[DoctorZIn]

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

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

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

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

[DoctorZIn]

Amir Taheri: Thanks to EU, Iran is clawing its way into the nuclear club

Gulf News | 06-11-2003

Remember you first read it here. Iran is now on course to force its way into the nuclear club within the next two to three years. When it does, it will owe part of its success to a European Union diplomatic manoeuvre that has spared Iran the prospect of direct confrontation over its illicit nuclear programme, with the international community.

The manoeuvre, which led to the signature of a memorandum between the Islamic Republic and three European Union members in October, appears to have defused the latest crisis. As things stand it is almost certain that the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, will soft pedal the procedure that could have led to a confrontation between Tehran and the United Nations over Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The European Union initiative has exacted no more than a vague promise from the leadership in Tehran to temporarily halt a secret project to enrich uranium and produce plutonium.

Domestic politics

The temporary halt, if it does materialise, may be partly linked to Iranian domestic politics than a sudden desire on the part of the Khomeinist regime to honour the terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, NPT.

Iran is already in a campaign mode in anticipation of the general election next March. A foreign policy crisis at this time could upset the plans of the establishment that appears determined to purge the so-called reformist faction and impose a "Chinese-style" system of political repression and economic opening.

The establishment feared that the nuclear issue might force the EU to line up behind the tougher Iran policy preached by certain elements in the Bush administration. Playing the European card against Washington is an old and tested tactic of the Khomeinist regime.

Tehran used it in the 1980s by seizing and then liberating European hostages in exchange for pledges by the European powers not to join US-imposed sanctions against Iran. In the 1990s Tehran used the same tactic by tempting European oil companies with mouth-watering oil and gas contracts.

One other factor may have contributed to Tehran's decision to play the European card again. The choice of Mrs. Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human rights lawyer as this year's Nobel Peace laureate, is seen in Tehran as a signal that Europe's "soft powers" may have signalled their readiness to help provide a "soft" face for the opposition against the Khomeinist regime.

Such an opposition could make it easier for the European powers to win the support of their own public opinion for a policy of regime change in Tehran. Thus the piece of paper that Tehran has just signed with three European foreign ministers is unlikely to affect the Khomeinist regime's strategy of building a capacity to produce an arsenal of nuclear weapons within the next two to three years.

There is little doubt that the Europeans know this. (They cannot be as naive as not to know after a quarter of a century of dealing with an unusually duplicitous regime.) So why did the three European wise men, travelling west to east, agree to take part in a manoeuvre to get the Khomeinist regime off the hook? Each of the three had his reason.

France's Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is desperately looking for any opportunity to show that Paris still has a say in the Middle East's complex politics. He would love to be able to claim that his "soft power" diplomacy did in Iran what the American "hard power" tried to do against Saddam Hussain in Iraq and, according to de Villepin, failed.

German Foreign Minister Joshcka Fischer, the second member of the wise trio, had a slightly different motive. Wile continuing his country's close alliance with France, Fischer is also anxious to avoid a situation in which Berlin finds itself alone with Paris.

The presence of the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in the trio helps Fischer avoid such a situation. At the same time Fischer would be able to tell the German public that the Schroeder government is still capable of playing a role in diffusing regional crises.

Change of occupant

Fischer and de Villepin also harbour the hope of seeing a change of occupant at the White House in 2005. Straw's motives are equally complicated. In his heart of hearts he knows that the only language that the Khomienists understand and respect is that of force.

But he also knows that Tony Blair's government is passing through its worst crisis since it first came to power in 1997. At a moment of crisis over Iran, Blair might find himself facing a choice he wishes to avoid: parting ways with the Americans or risking a political revolt within his Cabinet.

All this means is that the Khomeinist regime may well get yet another chance to have its cake and eat it. As already indicated by Hassan Ruhani, a mullah who speaks for the High Council of National security in Tehran, Iran's determination to dot itself with "the entire range of nuclear science and technology at all levels".

Iran's nuclear programme started in 1956. The strategic decision to develop nuclear weapons was taken in 1989. The regime has spent an estimated $12 billion on all aspects of this ambitious programme so far. It is not something that Tehran will give up after a session of tea and sympathy with the EU trio.

Amir Taheri, Iranian author and journalist, is based in Europe and can be contacted at his e-mail at amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=102165

[DoctorZIn]

Bush to urge democratic change in Middle East

Reuters - World News
Nov 5, 2003

WASHINGTON - U.S. President George W. Bush will call for democracy across the Middle East on Thursday and cite a failure of U.S. policy spanning 60 years in support of governments not devoted to political freedom, U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said.


The speech will mark Bush's latest attempt to offer a justification for the war in Iraq as necessary to jump-start democracy in the region at a time when he is under fire for mounting U.S. casualties there and as anti-Americanism spreads among many Muslims who feel Islam is under attack.

In remarks that could raise concerns among some nondemocratic leaders in the region, Bush will mark the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, a group founded in 1983 following an impassioned call by President Ronald Reagan for renewed efforts to promote global democracy.

Rice told a group of reporters on Wednesday that most of Bush's speech would be about "the new opportunity for a forward strategy for freedom in the Middle East."

Bush has often talked about his hopes that democracy in Iraq would foster a democratic movement in the Middle East, and his new speech appeared to amount to a final break with past U.S. policy of not pushing some governments to adopt democratic institutions.

"After 60 years of trying to find stability through regimes that were not devoted to political liberty for their people, what we found is that we did not buy security and stability, but rather frustration and pent-up emotions in a region that has fallen behind in terms of prosperity and in fact continues to produce ideologies of hatred," Rice said.

Bush will not call for Western-style democracies to take root in the area, pointing out that modernization in the sense of political and economic freedom is not synonymous with westernization, in answer to the mullahs who denounce western influences.

"This is not the United States doing something to this region. This is a region in which the stirrings are really quite clear .... You could never, as the United States, decide, 'all right, this region now needs to pursue freedom.' But the people of the region are clamoring for it," Rice said.

She would not say which countries in the region Bush would single out as needing democracy, but the United States has often expressed concern about Syria and Iran.

Syria on Wednesday said its relations with the United States were at their most negative point in years and blamed U.S. policy in the Middle East for the deterioration in ties.

Washington has been at odds with Iran over Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program. The Bush administration also wants Iran to turn over to Washington a number of al Qaeda members Iran says it is holding.

Rice said Bush would praise those Middle Eastern states whose democratic evolution is in development, such as three ruled by royal families, Bahrain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

A difficult case is U.S. ally Egypt, recipient of $2 billion in U.S. assistance each year. Egypt's government lacks democratic credentials, but there have been efforts to reform the political system and take steps toward democratization.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_3399.shtml

[DoctorZIn]

Seeking a New Day in Iran

November 02, 2003
VOA News
Voice of America

The Iranian government uses torture, arbitrary detention, and excessive force to repress the freedom of speech, association, and religion of citizens.

Iran's pursuit and development of weapons of mass destruction have aroused international concern. Iran continues to be the world's foremost state supporter of terrorism through its support of organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestine Islamic Jihad. Elements of the Iranian government have helped members of al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam travel through and find safe haven in Iran.

As U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage points out, the people of Iran long for an end to repressive government. “The Iranian people,” he said, “are engaged in a rich and lively debate about the kind of society they want for themselves and for their children, including their desire for substantial economic and democratic reforms.” As Mr. Armitage said, Iran "is a country in the midst of a tremendous transformation.” The United States, he said, is working to encourage that desire for freedom, while at the same time working to counter the destructive policies of the Iranian government:

“Our policy is to try to eliminate the ability of Iran to carry forward with disruptive policies such as the development of W-M-D [weapons of mass destruction], such as the abandonment of human rights, such as repression against minorities, such as religious oppression against the Baha’is, and to try to get them to eschew [abandon] their state sponsorship of terrorism. And in this regard, our policy is to continue to support, openly and publicly, the aspirations of the people of Iran for transparency, anti-corruption, and democracy.”

The struggle continues between elements of Iran's society and leadership who want to keep the country mired in violence and corruption, and a popular movement that wants a more engaged and modern Iran to emerge. But the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize was just awarded to an Iranian citizen, Shirin Ebadi, is a sign of the sweeping desire for change across Iranian society.

As Deputy Secretary of State Armitage said, "The Iranian people should know of our support for their aspirations, but also that the full rewards of that support will only be realized once their government ends its destructive. . .policies. We look forward to the day when the will of the people of Iran prevails.”

Editorial # 0-10959

http://www.voanews.com/Editorials/article.cfm?objectID=D97A5198-3940-4DB5-BC07594EB6CA9FAC&title=11%2F2%2F03%20%2D%20SEEKING%20A%20NEW%20DAY%20IN%20IRAN

[DoctorZIn]

Iranian-Canadian Woman to Contest in Ms World

November 06, 2003
AFP
Hindustan Times

With her long silky hair and deep brown eyes, Nazanin Afshin-Jam will officially carry the Canadian maple leaf in the Miss World contest in December, but also will become the first -- unofficial -- representative of her homeland, Iran.

"There had been beauty contests before the arrival of Islamic fundamentalists to power in Iran, but there has never been a candidate for the Miss World pageant. I'm the first," the 24-year-old beauty said.

"I'm very honoured, but it really doesn't have a symbolic value for me," said. "I'm a woman, I'm Iranian, I'm Canadian and as Canada is a very multi-cultural country, so if I won the title, it's like I'd represent everyone around the world."

Her parents fled Iran with the overthrow of the Shah. She was only one year old at the time and has never returned.

At five feet eight inches tall, her measurements, which budge little despite her penchant for chocolate, have already earned her the title of Miss Swimsuit Canada 2003.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_448179,00050001.htm

[DoctorZIn]

Iran Security Chief to Meet ElBaradei in Vienna

November 06, 2003
Reuters
Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA -- The head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rohani, will meet the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog chief in Vienna Saturday, a U.N. official said, as Tehran moves to dispel concern over its nuclear plans.

Diplomats told Reuters Thursday the visit probably had to do with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei's report on IAEA nuclear inspections in Iran, expected to be circulated among diplomats in Vienna next week.

They said there was also a chance Rohani would give ElBaradei a letter formally expressing Tehran's intention to join a tough regime of short-notice U.N. nuclear inspections.

An IAEA press official confirmed the visit, though he was unable to give details about the purpose of the visit.

Rohani canceled a planned trip to Moscow earlier this week, which analysts said was because Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was there at the time.

Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Akbar Salehi, said Iran would soon give the IAEA the letter stating its desire to sign the Additional Protocol to the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Tehran signed in 1970.

"The letter has been prepared and we are going to hand it over to the IAEA Secretariat," Salehi told Reuters. "I would say it's in days."

Speaking on condition on anonymity, diplomats said it was possible Rohani would deliver the letter Saturday, but added that Iran would more likely hand it over immediately before the November 20 IAEA board meeting.

The Additional Protocol would give the IAEA access to, and the right to conduct snap inspections of both declared and undeclared sites in Iran.

Iran must give the IAEA the letter before the IAEA board meeting in order for the board to approve Iran's intention to sign the protocol. Once the board approves, Iran can sign the protocol.

Although it will take some time for Iran's parliament to ratify the protocol, Tehran has said it would allow the tougher inspections before ratification.

The United States accuses Iran of secretly working on an atomic bomb. Tehran rejects the charge and says its program is solely for peaceful generation of electricity.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3767351

[DoctorZIn]

Islamic Republic of Iran "Up to Eyeballs" in Terror

November 06, 2003
Reuters
Mark Trevelyan

BERLIN -- Influential Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said on Thursday that Iran was "up to its eyeballs in terrorism" and the United States should quietly be encouraging a democratic revolution from within.

"Is there any doubt about Iran's support for terrorism, about their payments to Hamas and Hizbollah?" Perle said in a speech in Berlin, referring to Islamic radical groups.

Speaking later to Reuters, he said there was "massive discontent" among Iranians with their ruling Islamic clerics.

"I think we may well see a regime change in Iran brought about by Iranians, but they need some help. They need more broadcasting so that communications are improved. We should be prepared to help them get newspapers published in their own country," Perle said.

"I think the potential is there for regime change, but we should encourage it."

Iran was named by President Bush in January 2002 alongside Iraq and North Korea as part of an "axis of evil" threatening the world by developing weapons of mass destruction.

It denies charges from Washington that it may be trying to develop an atomic bomb under cover of a civilian nuclear program.

Perle, a member and former head of the Defense Policy Board, an influential advisory panel to the Pentagon, was among the architects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

He said it was no surprise now that what he called foreign terrorists were crossing into Iraq to launch attacks against the United States and other foreign targets.

"Success in Iraq is a threat to every tyrannical regime in the region, and they understand that," he said.

Perle expressed concern about developments in Russia, which he said was putting brutal pressure on its ex-Soviet neighbors and where "half the administration is ex-KGB," including President Vladimir Putin.

He said the arrest on fraud charges of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, head of oil giant Yukos and the country's richest businessman, was a worrying and politically motivated move.

"I think we should suspend Russian membership of the G8 (Group of Eight). The way in which they've treated Khodorkovsky is entirely inconsistent with the principles and values of all the other seven, and there should be some standards for membership," he told Reuters.

"We mustn't just ignore this. If we ignore it, there'll be more of it."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3769853

[DoctorZIn]

Bush Says Iran Must Embrace Democracy

November 06, 2003
Reuters
Steve Holland

WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Thursday challenged Iran and Syria and even key U.S. ally Egypt to adopt democracy and broke with past U.S. policy by vowing Washington will not support Arab states that reject liberty.

"The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people or lose its last claim to legitimacy," Bush said in a sweeping foreign policy speech. He said Syrian leaders as well as those ousted in Iraq had promised a restoration of ancient glories but instead left "a legacy of torture, oppression, misery and ruin."

Of Egypt, whose president, Hosni Mubarak, has been a vital Middle East interlocutor for successive U.S. presidents, Bush said: "The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East."

The speech was Bush's latest attempt to justify the war in Iraq as necessary to foster democracy in the region at a time when he is under fire for mounting U.S. troop casualties and as anti-Americanism spreads among many Muslims who feel Islam is under attack.

Bush declared a failure of past U.S. policy spanning 60 years in support of governments not devoted to political freedom.

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said.

He called for democracy throughout the Middle East, praising the tentative steps that are taking places in such nations as Morocco, Bahrain, Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia, whose royal family is firmly in command.

"Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it," Bush said.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3770966

[DoctorZIn]

How To Combat Islamist Terrorism Without Combating Islam?

November 06, 2003
Iran va Jahan
Mehdi Mozaffari

The laconic answer to this question would be: 'that it is not an easy task but a highly compelling one'. The issue is far too complicated to be answered laconically. Let me begin with a reformulation of the above question.

Why It Is Necessary To Combat Islamist Terrorism Without Combating Islam? Or

Why Not Combat Both At The Same Time?

Three reasons explain the impossibility of such an enterprise:

First, it does not represent the issue,
Second, it is not feasible, and
Third, it is not a wise approach.

We are not facing a religious war. The issue is not war between Islam on the one side and the rest of the world on the other. Neither is it a war that Islam has launched against Christianity or the Western hemisphere. If we take the Clash of Civilization's thesis, it is a fact that Islam as such does not represent a civilization any more. Islamic civilization extinguished many centuries ago; the remainders of which is merely a religion.

Even if we wished to combat Islam as a religion, it is simply not feasible. As a religion, Islam like many other religions is elusive in its nature, has different interpretations and multiple faces. Where can we find Islam? In the Koran, of course. Should we burn the Koran? Should we abolish Islam? Who can abolish a religion and how? Some regimes, for example the USSR and Mao's China tried to restrict Islamic as well as other religious practices. Not only did this policy fail dramatically, it also produced a boomerang effect. As a formidable reaction, the faith in religion rose enormously.

It is not wise to combat Islam as a religion either. It is not a fertile policy. We must leave this battle to theologians from different religions. Politics is not theology. Confusing politics with theology is precisely what Islamists are doing, hoping that we will follow the same path. This is a trap we must absolutely avoid, if we wish to combat Islamists successfully.

After this refutation, I would like to open a short discussion on major and substantial conceptual differences between Islam and Islamism.

Islam is a religion with a long history and with different theological and juridical schools. The Koran is not really a coherent book able to provide Muslims with clear and unambiguous guidelines. Roughly speaking, it is divided into two very different and somewhat contradictory set of statements, principles and commandments. You have the Mekka period of 12 years length (from 610 to 622), and the Medina Period of 10 years length (from 622 to 632). The first and inaugurative period is characterized by relative moderation, toleration and pluralism. You find this aspect of Islam in some verses in The Koran. For example the Koran states:

"You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion" - (109.6).

We may call the Mekka period the software of Islam. In contrast, the Medina period is essentially characterized by politics, power and war. The moderate and open-minded language and behaviour gives place to a power language. The following verse shows the change in the Koran's language when it states:

"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers" - ( 2.191).

The Medina period represents in reality the hardware of Islam. The Koran also reflects this part of Islam. This example is an illustration of the Koran's ambiguous discourse and its ambivalence in recommended behaviour. The fact is that some Muslims are referring to the Mekka period alone, and others to the Medina period alone. Then there is a third group which refers to both periods. This consideration among many others demonstrates that it is practically impossible to identify the real message of Islam. Therefore, the world is facing various aspects of Islam without reaching a consensus among Muslims. Except for two cardinal, thus very general points; the acceptance of the unity of God (Allah), and the rightness of the prophecy of Muhammad as the last Prophet.

This means that if we take only the Koran, which is the main source of Islam and which should be the point of convergence between Muslims, it leads us to further confusion about Islam. If we add to the Koran, other sources of Islamic creed as for example Sunna, Hadith, Rivaya, Fatwas and so on, we get more than one billion disoriented and confused peoples! All Muslims, thus from different obedience. All and each of them are convinced that their own version and their own understanding of Islam represent the only truth.

While Islam is too general, too elusive and too ambiguous, Islamism represents a coherent, specific and identifiable construction. Islamism is 'an ideology bearing a holistic vision of Islam whose final aim is the conquest of the world with all means'. Its vision is holistic and based on the absolute indivisibility of the trinity (Dîn, Dunya and Dwala), which means Religion, Way of life, and State. This indivisibility is permanent and eternal. Its ultimate goal boils down to the fulfilment of this said trinity on a global scale. Furthermore, Islamists define themselves often as 'Islamiyyoun/Islamists' precisely to differentiate themselves from 'Muslimun/Muslims'. In short, Islamism is a totalitarian ideology comparable to Communism, Nazism and Fascism. Some scholars are debating on weather it will be adequate to call Communism a 'political religion' in contrast to Democracy which in J.J. Rousseau's terminology represents being a 'civil religion'. The point is that Islamism represents a perfect model of a 'political religion' or even more correctly, Islamism is a 'religious ideology'.

Furthermore, Islamism's ideal reference model is exclusively the Medina model, leaving aside the Mekka model.

Without going through an elaborate comparative analysis between western totalitarianism (Communism, Nazism and Fascism) and, let us say, oriental totalitarianism (Islamism), let me just mention some of the main similarities between them.

They are all violent. They all believe in the Führerprinzip; the cult of a mythical leader with superman capacities. They are all anti-democratic. They are all 'world Conquerors'. Historically, they are all in different ways one of the major consequences of the First World War.

There is an ongoing debate about the solidity of Islamists. Are they all totalitarian, violent and pursuing the same goal: conquest of the world? Some experts think that there are moderate Islamists and there are radical Islamists. Consequently, there must be two different policies or strategies depending on the character of each of these two groups. To answer this question, we have to make a double distinction:

A distinction in the scope of the goal, and a distinction in terms of the use of violence.

The first distinction leads to identify two categories of Islamists: The 'National Islamists' and the 'Global Islamists'. Both groups are sharing the same ideology; but the scope of the goal is not the same. The scope of the goal of groups such as Hamas, Palestinian Jihad, Lebanese Hizbullah as well as Islamists in Chechnya, in the Philippines and in Kashmir is geographically limited. These groups are struggling for a limited political goal, namely autonomy or independence. Conquest of the world or establishment of a global Caliphate does not really figure on their agenda. In general, terrorist actions undertaken from such groups are also limited to their own territories and their neighbouring states.

In contrast to these groups, there are the 'Global Islamists'; those who firmly believe in a world revolution and the instauration of a global Islamic government. Groups such as Al-Qaeda (of course), Jama' al-Islamiyya and the Jihad organisations in Egypt, Al-Muhajiroun, Hiz ul-Tahrir and so on belong to this category. At the same time, states such as the Islamic Republic of Iran and in some degree Saudi Arabia are ideologically global Islamists. The difference between these two states lies in their official political attitude towards the West in general and vis-à-vis the USA in particular. If you want to find out who is the current 'Leader of the World', you may simply click on to: www.khomeini.com which is one of the official sites of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Here, Ayatollah Khamenei (not to be confused with Khomeini) is represented as the Leader of the World.

The second distinction is about the use or non-use of violence. For practical reasons, we can divide these groups into two categories: The Maximalists and the Gradualists.

The former are actively and violently working for their final objective. The latter are active too; thus not violently. Groups such as Ikhwan al-Muslimin which represents an archetype model for an Islamist ideology or Hizbul Tahrir have chosen a progressive strategy. They did not eliminate the use of force from their working plan; they only postponed it to a more opportune future. This category of Islamists is providing volunteers to the Maximalists.

I would now like shortly to go through the evolution of Islamist terrorism. In this respect, three different and successive phases are identified and labelled as follows:

1. The era of Hassan al-Banna (1928-1978)
2. The era of Khomeini (1978-1991)
3. The era of Bin Laden (from 1991).

The major characteristics of the first period are the following:
Terrorist acts were directed right at their beginning, exclusively against Muslims. In other words, during this particular period, Islamist terrorism was an internal terrorism. According to our investigations, no assassination attempts were committed by Islamists in Western countries. Not even against Muslims living in these countries. In addition, Islamist terrorism was not destined to spread terror but rather to eliminate political adversaries. Political assassination was used in order to destabilize regimes in power judged by Islamists as being corrupt and accused of being puppet governments. In some cases 'heretical' Muslims were eliminated by Islamists.

The second phase of Islamist terrorism starts off with the Islamist revolution in Iran. It was the first time Islamists were acceding to power. Let us now examine the major aspects of this phase.

First of all Islamist terrorism altered. Up to this period, the terrorist acts of the Islamists were carefully selected and personalized avoiding any repercussions on civilians. This line of conduct was interrupted in 1978 in the process of the Islamist revolution. In order to bring about chaos in Iran and in order to destabilize the regime of the Shah, Islamists put a movie theatre on fire (August 18th 1978) in the Rex cinema of Abadan (oil-producing city). About 400 people were killed. This tragic event was in fact the starting point of a new tactic: to attack and assassinate civilian as well as military persons. From then on Islamist terrorism turns into a blind, generalized and non-discriminatory terrorism. The consequences of which have been boundless and tragic on a regional and world-scale: in Lebanon as well as in New York and Washington D.C.

The third age of Islamist terrorism is the most critical and spectacular of all. In this phase, terrorist acts remain indiscriminate, non-selective and suicidal. Bin Laden's terrorism is not that much different from the one used in the second phase although it appears to be. What differentiates it is its highly spectacular aspect and that the field of action takes place on American soil. Those acts were spectacular in terms of the implacable organizational capability and coordination they revealed, as well as the extension of their networks. It was also spectacular in terms of human casualties and material damages. Finally, it was particularly spectacular in its symbolic aspect through the choice of the targets: the USA as the most powerful country in the world and human history, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the missed target: probably the White House.

Until now, I have explained why it is unwise and almost impossible to combat Islam. Now, I turn to the heart of the question: How to combat Islamism without combating Islam.

First, we need a cognitive approach to Islamism by conceiving it as a totalitarian ideology. A clear and full internalization of the fact that Islamism is an ideology and not a religion will purify the whole question from a variety of difficulties. In many ways, Islamism is like an octopus. We have to aim directly at the head in stead of wasting our time and energy to deal with the complicated body. By evacuating religious contents from Islamism, we change our direction from theology to ideology, from religion to politics. In this way, we put forward the real face and real nature of Islamism. The Muslims, especially among the young people, who are potentially ready to give their lives for the sake of Islamist ideals, will find out that their struggle is not a part of a religious duty but purely an ideological and political one emanating from a dangerous utopia.

Second, we need an international tactical or ethical consensus. This is especially needed in the Western hemisphere. The reason for such a consensus is motivated by the fact that often some western political parties and leaders use anti-Islamic rhetoric for political purposes. This policy is not productive, and it can be dangerous. Attacking Islam is precisely what Islamists are waiting for. They are insatiably trying to convince Muslims of two things: 1) Islamism is the true face of Islam, and 2) the west is an enemy of Islam. Therefore, politicians must choose their vocabulary more carefully by avoiding attacks on Islam as a religion and by avoiding hostile remarks about Muslims in general. Americans became aware of this necessity and consequently transformed their language in this field. They talk about "terrorists who hijacked a religion" and rarely on Islam or Muslims in a negative way. We have to remember that Islamists are still today using President Bush's famous "crusade" pronounced in September 2001 as an evidence for American hostility against Islam. It seems that to avoid attacking Islam and Muslims, indiscriminately, has become general US policy. In this respect, the most recent evidence are the apologies which a top Pentagon intelligence official, Lt. General William Boykin, offers (October 17, 2003) to Muslims because of his negative comments on Islam. The Americans' prudence is re-affirmed in President Bush's speech in Indonesia (October 22, 2003). In an elaborated and well-balanced speech, the President repeated that "Americans hold a deep respect for the Islamic faith. We know that Islam is fully compatible with liberty and tolerance and progress because we see the proof in your country [Inodonesia]". Then, he states "Terrorists who claim Islam as their inspiration defile one of the great faiths. Murder has no place in any religious tradition". In this way, President Bush tried to reach two important goals: To make a clear distinction between 'Islam' and 'Islamism' and to demonstrate that Islamists have hijacked Islam itself.

Third, during the past decades, repetitive experiences have showed that dialogue with Islamists leads nowhere. While in a democratic culture, dialogue is a MUST and a natural process. In contrast, Islamists consider dialogue a clear sign of weakness; their own weakness if they accept a dialogue, and especially weakness in their opponents. Dialogue is an unknown word for Islamists. Nothing positive has come out of different dialogues of diplomacy with totalitarian regimes and groups in general, and nothing positive with Islamists either. The Chamberlain and Hitler agreement, the Roosevelt and Stalin dialogue, the European Union's "critical dialogue", the "constructive dialogue", the "Iran gate", the "dialogue" with Taliban and so on and so forth. None of these attempts at dialogue have been successful for the Western diplomacy.

Fourth, if the dialogue or compromise is impossible and ineffective, what to do then? The answer is short and brutal: pressure! Pressure can be gradual or accumulated; but it must be real and sufficiently strong and consistent for Islamists to feel it as such. If the pressure has no positive effect- as it was the case with Taliban - war should not be excluded as a last resort.
Therefore, we must constantly remember and learn from previous, related experiences to deal with other totalitarian regimes, groups and ideologies. They were defeated either by war or by heavy pressure. This goes for Nazism and Fascism. It also goes for the breakdown of the USSR. Based on criteria of success, it will be wise to forget any possible arrangement with Islamists and start using systematical force and pressure.

Finally, it is necessary and urgent that the whole problematic around Islam changes its current orientation. After the end of the Cold War and especially in the post - 9/11 era, what is predominately important is democratization of the world. If there is a clash, the clash is not between civilizations or between religions. The real clash occurs between democracy and despotism.

It means that democratization of the Muslim world stands as the key word to combat Islamism and with it to combat current global terrorism. It represents a huge and vast task. Let me emphasize only one aspect of this problematic, which I think is the most important. The Islamic world is producing three main things: Oil, Terrorism and Emigration. Thus, we have an Islamic Bermuda Triangle which is threatening peace and security in the world. The best way to break down this Bermuda Triangle is of course to do it within the Muslim world and by Muslims themselves. Unfortunately, democratic forces inside the Muslim world have not been able to break this Triangle. Therefore, external support is essential. To support democratic forces inside the Muslim world is an inherent and necessary part of the anti-terrorism war. External support can take different forms: conditioning economic aids to improving human rights and democracy is the first step. Awarding the Nobel Peace Price to a Muslim and Iranian woman (Shirin Ebadi) is an elegant and hopefully efficient stimulus. In extreme case, military intervention cannot be avoided. The ongoing war in Iraq - despite its doubtful legal foundations - represents a method to break down the Islamic Bermuda Triangle. In this sense, the war in Iraq is a 'strategic war' against the roots of terrorism, while the war in Afghanistan stands mostly as an 'operational war' or simply a 'theâtre d'opérations'.

When combating Islamism, one of the main problems and difficulties is how to deal with millions of Muslims who are living in Western countries. Starting from the facts, it is apparent that Muslims in western countries are far too dispersed to constitute a compact bloc. In terms of social, cultural, political and religious orientations, the division among them is deep and real. Roughly, Muslims are divided into two large categories: Muslim Believers and Cultural Muslims. Islamists are predominantly issued from the first category. Cultural Muslims represent an agglomerate of peoples embracing agnostics, liberals, socialists and so on. In general, Cultural Muslims do not represent any tangible threat. The attention therefore must be oriented to the Muslim Believers who roughly are divided into Moderates and Radicals. Both are potential sources for Islamism; the former lesser than the latter. Now, how to identify a Radical Muslim today in the Western countries? In this regard, there are a number of helpful indices. First, a Radical Muslim is of course a believer, who practices the rituals of Islam. But, this alone is not enough. A Radical Muslim is a Man (rarely a woman. Perhaps because Prophet Muhammad expressed his skepticism over women's capacity to hold a secret!). A Radical Muslim is constantly in communication with others. He can be a lonely man in the city and locality where he lives, but with permanent communication with the outside world. Communication goes through mail, e-mail, fax, telephone (mobile and public) and so on. He is also a man who reads much and is generally a quiet person carefully avoiding clashes with the police and other public authorities. He is also traveler, a globetrotter! He is a young man with an average age of 25-27 years. In Southern Europe, Radical Muslims are issued from North Africa (Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia). In the U.K. essentially from Pakistan. In Scandinavia, from Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt and Pakistan. Iranian Islamists are working under the auspices of Iranian authorities, generally as diplomatic personnel or as business persons.

Conclusion

Today, the world is facing a single global terrorism, which is Islamist. In my analysis, I did not approach the force of the global terrorism. I took it as a given fact. Islamist terrorism is perhaps not as powerful as some people would imagine. However, according to Institute for Strategic Studies (in London), Islamist terrorism has been reinforced following the war on Iraq (October Report 2003). We may say that global terrorism at least appears as a huge troublemaker. In this study, I tried to demonstrate that the real danger lies somewhere else. Islamist terrorism is the expression of a totalitarian ideology. Therefore, the world is facing a new totalitarianism, which has been neglected for decades. Consequently, combating Islamist terrorism cannot be reduced to a simple classic counter-terrorism. Classic Counter-terrorism's highly necessary efforts and investigations must be accompanied by coherent political, cultural and economic actions.

In short, my propositions to combating Islamist terrorism without combating Islam are resumed in the three following points:

- Continuous pressure on Islamists and, if necessary, conduct of war;
- Dialogue and cooperation with moderate Muslims, and
- Effective support to democratic forces inside the Muslim world.

---

Terrorism - Challenges and Possible Consequences
Copenhagen, 3-4 November 2003

Mehdi Mozaffari
Department of Political Science
University of Aarhus
Denmark
mehdi@ps.au.dk

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=11&d=06&a=5

[DoctorZIn]

Bush Challenges Iran, Syria to Adopt Democracy

Reuters ^ | Nov 6, 2003 | Steve Holland
Posted on 11/06/2003 2:53 PM PST by faludeh_shirazi

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1016391/posts

[DoctorZIn]

President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East

November 06, 2003
The WHite House
President George W. Bush

Remarks by the President at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy.

United States Chamber of Commerce
Washington, D.C.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Please be seated. Thanks for the warm welcome, and thanks for inviting me to join you in this 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy. The staff and directors of this organization have seen a lot of history over the last two decades, you've been a part of that history. By speaking for and standing for freedom, you've lifted the hopes of people around the world, and you've brought great credit to America.

I appreciate Vin for the short introduction. I'm a man who likes short introductions. And he didn't let me down. But more importantly, I appreciate the invitation. I appreciate the members of Congress who are here, senators from both political parties, members of the House of Representatives from both political parties. I appreciate the ambassadors who are here. I appreciate the guests who have come. I appreciate the bipartisan spirit, the nonpartisan spirit of the National Endowment for Democracy. I'm glad that Republicans and Democrats and independents are working together to advance human liberty.

The roots of our democracy can be traced to England, and to its Parliament -- and so can the roots of this organization. In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared, the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had failed, precisely because it did not respect its own people -- their creativity, their genius and their rights.

President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today. (Applause.)

A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the President. According to one editorial of the time, "It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan." (Laughter.) Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive, and even dangerous. In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct. (Applause.)

The great democratic movement President Reagan described was already well underway. In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia. This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America* had collapsed. Within another year, the South African government released Nelson Mandela. Four years later, he was elected president of his country -- ascending, like Walesa and Havel, from prisoner of state to head of state.

As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world -- and I can assure you more are on the way. (Applause.) Ronald Reagan would be pleased, and he would not be surprised.

We've witnessed, in little over a generation, the swiftest advance of freedom in the 2,500 year story of democracy. Historians in the future will offer their own explanations for why this happened. Yet we already know some of the reasons they will cite. It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation was itself a democracy.

The United States made military and moral commitments in Europe and Asia, which protected free nations from aggression, and created the conditions in which new democracies could flourish. As we provided security for whole nations, we also provided inspiration for oppressed peoples. In prison camps, in banned union meetings, in clandestine churches, men and women knew that the whole world was not sharing their own nightmare. They knew of at least one place -- a bright and hopeful land -- where freedom was valued and secure. And they prayed that America would not forget them, or forget the mission to promote liberty around the world.

Historians will note that in many nations, the advance of markets and free enterprise helped to create a middle class that was confident enough to demand their own rights. They will point to the role of technology in frustrating censorship and central control -- and marvel at the power of instant communications to spread the truth, the news, and courage across borders.

Historians in the future will reflect on an extraordinary, undeniable fact: Over time, free nations grow stronger and dictatorships grow weaker. In the middle of the 20th century, some imagined that the central planning and social regimentation were a shortcut to national strength. In fact, the prosperity, and social vitality and technological progress of a people are directly determined by extent of their liberty. Freedom honors and unleashes human creativity -- and creativity determines the strength and wealth of nations. Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity, and the best hope for progress here on Earth.

The progress of liberty is a powerful trend. Yet, we also know that liberty, if not defended, can be lost. The success of freedom is not determined by some dialectic of history. By definition, the success of freedom rests upon the choices and the courage of free peoples, and upon their willingness to sacrifice. In the trenches of World War I, through a two-front war in the 1940s, the difficult battles of Korea and Vietnam, and in missions of rescue and liberation on nearly every continent, Americans have amply displayed our willingness to sacrifice for liberty.

The sacrifices of Americans have not always been recognized or appreciated, yet they have been worthwhile. Because we and our allies were steadfast, Germany and Japan are democratic nations that no longer threaten the world. A global nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union ended peacefully -- as did the Soviet Union. The nations of Europe are moving towards unity, not dividing into armed camps and descending into genocide. Every nation has learned, or should have learned, an important lesson: Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for, and standing for -- and the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)

And now we must apply that lesson in our own time. We've reached another great turning point -- and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement.

Our commitment to democracy is tested in countries like Cuba and Burma and North Korea and Zimbabwe -- outposts of oppression in our world. The people in these nations live in captivity, and fear and silence. Yet, these regimes cannot hold back freedom forever -- and, one day, from prison camps and prison cells, and from exile, the leaders of new democracies will arrive. (Applause.) Communism, and militarism and rule by the capricious and corrupt are the relics of a passing era. And we will stand with these oppressed peoples until the day of their freedom finally arrives. (Applause.)

Our commitment to democracy is tested in China. That nation now has a sliver, a fragment of liberty. Yet, China's people will eventually want their liberty pure and whole. China has discovered that economic freedom leads to national wealth. China's leaders will also discover that freedom is indivisible -- that social and religious freedom is also essential to national greatness and national dignity. Eventually, men and women who are allowed to control their own wealth will insist on controlling their own lives and their own country.

Our commitment to democracy is also tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations of the Middle East -- countries of great strategic importance -- democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free. (Applause.)

Some skeptics of democracy assert that the traditions of Islam are inhospitable to the representative government. This "cultural condescension," as Ronald Reagan termed it, has a long history. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would "never work." Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, "most uncertain at best" -- he made that claim in 1957. Seventy-four years ago, The Sunday London Times declared nine-tenths of the population of India to be "illiterates not caring a fig for politics." Yet when Indian democracy was imperiled in the 1970s, the Indian people showed their commitment to liberty in a national referendum that saved their form of government.

Time after time, observers have questioned whether this country, or that people, or this group, are "ready" for democracy -- as if freedom were a prize you win for meeting our own Western standards of progress. In fact, the daily work of democracy itself is the path of progress. It teaches cooperation, the free exchange of ideas, and the peaceful resolution of differences. As men and women are showing, from Bangladesh to Botswana, to Mongolia, it is the practice of democracy that makes a nation ready for democracy, and every nation can start on this path.

It should be clear to all that Islam -- the faith of one-fifth of humanity -- is consistent with democratic rule. Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries -- in Turkey and Indonesia, and Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of India and South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America.

More than half of all the Muslims in the world live in freedom under democratically constituted governments. They succeed in democratic societies, not in spite of their faith, but because of it. A religion that demands individual moral accountability, and encourages the encounter of the individual with God, is fully compatible with the rights and responsibilities of self-government.

Yet there's a great challenge today in the Middle East. In the words of a recent report by Arab scholars, the global wave of democracy has -- and I quote -- "barely reached the Arab states." They continue: "This freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development." The freedom deficit they describe has terrible consequences, of the people of the Middle East and for the world. In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead. These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines.

As the colonial era passed away, the Middle East saw the establishment of many military dictatorships. Some rulers adopted the dogmas of socialism, seized total control of political parties and the media and universities. They allied themselves with the Soviet bloc and with international terrorism. Dictators in Iraq and Syria promised the restoration of national honor, a return to ancient glories. They've left instead a legacy of torture, oppression, misery, and ruin.

Other men, and groups of men, have gained influence in the Middle East and beyond through an ideology of theocratic terror. Behind their language of religion is the ambition for absolute political power. Ruling cabals like the Taliban show their version of religious piety in public whippings of women, ruthless suppression of any difference or dissent, and support for terrorists who arm and train to murder the innocent. The Taliban promised religious purity and national pride. Instead, by systematically destroying a proud and working society, they left behind suffering and starvation.

Many Middle Eastern governments now understand that military dictatorship and theocratic rule are a straight, smooth highway to nowhere. But some governments still cling to the old habits of central control. There are governments that still fear and repress independent thought and creativity, and private enterprise -- the human qualities that make for a -- strong and successful societies. Even when these nations have vast natural resources, they do not respect or develop their greatest resources -- the talent and energy of men and women working and living in freedom.

Instead of dwelling on past wrongs and blaming others, governments in the Middle East need to confront real problems, and serve the true interests of their nations. The good and capable people of the Middle East all deserve responsible leadership. For too long, many people in that region have been victims and subjects -- they deserve to be active citizens.

Governments across the Middle East and North Africa are beginning to see the need for change. Morocco has a diverse new parliament; King Mohammed has urged it to extend the rights to women. Here is how His Majesty explained his reforms to parliament: "How can society achieve progress while women, who represent half the nation, see their rights violated and suffer as a result of injustice, violence, and marginalization, notwithstanding the dignity and justice granted to them by our glorious religion?" The King of Morocco is correct: The future of Muslim nations will be better for all with the full participation of women. (Applause.)

In Bahrain last year, citizens elected their own parliament for the first time in nearly three decades. Oman has extended the vote to all adult citizens; Qatar has a new constitution; Yemen has a multiparty political system; Kuwait has a directly elected national assembly; and Jordan held historic elections this summer. Recent surveys in Arab nations reveal broad support for political pluralism, the rule of law, and free speech. These are the stirrings of Middle Eastern democracy, and they carry the promise of greater change to come.

As changes come to the Middle Eastern region, those with power should ask themselves: Will they be remembered for resisting reform, or for leading it? In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad, as we saw last month when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy. (Applause.)

For the Palestinian people, the only path to independence and dignity and progress is the path of democracy. (Applause.) And the Palestinian leaders who block and undermine democratic reform, and feed hatred and encourage violence are not leaders at all. They're the main obstacles to peace, and to the success of the Palestinian people.

The Saudi government is taking first steps toward reform, including a plan for gradual introduction of elections. By giving the Saudi people a greater role in their own society, the Saudi government can demonstrate true leadership in the region.

The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East, and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East. (Applause.) Champions of democracy in the region understand that democracy is not perfect, it is not the path to utopia, but it's the only path to national success and dignity.

As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop -- as did our own. We've taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice -- and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey.

There are, however, essential principles common to every successful society, in every culture. Successful societies limit the power of the state and the power of the military -- so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite. Successful societies protect freedom with the consistent and impartial rule of law, instead of selecting applying -- selectively applying the law to punish political opponents. Successful societies allow room for healthy civic institutions -- for political parties and labor unions and independent newspapers and broadcast media. Successful societies guarantee religious liberty -- the right to serve and honor God without fear of persecution. Successful societies privatize their economies, and secure the rights of property. They prohibit and punish official corruption, and invest in the health and education of their people. They recognize the rights of women. And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people. (Applause.)

These vital principles are being applies in the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. With the steady leadership of President Karzai, the people of Afghanistan are building a modern and peaceful government. Next month, 500 delegates will convene a national assembly in Kabul to approve a new Afghan constitution. The proposed draft would establish a bicameral parliament, set national elections next year, and recognize Afghanistan's Muslim identity, while protecting the rights of all citizens. Afghanistan faces continuing economic and security challenges -- it will face those challenges as a free and stable democracy. (Applause.)

In Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council are also working together to build a democracy -- and after three decades of tyranny, this work is not easy. The former dictator ruled by terror and treachery, and left deeply ingrained habits of fear and distrust. Remnants of his regime, joined by foreign terrorists, continue their battle against order and against civilization. Our coalition is responding to recent attacks with precision raids, guided by intelligence provided by the Iraqis, themselves. And we're working closely with Iraqi citizens as they prepare a constitution, as they move toward free elections and take increasing responsibility for their own affairs. As in the defense of Greece in 1947, and later in the Berlin Airlift, the strength and will of free peoples are now being tested before a watching world. And we will meet this test. (Applause.)

Securing democracy in Iraq is the work of many hands. American and coalition forces are sacrificing for the peace of Iraq and for the security of free nations. Aid workers from many countries are facing danger to help the Iraqi people. The National Endowment for Democracy is promoting women's rights, and training Iraqi journalists, and teaching the skills of political participation. Iraqis, themselves -- police and borders guards and local officials -- are joining in the work and they are sharing in the sacrifice.

This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. (Applause.) The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. (Applause.)

Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. (Applause.)

Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)

The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind. (Applause.)

Working for the spread of freedom can be hard. Yet, America has accomplished hard tasks before. Our nation is strong; we're strong of heart. And we're not alone. Freedom is finding allies in every country; freedom finds allies in every culture. And as we meet the terror and violence of the world, we can be certain the author of freedom is not indifferent to the fate of freedom.

With all the tests and all the challenges of our age, this is, above all, the age of liberty. Each of you at this Endowment is fully engaged in the great cause of liberty. And I thank you. May God bless your work. And may God continue to bless America. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html

[DoctorZIn]

This thread is now closed.

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

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