Iranian Alert -- September 4, 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.

U.S.-Europe Spat: Worst May Be Over

September 04, 2003
The Wall Street Journal
Marc Champion and David S. Cloud

Contrary to the popular image, Europeans aren't interested in competing with U.S. power and Americans don't want to run the world alone, according to a multinational survey to be released Thursday.

While the poll also confirms a dramatic loss of faith in U.S. leadership among Europeans -- and showed even previously ambivalent Germans support creation of a European superpower -- the survey suggests the worst of the trans-Atlantic bust-up that preceded the U.S.-led war in Iraq may be over.

For example, the German Marshall Fund's annual trans-Atlantic survey of 8,000 people in the U.S. and seven European countries took "thermometer" readings of how warmly people in different countries feel about each other. There was a chilling of European feelings toward the U.S. to 57 from 64 a year ago on a scale of 1 to 100, with one representing the iciest feeling. But that represented a significant improvement from similar measures in polls by other companies in January and April.

Perhaps most surprising, support in the U.S. for partnership with a stronger European Union has grown since June 2002, despite all the angry talk about boycotting French products. Asked how desirable it was that Europe should exert strong leadership in world affairs, 80% of Americans answered positively. That was about the same as 79% last year, but within that result, significantly more -- 43% compared with 31% in 2002 -- thought European leadership was "very" desirable.

"That's fascinating after all the huge row over Iraq and the talk of European treason, and of France no longer being an ally," says Timothy Garton Ash, head of European studies at St. Anthony's College, Oxford. "It demonstrates first that the news from Iraq shows you every day you cannot run the world on your own, and secondly that there is a trans-Atlantic community."

Indeed, the survey showed just 20% of Europeans who said they wanted the EU to be a superpower also said it should counterbalance the U.S. That compared with 74% who wanted it to cooperate with the U.S in dealing with international problems.

The sense of a thaw in relations extends to governments. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is heading to the United Nations in New York later this month, and U.S. officials said he is expected to meet with President George W. Bush. The last time the two men sat down for a substantive meeting was in Berlin in May 2002.

"Not so long ago, Condoleezza Rice called U.S.-German relations icy. I think it's now springtime," says Karsten Voigt, the German government's coordinator for trans-Atlantic affairs, referring to Mr. Bush's national-security adviser. He cited Germany's recent plan to expand its peacekeepers in Afghanistan to a city outside the capital Kabul for the first time as a gesture of Berlin's willingness to support the U.S. in the war against international terrorism.

The Bush administration has plenty of reasons to want to repair the damaged U.S.-European relationship. Most urgently, as the security situation has worsened in Iraq, Washington wants European backing for a new resolution at the U.N. that will encourage other countries to contribute peacekeeping troops. The U.S. also needs European support for taking on Iran , which the U.S. contends is hiding a secret nuclear program.

For these reasons and more, there has been an effort by the Bush administration in recent months to eliminate the slights directed at Europe from U.S. officials that even some U.S. officials concede unnecessarily soured relations. The deteriorating situation in Iraq "has to take the edge off the U.S. arrogance. We were so sure of ourselves, and now you have to acknowledge that the Europeans had a point -- this wasn't as easy as we said it was going to be," says Brookings Institution scholar Philip Gordon, a former U.S. National Security Council aide specializing in European relations.

U.S. State Department officials say they hope an expanded U.N. mandate for Iraq can be agreed upon by the time Messrs. Bush and Schroeder meet at the U.N. in New York. But big divisions remain. Negotiating a new U.N. resolution that would persuade German, French and other allies who opposed the war to send troops to help stabilize the country, while retaining U.S. command, won't be easy.

Thursday's survey does show many of the differences exposed by the Iraq war still run deep, reflecting a greater U.S. than European willingness to use force to deal with common threats. Asked whether they would support a U.N.-led attack on North Korea if it were shown to have acquired weapons of mass destruction, 72% of Americans said they would, compared with 41% of Europeans. The same discrepancy emerged when Iran was the target.

More broadly, 84% of Americans say they believe war can be necessary to achieve justice, compared with 48% of Europeans. Big majorities on both sides of the Atlantic say Americans and Europeans have different values.

Germans in particular have responded to the Iraq war by rejecting strong U.S. leadership, with 50% describing it as undesirable, compared with 27% a year earlier. The number of Germans who said the U.S. should remain the world's only superpower dropped to 8% from 22% last year, while the number who want to turn the EU into a superpower rose to 70% from 48%.

"The developments of the last year have strengthened a kind of Euro-Gaullism," Mr. Voigt said, referring to the French tradition of favoring a self-reliant Europe acting independently of the U.S. To avoid that hardening into a permanent trend would require much greater care from leaders on both sides of the Atlantic, Mr. Voigt said.

The survey could indicate volatile trends, cautioned Bill Drozdiak, head of the German Marshall Fund's trans-Atlantic center in Brussels. It was conducted in mid-June by TNS Sofres for the American policy group named in honor of post-World War II Marshall Plan assistance, and other sponsors. Mr. Drozdiak noted that, if taken today, the survey might show less U.S. enthusiasm for foreign engagements as the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated.

That is supported by more recent polling data showing that most Americans want help in running Iraq, even if that means ceding control. An Aug. 24-28 poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc. found that 63% of American voters agreed that getting "the UN and our allies to contribute more of the troops and money for the reconstruction in Iraq" was preferable to retaining U.S. control over the Iraq occupation.

-- Christopher Rhoads in Berlin contributed to this article.

Write to Marc Champion at marc.champion.com and David S. Cloud at david.cloud@wsj.com

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=04&a=6

IRI Intimidating Israel

September 04, 2003
Iranscope
Sam Ghandchi

Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) since its inception has been intimidating Israel, beginning with Khomeini's announcement of the Ghods Day in Tehran after the establishment of IRI, supposedly to defend the Palestinian people, but in reality to export Shi'a Islamism all over the Middle East. In the recent years, IRI boasting of having long range missiles reaching Israel, is doing the same kind of rhetoric Saddam initiated against Israel, that ended up in Israel's preemptive strikes on Iraq's nuclear facilities.

The IRI anti-Israeli intimidations is also reminiscent of rhetoric of IRI leaders against Iraq which ended up in Iraq's invasion of Iran with 8 years of suffering and devastation with no positive outcome for Iran. Of course Saddam's Iraq invaded Iran and it was rightly condemned and Iranians had every right and duty to resist the invaders and push them out of Iran.

Why is IRI doing all the rhetoric of Shahab Missiles to get Iran into a war situation with Israel? Haven't we learned that these intimidations can only hurt Iran and Iranians by isolating Iran more and more and putting Iran at the risk of an Israeli attack?

What is all the point of anti-Israeli nonsense? In the last 20 years, Iran has suffered in the hands of Islamists and not Zionists. Why do the Islamists and leftists always try to make Israeli-Palestinian conflict our issue? IRI tries to start a war with Israel to keep itself afloat, the same way Saddam and many Arab states including most of the Palestinian leadership have done all these years, to keep the tension with Israel to justify their own incompetence to form democratic and modern states in their own countries.

Can anybody name one state in the Middle East to be more modern and democratic for its *own* citizens than Israel? Oh please do not jump and say Palestinians are treated as second degree citizens in Israel. I know that and I condemn it. But blacks were treated as second degree citizens in law of the land not only till 1864 but even till the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S., but the United State was still a democracy for the rest of the population for hundreds of years despite the ugly part of apartheid during that history.

Let's remember that in contrast, the Arab countries do not just treat their "second" degree citizens below democratic and human rights standards, they treat all their citizens as such, and also they are all backward states which even allow the killing of heretics, or practice beheading and other cruel punishments like in Saudi Arabia, and stoning and other crimes against Iran's own citizens in the case of IRI even sanctioned in its constitution, whereas all these countries having oil are a lot richer than Israel and could have modernized and democratized a lot if they had the right leadership.

Israel has been one of the most successful countries in the Middle East, which has been able to become way more modern and democratic than all the other countries in the Middle East even without having oil revenues. The superiority of the state apparatus of Israel in the independence of its parliament and checks and balances, having real elections and not sham elections, and the social welfare and independent media and other human rights, are undeniable and their advanced state in technologies and health care are known even to Iranian people who wish medical attendance in Israeli hospitals for their loved ones, and if anybody says it is all because of dependence on the U.S., I would respond that Saudi has also been dependent on the U.S. but is a symbol of backwardness in the world and not advancement.

I have written before that "I do not approve the attacks of Israeli state against the Palestinians and if some Israel’s officials still imagine they have legitimacy of owning a piece of land in the Middle East based on whatever has been the case some thousands of years ago are wrong and the same way the Palestinians and Arabs who also imagine that because of whatever has been owned by Arabs over half a century ago to have the right to that land, are also dreaming. This is as if one keeps saying white population has no right to the U.S. land, because it belonged to Native Americans. The reality is that there is a country of Israel because of whatever historical reasons, just like all those Arab countries that exist because of some historical reasons and one better see the reality and plan on that rather than having a self-serving version of dream of history to try to solve today’s problems."

Thus basically I do not care for either side of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and I have already written in details my views of the historical issues raised, and do not need to repeat here and frankly I see it waste of time to argue these historical discussions and I prefer to focus on practical reality of the Middle East than to get drowned in history.

Iranians want good relations with Israel and it is to our advantage to learn about technical and social advancements of Israel and looking at Israel from the angle of Israel-Palestinian conflict has been a wrong approach to Israel for over 20 years. The majority of leftists who have been helping IRI all these years in continuing their lopsided view of Israel are doing a disservice to Iran and Iranians and if their so-called anti-imperialism ended up supporting an Islamist reactionary revolution in 1979, their condoning and supporting anti-Israeli rhetoric of IRI will put Iran at a situation worse than the Iran-Iraq War.

Iranians do not want a war with Israel and if IRI leaders cause a war with Israel, they are the ones who are causing another disaster for Iran and Iranians, which can hurt us like the Iran-Iraq War, and Islamists and leftists should answer for all the devastations that will follow such an outcome. They better come to grips with the new realities of the Middle East rather than putting Iran and Iranians at risk.

http://www.ghandchi.com/252-IRI-Israel.htm

Tracks of Terror

August 28, 2003
The Economist
Beunos Aires and Tehran

The explosive arrest of an ambassador

IN 1994, a car bomb outside a Jewish welfare centre in Buenos Aires killed 85 people and injured more than 200. The investigation, led by Judge Juan José Galeano, has dragged on for years and achieved little—until now. Last week, Britain acted on an international arrest warrant issued by Mr Galeano, and detained Iran's former ambassador to Argentina, triggering a diplomatic kerfuffle. On August 27th Belgian police briefly detained a second Iranian wanted by Judge Galeano; he was released after claiming diplomatic immunity.

The Argentine intelligence service, with its Israeli and American counterparts, has long accused Hizbullah, the Lebanon-based “Party of God”, of carrying out the bombing with help from the Iranian embassy. The same alliance is also suspected in a similar attack in 1992 on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29.

Iran's government denies the claims. It has reacted with fury to the arrest of Hadi Soleimanpour, who is studying for a PhD at Durham University. Britain's government, which has tried hard to improve its relations with Iran, insists that the arrest is a purely judicial matter. The British courts will now decide whether there is sufficient evidence to extradite Mr Soleimanpour. But Iran sees the hand of the United States in the affair. Facing pressure to abandon its nuclear ambitions (see article), it wants the matter solved quickly, and has hinted that it may expel the British ambassador.

Certainly, the timing of Judge Galeano's request for the arrest is interesting. Argentina's spies were already tapping the Iranian embassy's phones before the 1994 bomb. Yet it was not until March this year that the judge requested the arrest of four Iranian officials (who had all returned home). Having been advised of Mr Soleimanpour's presence in Britain, and having received no co-operation from Iran in his quest for the four, this month the judge added him (and two others) to his list.

Mr Galeano is himself under investigation. He is accused not only of being dilatory, but of destroying evidence (he says he had nowhere to store it). This month an Argentine spy testified that Mr Galeano had paid one of a score of locals accused of involvement in the bombing $400,000 to incriminate police chiefs. Néstor Kirchner, Argentina's new president, has criticised the failure to solve the case. He has opened intelligence files to the courts, and allowed 14 intelligence officers to testify. He has also launched a crusade to clean up Argentina's judiciary, many of whose members are cronies of Carlos Menem, Argentina's president from 1989-99. So a high-profile arrest was useful to Mr Galeano.

Mr Menem is alleged to have taken a $10m bribe from Iran to cover up its involvement. He denies this. The interior minister at the time of the bombing has said that the government did not want to antagonise Iran out of fear of provoking a third attack. Argentina's trade surplus with Iran may also have played a part: Iran this week banned all imports from Argentina, which last year totalled m.

Mr Kirchner is said to be considering throwing his weight behind moves by relatives of the victims to remove Judge Galeano from the case. That may happen later this year, when another set of judges is due to complete the formal hearings in the case. They are expected to criticise Mr Galeano's work.

Sooner or later, the investigation in Buenos Aires might shed some light on claims that Iran operates two diplomatic services, one through the foreign ministry and another parallel apparatus, with ties to terrorist outfits and answerable to the regime's hardline clerics. But if so, which one did Mr Soleimanpour work for?

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=04&a=8

"How Jihad Made Its Way to Chechnya
Secular Separatist Movement Transformed by Militant Vanguard

By Sharon LaFraniere
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, April 26, 2003;

KARAMAKHI, Dagestan -- This isolated southwest Russian village of dirt roads and one-story clay brick houses was profoundly peaceful, its residents say, until a Jordanian cleric named Khabib Abdurrakhman arrived in the early 1990s with a seemingly irresistible deal.

To a hamlet made destitute by the collapse of the Soviet Union, Abdurrakhman brought a slaughtered cow and a free feast every week. In a place where many people were left jobless by the demise of the local collective farm, he handed out $30 to every convert who came to his simple mosque. And to those adrift in the social chaos of the Soviet breakdown, he offered a new purpose in life -- a form of their traditional Islam rooted in fundamentalism and militancy.

Few questioned where his money came from, or who were the other Arabs who began to drift into the community. By the time questions did arise, it was too late.

By 1999, Abdurrakhman's growing band of followers had transformed the little settlement into an armed enclave, crisscrossed by tunnels and trenches and stockpiled with weapons for Abdurrakhman's true mission: severing Dagestan from Russian control and merging it into an Islamic state with neighboring Chechnya.

"They tried to lure people in a friendly way at first," according to Magomed Makhdiyev, the village imam, who says he tried to withstand the fundamentalists' influence. "But by 1999, they were saying, 'Join us or we'll cut your head off.' "

Those scruples faded in the mid-1990s, as more and more Arab missionaries and fighters flocked to the republic, proclaiming Islamic law, or sharia, and promoting Wahhabist traditions. Warlords had come to dominate Chechen society, and some of them embraced the fundamentalist cause.

The article goes into detail on the funding…

The Arabs' goal went beyond preserving Chechnya's freedom: They wanted to merge Chechnya and Dagestan to create an Islamic state. Chechnya and Dagestan were poorer than the rest of Russia, and Dagestan, though home to a mosaic of ethnic groups, was predominantly Muslim. Its access to the Caspian Sea and its oil and gas reserves gave it a strategic importance to Russia that Chechnya did not share.

One of the new leaders was Khattab, who fought with bin Laden in Afghanistan as a teenager and who had publicly praised the al Qaeda leader as the "main commander of the mujaheddin worldwide." Khattab's position in the rebel movement was assured when he won over Shamil Basayev, Chechnya's best-known militant."

http://www.gabriellereillyweekly.com/full/st072803.htm
(For extented story. Please excuse my swimsuit, I target a different market).

Saudi Arabia is trying to manipulate our economy removing oil from the market to remove supply and push up prices.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972693/posts

This last week they have done this.

"Russia and Saudi Arabia have agreed to jointly control raw material prices on the international market, Russian Fuel and Energy Minister Igor Yusufov told reporters.

According to him, the Russian government and the Saudi Arabian government signed an agreement on gas and oil cooperation, which envisages bilateral cooperation on key issues in this sphere."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/974827/posts

And agreed to help Russia with terrorism.

"Russia, Saudi Arabia to Combat Terrorism Russian, Saudi Arabian Officials Agree to Coordinate Anti-Terrorism Efforts"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/975196/posts?page=2

Non-essential UK Staff to Leave Iran Embassy

September 04, 2003
BBC News
BBCi

The Foreign Office is to allow non-essential staff and their families to leave the British embassy in Tehran, Iran, following a gun attack on the building.

But the department made it clear in Thursday's announcement that there is no threat to Britons travelling to Iran or to the British community in the country. They are not being advised to leave.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said authorisation to leave had been given because of an "increased threat" to the embassy following the attack.

She added: "We are not advising the British community to leave, nor are we advising against non-essential travel to Iran as we believe the threat is against the embassy and not private individuals.

"This is a straightforward security measure. We are not downgrading diplomatic relations."

The announcement follows the closure of the embassy after shots were fired at the building from a nearby street on Wednesday. Five shots hit the embassy, but nobody was hurt in the attack.

Diplomatic tension

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza said police had put in place special surveillance and security measures around the embassy and were following up very seriously "these irresponsible actions".

The shooting followed an announcement that Iran had temporarily recalled its ambassador to Britain amid an escalating dispute between the two countries.

Iran's ambassador to Britain, Morteza Sarmadi, was recalled after allegedly failing to win concessions following the arrest of another Iranian diplomat in Britain, Hade Soleimanpour.

Mr Soleimanpour's extradition is being sought by Argentina in connection with the bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires in 1994, when he was Iranian ambassador there. The blast killed 85 people.

Relations between Britain and Iran have been strained since Mr Soleimanpour's arrest on 21 August.

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has demanded Mr Soleimanpour's release and an apology from Britain.

But the British Government says it cannot intervene in what it calls a purely judicial, and not political, process.

Britain and Iran resumed full diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level in 1999 after a long break following the overthrow of the shah in the 1979 Islamic revolution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3081870.stm

Rumsfeld Says Unhappy with Iran, Syria

September 04, 2003
Reuters
MSNBC News

BAGHDAD -- U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad on Thursday, saying neighbouring Syria and Iran were not doing enough to stop an influx of anti-American fighters into Iraq.

Rumsfeld, on an unannounced visit to the occupied country, will meet military commanders and soldiers and have a closer look at a deteriorating security situation in Iraq.

''We are unhappy about the fact that people come across the Syrian and Iranian border. They know we are unhappy about it,'' Rumsfeld told reporters on the plane that flew him in to Baghdad.

Asked if Syria and Iran were exerting efforts to stop the infiltrations, Rumsfeld said: ''It's intermittent, uneven.''

U.S. officials blame supporters of ousted President Saddam Hussein and foreign Islamist fighters for a guerrilla campaign that has killed 67 American soldiers since Washington declared an end to major combat on May 1.

Rumsfeld said the U.S. forces did not know exactly where the threat to American forces was coming from.

''The U.S. intelligence community has imperfect visibility,'' he said.

Four car bombings that have killed more than 120 people including the U.N. representative and a top Shi'ite Muslim cleric in the last month have highlighted the lack of security in the country of 26 million since Saddam was deposed five months ago.

Rumsfeld said the United States was working with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey -- Iraq's other neighbours apart from Syria and Iran -- to guard their borders.

''Is it possible to make those borders not porous?...It's tough,'' he said.

Shortly after his arrival, Rumsfeld met Paul Bremer, the head of the U.S.-led administration in Iraq.

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters09-04-063626.asp?reg=MIDEAST

Poll: Opposition to U.S. Policy Grows in Europe

September 04, 2003
The Washington Post
Glenn Frankel

LONDON -- European disapproval of U.S. foreign policy has soared during the past year, with strong majorities in France, Germany, Italy and Britain condemning the Bush administration's handling of foreign affairs, while support within the United States for those policies has increased, according to a public opinion survey released today.

The poll, which surveyed a total of 8,000 people on both sides of the Atlantic, also found that large majorities -- 83 percent in the United States and 79 percent in Europe -- agreed that Europeans and Americans have different social and cultural values.

Majorities in six of the seven European countries surveyed, which also included the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal, said they disapproved of the way President Bush was handling international policy. The exception was Poland, where 58 percent of those surveyed supported Bush's policies. Overall, 64 percent of Europeans disapproved, up from 56 percent a year ago.

A similar percentage of Europeans condemned the war in Iraq as not worth the loss of life and other associated costs, while 55 percent of Americans said it was worth it. Just 45 percent of Europeans believe that it is desirable for the United States to exert strong leadership in world affairs, down from 64 percent a year ago.

The results capped a traumatic year for U.S.-European relations in which the leaders of France, Germany and Russia took a high-profile stance in opposing the U.S.-led campaign against Iraq and thwarted American and British efforts to win a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military action.

"Americans and Europeans are still friends, but Europeans are more likely to be critical both of Bush administration foreign policy in general, and of the Iraq war in particular," concluded the authors of the survey, which was conducted in June and was sponsored by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a nonprofit group seeking to foster U.S.-European cooperation, and the Compagnia di San Paolo, a private law foundation based in Turin, Italy.

The poll found that Europeans and Americans shared similar views in identifying the biggest threats to global security: international terrorism, North Korea's and Iran's access to weapons of mass destruction , Islamic fundamentalism and the Arab-Israeli conflict. But they sharply disagreed over the use of military force to deal with global threats. About 84 percent of Americans said war may be used to achieve justice, while only 48 percent of Europeans agreed.

And 78 percent of Europeans and 67 percent of Americans said U.S. unilateralism posed a possible international threat over the next 10 years.

Both sides supported strengthening the United Nations, but 57 percent of Americans were prepared to bypass the world organization when vital interests were at stake, while only about 40 percent of Europeans said they would do so.

Craig Kennedy, president of the German Marshall Fund, said the results suggested that European anger, while focused on the Bush administration, went deeper. "There is a Bush style that really does drive Europeans up a wall," Kennedy said. "But would it go away if a Democrat took over the White House tomorrow? Frankly I don't think so. The poll suggests that Bush's policies are pretty well in sync with American public opinion. If you had a Democrat, they would still have to work basically within those kinds of public constraints. The policies that annoy most Europeans would still be there."

The poll reported that Europeans want to see the European Union become a superpower but said they wanted it to cooperate with, rather than compete against, the United States. At the same time, a sizeable majority of Europeans do not want the EU to drastically increase defense spending.

Public opinion in the seven European countries was less favorable toward the United States than it was a year ago, according to the poll, which used a "thermometer index" of 0 (very cold) to 100 (very warm). It found that France had the largest drop in warmth toward the United States -- down from 60 degrees a year ago to 50. The decline was reciprocated across the Atlantic, with a drop from 55 to 45 toward France among Americans.

At the same time, the poll reported, 77 percent of Americans said they wanted their country to be engaged in the world -- a 50-year high.

Even in Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair persuaded a reluctant public and House of Commons to participate in the war in Iraq, 57 percent said they disapproved of Bush's foreign policy.

The biggest internal change from last year's survey occurred in Germany, the poll found. A year ago Germans seemed uncertain about their global role and about whether Europe or the United States was their natural partner. That ambiguity has faded, with 82 percent of those surveyed saying that Germany must play an active part in world affairs, and 70 percent believing that the EU should become a superpower -- sizeable increases in both figures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22434-2003Sep3.html

US Wants IAEA To Ask UN To Pressure Iran

September 04, 2003
The Associated Press
Dow Jones Newswires

VIENNA -- Washington, which accuses Iran of covering up a nuclear weapons program, will seek approval of a resolution at an upcoming meeting of the U.N. atomic agency that asks the Security Council to pressure Tehran for full transparency, diplomats said Thursday.

One of the diplomats, who is familiar with U.S. strategy at next week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors, said the language of the resolution is in flux.

"At this point, there is no mentions of sanctions on Iran," said the diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. "But that doesn't mean that the final resolutions won't ask for them."

The diplomat said the U.S. was threading carefully because it was seeking consensus from the 35-member board, but was ready to toughen up the language of the resolution if it found support for it.

"As it stands now, the resolution finds Iran guilty of noncompliance" with its obligations to be open to the IAEA about its nuclear activities, he said. The diplomat added that the Americans were building their case on two IAEA reports - one of them to be discussed by the board starting Monday - finding troubling indications that Iran had not been transparent about the nature of its nuclear activities, which include evidence pointing to potential attempts to make weapons-grade nuclear fuel,

Iran certainly has "a program of concern," said IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky. "We need to urgently resolve our outstanding questions around their nuclear program."

Gwozdecky declined to comment on the meeting's possible outcome. But a diplomat familiar with the agency said the U.S. and its allies - Canada, Britain and Australia - were pushing a "hard line."

At the same time, other diplomats suggested the U.S. needed to go slowly because most members of the board of governors favored moderate action short of Security Council involvement. They wanted its language not to extend beyond expressing concern about Iran's nuclear activities and urging it to open its program to unfettered IAEA inspection.

The latest confidential board report obtained by the AP ahead of the board meeting, which opens Monday, says that agency inspectors found traces of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium at a facility at Natanz, about 500 kilometers south of Tehran, as well as other inconsistencies with what Tehran has reported.

Iran, which says its nuclear program is only to generate electricity, asserts the centrifuge components were "contaminated" with enriched uranium before they were purchased by Tehran and that the origin of the components cannot be determined because they were purchased from intermediaries.

Suspicion about Iran's nuclear program prompted Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the Vienna-based IAEA, to tour Iran's nuclear facilities in February, including the incomplete nuclear plant in Natanz. At the time, diplomats said he was taken aback by the advanced stage of a project using hundreds of centrifuges to enrich uranium.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=04&a=12

Iran - Time for Europe to Lead

Washington Post - By Robert M. Kimmitt
Sep 4, 2003

As the second anniversary of Sept. 11 draws near, Europe and the United States remain at odds on a common approach toward Iraq, both because Europe has not developed a unified position and because the United States insists on a position of continuing primacy. By contrast, with regard to nearby Iran, there is already a common and urgent objective both within Europe and between Europe and the United States to halt Tehran's effort to acquire a nuclear capability. To achieve that objective, Europe should now step forward, and the United States should step back, even though neither side is instinctively inclined to do so.

While there is debate between Europe and the United States about the nature of Iran's leadership and its brutal repression of its own people, there is no debate about the fact that Iran is embarked on a path toward obtaining nuclear weapons. In contrast to its efforts in Iraq, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been widely viewed as effective in detailing Iranian efforts to develop a nuclear capability. Just recently IAEA inspectors reported finding evidence of highly enriched uranium at a nuclear facility south of Tehran. This finding prompted Iran's foreign minister to declare that Iran was prepared to "enter negotiations on the additional protocol," which would permit broader IAEA access to Iranian facilities, though it would also buy time for Iran to accelerate its clandestine program.

Though its interests are directly implicated, the ability of the United States to influence events in Iran is more limited than ever. Not only has the United States had little contact with Iran in nearly a quarter-century, it is also still the "Great Satan," opposition to which provides the radical theocracy with both a major element of its claimed legitimacy and a major weapon to use against any true reformer who would suggest an opening to the United States.

Europe, on the other hand, has had diplomatic relations with the leadership in Tehran for over two decades, and there is a growing trade relationship of importance to both sides, but especially to Iran. For some European countries, especially Germany, ties with Iran and, earlier, Persia go back centuries, especially in the area of academic exchange.

To the surprise of many of its detractors in the United States, Europe's policy of "critical dialogue" with Iran has recently become more keenly focused on the dangers posed by Iran's nuclear activities and aspirations. This sharpening of approach has been hastened by Europe's growing concern about the parallel acceleration of Iran's missile development program.

Led by Germany, and on its own initiative rather than in response to U.S. pressure, Europe should publicly announce a policy under which it will not allow its companies to trade with a nuclear Iran, will not provide other than humanitarian financial support to a nuclear Iran and, in the World Bank and other international financial institutions, will vote against all but basic-needs projects for a nuclear Iran.

If Europe goes this route, it should also take the lead in securing consensus for a similar G-8 statement, thus bringing Japan and Russia, both important trading partners for Iran, into the fold. Given his country's unique ties to both Israel and Iran, this initiative presents a special opportunity for German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder when he speaks at the United Nations later this month on the occasion of Germany's 30th anniversary as a U.N. member.

Visible American support for this European leadership initiative could also help encourage Europe to respond more positively to current U.S. requests regarding Iraq and on blacklisting Hamas. Politically, it is always easier to respond positively in one area if one's initiative in another area is taken seriously.

Regarding Hamas and Mideast peace, the United States and Europe should move beyond yet another disagreement on the merits of Israeli and Palestinian positions and agree instead that there is no real chance for peace without strong actions against supporters of regional terrorism. Europe could play a decisive role in making clear to Iran (and Syria) that Europe cannot have normal relations with countries that sponsor and harbor groups dedicated to undermining the search for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In return for this public declaration and subsequent actions by Europe, the United States should consider a closer consultative relationship with Europe on its road map and other plans and activities in the Mideast.

This series of steps on both sides could help ease transatlantic frictions, reinvigorate the common war against terrorism, and produce Europe's first comprehensive (Levant to Gulf) Mideast initiative, including more active support of the peace process, expanded participation in Iraq and a strong, proactive role on Iran. Most important, the initiative would be based on European leadership, which is an essential -- yet now missing -- element of a healthy transatlantic relationship.

The writer was undersecretary of state and ambassador to Germany in the first Bush administration.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_2153.shtml

Iran Weighs Options Against Britain

September 05, 2003
Agence France Presse
Laurent Lozano

TEHRAN -- Iran must be careful in pressing its dispute with Britain over the arrest of a former Iranian diplomat against a backdrop of international calls led by Washington and London that it open up its nuclear facilities to snap inspections.

Tension between Tehran and London has been on the rise since Aug. 21, when British police arrested Iran’s former ambassador to Argentina on an extradition warrant issued by an Argentine judge who accused the ex-diplomat of involvement in planning and executing a 1994 bomb attack on a Jewish center in Buenos Aires which killed 85 people.

The Iranians have made it clear to the British that they would not accept that Hadi Soleimanpur be extradited to Argentina, with whom they have already cut diplomatic and cultural ties, and that they might go as far as to expel the British ambassador in Tehran if Soleimanpour is not let go.

The strain in relations escalated Wednesday with Tehran recalling its ambassador to London “for consultations” and the British Embassy in Tehran coming under gunfire attack by a man on a motorbike, according to eye witnesses.

The embassy on Ferdossi Street has been the target of similar attacks in the past. The question on many people’s minds regarding the lastest attack is whether it was an isolated incident or part of a concerted effort by radical and conservative elements in Iran that want to inflame the situation.

Both sides have attempted to minimize the potential fallout from the attack with the Iranian foreign minister calling it an “irresponsible” act and the Foreign Office refraining from lodging an official complaint.

But a segment of the Iranian population has become a lot more hostile towards Britain with this being fueled by official talk of a “Zionist conspiracy” agaisnt Iran and calls by conservatives for the British Ambassador to Iran Richard Dalton to be expelled. The Islamist daily Jumhuri-Eslami called yesterday for the shut down of the British Embassy in Tehran.

“This would be slap in the face of the British. Tony Blair and the liars that serve him, would understand, before leaving 10 Downing Street in humiliation, that they are unworthy of Iran’s goodwill,” said the paper. The paper echoes the position of many hard-liners who believe that in the Soleimanpour affair and in other instances Iran must demonstrate to the West that “they are mistaken to confuse Iran’s goodwill as a sign of weakness”.

The same argument is used by Iranians who are against the country acquiescing to pressure by the United States, Britain and the European Union that it agree to snap UN inspections of its nuclear power sites.

Britain has been in the forefront of an international chorus urging Iran to sign an additional protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would allow unannounced checks of its nuclear facilities to insure that they were not being used for military purposes.

Iran said Wednesday that it had not made up its mind whether to sign the additional protocol.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=31416&d=5&m=9&y=2003

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.