Iranian Alert -- September 8, 2003 -- IRAN 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.

Iran 'has nuclear bomb project'

Atomic energy inspectors' findings stoke suspicion and put Tehran at top of agenda

Ian Traynor in Zagreb and Dan Deluce in Tehran
Monday September 8, 2003
The Guardian

UN inspectors have concluded that Iran has used nuclear materials to test uranium enrichment machinery despite Tehran's repeated declarations to the contrary and its obligations to report such practices to the UN.
The conclusions reached by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency during visits to Iran in June and last month fuel suspicions that Iran is far advanced in a clandestine nuclear bomb project.

The Bush administration, which classified Iran as part of the "axis of evil" troika of rogue states bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, believes the latest findings from the IAEA in Vienna confirm its conviction that Tehran is well on its way to acquiring the bomb and should be sanctioned by the UN security council.

The IAEA findings "demonstrate that Iran has been lying," said a senior western diplomat closely involved in monitoring the Iranian nuclear programme.

A meeting of the 35-strong IAEA board opening today in Vienna will be dominated by the Iranian dilemma following a confidential 10-page report on Iran by the agency's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, which points to the need for urgent answers about Iran's uranium enrichment programme, the process by which low-grade fuel used to generate nuclear power is turned into weapons-grade uranium.

The meeting will adopt a resolution calling on Iran to open its doors to the nuclear inspectors unconditionally. But Washington has backed down from demanding that Iran be declared in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a move that could trigger sweeping international sanctions against Iran.

"To maintain broad support for the agency, it has been agreed to support a resolution that stops short of declaring Iran in non-compliance" with the non-proliferation treaty, said the western diplomat.

At the last such meeting in June, Washington could not muster the support for reporting Iran to the security council. A similar scenario is unfolding this time despite the greater and broader unease about the alleged bomb project. Malaysia has come under pressure from Washington as head of the non-aligned states but has refused to support a resolution that would shift the issue to the UN security council. Japan has also come under US lobbying to cancel a lucrative oil deal under negotiation unless Iran allows more intrusive inspections.

In the run-up to the meeting, Tehran is appearing more conciliatory. The foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, reiterated his government's positive but vague position at the weekend.

"With explanations and the removal of ambiguities from the IAEA, Iran will in the near future sign the additional protocol" enabling snap UN inspections, he told the state news agency.

Some diplomats and analysts in Tehran say Iran is playing for time to secure concessions or to complete work on its alleged weapons programme. UN inspectors and the US administration have a tense relationship because of the Iraq war. But while US hawks are heading the campaign of pressure against Iran, the nuclear inspectors, too, are increasingly alarmed at the scale and the sophistication of what they are gradually uncovering in Iran.

The Iranians insist their nuclear ambitions are restricted to power generation. But at the weekend they again balked at Russian insistence on an agreement to return nuclear fuel being supplied for the Bushehr nuclear power station in the south of the country.

If the Iranians keep the spent fuel and reprocess it, they obtain weapons-grade plutonium.

Inconsistencies feeding fears of an Iranian nuclear bomb revolve around these areas:

· The Natanz underground uranium enrichment project in central Iran. The Iranians have constructed thousands of centrifuges for a pilot uranium enrichment programme there.

· The Kalaye Electric Company in Tehran has played a key role in the Iranian project. When UN inspectors went there last March, they were prevented by the Iranians from taking any environmental samples.

· At Arak, the Iranians are designing a heavy water plant which produces weapons-grade plutonium but is irrelevant to the Bushehr nuclear station, which is to use a light water reactor.

· Uranium metal: the Iranians have also been found to be converting uranium into uranium metal and have constructed a "uranium metal purification and casting laboratory".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1037453,00.html

Iran’s regime poses difficult problem for the world: Rice

WASHINGTON: Iran poses a difficult problem for the United States, US President George W. Bush’s national security adviser said on Sunday, when asked about regime change there.

ìIran has been a source for terrorism. We will continue to tell the Iranian government to turn them over,î Condoleezza Rice told Fox television. Iranian authorities claim to have arrested members of Al Qaeda since September 2001, whom the United States wants handed over.

Asked specifically about regime change, Rice noted that the Iranian people have repeatedly expressed their desire for freedom, and the president has associated himself with those aspirations.

ìYet this is a place that has had elections, the people of Iran have expressed themselves. We want to be certain that we always use the right tools in the right circumstances,î she said.But Rice stressed, ìThere is no doubt that this is a regime that poses a very difficult problem, not just for the United States but for the rest of the world.î

ìIf you look at what they are doing on their nuclear programme now, where the International Atomic Energy Agency has been I think surprised and alarmed at some of the things that they have found in Iran, people are taking a second look at Iran and we are encouraging that second look.î

Earlier, Iran said it expects the upcoming UN nuclear agency’s meeting to avoid political considerations and instead make efforts to help the country agree to open its nuclear programmes to unfettered access.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi made the comments a day before a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

Asefi said the IAEA did not share the view of the United States, which pursues an extremist position and its behaviour is politically motivated.’’

"We hope Monday’s (today’s) meeting in Vienna will carry out its professional job away from political considerations," he said.

The meeting will discuss Iran’s nuclear programme, including a protocol that would allow tougher IAEA inspections without notice.

Iran has said it would agree to unfettered inspections if it is granted access to advanced nuclear technology as provided for under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Tehran says Washington’s influence is blocking that technology.

A report to be presented at the meeting, which opens on Monday (today), outlines inconsistencies between what UN agency inspectors found and what Iran says it is doing in the nuclear field. Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.

Diplomats in Vienna said on Friday that the United States has backed away from presenting a resolution to the meeting asking the UN Security Council to look at Iran’s suspect nuclear activities because it expects little support from other countries.

The United States will instead agree to present a less strongly worded resolution at the IAEA board of governors meeting, urging Iran to open up its nuclear programmes to unfettered access.

The weekly Tagesspiegel am Sonntag said in its Sunday edition up to 90 scientists are working secretly on the construction of a nuclear bomb in Iran under the supervision of the ministry of defence.

Quoting intelligence sources, it said Iran had bought high-tension switches and high-speed cameras to conduct nuclear tests.

According to German newspaper Die Welt, Iran secretly put pressure on the Egyptian head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to play down the significance of its nuclear programme.

Quoting western intelligence sources, the newspaper said Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s top diplomat on the UN nuclear watchdog, met the agency’s director general, Mohammed ElBaradei, at the home of a prominent Egyptian businessman.

http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en37896&F_catID=&f_type=source

Iran's Influence Grows in Iraqi Holy City
Sun September 7, 2003 05:35 AM ET

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - Seventy-year-old Badria sits at the steps of the gold-domed Imam Ali mosque, crying in disbelief that she has managed to see one of the most revered sites of Shi'ite Islam.

"I thought I would die without seeing it," said Badria, one of thousands of Iranians who can now visit Iraq's holy Shi'ite cities freely thanks to the downfall of Saddam Hussein.

Saddam, a Sunni Muslim, waged war against Iran from 1980 to 1988. He imposed strict limits on the number of pilgrims from Shi'ite-dominated Iran allowed to visit sites they revere such as Najaf and Kerbala.

Now age-old ties between the neighboring countries, both with majority Shi'ite populations, are being revived. That is a source of joy for many such as Badria, and of new business opportunities for others already reaping the rewards of a lucrative cross border trade.

However, some are worried about Iran's growing influence. Iraqi Shi'ites stress they want to take control of their own destiny. That means not being too dependent on Iran, which would have an interest in preventing Iraq's Shi'ite south from becoming too powerful.

Iran's leaders would not want to see the center of the Shi'ite clerical establishment move from the Iranian city of Qom back to its traditional home of Najaf.

"If the seat of the clerical leadership were to return back to Najaf, it would be a big loss for Iran's leadership," said Haidar Tweij, a Najaf resident.

SMUGGLED GOODS

But for many people the warmer relationship is simply good business.

A burgeoning trade has sprung up with Iranians coming across the border in pickup trucks to smuggle back pillaged copper, weapons and other stolen goods freely available in the many open markets of southern Iraq thanks to postwar lawlessness.

"The Iranian traders are coming here because a lot of the goods that were stolen are cheap," said Khazem al-Shareefi, a coppersmith in Najaf's Saha Maidan open market.

As Iraqis seek to satisfy pent-up consumer demand after years of sanctions, many competitively priced, smuggled Iranian goods from pistachios to Parsi Cola flood the markets.

But close religious ties cannot surmount long-held prejudices and a history of wars and conflict.

Najaf residents talk of Iranians who take up long stays in the city's hotels. They suspect they are secret service agents sent to keep a close eye on developments on the ground.

While local people say they are glad of the security offered by Islamic militias such as the Badr Brigade, they worry about its links to Tehran, which supported the group during years of exile in Iran.

Security fears after a car bomb attack last month which killed top cleric Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim and more than 80 of his followers brought the Badr militias out of the shadows.

They mounted night patrols and searches and rounded up scores of Saddam supporters.

"The top (clerical) leadership was being killed and no one was providing protection so they took it upon themselves to organize protection for themselves... But I wouldn't allow them to search my car," said Ali Sharaa, one Najaf resident.

Still, many Iraqi Shi'ites say Iran's religious establishment has done a lot for them, providing funds to help the poor and shelter for those fleeing persecution by Saddam.

That makes Iran the natural shoulder to lean on for Shi'ites who feel Washington has not fulfilled its promises to bring peace and prosperity to Iraq after Saddam's downfall.

Portraits of Iran's late Ayatollah Khomeini and leaders of its 1979 Islamic revolution are displayed in stores and popular coffee shops alongside those of Iraqi religious leaders.

"To be realistic, when Saddam was around, where did we find refuge? It was in Iran. When they come to us now, we can't say no to them," said Saad Sheblawi, a teacher.

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3400070

Iran Warns of Weapons Inspection Pressure
By GEORGE JAHN
The Associated Press

VIENNA, Austria - Iran is warning the United States and other nations against pushing for too much too soon at a meeting of the U.N. atomic agency, suggesting that harsh demands could heighten nuclear tensions.

The meeting, which opens Monday, likely will urge Iran to make its nuclear program accessible by agreeing to a protocol allowing tougher International Atomic Energy Agency inspections without notice.

Under strong international pressure, Iran last month offered to negotiate the IAEA protocol. Delegates at the meeting also will ask Tehran to explain agency findings that the Americans and others say point to the existence of a covert nuclear weapons program.

Iran's delegate, Ali Akbar Salehi, said his country still was open to negotiating the inspection issue with the International Atomic Energy Agency, but he indicated the offer could be withdrawn.

Salehi, while not going into specifics, warned of "unexpected or surprising consequences" should the Iranian leadership decide the IAEA board was making harsh demands - in effect suggesting that such a move might escalate nuclear tensions.

"We are sitting on a very thin edge," Salehi said. "It could tilt one way or the other very easily."

The United States accuses Iran of working on a secret nuclear weapons program and a recent confidential IAEA report, obtained by The Associated Press, said traces of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium were found at an Iranian nuclear facility.

The report also said Iran was conducting tests that experts say make little sense unless the country was pursuing nuclear weapons.

Tehran insists its nuclear programs are for generating electricity and says its equipment was "contaminated" with enriched uranium by a previous owner.

Kenneth Brill, the chief U.S. IAEA delegate, declined comment on what the Americans were seeking. But he said the United States and other board members believe Iran is trying "to evade international obligations and to seek the capacity to build nuclear weapons."

"It's fair to say that the majority of board members will want to see Iran ... enhance its cooperation" and "provide the answers to all the questions that are outstanding," he said.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Sunday the IAEA did not share the view of the United States, "which pursues an extremist position and its behavior is politically motivated."

In an apparent victory for Iran, the Bush administration last week decided not to ask the Vienna meeting to endorse a resolution finding Iran in noncompliance of IAEA obligations - a move that could have led to U.N. sanctions.

Instead, the resolution being drafted likely will call on Iran to answer questions raised in the report and provide full disclosure of its program. It also could set a deadline for Tehran to comply, diplomats said on condition of anonymity.

Iran has said it would agree to unfettered inspections if it is granted access to advanced nuclear technology as provided for under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Tehran says Washington's influence is blocking that technology.

Suspicions about Iran's nuclear activities prompted Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA director-general, in February to tour Iran's nuclear facilities, including the incomplete plant in Natanz, about 300 miles south of Tehran. Diplomats said he was taken aback by the advanced stage of a project using hundreds of centrifuges to enrich uranium.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-09082003-155397.html

U.N. Nuke Group Urges Iran to Come Clean

September 08, 2003
The Associated Press
The Tuscaloosa News

The chief of the U.N. nuclear agency pressed Iran on Monday to come clean with "full transparency" on uranium enrichment and other evidence that could point to a covert atomic weapons program.

In a statement to the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei said Iran has been showing increased cooperation, but that his experts still don't have enough information to determine the nature of Tehran's nuclear activities.

"I would urge Iran in the coming weeks to show proactive and accelerated cooperation, and to demonstrate full transparency by providing the agency with a complete and accurate declaration of all its nuclear activities," ElBaradei said.

The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors, meeting Monday at the agency's Vienna headquarters, was expected to urge Iran to make its nuclear program accessible by agreeing to allow more intrusive inspections without notice.

Iran, however, has been warning the United States and others not to push for too much too soon, warning that nuclear tensions could grow if it is handed an ultimatum on opening its programs to full outside examination.

Iran's delegate, Ali Akbar Salehi, said before the meeting that Iran remained open to negotiating the inspection issue with the IAEA, but indicated the offer could be withdrawn if this week's board review "disrupted the whole process."

"We are sitting on a very thin edge," Salehi said. "It could tilt one way or the other very easily."

The United States accuses Iran of working on a secret nuclear weapons program, and a recent confidential IAEA report, obtained by The Associated Press, said traces of highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium were found at an Iranian nuclear facility.

The report also said Iran was conducting tests that experts say make little sense unless the country was pursuing nuclear weapons.

Tehran insists its nuclear programs are for generating electricity and says its equipment was "contaminated" with enriched uranium by a previous owner.

ElBaradei said the IAEA was pressing the Iranians for a complete list of all imported equipment and components they contend were contaminated as well as its origins, the dates it was acquired and where it has been used or stored since.

The nuclear agency also needs to know more about Iran's uranium conversion experiments and its testing of gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, he said.

"Much urgent and essential work still remains to be completed before the agency can draw conclusions," ElBaradei cautioned.

Some of the information Iran recently has handed over is "piecemeal" or "inconsistent with that given previously," he said without elaborating.

"Iran should move rapidly" toward signing the measure, ElBaradei said, adding: "The more transparency that is provided, the more assurance we can give."

The outcome, he told reporters, "will have major implications for the non-proliferation regime" worldwide.

Only a comprehensive declaration can determine the truth, ElBaradei said Monday.

"It is essential that all outstanding issues, particularly those involving high-enriched uranium, be brought to closure as soon as possible to enable the agency to come to a definitive conclusion," he said.

Suspicions about Iran's nuclear activities prompted ElBaradei in February to tour Iran's nuclear facilities, including the incomplete plant in Natanz, about 300 miles south of Tehran.

Diplomats said he was taken aback by the advanced stage of a project using hundreds of centrifuges to enrich uranium.

In an apparent victory for Iran, the Bush administration last week decided not to ask the Vienna meeting to endorse a resolution finding Iran in noncompliance of IAEA obligations. That could bring the matter before the U.N. Security Council, which can take steps ranging from criticism to sanctions.

"There was no other choice but to back down, because that proposal didn't have many countries to go along with it," Salehi said Monday.

Instead, the resolution being drafted likely will call on Iran to answer questions raised in the report and provide full disclosure of its program. It also could set a deadline for Tehran to comply and warn that Iran will be declared in noncompliance if it misses that deadline, diplomats said on condition of anonymity.

Kenneth Brill, the chief U.S. delegate to the IAEA, declined to comment on what the Americans were seeking. But he said the United States and others believe Iran is trying "to evade international obligations and to seek the capacity to build nuclear weapons."

"It's fair to say that the majority of board members will want to see Iran ... enhance its cooperation" and "provide the answers to all the questions that are outstanding," he said.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030908/API/309080599&cachetime=5

Iranians Puzzled as Outsiders Stay Fretful

September 08, 2003
The Financial Times
Roula Khalaf

Faced with rising suspicions over its nuclear ambitions, Iran's clerical regime has adopted a strange defence: nuclear weapons, says the government in Tehran, are un-Islamic and therefore cannot be pursued by the Islamic Republic.

Some take the curious argument even further: "It's not human to have the atomic bomb," declares Amir Mohebian, a newspaper columnist who is considered an ideologue for the conservative faction in Iran's political establishment. "We want to follow policies that are in line with morality."

Ordinary Iranians are, however, dismissive of the public discourse. The prospect of an Iranian atomic bomb finds wide popular support, even among those who oppose the hardline clerics who control the levers of power.

Driven by a sense of patriotism and proud of Iran's historical role as a regional power, Iranians say they are puzzled by the international community's anxiety. "It is even necessary for Iran to have the weapons because we've been under threat historically," says Dariush, a 22-year-old Iranian now on military service. "So many others have them - Pakistan, Israel - so why should Iran not be allowed?"

Iran is again on the agenda of this week's board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog. The meeting follows a new inspectors' report that has exacerbated US fears over the nuclear programme.

Some light has been shed on Iran's nuclear sites since Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, visited Iran in February. But the agency says many questions remain unanswered.

Iran says it is pursuing a complete fuel cycle - from mining uranium to enrichment for use in reactors - but only to produce nuclear energy. But such an achievement would give Iran the technology and capability to develop fuel for weapons.

Also troubling is the building of a heavy water plant that could lead to the production of plutonium.

IAEA inspectors have produced two reports, the latest of which will form the basis of this week's discussions at the agency's board. The document reveals samples taken from some facilities showed particles of weapons-grade uranium. The agency is investigating Iranian claims that contamination of imported equipment was the source of the uranium. Diplomats say Tehran has not revealed the origin of the imports and had claimed in the past its programme was developed indigenously.

The report also highlights apparent modifications at a Tehran site where inspectors had been banned but allowed to visit last month.

The US had sought to persuade the 35-member board (on which Iran also sits) to pass a tough resolution declaring Tehran in violation of its nuclear obligations. But with little appetite among members for an escalation of the dispute and a referral to the UN Security Council, the US on Friday softened its position and said it would seek a resolution that would press Iran to fully comply with the IAEA.

The US appears confident a compromise resolution will pass. But Tehran, which counts many allies on the 35-member governing board, successfully fought the US push for a resolution at an IAEA meeting in June.

Iran now says it is willing to negotiate an agreement for intrusive inspections, under a so-called "additional protocol" to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, but wants to clarify "ambiguities" first. Analysts say that hardline clerics in Tehran are hoping to delay the move as long as possible and to bargain for concessions.

Diplomats say a resolution will have to take into account Iran's concerns about weapons proliferation in the region.

Geoffrey Kemp, director of regional strategic programmes at the Nixon Center, in Washington, says that stopping or slowing Iran's push for a nuclear bomb will require "carrots as well as threatened sticks and much greater co-operation with Europe, Russia and China".

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479628821&p=1012571727172

On the "Frontlines of Freedom"

September 08, 2003
National Review Online
An NRO Symposium

Reaction to President Bush's Sunday-night address on Iraq

Michael Ledeen

My guess, listening between the lines, is that so many people all over the world viewed our appeal to the United Nations as a clear sign of retreat, that the president decided he'd better get out there and look tough. He rightly said that we've learned that weakness invites terrorist attack while strength deters it, and he insisted that we're strong, that we're taking the battle to the bad guys, and we're going to track them all down.

Let's hope it works, but I doubt it. I think we're in for a new wave of attacks, both here and in the Middle East, in part because the terrorists have to show signs of real strength, and in part because so much of what has been coming out of this administration of late really does reek of retreat.

As usual, it was a good speech, carefully crafted and elegantly presented. I like his clearly heartfelt reiteration of the theme of freedom versus tyranny, which is indeed the heart of the matter. He's clearly pleased, as we should all be, that there has been great progress throughout Iraq, electing local governments, getting schools up and running, and so forth.

But, alas, he has lost focus. He reminded us that he had always expected this to be a long war, but he never mentioned the Evil Axis, never once talked about the several countries that are supporting the terrorist attacks against us, never mentioned the Iranian atomic bomb or the North Korean nuclear program or the ongoing Saudi and Syrian support for terror. This speech was narrowly about Iraq, with a couple of afterthoughts about Afghanistan. If he's aware that we can't possibly win in Iraq unless we bring down the mullahcracy in Tehran, he didn't give any sign of it.

We're dithering again, wasting time while the terror masters prepare their next assault, instead of going after them where they live.

James S. Robbins

President Bush sought to contextualize the war and its various phases: Afghanistan, where the al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds were attacked directly and overwhelmed; attacks on the terrorist infrastructure, which has resulted in nearly two thirds of known senior al Qaeda leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators being captured or killed; breaking up terrorist financial and logistical networks; and taking down Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, which supported terrorism and had the potential to equip terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. Of these, the president's critics have focused most of their attention on denying the links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Whether or not they want to believe that such links existed in the past, they surely do now.

"Iraq is now the central front," the president said, and this is true not only from our perspective but also from the enemy's. Al Qaeda fighters and sympathizers are flooding into Iraq from all over the world to try to bring the battle to the Crusaders. They view Iraq as "the perfect place" to engage U.S. forces. They see our situation as similar to that of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, in which the Mujahedeen were able to wage unrelenting guerrilla war and drive the Red Army out. Of course, they also thought that Afghanistan would be our Afghanistan, a rather more precise analogy and one which did not turn out they way they expected.

The terrorists draw their strategic lessons from Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia. In each case, the U.S. was wounded but not defeated militarily. Yet, in each case, the United States withdrew because the national will faltered. A combination of lack of leadership, mission ambiguity, and domestic political factors led to a defeat that was disproportionate to the might of the enemies we faced. Al Qaeda, their sympathizers, and other enemies of civilization seek to recreate those conditions.

President Bush explained to the American people what the press has been slow to understand, and the opposition has no interest in discussing — that the events taking place in Iraq today are connected directly to the central threat of our age, the Islamic radicals and secular despots who are seeking to push back the tide of freedom that burst through the Iron Curtain 14 years ago and is bringing the light of liberty and civilization to their neglected corner of the world. A free, secular, democratic Iraq would be a monumental and unparalleled achievement. The beneficial effects would redound across the region and the world. This is why the enemies of freedom are waging a desperate rear-guard action in Iraq. They cannot prevail unless the American people withdraw their support. The case the president made was not a new one — the administration has been remarkably consistent in its strategic approach to the war — but it bears repeating. There are too many people at home and abroad that will seek to exploit divisions over the conduct of the war. It helps to remind people what we are fighting for.

http://www.nationalreview.com/symposium/symposium090803.asp

The Iraq Effect

September 08, 2003
New York Post
Amir Taheri

The conventional wisdom, at least in Europe, is that President Bush's hope of turning Iraq into a catalyst for democratization in the Arab world has already failed. Footage of the carnage from bombings is presented, along with almost daily sabotage operations, to back the claim that democratization is a forlorn cause in the Arab world. But is it?

It is too early to tell.

To be sure, Iraq has not been transformed into a democracy, and may need a generation or more to develop the institutions it needs. But the fact is that Iraqis now enjoy a measure of political freedom they did not know before.

Iraq is the only Arab country today where all political parties, from communist to conservative, operate freely. Visitors will be impressed by the openness of the political debate there, something not found anywhere else in the Arab world. Also, for the first time, Iraq has no political prisoners.

Almost 150 newspapers and magazine are now published there, offering a diversity not found in any other Arab country. One theme of these new publications is the need for democratization in the Arab world. This may be putting the cart before the horse. What Arabs, and Muslims in general, most urgently need is basic freedom, without which democracy cannot be built.

The impact of Iraq's liberation is already felt throughout the region.

- In Syria, President Bashar Assad has announced an end to 40 years of one-party rule by ordering the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party to no longer "interfere in the affairs of the government." The party is planning a long-overdue national conference to amend its constitution and, among other things, drop the word "socialist" from its official title.

Assad has also liberated scores of political prisoners and promised to hold multiparty elections soon. In July, a petition signed by over 400 prominent Syrians offered a damning analysis of Ba'athist rule and called for political and economic reform. The fact that the signatories were not arrested, and that their demands were mentioned in the state-controlled media, amount to a retreat by Syrian despotism.

"What we need is a space of freedom in which to think and speak without fear," says a leading Syrian economist. "Bashar knows that if he does not create that space, many Syrians will immigrate to Iraq and be free under American rule."

- A similar view is expressed by Hussein Khomeini, a mid-ranking mullah and a grandson of the late Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic in Iran.

"I decided to leave Iran and settle in Iraq where the Americans have created a space of freedom," Hussein Khomeini says. "The coming of freedom to Iraq will transform the Muslim world."

Hussein Khomeini is one of more than 200 Iranian mullahs who recently moved from Qom, the main centre of Iranian Shiism, to Najaf and Karbala, in central Iraq, to escape "the suffocating atmosphere of despotism in Iran."

- Saudi Arabia is also feeling the effects of Iraqi regime change. Last month King Fahd ordered the creation of a Center for National Dialogue where "issues of interest to the people would be debated without constraint." The center will be open to people from all religious communities, including hitherto marginalised Shi'ites. More importantly, the gender apartheid, prevalent in other Saudi institutions, will be waived to let women participate.

Encouraged by the current state of flux, Saudi women have organized several seminars in the past few weeks, in which they called for equal legal rights.

The Iraq effect has also been felt in the Saudi media. Newspapers now run stories and comments that were unthinkable last March. Words such as reform (Islahat), opening (infitah) and democracy (dimuqratiah) are appearing in the Saudi media for the first time.

- Both Kuwait and Jordan have just held general elections in which pro-reform candidates did well. The new Kuwaiti parliament is expected to extend the franchise to women and to over 100,000 people regarded as "stateless." In Jordan, the new parliament is expected to revise censorship laws and to relax rules regarding the formation of political parties.

- In Egypt, the state-controlled media are beginning to break taboos, including reporting President Hosni Mubarak's refusal to name a vice president, as required by the constitution, and to end the tradition of single-candidate presidential elections.

Some non-governmental organizations are also testing the waters by raising issues such as violence against women, street children and, above all, the state's suffocating presence in all walks of life.

- In a recent television appearance, Col. Muammar Khadafy (whose one-man rule has been in place since 1969) told astonished Libyans that he now regarded democracy as "the best system for mankind" and that he would soon unveil a package of reforms. These are expected to include a new Constitution to institutionalize his rule and provide for an elected national assembly.

Having just settled the Lockerbie affair, the Libyan despot is looking for new legitimacy on the international stage.

- Even in remote Algeria and Morocco, the prospect of a democratic Iraq, emerging as an alternative to the present Arab political model, is causing some excitement. A cultural conference at Asilah, Morocco, last month, heard speakers suggest that liberated Iraq had a chance of becoming "the first Arab tiger" while other Arab states remained "nothing but sick cats."

Similar views are expressed in countless debates, some broadcast on satellite television, throughout the Middle East.

All this, of course, may be little more than cynical Arabesques designed to confuse critics and please Washington. The proposed Arab reforms may well prove to be purely cosmetic. After all, several Arab regimes played the same trick in 1991 when, in the wake of the war to liberate Kuwait, they came under U.S. pressure to introduce some reforms.

But as far as the Arab masses are concerned, there is no reason to believe that they hate freedom and, if given a chance, would refuse to choose their governments.

Many Arab countries (including Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan) already enjoy a degree of freedom that could, in time, lead toward democratization. But, being small and peripheral states, none could have a major impact on the Muslim world as a whole.

Iraq is in a different category. A free Iraq is already affecting the political landscape of the Middle East; a democratic Iraq could change the whole Arab world. The goal is worth fighting for.

Despite the current difficulties in Iraq, the United States, Britain and other democratic nations should keep their eyes on the big picture.

E-mail: amirtaheri.com - Benador Associates

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/558

An Unlikely Alliance

September 02, 2003
Stratfor
Stratfor.com

Though the recent death of SCIRI leader Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim would appear to be raising the level of turmoil within Iraq, it might in fact help to push the United States and Iran toward a powerful -- if seemingly unlikely -- alignment.

Analysis

The death of Shiite Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), appears to have exacerbated the turmoil in Iraq. In fact, it opens the door to some dramatic shifts that might help stabilize the U.S. position in Iran. Indeed, it might even lead to a fundamental redrawing of the geopolitical maps of the region -- as dramatic as the U.S.-Chinese alignment against the Soviet Union in the 1970s.

To understand what is happening, we must note two important aspects of the al-Hakim affair. First, though far from being pro-American, al-Hakim was engaged in limited cooperation with the United States, including -- through SCIRI -- participating in the U.S.-sponsored Iraq Governing Council. Second, upon his death, Iran announced a three-day mourning period in his honor. Al-Hakim, who had lived in exile in Iran during much of Saddam Hussein's rule in Baghdad, was an integral part of the Shiite governing apparatus -- admired and loved in Iran.

We therefore have two facts. First, al-Hakim was engaged in limited but meaningful collaboration with the United States, which appears to be why he was killed. Second, he was intimately connected to Iranian ruling circles, and not just to those circles that Americans like to call "reformers." If we stop and think about it, these two facts would appear incompatible, but in reality they reveal a growing movement toward alignment between the United States and Iran.

The United States has realized that it cannot pacify Iraq on its own. One proposal, floated by the State Department, calls for a United Nations force -- under U.S. command -- to take control of Iraq. This raises three questions. First, why would any sane country put its forces at risk -- under U.S. command, no less -- to solve America's problems if it doesn't have to? Second, what would additional outside forces, as unfamiliar with Iraq as U.S. forces are, add to the mix, save more confusion? Finally, what price would the United States have to pay for U.N. cooperation; for instance, would the U.N. presence place restrictions on U.S. operations against al Qaeda?

Another proposal, floated by Defense Advisory Board Chairman Richard Perle, suggests that the way out is to turn Iraq over to Iraqis as quickly as possible rather than prolonging a U.S. occupation. The problem with Perle's proposal is that it assumes a generic Iraq, unattached to any subgrouping -- religious, ethnic or ideological -- that not only is ready to take the reins, but is capable of governing. In other words, Perle's proposal would turn Iraq over to whom?

Putting the Kurdish issue aside, the fundamental fault line running through Iraqi society is the division between Sunni and Shiite. The Shiite majority dominates the area south of Baghdad. The Sunni minority, which very much includes Hussein and most of the Baath Party's national apparatus, spent the past generation brutalizing the Shiites, and Hussein's group also spent that time making certain that Sunnis who were not part of their tribe were marginalized. Today, Iraq is a fragmented entity where the center of gravity, the Baath Party, has been shattered and there is no substitute for it.

However, embedded in Perle's proposal is a simple fact. If there is a cohesive group in Iraq -- indeed a majority group -- it is the Shiites. Although ideologically and tribally fragmented, the Shiites of Iraq are far better organized than U.S. intelligence reports estimated before the war. This is due to the creation of a clandestine infrastructure, sponsored by Iranian intelligence, following the failure of U.S.-encouraged Shiite uprisings in the 1990s. While Washington was worried about the disintegration of Iraq and the growth of Iranian power, Tehran was preparing for the day that Hussein's regime would either collapse or be destroyed by the United States.

As a result, and somewhat to the surprise of U.S. intelligence, organizations were in place in Iraq's Shiite regions that were able to maintain order and exercise control after the war. British authorities realized this early on and tried to transfer power from British forces in Basra to local control, much to U.S. displeasure.

Initially, Washington viewed the Iranian-sponsored organization of the Shiite regions as a threat to its control of Iraq. The initial U.S. perception was that the Shiites, being bitterly anti-Hussein, would respond enthusiastically to their liberation by U.S. forces. In fact, the response was cautious and sullen. Officials in Washington also assumed that the collapse of the Iraqi army would mean the collapse of Sunni resistance. Under this theory, the United States would have an easy time in the Sunni regions -- it already had excellent relations in the Kurdish regions -- but would face a challenge from Iran in the south.

The game actually played out very differently. The United States did not have an easy time in the Sunni triangle. To the contrary: A clearly planned guerrilla war kicked off weeks after the conquest of Baghdad and has continued since. Had the rising spread to the Sunni regions, or had the Sunnis launched an intifada with massed demonstrations, the U.S. position in Iraq would have become enormously more difficult, if not untenable.

The Sunnis staged some protests to demonstrate their capabilities to the United States, but they did not rise en masse. In general, they have contented themselves with playing a waiting game -- intensifying their organization in the region, carrying out some internal factional struggles, but watching and waiting. Most interesting, rather than simply rejecting the U.S. occupation, they simultaneously called for its end while participating in it.

The key goes back to Iran and to the Sunni-Shiite split within the Islamic world. Iran has a geopolitical problem, one it has had for centuries: It faces a threat from the north, through the Caucasus, and a threat from the west, from whatever entity occupies the Tigris and Euphrates basin. When both threats are active, as they were for much of the Cold War, Iran must have outside support, and that support frequently turns into domination. Iran's dream is that it might be secure on both fronts. That rarely happens.

The end of the Cold War has created an unstable area in the Caucasus that actually helps secure Iran's interests. The Caucasus might be in chaos, but there is no great imperial power about to push down into Iran. Moreover, at about the same time, the threat posed by Iraq abated after the United States defeated it and neutralized its armed forces during Desert Storm. This created a period of unprecedented security for Iran that Tehran exploited by working to reconstruct its military and moving forward on nuclear weapons.

However, Iran's real interest is not simply Iraq's neutralization; that could easily change. Its real interest is in dominating Iraq. An Iranian-dominated Iraq would mean two things: First, the only threat to Iran would come from the north and Iran could concentrate on blocking that threat; second, it would make Iran the major native regional power in the Persian Gulf. Therefore, were Iranian-sponsored and sympathetic Shiite groups to come to power in Iraq, it would represent a massive geopolitical coup for the United States.

Initially, this was the opposite of anything the United States wanted. One of the reasons for invading Iraq was to be able to control Iran and its nuclear capability. But the guerrilla war in the north has created a new strategic reality for Washington. The issue at the moment is not how to project power throughout the region, but how to simply pacify Iraq. The ambitions of April have given way to the realities of September.

The United States needs a native force in Iraq to carry the brunt of the pacification program. The Shiites, unlike the United Nations, already would deliver a fairly pacified south and probably would enjoy giving some payback to the Sunnis in the north. Certainly, they are both more likely to achieve success and more willing to bear the burden of pacification than is the United States, let alone any U.N. member willing to send troops. It is not, at the moment, a question of what the United States wants; it is a question of what it can have.

The initial idea was that the United States would sponsor a massive rising of disaffected youth in Iran. In fact, U.S. intelligence supported dissident university students in a plan to do just that. However, Iranian security forces crushed the rebellion effortlessly -- and with it any U.S. hopes of forcing regime change in Iran through internal means. If this were to happen, it would not happen in a time frame relative to Washington's problems in Iraq or problems with al Qaeda. Therefore, the Iranian regime, such as it is, is the regime the United States must deal with. And that regime holds the key to the Iraqi Shiites.

The United States has been negotiating both overtly and covertly with Iran on a range of issues. There has been enough progress to keep southern Iraq quiet, but not enough to reach a definitive breakthrough. The issue has not been Iranian nuclear power. Certainly, the Iranians have been producing a nuclear weapon. They made certain that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency saw weapons-grade uranium during an inspection in recent days. It is an important bargaining chip.

But as with North Korea, Iranian leaders know that nuclear weapons are more valuable as a bargaining chip than as a reality. Asymmetry leads to eradication of nuclear threats. Put less pretentiously, Tehran must assume that the United States -- or Israel -- will destroy any nuclear capability before it becomes a threat. Moreover, if it has nuclear capability, what would it do with it? Even as a deterrent, retaliation would lead to national annihilation. The value of nuclear weapons in this context is less real than apparent -- and therefore more valuable in negotiations than deployment.

Tehran has hinted several times that its nuclear program is negotiable regarding weapons. Officials also have indicated by word and deed to the United States that they are prepared to encourage Iraqi Shiites to cooperate with the U.S. occupation. The issue on the table now is whether the Shiites will raise the level of cooperation from passive to active -- whether they will move from not doing harm to actively helping to suppress the Sunni rising.

This is the line that they are considering crossing -- and the issue is not only whether they cross, but whether the United States wants them to cross. Obviously, the United States needs help. On the other hand, the Iranian price is enormous. Domination of Iraq means enormous power in the Gulf region. In the past, Saudi Arabia's sensibilities would have mattered; today, the Saudis matter less.

U.S. leaders understand that making such an agreement means problems down the road. On the other hand, the United States has some pretty major problems right now anyway. Moreover -- and this is critical -- the Sunni-Shiite fault line defines the Islamic world. Splitting Islam along those lines, fomenting conflict within that world, certainly would divert attention from the United States: Iran working against al Qaeda would have more than marginal value, but not, however, as much as Saudi Arabia pulling out the stops.

Against the background of the U.S.-Iranian negotiation is the idea that the Saudis, terrified of a triumphant Iran, will panic and begin crushing the extreme Wahhabis in the kingdom. This has delayed a U.S. decision, as has the legitimate fear that a deal with Iran would unleash the genie. But of course, the other fear is that if Iran loses patience, it will call the Shiite masses into the streets and there will be hell to pay in Iraq.

The death of SCIRI leader al-Hakim, therefore, represents a break point. Whether it was Shiite dissidents or Sunnis that killed him, his death costs the Iranians a key ally and drives home the risks they are running with delay. They are vulnerable in Iraq. This opens the door for Tehran to move forward in a deal with the United States. Washington needs to make something happen soon.

This deal might never be formalized. Neither Iranian nor American politics would easily swallow an overt alliance. On the other hand, there is plenty of precedent for U.S.-Iranian cooperation on a covert level. Of course, this would be fairly open and obvious cooperation -- a major mobilization of Shiite strength in Iraq on behalf of the United States -- regardless of the rhetoric.

Currently, this seems to be the most likely evolution of events: Washington gets Tehran's help in putting down the Sunnis. The United States gets a civil war in the Muslim world. The United States gets Iran to dial back its nuclear program. Iran gets to dominate Iraq. The United States gets all the benefits in the near term. Iran gets its historical dream. If Roosevelt could side with Stalin against Hitler, and Nixon with Mao against Brezhnev, this collaboration certainly is not without precedence in U.S. history. But boy, would it be a campaign issue -- in both countries.

http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/index.neo?page=center&storyId=221925

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.