U.S. expands sanctions on Iran
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, August 18, 2003
The United States has expanded sanctions on a leading Iranian opposition group.
The State Department has designated two political fronts of the Mujahadeen Khalq as terrorist organizations. Mujahadeen was placed on the department's list of terrorist organizations in 1997.
The action allowed federal authorities to close the offices of two organizations aligned with the Mujahadeen and seize their assets. About $100,000 in assets were found and seized.
Secretary of State Colin Powell amended the designation of the Mujahadeen Khalq as a foreign terrorist organization to include what officials termed two of the group's aliases. They were identified as the National Council of Resistance and National Council of Resistance of Iran, Middle East Newsline reported.
The groups are located in Washington and have been active in lobbying the U.S. Congress.
Officials said Powell cited Executive Order 1322, which allows the secretary of state to designate foreign entities and individuals as posing significant risks for U.S. national security. They did not specify the threat.
"The action to amend the Executive Order 13224 designation of the MEK [Mujahadeen Khalq] to include NCR and NCRI is based on information from a variety of sources that those entities functioned as part of the MEK and have supported the MEK's acts of terrorism," State Department acting spokesman Tom Casey said.
Officials said the State Department's designation came after consultations with congressional leaders. The Mujahadeen attacked U.S. interests in Iran during the period of the Shah of Iran in the mid-1970s. In the 1980s, Mujhadeen were harbored and supported by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
In November 2002, more than 100 House members signed a letter that urged the State Department to remove the Mujhadeen Khalq from the terror list. There was no outcry from Congress to last week's closure of the two Washington offices of the Iranian opposition.
In August 2002, the National Council disclosed two secret Iranian nuclear facilities. The United States later confirmed the sites and inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency toured the Natanz facility in February 2003.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/front_4.htmlSupreme Leader: Iran not to compromise over fundamental values
Tehran, Aug 19, IRNA -- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution
Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei said here on Monday in a meeting with
the ambassadors of Iran abroad "The Islamic Republic of Iran will
never compromise over its fundamental values, that are the basis for
our national pride."
Emphasizing on the need to resorting to initiatives, relying on
expertise, high talents, speed, perseverance, and tactful planning in
acting as the representatives of Iran abroad, the leader said, "There
is no price for our national pride."
Referring to the rapid developments at global level, the leader
emphasized on the need to have a dynamic evaluation system at the
foreign ministry to survey the bilateral and international ties of
Iran.
The Supreme Leader added, "The ambassadors must quite dynamically,
play decisive roles in the countries where they are commissioned,
defining the stands and viewpoints of the Islamic Republic of Iran
logically and strongly."
Ayatollah Khamenei Said, "Some of the current international rules
are imposed due to the hegemony of certain powers, accepting which
equals abandoning our national identity and the Islamic values and
fundamentals."
The leader added, "There is no pride in doing so, and we cannot
compromise over our fundamentals, just in order to please a part of
the world, that is crystallized in the west, atop which is the
arrogant United States."
Counting the capabilities of the country in scientific, political,
economic, cultural and social fields, and particularly the "quite
strong popular support of the Iranian nation for their own political
system", the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution said, "These
are all miracles of the Islamic Revolution."
The leader further emphasized, "Relying on such unique
capabilities, and relying on God's grace, we can come out victorious
from all various challenges in the field of our foreign policy."
Ayatollah Khamenei said that the people's broad presence at the
upcoming parliamentary elections, too, will be a great demonstration
of the popular support of the Iranian nation for their system, adding,
"God willing, the Iranian nation will have a truly dynamic, vivacious,
and broad presence at the elections polls."
Referring to the achievement in the field of nuclear technology
thanks to the endeavors of the pious Iranian youth, and the hue and
cry raised by the the west, and led by the US, the leader said, "The
country's nuclear technology is truly indigenous, and aimed merely
at peaceful purposes."
Ayatollah Khamenei further emphasized, "The Islamic Republic of
Iran, based on its religious and jurisprudence fundamental beliefs,
would never resort to the use the weapons of mass destruction."
Referring to the US and some European countries' insistence that
Iran should abandon its nuclear technology, the leader emphasized,
"Such stands and requests are unjust, and illogical, and the Islamic
Republic of Ira would never yield to them."
Regarding restoration of relations with the United States,
Ayatollah Khamenei emphasized, "Under such conditions that the United
States is treating the whole world as if the nations were all indebted
to it, showing any sign of weakness, and any tendency to yield to the
US demands, would be the biggest strategic mistake."
Referring to the Arab countries stands regarding the Palestine
issue, the leader said, "During the past 35 years, the Arab countries
gained no interests regarding the Palestinian issue, and the United
States, took no step back regarding its full support for the Zionist
regime, and never took sides with the Arabs."
http://www.irna.ir/en/head/030819011432.ehe.shtmlThe Shah and Us -- and Regime Change
By George F. Will
Tuesday, August 19, 2003; Page A19
Tehran, Iran, Aug. 19 -- Iranians loyal to Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, including Tehran civilians, soldiers and rural tribesmen, swept Premier Mohammed Mossadegh out of power today in a revolution and apparently had seized at least temporary control of the country.
This anniversary reminds us that America is not new to the business of regime change. Fifty years ago U.S. and British intelligence services -- the principal U.S. operative was Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy's grandson -- had a remarkably easy time overthrowing Iran's government.
It took just two months and $200,000, mobs being cheap to rent back then. It was so easy that, according to the late CIA director Richard Helms in his just-published memoir, "A Look Over My Shoulder," Roosevelt felt the need to sound a warning that Secretary of State John Foster Dulles did not want to hear.
Roosevelt said the coup succeeded because the CIA had accurately concluded that the Iranians, including most of the military, "wanted exactly" the result we were seeking. "If we," said Roosevelt, referring to the CIA, "are ever going to try something like this again, we must be absolutely sure that [the] people and army want what we want. If not, you had better give the job to the Marines!"
The shah's "at least temporary control of the country" lasted just a bit more than half of these 50 years. The fact that his control crumbled in 1979 under the assault of Islamic fundamentalists responsive to the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini does not mean the coup was misguided or unavailing.
History teaches that everything is temporary. Besides, the coup's purpose was to confound Soviet designs, not settle Iran's future in perpetuity. The fact that the coup in some sense set in train events that led to today's highly unsatisfactory situation in Iran does not mean that the coup was not successful, any more than Soviet control of Eastern Europe for almost a half-century after 1945 meant that the Second World War was not worth winning. Rather, the point to be pondered on this anniversary is that U.S. involvement in regime change deeply implicates the United States in the future of the affected country.
Much ink has been spilled in arguing about when the U.S. commitment in South Vietnam became large and irreversible. It is at least arguable that the day can be pinpointed: Nov. 2, 1963. That was when the United States was involved in regime change -- in the assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem.
Again, the reason for remembering such U.S. undertakings at this moment is not to reopen arguments about their wisdom but to underscore the point that the United States has been practicing the craft of regime change for a long time. And that such changes inevitably are the beginnings of long and sometimes melancholy entanglements.
We are in the process of acquiring yet another in Liberia. That one arises from historical ties, supplemented by President Bush's post-9/11 conclusion that "weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states."
The Economist of London, which was founded in 1843, when British imperialism was flourishing, is neither squeamish about the fact of empire nor tainted by anti-Americanism. But as an anxious friend, the Economist notes:
In less than two years the United States has occupied two Muslim countries with a combined population of more than 50 million. Afghanistan "remains a failed or nonexistent state" where "the government's writ does not extend much beyond Kabul" and "local warlords, deep into the heroin trade, wield the real power." In Iraq, where a U.S. general says the current condition is "war, however you describe it," there are 161,000 occupying troops, of which 148,000 are American. The largest contingent of the other 13,000 are British and the other 18 participating nations have sent on average a few hundred.
It might be time to pause in pushing the American project that was implicit in Woodrow Wilson's assertion that America's flag is "the flag not only of America but of humanity." Wilson was echoing Lincoln's belief that our nation is "dedicated to a proposition" that is "an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times." But the belief that the American model of civic life could be a blessing to everyone is as old as Benjamin Franklin's proclamation that America's "cause is esteemed the cause of all mankind."
Franklin did not say, but probably was wise enough to think: "Eventually. Maybe."
georgewill@washpost.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11937-2003Aug18.html