Iranian Alert - October 20, 2004 [EST]- IRAN LIVE THREAD - "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"

Khatami: Kerry, Bush both hostile to Iran

Published 10/20/2004 11:05 AM

TEHRAN, Iran, Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Iranian President Mohammed Khatami charged Wednesday that President George Bush and his election rival Sen. John Kerry are both hostile to Iran.

The Iranian News Agency, IRNA, quoted Khatami as saying "Kerry and Bush are both wrong if they think they can deprive Iran of its legitimate right to acquire nuclear technology."

"U.S. policy is based on denying the right of Iran in enriching uranium to produce nuclear fuel and this is something we do not accept," he said.

Khatami aired a gloomy outlook about U.S. future policy towards his country saying both Bush and Kerry were hostile to Iran.

"We hope America will adopt a wiser and fairer policy in view of the lessons it has learned as a result of its arrogant attitude and expansionist policies."

"We are confident that America is not capable anymore of repeating the same methods as in Iraq because it is definitely not in its interest," Khatami said.

Iranian Ayatollah Cuts Ties With Sadr, Says Insurrection "Incorrect"

In an odd twist, the BBC reports that Moqtada al-Sadr's mentor, Iranian Grand Ayatollah Kazem Haeri, has denounced Sadr for fighting US troops and has essentially fired Sadr as his representative in Najaf:

A senior religious leader in Iran has severed ties with radical Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr for encouraging his followers to fight US troops. Grand Ayatollah Kazem Haeri, one of the top authorities in Shia Islam, said Mr Sadr was no longer his representative in the holy city of Najaf.
A spokesman said that Mr Sadr's actions no longer reflected the ideas of the Grand Ayatollah's teachings.
But he praised a scheme to disarm Shia militias in Baghdad's Sadr City slum.

Haeri went on to blame US and British troops for damage done to shrines in Najaf, but scolded Sadr for mounting armed attacks in the first place. Haeri leads the Shi's from Qom, known for its radical view of Islam and its belief that Islam should not only guide the personal lives of its followers but also should provide leadership for public life as well. Given that, Haeri's renunciation of Sadr is rather puzzling.

Even more puzzling is Haeri's endorsement of the Iraqi government's disarmament plan in Sadr City. The Iranian ayatollah announced his approval of the Allawi plan to strip Sadr's forces of its heavy weaponry in the only political stronghold it has left. Allawi has spoken of his desire to offer the same plan across Iraq if it works well in the vast Baghdad slum that has been the haven of many terrorists operating in the Sunni triangle.

Does Haeri's statement indicate a retreat by the Iranians as the Americans begin to agitate for action on the mullahcracy's nuclear program? The timing certainly indicates something is up, as the Iranians made an offer today to "prove" that they are not pursuing N-weapons technology if the West allows them to use nuclear power peacefully:

Iran is ready to prove to the world it is not producing atomic weapons provided the West recognizes the Islamic Republic's right to peaceful nuclear technology, President Mohammad Khatami said Wednesday. ...
Iranian officials say they are open to talks but will never give up uranium enrichment -- a process which can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors or material for atom bombs.
"If our rights are recognized and they admit that Iran can have peaceful nuclear technology we will present everything necessary to prove that Iran will not produce an atomic bomb. But we will not give up our rights," Khatami said.
Should Iran reject the EU trio's offer, most European states are expected to back Washington's demand that Iran be reported to the U.N. Security Council when the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) board of governors meet in late November.

Either the Iranians have become spooked by US insistence on some backbone in the nuclear-proliferation talks on behalf of the EU-3 or they have decided that Sadr wasn't going anywhere anyway, and cutting him loose publicly makes them look more reasonable. Either way, it represents some movement on behalf of the Iranians, who have gone out of their way to be belligerent during the weapons negotiations and in the aftermath of Saddam's fall. It's hard to imagine either of these developments occurring under an American administration that promises to fall all over itself to deliver nuclear fuel to the Iranians as a test of the goodwill of the same Islamist mullahcracy that openly sponsors Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

A Vote for Kerry Is a Vote for the Enemy

Behind Liberal Lines

October 19, 2004

Sara Townsley

In an interview published Oct. 10, John Kerry compared fighting terrorism to fighting prostitution and illegal gambling, calling it a "nuisance." In the same piece, Richard Holbrooke, Kerry's likely pick for Secretary of State, opined that "we're not in a war on terror, in the literal sense. The war on terror is like saying 'the war on poverty.' It's just a metaphor." Can't you see the headlines? "Truck Nuisance Explodes, Metaphorically Killing 28." Let's hope the nuisance doesn't form a coalition with the metaphor, or it might become an allegory.

Consider the nuclear nuisance. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is reported to have recently told his top advisors, "we must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims." With Russian help, construction of a nuclear reactor was just completed in Iran last week. Chances are extremely high that Iran will arm terrorists with nuclear weapons, or install them on nuclear-capable missiles. Kerry's solution? "Call their bluff" by giving the mullahs uranium, to see if they really wanted it only for peaceful purposes -- and sanction them if it turns out they wanted it for, uh, something else. Clinton armed North Korea in exactly this fashion, and Kerry thinks it's a good idea to try it again. Is he just recklessly naïve?

Among Kerry's top fund-raisers are three Iranian-American cheerleaders for the Islamic Republic of Iran. One is Hassan Nemazee, a shady figure who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Kerry and other Democrats. He has also been on the boards of at least two groups that lobby Congress on behalf of Tehran. In March, Nemazee filed a defamation lawsuit against the largest U.S. organization promoting democracy in Iran. The Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran has blasted Nemazee for "seeking to legitimize the tyrannical Islamic Republic regime," and criticized Kerry for his desire to broker an arrangement with the ayatollahs. Nemazee seeks $10 million in punitive damages for these "slurs," and just the cost of defending themselves could bankrupt and silence the group.

A friend of Nemazee's, Faraj Aalaei, has raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the Kerry campaign. Aalaei's wife, Susan Akbarpour, has also raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Kerry. Akbarpour recently launched a trade association, whose goal is to see that Iran suffers no consequences for sponsoring terrorism or brutalizing its own citizens. Thus, Kerry, an ideological shill for tyrannies in the past, is predictably on the take from apologists for the terror and oppression of the Iranian regime. For the record, Iranian money also goes to Hamas, Hizballah, and terrorist groups killing our soldiers in Iraq. That's right, the Boston Strangler wants to command the troops his policies and associates are helping to kill.

Then, there's Kerry's 2002 endorsement of the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB). They're building the largest mosque in the northeastern U.S., at a cost of $22 million. Just one little problem: Three ISB officials are terrorists. Abdurahman Alamoudi, a key terrorist financier, was just sentenced to 23 years in prison, for, among other things, transferring at least $330,000 to al-Qaida and Hamas. Also, the current ISB chairman, Osama Kandil, served with Alamoudi as a director of Al-Taibah International Aid Association, a conduit for terrorist financing. Another ISB director is Yusef Qaradawi, an Egyptian cleric who encourages Muslims to kill U.S. civilians in Iraq, and advocates the conquering of the U.S. and Europe. Literally, not metaphorically.

On Saturday, a Kerry campaign rally in Florida was hosted in coordination with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Its website looks benign enough, but CAIR officials have defended suicide bombers, funneled money to Hamas, and at least five of its leaders have been deported, indicted, or convicted on terrorism charges. The chief of the FBI's counterterrorism section has said that "CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups. CAIR is but one of a new generation of groups in the United States that hide under a veneer of 'civil rights' or 'academic' status, but in fact are tethered to a platform that supports terrorism." Apparently, Kerry's okay with that.

In addition, other security measures Kerry mentioned during the debates indicate that he is either ignorant or incompetent. First, he insinuated that Bush is doing nothing to secure Russian nuclear materials. But in the last year, the Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction Initiative has helped to repatriate 106 pounds of highly enriched Russian uranium from Romania, Bulgaria, Libya, and Uzbekistan. Furthermore, Kerry wants to halt the development of one of our own critical weapons systems: bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons. These can destroy underground facilities, and they produce no fallout, minimizing civilian casualties. His determination to shut down this program aids proliferation by hampering our ability to destroy illicit weapons facilities. Finally, there is the matter of "rebuilding alliances." At the end of September, NATO agreed to triple its support in Iraq, in particular to run a training center for Iraqi forces. But both the French and German governments have said they won't send troops to Iraq, regardless of who wins the election. So much for Plan A. And according to the campaign website, Plan B appears to be . . . pretty much what Bush is already doing. Except Bush often thanks our troops and our allies for their hard, nasty work.

The Flipper has been consistent about one thing. For almost 40 years, he has presumed the good intentions of our enemies while assuming the worst about our own, and acted on this in ways that badly undermine our security. Perhaps this is tolerable coming from private citizens, even during wartime. But it's unconscionable coming from public officials, and from the Commander-in-Chief, it's tantamount to national suicide.

Sara Townsley is a graduate student in BMCB. She can be contacted at set28@cornell.edu. Behind Liberal Lines apppears Tuesdays.

October 19, 2004

Those Subtle Mullahs - A Radio Preview

There's no question that Iran's Mullahs are much cleverer than the heavy-handed Yasir Arafat who endorsed John Kerry for President the other day, thus probably scaring away more votes in South Florida than Pat Buchanan. The mullahs know better. They feign indifference to the American election:

It makes no real difference to Iran whether US President George W. Bush or Democrat contender John Kerry wins the presidential elections, a senior Iranian official said Tuesday.

"It makes no difference for us which of the two parties wins the elections," Iran's top national security official Hassan Rowhani said in an interview on state television.

Oh, really? Well, we shall see. Meanwhile, on Thursday, the EU's big three will attempt to play "Let's Make a Deal" with the Ayatollahs. The Iranian response is, as usual, equivocal:

"We are not saying we are refusing Westerners offers to provide us with nuclear fuel, but we want also to produce our own nuclear fuel ... as well as buying what we lack from the West," Iranian Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO) chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh said on state television.

He also denounced the "politicizing" of the Iranian nuclear case, declaring that Iran did not have "any non-peaceful nuclear activities."

I guess I'm one of those nefarious "politicizers," since I will be appearing on the John Batchelor Show tomorrow at 7:30PM Eastern to discuss the situation in Iran along with DoctorZin (the Iran, not the wine, expert) and Dan Darling of Regnum Crucis. Maybe I should do some homework.

OOPS: It seems we will be taped at the above time and broadcast later that night. I will post the exact broadcast time when I learn it.

FYI

DoctorZin will be appearing on the John Batchelor Show on WABC, tonight at approximately 11:20PM EST.

John Batchelor creates riveting radio, global in reach, keeping listeners engaged and delivers insider information that no one else reports. John is an extremely intelligent reporter with tremendous resources.

I will be part of a panel discussion on Iran Blogs. It will include Roger L Simon and Dan Darling. They are some great guys and it should be fun. Check it out if you have time.

If you would like to listen in on the Internet:

Click Here

Or on the radio:

Click Here

Weinstein: ''Bush Will Make No U-turn''

October 20, 2004
Le Figaro
Kenneth R. Weinstein

By Kenneth R. Weinstein
French Daily "Le Figaro"
October 20, 2004

Translated from French text, by Ramin Parham (IIFD)

Kenneth R. Weinstein is vice president and chief operating officer of Hudson Institute. Weinstein has wide think tank experience and has written on an array of policy areas ranging from European and Middle Eastern politics to labor and education policy and the future of Japan. Weinstein has taught political science at Georgetown University. He graduated from the University of Chicago (B.A. in General Studies in the Humanities), the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris (M.Phil. in Soviet and Eastern European Studies), and Harvard University (Ph.D. in Political Science). Hudson [Institute] is one of the most prestigious think tanks of the East cost of the US. In this interview to the French daily Le Figaro, Weinstein analyzes the neoconservative strategic posture and examines the drift of new ideological fault lines in the US.

Excerpt:

Le Figaro – Regarding Iran, how do you analyze the US position, in contrast to that of France?

Weinstein – The Iranian situation becomes more and more worrisome. At multiple occasions, the fundamentalist regime has shown its real face by denying, to the IAEA and its inspectors, the existence of its uranium enrichment program. I have hard time believing that the European attempt, to create incentives measures in order to convince Tehran to abandon its project, will succeed. That said, it seems to me that a US military option is unlikely since Iranian nuclear installations are spread out over many sites. To turn Tehran away from its nuclear program, we need a strong threat of sanctions. We absolutely need to avoid that Iran’s disarmament program faces the same fate as Iraq’s “Oil for Food” program, which, at the end of the day, was eluded.

More than 60% of Iran’s population is under the age of 25. This modern youth, that uses internet and all other contemporary communication means, aspires at liberty. This youth is tired of the mullahs hold on power. One can not bring them regime change without a deep economic upheaval. This double change, however difficult, promises to prove easier to achieve than in North Korea!

Le Figaro – In case of a Bush re-election, would the American administration pursue the neoconservative program? Would it not be tempted to go back to a more classical conservatism?

Weinstein – President Bush has already chosen between these two diplomatic options... Bush will make no U-turn...

Le Figaro – A year and a half after the Iraq war, has the trans-Atlantic fracture started to heal?

Weinstein – As far as I am concerned, I have never had the feeling that a “trans-Atlantic fracture” ever existed in the first place. The United States, all along the Iraqi crisis, have maintained excellent relations with many European countries, in particular the Great Britain, Italy, and Poland. In fact, the US have embarked with them the majority of European nations and NATO members. Nevertheless, there are very tangible differences with France and Germany: on Iraq, to begin with, and with regard to French attitude towards international organizations.

Le Figaro – What do you mean?

Weinstein – That is, on the background of the Iraqi crisis, France could have tried to constitute, using international organizations, an opposition front against US analyses and positions. But, such an attitude was, in fact, counter-productive for Paris; emphasis will be put on the reconstruction of Iraq, and, in particular, on the need to give proper training to Iraqi battalions in order to allow them to fight alongside US marines, just as they have recently done in mosques and squares in Samara. In case of a Bush victory, we will indeed witness a major offensive in that country.

Le Figaro – Regarding Iran, how do you analyze the US position, in contrast to that of France?

Weinstein – The Iranian situation becomes more and more worrisome. At multiple occasions, the fundamentalist regime has shown its real face by denying, to the IAEA and its inspectors, the existence of its uranium enrichment program. I have hard time believing that the European attempt, to create incentives measures in order to convince Tehran to abandon its project, will succeed. That said, it seems to me that a US military option is unlikely since Iranian nuclear installations are spread out over many sites. To turn Tehran away from its nuclear program, we need a strong threat of sanctions. We absolutely need to avoid that Iran’s disarmament program faces the same fate as Iraq’s “Oil for Food” program, which, at the end of the day, was eluded.

More than 60% of Iran’s population is under the age of 25. This modern youth, that uses internet and all other contemporary communication means, aspires at liberty. This youth is tired of the mullahs hold on power. One can not bring them regime change without a deep economic upheaval. This double change, however difficult, promises to prove easier to achieve than in North Korea!

Le Figaro – In case of a Bush re-election, would the American administration pursue the neoconservative program? Would it not be tempted to go back to a more classical conservatism?

Weinstein – President Bush has already chosen between these two diplomatic options. Indeed, he has rejected the statu quo and the stability line by invoking the necessity to change, on the long run, the political culture of the Middle East, to push for the liberalization of existing regimes and promote governments more respectful of Human Rights. Bush will make no U-turn; he knows that this project will take decades, not months or years. I am convinced that he will not abandon the neoconservative “agenda”. With the likely retirement, after the elections, of Colin Powell and under-Secretary of State Richard Armitage, the administration will adopt the colors, more neoconservative than realist, of George W. Bush. Having said that, after the foreseeable departure of Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon will not be run by a neoconservative. The ultimate decisions will be those of Bush, if he is re-elected.

Le Figaro – According to American intellectuals supporting it, the left suffers from a weakened “software”. Is this also your feeling?

Weinstein – First of all, I would say that within the American right, in the Republican party, there is a lively debate between “neoconservatives”, “realists”, and “paleoconservatives”. Having said that, the outlines of this debate, centered on the role of the United States in the world, find themselves transposed within the American left. Within the democratic camp, it is worth noticing that, during the televised debates, John Edwards and even Kerry tried to position themselves on the right of the incumbent President, more than the President himself.

Le Figaro – What do you mean?

Weinstein – Really speaking, the democratic candidates are blaming the President for not having done all he could to protect the nation. Quite symptomatically, they are demanding today what Kerry, as a Senator, has consistently opposed over the past 20 years, i.e. an increased budgetary envelop for the military and the intelligence community. In case Bush is not re-elected, the ideological fault lines having moved to such an extent after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Kerry would find himself obligated to follow the path set by Bush on defense and security issues. Here too, the right turn would be George W. Bush's heritage for his successor.

Israeli link to Indo-Iran N talks

INDRANI BAGCHI

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2004 04:58:45 PM ]

NEW DELHI: Although India has assiduously avoided mention of Iran's nuclear ambitions, the two-day talks between national security adviser JN Dixit and Iran's top nuclear negotiator and Hassan Rouhani in Iran was not without nuclear content.

Rouhani tried to reassure India "on its efforts on peaceful uses of nuclear energy". Dixit's visit to Iran is interesting as it comes on the eve of Mr Rouhani's meeting with an EU team in Vienna to find a way out of Iran's present nuclear dilemma, and perhaps avoid UN sanctions.

Iran's leadership has declared that Iran was determined to press ahead with its atomic plans and would not give up its right to enrich uranium, but without pursuing nuclear weapons.

It's not something that the rest of the world believes and Iran is presently facing UN sanctions for its nuclear programme. India is uniquely placed because while it is on the right side of the nuclear debate, it is also one of the few countries to enjoy excellent relations with Iran.

The India-Iran relationship has attracted significant attention, particularly from the US. This has been heightened as India presses for more sensitive technology from the US. It is in this context that the US' recent penalties on two Indian scientists for "collaboration" with Iran has assumed interesting proportions.

India has been furious with the sanctions, particularly since one of the scientists did not even visit Iran. Analysts here tend to look at the move through the prism of deteriorating US-Iran relations and categorize it as a not-so-subtle message to India about its ties with Iran.

Although India has been remarkably nonchalant in its views about Iran's nuclear programme, it is only recently that the full import of its implications have dawned on Indian policymakers.
The fact that Iran is at daggers drawn with Saudi Arabia and Israel makes Iran's present nuclear stance that much more dangerous. Observers believe that Iran crossing the nuclear threshold will be followed by Saudi Arabia.

Besides, Israel could just as well do an Osirak and "take out" Iran's nuclear capability, a reality that Iran must have contended with.

It is probably this reality that the German foreign minister Joschka Fischer referred to when he urged Iran "to fulfill its commitments and to avoid miscalculation that will lead us into a very serious situation".

Iran's problems are compounded by the fact that the US believes it is aiding the Al Qaeda leader Al Zarqawi, currently the US' biggest bugbear.

The United States on Monday warned Iran against providing any type of support to Al-Qaeda-linked foreign militant Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi and his Tawhid wal Jihad group, saying it would be a "very, very serious matter."

"We have generally been very concerned about some of the reports of Iranian activity in Iraq," spokesman Richard Boucher said.

The forthcoming US elections too hold out no hope for Iran, because both the presidential hopefuls have been voluble about coming down strongly on Iran.

John Kerry has even accused Bush of going soft on Iran. Dixit, according to an MEA statement, met the Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani and foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi.

I hope it goes well.. my computer's sound has decided to go south. I think it has something to do witgh spyware etc. It is on when rebooting.. the nice little windows chime but shortly thereaftrer is gone.

so I cant pull up on of the links to listen. Hopefully someone will give a report.

I was wondering if you could take a look at post #6 and join me in prayer. This news really upset me today.

Blessings...

I forgot to ping you on the above post of mine. Duh!

Oh, my. Prayers for Reverend Pourmand .....

Thanks for the ping, Spook. I join with you.

Oh Spookie...thanks for pinging me. I'm with ya.

This thread is now closed.

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