Iranian Alert -- DAY 14 -- LIVE THREAD PING LIST

Live Thread Ping List | 6.23.2003 | DoctorZin

[DoctorZIn]

We continue to receive so many excellent stories about the protests in Iran that we are maintaining this live thread.

Please continue to post all news stories in this thread and ping your lists to this thread so we can increase the overall awareness of what exactly is going on.

BTW, if you post breaking news, please make a reference to this Iranian Alert -- DAY 14 -- LIVE THREAD PING LIST. This way we can get new readers while still keeping a single location of all important news stories on Iran.

Thanks for all the help.

[DoctorZIn]

Iran: Back the Freedom Fighters
By Michael Ledeen
Monday, June 23, 2003;

Win or lose, democratic revolution has broken out in Iran. Even the fragmentary reports from journalists operating under tight regime control in very limited areas of the country show that the mass demonstrations now involve all classes and regions. This is no longer purely or even primarily a "student" movement, as it has been for the past four years -- although many of its leaders come from student ranks. People of all ages, from all walks of life, in every major city in the country, have taken to the streets every night for more than a week to demand an end to the Islamic Republic and the free election of a secular, democratic government.

For several years, many people have held out hope that the mullahs would be willing to have their absolute powers limited by a process of gradual, evolutionary reform, the symbol of which was the popularly elected president, Mohammad Khatami. But Khatami failed, and has become the Kerensky of the Iranian revolution. His day has passed, and the battle now is between the doubly old regime (both in tenure in office and geriatric status) and the people. The people no longer clamor for reform. They want freedom, now.

I believe we are at the beginning of the end of the mullahcracy that has oppressed and robbed the Iranian people and supported violent terrorists, from Hezbollah to Islamic Jihad, from Hamas to al Qaeda, all over the world. The demonstrators know that if they stop their struggle, they will be killed or tortured for years. The leaders of the regime fear a similar fate -- although I suspect the Iranian people would be delighted simply to be rid of them, without demanding the sort of punishment they deserve -- and are unlikely to go quietly.

Support for democratic revolution comes naturally to Americans, and we all thrill at the spectacle of brave people challenging corrupt tyrants in the name of freedom. Yet a surprising number of commentators and policymakers are fighting against the prospect of open American support for the Iranian revolutionaries. Their most recent argument is that open approval and, worse still, modest material support from the United States would somehow tarnish the purity of the Iranian uprising and even prove counterproductive.

This sort of argument is not new; we have heard it whenever we have had a president brave enough to speak the truth to tyranny. We were told that it would be counterproductive to denounce the gulag system and support the Soviet dissidents, that the Jackson-Vanik law (linking trade with the Soviet Union to freedom to emigrate for Soviet Jews) would be counterproductive, and that we must at all costs refrain from calling for greater human rights in the People's Republic of China. Yet every time another tyrant falls, his surviving victims invariably tell us that our words of support gave hope and strength to the freedom fighters and weakened the resolve of their oppressors. Bukovsky, Sharansky, Ginsburg, Walesa and Havel know the power of American support, as do Gorbachev, Jaruzelski, Milosevic and Marcos.

Crafty silence is simply another way to appease tyranny, and a tactical retreat in our life-and-death war against the terror masters. Those who are fighting against support for the Iranian revolutionaries have it exactly backward. The silence they advocate would be a demoralizing blow to the Iranian people, and to our democratic soul. President Bush has advanced our interests and our honor by condemning the wicked regime in Tehran and hailing the courage and sacrifice of the Iranian freedom fighters. His critics in and outside the government should be ashamed of their cowardice and betrayal of our best instincts and traditions.

Finally, there is the broader strategic imperative: We are now engaged in a regional struggle in the Middle East, and the Iranian tyrants are the keystone of the terror network. Far more than the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the defeat of the mullahcracy and the triumph of freedom in Tehran would be a truly historic event and an enormous blow to the terrorists.

Morally and strategically, the Iranian people deserve our support. Instead of looking for excuses to appease the terror masters, we should now devote our considerable energies and imagination to hastening the success of the Iranian revolution.

The writer is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "The War Against the Terror Masters."

http://www.iran-daneshjoo.org/cgi-bin/smccdinews/viewnews.cgi?category=5&id=1056352434

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

[DoctorZIn]

For those interested in checking out all 14 days worth of the Iranian Alert Threads, go to:

http://www.freerepublic.com/~doctorzin/

[DoctorZIn]

USA: Andrew Sullivan: Words, not weapons, will fell the tyrants of Tehran

Times of London 6/22/2003

It’s perhaps only natural that the subject of Iran would be so contentious in American politics. It destroyed one presidency — Jimmy Carter’s — and it rubbed the gloss off another — Ronald Reagan’s. Since the collapse of the Shah in 1979, the country has exerted a pull on American fears and hopes in the Middle East unlike most others.
In the war against Islamist terrorism, Iran is also the biggest deal there is. Bigger than Iraq, it is far closer to a nuclear capability than Saddam was in recent years. Bigger even than Saudi Arabia, because its government is so viscerally hostile to the West. As the first country to have completely succumbed to the new and lethal ideology of Islamo-fascism, it’s also the pre-eminent symbol of the status quo America needs and wants to change after September 11.

Were the mullahs who now act as de facto dictators to fall, the psychological, political and criminal impact would be unprecedented.

It would galvanise the transition to democracy in Iraq. It would cut off critical funds to terrorist groups like Hezbollah. And Tehran’s wide and deep contacts with Islamist terrorists more generally would be ruptured.

And yet Washington worries. And fidgets. And procrastinates. Several top-level White House meetings on the future of policy towards Iran have been put off.

No policy shift towards explicitly favouring regime change in Tehran has been announced. The White House seems in some kind of suspended animation on the matter. Having denounced Iran as part of an “axis of evil”, the Bushies seem reluctant to follow through. Part of this is simple caution in the face of a complicated and volatile situation, as opposition protests break out all over Iran but reliable news and credible intelligence are hard to get. Part of it is endemic State Department wariness about diplomatic conflict.

But part too is a result of the conclusion of a certain internal debate. For a while in the late 1990s and early 21st century, foreign policy analysts believed that “moderate” reformers could actually liberalise Iran from within, in a long, fitful process of democratisation. Very few analysts now buy that notion — even those in the Blair government who once held out hope for some kind of outreach to moderates. And you can see why the new consensus emerged: the past few years have seen no real emergence of a genuinely powerful or independent moderate bloc. However well reformers have done in elections, they wield no effective power — especially over the military and intelligence sectors.

So what to do? Rumsfeldians argue that military force cannot be ruled out in terms of Iran’s potential nuclear capability. An Osirak-like raid (when the Israelis destroyed a nuclear power plant outside Baghdad in 1981) on an Iranian nuclear power plant has therefore not been ruled out. And Bush’s statement this week that he and other western leaders will simply not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran was a clear statement of his willingness to use all means possible to avoid this.

Again, the logic is impeccable. If you have just waged a war in part to ensure that one hostile dictatorship in the Middle East cannot achieve capacity for weapons of mass destruction (WMD), how can you sit around and watch a more urgent threat take form? But any use of force against Iran would be entirely targeted on WMD capability — and only as a very last resort. It is not American policy to promote actual regime change in Iran through military force. As a paid-up member of the “neo-con” cabal in Washington (we meet in secret every month to plot the American takeover of the entire world) I can assure you that nobody is interested in an invasion.

And nobody wants to add to the military and logistical strain of rescuing the broken country of Iraq next door. So the question essentially comes down to how to achieve regime change without armed invasion.

For the first time in a long while, that now seems possible. The inspiring stories from Iran of students and opposition groups braving hired Afghan thugs to demand freedom and democracy have finally woken up Americans to the possibility of a win-win.

“When the time is right we will all join,” a female student told the BBC last week. “I can smell it in the air. This time is different. I despise Islam and the mullahs even though I am officially a Muslim now. I don’t have the right to change my religion in Iran. I despise the regime and so do 90% of Iranians.

“All the people who elected Khatami (the democratically elected but powerless leader of the so-called reformers) despise the regime and they thought he’d bring change. We fight for a referendum conducted by the United Nations. The masses support the students and are waiting for the right time to make the final impact.”

Of course, these protests have been going on for years; and some of them have been unabashedly pro-American. But the impact of nascent democracy next door in Iraq and the continued failure of the mullahs to provide anything approximating accountable government seem to have pushed the opposition to new heights. The fact that the Islamist dictators have had to rely on imported vigilantes to maintain order suggests how fragile their regime might now be.

Some sophisticates argue that America should simply sit back and say nothing; if the opposition is identified as American proxies, US intervention could play into the hands of the mullahs. The trouble with this is that the American government has to say something; and many of the students are looking for American support. President Bush’s careful phrases — describing the protests as “the beginnings of people expressing themselves toward a free Iran” and urging the mullahs to treat the dissidents with respect — struck a balance between moral support and avoidance of a direct call to rise up, when such a rising might be prematurely put down.

But the clarity of an American president’s support for basic democratic rights is still a critical component for democracy in Iran. Every dissident movement has told us in retrospect that they were grateful for rhetorical support from the West during the dark periods of repression. That is true for those who struggled against tyranny in South Africa and eastern Europe. Besides, if inflammatory rhetoric from Washington always undermined those it wants to support, the Iranian student movement would be dead by now. Bush’s much-derided description of Tehran as part of an axis of evil didn’t kill off protest. It helped sustain it.

Perhaps the most effective weapon the West can now wield is grass-roots. The impact of Iranian-exile satellite television on the current situation has been profound. By broadcasting the brutality of the clampdown, these new stations helped force the government into something of a climbdown last week. The internet has been a critical tool as well. Denied real access to the media, many Iranians, especially students, are online. Websites connect them to the outside world, to exiles and to one another. The blogosphere is exploding in Iran, helping spread information and providing a virtual model for free speech that the mullahs will never be able to excise.

If western governments can help finance some of this, support it and encourage it, the consequences could be enormous.

[Smile-n-Win]

As a paid-up member of the “neo-con” cabal in Washington (we meet in secret every month to plot the American takeover of the entire world)

Sssssssh, Andrew, they're not supposed to know!

[livius]

Good article by Andrew Sullivan. I agree that it's a delicate situation, but I hope that Bush can motivate the State Dept. to be really supportive of the Iranian resistance this time around.

We blew it earlier on the removal of a Latin American dictator (Chavez) by simply not giving strong enough support when the people had already actually succeeded in removing him. The result was that he got back into power, partially, I think, because the Venezuelans didn't get the support they needed from us and nobody seemed to have any plan for what to do after they got rid of their dictator.

The Iranians need to have a plan, and so do we. What happens when the mullahs go? Certainly, we don't want an even worse situation (such as MOK, I think its name is - that radical Marxist/Islamic movement whose supporters are setting fire to themselves in France).

So I hope Bush is prepared not only to give verbal support now, but to encourage putting into place some viable option after the mullahs fall.

[Smile-n-Win]

“When the time is right we will all join,” a female student told the BBC last week. “I can smell it in the air. This time is different. I despise Islam and the mullahs even though I am officially a Muslim now. I don’t have the right to change my religion in Iran.

That's a great thing to hear from Iranians. A very profound re-make of that region is indeed under way, and I think I will like the outcome!

“... We fight for a referendum conducted by the United Nations. ...”

Don't.

Some sophisticates argue that America should simply sit back and say nothing; if the opposition is identified as American proxies, US intervention could play into the hands of the mullahs.

Behind that rhetoric is the telltale presumption that most of the world is so anti-American that they would rather support an excessively tyrannical regime than side with freedom-fighters who happen to be good friends with those "imperialist cowboys." What sort of a light does this cast on "most of the world" ? Why should we worry so much about "most of the world" if they are like this?

[Smile-n-Win]

I hope that Bush can motivate the State Dept. to be really supportive of the Iranian resistance this time around.

The State Department is a lost cause. We need a regime change there as much as we need it in Iran.

[glock rocks]

Unraveling of Iran's mullahs - Mark Steyn

[firewalk]

Thanks for the ping

[Eurotwit]

Ah come on now. Powell isn't all that bad. I think it is important to remember that Powell and the state department is ultimately President Bush's responibility. In the final iteration, Bush is responsible. The President doesn't seem to be the kind of person that would let the State department push him around and undermine what is ultimately his foreign policy.

"US has obligation to encourage Iranian protests — Powell

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (L) reads a statement at a press conference with, from L to R, US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, to detail the outcomes of a `Quartet' meeting held on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum extraordinary annual meeting, on Sunday, on the shores of the Dead Sea. The international Middle East peace Quartet, which drafted the `roadmap' for Middle East peace, met on site to plan the next steps for the implementation of the blueprint which foresees a Palestinian state by 2005 ( AFP PHOTO)

SHUNEH (AFP) — The United States has a duty to encourage Iranian protests against the country's regime but is not looking for a fight with the Islamic republic, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday.

Powell, speaking to a special meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) at the Dead Sea resort, said recent anti-government demonstrations in Iran showed that Washington was “on the right track” with its efforts to promote democracy and reform in the Middle East.

“We know we are on the right track because we know the people of this region are calling for change, for opportunity, for education, for more than false promises and intolerant ideology and violence,” he said.

“Look at what is happening in Iran,” Powell said. “Students and intellectuals are out in the streets calling for change in a land that has known only shahs and ayatollahs.

“They are demanding to be part of this new Middle East,” he said, referring to the reconstruction of post war Iraq, renewed Arab-Israeli peace efforts and free market and trade reforms among various countries in the region.

Powell, who on Monday, angered Tehran by saying that the United States was “encouraging” but not “fomenting” the Iran protests, repeated the rationale behind the US position.

“We are seeing young people speak out and march and demonstrate because they are not satisfied with the leadership they're receiving either from the political leadership or the leadership coming down from the religious leaders of the country,” he said.

“We encourage the demonstrations not as a way of fomenting trouble but to say people should be free to speak out, people should be free to express their desires, to express their hopes, express their concerns,” Powell said.

“That's what the Iranian people are now doing and we encourage that and that's our policy,” he said.

He also reiterated US complaints about Iranian support for groups deemed terrorist by Washington, as well as its alleged nuclear weapons programme and attempts to influence events in southern Iraq.

“We are watching what's happening within the country, encouraging what's taking place within the population,” Powell said. “We have to provide encouragement and support to those who are seeking the right to speak out.”

Despite that, Powell stressed that the United States did not intend to invade or otherwise enter into conflict with Iran, which is a charter member of President George W. Bush's “axis of evil.”

“For some to go beyond that and say the United States is getting ready for something aggressive or looking for another place to have a conflict is absolutely wrong,” he said.

“We are being very careful in our words and our actions.”

A small Iranian student demonstration over government education policy on June 10 spiralled into nearly 10 days of unrest, marked by virulent anti-regime protests and clashes between protestors and security forces or vigilantes.

Scores of people were seriously injured and hundreds arrested during the unrest, blamed by clerical leaders on the United States.

Monday, June 23, 2003"

[Smile-n-Win]

Ah come on now. Powell isn't all that bad. I think it is important to remember that Powell and the state department is ultimately President Bush's responibility. In the final iteration, Bush is responsible. The President doesn't seem to be the kind of person that would let the State department push him around and undermine what is ultimately his foreign policy.

I agree with every word you wrote. I wasn't referring to Powell, but the Bubba-era holdovers that (AFAIK) are still there in State.

[nuconvert]

One can only hope that if they start killing the demonstrators, the U.S. and international media jump on the story big time. If they don't, I'm afraid this uprising will be swiftly defeated.. Brave souls.

[Eurotwit]

Alright... :-)

There is a lot to be critical about when it comes to the state department, but sometimes i feel that Powell is put into the same category as Arafat or the house of Saud.

I just felt like standing up for the man :)

That said, I do not approve of the engagement policy which the state department has followed for years regarding the Mullah's.

Cheers.

[Constitution Day]

Asia Times: Iran's nuclear allies play with fire

[TigerLikesRooster]

RE #4

I hope that you are not exhausting youself.:)

[TigerLikesRooster]

Things are heating up.

Armed attack against Basij, morals police base in central Iran

TEHRAN (AFP) - A group of armed men carried out two armed attacks on a base of the Basij militia and morals police near the central city of Isfahan, resulting in five people being injured and 21 arrested, the student news agency ISNA reported. The attacks, carried out late last Thursday and Friday, occurred in the town of Dizicheh, situated around 40 kilometers (25 miles) southwest of Isfahan. Quoting an official from the local prefecture, ISNA said the attackers carried out the first raid on Thursday and managed to steal a weapon. "The next evening, the armed hooligans attacked a Basij base and in the clashes five people were injured on both sides," the official told ISNA. It was not immediately clear who carried out the attack, but the local press had reported particularly violent clashes around Isfahan last week after anti-regime protests spread from the capital to the provinces. The Basij are a hardline volunteer militia that has been used to quell the demonstrations. No further details were immediately available.

[DoctorZIn]

SMCCDI: Death of arrested protesters rocks the northen city of Rasht


SMCCDI (Information Service)
June 23, 2003
The death of an arrested demonstrators rocked the northen City of Rasht as hundreds of residents clashes with the regime forces.

The death of the arrested happened as the patrol car which tried to escape from the angery residents hit a wall causing the death of the young man.

Several patrol cars and public materials were set ablaze by the angry crowd as several members of the plainclothes milia, carrying talkie walkies, were identified and beaten in retaliation.

The situation of this usually calm city and its neighboring cities are very tense and many young are known to have taken refuge in the mountains and the dense forrets in order to create commando groups intending to carry and "armed Rebellion" against the regime.

Source: SMCCDI

http://www.iran-daneshjoo.org/cgi-bin/smccdinews/viewnews.cgi?category=5&id=1056374281

[Eala]

The trouble with this is that the American government has to say something; and many of the students are looking for American support.

If the government won't, then IMHO the people should:

Invitation for a National Gathering Commemorating July 9th [LA rally for Iranian freedom 7/06]

[dixiechick2000]

"President Bush has advanced our interests and our honor by condemning the wicked regime in Tehran and hailing the courage and sacrifice of the Iranian freedom fighters. His critics in and outside the government should be ashamed of their cowardice and betrayal of our best instincts and traditions."

This is the correct use of the term "freedom fighter."

" Far more than the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the defeat of the mullahcracy and the triumph of freedom in Tehran would be a truly historic event and an enormous blow to the terrorists."

Michael Ledeen bump!