Iranian Alert -- September 25, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD PING LIST

How to stop Iran's radical clerics from adopting the nuclear option

By Dr. Assad Homayoun
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Thursday, September 25, 2003

Dr. Assad Homayoun is president of the Azadegan Foundation, which advocates a secular democratic government in Iran and contributes to the formulation of U.S. foreign policy.

Geopolitically, Iran's quest for nuclear power is not out of the question.

Iran is located in a critical area, between two zones of energy, the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, which contains 70 percent of the world’s known oil reserve and 60 percent of its natural gas. It has a 1,570-mile coastline on the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman, with command of the strategic Strait of Hormuz. It rightly sees itself as a regional power.

Iran has borders with 15 countries, with no single strategic friend on its long borders. It has been invaded many times. Iraq invaded Iran in the 1990s, and used chemical and biological weapons, killing tens of thousands of Iranians. Iran has been also subjected to more missile attacks than any country in the past 50 years.

Iran already has one nuclear power on its border: Pakistan, which has half of Iran’s territory and twice its population. Pakistan could pose a grave danger to Iran if, for example, Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf was removed from power and Islamists gained control of the nuclear installations. Also Israel, India, Russia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the vicinity of Iran possess nuclear capabilities.

Iran is indeed an important force that can contribute immensely, for peace or for the destabilization of the region. Unfortunately the present Administration in Iran has chosen the latter.

Since the nuclear policy of Iran is becoming a significant international issue, an important question arises as to whether or not Iran should acquire military nuclear capabilities. Given the fact that Iran is located in pivotal strategic area with five nuclear powers in the immediate vicinity, we must understand Iran ’s defense deeds and consider what kind of defense policy Iran should adopt.

Iran can choose four roads for its national security and defense:

1. It can do nothing. This is not going to be an option. No government in Iran could agree to leave the country defenseless in light of the many historical invasions. As U.S. Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet stated in his recent testimony to the U.S. Congress, no Iranian Government, regardless of its ideological leanings, was likely to abandon a program to develop weapons of mass destruction.

2. Follow a nuclear-free zone policy. Several countries in the Middle East in the past several decades proposed regional non-proliferation agreements or a “nuclear weapons-free zone”. This notion has been discussed and was proposed and followed in the United Nations many time by Iran and Egypt in 1974, and in 1981, and by Egypt again in 1990, but did not go anywhere. A weapons of mass destruction-free zone (WMFZ) initiative is not possible in the region, and therefore it is not going to be an option. Israel will never give up its nuclear ambition, because it thinks it serves as deterrence for its survival against its hostile neighbors. [The same can be said for Pakistan and India.]

3. U.S. or NATO agreement/protection. There could be some agreement with the United States or NATO for Iran to come under some sort of defensive umbrella to guarantee its security in case of a possible threat. This option is neither possible nor practical, especially with a regime in power which has committed itself to support of international terrorism and the promotion of radical Islam. If Iran was controlled by a moderate democratic government, then this option could be a possibility, but never under the present administration.

4. The last option is that Iran becomes a military nuclear state. Presently, it seems that this is the policy of the administration in Tehran, and it is a policy which may be now coming close to reality. Iran has invested too much money, scientific, technological talent and pride in building its nuclear infrastructure, and it is unlikely to abandon completely its desire of acquiring nuclear technology.
The most likely promoter of nuclear policy is Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsansani, the former President, who is, more than anybody else, behind the broad spectrum of international terrorism. On several occasions in the past, he openly pronounced and spoke on nuclear weapon-related issues. Mr Rafsanjani, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, and other top leaders of the Islamic republic see nuclear weapons as a source of national power.

Significantly, however, they primarily think of nuclear weapons as an instrument to advance their radical fundamentalist and terrorist cause rather than for the national security and defense of Iran.

The problem is that, on one hand Iran needs to secure its defense in this pivotal strategic region which is volatile with many ethnic cultural and religious rivalries; while on the other hand neither the people of Iran nor the world could tolerate a nuclear theocracy which was the fountainhead of international terrorism and has based its rule on force, repression and the terror of its people.

What should be done?

Iran is close to the point of no return. Diplomatic and economic pressure will not be effective. Even the UN Security Council’s resolution will not change the decision of the clerical leadership of Iran to become a nuclear power.

In fact, it is possible that the [ruling clerics] have already secured or created some dirty bombs for terrorist purposes and have even secured a few existing nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union, to be mounted on their Shihab-3 missiles.

Some observers believe that it would be height of folly if the Iranian clerical Administration did not sign and ratify the IAEA's "New Safeguards Measures" known as “program 93 + 2”. I believe that even if the clerics decided to sign the New Safeguards Measures of IAEA, their regime would not ratify it. There would be many ways and means to escape from the watchful eyes of IAEA. Moreover, the new Protocols System is not foolproof, and even by signing the Safeguard Measures, the regime could avoid ratification. On September 12, 2003 , the Board of Governors of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a strongly-worded resolution which gave the clerics a deadline of October 31, 2003 , to dispel all doubt about their nuclear ambition. We have to wait to see the reaction of the clerics. Knowing the nature of the theocratic rulers, they may resort to dissimulation, which is allowed in Shi’a religious philosophy as a “pious fraud” to deceive and mislead, in order to buy time to reach a goal.

The best and most feasible way to solve the problems of WMD, terrorism and anti-peace activities of the Iranian clerical leadership is to support, openly and enthusiastically, the people of Iran who are ready and resolved to change the national leadership of Iran. I believe that the policies of U.S. President George W. Bush are in the right direction, but those policies should be implemented and followed in a unified way, openly and without wavering. This is the safest and the best option for the U.S. and Europe to achieve peace in the region and to help the Iranian people. I am sure that after the downfall of the clerical regime, a responsible government could come to some sort of arrangement with U.S. and NATO to guarantee the security of Iran and help remove the reasons for Iran’s drive to become nuclear. This would prevent the volatile region from entering into a nuclear arms race.

I firmly believe that it is time, and indeed the acme of patriotism, for the Iranian Armed Forces and the Revolutionary Guards, who are guarantors of integrity of Iran, to discontinue their support for the clerics' regime. They must help the people to establish a representative democratic government. They must come to their senses and prevent conflict with U.S. and possible attacks on Iranian military, technological and economic, installations.

Iran must be a perpetrator of peace, not terrorism.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_4.html

How to stop Iran's radical clerics from adopting the nuclear option

By Dr. Assad Homayoun
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Thursday, September 25, 2003

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/989005/posts?page=21#21

Thanks for the information and link!

Tonight, UNSPUN with AnnaZ and Guest Hostess DIOTIMA!

September 25th, 2003 -- 10pmE/7pmP
Second Anna-versary!
with special guest,
(who was also the first guest!)

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
Of
B.O.N.D.

Click HERE to LISTEN LIVE while you FReep!

Click HERE for the RadioFR Chat Room!

Thanks for the heads up!

Bury this perp in Gitmo and ship some B-2 components to Iran, specifically some PGMs on Bushehr.

They think they can be cute with Pooty-Poot on their side.

That's likely being discussed at Camp David.

Perhaps Saddam's enriched uranium went east to Iran.

Iran is not dealing with Kofi Annan, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Jimmy Carter, Hans Blix or Neville Chamberlain.

Let's strap parachutes on the White House press corps and embed some reporters at these sites--since they enjoy playing Body Count.

Lawmakers Probe Iraq Plans to Buy Electricity From Iran, Syria

September 25, 2003
The Associated Press
WBZ 4, Massachusetts

WASHINGTON -- About a dozen Democrats are asking the Bush administration to explain whether the interim government in Iraq is planning to buy electricity from Iran and Syria, two countries the United States has accused of supporting terrorism.

In a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, the House members said the U.S.-led provisional government may be better served by buying power from neighboring countries that are allies, such as Jordan or Turkey.

``The United States should not be doing business with the same governments that allow volunteers, foreign fighters and military equipment to cross its porous borders into Iraq unimpeded to kill American servicemen and women,'' said the letter spearheaded by Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. It was also signed by Reps. Barney Frank and William Delahunt, both D-Mass.

Emanuel said he hopes the administration agrees that Americans ``would not want their tax dollars to enrich two countries that top the Department of State's list of countries that support terrorism.''

Congress has imposed sanctions against Iran and Libya, and similar legislation calling for sanctions against Syria is pending.

Reports that Iraq was negotiating with Iraq and Syria were first reported by The Boston Globe.

Quoting a member of Iraq's governing council, the report said Iraq was negotiating with Syria, Iran and Turkey for electricity to augment its energy supplies.

http://wbz4.com/massachusetts/MA--Iraq-Electricity-gn/resources_news_html

Q&A With Iranian Foreign Minister

September 25, 2003
The Washington Post

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, who is in New York to attend the sessions of the U.N. General Assembly, answered questions from The Washington Post in an interview conducted in English Tuesday evening at the Fifth Avenue residence of Iran's ambassador to the United Nations. An edited transcript follows:

Q:What is your evaluation of the situation in Iraq? Is the political and security situation worsening and, if you believe it is, how fast is it deteriorating and what do you see developing over the next three to six months?

A: I think it is not promising. Americans made one mistake. They thought if the Iraqi people are against Saddam Hussein when American troops come to Iraq they will welcome them. But this did not happen. [Iran] is not happy because Iraq is occupied by American and British troops. The other people have same attitude and this is there psychology that they never welcome foreigners to govern their country. The reason that folks or people are engaged in these operations against American soldiers is that they justify that they resist against occupation. This argument is acceptable to the Iraqi people because they are occupiers. That is why I believe it would be in the interest of the United States to transfer the Iraqi affair to the United Nations. In that case the United States would be able to support the United Nations as other countries would be able and the president of the United Nations, as the main central role player, certainly would be the chief.

Q: Do you see issues where there is common interests for discussion, at least between Iran and the United States, on Iraq and if so what are those issue and what forum could best address them?

A: Yes, I believe there are common interests. Of course, there are differences. We both have been against the Saddam [Hussein] regime. We both believe that the territorial integrity of Iraq has to be maintained and the unity of Iraq. We both believe that democratic government has to be in place, elected by the people. So there are many commonalities between Iran and the United States. We had some talks with the Americans in Geneva. At those talks, we advised them that it's better to leave Iraq in the hands of the Iraqis. They were reluctant at first but later on they understood. They know much less than us about Iraq, but we tried to educate them about the psychology of the Iraqis, the way to deal with them. Still, I believe the best way to bring peace and security to Iraq is to have the United Nations as the central . . . player. Otherwise, it may get worse.

Q: Is there a role for the Governing Council in a transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis or in your view should the composition of a provisional government or a transitional administration be something that is started from scratch with a Bonn-like conference?

A: No, I believe the Governing Council can play their role. We have some kind of interaction with them. We sent our secretary general to Iraq to have a meeting with them because the Governing Council is composed of the leaders of opposition. Therefore they can play an important role. . . . Of course they themselves, as we are, are concerned about the way Americans are dealing with them. They prefer to be more independent to decide and act. . . . And therefore it can be considered as a positive step towards transfer of authority.

Q: Are they an adequate instrument as currently constituted to receive sovereignty now. Or would they need to be expanded or reformed in some way to be the right transitional government for an earlier transfer of sovereignty?

A: They can establish a committee to draft a constitution, put that constitution to a vote of the people, and . . . for election and transfer of power to the people. But this we believe has to be done under the auspices of the Untied Nations.

Q: You had referred to the talks in Geneva that you had had earlier this year. The [Bush] administration has announced that those talks had been suspended in May. I was wondering if those talks had ever restarted and if not would you have an interest in restarting those talks to discuss Iraq?

A: No, it has not been restarted. Since then we have not had any talks. Of course we had arrived to the same conclusion that while the Americans are changing their mind frequently and they don't stay committed to the decisions made at those meetings there's no reason to continue. But Americans announced termination of those talks.

Q: What were some of the issue that they changed their minds on?

A: We had discussed about the best way to transfer the affairs of Iraq to the Iraqi people. We had decided to established a committee out of leaders of opposition groups, a committee of seven persons. This is what was established later in an expanded form of 25 as the Governing Council. And at that time they agreed in the establishment of this body, but later they changed their mind. They said no, we are not interested in it. At most they can have an advisory role. But we're not going to give them the right to make decisions. And somehow they changed even their people. Up to that time, Mr. [Zalmay] Khalilzad [special presidential envoy] was the sponsor. Suddenly he was changed. There was no explanation. . . . And they suddenly said they were not interested in continuing. But in fact I believe those talks could be very useful as it was useful for Afghanistan. In Afghanistan we had talks in Geneva initially and what ever we decided in those meetings was later exercised. It was quite useful. The establishment of interim authority and transfer of power.

Q: One of the reason the administration had given for terminating those talks was they had alleged that there were al Qaeda members in Iran that were somehow implicated in the Saudi bombings. What is your response to that allegation?

A: That could not be the reason because it was false. Al Qaeda members were in Iran but in our custody. Any piece of information was used to arrest these people and we were very successful. Since then, they are in jail they are under interrogation and we are going to try them because they have committed crimes. . . .

Q: The Saudis claim that they would like those in your custody who are their nationals to be extradited to Saudi Arabia and that Iran has declined to meet this request. Is that true and if so why?

A: I'm not sure that if there is any Saudis among them, but if there have been any Saudis in the past they have been transferred to Saudi Arabia and they are happy with that. Of course they also spoke about more cooperation and if there would be any kind of information that would be helpful ..to transfer that information.

Q: As a result of those interrogations have you found out any more about those bombings in Saudi Arabia?

A: Not specifically about the recent bombings because as I understand they have autonomous groups of operators. They have general instructions and they do it by their own. So what was claimed by Americans that those who have been Iran have led this bombing is baseless. We arrived to this conclusion in interrogation.

Q: Can you provide us any indication about how your government intends to respond to the deadline that was announced by the ambassadors at the [International Atomic Energy Agency] in Vienna towards the end of October seeking Iran's agreement to these additional protocols?

A: Of course we will continue our cooperation with the IAEA because there are outstanding issues between Iran and the agency which has to be clarified. We of course have extended our cooperation with IAEA . . . in recent months. And this has been reflected in the report of the secretary general that Iran has increased its cooperation with the agency, by which I mean giving more access to inspectors of IAEA to visit different sites and even take environmental samples. These are of course further than our current commitments under NPT [nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] safeguards. But just to make and build up more trust and confidence we decided to do so. And this has been appreciated. Therefore we will continue to cooperate with IAEA. But then the question of additional protocols. First we want to make sure additional protocol are enough. The Americans have stated that the additional protocols may not be enough. Therefore this is a serious question in Iran. Why, if something is not enough, why should we. . . . So first we want to make sure the additional protocol is going to solve the problem.

Q: In the same report, the director general of the IAEA had requested in June that Iran not enrich any uranium plants. And yet even after that request was made, that Iran went ahead and enriched some uranium. There was a statement by Iranian ambassador to the IAEA that, even with signing the additional protocol, Iran wanted to continue building the Natanz plant.

A: Nothing is wrong to have enriched uranium facility provided it is just used for peaceful uses. It is forbidden to enrich uranium for producing nuclear weapons. And we are committed to that because we are a member of the NPT. But this is part of our right to have nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including enrichment of uranium to produce fuel need for our plants. So nothing is wrong to have enrichment facilities.

Q: But they did specifically request Iran not enrich that uranium

A: Yes, they did have this request. But we had already started the process of preparing the machinery to fit them with uranium UF6 gas [uranium hexafluoride, the gaseous form of the metal, which is used in centrifuges] before they asked us not to do it. It was started two days before they had asked us. . . .

Q: The fear on the part of the United States is that Iran could be under the NPT building a facility that can enrich uranium and then one day announce we're no longer a member of the NPT and we're going to produce this and use this fuel

A: This is a naive argument because the enrichment facility under the safeguard of IAEA, its monitored severely by IAEA people, especially when we accept additional protocol that means IAEA inspectors are free to inspect wherever they wish whenever they want.

Q: The additional protocol is something that you're committed to sign?

A: No, we want to make sure the additional protocol would be enough and would solve the problem. If it is enough and would solve the problem then the ambiguity would be removed from the mind. The question is why are the Americans saying that an additional protocol is not enough. They should be careful and they should yes it is enough and the inspection of IAEA clarified that Iran is going to do something illegal or legal. We don't have anything to hide because we do not have a program for producing nuclear weapons. Therefore, we are ready to be quite transparent. But we cannot let others deny our rights. And part of our right is to be able to enrich uranium to produce fuel needed for our power plants. We don't want to be dependent on outside because we have the knowledge. We have the minds we have the technology. Why should we be dependent on the outside.

Q: Are you close to making a decision about the additional protocol?

A: As soon as this would be clarified we don't mind to proceed.

Q: The United States has 120,000 troops on one border with Iraq. They have several thousands troops on the other side. How do you interpret American policy and intentions towards Iran. Does your government believe that the United States is preparing the ground for a military confrontation with Iran.

A: We really don't understand the policy of the United States toward Iran because they are [acting] contrary to their own interests. In fact their approach towards Iran is wrong. Iran has proved that it is very responsible and always tries to promote peace and security in that region. Iran has not invaded any other country, although it has been invaded by others. And Iran has tried to be very helpful in Tajikistan to promote reconciliation, in Afghanistan it has been very helpful. Our position of neutrality in the case of Iraq was helpful and we could misuse the situation and do many things, but we refrain because we believe that the security of Iraq is very important for us. So I believe the first thing to do for the Americans is to correct that policy and to look toward Iran from a positive angle. In fighting terrorism, for example, Iran can do a lot because we believe that the root cause of extremism and terrorism has to be dealt with. And that is another mistake of the Americans is that they think only by using military power they would be able to eradicate terrorism. But this is not the case. And so far it has been proved that it's not the best way to do it. It is true that you have to be serious against terrorist groups but more importantly we have to change the mind of the grass roots, we have to educate them, we have to give them models that would be acceptable. And what has been exercised in Iran can be that model, as a combination of principles of democracy and Islamic values.

http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=25&a=14

The best and most feasible way to solve the problems of WMD, terrorism and anti-peace activities of the Iranian clerical leadership is to support, openly and enthusiastically, the people of Iran who are ready and resolved to change the national leadership of Iran. I believe that the policies of U.S. President George W. Bush are in the right direction, but those policies should be implemented and followed in a unified way, openly and without wavering. This is the safest and the best option for the U.S. and Europe to achieve peace in the region and to help the Iranian people. I am sure that after the downfall of the clerical regime, a responsible government could come to some sort of arrangement with U.S. and NATO to guarantee the security of Iran and help remove the reasons for Iran’s drive to become nuclear. This would prevent the volatile region from entering into a nuclear arms race.

Regime change for peace and freedom. Otherwise, nuclear jihad.

This thread is now closed.

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”