Iranian Alert -- August 26, 2003 -- LIVE THREAD PING LIST

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

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

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

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

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

Only Half Done, The Future is in Iraq

August 26, 2003
National Review Online
Jed Babbin

That blood is still being shed in Iraq is stated every day with calculated surprise. Voiced by the media, the Dems and our faux-allies in the U.N., the surprise is a criticism of our termination of Saddam's regime, implying falsely that we promised instant success. What these critics willfully overlook is that while we fight the remnants of Saddam's regime, we are also at war — quite literally — with Iraq's terrorist neighbors. Iraq is the stage upon which the future of the Middle East is being fought out.

The truth is more than Gen. John Abizaid said last week when he said that Iraq is the center of the global war on terrorism. Though he and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that terrorists are coming into Iraq from Syria, they both stopped short of stating the undiplomatic but terribly clear fact that the governments of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and others have decided to make a stand against freedom in Iraq. In addition, the Sudan, Afghani Taliban, and Palestinian terrorists have all joined the fight. The president almost confirmed this last Friday when he said that there was a "foreign element" moving into Iraq. Sorry, Mr. President. They aren't moving into Iraq. They have been there almost since our campaign began, and more are still coming.

On April 10, Oliver North reported from the frontlines that all of the so-called "Saddam Fedayeen" being caught or killed by the Marines, not one of them was Iraqi. All were Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians, Afghanis, and Sudanese. Hezbollah from Lebanon and Syria were there by the hundreds, and more were coming in by the day. Ansar-al-Islam, the Iraqi terrorists known to be linked to al Qaeda (and among whom are Moroccans, Iraqis, Jordanians, and others) were also there, and were being reinforced continuously. Three days later, and weeks before the president declared the major military action over, a Marine was killed at a checkpoint near Baghdad by a terrorist attacker. The attacker, who was also killed in the incident, was found to be carrying a Syrian identification card. As it was then, so it is now.

It is time to remind ourselves that the Iraq campaign is not a war unto itself. It is a chapter — certainly the most important so far — in the war on terrorism. Iraq holds great promise for its people and the whole Middle East. The promise of freedom for Iraqis is dependent on two things. First, Iraq's final escape from the brutality of Saddam's regime will only be achieved by Saddam's capture or provable death. Second, it is also dependent upon the defeat of Iraq's terrorist neighbors.

None of the despotisms that are among Iraq's neighbors — Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria — can continue if freedom blossoms in Iraq. So those governments are actively involved in funding, supplying, and reinforcing the terrorists and remnants of Saddam's regime fighting us in Iraq. Iraq cannot be free, and its people finally liberated, unless and until we end the interference of those governments.

The mere thought of further American action in the Middle East gives the Deaniebopper Democrats a case of the vapors. They sing the same song as the EUnuchs and the U.N., who argue that for us to even consider taking further action proves our arrogance and colonial ambitions. They accuse us of wanting to remake the map of the Middle East to suit ourselves. There are three answers to that. The first is: baloney. We are not now, and have never been, a colonial power. Never — from WWI France to 2003 Iraq — have we tried to keep or exploit for our own purposes any nation we have freed from oppression. The second answer is that we are not about remaking maps. The Brits, Russians, Italians, and French have more than once remade the map of the Middle East for precisely those purposes, and created the environment in which we now have to fight. Third, and most important, is that we have no choice but to end the threat of terrorism from these nations.

Colin Powell went to Syria in May, and extracted promises from Bashar Assad that the terrorist union hall that Damascus has become would be closed down. Before Powell's aircraft reached the end of its takeoff run, Assad was backpedaling. Only Foggy Bottom could be surprised that none of Assad's promises were kept. Now, according to Israel's ambassador to the U.S., the bomb that blew up the U.N. mission in Baghdad last week was made in Syria and smuggled across the border. Syria is one headquarters of Hezbollah, which has more American blood on its hands than any terrorist organization other than al Qaeda. Is there any reason why we should refrain from taking whatever action is necessary to demolish the Hezbollah organization everywhere — from the Lebanese border with Israel to downtown Damascus? If there is, I am unaware of it.

The same goes for the other terrorist organizations in the area, and the governments that fund, supply, and turn them to their own purposes. The current choice that these governments have made is to prevent the establishment of democracy in Iraq. If Iraq can be turned into another kakistocracy of mullahs, then the despotisms of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have nothing to fear. They will not permit a free Iraq, and will continue their subversive and violent intervention unless we stop it.

In theory, some of those governments should be vulnerable to diplomatic pressure. But that will surely fail for the same reasons that diplomacy failed against Saddam. If the West were to stand united against terrorism and the nations that support it, they could — by intense, active covert operations — choke the economies of Syria and Iran, destabilize their regimes, and bring them down. Even Saudi Arabia would not be immune. But the West is anything except united, and the same nations that made a shambles of the Security Council will do so again and again. By refusing to stand against these terrorist regimes, they will again remove the diplomatic option.

Given that reality, there is little reason to wait to pursue what other options we have. A military action against Syria would make the Iraqi "elite" Republican Guard look like the Wehrmacht. It wouldn't last a week. Demolishing the terrorists there would be a big step. Iran is a much bigger problem. Its soldiers can fight and we will — unless we can bring about a regime change there by covert means — have to fight them sooner or later. Global terrorism will go on as long as the mullahs rule Iran. Saudi Arabia will be the last to fall. Its dedication to terrorism runs as deep as its oil wealth and its international support — bought over the years — remains so strong even we have not yet publicly called them what they are, the bankers and farmers of terrorism.

Our media, supporting the usual suspects of the left, are running the "quagmire" play from their Vietnam playbook. This time they have plausible grounds to say what they are saying. Vietnam became a quagmire because we refused to face the facts that North Vietnam couldn't fight without massive Soviet and Chinese, which they got. We didn't face those facts, and lost. In Iraq, we will face a quagmire if we refuse to deal with the nations that we are fighting there. The Saddamite remnants wouldn't last very long without their allies who have taken the field against us. These nations are the principal problem in Iraq. They are doing what the Taliban did in Afghanistan, without yet achieving the massive number of American casualties al Qaeda caused on 9/11.

The president said, way back on September 20, 2001, that the nations who support terrorism must choose to be with us or against us. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, the Sudan, and others have not only chosen to be against us, but to actively engage in the terrorists war against freedom in Iraq. We cannot win against terrorism, we cannot liberate Iraq, until we deal with these nations as their choice demands. We are half done in Iraq. We will never be done in Iraq until we finish the job in Teheran, Damascus, and Riyadh.

— NRO Contributor Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration, and is now an MSNBC military analyst. He is the author of the novel Legacy of Valor.

http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin082603.asp

Kazemi affair leads to row between regime's institutions

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Aug 26, 2003

The International and Canadian pressures on the Islamic republic regime in reference to the murder of the Canadian-Iranian journalist have created an unprecedented row between the theocratic regime's institutions. The row seems to have been boosted by the publication, by the New York Sun, of an article quoting the "Int.' l Lawyers" investigation team envoy and SMCCDI on some facts related to Kazemi's death.

Rape and the injection of a special substance which increases the decomposition of the body were mentionned by the two sources speaking to Adam Daifallah of the New York Sun. The article was mentionned by most abroad based Iranian radio and TV networks broadcasting for Iran.

Same statements were made to the National Post of Canada which published, yesterday, an article written by Tom Blackwell on the affair.

Many of the regime's officials have started, in the last 72 hours, to take distance from those involved in the scandal and the regime's Information Ministry on Monday night branded the communique issued on Monday by the PR office of the General and Revolutionary Court on Zahra Kazemi`s death, as "Sheer lies."

Deputy Information Minister "Shafie" who spoke to the regime's official news agency, IRNA, stated: "Claims made by the prosecutor of Bench 1 of Tehran`s Criminal Court, in which two of the information ministry`s interrogators are accused of `being accomplices` in the `quasi intentional murder` of Ms Kazemi are sheer lies."

He further emphasized, "The Information Ministry has discovered the truth of the matter on the case related to the death of Zahra Kazemi, and is intended to publish it for public information in very near future."

The regime's Intelligence Ministry denied, yesterday evening, any involvment of his staff in Kazemi's death.

It's to note that the Islamic judiciary guided by the offices of the regime's Supreme Leader intends to save "Jafar Nemati", "Ala-Bakhshi" and "Saeed Mortazavi". The latters are members of the regime judiciary and the Intelligence unit of the Pasdaran Corp. which are related to the offices of the Supreme Ledaer.

Scapegoats have been pressured to make false confessions about their responsibility in the rape-murder affair.

Kazemi is not the first female raped by the Islamic regime's affiliates. It's a well known fact that thousands of young female marxist opponents of the regime were systematically raped by Islamic militiamen the night before their executions and following the reading of a Koran verset on "Temporary Marriage".

The forced ritual was enforced as according to Islamic texts a "Virgin girl has her place in paradise".

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_1950.shtml

Crisis Talks Over Iran Envoy Arrest

August 26, 2003
BBC News
Jim Miur

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Ahani will hold the talks with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, during his two-day visit.

The former ambassador, Hadi Solaimanpour, is wanted by police in Argentina in connection with the bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires in 1994, in which 85 people were killed.

Iranian leaders have protested strongly against the arrest of Mr Solaimanpour and warned of serious consequences for Iran's relations with London if he is not released soon.

'Politically motivated'

Mr Ahani is trying to defuse this sudden crisis before it is too late.

Mr Straw has taken a special interest in Iran; he has visited the country four times since he took office.

As a former Home Secretary who dealt with the Pinochet extradition, Mr Straw knows more about such cases than most.

But he will find it hard to convince Mr Ahani that the British Government's hands really are tied when it comes to such matters.

Iranian leaders and officials across the board are convinced that the arrest is politically motivated, rather than part of a purely judicial process as British diplomats have tried in vain to insist.

Even the normally mild-mannered reformist president, Mohammed Khatami, issued an unusually robust warning on Sunday that Iran would take strong measures if Mr Solaimanpour was not freed immediately with an apology.

'Out of question'

Iranian officials have said they want the issue resolved by Friday.

If they are hoping the case will be dropped, that is clearly out of the question.

The most that might be feasible, at the discretion of the Bow Street court, would be the granting of bail.

Even that is looking unlikely; it has already been refused and there seems little at this stage to prevent this crisis from gathering pace.

An Iranian Government spokesman has said that Teheran hopes it will not come to the withdrawal of ambassadors.

But he said all the legal and diplomatic options were open.

British diplomats have made it clear that any steps taken against London over this affair would be likely to have wider repercussions for Iran's relations with the European Union as a whole.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3182209.stm

Two Low-level Medical Workers Charged in Canadian Murder Case

August 26, 2003
National Post
Michael Friscolanti

Two Iranians working for the country's Intelligence Ministry have been arrested and charged with the "semi-intentional murder" of Zahra Kazemi, the Montreal photojournalist who was beaten to death in a Tehran jail.

The two accused were reported yesterday to be low-level medical workers, both female.

The unidentified pair -- one is a nurse, the other a personal caregiver -- were allegedly among the group that interrogated Ms. Kazemi after she was arrested on June 23 for snapping pictures of a local prison.

Iran's official news agency, reading a statement released by the prosecutor's office in Tehran, did not name the suspects.

The pair are thought to have tortured the 54-year-old journalist at various times during her 77-hour incarceration, using unspecified tactics that although extremely painful, are not designed to kill.

In the case of Ms. Kazemi, however, the beatings proved fatal, paving the way for a charge of "complicity in semi-intentional murder."

Bill Graham, the Foreign Affairs Minister, welcomed yesterday's news as "a very positive step," although he stressed his department has yet to confirm the arrests.

"This is what we want," Mr. Graham said in Los Angeles, where he was speaking on joint Canada-U.S. issues. "This is the beginning of understanding why she died, how she died and who will be held responsible."

But Stephan Hachemi, Ms. Kazemi's only son, expressed outrage at the developments, saying the accused women are being prosecuted only to protect the high-ranking officials who actually killed his mother.

"As I said from the beginning," he said yesterday, "the Iranians are going to do it the way they want."

Mr. Hachemi, speaking from his home in Montreal, repeated his belief that Saeed Mortazavi, Tehran's chief prosecutor, was ultimately responsible for his mother's murder. Some reports have said Mr. Mortazavi, known as "the butcher of the press," delivered the fatal blow that eventually killed Ms. Kazemi.

"The two people arrested are from Intelligence," Mr. Hachemi said. "And I know Mortazavi is not from Intelligence."

Iran previously detained five people, including two female guards, in connection with Ms. Kazemi's death, but it is unclear whether the two women now facing trial were among the five.

Mr. Hachemi continues to be unimpressed with the federal government's handling of his mother's case.

Six weeks after her death -- despite Ottawa's pledge to work tirelessly on his behalf -- he is no closer to having her body returned to Canada or seeing her real killers brought to justice.

"Foreign Affairs is getting worse and worse," he said yesterday. "They really don't follow the case. It's obvious."

France Bureau, a spokeswoman for Mr. Graham, said the federal government expects to receive more details about the case today when an Iranian parliamentary commission releases the findings of its own investigation.

A separate judicial inquiry, headed by veteran judge Javad Esmaeili, who filed yesterday's charges, is still not complete.

"We want to get answers," Ms. Bureau said. "We've put in a request to the Iranian authorities to find out exactly what's going on."

Ms. Kazemi, a Canadian citizen of Iranian descent, was working for the London-based Camera Press when authorities found her taking pictures of student protesters in custody at Tehran's Evin Prison.

The next time her family saw her, she was in an Iranian hospital bed, deep in a coma and connected to a life-support machine. She died July 10, the victim of a cerebral hemorrhage.

Iranian authorities -- under intense international pressure for their alleged mistreatment of Ms. Kazemi -- originally said she died of a stroke. But by the end of the month, Mohammad Ali Abtahi, Iran's vice-president, admitted what the rest of the world had already suspected: Ms. Kazemi was probably murdered.

Officials in Iran have since pledged to get to the bottom of the case, which has pitted the country's hard-line conservatives against a growing number of reformists, including many media organizations.

It also sparked an ongoing diplomatic row between Iran and Canada, which recalled its ambassador to the country as a way to protest both Ms. Kazemi's violent death and her quick burial, which blatantly defied the wishes of her son.

The case has even attracted the attention of Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, who reportedly said he was "highly concerned" about the circumstances surrounding Ms. Kazemi's death.

Observers worry that such overwhelming attention has prompted Iran to blame anybody for the murder, even if the accused had nothing to do with it.

Hamid Mojtahedi, a Toronto-based lawyer who is observing the case from Iran, said he doubts the two accused women had anything to do with Ms. Kazemi's demise.

"It's quite disconcerting," he said of the charges. "I suspect that these people were not involved in any defining moment that culminated in Ms. Kazemi's unfortunate death. I think that these people may very well be scapegoats here."

Mr. Mojtahedi, who represents Lawyers Without Borders but is tackling the Kazemi case on his own, said officials in Iran told him the nurses applied more force than was necessary during Ms. Kazemi's interrogation.

"Somebody just probably went beyond the call of duty and exerted force," he said in an interview yesterday. "It was the kind of a blow that was intended to exert great force, but not actually be fatal. But in this case, it was fatal."

An Intelligence Ministry official rejected the charges, calling the claims "sheer lies," the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

mfriscolanti@nationalpost.com

http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=039C5972-B477-42D5-A5C3-DE87FFDBBF7B

Iraq's Leaky Border with Iran

August 27, 2003
The Christian Science Monitor
James Hider

AL MUNTHRIYA -– Iraq's border with Iran is an open door for thousands of Iranian Shiite pilgrims being smuggled across the frontier, say Iraqi police. And their numbers may also be swollen by Arab fighters.

Iraqi border police at the northeastern crossing point of Al Munthriya say that members of two leading Shiite parties in Iraq's US-appointed Governing Council are helping the illegal pilgrim trade, unwittingly aiding the passage of terrorists, spies, and saboteurs into the country.

Police say that Arab fighters from Afghanistan and members of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda may also be exploiting clandestine routes through the arid hill country on the frontier, where pilgrims dodge scant border controls with support from members of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and Islamic Dawa.

Col. Nazzim Sherif Mohammed, commander of the Iraqi border police at Al Munthriya, says SCIRI and Dawa members have set up floating border posts in the desert and are providing guides to ferry pilgrims past official border posts to reach the holy Shiite cities of Najaf and Karabala.

Colonel Mohammed and his team say they doubt the parties' leaders are aware of the operations, but express frustration that groups linked to the country's emerging leadership could be inadvertently aiding terrorists.

"It is chaos. Anyone can come in and we can't control this. We can't tell who's a pilgrim and who's a terrorist," says Awat Dawoud, head of customs a Al Munthriya, where several hundred Kurds and former opposition members have joined the new coalition-backed border police force. "We captured some Iranians and brought them here. They told us that people from Dawa and Hakim's party [SCIRI] were taking " to bring people across the border, says Mohammed.

Adel Abdul Mehdi, a spokesman for SCIRI, says he has no knowledge of his party's involvement in the illegal pilgrim trade, which he notes had existed before the war when visits by Iranians were restricted.

But he admits that SCIRI members could be involved in bringing family members over from Iran. Most of the Iranians clandestinely crossing the border on foot or by truck are innocent pilgrims heading for the cities of Karbala and Najaf, to the south of Baghdad. The cities are home to the ornate shrines of Imam Hussein and Imam Ali, descendents of the prophet Muhammad.

None of the pilgrims has a visa as Iraq has not yet resumed its foreign consular services. In Najaf and Karbala, throngs of Iranian pilgrims in Islamic green bandannas and prayer shawls worship at the shrines every day, wielding video cameras and posing happily in groups outside mosques.

In some Najaf restaurants, the clientele are almost exclusively Iranians wolfing down chicken and rice after a long, arduous journey. One pilgrim says proudly he walked six days to reach Najaf from Iran. Others says they drove across in cars. All decline to give details of the crossing. Some estimate that as many as 2,000 people cross the border every day.

Najaf hotel owner Farhan Shibli says his rooms are booked solid with Iranian guests. He welcomes the economic bonanza during such lean times, but voices misgivings about their presence in the country. "They come as pilgrims but some are smugglers and some can be considered spies," he says. "It's quite possible there are saboteurs among them."

He says some of his guests act suspiciously, changing clothes several times a day, dressing as Westerners or Arabs or even foreign journalists. "The coalition should do something about this problem," he says.

Paul Bremer, the top US civilian administrator, said on Saturday that the country's borders are difficult to guard, despite having 2,500 personnel watching them.

"We'd clearly like to have greater control over the borders. We agree there is a problem and we are addressing it," he told reporters.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0827/p17s01-woiq.html

US asks Iran to sign new IAEA protocol immediately

AFP - World News (via Yahoo)
Aug 26, 2003

WASHINGTON - The United States called for Iran to agree immediately to allow surprise international inspections of its nuclear sites, pronouncing itself unimpressed with Tehran's apparent pledge to negotiate such a deal.

The State Department indicated that Washington was not convinced Iran would actually sign an additional protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that would allow the inspections despite what the UN's atomic watchdog said was Tehran's willingness to discuss it.

"That's certainly what we've called for and that's what we want to see, but (let's) not get ahead of ourselves now and wait and see what actually comes of this," deputy spokesman Philip Reeker told reporters.

He said Iranian agreement to the new protocol would be "a good thing" but noted that Iran had not been honest about issues related to its nuclear program in the past and therefore could not be trusted to sign on.

"They have clearly not been forthcoming in the past," Reeker said.

"Iran could start rebuilding some confidence by taking immediate and unconditional implementation of the protocol and that's what we've been calling on them to do," he said.

Earlier, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials said Iran had signalled it was willing to move toward signing the additional NPT protocol, calling that a "positive step" in a report on Tehran's program to be presented in September.

Iran then confirmed it was open to signing the protocol but first wanted "total" guarantees that IAEA inspectors would not be given complete freedom of movement and would not violate military secrets.

The United States accuses Iran of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons and the IAEA states in its report that signing and implementing an additional protocol is the only way to allay such fears.

Iran insists that its nuclear program is intended only to produce energy.

The IAEA document says Iran has in recent months stepped up cooperation with its inspectors, but that it remains concerned about numerous issues regarding the Islamic republic's nuclear program.

Reeker said Washington fully concurred with that position.

"We think Iran needs to implement immediately this additional protocol and resolve a number of other outstanding questions about their secret nuclear activities," he said.

A diplomat who has studied the report told AFP it confirms that the IAEA had found traces of enriched uranium at or near the town of Natanz, where Tehran is building a uranium processing plant.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_1959.shtml

Iran threatens to expel UK ambassador

By Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran and Christopher Adams in London

Published: August 27 2003 0:38

Iran is threatening to expel Britain's ambassador to Tehran and downgrade diplomatic relations over the arrest in the UK of a former Iranian diplomat.

An expulsion and a downgrading of ties, possibly to chargé d'affaires level, would be a setback for Britain's strategy of "constructive engagement" with Iran. Jack Straw, foreign secretary, has visited Tehran several times and claims a good working relationship with his Iranian counterpart.

Iran's response could lead to European Union retaliatory action, western diplomats have warned. The threat comes days before EU foreign ministers are due to meet to discuss Iran's progress in complying with international demands to open its nuclear programme to tougher inspections.

A new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday said Iran had improved its co-operation with inspectors, but "a number of important outstanding issues" were unresolved. Iran has said it is ready to discuss an agreement that would permit intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities.

Diplomats in Tehran on Tuesday voiced fears that Iran was on the verge of expelling Richard Dalton, who arrived in December but is now on leave in the UK.

The threat, which diplomats said the Iranian leadership had made explicit within the last few days, follows the arrest in Britain of a former Iranian ambassador over the bombing in 1994 of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires.

An Argentine judge is seeking the extradition of eight Iranians, including Hadi Soleimanpour, Iran's ambassador to Argentina when the bomb explosion killed 85 people. Mr Soleimanpour was arrested last week in Durham.

Britain maintains the arrest is a judicial matter and the government cannot interfere.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479341262

Don't put troops under US control, Iran tells India

Josy Joseph in New Delhi | August 26, 2003 18:23 IST

Iraq must have a multinational force under the overall supervision of the United Nations instead of the occupational forces led by the United States, Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told Indian leaders during his meetings on Sunday.

While asserting that his country wants to see a peaceful and progressive Iraq, Kharrazi cautioned India against sending troops under American command.

During his brief visit - described by Indian officials as a transit halt en route to China, Japan and Malaysia - Kharrazi called on Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha.

"During the discussions, there was a review of the progress in bilateral co-operation since the visit of President [Mohammed] Khatami," an external affairs ministry spokesman said.

The two sides expressed satisfaction at the progress made so far and hoped to convene a meeting of the Indo-Iran Joint Commission co-chaired by the foreign ministers of both countries, in December.

They also discussed the situation in Afghanistan and 'both sides expressed full support to the government of President [Hamid] Karzai and looked forward to the constitutional Loya Jirga (council of tribal leaders) scheduled for later this year and elections next year', the spokesman said.

India and Iran expressed concern at the support that remnants of the Taliban are receiving from outside.

While Kharrazi reiterated Tehran's commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, the two sides chose to ignore a recent report in a Pakistani paper claiming that India is helping Iran's suspected nuclear and chemical weapons programmes.

Describing the allegation as silly, the spokesman said it did not even figure in the talks with Kharrazi. "It is not difficult to imagine why such a report has appeared in the Pakistani press at this particular point of time. It is better not to take cognizance of such rubbish," he said on Monday.

An Iranian official in New Delhi said the report in the Pakistani newspaper Daily Times was 'imaginative'. India and Iran had 'strong bilateral relations, but there is no cooperation in nuclear and chemical weapons programmes'.

Kharrazi also raised the issue of a gas pipeline from Iran to India through Pakistan, but was told the security situation was not conducive for such a project.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/26iran.htm

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