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
Posted Thursday, October 21, 2004
E-mail this page 
Printer-friendly page
VIENNA, 21 Oct. (IPS) Iran’s crucial talk with the European Union’s so-called Big 3, namely Britain, France and Germany on the Trio’s latest “package” to Tehran ended Thursday with both sides agreeing to continue the dialogue on Iranian controversial nuclear programs.
"Both sides agreed to pursue the talks and hold meetings before
25 November", the official Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Mr. Sirous Naseri, a member of the Iranian delegation at the talks as having said, referring to the next meeting of the Board of Directors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Led by Mr. Amir Hoseyn Zamani-Nia, the General Director for International Affairs at Iran’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, diplomats from Iran met on Thursday counterparts from the “Big 3” in Vienna to review European Union’s latest offer to Tehran aimed at diffusing the Iranian nuclear deadlock.
Describing the talks, held at the French mission in Vienna behind
closed doors as “positive and constructive”, Mr. Naseri stressed that the meeting was conducted in a “friendly atmosphere, with no threats or intimidations from any side”.
“In the meeting that lasted for three hours, Iran presented its offer and also received the offer jointly suggested by the three European states”, he added, without disclosing any detail on the substance of the talks.
“The atmosphere of the dialogue was positive. We got the impression that the European side wanted to reach a mutual understanding with Iran and a peaceful solution to the misunderstandings”, Mr. Naseri said, adding, “we try to act in a way satisfactory to the two sides”.
As Mr. Zamani-Nia was receiving the Trio’s proposals, in Tehran, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the influential Chairman of the powerful Expediency Council said the problem "must be solved with dialogue and diplomatic channels".
Speaking to reporters, the former president said Iran’s position concerning its controversial nuclear activities is “known and unchangeable”, but added that one has to try to address the problem by diplomatic means.
“We shall not welcome challenge, but at the same time we shall not sacrifice the right of the nation, the people and the revolution”, he said, adding that “the difficulties could be solved if we carry out our diplomatic efforts in a more serious and deeper way”, a veiled criticism of Hojjatoleslam Hasan Rohani, Iran’s senior negotiator on the nuclear question.
Asked about the possible outcome from the Thursday meeting, Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani said final decisions would not be taken in Vienna, where IAEA is based.
“Our envoys would study the proposals and then they would come back to Tehran to report to the authorities for decision. The other side would do the same”, he pointed out.
[According to an IRNA dispatch, Mr. Rohani, who is also the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme Council for National Security cancelled sine die a scheduled visit to Rome, where he was expected to meet with the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and his Foreign Affairs Minister Franco Fratini.
Though there was no explanation for the cancellation, but some sources speculated that it might have been the result of criticism made earlier on the day by Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani on Iran’s conduct of the nuclear talks].
According to a document obtained by the French news agency AFP, the European Trio is ready to promise Iran nuclear technology, including supplying a light-water nuclear reactor, if Tehran takes steps to show it is not secretly trying to make atomic weapons.
"We would support the acquisition by Iran of a light water research reactor", said the seven-page document presented by Britain, France and Germany to the G8 group of industrialized nations last week in Washington ahead of to day's meeting of the so-called Euro-3 with Iran.
The goal of the meeting was to give Iran a last-chance to come clean and to agree to suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment before IAEA decides on November 25 in Vienna whether Iran is cooperating or not with the Agency, diplomats said.
Washington, which accuses the Islamic Republic of ambitions to build a nuclear arsenal by diverting the atomic technology for civilian use has not endorsed nor rejected the latest proposals that warns there was only "a short period of time left to secure a comprehensive and acceptable understanding from Iran".
President Mohammad Khatami repeated that Iran was "ready to assure the world that we are not pursuing nuclear weapons and I believe the only way is through talks and reaching an understanding".
He expressed surprise that Iran that has not yet mastered the nuclear technology is awakening concerns but not countries that have already the atomic bomb and nuclear arsenal?, a reference to Israel or Pakistan, two countries that have atomic bombs.
But Western diplomats and experts say the difference is that the structure of the Iranian theocratic system is such that contrary to all other nuclear powers, there is no a central command and if the regime is in possession of an atomic bomb, several centre of powers can reach the nuclear button.
Another big concern is that not only Iranian ruling ayatollahs have repeated that they want to annihilate Israel, but also nuclearisation of Iran would certainly trigger an atomic race in the volatile Middle East region, the add.
Iran has adopted an ambiguous attitude towards the suggestions, saying it can not depend on other nations for the fuel needed for its nuclear reactors.
"No country with a large-scale nuclear program can allow itself to depend on foreign suppliers of nuclear fuel”, Mr. Mohammad Hoseyn Moussavian, Iran’s second in command on nuclear issue told The Asia Times Online at the sideline of the last meeting of IAEA’s Board of Director last September.
In the interview, Mr. Moussavian, who is also the Secretary of the SCNS’s Foreign Policy Department had proposed that France and Germany, “and why not the United States” invest in Iran’s future nuclear powered electricity projects.
Iran says to satisfy its needs of electricity in the future estimated at 7.000 megawatts, it plans to build another six reactors en plus the one it has already under construction in the Persian Gulf port of Booshehr with the help of Russia.
“We must be able to produce some of our fuel in Iran itself but that does not mean we are turning down fuel offered by the European countries or even the United States", he said on Wednesday, adding that Iran will be obliged to buy some of its fuel from abroad “but the production in Iran of fuel is much more economical".
"We are insisting on our legitimate right to enrich uranium while the Europeans are saying they will provide us both with the fuel and the nuclear plants because, they say, we would be able to enrich uranium to build a bomb. This is totally unacceptable", Moussavian stated.
“Iran has yet to give us the confidence we need about its intentions," British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters in London with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. "We cannot go on indefinitely, but Iran could still give us that confidence by introducing an indefinite suspension of its enrichment and processing activities".
Fischer for his part urged Iran to continue working with France, Britain and Germany to resolve the issue. "We are very concerned about the developments and I think it is very important that there is not a miscalculation in Tehran", he said, urging Tehran to "stick to the agreement" they made.
But Mr. Qolamali Haddad Adel, the Speaker of the conservatives-controlled Majles reiterated on Wednesday 20 October 2004 that “if the European trio’s proposals falls short of what he also described as “Iran’s legitimate rights”, the parliament might not ratify the Tehran Agreements, including the Additional Protocol that allows international nuclear experts and inspectors full and unrestricted access to all Iranian nuclear sites and projects, except some military installations.
However, the Big 3 that signed an agreement in Tehran on October last year in which Iran pledged to suspend enriching uranium and signing the Additional protocol to the Non Proliferation Treaty have so far opposed American’s efforts to take Iran’s nuclear case from IAEA to the United Nations Security Council hoping for economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
"We intend to put to the Iranians an approach containing the immediate decisions we require from them on suspension and draft elements for a long-term agreement which we could start to negotiate as soon as the IAEA verifies that the suspension is in place", the EU3 paper said.
"The suspension will be indefinite, until we reach an acceptable long-term agreement," the three European nations said.
They said that if Iran failed to suspend all uranium enrichment activities, the Euro 3 would join the United States in calling for the Islamic Republic to be taken to the Security Council.
In its last resolution, the 35-members IAEA Board of Directors called on Iran to stop all enriching activities and suspend work on a heavy water reactor.
Iran’s Permanent Representative to the UN Mohammad-Javad Zarif and Iran’s Ambassador to the IAEA Pirouz Hoseyni were among the members of the Iranian delegation.
Meanwhile, Iran conducted a new test of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which it says has a range of 2,000 kilometres, adding to concerns over Iran’s nuclear projects, as the improved missile can take a one tonne charge to places as far as Israel and southern Europe.
ENDS IRAN NUCLEAR 211004
Fist-fight at Iran’s Majlis Thu. 21 Oct 2004
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=568
Iran Focus
Tehran, Oct. 21 – A fist-fight broke out yesterday between a current and a former member of Iran’s parliament (Majlis), ILNA news agency reported. Mayhem prevailed in the Majlis building as deputies, staff members and journalists crowded the corridor where the fighting was taking place.
Mohammad-Ali Moqanian, member of the current seventh Majlis had originally requested that Majlis security guards refuse entry to Mohammad Rezai. Eye-witnesses reported that once Moqanian saw Reza’i in the Majlis corridor, he yelled out and ran towards the former deputy, repeatedly striking him.
Deputies who know the two men said Moqanian despised Rezai’s constant protests that he had won the February 2004 election only through rigging. The two men intensely disliked each other, the deputies said.
Student union leader sentenced to flogging, prison time Wed. 20 Oct 2004
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=560
Iran Focus
Tehran, Oct. 20 - The secretary of the student union of Azad University in Iran’s Central province was sentenced to 40 lashes, one year in prison and fined one million rials in the town of Arak.
Soroush Farhadian was charged with ‘spreading false propaganda’ against the regime. His sentence has reportedly been suspended.
Farhadian had written about the extent of voter apathy during the election period of Iran’s seventh Majlis. He had also been very vocal of the regime’s press censorship.
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
On Monday, Oct. 18, 2004, Hassan Nemazee, an Iranian-American, one of John Kerry's top fund-raisers, was deposed in New York City. Under oath, Nemazee acknowledged that he has raised over $500,000 for the Kerry presidential campaign.
Iran had slipped into the first presidential debate virtually unnoticed. Near the end of the debate, John Kerry restated his position that the United States should supply Iran with nuclear fuel. 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.
Alarm bells should have been sounding for any listener who cared about international peace or the security of Israel. The Islamic government ruling Iran is by all rational analyses a rouge, terror-supporting, mullah-dominated regime with a history of suppressing freedom with a fierce hand of violence. This is the same Iranian regime that held our diplomats hostage for 444 days under President Carter.
These mad Mullahs have sworn death to Israel – a policy they have emphasized by openly funding the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas, known for sending suicide bombers into Israel. The 9-11 commission's report devotes pages 240-241 to a section describing the "assistance from Hezbollah and Iran to al-Qaida." Even today, Iran sends insurgents across the border into Iraq to cause instability and attack American troops.
Yet, Sen. Kerry boldly states he wants to give these international criminals free access to nuclear fuel, all under the presumption that they will keep their word and use the uranium for peaceful purpose only?
Under oath, even Mr. Nemazee, John Kerry's top Iranian fund-raiser, completely repudiated John Kerry's policy. Mr. Nemazee testified that Sen. Kerry had not asked his opinion, but if the senator had asked, Mr. Nemazee would have advised that the Iranian Islamic regime cannot be trusted but to have any intention other than to build nuclear weapons. Mr. Nemazee freely agreed that the current Iranian government is a terror-exporting regime, and he openly stated his wish for regime change.
What possibly could be going on here? Did Nemazee back the wrong candidate? Please, somebody give Mr. Nemazee a telephone. He needs to call the candidate before Sen. Kerry makes a horrible mistake and gives the mad mullahs nuclear fuel.
Or, was Nemazee not stating his true position under oath? Could we be experiencing a repeat of Bill Clinton's infamous Chinagate? Was Kerry willing to trade access to nuclear technology and nuclear fuel in return for generous campaign contributions? These are important questions. Maybe the truth was spoken by Nemazee's money, not the words he uttered at his deposition. Maybe Mr. Nemazee had achieved with Sen. Kerry's nuclear policy statement in the debate result he had intended.
One thing was for sure: The liberal, mainstream media were nowhere in sight. ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and the Washington Post wanted to be as far away as possible from the Nemazee deposition ... a story that might taint their predetermined candidate.
How did Mr. Nemazee's deposition come about? He started it by suing Iranian freedom-advocate, Aryo Pirouznia, the leader of the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran. Nemazee charged Mr. Pirouznia with defamation for stating that Mr. Nemazee was an agent of the Iranian Islamic republic. Mr. Pirouznia filed a countersuit, locking Nemazee into a deposition. A judge in Texas, where the suit was filed, set the deposition for a date before the November election, despite the objections of Nemazee's leader.
Make no mistake about it: Iran is a clear and present danger to the world. Iran's leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged his country to develop a nuclear weapon as a top priority, exhorting his followers that, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims."
Iran's former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, claims Iran has already developed a satellite-launching rocket with a range of 2,000 kilometers – more than enough to reach Israel. Right now, Iran's Russian-constructed nuclear power plant at Bushehr is completed, waiting only for the delivery of nuclear fuel to be operational. The nuclear fuel need to operate Bushehr would be about half the way there to being weapons grade.
The moment Iran has in its possession a nuclear weapon capable of being unleashed on Israel, the entire calculation in the Middle East changes. Israel will immediately fear for survival and millions of Christians all around the world will be rushing to their Bibles to reread the story of the apocalypse. A nuclear-armed Iran, sitting on an estimated 40 percent of the world's known oil reserves might well venture into petroleum blackmail, with the price of oil reaching $100 or even $200 a barrel.
Should John Kerry and the pro-Iran lobby in the United States have its way, and should we normalize diplomatic relations with Iran, instantly the terror-supporting regime could take advantage of relaxations in Patriot Act protections, using the diplomatic cover as an easy excuse to slip terrorists more readily across our borders.
We are now sounding the alarm bell. Before Americans vote for president, just a few days from now, we need answers. Why, Sen. Kerry, is your policy for Iran any more secure than the nearly identical policy the last Democratic president followed for Korea? If Mr. Nemazee wants to stand by his deposition, we now have a videotape of his testimony ready to play for the world.
We will keep you posted as to where the streaming video can be viewed and we stand ready to get Mr. Nemazee in touch with Sen. Kerry so he can explain to his candidate of choice the tragic mistake the senator is ready to make.
Months after John Kerry boasted of having received secret endorsements from anonymous foreign leaders around the world, many of the gaps have been filled in. The leaders of the world have weighed in on the 2004 presidential election . Let’s run down the list of nations supporting each candidate: North Korea: Although north Asia’s gulag archipelago has not formally endorsed a candidate, official Communist organs have shown a pronounced affinity for John Kerry. In March, the Financial Times noted, “John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic candidate, is also getting good play in Pyongyang.” North Korean radio has aired several of Kerry’s anti-Bush speeches, and the Korean Central News Agency has given the Democratic candidate “glowing” coverage. Kerry has publicly called for bilateral discussions with North Korea, such as those conducted by Jimmy Carter on behalf of the Clinton administration in 1994, although analysts agree these would be counterproductive. Iran: A June editorial in the Tehran Times stated, “Kerry is exactly what the U.S. needs right now.” It is undisputed that Kerry has promised to give Iran exactly what it needs right now: nuclear fuel. Kerry pledged to supply Iran with nuclear fuel, just as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did to North Korea as it revved up its nuclear program during the 1990s. Communist China: The state-controlled People’s Daily “news” website formally endorsed John Kerry in July. An unsigned editorial averred: Comparatively speaking, Kerry is noted for being friendly with China. He was once firmly against linking the most-favored-nation status to China with human rights. From a long-term view, a Democratic administration, which stresses international cooperation, pursues “multilateralism” and stands for a policy of contacts, will be better for both world peace and Sino-U.S. relations. The editorial also noted John Kerry opposes “containment of China.” Palestinian Authority: PA foreign minister Nabil Shaath has said in a Kerry presidency, “it would be likely that several staff members during Clinton's administration would return,” adding, “that would be a good thing.” Kerry has vowed to name Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter as Middle East envoy. The state-controlled Palestine Media Center bashed “Bush's refusal to deal with Arafat.” President Bush has said Yasser Arafat is not a worthy “partner” working for Mideast peace. Conversely, in his 1997 book The New War, John Kerry referred to Yasser Arafat as a “statesman.” Malaysia: In a letter dated last Friday, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad exhorted fellow Muslims to vote for John F. Kerry “in the name of Islam.” Mohamad said his co-religionists “have a duty to ensure that Bush will not be able to determine our fate for four more years…There is an obvious connection between the sufferings of the Muslims and the policies and thinking of Bush.” This is not Mohamad’s first foray into international controversy. As he prepared to step down from his 22-year-long reign as prime minister last year, he famously told the 10th Islamic Summit in Kuala Lumpur, “Jews rule the world by proxy.” (To counteract this, he has instructed Muslims to vote for John Kerry, the only ethnically Jewish candidate in the presidential race.) Socialist Spain: As early as March, Spain’s appeasenik prime minister and Socialist Party member Jose Luis Zapatero said, “I want Kerry to win.” Zapatero told the International Herald Tribune Spain’s Socialists – the party of unilateral surrender elected as the Madrid train bombing on March 11 – were “aligning ourselves with Kerry” to build an “alliance” for “peace, against war. Zapatero, who said he favors “a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration,” vowed the Kerry-Socialist axis would assure there will be “no more deaths for oil.” France: According to all reports, John Kerry is wildly popular in the land of Gaul. A recent Le Monde poll found the Francs backing John Kerry over President Bush by more than three-to-one (72 percent to 19 percent). The Financial Times quotes an unnamed “French government official” pining for the return of the Democrats to Washington and the Ba’athists to Baghdad, saying, “A lot depends on who is in power in both Washington and Baghdad. If there's change in both countries then it's possible we would re-examine our position.” (Emphasis added.) The chairman of Democrats Abroad gave the “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech of the 2004 campaign, gushing Kerry “is the closest thing that you will have to a French politician.” Germany: The Financial Times quotes Gert Weisskirchen, the foreign policy expert for Germany’s ruling Social Democratic Party, as analyzing the presidential race thus: I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president. That said, Mr. Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and as president he would find it easier than Mr. Bush to secure the German government's backing in other matters. Vietnam: An unnamed “Vietnamese diplomat” told the international press, “I think Vietnam would support Kerry because he has travelled many times to Vietnam and he understands better the situation here than Bush, who is a war-mongering president.” Why not? Kerry has 30 years experience negotiating with Vietnamese Communists and is immortalized in Ho Chi Minh City’s War Remnants Museum. Others: International polls indicate the vast majority of Pakistanis, Jordanians, and Moroccans disapprove of President Bush and may be assumed to support Sen. Kerry by default. Meanwhile, those engaged in the War on Terrorism have supported President George W. Bush. Russia: On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Russia’s RIA news agency Iraqi terrorism “aims at causing maximum damage to President Bush and to forestall his second term re-election.” He warned, “If they succeed, they would celebrate a victory against America and the anti-terror coalition, and this could lead to more acts of international terrorism.” Although Putin pledged to “respect any choice of the American people,” his comments were seen as a muted endorsement of President Bush. It seems, since mourning the tragedy of Beslan, he has discovered the wisdom of pre-emption. Israel: Although Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority favors John Kerry, the Israelis favor George W. Bush. Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major-General Aharon Ze’evi told the Israeli Cabinet he feared, “Arafat is now waiting for the month of November in the hope that President Bush will be defeated in the presidential election and turned out of his office.” Israeli citizens seem to agree. In a poll taken by the newspaper Haaretz, Israelis preferred Bush over Kerry by two-to-one. (In all, one may expect an improvement in domestic Jewish support for the president, but many American Jews remain steadfastly loyal to the Democratic Party.) Japan: Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi divulged his support for the president last week. “I don't want to interfere in another country's election,” he said, “but I am close to President Bush so I want him to do well.” The Secretary-General of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party, Tsutomu Takebe, told the media, “I think there would be trouble if it's not President Bush.” Takebe said Kerry’s plan for bilateral U.S.-North Korean negotiations “would be exactly what North Korea wants.” The Philippines: Filipinos also support President Bush. “Filipinos...have a frontline appreciation of the threat posed by international terrorism,” according to political science professor Alex Magno, an adviser to President Gloria Arroyo. Over the past two decades, hundreds of Filipinos – and some Americans – have died at the hands of such al-Qaeda affiliates as Abu Sayyaf and Jamaaat Islamiya. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Magno states, “If Filipinos were voting for the American president, George W. Bush would have this election in the bag.” South Korea: South Koreans, who have been tending toward anti-Americanism for years, remain split on the election. However, polls show the most anti-Communist segments of South Korea favor President Bush. Finally, two non-state actors have made their preferences known: al-Jazeera Television and the Communist Party USA. Osama bin Laden’s chosen media outlet, al-Jazeera – which regularly refers to suicide bombers as “martyrs” and may have direct ties to terrorism – now hopes to refer to John Kerry as “Mr. President.” The pro-terror Mideastern network referred to John Kerry as “a popular mainstream Democrat with liberal tendencies” and noted the junior senator from Massachusetts “has suggested Bush's handling of [Iraq] is ‘f****ed up.’” Although the National Journal named Kerry the Senate’s most liberal member, al-Jazeera claimed “Kerry is well placed politically between his party's radical left and arch conservatives.” (“Arch-conservative” Democrats?) After all, the Democratic Party gave al-Jazeera a skybox at its national convention this summer. The Communist Party USA is not foreign, although it illegally received Soviet money for decades. It, too, has cast its lot with John Kerry. The CPUSA lists as election priority number one that Communists do their “utmost to help defeat Bush.” The communist website dedicates an entire page of internal articles to anti-Bush propaganda. Echoing John Kerry (or is it the other way around?), the Communist Party USA decries the “well-financed campaign to weaken and destroy the impact of the African American vote.” Similarly, on September 11th of this year, Kerry told the Congressional Black Caucus, “We are not going to stand by and allow another million African American votes to go uncounted in this election.” The rhetorical similarities no doubt account for the CPUSA’s silent endorsement. In all, it appears those nations most opposed to the War on Terrorism – including the remaining two members of the Axis of Evil – endorse the foreign policies of the Left, which they see embodied in the person of John Kerry. On the other hand, those nations historically friendly to the United States back President George W. Bush. It is significant that those nations under the greatest terrorist threat – Russia, the Philippines, Israel and (if one counts nuclear threats from North Korea) Japan – all favor the aggressive policy of taking the war to the terrorists pursued by the Bush administration. If we do not wish to share their peril, we would do well to heed their advice to reject the discredited, defeatist foreign policies of the Left. “You shall judge of a man by his foes as well as by his friends.” – Joseph Conrad in the novel Lord Jim.
John Kerry
George W. Bush
Two More Important Endorsements
Iran maintains that its nuclear programme, a symbol of modernity and national pride, is for power generation and not for military purposes. It insists too that it is open to talks, but will never give up uranium enrichment - a process which can be used to produce fuel for nuclear reactors or material for atomic bombs. This is a murky area - though the US and Britain must be aware that their record on intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will not inspire confidence that they are well informed about Iran. The studiously neutral IAEA has uncovered previously hidden activities that could well be related to a clandestine Iranian weapons programme. Crucially, though, it has found no "smoking gun".
President George Bush famously included Iran in his "axis of evil" in the state of the union address in 2002, citing its support for the Lebanese Hizbullah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad groups, as well as its nuclear ambitions and a fundamentalist regime which began life by overthrowing the Shah and humiliating America back in 1979. But the view from Tehran looks fairly ominous these days: two of Iran's neighbours - Russia and Pakistan - are nuclear powers. Israel has a formidable if undeclared nuclear arsenal and has hinted heavily that it might launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, as it did against Saddam Hussein's French-built reactor in 1981. American forces are next door in Iraq and Afghanistan - hardly a recipe for studied calm among the hawks around President Ali Khamenei. You do not need a Farsi edition of Clausewitz to work out that a nuclear weapon might be a useful protection against efforts at regime change in Tehran - a thought surely reflected in Wednesday's launch of a new long-range ballistic missile.
Looking back a year or so ago, Iran looked like the case that could prove that European policies of engagement and persuasion would succeed where American sabre-rattling failed. The EU's strategic doctrine placed heavy emphasis on "effective multilateralism" (without referring to Mr Bush's disastrous unilateralism). The mission was important enough to unite London, Paris and Berlin, divided over Iraq, to try their luck with Iran. But barring some last minute surprise from Tehran, they seem to have failed. Understandably enough, the world is deeply preoccupied with Iraq, but the crisis brewing next door could be extremely serious. Nothing much will happen this side of November 2, though after that - especially with a re-elected President Bush - all bets will be off. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty has already been rocked by India and Pakistan acquiring nuclear weapons. Another breach could kill it off. That means that keeping the Iranian genie inside its bottle is a matter of global importance.
Iran test launches enhanced missile
Iran has completed the first launch of its enhanced Shihab-3 intermediate-range missile.
The Islamic republic termed the Shihab-3 launch a success. Officials said the test took place on Wednesday and was a followup to an August missile exercise, Middle East Newsline reported.
"A few minutes ago, Iran test-fired a more accurate version of the Shihab-3 in the presence of observers," Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said on Wednesday.
Shamkhani, speaking to reporters after a Cabinet meeting, said the test was within the framework of the "Defensive Shield Exercise." He would not disclose the range of the missile.
"We tested the range, the destructive capacity, the guidance system and its capability to strike a defined target," Shamkhani was quoted by the Iranian Student News Agency as saying. "We invited all those who had doubts, but there were no foreign observers. Some people had expressed doubts over the success of our test so we carried out a new test."
On Aug. 11, Iran held a command and control exercise for the enhanced Shihab-3, based on North Korea's No-Dong. Western intelligence sources said the exercise tested the speed with which the Shihab could be prepared for launch.
But the sources said the Shihab-3 test did not include full flight. They said this sparked a debate within the U.S. intelligence community over the success of the Iranian missile exercise.
Last month, Shamkhani said Iran introduced a "strategic missile" to its military arsenal after a successful test. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps was said to have obtained its first Shihab-3 in July 2003.
In early October, Iran said its enhanced Shihab-3 missile provided Teheran with the capability to launch a missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers. Officials have already deemed the Shihab-3 as capable of reaching a range of 1,700 kilometers.
Western intelligence sources said Iran has also completed the development of a warhead for the Shihab-3 that could carry a nuclear payload. The sources said the warhead resembled the design of 1960s-era intercontinental ballistic missiles.
WASHINGTON - The United States pressed Iran to respond to demands that it comply with the UN nuclear watchdog after three European nations made a last-chance proposal to entice Tehran into compliance.
|
Washington, which has frowned on the incentives offered by Britain, France and Germany, would not comment on the European offer or whether Iran would accept it and said it was interested only in whether Tehran would meet its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
"The important thing about the meeting is what the Iranians say now ... as to whether or not, yes or no, they are going to comply with the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency board of directors," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.
"That's what we'll be looking for," he told reporters. "I don't know if it'll come today. I don't know if will come tomorrow. Unfortunately, history would lead us to think that the answer's going to be no."
His comments followed a meeting in Vienna on Thursday between officials from Britain, France and Germany -- the so-called "EU3" -- and Iran at which the Europeans offered valuable nuclear technology if Tehran indefinitely suspends all uranium enrichment activities and proves it is not secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons.
The EU3 package -- which also includes the provision of a light-water reactor if Iran complies with the request -- threatens possible UN sanctions if Iran does not comply.
An Iranian official said after the meeting that Tehran would study the European proposal and respond in the coming days.
But on Wednesday, Iran vowed not to give up on producing enriched uranium, the process used to make fuel for civilian atomic energy reactors but also the explosive core of nuclear weapons.
The United States wants the IAEA, which since February 2003 has been investigating Iran on US claims that the Islamic Republic has a covert nuclear weapons program, to send Iran before the UN Security Council, which could impose sanctions.
Washington has said it will push the IAEA governing board to refer the matter to the Security Council at its next meeting on November 25 if Iran has not agreed to the agency's demands.
Boucher reiterated that stance on Thursday, saying that it was up to Iran to provide the right answer if it wants to avoid such a referral.
"If it's not a yes, and it's not a yes by November, then clearly we'll be facing a situation in the board where everybody knows that Iran has failed to comply and (they) should be referred further to the UN Security Council," he said.
"That's the question. The question is on the Iranian side."
EDITORIALIran's Nuclear ThreatPublished: October 22, 2004
According to a stark assessment by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, based in London, Iran and North Korea, the other nuclear rebel, have been emboldened in their ambitions by the sorry plight of the United States and its coalition partners in Iraq. The perception is that the major powers no longer have the stomach, or the unity, to seriously threaten sanctions or military action. Nonetheless, the three main European powers - Britain, Germany and France - are trying one more time to reach a diplomatic agreement with Iran, and the United States is wisely keeping out of the way. The issue is sufficiently fateful to warrant another round of diplomacy. But if this effort fails, it will be time to try a more punitive approach. At a meeting in Vienna, the Europeans told the Iranians that if they abandoned uranium enrichment, the Europeans would supply them with fuel for nuclear power reactors and trade. If the Iranians say no, the Europeans are likely to join the United States in seeking tough U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran. The Iranians did not respond immediately - with less than two weeks until the United States' elections, nobody expected them to. What is critical is for the winner of the presidential race, and for the three European nations, to make it urgently and abundantly clear to Iran's president, Mohammad Khatami, and his mullahs that the West will brook no further delays, and that it is serious and united about imposing stern sanctions if Iran won't abandon its nuclear fuel enrichment efforts. Iran has already broken one deal with the Europeans, and it has drawn sharp criticism from the International Atomic Energy Agency. If the ruling mullahs continue to sense indecision and disunity in the West, they will surely continue with their program. The result would be a disaster. Joschka Fischer, Germany's foreign minister and a strong proponent of diplomacy, warned earlier this week that a nuclear Iran could set off a Middle Eastern arms race. And North Korea would see no reason to abandon its weapons. A strong signal that the Europeans are ready to get tough is also vital for another reason. After the mess caused by going it alone in Iraq, Washington may now be more willing to return to multilateral methods of combating nuclear proliferation, but only if it is convinced that the Europeans are capable of waving a stick as well as a carrot. |
| 10/17/2004 | Clip No. 293 |
 |
|
Iranian TV Compares President Bush to "Mr. Hitler" |
|
|
|
|
The following are excerpts from the Iranian TV series "The New Fascism": In his book Mein Kampf, Mr. Hitler explicitly referred to this, and when Goebbels wrote the Nazi party's platform, Hitler said to him: "Whenever you make a decision, the people will not be involved. Either the people is [sic.] with you or against you." This is exactly what Mr. Bush is saying today, following the events of 9/11. Today we are witnessing a new fascism, which is rooted in the old fascism. These are Mr. Hitler's words. Stalin, too, said to Trotsky, his last foreign minister: "If Russian society opposes you, it means its annihilation." This is also what Genghis Khan wrote to his eldest son, Jochi, in his will. The message in all this is: Stay away from reason and logic, the public is not involved in your decisions or your government's decisions, and anything you decide– the public will either be with you or against you. |
|
Friday 22nd October 2004
Sr. Deirdre Mullan, from Derry who is Director of Mercy Global Concern, representing the Sisters of Mercy at the United Nations, has appealed to the people of the North West to make their voices heard in the growing campaign to try to save the life of a 13 years old Iranian girl who faces death by stoning.
Sr. Deirdre explained: "The fundamentalist regime of Iran is planning to stone a 13-year-old girl, Jila, in the city of Marivan in coming days. Jila was raped and impregnated by her brother and Iran's clerical judge has sentenced her to death by stoning. According to the Iranian regime's penal code, stoning is the punishment for those who commit adultery. Jila did not commit adultery; rather she is a victim of rape.
"The stoning in Iran is carried out as the condemned are wrapped head to foot in white shrouds and buried up to their waists. The misogynous regime of Tehran even details the difference between the stoning of men vs. women. The female condemned are buried up to their neck to prevent their escape. Furthermore, the stones are specifically chosen so they are large enough to cause pain, but not so large as to kill the condemned immediately. They are guaranteed a slow, torturous death. Sometimes their children are forced to watch. No other government in the world practices stoning like the Iranian regime."
Women's Forum Against Fundamentalism in Iran (WFAFI) is calling upon the international community and human rights organization to fight for Jila's life and stop Tehran's regime from stoning her. Iran's constitution does not offer women and young girls any protection or due process in the court. There are no legal avenues open to Jila to appeal the judge's decision. For this reason, WFAFI urgently calls upon Mrs. Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner, to intervene on Jila's behalf and save her.
WFAFI also calls upon UNICEF to dispatch a fact-finding mission on this case and save Jila. Gender violence in Iran is sharply rising and increasingly claiming younger lives everyday.
ne of the most serious questions raised by the debacle in Iraq is whether it has crippled the ability of the world's leading powers to contain dangerous states. Iran's nuclear program is a prime case in point: so far, neither threats nor inducements have persuaded its leaders to suspend their uranium enrichment program.