Iranian Alert -- September 28, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD PING LIST

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movment in Iran from being reported.

From jamming satellite broadcasts, to prohibiting news reporters from covering any demonstrations to shutting down all cell phones and even hiring foreign security to control the population, the regime is doing everything in its power to keep the popular movement from expressing its demand for an end of the regime.

These efforts by the regime, while successful in the short term, do not resolve the fundamental reasons why this regime is crumbling from within.

Iran is a country ready for a regime change. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary.

Please continue to join us here, post your news stories and comments to this thread.

Motives in the U.N.

Amir Taheri (archive)
September 28, 2003
Townhall.com

General De Gaulle called it “the gadget”. The late Pakistani leader Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto branded it “a club of queer trades.” And, more recently, President George W Bush warned that it had become “irrelevant”. And, yet, the United Nations has just opened its annual general assembly in New York with as much stiff upper lip as it could master.

The war in Iraq shook the UN to its foundations by highlighting its contradictions.

The issue was not whether or not the United States and Britain should go to war without express authorisation from the Security Council. Similar interventions had taken place before, most recently in the Balkans where NATO, led by the US, took military action to save the Muslim peoples of Bosnia and Kosovo from extermination by the Serbs.

Nor was “regime change” the issue.

The Tanzanian army that ended Idi Amin’s reign in Uganda had no Security Council mandate. Nor was Vietnam mandated by the UN to march into Cambodia and overthrow the Khmer Rouge. France has engineered several regime changes in former African colonies without asking anyone’s permission.

The Iraq issue was special for several reasons.

This was the first time that the Security Council, was used in attempts to prevent the enforcement of its resolutions. Since 1990 the council had passed 18 mandatory resolutions, often unanimously, concerning Iraq, but had done little to enforce their essential provisions.

Some members, notably France and Russia, pretended that taking action against Saddam Hussein was illegal. But they did not have the courage to test that view by tabling a draft resolution to that effect.

At the same time the US and the UK, which asserted their duty to enforce the council’s resolutions, also shied away from testing their view in an open vote.

Even when the war had began, those opposed to it lacked the courage to seek an emergency session of the Security Council, as in so many other cases before, to call for a ceasefire. Nor has any council member presented a draft resolution seeking an end to “ the occupation ”of Iraq.

The council has ended up with two opposite positions, which, in moral terms at least, means none at all.

Worse still, those who opposed the war did so for reasons that had little to do with Iraq’s dispute with the UN.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, whose country happens to be a Security Council member by rotation, initially supported action against Saddam. But he was in the middle of a difficult general election. At one point pollsters told him that only an anti-war position might get him enough votes among German women to ensure a narrow victory.

Overnight he changed his position to re-emerge as a vocal opponent of action against Saddam. With his re-election assured, Schroeder moved away from his opposition to the war, welcomed Saddam’s demise, and tried to repair the damage done to US-German relations by sending German troops to Afghanistan to release the GIs for service in Iraq.

Russian opposition, too, had little to do with Iraq as such.

The Russians tried to butter their bread on both sides.

They cultivated ambiguity on the issue to secure concessions from the US-UK coalition, including a free hand in Chechnya and the promise of a share in the future, and as yet problematic, Iraqi oil.

The French position was still more interesting.

For them the question was not whether or not Saddam should be forced to comply with the UN resolutions. The question was how to fight the “ the American hyper-power.”

This is how French scholar Gillaume Parmentier puts it: ” The reason why France articulates its concern {about American hegemony} more strongly than others is that France’s history has been one of resisting to monopolies of power in Europe.”

He recalls how France became a nation-state despite attempts by the Holy Roman Empire and the Pope to dominate Europe.

“Resistance to foreign empires is deeply ingrained in French political culture,” Parmentier asserts.

Was the US seeking a “monopoly of power in Europe” by toppling Saddam? Is the US comparable to the Holy Roman Empire and the Popes of the Middle Ages or the Nazis in the 20th century?

Parmentier forgets France’s own bid for a monopoly of power in Europe under Napoleon. And need one mention that France signed the Munich pact with Hitler?

Echoing Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, Parmentier shows that France’s opposition to military action against Iraq was prompted not by the merits of the issue but as part of a broader strategy of “ resisting American hegemony”.

In other words France would not have been aggrieved if Iraq were liberated by Luxembourg and Lichtenstein, rather than by the US and the UK.

The case of Iraq shows that various powers could use the Security Council, which is supposed to be an instrument of international will, to serve domestic political agendas that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Schroeder probably did not wish the Iraqis to suffer under Saddam’s tyranny for decades. What Schroeder was concerned about was getting the extra women’s vote he wanted. Vladimir Putin was equally uninterested in the Iraqi issue as such. He wanted carte blanche in Chechnya and a future share in Iraqi oil. Jacques Chirac, too, was not really concerned about Iraq. Unable to develop a meaningful foreign policy, he exploited the issue as an opportunity to thumb his nose at the American “hyper-power.”

(Opponents of the war could, of course, use a similar argument against the US and the UK. They could argue that Washington and London , too, didn’t care about the sufferings of Iraq under Saddam and acted to topple him to serve their own interests.

Such an argument, whether sustainable or not, would only reinforce the contention that the Security Council has creased to exist as an instrument of international decision-making. )

Until the row over Iraq broke out, the Security Council, thanks to the veto given to its permanent members, could say either yes or no to action on urgent issues of international life.

The Iraq issue introduced a new answer that is neither yes nor no. It exists in Japanese as “ mu” , which means : “unask your question”, and in Persian as “bari” which means “ referred to God”.

Kofi Annan is trying hard to “mu” and “bari” things. But there is something rotten in the organisation symbolised by its glass tower in New York.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian author of 10 books on the Middle East and Islam. He's reachable through www.benadorassociates.com.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Taheri20030928.shtml

Putin almost defied Bush

Washington Times - By Bill Sammon
Sep 28, 2003

Russia might have opposed the U.S.-led war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan if Russian President Vladimir Putin had not developed a strong personal relationship with President Bush, Mr. Putin said yesterday.

Mr. Putin made the revelation in a news conference at which the Russian leader also withheld Russian support for postwar Iraq until the United Nations passes a resolution on the matter.

"I have never said this in public; I'm going to do it today," Mr. Putin announced as he stood next to Mr. Bush at Camp David. "When counterterrorist operations began in Afghanistan, we were approached by people through several channels ... who intended to fight against Americans in Afghanistan.

"And if, by that time, President Bush and I had not formed [an] appropriate relationship, as we have, ... no one knows what turn would the developments in Afghanistan [have] taken," said the Russian leader, speaking through a translator.

A former colonel in the KGB, the former Soviet secret police and intelligence agency, Mr. Putin did not identify the people who intended to fight the U.S. forces, nor did he explain exactly what they wanted from Russia or whether Moscow took action to stop them.

However, of his friendship with Mr. Bush, he said: "It helped, to a great extent, to achieve further results that we have achieved in Afghanistan, and was for a very good purpose."

Mr. Bush did not respond to this cryptic disclosure at the news conference, although he again lauded the Russian leader's trustworthiness.

"I like him," Mr. Bush said. "He's a good fellow to spend quality time with."

Mr. Putin's revelation about his level of closeness to Mr. Bush sheds new light on the bond that developed between the two leaders before the September 11, 2001, attacks. After their first meeting in June of that year, Mr. Bush was widely derided as naive for gushing about the former Soviet spy.

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy," Mr. Bush said during a joint news conference with Mr. Putin at the time. "I was able to get a sense of his soul."

The two men's friendship has not prevented them from having significant policy disagreements on such issues as Iraq and Iran, both of which they discussed during their two-day summit, which ended yesterday. On Iran, Mr. Putin denied U.S. accusations that Moscow is helping Tehran develop nuclear weapons.

"Russia has no desire and no plans to contribute in any way to the creation of weapons of mass destruction, either in Iran or any other spot, region in the world," he said. "We comply firmly with the provisions of the [nuclear] Nonproliferation Treaty, because this course is in our national interest."

Russia insists that its $800 million deal to build a nuclear power plant in Iran will result only in the generation of electricity, not nuclear weapons. Still, Mr. Bush appears to have convinced his Russian counterpart at least to call on Iran to comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"It is our conviction that we shall now give a clear but respectful signal to Iran about the necessity to continue and expand its cooperation with IAEA," Mr. Putin said.

"We firmly agree," Mr. Bush said. "We need to work together to convince Iran to abandon any ambitions she may have, ambitions toward the development of a nuclear weapon."

The two leaders issued similar statements on North Korea, which is openly flouting international nonproliferation agreements in order to develop nuclear weapons. However, Mr. Putin also said Pyongyang should be rewarded if it halts its nuclear programs.

"Russia believes that ensuring a nuclear nonproliferation regime should be accompanied by extending to North Korea guarantees in the sphere of security," he said.

Mr. Bush did not call for such guarantees.

"We strongly urge North Korea to completely, verifiably and irreversibly end its nuclear programs," he said. "We're seeking to intensify our missile defense cooperation because both of our countries are threatened by outlaw regimes to be armed with deadly weapons."

Moscow initially opposed Mr. Bush's unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which allowed the United States to proceed with deployment of a missile defense shield. Although Democrats warned the withdrawal would spark a new arms race, both sides ended up signing a treaty to slash their nuclear arsenals by two-thirds.

"Its implementation, in our assessment, is going successfully," Mr. Putin said yesterday of the Moscow Treaty on arms cuts.

One of the most pressing topics of the summit was Iraq, for which Mr. Bush is seeking international troops and money to supplement tightly stretched U.S. resources.

Mr. Putin, who opposed the Iraq war, stopped short of making any specific promises on what he called "our possible participation" in postwar Iraq.

"In the normalization of life in Iraq, Russia is interested in seeing it occurring as soon as possible," he said. "The degree and the extent and the level of Russia's participation in the restoration of Iraq will be determined after we know the parameters of the resolution, of the new resolution on Iraq."

Mr. Bush is trying to get such a resolution passed by the U.N. Security Council, which would clear the way for nations such as India, Turkey and Bangladesh to deploy troops to Iraq.

"I recognize that some countries are inhibited from participation because of the lack of a U.N. resolution," Mr. Bush said. "We are working to get a satisfactory resolution out of the U.N. We spent some time discussing that today."

Although Mr. Bush used to chide Russia for cracking down on separatists in Chechnya, he has been more sympathetic to Mr. Putin since the Russian leader joined the U.S.-led war against terrorism.
Yesterday, Mr. Bush straddled the issue by simultaneously speaking out against human rights abuses by Moscow and terrorism by separatists.

"No cause justifies terror," he said. "Terrorists must be opposed wherever they spread chaos and destruction, including Chechnya. A lasting solution to that conflict will require an end to terror, respect for human rights and a political settlement that leads to free and fair elections."

Mr. Putin sought to discourage perceptions that his support of the U.S. war on terrorism might be linked to Mr. Bush's taking a softer line on Chechnya.

"Our partnership is not subject to political deal-making," the Russian leader said. "We wish to be guided by these strategic interests of our two countries, without excessive emotions or ambitions."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030928-123428-5292r.htm

Iran brush off EU preconditions

2003/09/28
IRIB
Berlin

Deputy Foreign Minister for training and research Alireza Moayeri said here Saturday that transparency as well as continuation of political dialogue on various issues between Iran and EU, specially Germany, is a real necessity.

Moayeri is in Berlin to attend a research conference.

He said the four conditions put forth by EU for continuation of dialogue with Iran are not acceptable to Tehran.

"Any precondition for continuation of dialogue will not be accepted by Iran," the Foreign Ministry official underlined.

Iran is keen to continue the ongoing dialogue with EU and has informed Italy, which is currently the rotating president of the EU, to that effect."

"We will continue our dialogue with the EU, east Asian and Arab countries, because we think that their intentions towards Iran are different from that of Washington's," said Moayeri.

"In some issues, we also oppose positions taken by some EU members such as Germany," he said.
"We have told Germany that it should have friendly behavior towards Iran different from that of the US, when it comes to relations with Iran," he said.

Moayeri said Germany should not repeat what the Americans say and want, adding "While we welcome our contacts with EU, they should also understand our positions."

http://www.iribnews.com/Full_en.asp?news_id=189056&n=32

Iran Remains Defiant About Nuclear Program

Sun September 28, 2003 05:28 AM ET
By Parinoosh Arami

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's foreign ministry said on Sunday Tehran would not give up its nuclear program, including uranium enrichment, despite international pressure to prove it is not developing atomic weapons.

"Abandoning peaceful nuclear activities or enrichment is not something that Iran is ready to compromise on," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a weekly news conference.

It was the latest in a series of mixed messages from Tehran since a resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) this month gave Iran until October 31 to prove it has no secret nuclear arms program and told it to halt enrichment activities.

IAEA inspectors are due in Tehran Thursday for a round of further inspections and talks with Iranian officials.

If doubts remain in November about Iran's nuclear ambitions -- which Tehran insists are limited to generating electricity -- it may be reported to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

Clerical hard-liners in Islamic Iran argue that Tehran should follow North Korea's example by pulling out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a move which would put its nuclear program firmly underground.

But officials from the reformist government have said that while Iran is not prepared to halt its nuclear program it will cooperate with the IAEA and is considering signing an Additional Protocol to the NPT which would allow snap inspections of nuclear sites.

"We are interested in solving the issue and we believe that negotiations and talks should continue with the IAEA," Asefi said. "If both sides talk transparently and answer some ambiguities ...naturally Iran's cooperation with the agency could bear good results."

BUSH, PUTIN AGREE ON IRAN

President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin Saturday urged Iran to give up any hopes of building nuclear weapons and to expand its cooperation with the IAEA.

Asked for Iran's response, Asefi said: "We are not pursuing nuclear weapons, we neither want to produce or use them. Our cooperation with the agency has been very transparent."

Diplomats told Reuters last week that IAEA inspectors had found traces of arms-grade uranium at a second site in Iran.

Asefi said Iran had not been officially informed by the IAEA of the discovery at the Kalaye Electric Co facility in Tehran.

Iran says the highly enriched uranium found at Kalaye and the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz in central Iran were due to contamination from imported equipment.

"It is clear that because some of these parts were imported they could be contaminated," Asefi said.

Diplomats are divided on whether Iran's contamination theory holds water.

IAEA Chief Mohamed ElBaradei said late last week he hoped Iran would come clean about its nuclear activities by November.

"There are a lot of worrying signs, a lot of indications that Iran has been active in developing its nuclear program," he said in an interview on CNN Friday.

Asked if he thought Iran would meet the IAEA's October 31 deadline, he said: "I hope so. I hope at least that I will not be in a position to report that I'm not getting full cooperation and full transparency by Iran."

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3519377

U.S. allows Iraq to man patrols along Iran border

Patrick Quinn
Associated Press
Sept. 28, 2003 12:00 AM

MUNTHERIA BORDER CROSSING, Iraq - The U.S. Army for the first time Saturday gave Iraq's provisional government responsibility for patrolling a stretch of the country's borders, a sensitive, 210-mile region of forbidding desert frontier between Iraq and Iran.

The transfer was significant because it comes as the U.S.-led coalition faces pressure to give Iraqis more control over their affairs. And security here is crucial: The border is a popular crossing point for illegal Iranian pilgrims en route to Shiite holy sites, raising fears that al-Qaida or other terrorists could sneak through in disguise.

Calling it an "important day for the Iraqi people," Col. Michael Moody, commander of the 4th Infantry's 4th Brigade, formally handed patrol duties in area to Iraqi Col. Nazim Shareef Mohammed.

Part of an American drive to ease the burden on thinly stretched U.S. soldiers, the switch marked the first time since the fall of Saddam Hussein that Iraqis have been given policing authority over an entire border region. The U.S. occupation forces now have only an advisory role.

"This is a great example of new Iraqi security forces taking control," Moody said. "Each day the border becomes more secure. This is good news for the Iraqi people and the coalition."

The frontier includes a craggy, mountainous region - some of the most treacherous terrain in Iraq - and temperatures often surpass 122 degrees. It runs from the edges of Kurdish-controlled territory in northern Iraq to a point just southeast of Baghdad, encompassing nearly all of Diyalia province, one of three under 4th Infantry control.

"If this experiment is successful in Diyalia province, then it is an example for all of Iraq," declared Lt. Col. Reggie Allen, commanding officer of the 4th Infantry Division's 1st Squadron, 10th Cavalry, standing near the border.

Mohammed's 1,178-strong force is made up of Arabs, Kurds and Turks.

"We are unique," said Mohammed, a Kurd. "This is an important day for us because we officially take over this highly sensitive border."

U.S. soldiers started training the Iraqi border forces in May, in sessions that touched on human rights of detainees as well as searches for Islamic militants trying to blend in with pilgrims.

Allen said his 4th Infantry forces, equipped with armored vehicles and helicopters, have stopped more than 14,000 illegal pilgrims since the end of August.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0928control28.html

Avoiding an Iraq in Iran

Pundits, politicians, and the press are still so possessed by President Bush's handling of Iraq that they're not hearing the drumroll to a potentially bigger confrontation in the Middle East.

Iran has been given just five weeks to comply with a demand by the International Atomic Energy Agency to show it's not making bomb-grade nuclear material. On Sunday, the IAEA will send inspectors to Iran for the first time since the Vienna-based body set an Oct. 31 deadline. They will attempt to look over uranium-enrichment facilities at the city of Natanz.

If Iran's ruling mullahs bar the inspectors or miss the deadline, the IAEA could quickly ask the United Nations Security Council to impose economic sanctions on Iran - much like the sanctions on Iraq that never really worked.

Iran is blaming the United States for this showdown. But it was Australia, Canada, and Japan that led the IAEA to take a tough stance.

Still, the US and the UN-affiliated body are working together - in contrast to the UN-US split over Iraq. The West knows an Iranian bomb would push a nuclear arms race in the region, endangering Israel. And in fact, a lively debate has opened up in Tehran over how to react to the IAEA.

The West may try using both sanctions and incentives to bring Iran around. In fact, France, Britain, and Germany have offered to help it develop safe nuclear power - and this despite Iran's vast oil reserves.

But there's tension over whether to keep one card on the table: the threat of a military strike on Iran, or at least on its nuclear facilities. The US and Europe should avoid splitting over this issue and do everything short of war to make Iran comply.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0926/p10s01-comv.html

Iran vows to proceed its nuke plans

Tehran, Sept 28 - Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi here on Sunday said Iran is in no way willing to make any deal over its nuclear technology program.

He stressed Iran's commitment to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Iran's cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been fully transparent, he said, quoting the IAEA Chief Mohammad Elbradei as saying that Tehran's cooperation with the agency is positive and growing.

He regretted that Tehran's move has not met with an appropriate response by the international community, saying that the resolution issued against Iran by the IAEA board of governors is politically-motivated.

Tehran believes that negotiations and cooperation with the IAEA should be continued, he said.

If both Iran and the IAEA are left in a calm and peaceful atmosphere far from influence and pressure by other powers, particularly the US, the result will be more fruitful, Asefi further noted.

On the resolution issued by the IAEA board of governors, he said relevant bodies are preparing a response to the agency, adding that whenever the response is prepared and announced, everyone will be informed of the process of continued cooperation with the agency.

According to coordination made between Iran and the IAEA, the agency's inspectors are to visit the Islamic Republic by the end of this week and until then they have enough time to make best use of the upcoming visit, Asefi added.

http://www.iribnews.com/Full_en.asp?news_id=189096

Tehran Putting its Spies in Iraq

September 28, 2003
London Sunday Telegraph
Philip Sherwell

NAJAF, Iraq — Iran has dispatched hundreds of agents posing as pilgrims and traders to Iraq to foment unrest in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, and the lawless frontier areas.

Tehran's hard-line regime has also allowed extremist fighters from Ansar al-Islam, a terror faction with close links to al Qaeda, to cross back into Iraq from its territory to join the anti-American resistance.

The Pentagon believes that Iran is building a bridgehead of activists inside Iraq, ready to destabilize the country if that serves its future interests.

"They are provoking sectarian divisions, inciting people against the Americans and trying to foment conflict and anarchy," said Abdulaziz al-Kubaisi, a former Iraqi major who was jailed by Saddam Hussein and is now a senior official in the Iraqi National Congress.

"The last thing that certain elements in the regime want is to see a stable democratic and pluralistic Iraq next door, so they are trying to export trouble here," said a leading official in another Iraqi party.

Although Iran's president is a political moderate, true power remains in the hands of the fundamentalist clergy. At a time when Iran is facing domestic discontent over the slow progress of democratic reform and mounting international pressure over its nuclear program, hard-line elements believe that instability in Iraq will distract attention from the regime's problems.

The National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), an opposition group, claims that some translators working for the U.S. forces are reporting back to Tehran.

It also says that its informants within the regime have supplied details of senior Iranian intelligence commanders who are operating inside Iraq.

"The Iranian agents have melted into the population and are just waiting until the moment is right," said one NCRI official.

L. Paul Bremer, the American head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, has already accused Iran of "meddling" in Iraq's internal affairs and backing some attacks on American forces.

On Friday, he confirmed that several hundred members of Ansar, which set up a Taliban-style ministate in Kurdish-controlled territory in 2001, had re-entered Iraq.

"They are a very dangerous group," he said in Washington. "The flow of terrorists into Iraq is the biggest obstacle to the reconstruction of the country."

Mr. Bremer said that U.S. forces are holding 248 non-Iraqi fighters captured in Iraq. Most came from Syria, but the second-largest group was Iranians.

At the start of the war to topple Saddam, Kurdish militia and U.S. Special Forces had crushed Ansar's 750-strong force of Arabs, Pakistanis, Chechens and Kurds.

About 250 Ansar fighters were killed and another 100 captured, but Iran's military turned a blind eye as the rest escaped across the mountainous border.

Most have returned to the violent flash points west and north of Baghdad, according to U.S. military officials, Kurdish political leaders and former mukhabarat officers.

Ansar adheres to the same extremist Sunni Muslim interpretation of Islam as al Qaeda.

Although Iran follows the alternative Shi'ite version of Islam, its hard-line military rulers have allowed Ansar to regroup and return to Iraq because they share its anti-American cause.

Iran has also taken advantage of its largely unpoliced border with Iraq — a 210-mile stretch of which was turned over Friday to an American-trained police force by the U.S. Army — to deploy agents who are building networks of spies and sympathizers.

One Iraqi of ethnic Iranian origin, who returned to Najaf after 23 years in Iran and who has contacts with Tehran's intelligence services, told the Sunday Telegraph that he has seen many Iranian agents mingling with visitors to the city of golden-domed mosques and shrines.

Najaf, an ancient seat of Shi'ite learning, is fertile ground for the Iranian agents. Last week, many of the visiting pilgrims were speaking Farsi (Persian).

Long-banned pictures of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, are once again on sale in the markets of the town where he spent part of his early exile before moving to Paris.

The returning Iraqi exile said that several agents from the political wing of the Revolutionary Guards had been deployed to Najaf, some operating within the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), one of the five political parties represented in the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council.

"They are gathering information on the Americans and establishing their contacts with anti-U.S. groups," he said. Iran denies interference or sending agents to Iraq, saying that it has already recognized the Governing Council.

The Iranian opposition, however, says that the Quds force of the regime's Revolutionary Guards, which specializes in foreign operations, commands the loyalty of key commanders within the Badr Brigade, the Iranian-trained militia army of the SCIRI.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030928-123420-6964r.htm

Iran Won't Halt Nuclear Programme

September 28, 2003
Reuters
Reuters.co.uk

TEHRAN -- Iran says it will not give up its nuclear programme, including uranium enrichment, despite international pressure to prove it is not developing atomic weapons.

"Abandoning peaceful nuclear activities or enrichment is not something that Iran is ready to compromise on," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a weekly news conference on Sunday.

He had been asked whether Iran would halt uranium enrichment activities as demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a resolution this month.

Inspectors are due to arrive in Tehran on Thursday for a round of further inspections and talks with Iranian officials.

The IAEA has given Iran until October 31 to prove it has no secret nuclear weapons programme, as the United States alleges.

If doubts remain about Iran's nuclear ambitions in November it could be reported to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is solely geared to producing enough electricity from atomic power to meet growing demand and insists it has cooperated with the IAEA.

"We have been transparent. We have said we're not seeking to produce weapons of mass destruction," Asefi said.

"But we haven't received a reciprocal answer from the international community. The (IAEA) resolution that was passed was political."

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=379287&section=news

Khomeini's Grandson Urges Bush to Intervene in Iran

September 28, 2003
AFP
Khaleej Times

WASHINGTON - A grandson of Iran's late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Hossein Khomeini, called on US President George W. Bush on Friday to intervene by force against Iran's ruling religious leaders who were installed by his grandfather.

"Mr Bush should act like Churchill when he gathered around him the British population to fight against Hitler," Hossein said in reference to Britain's World War II Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

The grandson of the founding father of the modern-day Islamic republic spoke at the American Enterprise Institute here, a conservative Washington think-tank.

Asked if he thought the exiled son of Iran's late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi should return to Iran, he replied: "Anyone who has the power to lead Iranians into freedom should be there, no matter who."

Iran's royal family was forced into exile in 1979 following an Islamic revolution which overthrew the Shah. The Ayatollah's grandson was in Washington after spending several months in Baghdad. He congratulated the United States for its intervention in Iraq which he described as "a free country."

He said young Iranians are now, more than ever, seeking liberty and called on the international community to mobilize and put an end to Tehran's clerical rule.

"Under the Shah, at least, religious practice was free. Today, after the revolution, Iran is one of the worst dictatorships," Khomeini said.

Khomeini has lived in Iran's central city of Qom since the death of his grandfather.

Iran's current supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had urged Khomeini not to discuss political matters.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2003/September/middleeast_September516.xml&section=middleeast&col=

Flyer Alive After 17 Years

September 28, 2003
Herald Sun Sunday
Jay Bushinsky

An Israel Air Force navigator missing for 17 years is alive in an isolated Iranian jail, according to a secret report. The family of Lt-Col Ron Arad believed he had died after ejecting from his stricken Phantom fighter-bomber over Lebanon in 1986.

Now they have taken court action to force the Israeli Government to reveal findings of the report that Arad is alive.

They hope he will be released from Iran next month as part of a prisoner exchange being worked out between Israel and Lebanon's Hizbollah militia.

The report, by a special committee set up last year, contradicts previous statements by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that the only missing Israeli still alive was businessman Elhanan Tannenbaum.

Mr Sharon hinted this week he would be able to pluck several "cards" from Europe's deck of suspected Muslim terrorists to exchange for information about Arad.

"We have good bargaining chips, in which the Iranians are interested, and in which Hizbollah is very, very, very interested," said Mr Sharon.

The pending prisoner exchange deal being formulated with a German intermediary would see 400 Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian and Palestinian captives released in return for Tannenbaum and the corpses of three Israeli soldiers. Arad's release is not yet part of the deal.

The Israeli High Court yesterday ordered the Government to release a censored copy of the report on Arad.

The report is said to conclude Arad was captured by the Shiite Amal militia and sold two years later to Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

The navigator's brother, Dudu Arad, told the Jerusalem Post yesterday: "The report states Ron is alive, and we must do everything to ensure his return. I'm sorry to say the report is currently on the prime minister's desk, and is being ignored. Israel is sacrificing Ron. The report must be implemented, and if the Government chooses to bury it, it is also burying Ron.

"We will turn this country upside down to get the Government to do all in its power for Ron's return."

The Arad family last week took action in a bid to stall the prisoner exchange.

Among prisoners to be released is Hizbollah official Mustafa Dirani, snatched by Israel in 1994. Arad's family has filed suit against Dirani, who is said to have sold Arad to the Iranians.

"We will fight to the end to ensure that Dirani isn't released," Arad's other brother, Chen, told the Post.

"This lawsuit is the only means of holding Dirani here. I feel as if I am at war.

"Ron is a soldier. Israel does not abandon it's soldiers."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,7391083%255E663,00.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.