Iranian Alert -- September 18, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD PING LIST

Discover all the news since the protests began on June 10th, go to:

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

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread

Live Thread Ping List | DoctorZin

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

Iran rejects any EU precondition

2003/09/18
IRIB News

09:11:18
Tehran, Sept 18 - Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi expressed regret here Wednesday over statements made by the Italian representative to the European Union (EU) regarding Iran's nuclear program.

The envoy from Italy, which heads the rotating presidency of the EU, speaking at a public session of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said that EU's cooperation with Iran depends on Tehran's acceptance of the additional protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

These statements which have been made under duress from some countries, provide no help to strengthen constructive Iran-IAEA cooperation, Asefi underlined.

"They will not deter Iran from its legitimate rights to have access to peaceful nuclear technology either."

Iran and EU have started their diplomatic and economic dialogue based on mutual respect, Asefi said adding "But, as Iran did not accept any precondition for these talks, it will not accept any preconditions for their continuation."

He also expressed hope that the EU will put pressure on Israel to come clean on its nuclear arsenal as well as clarify its position on efforts to prevent production and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction to preserve international peace and security.

Speaking at a press conference, Italian Deputy Foreign Minister said the immediate and unconditional signing of the additional protocol by Iran is EU's condition for continuation of economic dialogue with Tehran.

http://www.iribnews.com/Full_en.asp?news_id=188315&n=31

MEHDI HASHEMI RAFSAMJANI, SON OF ALI AKBAR, INVOLVED IN BRIBE CASE

OSLO 17 Sept. (IPS)

Olav Fjell, the chief executive of Statoil, Norway's state-owned oil company was voted to continue as the firm’s boss after a 13 hours questioning session by the company’s directors over a 15.5 million US Dollars bribes paid to an intermediary group to secure solid access in the lucrative Iranian oil market.

What makes the case interesting is that the man suspected to have opened the doors of Statoil to Iran’s south Pars gas fields in the Persian gulf is Mr. Mehdi Hashemi, one of the five children of Iran’s number two man, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

According to Norwegian press, Statoil paid 15.5 millions to Horton Investments, a small company registered in Turks and Caicos Islands of the Caribbean and owned by a young Anglo-Iranian businessman named Abbas Yazdi, who hired Mr Hashemi, a Director of the National Iranian Oil Company for the purpose.

Statoil's board chairman, Leif Terje Loeddesoel, said on Wednesday at a news conference that the contract ''smelled bad", and he directed sharp criticism at Mr. Fjell. But he said that Mr. Fjell could continue in his job after explaining his actions in a 13-hour meeting that ended late Monday night.

Loeddesoel said the board agreed that the Iranian contract, with consultancy Horton Investment, should not have been signed, and that assessments made by Fjell prior to the deal were inadequate.

Norway's leading business daily newspaper, "Dagens Naeringsliv", quoted Mr. Fjell last week as saying he knew some of the money might go to Mehdi Hashemi Rafsanjani, whom Fjell said he knew "vaguely".

''The contract was with Horton Investment, a company owned by an Iranian living in London who has given us advice," Mr. Fjell said. "We have also had advice from the junior Rafsanjani, but I don't know what the financial relationship is between Horton Investment and Rafsanjani, if any."

Mr. Fjell said after the internal audition and that of the Police that the criticism he received on this matter were justified, adding that the contract was "a serious misstep".

The Norwegian police, who raided Statoil's offices last Thursday, questioned Mr. Fjell for two hours on Wednesday afternoon. The police said they were investigating whether the contract involved the ''illegal influencing of foreign government officials."

On Friday, and after that the press reported the financial scandal, Richard Hubbard, the Head of Statoil’s international exploration and production resigned abruptly and the company revoked the 11-year $15.2 million consultancy contract signed in 2002 with Horton, saying it would pay no more than the $5.2 million that it had already paid to the firm.

It is believed that it was Hubbard that introduced Statoil to Yazdi and his Horton Investments.

Spokesman Kai Nielsen said that Rafsanjani was one of the two consultants that the company had worked most with in Iran, alongside Horton Investment's owner Abbas Yazdi, who introduced Statoil to Rafsanjani.

Consultancy deals are not illegal in Norway but the police are understood to have acted on fears that some of the money paid to Horton Investment was really intended as a bribe to Iranian officials.

The contact signed with Iran thanks to the young Hashemi Rafsanjani stipulates for the Norwegian company to handle operation activities of the offshore's phases and requires it to invest about US dlrs 330 million in the projects. The buy-back contract's duration is 46 month.

Statoil will be reimbursed with the exploited condensate and other gas derivatives of the three phases or the exports revenues from the products.

Statoil's role would be to finance and oversee the building of three gas platforms in the Persian Gulf and a treatment plant for gas and light petroleum on land.

Radio Farda, the Persian service of the Prague-based Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty quoted some days ago Mr. Mehdi Hashemi as having denied any bribe taking, reiterating that he nor anyone from the family hand anything to do with the case. ENDS NORWAY IRAN OIL AND BRIBE 17903

http://www.iran-press-service.com/

UK denies divided policy on Iran

Thursday, September 18, 2003 - ©2003 IranMania.com

London, Sept 18, Irna -- Foreign Office Minister Chris Mullin denied that the prime minister`s office and foreign office were divided over the UK`s foreign policy towards Iran.

Accusation of the split were raised by Veteran conservative MP, Sir Teddy , in a brief debate on UK-Iran relations in parliament`s parrallel chamber, Wedminister Hall.

Taylor said that he was "very upset about the abrupt" change in British policy towards Iran, which he traced to prime minister Tony Blair`s meeting with Israel`s Ariel Sharon in London in July. He said it was a "huge error" to have negative relations with Iran.

Iran, he said, was "one of the most sensible countries in the middle east. The conservative MP compared the controvery over the government`s claim that Iraq could use weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes with the 45 days demand made by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for Iran to cooperate.

He said he had been surprised by the demand because the last report from IAEA`s director general has said there had been increased cooperation with Iran and access had been given to additional locations.

It seemed "almost foolish and arrogant" to deal with Iran in such a way, Taylor said and suggested that the first basic issue for the US and UK to reolve was to have "humility."

He believed that the US and UK "only supported democracy when it suited" and quoted such examples as the support given to the deposed Shah OPF Iran and to Iraq in its war against Iran.

Then there was the "frightful destruction" of an Iranian Irbus over the Persian Gulf in 1988, which the US did not even apologise for, he said.

Although Taylor said he was not an expert on Iran and had never visited the country, but suggested that it was easy to see that Britain was thrwoing away an opportunity to improve relations and were instead treating Iran with "near contempt."

In response, Mullin said that there was "no doubt" that Iran was a country of growing international importance and there was a string British interest in the policies pursued by its government.

He described the British government`s policy towards Iran as persuing a "constructive but when necessary critical engagement" and cited cooperation in such areas as the fight against drugs, the reconstruction of Afghnaistan and in efforts to stabilise Iraq.

The UK supported president Mohammad Khatami`s Civil Society based upon the rule of law, the foreign office minister said. But although there was a string mandate for reform, he said the situation was complex and expressed hope he would succeed.

Mullin said that it would be wrong not to set out concerns about Iran, specifying there were worries about human rights, support for terrorist groups, the development of weapons of mass destruction and Iran`s nuclear program.

But he insisted the British government was united in its support against terrorism and would do all it can to support engagement in what he described as a "two-way process."

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=18089&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

US blacklists Russian arms firm selling to Iran

Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow
Thursday September 18, 2003
The Guardian

The US has accused Russia of selling an advanced weapon to Iran and imposed sanctions on the state company involved.
The action has been taken just days before the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is due to meet George Bush at the US presidential retreat, Camp David.

Tula KBP, a state-owned company making anti-aircraft and anti-missile devices, has been banned from doing business with the US and US companies for a year for selling the laser-guided Krasnopol M artillery shells to Iran.

Washington classifies Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, and suspects it of having a nuclear weapons programme, under cover of a civil nuclear energy programme, in which Russian technology may play a part.

Yesterday the US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, John Bolton, arrived in Moscow to discuss nuclear proliferation.

Russia's project to build an $800m nuclear reactor in Iran is expected to be high on the agenda.

Tula KBP said it had not sold any arms to Iran and that the sanctions were a political move without teeth, since the US was not one of its clients.

Washington has previously accused the company of sending radar equipment to Iraq and missiles to Syria.

In a notice published on Tuesday it said the government had "determined that the government of Russia trans ferred lethal military equipment to countries determined by the secretary of state to be state sponsors of terrorism".

The sanctions have largely been interpreted as a gesture intended to heap pressure upon Moscow to further cool its relations with Tehran.

Normally Washington would impose sanctions on the entire country for such a breach.

But in this instance it has decided not to cancel the millions of dollars aid it gives Russia annually because it regards the disposal of the former Soviet Union army's nuclear arsenal as vital to national security.

Russia has refused to bow to international opposition to a contract with Iran to build a nuclear reactor at Bushehr, despite admitting recently that it shares Washington's concern about nuclear proliferation.

Russia has tried to allay the concern about its transfer of nuclear energy technology to Iran by having Iran return the spent fuel.

The plan appeared to hit an obstacle last week when Tehran demanded payment for the spent fuel.

But on Tuesday the Russian minister for atomic energy, Alexander Rumyantsev, said Iran and Russia had "no contradictions".

No date has yet been set for signing the contract.

An Iranian delegation is expected in Moscow next week to complete matters.

Many argue that the fuel is not the key issue.

A European diplomat said yesterday: "There is concern that the considerable number of Russian engineers living in Iran, and Iranian engineers coming to Russia to learn about nuclear science, might be gaining or trans ferring knowledge that could be accelerating Iran's nuclear weapons programme."

Hundreds of Iranians have been trained at nuclear technology institutes in various parts of Russia.

But Moscow insists that the students are taught only the technical language and the skills needed for peaceful energy plants.

Russian officials said there was no point putting pressure on them.

"It is not the first time America has made such demands, but there is no basis for it," a senior foreign ministry official said.

"In Russia we have very strict export controls. It is difficult to understand what their motivations are."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1044245,00.html

Saudis consider nuclear bomb

Ewen MacAskill and Ian Traynor in Vienna
Thursday September 18, 2003
The Guardian

Saudi Arabia, in response to the current upheaval in the Middle East, has embarked on a strategic review that includes acquiring nuclear weapons, the Guardian has learned.
This new threat of proliferation in one of the most dangerous regions of the world comes on top of a crisis over Iran's alleged nuclear programme.

A strategy paper being considered at the highest levels in Riyadh sets out three options:

· To acquire a nuclear capability as a deterrent;

· To maintain or enter into an alliance with an existing nuclear power that would offer protection;

· To try to reach a regional agreement on having a nuclear-free Middle East.

Until now, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella. But the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US has steadily worsened since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington: 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi.

It is not known whether Saudi Arabia has taken a decision on any of the three options. But the fact that it is prepared to contemplate the nuclear option is a worrying development.

United Nations officials and nuclear arms analysts said the Saudi review reflected profound insecurities generated by the volatility in the Middle East, Riyadh's estrangement with Washington and the weakening of its reliance on the US nuclear umbrella.

They pointed to the Saudi worries about an Iranian prog-ramme and to the absence of any international pressure on Israel, which has an estimated 200 nuclear devices.

"Our antennae are up," said a senior UN official watching worldwide nuclear proliferation efforts. "The international community can rest assured we do keep track of such events if they go beyond talk."

Saudi Arabia does not regard Iran, a past adversary with which Riyadh has restored relations, as a direct threat. But it is unnerved by the possibility of Iran and Israel having nuclear weapons.

Riyadh is also worried about a string of apparent leaks in American papers from the US administration critical of Saudi Arabia.

David Albright, director of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington thinktank, said he doubted whether the Saudis would try to build a nuclear bomb, preferring instead to try to buy a nuclear warhead. They would be the first of the world's eight or nine nuclear powers to have bought rather than built the bomb.

"There has always been worries that the Saudis would go down this path if provoked," said Mr Albright. "There is growing US hostility which could lead to the removal of the US umbrella and will the Saudis be intimidated by Iran? They've got to be nervous."

UN officials said there have been rumours going back 20 years that the Saudis wanted to pay Pakistan to do the research and development on nuclear weapons.

In 1988, Saudi bought from China intermediate-range missiles capable of reaching any part of the Middle East with a nuclear warhead.

Four years ago, Saudi Arabia sent a defence team to Pakistan to tour its secret nuclear facilities and to be briefed by Abdul Qader Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb.

A UN official said: "There's obviously a lot of restlessness in the Middle East. Regional insecurity tends to produce a quest for a nuclear umbrella. The Saudis have the money and could provide it to Pakistan."

Mr Albright said the Saudis would face a long haul if they were determined to acquire nuclear weapons. He doubted whether anyone would sell.

Arab countries yesterday urged the International Atomic Energy Authority, the UN nuclear watchdog, to get tough with Israel to let inspectors assess its nuclear programme in line with similar pressure on Iran.

Oman's ambassador to the IAEA, Salim al-Riyami, speaking on behalf of the Arab League, which represents Arab states, said it was time to get tough with Israel. "I think it's time to deal with this issue more substantively than before," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,11599,1044402,00.html

US POLICY TOWARD IRAN SHOULD PROMOTE CIVIL SOCIETY

Mehdi Semati and Nasser Hadian: 9/17/03
A EurasiaNet commentary

US policy towards Iran must tread a fine line. The Bush administration is in danger of succumbing to wishful thinking by holding out hope that Iran’s conservative leaders can be toppled by popular protests. Instead, Washington should engage Tehran, offering support that encourages the democratization of Iranian society.

The student protests that shook Iran in June underscored the possibility that the same forces that helped forge the Islamic republic could also, at least in theory, bring it down.

The Bush administration seized on the student demonstrations to encourage broader popular protests, evidently in the hope that they could topple Iran’s conservative leadership.

Washington’s desire to foment anti-conservative protests in Iran seems to have cooled in recent weeks. Nevertheless, the Bush administration’s hostility towards Iran remains self-evident. Such hostility is potentially counterproductive to promoting regional stability.

While the student action in June was significant, its role in changing the political dynamics in Iran should not be exaggerated. A more nuanced understanding of what is happening in Iran today is needed to prevent the United States from taking steps that could actually damage democratization prospects in Iran.

The June protests can be considered a continuation of the 1999 student demonstrations, a seminal political moment that shook Iran. What began as student protests against privatizing higher education turned into a highly politicized call for democracy and freedom. Yet even if new protests erupt down the road, producing dramatic images beamed around the world, the Bush administration needs to understand the student movement’s limitations.

The bottom line is that the student protests were not as widespread and vociferous as they were portrayed in media reports. To begin with, the students had little organization, no cohesive leadership structure, and lacked clearly defined objectives. In general, Iranian students have tended to react to government decisions or actions. They have usually not been proactive in shaping the public political agenda with a formal organization or a detailed agenda. Finally, conservative authorities took action to ensure that the student movement doesn’t coalesce into a threat. Over 2,000 students, including most of the protest leaders, were jailed during the protests and their aftermath. Many remain imprisoned.

The fact that the student action did not foster broader protests is an important point. The lack of wider or visible participation is just one of several signs of the loss of public confidence in the once popular reform movement. Judging by the low turnout in the local elections of February 2003, Iranians have little or no faith in the movement’s leadership, which has failed to fulfill bold promises of introducing the rule of law, democracy, and a free press.

The reform movement, led by President Mohammad Khatami, will now either have to become more energized in confronting conservative forces, or face becoming irrelevant.

Large numbers of Iranians have resisted getting involved because of a fundamental weariness and wariness about embracing radical ways to promote political change. The initial trauma and ongoing costs of the 1979 Islamic revolution have made most Iranians timid about participating in protests that might spark a second revolution or a counter-revolution. Most today distinctly prefer steady progress to revolution.

Rather than encourage student protests, it is far more important for Iran’s democratization potential to assist the development of civil society, especially promoting a body of non-government institutions that give people in all democracies the opportunity to participate in the issues and decisions that most impact their lives. Iran today has a vacuum of these intermediary institutions, from trade unions and public interest groups to volunteer associations. This is the issue critical to Iran’s political future. To a large extent, Iranian hardliners have managed to retain power by weakening or eliminating any institution that keeps open the channels of communication between state and society.

The Bush administration’s response to the June protests—through its expression of support for the aspirations of the Iranian people and calling on them to take action--is insufficient and perhaps unhelpful. Any semblance of outside interference actually discredits the students and strengthens the hardliners’ position. In addition, extremists from both right and left, and from inside and outside Iran, appear poised to try to utilize for their own political gain any tension that is generated by future protests.

Statements are no substitute for a comprehensive policy that addresses US concerns about conservative-controlled Iran. Those concerns have potentially serious consequences, including the development of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, Iraq, and the Middle East peace process. At the same time, Iran’s national security needs, regional role, and economic interests ought to be considered as factors in the geopolitical equation.

Ultimately, to address all these concerns, it might prove more prudent for Washington to adopt a policy that helps the Iranian people make progress in a long struggle for a democratic society. That struggle actually began with the Constitutional Rebellion a century ago.

Editor’s Note: Nasser Hadian is on the faculty in the Department of Political Science at the Tehran University and currently a Visiting Scholar at the Middle East Institute of Columbia University. Mehdi Semati is on the faculty in the Department of Speech Communication at Eastern Illinois University.

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav091703.shtml

Britain, Iran and archaic fears

The arrest in the UK of Hadi Soleimanpour, Iran’s former ambassador to Argentina, has again displayed the volatility and fragility of Anglo-Iranian relations. The arrest is unlikely to amount to anything significant in fact it is probably not the most important factor behind the recent tension in bilateral relations. Nevertheless, it is a reminder that for as long as memories of Britain’s colonial adventures linger in the Iranian psyche, the two countries will probably not enjoy sustained normal relations.
The origins of concerted British influence in Iran date back to the early 19th century, when Qajar Persia was perceived to pose a moderate threat to the western flank of the British Raj. By the middle of the century, the increasingly corrupt Qajar dynasty had fallen under British influence, and Iran had become a central component in the “Great Game” between the British Empire and Tsarist Russia for control of Central Asia.
British visitors to Iran are amazed at the longevity of Iranian delusions about the so-called “perennial” nature of British power. Iranians of the older generation still cling to the idea that Britain virtually controls the world. These victims of a post-colonial inferiority complex put an interesting spin on the reality of contemporary American power. The US, they argue, is a smokescreen for British domination.
Yet Iran was never colonized by Britain. Therefore, what is it that drives the intensity of this collective delusion? Ironically, the very fact that Britain never “directly” ruled Iran, choosing, instead, to gain almost complete control over the country in a subtle and clandestine manner. Britain imposed upon Iran’s incompetent elites exploitative trade concessions, such as the 1872 Reuter concession to build a railroad, the 1890 tobacco concession and the 1901 William D’Arcy oil concession.
Britain also directly influenced Iranian politics. It was partly responsible for frustrating the goals of the constitutional revolution of the early 20th century, and changed Iran’s rulers when they no longer served British interests. A case in point is the rise to power of the semi-literate Cossack officer Reza Khan Pahlavi father of the last shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who took office on the back of a British-sponsored coup in 1921. The British forced him out in 1941, after he forged a close relationship with Nazi Germany.
Britain’s disregard for Iran’s neutrality during the two world wars, its subsequent invasion of the country, its exploitation of Iranian oil for over 50 years and its perceived pervasive influence, firmly buttressed Britain’s “incorrigible” colonial nature in the collective Iranian mind. Yet the victory of the Islamic revolution in 1979, by displacing the old corrupt elites and securing the country’s political independence, provided Iran and Britain with an opportunity to start afresh.
Initially, relations were drastically curbed as a result of upheavals in the 1980s. The British Embassy was closed down in 1980 and Sweden became the representative of British interests in Iran.
Yet relations were restored in autumn 1988. While these generated hopes that ties would substantially improve, they have been repeatedly dashed during the past 15 years. Every time relations were on the up, crises seemingly appeared from nowhere to sabotage what had been achieved. In February 1989 it was the Salman Rushdie affair. Once the issue was settled in September 1998 and relations upgraded to ambassadorial level in May 1999, a row broke out over what the Iranians considered excessive MI6 activity from the unusually large British Embassy in Tehran. In fact, in February 2002 Iran refused to endorse the ambassadorship of David Reddaway on the grounds that he was a top MI6 operative.
And now there is the Soleimanpour case. The obstructions to fully normalized Anglo-Iranian relations will not be lifted until memories of Britain’s highly questionable historic role in Iran fade. Iran’s new elites, of whatever ideological orientation, while they do not share the old generation’s delusions, still need time to get over their “British” hang-up. There is little prospect of this in the near future. In fact the two countries may be destined to endure another generation of volatile relations. This does not seem long taken in the context of 200 years of history. However, in the current international climate it assumes crushing significance.
The prospect of uneasy relations is particularly unfortunate for Iran, as it needs Britain on its side in the face of unprecedented American attempts to isolate and demonize the country internationally. This helps explain the Islamic Republic’s reluctance to make a fuss over the Soleimanpour case. Iran recently announced it would be sending its ambassador back to London. Clearly, it cannot afford a rupture in relations at such a critical juncture.
However, there are unmistakable signs that Britain will adopt positions that are increasingly in tandem with those of the US administration. Therefore, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of Anglo-Iranian relations, Iranian policy-makers should not rely on British support in the crises likely to engulf the Islamic Republic in the coming years, particularly over calls for stricter International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of Iran’s nuclear industry.
It is also unfortunate for Iran that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has proved to be uniquely hawkish, with an ingrained skepticism of Iran. On Sept. 4, The Guardian newspaper was moved to publish an analysis claiming that Britain radically altered its Iran policy last July, after Blair had dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The prospect of an alliance between Blair and Sharon must cause intense unease in Tehran. The fact that Israel might exert influence on British policy is proof that the UK’s influence in the Middle East is now negligible. More precisely, the only state in the world that has a sizeable impact on shaping US policy towards Iran is Israel.
However, these realities are unlikely to have any impact on the collective delusion of millions of Iranians. To them the “old fox,” as Britain is sometimes called, is behind every major political event in the world.

Mahan Abedin is a London-based financial consultant and analyst of Iranian politics. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/18_09_03_b.asp

U.S. Still Hopes to Talk Russia Round on Iran Nukes

September 18, 2003

By Richard Balmforth

The United States is confident proof will soon emerge of a clandestine Iranian nuclear arms program that will force Russia to drop plans to help Tehran build a nuclear reactor, a top U.S. official said on Thursday.

Speaking in Moscow on condition of anonymity, the senior administration official said Russia would not ship fuel to enable the 1,000-megawatt Bushehr reactor to become active until early next year, giving Washington time to dissuade it:

"Each day that goes by that that has not happened gives more time to see if we can't bring the Russians into closer alignment with our analysis of the threat posed by the Iranian program."

Tehran denies Washington's accusation it is using Bushehr and other facilities as a front for developing an atomic bomb.

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton met Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak on Wednesday in a new bid to get Moscow to abandon the $800-million Bushehr project, an irritant in relations that will figure prominently when presidents Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush meet at Camp David next week.

Russian officials share concerns at stopping the spread of nuclear arms but say U.S. suspicions against Iran lack proof.

Kislyak, in an interview with the newspaper Vremya Novostei, appeared to confirm Moscow was still moving ahead on the Bushehr plans, saying work was being completed with Iran on a bilateral protocol for the return of spent reactor fuel to Moscow.

The United States is hoping confirmation of its suspicions will emerge from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

That, the U.S. official said, would let Washington raise the issue at the U.N. Security Council, sure at last of support from Russia and others that still doubt Tehran is developing weapons.

"Once it becomes clear that they (the Iranians) have a nuclear weapons program, Russia will not have civil nuclear cooperation with Iran," the official said.

The IAEA has given Iran until October 31 to enable it to check whether it has an illicit atomic arms program.

U.S. officials, keen to maintain good personal relations between Putin and Bush, are quick to say that Russian nuclear cooperation with Iran is more a matter of muddled policy than deliberate connivance with one of Washington's adversaries.

But the official said U.S. intelligence was convinced maverick Russian scientists were helping Iran develop weapons.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3466418

Jordan's King Sees Hope for Iran Talks
Abdullah to Meet With Bush Today
Glenn Kessler
Washington Post
Thursday, September 18, 2003

Jordan's King Abdullah, who visited Iran earlier this month and is scheduled to meet with President Bush at Camp David today, said yesterday that "there is common grounds for dialogue" between the United States and Iran on the situation in Iraq and that Iranian leaders are eager to settle a fierce dispute over its nuclear program.

Abdullah stressed that he was not carrying any messages from Iranian leaders to Bush, but would merely give his impressions to the president and his senior advisers.

"It's up to them to see if they feel there is enough there to follow up," Abdullah said in a wide-ranging interview with Washington Post editors and reporters. "I would hope that they would. My impression was that there's enough common ground, as I said, to [approve] maybe a shift in policy, but that's a decision that [Bush is] going to make."

Bush last year named Iran as part of an "axis of evil" that included North Korea and the former government of Iraq. But the administration has been deeply split over policy toward the Islamic republic, with some State Department officials pressing for a thaw in relations, only to meet stiff resistance from Pentagon and White House officials.

Since the war with Iraq, relations with Iran have soured further over continuing revelations about its nuclear program and allegations that it harbors al Qaeda leaders implicated in the bombings May 13 of residential compounds in Saudi Arabia. U.S. officials had conducted several private talks with Iranian officials, primarily to discuss Iraq and Afghanistan, but U.S. officials suspended those talks after the bombings in May.

Iran has signaled through various channels that it is eager to resume discussions with the United States over Iraq, apparently modeled on talks held after the war against Afghanistan. Iranian diplomats, including Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, have publicly supported greater dialogue between Iran and the United States on how best to stabilize Iraq.

Regarding the breakdown in the Middle East peace process, Abdullah said that "all of us are extremely frustrated and, to an extent, confused." He faulted the Israelis for not being more supportive of recently resigned Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, saying, "They could have made his life a bit easier, and . . . now we're back to the drawing board."

Abdullah, who last year first floated the idea of crafting a "road map" that would guide the peace process, also suggested that the U.S. effort to monitor the road map had been too quiet, and that there was now a need for a more public accounting of what each side needs to do. "We need a stronger international mechanism . . . so that everybody knows where people are deficient," he said.

On another issue, Abdullah said there had been no discussions of settling a Jordanian bank fraud case against Ahmed Chalabi, a favorite of the Pentagon who has emerged as a power broker in postwar Iraq. "It is a major issue, and it is a problem," Abdullah said, adding that it would need to be addressed if Chalabi "becomes an Iraqi official of some standing."

Regarding Iran and its nuclear program, the Bush administration recently persuaded the International Atomic Energy Agency to set an Oct. 31 deadline for Iran to cooperate with an investigation. The Bush administration contends the program is a front for a nuclear weapons project. Iran vehemently denies it is making nuclear weapons, and its delegation stormed out of the IAEA session when the resolution was adopted last week.

Abdullah said he spent a lot of time speaking to the Iranians about their nuclear program during his two-day visit. "I could feel that this was on top of their minds," he said. "They want to deal with the international community and put this behind them as quickly as possible in a positive way."

Abdullah noted that Jordan has had problems with the Iranians sponsoring terrorist attacks against American, Israeli and British citizens, but based on his conversations with the various religious and political power centers in Iran, "their use of Jordan for terrorism is now no longer an issue," he said. He said the visit, the first by a Jordanian ruler since Iran's 1979 revolution, was a "very pleasant surprise" and offered "a lot of hope."

Abdullah said the Iranians are "the smartest people out in the Middle East at reading the political maps. And they have a long-term attitude; their policy is not five or 10 years, it's 50." He added that they are particularly concerned "that the growing instability of Iraq could fan out and hurt everybody."

Abdullah declined to discuss whether the Iranians addressed Bush administration allegations that they have harbored al Qaeda operatives. "We'll see what comes out of [the Camp David discussions] and then maybe afterwards we can get into that," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27109-2003Sep17.html

Carter says U.S. needs to push harder for peace

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration must push harder -- and be evenhanded -- to revive sagging peace hopes in the Middle East, former President Carter said Monday.

In an Associated Press interview 25 years after the Camp David accords, Carter said Israel and the Palestinians had not only abandoned the U.S.-backed road map for peace but had violated it -- Israel by threatening the ''removal'' of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. He suggested the Bush administration was tilted toward Israel.

http://www.arkcity.net/stories/091603/com_0003.shtml

U.S.: Iran giving haven to al-Qaida

Bloomberg News

The U.S. believes Iran is giving "safe haven" to al-Qaida leaders, some of whom are responsible for a series of bombings May 12 in Saudi Arabia, a State Department official told Congress on Wednesday.
Paula DeSutter, the assistant U.S. secretary of State for verification and compliance, described U.S. suspicions about al-Qaida in Iran to a hearing of a joint U.S.-Israeli legislative panel meeting in Washington.
Iran has previously reported capturing some al-Qaida members and said it intends either to try them or release them to their home countries. It has not, however, extradited them and U.S. officials have previously expressed uncertainty about Iran's actions and intentions.
"We believe that some elements within the Iranian regime have helped al-Qaida terrorists transit or find safe haven inside Iran," DeSutter told the U.S.-Israeli Joint Parliamentary Committee.

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Sep/09182003/nation_w/93438.asp

Youth Should Take Pride in Living Under Islamic System, Leader Says

TEHRAN -- The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei in a gathering of pupils here on Wednesday said that the youth and young adults are determined to build up a glorious future for their homeland through their talent, incessant scientific attempts, faith and chastity.

Referring to the gifted young generation of high intellect, as a privilege and honor, the Leader added that the enemies of Islam and Iran attempt to interfere with the education trend in the country to abort the national will to build up an independent and free country, IRNA reported.

Criticizing those elaborating on diversion of young generation either orally or in written form, he noted that such individuals, similar to the enemies, exaggerate the few mistakes and errors of a limited number of the youth.

Turning to proper grounds available for building up a bright future, Iran's extra-sensitive geopolitical stance, its glorious and honorable history and its abundant natural resources, he said that Iran's manpower is known as one of the most gifted in the world so that its average intelligence rate is higher than the rest of the world. Referring to examples of the great talent of the Iranian youth including scholars' access to advanced nuclear technology, he added, "Given that the world powers have classified the atomic know-how as the most confidential science, they ban any access to it.”

"However, the Iranian youth of high intellect have managed to gain access to it and the world powers have protested to such an achievement," he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei said that the victory of the Islamic Republic in Iran has paved the way for development of the potentials of the Iranian youth.

"Under the dictatorial rule of ex-Shah, our dear homeland was the paradise of the world plunderers, but the Iranian nation managed to get rid of the illegal ruling of the corrupt statesmen and the foreign treacherous influence.

"Once Islam was given its true and deserving stance, it frightened the world despotic powers and while giving the nations a lesson on resistance provided the grounds for building up a bright future in Iran," he added.

The Leader pointed out that the youth should take pride in living in the affectionate bosom of the Islamic system and wished a happy new academic year for the pupils and students, given the concurrence of the auspicious occasion of Mab'ath (the day Mohammad (SA) was appointed as the prophet of Islam) with the opening of schools and universities (September 24).

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=9/18/03&Cat=2&Num=006

" Nasser Hadian is on the faculty in the Department of Political Science at the Tehran University and currently a Visiting Scholar at the Middle East Institute of Columbia University. Mehdi Semati is on the faculty in the Department of Speech Communication at Eastern Illinois University. "

I thought maybe these guys worked for the regime.

(( A very good article, A Must read one ))- Pilot

"Communist Democracy" in Iran

http://www.ghandchi.com/261-CommunistDemocracy.htm

It has been over 30 years since the success of Communists in Vietnam and despite all the sacrifices of people's democratic movement inside Vietnam and elsewhere in the world in the years before 1973, what the Vietnamese people achieved in 1973, was another dictatorship worse that what they had in the past. Today the national firewall of Internet by the Vietnamese Communist regime blocking the political websites has set the precedent for other despotic regimes such as Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) to follow.

Five years after the Vietnamese, in 1979, Iranian people, despite all the sacrifices of the democratic movement, achieved a reactionary Islamist despotic regime of IRI. No Vietnamese has any illusion of "Communist Democracy" just as no Iranian has any illusion of "Islamic Democracy" seeing it as Islamist fascism in disguise. Nonetheless most of the Iranian intellectuals are still believers in the "Communist Democracy" and they all like to refer to the European social-democratic and socialist governments as examples of such a dream.

Why socialist and communist parties in Europe were able to form states of so-called "socialist or communist democracy" in Europe is not because of their program being much different from the same parties in former Soviet Union and Eastern Block, China, Vietnam, Cuba and North Korea. Even Communist Parties just like the Social-Democratic Parties were able to lead *democratic* states in Europe, although they had the same statism and state economy in their program like the Russian Communist party, platforms that were responsible for the despotic nature of Soviet and Eastern Block states. The difference in the Western Europe, is that the institutions of judgment by the people are strong in the West, thanks to a long history of Renaissance and Reformation, and thus the socialist and communist parties cannot rule like they do in China or Vietnam. Please read my following articles where I explain the issue of institutions of judgment by the people in details:
http://www.ghandchi.com/135-RuleOfLaw.htm

The above is also true about democratic monarchies like UKand Sweden and the rule of so-called religious democratic politics of the likes of Christian Democrats in Germany. These oxymorons of politics are not harbingers of dictatorial regimes in Europe because they all have to abide by institutions of judgment by the people which control Europe and are rooted in Europe. The only statist party that tried to eliminate the institutions of judgment by the people in Europe was Nazi Party and the Western societies eliminated it within ten years, which again shows how the institutions of judgment by the people are the determining factor in the Western Europe.

In contrast, all the oxymorons like "Islamic Democracy" or "Communist Democracy" utopias for a country like Iran where the institutions of judgment by the people are extremely weak, mean the despotism of Islamism and Communism at the end. If the Communist version of this has not been experienced by the Iranian people, it has been experienced by the Vietnamese who would laugh at such oxymoron because they know communist statism means the Communist bosses will rule the country in name of the state sitting at the top of the state economy where they pay the people and not taxpayers paying them and when there are no strong institutions of judgment by the people in the country to be able to challenge the state. Iran and Vietnam are not like Western Europe to have so many social institutions doing checks and balances of the state regardless of Communists ruling or Christians or Monarchs.

In fact, in countries like Iran, at the beginning of a new change, it is important to have parties like the original U.S. Democratic Party of Jefferson, to lead the nation, parties that in their platform not only recognize human rights and democratic development but more importantly oppose state ownership. The state ownership is the foundation of despotism in these countries and even the media will be subordinate to state under state economy and this is why people end up listening to foreign media to hear the true news because the internal news is none but the state's news.

It is so unfortunate that 24 years after the success of Islamism in Iran, the majority of opposition political organizations of Iran are still leftist. Even the papers like Iran Emrooz that pretend to be liberal democratic are actually leftist and censor the views that fundamentally challenge the left and Communism. All the records of despotism in Soviet Union is now out and they still do not say a word about how Communism was despotism for over half of the world and keep misleading people with stories of social democracy of Europe the same way the monarchists tell people stories of democratic monarchies of Europe like Sweden.

Instead they have a facade of a new oxymoron called "Communist Democracy" and are busy defending the current ongoing oxymoron of "Islamic Democracy" of Khatami which has meant nothing but Islamist fascism and all the murders and reactionary retrogression in Iran has been the same during their rule and when the likes of Khalkhali are considered by Khatami as the reformists sitting next to him.

Why after 24 years the Iranian intellectuals are not able to cut off from over a half century of siding with the left which has been a mistake. The leftists were lucky they did not come to power in 1979, or else the wrath of Iranians would not be for Islamists today, but for the leftists. Actually Islamists have been driving the programs of the left, and they had the support of the left in important junctures like at the time of hostage-taking, although at the same time the left itself was murdered by IRI. If in Iran, the left had won power like in Vietnam or Cambodia, the people would never even touch a leftist group with a ten foot stick.

Iranian intellectuals have already wasted enough time in the last one hundred years and especially in the last half a century with leftist ideologies. It is amazing that even the organizations like Jebhe Melli and Jebhe Demokratik are mostly driven by leftist platforms. It is as if the left's programs and on top of it state economy, statism, and anti-globalization have not shown their failures enough by those in power in Vietnamese Communism and Iranian Islamism, that these opposition forces are calling for the same platforms for future Iran, programs that are the underlying reason of despotism in Vietnam and Iran.

The Iranian intellectual papers are all siding with reactionary anti-globalization movements and they have made it the norm in the progressive circles to be anti-globalization. They are like Luddites attacking globalization. In the Iranian progressive circles, they all are siding with the anti-globalization movements rather than siding with political approaches of the likes of Singapore that are taking advantage of globalization for their own rapid growth.

"Communist Democracy" is an oxymoron Utopia worse than Communism, the same way "Islamic Democracy" is a worse Utopia than Islamism because they hide the harsh reality of Communism and Islamism. Stalinism and Khomeinism are what these statist platforms will bring for countries like Vietnam and Iran, and not a Swedish type socialism or an imaginary democratic American Islamism. Yes, those who really want to make an "Islamic Democracy", they should try to make the U.S. an Islamic state because in a country like the U.S., with all the powerful institutions of judgment by the people, an "Islamic democracy" can become a reality despite the statism and despotism of the Islamist ideology and the same is true for other statist and despotic systems like Communism or Monarchism.

Just as a Swedish democratic monarchy can be a reality for Sweden and not for Iran where the monarchy will be a despotic monarchy as I have discussed before, and the so-called "Communist Democracy" will be the same. I hope our intellectuals do not mislead people by selling Communism, Islamism, and Monarchism, giving the European examples as proof for these models to offer "democracy" for Iran. We suffered one time in 1979 by misleading people about the so-called "democratic" Islamism of Khomeini to be an exception, let's not make the same mistake again. Of course people should be free to have any opinion they want, but if the majority of intellectuals who are the opinion leaders push for Communism, Baathism, or Islamism, what can one expect of the end result?

Those who really want to have a democracy in Iran should go for a thoroughgoing democratic and futurist platform and should distance themselves from Leftism, Islamism, or monarchy. The reality is that most of the intellectuals who even supported Islamism were following the left and because they were leftist, they supported Islamism and today they are supporting some Baathist version of Islamism as "Islamic Democracy", the same way other leftists in Iraq and Syria before them, supported Baath coming to power in those countries, with the hope of Utopia of "Communist Democracy" to be achieved at the end.

I just hope that Iranian intellectuals to wake up from the long hold of leftism on Iranian intellectual mind and not wait for the next Baathist or Communist state to block all Internet political sites like the Vietnamese state, to wake up when it is too late, and I hope in the next two years not to see the majority of Iranian political groups to be leftist like it is today, in open or in disguise. The experience of Vietnamese and Syrian intellectuals who have run away from the Communist state and the Baathist states of Vietnam and Syria, and the role they played to create those states, should be a good lesson for Iranian intellectuals before Iran ends up in a similar Baathist /Communist state.

Hoping for a Futurist, Federal, Democratic, and Secular Republic in Iran,

Sam Ghandchi, Publisher/Editor
IRANSCOPE Portal Iranian Site of Iran News and Iranian Culture
http://www.iranscope.com
Sept 17, 2003

http://www.ghandchi.com/261-CommunistDemocracy.htm

Thursday, 18 September, 2003,

Iran: An Islamic experiment

By Jim Muir
BBC Tehran Correspondent

Iran's Islamic Republic is unique not only in the world - where there are few enough other Islamic republics, and none at all where the Shia branch of Islam prevails - but also in Iran itself.
Never before have the clergy held full political power in the country, though they have usually been one of several important political forces.

So it is a unique experiment, and one which is currently in a state of acute ferment, with the outcome highly uncertain.

Some analysts argue that from the outset, there was a stark contradiction built into the regime's foundations, crystallised in the two words of its very name: Islamic and Republic.

To many, the first concept implies some form of divine rule, of theocracy; and the second means democracy, rule by the people.

That perceived contradiction is at the heart of today's intensifying struggle between reformists and hard-liners within the Iranian Islamic system.

The Supreme Leader

The reformists, led by the massively-elected President Mohammad Khatami and with a big majority in the current parliament, argue that ultimate sovereignty lies with the people, and that the entire political establishment - including the Supreme Leadership - should be responsive, transparent and accountable to the electorate.

While the reformists accept in principle the concept of Velayet e Feghih (the Rule of the Supreme Jurisconsult) which is one of the pillars of the Iranian Islamic regime, many of them would prefer the role of the Supreme Leader (the Vali e Feghih) to be ethereal and advisory, almost papal, rather than political, intrusive, and engaged with the levers of temporal power, as it currently very much is.

By contrast, most conservatives, and certainly the hard-liners, believe that the Vali e Feghih has a kind of divinely-bestowed authority which makes his intervention, on any issue he chooses, decisive and unchallengeable.

For some of them, it is at the core of the regime, its power and authority, and the trappings of democracy are ultimately little more than window-dressing.

One of the most common slogans chanted by Hezbollahis, Basijis and other hard-line defenders of the regime in confrontation with student or other protestors is: "Death to the opponents of the Velayet e Feghih!"

Growing alienation

There is little doubt that the Islamic system was starting to drift badly out of touch with the people by 1997, when President Khatami suddenly burst on the scene with his surprise landslide victory.

Inefficiency, pervasive corruption and a general failure to move with the times were seen as the main factors behind a growing alienation.

Khatami and the reformists seemed to offer an answer to all that for the people - and for the regime, a new lease of life.

His idea of Islamic people's sovereignty held out the prospect of a system where the people's vote could make a difference and bring about change, where officials become servants not masters, where religion would imbue the country's values but not intrude oppressively as an imposed system.

He spoke directly to the vast new generation of young Iranians, and to women, and they responded massively.

"Iranians are traditionally very religious, but also open to new and open interpretations of religion," says Mahmoud Alinejad, an Iranian academic specialising in Islamic topics. "By voting for Khatami, they showed that they wanted change under an Islamic system, albeit a more liberal one."

It may also have reflected the fact that after two decades of revolutions and wars, many Iranians, irrespective of their Islamic commitment, have an almost innate conviction that abrupt change and upheavals take the country and their own prospects backwards.

So the vote for Khatami was also a vote for gradual change, for evolution, rather than another disruptive revolution.

Whether Khatami's liberal interpretation of Islamic democracy could have worked in objective conditions (if such a thing exists) may never be known.

But in the harsh world of real Iranian politics, it is generally deemed to have failed, not because of theoretical flaws, but because it was blocked by an entrenched minority of hard-liners determined to keep their grip on power.

Now the broad national mood is one of disillusion amounting to despair. This was reflected in the latest elections, in February, for city councils nationwide. In Tehran, where reformists swept the board in 1999, the turnout was a paltry 12%, allowing hard-liners to take over control by default.

Victory by default

The reformists now face a general election in February virtually empty-handed.

Practically all significant reformist legislation has been spiked by the Council of Guardians, a highly-conservative unelected body which has the right to vet and veto new bills.

Numerous reformists, liberals and student leaders have been put behind bars, with President Khatami and others powerless to do more than voice criticism.

Unless the conservatives judge that they cannot do without the popular support which the reformists might still be able to confer on the regime, and decide to give them some achievements to take to the polls, it is thought likely that there will be another large-scale abstention in the February elections.

The right-wing would be likely again to inherit the Majlis (parliament) and a year later the presidency, not because the pendulum of public favour had swung back their way, but by default and with minority support.

The most predictable result would be an even more disillusioned and bitter public alienation than that prevailing before Mr Khatami's advent in 1997 - unless the conservatives could somehow, and quickly, deliver some major achievements especially in the realms of economy and job-creation.

In that scenario, a narrowly-based right-wing Islamic regime might find its legitimacy under challenge more than ever before, from both within and outside the country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/special/islam/3112846.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_struggle_for_change/changing_face/default.stm

Iran Rejects EU Preconditions for Continued Cooperation

September 18, 2003
Ha'aretz
DPA

Teheran - Iran will not accept any preconditions by the European Union for continued cooperation, the news agency IRNA reported Thursday.

Iran and the EU have started their dialogue based on mutual respect, but Iran neither accepted any precondition for these talks then nor for their continuation now, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Assefi said.

The spokesman was referring to remarks by the Italian delegation at the International Atomic Energy Agency, which made clear that EU cooperation with Iran depended on Teheran's acceptance of the additional IAEA protocol which authorizes unannounced and unlimited nuclear inspections.

Such remarks will not help strengthen constructive Iran-IAEA cooperation and definitely will not deter Iran from its legitimate rights to have access to peaceful nuclear technology, the spokesman said.

Assefi said Wednesday that Iran would also not give in to political pressure by the United States over it nuclear programs. Under the terms of last week's IAEA ultimatum, Teheran has until October 31 to accept all IAEA regulations on nuclear inspections.

It has been warned that the issue will go to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions if it does not comply by November 20.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=341743&contrassID=1&subContrassID=8&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Argentine Bomb Police to Testify

September 18, 2003
BBC
Elliott Gotkine

The Argentine president is to order the secret service to testify in a court case over the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires, the BBC has been told.

The lawyer representing victims of the bombing told the BBC that President Nestor Kirchner was to sign a decree forcing the country's secret police to appear in court.

Separately, an Argentine newspaper has revealed that a former cultural attache to the country's embassy in Iran is being investigated in connection with the bombing.

The bombing of the Jewish Mutual Aid Association (Amia) in 1994 killed 85 and left more than 200 people injured.

Members of Argentina's National Intelligence Service - while not directly implicated in the attack - have long been accused of deliberately misleading the investigation.

Menem connection

Now they will have to account for their actions in court.

Many suspect that Carlos Menem, who was Argentina's president at the time, was also involved.

Argentina's leading newspaper, Clarin, says prosecutors are now looking into his relationship with a former cultural attache to the Argentine Embassy in Iran.

Carlos Lelli is being investigated amid allegations he was the intermediary used by Mr Menem when he allegedly received million from Iran, in exchange for not accusing the Islamic Republic of the Amia bombing.

But Mr Lelli will not be testifying. He died in a car crash in August 2000, just two months after a former Iranian intelligence official made the million claim.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118100.stm

Real Risk in Iran's Nuclear Deception

September 18, 2003
The Jersey Journal
Editorials

The hot spot in the Middle East that we should be worrying about at the moment may be Iran and not Iraq. Can you say "nukes?"

Inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency detected traces of enriched uranium at an Iranian nuclear facility; the Iranians claimed it was needed for a peaceful nuclear-energy program. Enriched uranium could of course be used for reactors for the purpose of making electricity, but it is also the method by which nations build nuclear weapons programs. The problem with the Iranian explanation is that they already get "safe" fuel from Russia for their reactors.

So why is there a uranium enrichment program?

Iran is bound under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to tell the world that it is building nuclear weapons, and it denies what everyone suspects. This is the same treaty the North Korean government has repudiated, but at least they admitted they are building powerful weapons of mass destruction. Rather than back off, the IAEA did the right thing by setting a deadline, ironically Oct. 31, when Iran must allow inspectors into that country for inspections. If Iran refuses to comply, then the whole mess goes to the United Nations Security Council to determine what action must follow.

Does this seem like déjá vu?

Once again, the credibility of the United Nations will be on the line, as well as the security of the world. It's essential that the Security Council avoid the mistakes of the Iraq question.

http://www.nj.com/editorials/jjournal/index.ssf?/base/editorials-0/1063879920255390.xml