Iranian Alert -- October 9, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD PING LIST

The Iranian Student Movement Up To The Minute Reports ^ | 10.9.2003 | DoctorZin

[DoctorZIn]

U.S.: Iran to 'Throw Sand in Our Eyes' on N-Arms

October 09, 2003
Reuters
Andrew Cawthorne

LONDON -- A senior U.S. official predicted on Thursday Iran will seek to "throw sand" in the world's eyes to prevent a showdown over an October 31 deadline for Tehran to dispel international suspicion of its nuclear ambitions.

"I think what will happen prior to October 31st is the Iranians will cooperate a little bit and the issue will be, 'Did they cooperate enough?"' U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton told reporters in London, speaking about the deadline set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"They will try and throw sand in our eyes and use a modest level of cooperation to hide some level of obfuscation and lack of cooperation, to conceal as much as they can, to delay, to fight for time, and to avoid having the issue referred to the (U.N.) Security Council," he added.

In a tough resolution last month, the IAEA gave Iran until October 31 to dispel doubts about its atomic ambitions and is demanding rigorous inspections of suspect sites. Washington is urging strong U.N. measures against Tehran, whom it suspects of secretly developing nuclear weapons.

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami insisted on Wednesday Tehran would provide whatever cooperation was needed to prove its nuclear program is solely geared to producing electricity -- the latest such assurance from the Islamic Republic.

Bolton predicted that if unchecked, Iran could have nuclear weapons capability "toward the end of the decade," though some people theorize it could be much sooner, he said.

"The risk of outward Iranian proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to other countries in the region is also a risk we take very seriously," he added.

Asked why Washington did not take a similar line on Israel's nuclear program, Bolton said: "The issue for the U.S. is what poses a threat to us and to our allies...We are not platonic guardians, we are representing American interests."

He was in London for a conference on a hotly debated U.S. plan to intercept ships and planes that may be trafficking weapons of mass destruction.

The Proliferation Security Initiative has won support from 10 other nations, helping ease diplomatic tensions over the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq and the subsequent failure to find weapons of mass destruction there.

Bolton said deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein may well have got rid of his weapons.

"In the short term we don't entirely know what Saddam may have done with the weapons of mass destruction. They may have been moved out of Iraq years ago -- it's possible," he said.

Saddam may also have ordered them destroyed, he added, "in which case it was a bad mistake not to keep records."

The existence of about 1,000 nuclear scientists whom Saddam dubbed his "nuclear Mujahideen" (holy warriors) demonstrated Baghdad's dangerous intentions, Bolton added.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3585720

[DoctorZIn]

U.S.: Iran to 'Throw Sand in Our Eyes' on N-Arms

October 09, 2003
Reuters
Andrew Cawthorne

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/997948/posts?page=21#21

[Pan_Yans Wife]

"The issue for the U.S. is what poses a threat to us and to our allies...We are not platonic guardians, we are representing American interests."

BUMP

[F14 Pilot]

Bump to # 20

[blackie]

Free Iran, now!

[DoctorZIn]

DRUDGEREPORT: U.S. wants defensive missile system in Europe against Iran

DrudgeReport ^ | 10.9.2003 | Matt Drudge
Posted on 10/09/2003 12:14 PM PDT by DoctorZIn

Munich (dpa) - The U.S. government is sounding out the possibility of bilateral agreements with European countries to allow stationing of a defensive missile system directed against Iran, a leading German newspaper reported in its Friday edition.

Countries accepting the missiles would be rewarded by the U.S. with economic assistance, according to the report in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung citing unnamed U.S. State Department officials.

One ranking U.S. diplomat told the newspaper a joint project with European participation would be preferable, creating a missile-defence system to guard against attacks on both Europe and North America. However chances of obtaining NATO approval for the project were slim, the official said.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/998332/posts

[DoctorZIn]

U.S. says Iran to try to avert showdown

Thu 9 October, 2003 18:17 BST
By Andrew Cawthorne

LONDON (Reuters) - A top U.S. official has predicted that Iran will show some cooperation to prevent a showdown over an October 31 deadline but not enough to dispel international suspicion of its nuclear ambitions.

In a tough resolution last month, the U.N. nuclear watchdog gave Iran until the end of October to answer doubts about its atomic ambitions, demanding rigorous inspections of suspect sites. Washington is urging strong U.N. measures against Tehran, which it suspects of secretly developing nuclear weapons.

"I think what will happen prior to October 31st is the Iranians will cooperate a little bit and the issue will be, 'Did they cooperate enough?'" U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton told reporters in London on Thursday.

"They will try and throw sand in our eyes and use a modest level of cooperation to hide some level of obfuscation and lack of cooperation, to conceal as much as they can, to delay, to fight for time, and to avoid having the issue referred to the (U.N.) Security Council," he added.

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami insisted on Wednesday Tehran would provide whatever cooperation was needed by the deadline set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to prove its nuclear programme is solely geared for peaceful purposes.

Bolton, considered a hawk within the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, said that if unchecked, Iran may have nuclear arms "towards the end of the decade" though he noted "some people have theories that put the Iranians much closer".

"The risk of outward Iranian proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to other countries in the region is also a risk we take very seriously," he added.

Bolton, who was recently called "human scum" by North Korea for describing its leader Kim Jong-il as a dictator, suggested that U.S. President George W. Bush's so-called "axis of evil" - Iraq under Saddam, Iran and North Korea -- should be widened to include other "rogue, loser states".

"I think there are other candidate members for the axis of evil...Libya, Syria and Cuba and a variety of places."

NOT PLATONIC GUARDIANS

Asked why Washington did not take a similar line on Israel's nuclear programme, Bolton said: "The issue for the U.S. is what poses a threat to us and to our allies...We are not Platonic guardians, we are representing American interests."

Quizzed in a similar vein on media reports that Pakistan may have supplied materials for North Korea's nuclear programme, Bolton noted that Islamabad had roundly denied that.

"We take them at their word -- at this point," he said.

Bolton was in London for talks on a U.S. plan to intercept ships and planes that may be trafficking weapons of mass destruction. The Proliferation Security Initiative has won support from 10 other nations, helping ease diplomatic tensions over the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq and the subsequent failure to find weapons of mass destruction there.

Bolton said deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein may well have got rid of his weapons. "They may have been moved out of Iraq years ago -- it's possible," he said.

Saddam may also have ordered them destroyed, he added, "in which case it was a bad mistake not to keep records."

But he said that Iraq had about 1,000 nuclear scientists, whom he said Saddam had dubbed as his "nuclear Mujahideen" (holy warriors), which demonstrated Baghdad's dangerous intentions.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=385967&section=news

[DoctorZIn]

Here is another link to the Drudgereport story.
Mine was pulled as someone had already published the story.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/998314/posts

[Pro-Bush]

One ranking U.S. diplomat told the newspaper a joint project with European participation would be preferable, creating a missile-defence system to guard against attacks on both Europe and North America.

Most interesting

[DoctorZIn]

Karzai For Iran Or Agreement With America?

Mabrouk bin Abdulaziz
Al-Hayat
2003/10/9

Has the U.S finally found its long-sought goal in Hassan Khomeini, grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, to the point of making out of him an Iranian Karzai? This question comes to mind after his visit to the United States, and particularly to the American Enterprise Institute, which is very influential in the planning of long-term American strategy, as well as following the concurrence of his statements with the U.S.'s desired changes of the Islamic regime in Iran.

First, we notice that the escalating confrontation between the U.S. and Iran reached a level higher than ever, which warns of important events in the near future, as the battlefields, in order of importance, are the following: the nuclear file, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Palestinian cause, Lebanon, the Caucasian Sea and Central Asia, Al Qaeda, the Gulf, the oil…

Lately, the U.S. declared having categorically eliminated the option of using force against Iran, which asserts the occurrence of a drastic change in the strategy it adopted in this country. Maybe America has finally also dropped the idea of replacing the current Islamic regime with a Westernized, secular one, and accepts in return a moderate solution through a democratic Islamic regime, which would be open to the Western civilization. Hence, it would be close to the reformists' suggestions on one hand and convenient to U.S. interests on the other. The U.S. will probably try to test this kind of rule in Iraq, so that it would represent later on an example to other countries in the Middle East.

The changes in the American vision of the confrontation with Iran are probably due to the following two reasons:

1- The situation in Iraq:

The U.S. was surprised following the invasion of Iraq and the downfall of Saddam Hussein with the Iraqis' reaction to the occupation, as the brief joy of celebrating Saddam's departure soon ended, and the American presence became shameful for Iraqis, as it only existed to prevent the return of Hussein. Everyone is demanding Americans now to leave and hand Iraqis their affairs, as to choose the rule that convenes them. The U.S. was also surprised with the Iraqis' attachment to their religion, although they had been under a secular rule for decades. Maybe their last hope is to establish an Islamic rule similar to that of Iran, aside of each country's particularities, and this undoubtedly confused the Bush administration. Hence, the American administration has two choices: either to meet Iraqis' demands and risk the entailments that would definitely serve Iran's interest, or settle with the rising resistance and accepting more enmities even form its friends.

One of the reasons preventing the U.S. to hand the management of Iraq to the UN is its fear of a rapprochement between Iraq and Iran, despite the eight years of war these two countries had, as they feel now more than ever, the need to unite in terms of their religion. Hence, America is trying hard to cut the way between them as to prevent a potential axis between Iran, Iraq and Syria, which would threaten Israel and weaken Jordan.

Iran has lost an important link with Iraq following the death of Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim, who was assassinated as soon as he started revealing his stances from the American occupation and the relation with Israel.

2- The second reason is the lack of alternative individuals from outside the regime, who would be convincing and have enough credibility to run such a large country as Iran.

America is not placing its bets on a monarchic rule, which brought nothing but mayhem to the country, nor is it considering Mujahideen Khalq organization, which is enlisted on the terrorist organizations list, and is no longer influential in Iran.

As for the liberal Iranian individuals living in the West and fond of the Western example, they are split between two groups: those who refuse the American adventures in Iran as a matter of principle, and the second group who follow what the Americans want, but are not very popular in Iran.

Will the U.S. return to Iran the way it left? Obviously, it is a surreal option that would end up with the same failing results of the previous choices.

Finally, if America wants to operate some changes in Iran's policies, it should be patient, maybe for another 20 years, not to mention that it should make compromises, especially regarding Israel. It should also be aware of the fact that increasing pressure will only push Iranians to take more precautionary measures, which could include repressing freedoms.

http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/10-2003/Article-20031009-20ae2a55-c0a8-01ed-003c-37f4717eded5/story.html

[DoctorZIn]

US pressures Lufthansa over Iran Air's engine service - report

Payvand's Iran News ...
10/9/03

The United States has stepped up its pressure on Lufthansa over the German airliner's maintenance and overhaul of Iran Air plane engines, the weekly Stern magazine said Thursday, IRNA reported from Berlin.

The unnamed American engine spare parts supplier has threatened to terminate all its business activities with Lufthansa, should it continue to provide Iran Air with US-made engine spare parts.

Lufthansa has reportedly caved in to American pressure and will no longer US-made engine spare parts in Iran Air planes.

The German national carrier has been in charge of Iran Air's maintenance and overhaul for the last four decades.

Since Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979, US embargoes have forced Iran to buy mainly Russian-built planes and older European Airbus models to supplement an existing fleet of Boeing and other American and European models.

http://www.payvand.com/news/03/oct/1053.html

[DoctorZIn]

UN nuclear agency warns Iran 'time is running out'

Financial Times
By Roula Khalaf in Vienna
Published: October 9 2003 22:06 | Last Updated: October 9 2003 22:06

The chief United Nations nuclear inspector on Thursday called on Iran to accelerate its co-operation with his agency. He warned that time was running out for Tehran to comply with an end of October deadline and provide full transparency to allay international concerns over its nuclear programme.

Tehran insists its nuclear programme is aimed at peaceful energy production, but the US maintains it is a front for developing nuclear weapons.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, said teams of inspectors sent last week were given access to sites they had requested and received fresh information from the Iranian authorities.

But he stressed that the amount and flow of information remained inadequate.

The IAEA's governing board last month set a deadline of the end of October for Iran to provide inspectors with assurances that it had not diverted nuclear material to weapons use. Failure to meet the deadline would escalate the dispute by sending it to the UN Security Council, where the US would seek a statement that increased diplomatic pressure on Iran and countries that had assisted its nuclear programme.

The IAEA board's pressure on Iran appears to have intensified the debate between hardliners and reformists within the Tehran regime over the merits of co-operation.

Mohamed Khatami, the president, this week said Iran would provide all necessary co-operation to prove it was not developing nuclear weapons.

"They've promised information will be forthcoming but it has not yet been provided," Mr ElBaradei said. "The central question is whether Iran has any [uranium] enrichment activities that we have not been informed about. On that question I haven't got satisfactory information."

Iran has also said it would provide a list of all imported components to address an important sticking point with the IAEA and convince inspectors that traces of weapons-grade uranium found at two sites were the result of contaminated equipment purchased from abroad.

Mr ElBaradei, however, stressed that he needed to know the origin of the components to verify Iranian assertions.

Iran has insisted that it would continue enriching uranium despite the IAEA governing board's call for it to suspend such activities. Mr ElBaradei said the suspension of uranium enrichment was demanded as a confidence-building measure and failure to comply with the request would not constitute a violation of Iran's Safeguards Agreement.

Iran has also given conflicting signals as to whether it would sign an agreement, known as the additional protocol, to allow more intrusive inspections of nuclear sites. Mr ElBaradei said the agreement was essential for the future, but was not his immediate priority.

Speaking in London on Thursday, John Bolton, US undersecretary of state for arms control, predicted Iran would "co-operate a little" with the IAEA, to buy time.

He said Iran would be capable of producing nuclear weapons "towards the end of the decade".

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059480478752

[DoctorZIn]

UN nuclear agency warns Iran 'time is running out'

Financial Times
By Roula Khalaf in Vienna
Published: October 9 2003 22:06 | Last Updated: October 9 2003 22:06

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/997948/posts?page=32#32

[Pan_Yans Wife]

How can El Baradei maintain his sanity when dealing with Tehran?

[DoctorZIn]

'A Bird With Just One Wing'

October 09, 2003
Al-Ahram Weekly
Mustafa El-Labbad

The past week was historic for the Islamic Republic of Iran since it was one of the most difficult junctures the Iranian regime has passed through since the establishment of the republic in 1979.

It has witnessed heated political debate between its political forces on the one hand and the increasing international pressure on Iran to disclose the secrets of its nuclear programme on the other. At the beginning of the week, a delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded its negotiations with Iranian officials regarding its nuclear file. Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's representative to the IAEA, said that the negotiations were "positive and constructive", and that both parties had set a "framework" for cooperation between them.

But far from the usual diplomatic niceties, the delegation's visit to Iran could be seen as a clear Iranian retreat in the face of increasing international pressure to divulge the secrets of its nuclear programme. Observers say that the agency's representatives asked questions concerning Iran's activity in enriching depleted uranium, and the source from which Iran obtained the related equipment and the nuclear technology, especially in Natanz, where inspectors had found in a previous visit to the plant traces of uranium. Iranians said that the equipment had been imported and that it was polluted from its country of origin. Negotiations also dealt with the issue of signing a second protocol, which allows for surprise inspections of Iran's nuclear establishments.

The visit by the IAEA delegation comes in the wake of the agency's decision to impose a deadline on Iran, by the end of this month, to sign the protocol and open its establishments for surprise inspections and to stop its tests to enrich uranium. Otherwise, the file would be turned over to the UN Security Council, which could open the way for international sanctions against Tehran.

Since the former Shah's rule, Iran has been developing nuclear programmes to maintain its position as a regional power with nuclear capabilities like those of India, Pakistan and Israel. Accordingly these programmes should be viewed as a way of supporting regional capabilities and protecting higher Iranian national interests. However, the Iranian nuclear programme, as observers see it, does not have the support of a specific lobby, such as the military which supports the nuclear programme in Pakistan, or the civil-technological lobby which supports the Indian nuclear programme. This weakens Iran's ability in its attempts to confront internal and external pressures. The issue of signing a new protocol is a new reason for the divisions in the Iranian regime between the conservatives and the reformists.

The Iranian regime formed a five-member committee to deal with its nuclear file. The quintet is composed of Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, Intelligence Minister Ali Yunessi, Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani, National Security Council Secretary Hassan Rowhani and Foreign Affairs Advisor and former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati. The formation of the committee reflects a clear conservative tendency, since Intelligence Minister Yunessi is considered a reformist, while the remaining four members move within a clique associated with the conservatives. This format translates into a form of agreement, Iranian style, between the reformists and the conservatives. A statement by Mohsen Mirdamadi, chairman of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee at the Iranian Parliament, made it clear that the reformists supported the signing of the additional protocol unconditionally. Meanwhile, the conservatives insist, through their media, on rejecting the deadline and hint of a pullout from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The Entekhab newspaper, mouthpiece of the conservatives, said it thought that Iran would finally sign the protocol since "acceptance, while it would create problems for us; a refusal to sign would bring about even bigger problems." The English-language Iran News wrote, "To those who claim that signing the protocol would open the door for other requests, we say that had it been signed earlier, it would have protected us from other future requests." The conservative Etemad newspaper, which is an organ of the religious-military lobby, thinks that "Iran has the right to have nuclear capabilities," and that "no one has the right to sign agreements which are not in the interest of the Iranian nation nor its national interests." On the other hand, the reformist Shargh appealed to the political elite to speak in one voice to the world. The leftist, quasi-reformist Aftab-e Yazd cautioned Iran against provoking the international community, leaving international public opinion easy prey for Washington to manipulate.

The Iranian regime is used to promoting its vision of controversial issues and sending out signals to the outside world by way of the Friday sermon at Tehran University, which sees hundreds of thousands of worshippers. The importance of last Friday's sermon is that it was proportionate to the increasing pressure against the regime. The sermon leader was Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, one of the most important figures in the Iranian regime and one of the most powerful. Rafsanjani criticised the IAEA because, he said, it "has succumbed to Washington's will." Rafsanjani announced the signing of the protocol under four conditions: no inspection of sovereign places; no entry of military sites which are not related to the nuclear programme; acknowledgment of Iran's right to own reactors for peaceful purposes; and no inspection of religious sites. There was another unannounced condition -- obtaining guarantees that Iran would not be subject to other procedures in case it signed the protocol.

The Iranian regime has been far ahead of that of Saddam Hussein in the sense that it is facing up to US pressure by employing a dual strategy, that of using pretexts and using measured and calculated climbdowns while covering up its tracks with statements for local and regional consumption. This is unlike the case of the former Iraqi leader who depended basically on policy speeches. And perhaps at a time when tens of thousands of voices were raised during the Friday prayer in Tehran University demanding "mar bar America", or "death to America", secret talks were being held between the United States and Iran.

Jordanian King Abdullah II visited Iran last week and held talks with the highest-ranking state official, President Mohamed Khatami, and Foreign Minister Kharrazi before leaving for Washington carrying the Iranian viewpoint to US President George W Bush regarding regional cooperation between Washington and Tehran. Immediately thereafter, officials at the US State Department announced they had received "positive signals" from Tehran. Richard Armitage, assistant secretary of state, said "Iran is showing more cooperation on the issue of Iraq," adding that Iran will participate in the conference of donor countries for the reconstruction of Iraq to be held in Madrid at the end of October.

For its part, the US administration has been quite successful in focussing attention on Iran, and this within the short period of time since the occupation of Iraq last April. It was able to have Iran's nuclear file before the Security Council within six months, despite the absence of any international resolution that impinges on the sovereignty of Iran, at least thus far. The US administration also succeeded in making the nuclear issue a contentious one between the two factions of the Iranian regime, the reformists and the conservatives. It has in effect rendered Iranian politics a bird with just one wing.

The situation in Iran took a turn for the worse last week after Tehran insinuated it might pull out of the IAEA and following its conditional approval to signing the protocol. However, the time might have come and gone for Iran to impose its terms in return for allowing surprise inspections. Tehran is not at present in a position to dictate conditions. America's media and diplomatic machineries started moving with remarkable speed in the past few weeks in order to point the finger of accusation at Iran. This comes before the US forces Iran into entering an unending cycle of American requirements and conditions which not only aim at making major changes in Iran's policies but also at changing the very shape and form of its political system.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/659/re6.htm

[nuconvert]

"Mr. Mortazavi, better known by the public as “The Buthcer of the press” is a protege of Mr. Khameneh’i, Mr. Salamatian told the Persian service of the BBC the reason the Intelligence Ministry do not go along telling the public all the information it has over the case, it is because pressures coming from the office of the leader."

Khamenei > Mortazavi
What Khamenei wants, Khamenei gets.
And if he doesn't want Mortazavi prosecuted, he won't be.

[nuconvert]

"In another development, Khatami vowed to do “everything possible” to deliver “free and fair” parliamentary elections in February, despite his failure to push through a key electoral reform bill,..."

LOL
Yeah. So the mullahs will choose who the people vote for, again.
Sounds "free and fair" to me. </sarc>

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Iranian delegation walks out of IAEA nuclear talks

VIENNA (AFP) Sep 12, 2003
The Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) walked out in protest Friday when the UN's nuclear watchdog imposed a deadline for Tehran to provide full details of its nuclear program.
"We reject this ultimatum," Iranian ambassador Ali Akbar Salehi told the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors before storming out of a board meeting on whether to issue Tehran with an ultimatum.

The IAEA went ahead and told Iran to prove by October 31 it was not secretly developing atomic weapons.

Salehi blasted the IAEA for descending into "political dialogue" and said the ultimatum spelled "disaster" for the nuclear watchdog.

"(We) have no choice but to have a deep review of our existing level and extent of engagement with the agency," he warned, according to a copy of his speech to the IAEA board.

Salehi rejected US charges that Iran had a covert nuclear weapons program and accused Washington of entertaining "the idea of invasion of yet another territory as they aim to re-engineer and reshape the entire Middle East region."

"(The ultimatum) targets the very core of our commitments and the current course of ever-accelerating cooperation," he complained.

"For the last 24 years, Iran been subject to the most severe series of sanctions and export restrictions on material and technology for peaceful nuclear technology," Salehi continued.

"So our peaceful program had no choice but to become discreet."
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030912161723.tcplyt78.html

[nuconvert]

This situation in Pakistan, goes largely unreported in mainstream media.
It seems President Musharraf is barely holding things together, and his life is under constant threat.
I hope he is getting the help he needs.
Without him, the U.S. will have serious problems
with Pakistan. (IMO)

[PhilDragoo]

''We have evidence that these Shi'ite leaders and an Iranian official have conspired to kill Azam Tariq,''

Iran instigating murderous violence in Pakistan and Iraq? I am shocked, shocked.