush disputes that charge.
``They are going to come and tell us what kind of package and discussions they have been having, and we will hear them out,'' State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said of the meeting Friday with European allies.
Britain, France and Germany are inclined to try to work out some sort of agreement with Iran and are not inclined at this point to impose economic sanctions.
A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the proposed European package included providing fuel to Iran for civilian nuclear projects. That official and another, also speaking anonymously, said that while the administration was interested in the idea of proposing a package of incentives, none of Europe's specific proposals had received U.S. endorsement.
European diplomats said the talks with the Bush administration were in an initial stage. They also said the United States was holding on to its option of pushing for U.N. Security Council action against Iran if it is found in defiance of international demands to stop all activities related to uranium enrichment.
A European government official said Russia was skeptical of any Security Council move to punish Iran because of concerns that Russia's $800 million deal to build a nuclear reactor in Bushehr, in southern Iran, could be jeopardized.
Also Tuesday, Iran's foreign minister offered European governments assurances that his government would never produce nuclear bombs if Iran's right to enrich uranium was recognized.
``The time has come for Europe to take a step forward and suggest that our legitimate right for complete use of nuclear energy is recognized,'' Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said in a speech to an energy conference in Tehran.
White House spokesman Sean McCormack said the package the Europeans were touting was not ``different materially'' from proposal that have already been discussed with Tehran.
Invited to the meeting on Iran, along with the three European allies, were the other members of the G-8 group of leading industrialized countries - Russia, Japan, Italy and Canada. The meeting grows out of talks Secretary of State Colin Powell held last month with G-8 foreign ministers at the United Nations in New York.
President Bush condemned Iran in his 2001 State of the Union address as part of an ``axis of evil'' along with Iraq and North Korea.
Negotiations to end North Korea's nuclear program are sputtering. Talks have been suspended, and while Bush defends his strategy of a joint approach with South Korea, Japan, Russia and China, Kerry is calling for one-on-one talks.
In 1994 North Korea promised to freeze its plutonium program and put it under international inspection in exchange for civilian energy assistance from South Korea and Japan.
The Europeans' proposal that civilian nuclear fuel might be provided to Iran to stop enriching uranium is somewhat parallel to the Clinton administration's deal with North Korea.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4546602,00.html
Moderate cleric appointed Iran's new vice president
www.chinaview.cn 2004-10-13 03:14:52
TEHRAN, Oct. 12 (Xinhuanet) -- Majid Ansari, former head of Majlis'(parliament) plan and budget commission and a politically moderate cleric, was named Tuesday as Iran's new vice president for legal and parliamentary affairs, the official IRNA news agency reported.
Ansari will replace Mohammad Ali Abtahi, who resigned early thismonth in protest against the parliament's impeachment of former Transportation Minister Ahmad Khorram.
Abtahi also protested to the Guardian Council against the disqualification in the seventh Majlis election, which took place in February. He slammed it as "an undemocratic election."
Ansari, a mid-ranking cleric, is member of two powerful political bodies, namely, the Assembly of Experts and the Expediency Council. The former holds the power to choose Supreme Leader and make decision on other important affairs; the latter serves as an arbitration body.
Ansari is also known as a vocal critic of the Guardian Council, and he criticized it for ignoring Supreme Leader Seyyed Ali Khamenei's demand not to disqualify reform-minded lawmakers of the former parliament from running in the seventh Majlis election.
The hardliner-dominated Guardian Council in early January disqualified nearly 3,605 reform-minded candidates competing for posts in the seventh Majlis. After the interference of Supreme Leader Khamenei, more than 1,400 were restored to be qualified eventually. Enditem
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/13/content_2083550.htm
If there comes a large-scale open civil war in Iran I would hope the US would supply the opposition with weapons, food and medical stuff.
I e-mailed Major Garrett about the Hassan Nemazee press conference. I hope he covers it.
Couldn't Get Away
Check out Doctor Zinn's site at Free Republic, Americans for Regime Change in Iran, where you can find daily updates on news out of Iran and the rest of the Middle East.
Don't miss the latest on connections between the Kerry campaign and the Iranian regime, which will be expanded upon tomorrow at a news conference featuring reps from the Student Movement Coordinating Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI), journalist Kenneth Timmerman, and the author of the bestselling "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," Dr. Jerome Corsi.
Diplomats have said that the European Union had agreed on Monday to prepare a package of "carrots and sticks" to get Iran to comply with demands by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to suspend its uranium enrichment activities -- a process that can be used to make material for atomic bombs.
Washington is working with the EU on the plan in a final effort to get Iran to cooperate with the IAEA, but has been said unlikely to offer an new incentives of its own.
"The Iranians ... have made a decision apparently to hide, to continue to hide their programme and indeed, in addition to that, they have made some very scurrilous statements publicly," Armitage told a news conference in Tokyo on Wednesday.
"We hold the view that Iran needs to be brought to account and we would like to move to the U.N. Security Council after the November (IAEA) board of governors' meeting," Armitage said.
"But we're open to all ideas that people have because one thing has become clear and that is that we all share -- the G8 (Group of Eight) -- the same end, the desire, and that is that Iran should be free of nuclear weapons and be transparent and let the international community have sufficient confidence that that is the case," he added.
Armitage and Undersecretary of State John Bolton will meet officials from the Group of Eight industrial countries to discuss the issue on Friday in Washington.
Armitage is in Tokyo for bilateral security talks with Japanese officials and to attend an international donors conference on Iraqi reconstruction.
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said on Tuesday that the EU could not force Tehran to give up its right to enrich uranium, dealing a blow to Europe's efforts to halt the process.
"It is wrong for them (the EU) to think they can, through negotiations, force Iran to stop enrichment," Kharrazi said.
Iran says its nuclear programme is for electricity generation and says it wants to master the full fuel cycle, including enrichment, so that it does not have to rely on imported fuel.
Washington believes the programme is aimed at developing atomic weapons.
Officials in Washington have said the United States wanted a commitment from the Europeans that they would back sanctions if Iran insists on continuing its nuclear activities.
Iran is preparing a large batch of raw uranium ready for enriching and has resumed building enrichment centrifuges in defiance of a previous deal with Britain, Germany and France.
The IAEA last month called on Tehran to halt such activities and said it might be sent to the Security Council if it failed to do so by the next IAEA board meeting on November 25.
From CNN State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel
Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Posted: 3:06 AM EDT (0706 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration says it will host a meeting of G8 diplomats this week in Washington in a bid to resolve a nuclear impasse with Iran.
Iran has until November 25 to comply with U.N. demands that it suspend uranium enrichment activities.
At the meeting, to be held on Friday, European officials told CNN they would offer Tehran "bigger sticks and bigger carrots."
They expect to present a package of possible incentives to Iran as an inducement in exchange for abandoning its nuclear ambitions.
The details of the package are still being negotiated within European capitals but incentives could include, for example, the resumption of negotiations for a trade and cooperation agreement between the European Union and Iran.
The meeting is set to take place at the U.S. State Department, and its expanded format brings major industrialized nations such as Canada, Italy, Russia and Japan into the talks.
But even before the meeting, U.S. and European officials were lowering expectations that any breakthrough would be achieved.
U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Tuesday the meeting would focus on how to bring Iran into compliance with the requirements of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, as well as how the Security Council might take up the issue should it be referred to them.
Another U.S. official described the meeting as nothing more than "kabuki theater" -- an opportunity to give the appearance of action, when in fact little substance was expected to be discussed.
The Bush administration has accused Iran of secretly developing a nuclear weapons program and is pushing for the matter to be referred to the U.N. Security Council where additional sanctions might be considered.
The IAEA's 35-member board of governors is expected to meet again at the end of November to discuss the issue.
To date, the Bush administration has resisted the so-called "carrot and stick" approach with Iran -- a point underscored Tuesday by the State Department.
"I think you'll have to check with the Europeans as far as what their package will involve; whether it's anything new or whether it's just what they've always made clear, that there were certain benefits in the relationship that wouldn't happen without action by Iran on nuclear and other matters," Boucher said.
In September, the head of the IAEA concluded there was concrete evidence Iran was deceiving the international community about its nuclear energy program and moving ahead with a clandestine program to develop nuclear weapons.
The U.S. has been unable to win international support for an automatic trigger to refer Iran's case to the United Nations for possible economic sanction if it does not halt its uranium enrichment program in coming weeks.
Iraq accuses Iran of sabotaging its intelligence |
| www.chinaview.cn 2004-10-13 19:49:09 |
|
BAGHDAD, Oct. 13 (xinhuanet) -- A senior Iraqi intelligence official has accused Iran and some political parties of cooperating in an attempt to work against Iraqi new intelligence forces, local newspaper Azzaman reported Wednesday. Lieutenant Colonel Mohamed Abdullah al Shahwani, head of the Iraqi intelligence, said in an interview with the newspaper published on Wednesday that "the Iraqi intelligence is facing a lotof challenges that reached the degree of unannounced call toeliminate its members and killing them by some of the parties."But he didn't give the names of the parties. He pointed out that such calls caused the killing and the injury of a large number of intelligence officers. He emphasized that they have evidence and documents that would be presented in time, and that the information and the documents were analyzed to help them in searching some suspicious places and headquarters. Al Shahwani revealed that Iran is financing TV and radio channels, as well as allocating 45 million US dollars for armed groups in Iraq, which it hired to serve the Iranian policies in Iraq and to carry out the assassination or acts of sabotaged by Iranians. Hazim Al Shaalan, the Iraqi defense minister, has accused Iran several times of interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq, and standing behind many of the explosions and acts of sabotage in Iraq. Enditem |
VIENNA: Western nations are considering making one last try to get Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities that could be used to make nuclear weapons, although the US has its hands tied until the November 2 presidential election, diplomats said yesterday.
"There is indeed the idea from the G8 to make a last try on Iran," ahead of a November 25 meeting of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at which a deadline falls for Iran to suspend enrichment and answer all questions about its nuclear ambitions, a diplomat close to the IAEA said.
The diplomat said there could be "a package" offer, which might include giving Iran access to imported nuclear fuel, but that Iran would in return have to totally suspend its own work on the nuclear fuel cycle.
In Iran, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi called on the European Union yesterday to come up with proposals that could end the stand-off between Tehran and IAEA but repeated the country's refusal to give up sensitive fuel cycle work.
"The Europeans have not respected their commitment, and it is time that they took a step and presented proposals that respect our legitimate right to use civilian nuclear technology."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
/312_G.jpg)
