Iranian Alert -- August 21, 2003 -- LIVE THREAD PING LIST

Thanks for the link to the Daily star here is an article there from
Asharq al-Awsat (London)

The warm welcome extended in Iraq to Shiite Imam Hussein Khomeini, grandson of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of modern-day Iran, showed Washington was hanging great hopes on him, columnist Rida Mohammed Lari said Wednesday.
Khomeini was treated like a VIP and housed in a Baghdad palace that once belonged to former Iraqi strongman Ezzat Ibrahim Douri.
?There was even a warmer American welcome to Khomeini?s recent statements calling on the Americans to liberate Iran from its present rulers,? Lari added.
?The wide US support given to Khomeini?s call was aimed at justifying the legitimacy of the US role in Iraq, which was based on pre-war demands by Iraqi expatriates for intervention in Iraq.
?And now the same thing is happening with the Iranian expatriates calling for a US armed intervention in Iran to turn the tables on the authorities in Tehran,? she said.
?The overwhelming support given to Khomeini in Iraq was meant by the US administration?s hawks to curb the rising Shiite opposition to the US armed presence and to show the US public that Washington?s role was just as needed in Iraq as it was in Iran,? the columnist said.
Khomeini?s welcome was also important in refuting a recent report by a US congressional committee calling on US forces to leave Iraq ?to preserve their lives and safeguard America?s pride from being trampled if the forces have to be withdrawn in a hurry.?
The columnist suggested that a rising proportion of Americans are opposing the Iraqi war by ridiculing the democratic ideas that were advanced by the US administration to justify the war. A similar rising proportion of Americans are opposing the emergency law passed by US Attorney General John Ashcroft giving the authorities the right to detain and imprison US nationals without court trial making America?s democratic system even more flimsy.
The columnist claimed that the US was now preparing to go to war against Iran based on a false understanding that the Iranian community was divided into three tribes whose disagreement among themselves could bring about a civil war.
The US was once duped by Ayatollah Khomeini, who was helped by the US against the late shah. But after asserting his rule in Iran, Khomeini turned against the US and kicked it out after closing down the embassy and holding its diplomats hostages, Lari said.

You are welcome.

Middle East

Iran's case for nuclear weapons
By Erich Marquardt

For more than two decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been at odds with the foreign policy of the United States. But the bad blood started long before the Islamic Revolution.

The most significant clash between Iran and the US began shortly after the election of premier Mohammed Mossadeq, who took power in Tehran in 1951. Mossadeq, a nationalist, nationalized the oil industry and formed the National Iranian Oil Co. Because of this action, the United States and Britain engineered a coup in August 1953, overthrowing the democratically elected leader and replacing Mossadeq with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, referred to as the Shah, who ruled for 25 years. Shortly after taking power, the Shah allowed an international consortium of US, British, French and Dutch oil companies to operate its oil facilities and reap 50 percent of the profits.

Despite the Shah's close, friendly relationship with Washington and other Western governments, his brutal, autocratic methods of violently quelling domestic dissent with his dreaded security apparatus, the SAVAK (Sazamane Etelaat Va Amniate Kechvar, or Security and Intelligence Service), sparked a revolution in Iranian society led by conservative religious leaders. By overthrowing the US-supported government, therefore threatening US interests in the region, the new Iranian leaders quickly became enemies of successive US administrations.

Moreover, on top of earning the disregard of the world's only superpower, Iran also has found itself in a geographically volatile region. During the 1980s, Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party, invaded Iran in an attempt to conquer valuable territory such as the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway. The war was devastating to both the Iraqis and the Iranians. Since the end of that conflict in 1988, Iran and Iraq have had tense relations.

In addition to Iraq, Iran is also threatened by the region's most powerful state, Israel, which has a carefully defended nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. In 1981, Israel launched a surprise air attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in an attempt to dash Baghdad's goal of developing nuclear arms; Israel's aim was to preserve its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. It is clear that Israel would seriously consider similar action in Iran should Tehran come closer to developing nuclear arms.

To add to its security woes, Iran has been facing a rapidly changing balance of power directly on its borders. In 2001, the United States overthrew the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan. While the Taliban was still in power, Iran had little to fear from its eastern border; it faced an unorganized state constantly in the throes of civil war. Yet with the removal of the Taliban from power, Iran now faces a border area littered with US troops hostile to Tehran. In addition to Afghanistan, Iran also faces threats along its western flank with Iraq. While Tehran certainly did not bemoan the fall of the Ba'ath Party, it is justifiably concerned about its replacement: a US occupational force situated on its western border. Furthermore, if US objectives are realized in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran's current leadership will face a perilous future of being enveloped by unfriendly states beholden to US interests.

It is for these security concerns that the Iranian state would want to develop and acquire nuclear weapons. Already Iran has greatly improved its warhead-delivery capabilities, with the potential of launching missiles into Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel. If Tehran were to become nuclear-armed, it would end Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and also give Iran the capability of launching nuclear strikes on surrounding states. However, even with such a nuclear arsenal, Iran, like all nuclear-armed states, would most likely use its nuclear capability as a deterrent and not as an offensive weapon. Becoming nuclear-armed would increase Iran's foreign-policy leverage in dealing with US forces on its eastern and western borders, the State of Israel, and whatever new governments may form in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In addition to being concerned about US troops on its eastern and western borders, Tehran is worried about covert activities by US intelligence agencies in their quest to further the George W Bush administration's much-touted "regime change" policy in Iran, which was classified by the White House as being part of an "axis of evil". Such rhetoric began with the election of President Bush in 2000, in which a group of administration officials took office that had been abnormally antagonistic to the Iranian government and uncharacteristically friendly with the current hardline Likud government in Israel. These officials, often categorized as neo-conservatives, openly seek to remove the leadership in Tehran in an attempt to foster a US-friendly government in the oil-rich state, along with removing a potential threat to Israel, a firm US ally in the region.

Tehran is concerned that US and British support will bolster the power of Iranian rebels operating from Iraq. In fact, in 1997 Iran executed a series of air attacks in Iraqi territory in order to weaken these rebel groups; such an overt policy would be impossible now because of the US and British occupation.

Finally, with the unilateral invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq - with the latter invasion taking place in direct opposition to the United Nations and the global population - Tehran remains in the dark about the Bush administration's next move. Learning from these examples, Iran, like North Korea, another state that is part of the Bush administration's "axis of evil", knows that should it acquire nuclear weapons, it would be much more difficult for Washington to attack it. Any assault by Iran's current adversaries - the United States and Israel - would have to take into account the possible repercussions that come with attacking a nuclear-armed state capable of causing extensive damage to its opponents either with conventional or nuclear weapons.

While Iran's adversaries could attempt to launch a massive strike that would destroy its nuclear arsenal or its delivery systems, such a strike would require a 100 percent success ratio in order to be certain that a devastating retaliatory blow would not occur. Failure to eliminate a nuclear-armed state's second-strike capability could lead to unacceptable consequences on the side of the attacking state. If an offshore power such as the United States were to launch an attack, Iran could not initiate a conventional or nuclear attack on the US mainland, but it could easily strike US troops in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Therefore, it is clear that developing nuclear weapons is in the national interests of Tehran. While Tehran cannot openly develop nuclear weapons - because of the international outcry it would warrant - it can continue its research into peaceful nuclear energy while preparing for a possible day when it could quickly develop its first nuclear weapons and become a nuclear-armed state. Such status would shield Iran from a variety of outside threats - including ones emanating from its traditional rivals, the United States and Israel, but also from the newly formed governments in Kabul and Baghdad.

It will be important to monitor the reactions of the United States and Israel to Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology. How will these two states seek to preserve their power in the region? Does the Bush administration still retain the political leverage within the US domestic population to transform its current rhetoric into a tangible policy of removing Tehran's leadership? And will the State of Israel risk the potentially disastrous political and military consequences of attempting to preserve its nuclear monopoly in the region? It is these questions that will grow increasingly important in the coming months.

Published with permission of the Power and Interest News Report

Iran's Case For Nuclear Weapons

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EH22Ak02.html

Good Article.
Thanks alot!

Thursday » August 21 » 2003

Fifty years after coup
The shah of Iran came to power in a CIA-backed coup 50 years ago in a watershed event that colours the politics of the country to this day

ROKSANA BAHRAMITASH
Freelance

CREDIT: MONTREAL STAR FILE

The shah of Iran came to power in a U.S.-backed coup 50 years ago today. Until he was deposed in 1979, the shah enjoyed a close relationship with the United States. President John F. Kennedy (right) and Jackie Kennedy (far left) welcome the shah and empress of Iran at the White House in 1961.

When I was a little girl in Tehran, I used to think about the huge, powerful country on the other side of the globe - America.

My grandmother told me that if we dug a tunnel in our garden, we'd reach yegeh donya (another name for America). It was her way of teaching me how to map where America was and her answer to my questions about the country whose soldiers I saw in our streets.

As I grew older, I began to understand what has come to be remembered by Iranians as one of the most tragic events of the past 50 years: the 1953 CIA-engineered coup.

Today marks exactly half a century since the infamous CIA coup against the popular, secular, democratically elected prime minister Mohammed Mossadeqh. Mossadeqh became a hero for nationalizing Iranian oil. The coup brought the shah back to power, and what followed was a period of heavy American military presence, coupled with a clampdown on all groups from the left to the centre of the political spectrum. (The exception was the Islamists, who were regarded by the U.S. and the shah as a buffer against the spread of socialism.) Post-coup Iran was marked by torture, human-rights abuses and suppression of the media.

Political repression eradicated the possibility of creating a political party that could win over a democratic Iran in a post-monarchist era. This is why there were no political parties or leadership to take over when the shah's regime fell. The Islamists - considered "safe" by the Americans - made up the only existing grassroots organization with both direction and mass appeal, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini emerged as their leader.

Memories of the 1953 coup sent a group of students to the U.S. embassy to take U.S. hostages in an effort to prevent history from repeating itself. That was the beginning of a downward spiral in relations between Iran and America. Soon after, Saddam Hussein received support from the U.S. and Britain to attack Iran. In 1981, the People's Mujahedeen (MEK), a Marxist-Islamist group that would later collaborate with Saddam, waged a terrorist attack on the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, killing 72 members of parliament and the head of the judiciary. Later, the president and the prime minister were also assassinated.

The war and the death of some of the most highly educated and moderate factions of the Islamic Republic Party shattered the core of the Islamic republic and led to a resurgence of intense control over civil activities.

It took many years for moderation to slowly creep back onto Iran's political scene. It reached its apex with Mohammad Khatami's victory in the 1997 presidential election, which had a mass voter turnout. However, the persistent U.S. pressure on Iran for a regime change might force the face of moderation underground again. The U.S. supports monarchist politics and tolerates the MEK while simultaneously orchestrating international demands on Iran on the allegation that it possesses weapons of mass destruction. It is astonishing how, although the U.S. has found no such weapons in neighbouring Iraq, that accusation has been slowly but surely building support for a war of a different kind against Iran.

If current U.S. pressure continues, there are three possible frightening outcomes:

- A takeover by the MEK (an unlikely disaster).

- A return to the monarchy, which would amount to turning back the clock,

- A repeat of the scenario in Afghanistan or Iraq, which would incite a civil war and likely sweep the county into chaos.

I wonder what stories I'll tell my grandchildren about what the U.S. decided for Iran and why. They might never understand until they grow up, and I might be gone by then, buried with my stories about street battles, war and the tireless work that went into trying to give Iran a chance to be in charge of its own destiny.

Roksana Bahramitash, winner of the Canadian Social Science and Humanity Research Council Ross Award, is a post-doctoral fellow in the women's studies program at Concordia University.

Fifty years After Coup

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/editorials/story.asp?id=7512F19B-7C2C-425F-9E20-E94089F53673

Excellent critique, DoctorZIn.

To expound further on your point. Those who said the people of the Soviet Union wouldn't ever rise up from the ashes of Communism, have a world view that offers compassion for the downtrodden, while saying at the same time that the people are too weak to handle democracy and freedom for themselves. Their emotional support rarely matures into assistance or strength. The naysayers do not want freedom to prevail, because freedom is contagious.

And, today, we hear that Iraq can only be rebuilt with more US soldiers. The leftists refuse to believe that the strength of the Iraqi people will determine their nation's future. We may or may not send more troops to Iraq. But, in the end, it will be the hard work of the Iraqi people that will be most needed.

I am reminded that GWBush recently said that when we consider America's birth as a nation, we think of the strength and convictions of the Founding Fathers. And Iraq itself does have leaders with the will and spirit equal to that of our own American Patriots while our nation was being born. We will have to be watchful for their emergence on the scene.

The examples throughout the globe are numerous. But, I believe the movement for democracy in Iran is bolstered greatly when they see the changes happening in Iraq. We can be patient and give them time. They already have the strength that they will need, when the moment is right.

Best wishes to you.

Western Press Review: The Bombing Of UN Headquarters In Baghdad And 50 Years After Iran's Coup
By
Aug 20, 2003, 22:20

By Khatya Chhor

Prague, 20 August 2003 (RFE/RL) -- Press coverage today is dominated by discussion of the bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad yesterday, which killed at least 17 people including Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN's top envoy to Iraq. A few hours later, a suicide bombing in Jerusalem left at least 20 people dead and wounded over 100 others, prompting Israel to suspend all talks with the Palestinian leadership.

We also take a look today at attempts to raise awareness in Central Asia of the dangers posed by the sex-trafficking industry and America's long history of pursuing regime change, on the 50th anniversary today of the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran.

THE WASHINGTON POST:

A "Washington Post" editorial today looks at yesterday's truck-bomb attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad, which killed at least 17 Iraqis and foreign workers, including the UN's top official in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, whom the paper calls "one of the most talented and dedicated United Nations diplomats of his generation."

Within hours, the editorial continues, "a bus bomb in Jerusalem killed at least 18 people and injured many more." The "Post" says both attacks were the work "of terrorists who saw nothing wrong with taking innocent life to make a political or propaganda point. Both were designed to "thwart the will of majorities," whether Palestinian, Israeli, or Iraqi.

The paper goes on to say the targeting of UN headquarters -- a "soft," or nonmilitary, target -- suggests that an internationalization of the U.S.-led occupation will not put a stop to attacks. This was not just an attack on the Anglo-American occupation. The UN headquarters in Baghdad housed hundreds of civilian workers from all over the globe who were dedicated to the humanitarian and reconstruction needs of Iraq and elsewhere in the world.

The paper says it has at times joined the chorus of international voices criticizing Washington "for its reluctance to involve UN or NATO forces more fully in Iraq." But "just as the terrorists will attack the United States wherever possible, [so] will they attack anyone who promotes peace and pluralism, whether under the flag of the United States or the United Nations."

LOS ANGELES TIMES:

A "Los Angeles Times" report by Maura Reynolds and Paul Richter discusses some of the possible long-term effects of the double bombings yesterday in Baghdad and Jerusalem. The bombing of UN headquarters in Iraq, they say, may further "dishearten Americans whose support is crucial for the reconstruction effort."

Moreover, such a high-profile attack might dissuade some nations from providing peacekeeping troops. The U.S. administration would soon like to rotate out tens of thousands of battle-weary U.S. troops and replace them with international forces. Nongovernmental organizations might now also prove less willing to take on new responsibilities in Iraq.

Reynolds and Richter say, "On a practical level, the bombing may increase the distance between Iraqis and those foreigners who are trying to rebuild the country by forcing the United Nations and nongovernmental groups to increase security. Until now, UN officials and others involved in the reconstruction had sought to distinguish themselves from U.S. military forces by interacting with Iraqis without bulletproof vests, weapons, or armored vehicles." Now this is likely to change, even as some are speculating that UN personnel may be relocated to Jordan.

But the authors say the Baghdad bombing could also ultimately help Washington -- "if it makes UN members feel that they are united in the same cause with the Americans" working in Iraq. While many countries did not support the invasion of Iraq, none really wants to see the reconstruction effort fail."

FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG:

Yesterday's UN blast is also the subject of an editorial in the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung." The German daily calls it "one of the deadliest attacks ever directed at a UN facility," and says this development is "an explosive sign." The attack demonstrates how far the United States is from controlling the land it conquered. Moreover, the commentary predicts that such chaos will continue in the coming weeks.

The news of the latest attack overshadowed reports yesterday that Kurdish militiamen captured Iraq's feared former vice president, Taha Yassin Ramadan. But developments such as Ramadan's capture still do not promise the establishment of a long-term calm in the country or the assurance of basic needs such as electricity and the supply of fresh water.

The "FAZ" editorial says, given the current atmosphere in Iraq, there is little hope of meaningful progress in stabilizing the country -- if anything, it says, it is a sign "to the contrary."

THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Several items in today's "New York Times" comment on the Baghdad bombing yesterday. Staff correspondent Tom Shanker says although it is unclear whether the sabotaging of oil and water pipelines are in any way connected to attacks on the Jordanian Embassy and the United Nations, anti-occupation forces appear to be attempting "to depict the United States as unable to guarantee public order, as well as frighten away relief organizations rebuilding Iraq."

Following yesterday's UN bombing, "there is a growing belief that anti-American fighters, whatever their origin and inspiration, have adopted a coherent strategy not only to kill members of allied forces when possible, but also to spread fear by destroying public offices and utilities."

Shanker says attacks "on foreign embassies and the headquarters of international organizations, as well as water and oil pipelines, appear specifically devised to halt improvements in the quality of life for average Iraqis." And this poses an "acute" problem for U.S. forces in Iraq: "if Iraqis are afraid and unconvinced that their situation is improving, their hostility to the United States may grow."

Columnist Thomas Friedman of "The New York Times" says global and U.S. calls for international assistance in Iraq are misguided. In fact, he says, there are only two things that are needed: more American backup and more Iraqi representation. First, the U.S. occupation under L. Paul Bremer must be given more resources to get basic services functioning as quickly as possible. And then, he says, Iraqis must be put in charge.

Iraqi citizens "need to be seen to be solving their own problems," says Friedman. "They need to be manning the checkpoints because only they know who the good guys and bad guys are, and they need to be increasingly running the show so attacks on Iraq's infrastructure are seen and understood as attacks on Iraqis, not on [the U.S.]."

But most importantly, Friedman says, Iraqis must take charge because Iraq's "silent majority" is the "only potential friend" of the United States in the entire region. "Everyone else wants America to fail," he says. But the U.S. "[has] not empowered that Iraqi silent majority enough, and it has been too timid and divided to step forward yet." Their vocal support will only come "if America gets the basics right -- water, jobs, and electricity -- and lets Iraqis run things faster." Then the credit -- and the blame -- will be Iraq's alone.

THE WASHINGTON POST:

In a contribution to "The Washington Post," former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke eulogizes his friend and colleague, Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was killed yesterday in the attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad.

Often described as "widely respected" and "charming," the Brazilian diplomat served over 30 years at the international body in various capacities worldwide.

Holbrooke calls Vieira de Mello's track record "remarkable." Since 1971 he served in Bangladesh following its war for independence, Sudan, postwar Cyprus, war-torn Mozambique, Peru, Lebanon, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, the Congo, Kosovo, and East Timor.

Vieira de Mello "always carried out his mission with charisma, charm and courage -- [and] sartorial perfection, no matter how difficult the terrain," Holbrooke says. He was reportedly "instrumental in convincing the American authorities in Baghdad that the Iraqi Governing Council needed to be more than just an advisory group" -- a foresight Holbrooke says was "a wise and far-reaching decision based in large part on Vieira de Mello's experience in Kosovo and East Timor."

He adds that Vieira de Mello at times could not understand why Washington so often sought to undermine the UN "instead of strengthening it."

Holbrooke writes: "As Americans learn -- too late -- about this great man, I hope they will recognize that he and the others who died or were wounded in Baghdad were part of a vast army of UN civilian personnel serving in often hellish conditions around the world."

(See link below for more)Western Press Review: The Bombing

WESTERN PRESS REVIEW; THE BOMBING OF UN HEADQUARTERS IN BAGHDAD AND 50 YEARS AFTER IRAN'S COUP

http://www.iranian.ws/news/publish/article_307.shtml

Regarding Friedman's call for the Iraqi citizens to police and protect themselves.

I don't remember which armchair general on FOX said this, but it made a lot of sense.

Apparently when trying to build up a police force, it is taking a great deal of time to first determine who should be accepted into the ranks, and then there is training.

The panelist on FOX said that in Vietnam, the US forces constantly recruited and members of the population to work for them, at a really quick pace. I think the main point the panelist was trying to make is that just by giving the Iraqi people the respect and confidence, they will be willing to show not only us, but their fellow citizens that they are ready and able to work for their nation's security.

"Chairman of Iraq Governing Council invited to Iran"

Kuwait, Aug 21, IRNA -- Chairman of Iraq`s Governing Council Ibrahim Jafari said here on Wednesday that Iran has invited him to visit Tehran

Jafari, speaking at a news conference, stressed that Iraq will try to establish ties with its neighbors based on mutual interests and common historical affinities.

He further added that he is considering to also visit Romania, Russia and Spain.

"We want to have a good interaction with other countries, but this interaction must be carried out without threatening Iraq`s sovereignty and must not imply an interference in its internal affairs," said Jafari who is on an official visit to Kuwait.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=17557&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

A doing my best to keep up while babysitting bump!

You two make it much easier.

Thanks! ;o)

This just in...

We are being told that Radio Farda and also some Farsi websites are reporting shocking new information about the Death of Ms. Kazemi.

They claim she was raped before she died.

They say this is report will be confirmed by both Parliament Members and a Canadian attorney in Tehran, Mr. Modjtehadi.

They are also saying that an interrogator working for the Iranian Intelligence Ministry of Mr. Khatami cabinet is the person responsible for the incident.

DoctorZin

Israel Lowering its Rhetorical Profile on Iran's Nuke Plans

August 21, 2003
Ha'aretz
Aluf Benn

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has ordered a lowering of Israel's posturing over the Iranian nuclear weapons program, in order to allow American diplomacy to work on the issue.

Against that backdrop, Gideon Frank, head of the Atomic Energy Agency, left for Washington this week to coordinate Jerusalem's position with the U.S. administration.

On September 8, the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is holding a critical session in Vienna to hear a report by IAEA director Mohamed El Baradei on his inspections mission to Iran.

The board will have to decide whether the Iranians have violated existing agreements Tehran has signed, and if so, whether to hand the problem over to the UN Security Council, something El Baradei would prefer not to do. He does, however, want Tehran to sign the "additional protocol," which would give IAEA inspectors much more leeway and teeth in their inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities. Tehran says it is studying the document.

Israel supports the demand for Tehran to sign the additional protocol, and also wants Tehran to cease its project to enrich uranium that can be used for nuclear weapons. For years, Israel warned the U.S., Russia and EU countries about the Iranian nuclear program, to little avail. But in recent months there are many signs of a fundamental change in approach by the international community. A series of revelations from the Iranian opposition about the Iranian nuclear program exposed a great deal of information that until then had only been known to insiders in western intelligence agencies.

In the wake of those publications, the IAEA joined the cause for tighter inspections in Iran. France tightened its exports of technology and the U.S. won an attentive ear in Moscow for Russia to delay its operation of the power station that Russian companies are building near the Iranian city of Bushehr.

With the mounting international attention, likely to increase as September 8 approaches, Israel decided to lower its own profile on the subject and stay out of the limelight on the issue. That should make it more difficult for the Iranians to deflect international criticism as an Israeli plot, while also helping to avoid "balanced" decisions that would link the inspections and limits on the Iranians with parallel restraints on Israeli activity.

Tehran is now trying to gain time in its talks with IAEA inspectors. Government sources in Jerusalem say the El Baradei report will be tougher than in the past, but not so vehement as to require moving the issue to the Security Council agenda. Frank will head the Israeli delegation to Vienna, which will participate in three forums: the treaty against nuclear testing, the board of governors (where Israel has observer status), and the general assembly. The IAEA will hear a proposal from the Arab bloc to condemn Israeli's "nuclear threat" and a proposal for making the Middle East nuclear-free. The condemnations have been voted off the agenda in recent years in exchange for an Israeli agreement to accept a nuclear-free Middle East, but Israeli policy is that will only be possible in the context of a general comprehensive peace for the region.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=331660&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Israel Lowering its Rhetorical Profile on Iran's Nuke Plans

August 21, 2003
Ha'aretz
Aluf Benn

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/967715/posts?page=35#35

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

More than 12,000 Protest Letters to Iran over Human Rights Violations

August 20, 2003
Iran Weekly Press Digest
Iran WPD

Iran received within less than one year more than 12,000 protest letters over human rights violations, the Tehran press reported Wednesday. This is definitely not a source of pride for the system, said Mohmmad-Hussein Ziaifar, the head of the country’s human rights’ committee.

While warning of internal and external impacts of social repression, he referred to the press crackdown and said that many journalists see no meaning anymore in their job and have either immigrated or started to write for Internet sites.

“We decrease the legitimacy of the system with our own hands and make people gradually frustrated who in return react through boycotting the elections,” Ziaifar said, referring to the low turnout of the city council elections last February.

Also on the international level, he added, insecurity in the country has pushed many foreign companies to cancel their engagements or investment plans in Iran.

Ziaifar further said that two-third of the total population of 68 million are between 16 and 28 years of age and not following their demands would lead to an explosive atmosphere.

“The people should once and for all know whether the officials are on their side or just after more power,” the official said.

http://www.iranwpd.com/

More execution carried in southern Iran

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Aug 21, 2003

Official circles of the Islamic republic regime have announced the execution, on last Tuesday, of an individual named "Mohamad-Reza Gh." in the southern City of Kerman.

This new victim of the regime was charged of several
"crimes", such as, Drug Trafficking, Hooliganism and creation of illegal group.

It's to note that Kerman was scene of unprecedented and violent clashes during last June's uprising and that the labels used, by the regime against the victim, are those usually used against non-famous opponents intending a radical overthrown of the theocratic system.

Such labels, used against the victims, help the European and Japanese collaborators of the Clerical administration to justify the continuation of their business relations vis a vis their public opinions.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_1864.shtml

More execution carried in southern Iran

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Aug 21, 2003

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/967715/posts?page=38#38

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

Iran Does Not Surrender

NefteGaz - Report Section
Aug 21, 2003

Today's position of Iran in petroleum export can be characterized as rather strong in spite of the fact that the export oil pipeline Baku – Tbilisi - Jeihan for transportation of Caspian petroleum to Europe soon will be put into operation.

The Iranian petroleum and gas industry can’t work effectively because of the strong pressure on the part of the United States on potential buyers. Teheran should find roundabout ways. The government of the country is going to use 300 kilometer oil pipeline, which will connect port on Caspian sea Neka with oil refining factory in the capital of the country. Due to opening of a new route, extraction of hydrocarbonic raw material on Caspian sea (daily through the route will be pumped over 150 thousand barrels) that will allow to balance the positions in Persian Gulf among the countries producing petroleum.

Capacities can be increased twice if to equip in addition some pump stations. According to the forecasts, the new pipeline will start operation at the end of August this year.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_1863.shtml