Is Iran Right?

tehuti · Jan 26, 2005

Iran: U.S. Tops List for Threatening World Peace

TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mohammad Khatami (news - web sites), responding to comments by a senior U.S. official that Iran tops the list of world troublespots, said Wednesday the United States was the country which most endangered global peace.

Tensions between Tehran and Washington, which broke diplomatic ties in 1980, have heightened in recent days as U.S. officials have taken an increasingly tough line on the Islamic state.

"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list," Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said last week on the day George W. Bush was sworn in for a second four-year term as president.

Khatami, speaking to reporters after a meeting with Afghanistan (news - web sites)'s President Hamid Karzai, responded in kind.

"We say that America is at the top of the list of countries which are endangering world peace and security and we hope that one day they come to their senses," he said, adding he thought a change in U.S. policy was very unlikely.

Iranian officials have been quick to stress that Tehran would respond vigorously to any military attack by the United States or Israel, which Cheney said may decide to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

"The cost of attacking Iran is not something that the world can ever bear and a war against Iran will not remain within our borders," Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, deputy head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, was quoted as saying by the ISNA students news agency.

"If America wants to invade Islamic Iran it must know that there is no limit to our defense and we have the capability to smash their heads, as with a mallet, wherever we wish," he said.

Iran denies U.S. and Israeli accusations that its nuclear facilities would be used to make atomic bombs. It says its nuclear ambitions do not stretch beyond generating electricity.

In a bid to allay concerns about its nuclear program Iran has agreed to halt activities which could be used to make nuclear bomb material, such as uranium enrichment, and to try to reach a negotiated solution with the European Union (news - web sites).

"(Negotiations with the EU) haven't reached a dead end," Khatami said. "Of course, we have our own stances and we are talking to the Europeans and we hope to reach a conclusion."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050126/wl_nm/iran_usa_khatami_dc

Makkonnen · Jan 27, 2005

They should immediately tell the Europeans that the aggression by the US makes them unable to participate in such talks and they should withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty. Force Israel or the US to try some shit. Escalate it and call their bluff and work 24-7 on their bomb which I think they have to be doing anyway.

QueEx · Jan 27, 2005

Makkonnen said:
They should immediately tell the Europeans that the aggression by the US makes them unable to participate in such talks and they should withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty. Force Israel or the US to try some shit. Escalate it and call their bluff and work 24-7 on their bomb which I think they have to be doing anyway.

What if that aggression is whats forcing them to the table with the Europeans ???

QueEx

tehuti · Jan 27, 2005

What if that aggression is whats forcing them to the table with the Europeans ???

What if the aggression is forcing them to develop a nulcear arsenal, which may consequently, provide them with better leverage with their negotiations with Europe?

tehuti · Jan 27, 2005

Actually a better question is which is more likely to occur as a result of US aggression: Iran ends its nuclear program in its talks with Europe or they continue to pursue a larger nuclear arms program inspite of talks, and as a perceived deterrent to American aggression?

Which scenario offers them the better option of maintaing the current regime?

Given Bush's doctrine, is our aggression towards Iran based on their having nuclear weapons or is it that they are not a democracy, targeted for the spread of freedom and elimination of "outposts of tyranny"?

J-BOOGIE · Jan 27, 2005

tehuti said:
What if the aggression is forcing them to develop a nulcear arsenal, which may consequently, provide them with better leverage with their negotiations with Europe?

^^^ IMHO: The essential bottom line...

The possession of a Thermo-Nuclear arsenal compells a nation into a position of equality with a nation like The US and it's "Allies". Actually forcing them to behave outisde of the norm and resorting to soft-shoe tactics to control the situations. Ergo, inspite of all the forceful and flaming rhetoric, North Korea has not been attacked or even threatened. Pakistan, a Military Dictatroship, a Governemtal System Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrr from our proposed ideal, is one of our "greatest allies in the war on terror..." But alas, both possess nuclear capabilities, so there is slim to no chance of America threatening them...

One...

J-BOOGIE · Jan 27, 2005

tehuti said:
or is it that they are not a democracy, targeted for the spread of freedom and elimination of "outposts of tyranny"?

Like Musharif's Pakistani regime???

LOL...

One...

nittie · Jan 27, 2005

the weapons are only good if you use them. iran can be isolated like n.korea or cuba, left with nothing but nukes and you can't eat nukes. the only they can avoid that is by forming partnerships with europe, so they can't walk away from the table. the last thing anybody needs is iranian nukes rotting in a silo or being passed on to zealots out to destroy the u.s.. it's ironic but iran and america are both right on the issue.

Makkonnen · Jan 27, 2005

J-BOOGIE said:
^^^ IMHO: The essential bottom line...

The possession of a Thermo-Nuclear arsenal compells a nation into a position of equality with a nation like The US and it's "Allies". Actually forcing them to behave outisde of the norm and resorting to soft-shoe tactics to control the situations. Ergo, inspite of all the forceful and flaming rhetoric, North Korea has not been attacked or even threatened. Pakistan, a Military Dictatroship, a Governemtal System Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrr from our proposed ideal, is one of our "greatest allies in the war on terror..." But alas, both possess nuclear capabilities, so there is slim to no chance of America threatening them...

One...

TRUTH

I have read some things in the asian press regarding this exact notion. A Pakistani general also directly stated that. Basically all nations who do not have nuclear weapons are in a severe race to get them, It is the only bargaining chip and invasion deterrent to the US.

How many countries has the US invaded in the past 20 years?

Afghanistan
Iraq
Panama
Grenada

and of all those which is free and democratic? none lol
get nukes or get fucked

Musharaff with nukes is a partner- without nukes is a dictator and probably would have got hit with some cruise missiles too

QueEx · Jan 29, 2005

tehuti said:
Actually a better question is which is more likely to occur as a result of US aggression: Iran ends its nuclear program in its talks with Europe or they continue to pursue a larger nuclear arms program inspite of talks, and as a perceived deterrent to American aggression?

Which scenario offers them the better option of maintaing the current regime?

Given Bush's doctrine, is our aggression towards Iran based on their having nuclear weapons or is it that they are not a democracy, targeted for the spread of freedom and elimination of "outposts of tyranny"?

Frankly, I asked the initial question to spur comment. What is the real question? - I don't really know, but I do feel that if we all had a better idea of whats going on in the "Back Channels" we'd all have a lot better idea of whats going on between our government and the Iranian government and what George Bush and the Neocons real motive is with his spread of freedom and elimination of outposts of tyranny doctrine.

I say that because damn near every time, after the fact, when revealatory books start coming out and classified information is declassified, we find there was a hell of a lot more going on than we ever imagined -- both the underhandedness of our government and the participatory underhandedness of those that we (the public) were led to believe were our enemies. For example, it seems to be not well known and later declassfied documents have shown, that Ronald Reagan and the Revolutionary Iranian regime were cozier than public image led us (the public) to believe.

With respect to Bush's "Spread Democracy", I do believe that it is doomed-rhetoric. Bush is a lame-duck president; public opinion is very likely (I believe) to sway substantially against further military intervention (except, perhaps, with a nuclear-preemptive strike against Iran (because the public is already pretty much "Feared-UP"); we don't have the military manpower for another occupation - and won't for the foreseeable future; the next generation of republicans (those with hopes of succeeding Bush after this term) are weary of public opinion turning against Bush's Iraq, Social Security, Deficits, etc., Policy (watch how cautious they are becoming on both Iraq and Social Security as we write); reinstituting the draft would be damn near suicide for the NexGen republicans without a substantial Fear Build Up; and the war in Iraq is, as of today, far from over with many more controversial issues to arise that will increase the scrutiny and tension between Bush policy and the public; and, there are a lot of people looking 4 years down the road, Democrats, Republicans and Others, who will take advantage of every hole in Bush's armour, real or imagined. I don't think these next 3.11 years are going to be as easy for Bush as many think.

QueEx

tehuti · Jan 29, 2005

QueEx,

I hope that you are correct; that the fear of future political consequences and lack of time in office will put this administration's aggression in check. I'm just not as confident that their mission is one that fits the rational political equation you present. My concern is that the consolidating of political and economic power is only partially at play, and that a deeper crusade is trying to be fought. But, like I said, I hope your right and I'll be more than satisfied to have my feelings proven off point.

QueEx · Jan 31, 2005

Libyan leader Moamar Gaddafi: 


"there must be at least a declaration of a program like the Marshall Plan, to show the world that those who wish to abandon the nuclear weapon program will be helped," 

January 31, 2005

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1292352.htm

QueEx · Jan 31, 2005

<center>Pakistan pressing Iran to compromise on N-dispute</center>

<tt>Monday January 31, 2005
Zil Haj 20, 1425 A.H.</tt>

DAVOS: Pakistan is exerting behind the scenes pressure on Iran to compromise in its acrimonious dispute with Europe and the United States over its nuclear programme, Pakistani diplomatic sources say.

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri passed on their concerns during a meeting at the weekend with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi.

Kasuri, for his part, said that Pakistan supported negotiations, led by Britain, France and Germany, to reach a lasting deal that would allay US charges that Iran is covertly developing nuclear weapons.

"We feel the role the (EU three) are playing is positive, because we feel that a peaceful resolution to this dispute is highly desirable," Kasuri told AFP on the margins of the World Economic Forum, here.

"Being their neighbours, and already with the Iraq situation being what it is, we wouldn’t want another turmoil on our border," he said. "We paid a big price" in Afghanistan. "We don’t want a similar destabilisation on our border again, so we have a vested interest in a peaceful resolution of this dispute."

The sources said that the ministers "tried to convey the European position" to Kharazi during Friday’s meeting. Pakistani officials say that Tehran has been warned "bluntly, bordering on rudeness", of their concerns and urged "not to make the mistake" of ignoring the Europeans. "We have not minced our words," a diplomatic source said.

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/jan2005-daily/31-01-2005/main/main5.htm

QueEx · Jan 31, 2005

<center>ElBeradei for Iran-US talks on nuclear issue</center>

<tt>Monday January 31, 2005-- Zil Haj 20, 1425 A.H.</tt>

WASHINGTON: Director-General International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei has implicitly rebuked US President George W Bush and Vice-President Richard Cheney for discussing military options and urged the United States to engage in dialogue with Iran over its nuclear programme.

The IAEA chief said Iran had the know-how for building nuclear weapons and was likely to take its programme underground in case of strikes against its nuclear facilities. He said: "I’d like to see the Americans join a dialogue either with the Europeans or directly with the Iranians. I don’t think you will get a permanent solution of the Iranian issue without full US engagement. The US can’t afford to sit on the fence."

ElBaradei also pointed to the need of addressing Iran’s sense of isolation and insecurity after 20 years of economic sanctions against its government. He reiterated his earlier proposal to give all necessary technology to countries that need nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in exchange for placing their programmes under international control

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/jan2005-daily/31-01-2005/main/main19.htm

Sango · Jan 31, 2005

This is interesting...Lybia's not of great importance or threat right now. With these quotes "Accusing Libya of being a country that sponsors terrorism is a very dangerous thing," "That has psychological repercussions. Libya could argue, 'Since I am still on the terrorist list, why not commit terrorism, which I am accused of anyway. Why should I pay the price without getting something in return?" Gaddafi makes a point, a disturbing point but a valid one. It seems as if he doesn't have any intentions on starting the "WMD's" program again but I can somehow see his case for it. On another note I hope this takes the I'm going to start a WMD program to bring much needed attention to help the poverty and hunger levels in my country. It just seems like this is a trend in becoming since the US is getting ready to have talks with North Korea all of a sudden.

http://www.reuters.co.za/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp;:41fe08fd:fc947efd2b402e70?type=topNews&localeKey=en_ZA&storyID=7482348 Pyongyan and others should invest into their resources and give back to their country however possible, instead of increasing weapon capabilities that they'll never be able to equal to that of the elite. But then again if they don't focus on that they have no authority to speak at the table.

I cosign with the person that mentioned, get nukes or get fucked.

tehuti · Jan 31, 2005

Libya, sponsers of terror be damned; they have oil.

US oil companies return to Libya

US oil companies have been awarded most of the contracts on offer at the first open licence auction in Libya.

Companies like Occidental and Chevron Texaco will return to Libya for the first time in more than 20 years.

European oil and gas companies were not awarded any of the licences to explore 127,000 sq km (51,000 sq miles).

Libya - which has Africa's largest oil reserves - is seeking massive foreign investment now that sanctions against Tripoli have been lifted.

Libya produces 1.6m barrels per day at present, but hopes to raise this to 2.1m bpd by the end of the decade.

The latest government licensing programme attracted more than 120 oil companies worldwide but only 63 pre-qualified for the bidding round.

A crowd of 300 black-tied international businessmen waited for the envelopes to be opened and their bids examined and compared before Libya's national oil company announced the winners of each bloc, reports the BBC's Rana Jawad from Tripoli.

In his opening remarks, Libyan Prime Minister Shukri Ghanim said both the government and the oil companies must be carry on business honestly.

"Transparency does not mean it should be on our side alone," he said. "It must also be the obligation on the side of the companies that they should be transparent."

US knowledge

Occidental, in conjunction with different consortiums, had a total of nine successful bids.

The overall result came as no surprise to the chairman of Libya's national oil company, Abdul al-Badri, who said local knowledge had paid off.

"Maybe Occi they know the country, they know the basins that they bid," he said.

"As you can see, some of the blocs they bid very high because maybe they don't have geological information; and some of the blocs they bid very low because they have some technical information."

Occidental acquired five licences bidding alone, and another in conjunction with the Australian company, Woodside Petroleum Ltd.

ChevronTexaco will explore the Marzouk basin south of Tripoli, with Amerada Hess being the other US company to win a licence. India Ltd and India Corp won the bid for the Syrte region.

Canada's Verenex Energy Inc, Algeria's Sonatrach, Medco Energy International of Indonesia, United Arab Emirates' Liwa and Brazil's Petrobras were also successful.

The notable losers in this auction round were the European oil and gas companies who went home with nothing.

Mr al-Badri said another 40 blocks would be offered at a second auction next month.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4219623.stm

QueEx · Feb 5, 2005

tehuti · Feb 7, 2005

Iran: Bush shouldn't point fingers on terror

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- President Bush has no authority to accuse Iran of sponsoring terrorism while the U.S. supports "Zionist terrorists" and runs military prisons that use "torture," Tehran's Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Sunday.

Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi's comments responded to last week's State of the Union address by Bush, when he said: "Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve." (Full story)

Asefi shot back accusations toward Washington, referring to Israel, alleged prisoner abuse at a U.S.-run prison in Iraq and treatment of detainees held as enemy combatants at the U.S. base in Cuba.

"The United States is supporting a Zionist terrorist group, but in order to combat terrorism, the United States must start within itself," Asefi said. "The issues of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons is a shame for the United States which will not be wiped out anytime soon."

"Those who support terrorism cannot talk about combating terrorism," Asefi said.

Bush also said in his address Wednesday that, "to promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists."

A U.S. State Department annual terrorism report released in April of 2004 said Iran "remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism" during the previous year.

It cited Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard and Ministry of Intelligence as being "involved in the planning of and support for terrorist acts," and said Iran continued to support Palestinian terror groups.

It also suggested that Iran pursued policies in Iraq that "ran counter" to U.S.-led military coalition interests, including providing safe haven for terrorists, advocating attacks against coalition forces and helping people with ties to the Revolutionary Guard infiltrate southern Iraq.
'Support for terror'

On Wednesday, Bush said the United States is working with European allies to convince Iran to give up its alleged nuclear ambitions and "end its support for terror."

For months, Britain, France and Germany have been negotiating directly with Iran to freeze its suspected nuclear weapons program. Iran insists its nuclear facilities are for peaceful purposes only.

Recently, Iran agreed to temporarily suspend enrichment of uranium -- which can be used to develop to nuclear weapons -- while talks continue with Europe about possible trade deals.

The Europeans have tried to persuade the United States to take a more active role in the talks, convinced that a U.S. offer to lift sanctions on Iran would be key to a permanent deal.

Asefi accused the United States of attempting to force an Iranian "crisis" and to disable talks with the Europeans to "humiliate" them and send them a message "that they don't have the power to resolve matters," The Associated Press reported.

'No longer without attention'

In his speech, Bush said, "there are still regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction -- but no longer without attention and without consequence."

However, on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said an attack on Iran over its alleged nuclear program is "not on the agenda at this point."

"We have many diplomatic tools still at our disposal and we intend to pursue them fully," Rice said after a London meeting with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

Rice warned that Iran must not "use the cover" of civilian nuclear power development "to sustain a program that can lead to a nuclear weapon."

Asefi said, "such threats will not have much effect on the Islamic Republic and we will continue our path of sovereignty, independence and saying no to hegemony," Reuters reported.

Asefi said a new round of nuclear talks with the Europeans was set to begin Monday, AP reported, and Reuters quoted him as saying that negotiations were not deadlocked.

'America stands with you'

Also during Bush's address, the president spoke of expanding democracy in Iran. "As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you," Bush said.

During a tour of European and Middle East nations this weekend, Rice continued that theme saying: "The Iranian people should have a chance to determine their own future."

Asefi said the Bush administration's suggestion that the people of Iran do not enjoy human rights and don't support their government will be proven wrong this week when millions of Iranians will take to the streets in marches celebrating the anniversary of Iran's 1979 revolution that overthrew the ruling shah.

Asefi suggested the United States remains bitter about the revolution, which resulted in Iranian student militants taking 52 Americans hostage at Tehran's U.S. Embassy. Iran held the captives for 444 days, until they were released and returned to the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/06/iran.bush/index.html

QueEx · Feb 26, 2005

<center>Iran, Russia Postpone Nuclear Fuel Signing</center>

<tt>Feb 26, 6:15 AM (ET)
Associated Press
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI</tt>

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Last-minute disputes Saturday forced Iran and Russia to postpone the signing of an agreement to supply Iran with fuel for its first nuclear reactor, a deal strongly opposed by the United States.

The countries' top nuclear officials had been set to sign the agreement on Saturday morning, a day after a summit between the U.S. and Russian presidents.

But after hours of delay, Yacoub Jabbarian, an official at Iran's Atomic Energy Agency, told reporters that talks had been prolonged and it was not clear when the signing would take place. He did not give the reason for the delay.

An Iranian nuclear official speaking on condition of anonymity said "deep differences" had arisen, but would not elaborate.

The agreement would pave the way for Tehran to open its nuclear reactor at Bushehr, with Russia providing it fuel then taking back the spent uranium, a safeguard meant to banish fears Iran would use it to build nuclear weapons.

Still, Washington has pressed Moscow to call off the deal, saying the Iranians could use the Bushehr reactor as part of a nuclear weapons program. The U.S.-Russian summit in Bratislava, Slovakia, on Thursday touched on U.S. concerns. But Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he is sure Iran does not intend to build nuclear weapons and Russian cooperation with the country would go ahead.

The head of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency, Alexander Rumyantsev, arrived in Tehran Friday night ahead of the signing with Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's agency. Journalists were called in for a press conference scheduled to follow the signing Saturday - but Jabbarian announced that the conference was canceled.

The agreement has been repeatedly delayed by what Iranian and Russian officials called technical and financial details. But diplomats in Vienna - where the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is based - say U.S. pressure on Russia has also held up the deal.

Diplomats in Vienna said Friday that the two countries have announced in the past that a deal was imminent only to see it fall through.

The United States accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons - a claim denied by Tehran, which has agreed to IAEA monitoring at Bushehr and says its nuclear program aims only to produce electricity. The United States has long urged Moscow to conclude its assistance to Iran's nuclear development.

Russia helped build the $800 million reactor at Bushehr, in southern Iran, whose construction is now complete. It is a light water reactor capable of generating 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Experts say that spent fuel from the Bushehr reactor could be used to produce enough plutonium to make 30 rudimentary atomic bombs a year.

Russia could be delivering nuclear fuel to Iran within two months of the deal's signing, Rumyantsev spokesman Nikolai Shingarov told The Associated Press last week.

Russian officials insist that the deal to return the spent fuel would make it impossible for Iran to divert the fuel for a weapons program. After the agreement is signed, "there will be no grounds to state that Iran may use nuclear fuel for other than peaceful purposes," the Russian ambassador to Iran, Alexander Maryasov, was quoted as saying Friday by Russia's ITAR-Tass news agency.

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20050226/D88G5KJ00.html?PG=home&SEC=news

.

tehuti · Feb 27, 2005

Iran and Russia Sign Nuclear Fuel Deal

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

BUSHEHR, Iran - Russia and Iran (news - web sites) signed a deal Sunday that would deliver nuclear fuel to the Middle East country for the startup of its first reactor — a project the United States had for years pushed Moscow to drop, claiming Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb.

Iranian Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh and Russian Atomic Energy Agency chief Alexander Rumyantsev signed the agreement at the Bushehr nuclear power plant. The signing, which was delayed by a day, came after the two senior officials toured the $800 million complex.

"Today, a very important development occurred, and that was the protocol on returning nuclear fuel, which we signed together. In the next few weeks many Russian technicians will arrive in Bushehr" to finish the plant, Rumyantsev said after the signing.

Both officials refused to discuss the details of shipping the nuclear fuel to Iran and the spent fuel back to Russia, but insisted that the agreement conforms to international nuclear regulations.

"Iran observes all the regulations on the prohibition of the spread of nuclear weapons," Rumyantsev said.

Russia, which helped build the plant, has agreed to provide the fuel needed to run it — but only if Iran returns the spent fuel to prevent any possibility Tehran would extract plutonium from it to make atomic bombs. Tehran has agreed to return the spent fuel, but the sides disagreed on who should pay for its return.

Both officials said Sunday they had agreed on details of the shipment, but said the timing and the costs — including who would pay for what — were confidential.

The signing came a few days after a summit between President Bush (news - web sites) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) in Slovakia, which touched on American concerns over Russian support for Iran's nuclear program.

Washington accuses Tehran of covertly trying to build a nuclear bomb, which Iran denies. Putin has said he is sure Iran's intentions are merely to generate energy, not create weapons, and that Russian cooperation with Tehran would continue.

It wasn't immediately clear whether Thursday's Bush-Putin summit had delayed the signing, which had been expected Saturday, but Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said "the Bush-Putin talks did not have an effect on the agreement. Our talks (with the Russians) have been successful."

Just ahead of the signing, Aghazadeh showed Rumyantsev Bushehr's nuclear fuel storage house and the reactor core, expected to be operational by late 2005 or early 2006.

"What I saw was much better and more than I had expected. Assembling operations in the past three to four months have been expedited," Rumyantsev said. Referring to the process to complete the plant, he added: "I can't say the situation is excellent, but it's very good."

Aghazadeh said the fuel storage area was built to international standards. "This storage house is ready to receive nuclear fuel," he said.

Iranian efforts to produce its own fuel rather than importing it have been a bigger concern in the international community than the deal with Russia. That's because the enrichment process can be carried further to produce material for nuclear weapons.

France, Britain and Germany are trying to secure an Iranian commitment to scrap enrichment plans in exchange for economic aid, technical support and backing for Tehran's efforts to join mainstream international organizations. Iran has suspended enrichment-related activities during the talks with the Europeans, which both sides have said were difficult, but insists the freeze will be brief.

Bush has expressed support for the European efforts. But documents being circulated among International Atomic Energy Agency board members in Vienna ahead of a board meeting Monday, and seen by The Associated Press there, indicated Washington would try to increase pressure on Tehran by the next agency board meeting in June should the European talks fail.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050227/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

tehuti · Mar 2, 2005

Nuclear Agency Says Iran Has Blocked Investigation

By RICHARD BERNSTEIN

VIENNA, March 1 - The United Nations nuclear watchdog on Tuesday listed several instances where Iran had blocked investigation of its nuclear development program or failed to provide information sought by the agency.

In a statement to its 35-member board, the International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna, provided no new disclosures about Iran's nuclear program, but indicated that it had not been able to get information to help it resolve some long unanswered questions, specifically on the source of Iran's more advanced centrifuge equipment or the reasons for nuclear contamination discovered in earlier inspections.

In addition, the agency said, Iran has turned down requests for further visits to a military base that the United States has identified as a possible nuclear research site, and has flatly refused to provide information on so-called dual use technology that the I.A.E.A. has determined could be useful for uranium enrichment or conversion.

The dry, often technical statement draws no conclusions on whether Iran is in violation of its pledge to stop all enrichment activities, made during continuing negotiations with Britain, France and Germany aimed at persuading it to give up any nuclear weapons ambitions.

But the agency's report is virtually certain to be seized on by the United States as further evidence of what Washington characterizes as Iranian duplicity in concealing what the United States believes to be a nuclear weapons program. The American delegation is expected to speak to the agency's board on Wednesday.

"It's another failure to disclose activities, which fits a disturbing pattern," one Western diplomat said of the agency's statement, foreshadowing what the American delegation is likely to argue. "It's more evidence that the Iranians are unwilling to provide full disclosure."

But other officials interpreted the statement more cautiously, saying that while Iran had not answered all of the agency's questions, nothing had been discovered in two years of inspections to show that it was engaged in an active weapons program. "The facts don't support an innocent or guilty verdict at this point," an agency official said.

The statement read Tuesday was one in a continuing series of reports made to the agency since Iran agreed to allow inspections of its previously concealed nuclear program two years ago. Iran contends that its nuclear development program is aimed at electrical power generation and not nuclear weapons, and the main purpose of the agency's inspections is to determine whether that claim is true.

The credibility of Iran has been harmed by several instances, described in earlier I.A.E.A. reports and statements, where it has made important disclosures of nuclear related activity only after being confronted by the agency with strong evidence of such activities.

The statement on Tuesday summarized a disclosure reported in the American news media over the weekend that as long ago as 1987 the now disgraced Pakistan nuclear weapons chief, A. Q. Khan, had offered Iran what the agency called "drawings, specifications, and calculations for a 'complete plant,' and materials for 2,000 centrifuge machines." The I.A.E.A. said it was now asking that "all documentation relevant to the offer be made available for the agency's review."

The agency's statement was a follow-up to a full report issued by the agency's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, in November that included a long list of Iranian failures to report on activities whose disclosure is required by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed.

For example, the November report disclosed that Iran had obtained what are known as P-2 centrifuges, an advanced centrifuge for uranium enrichment that can be used in both civilian and military applications of nuclear power. In November, the agency said it was continuing to investigate "all of the information available to it concerning the P-2 centrifuge issue," but in its statement on Tuesday, referring to the P-2 centrifuges, the agency said it had obtained "no new information."

In another potentially important area, Iran has essentially closed the door to further cooperation on the efforts it has made at one site, known as Lavisan, to acquire dual use material and equipment that the I.A.E.A. has said could be used to produce weapons grade nuclear materials.

The agency said that in response to its requests for details on the dual use materials at the Lavisan site Iran had argued that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and additional agreements that it has signed did not obligate it to disclose further information, a position the agency clearly disputes.

In yet another area, Iran has also refused to allow the agency's inspectors to return to Parchin, a military base where the United States believes nuclear research may be taking place. The Iranians allowed a limited visit to Parchin by the agency in January, and inspectors took environmental samples that are still being analyzed, but the inspectors were limited to one of four areas that the agency had identified as of potential interest.

Officials said that Iran did not have any legal obligation to submit to inspections at Parchin, but that the agency, at American urging, pressed the Iranians to allow such visits as a confidence-building measure.

But in a note to the I.A.E.A. dated Feb. 27, the agency statement disclosed, Iran said, "The expectation of the Safeguards Department in visiting specified zones and points in Parchin Complex are fulfilled, and thus there is no justification for any additional visit."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/international/middleeast/02nuke.html

QueEx · Mar 6, 2005

<center>Iran warns Europe, US of oil crisis</center>

TEHRAN, March 5: Iran's top nuclear official on Saturday warned the United States and Europe of the danger of an oil crisis if Tehran is sent before the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme, but said that a deal with Europe could be near.

"The first to suffer will be Europe and the United States themselves, this would cause problems for the regional energy market, for the European economy and even more so for the United States," Hassan Rowhani, whose country is the second largest oil producer in OPEC, told reporters.

Mr Rowhani, who was speaking at a conference in Tehran on nuclear technology and sustainable development, however expressed optimism that an agreement would be reached with Europe over the development of Iran's nuclear programme.

EU members Britain, France and Germany are trying to convince Iran to dismantle nuclear fuel work - which the United States says is part of a covert atomic weapons development - in return for economic and political rewards.

"If US pressure doesn't prevent it, I think we will manage to reach an agreement with the Europeans because they don't want to deprive the Iranian people of their right and will try to act fairly," Mr Rowhani said.

Britain, France and Germany are seeking "objective guarantees" from Iran.

Rowhani warned the US that it could destabilize the region if it blocks an accord with Europe. If Washington brings the issue before the Security Council, "Iran will retract all the decisions it has made and the confidence-building measures it has taken."

He said Iran's leaders "could be called upon to make new decisions", but did not provide any details on what that would involve. "The stability in the region would become fragile and the United States would be the first to suffer," he said.

In return for a permanent halt to uranium enrichment, the EU is offering Iran a package of incentives covering trade, security and technology.

Mr Rowhani has however refused to put an end to uranium enrichment. "We cannot have and we will not have negotiations with the Europeans if what they want is an end" to uranium enrichment. "We will not continue the talks for one single minute, we have made it very clear to Paris and Berlin," he said.-AFP

http://www.dawn.com/2005/03/06/top12.htm
.

QueEx · May 12, 2005

<center>European Officials Warn Iran
Nuclear Activity Would Mean End Of Talks, Letter Says</center>

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 12, 2005; Page A01

European officials notified Iran for the first time yesterday that they will walk away from two years of talks and sign on to a Bush administration strategy for punitive measures against Tehran if it makes good on threats to resume nuclear work in coming days.

In a sharply worded letter to Hassan Rouhani, the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany warned that such work "would bring the negotiating process to an end." The letter added: "The consequences could only be negative for Iran."

he letter was an attempt to avert an escalation in the crisis over a program Iran says it developed in secret to produce nuclear energy, not atomic weapons. It appeared to have an immediate effect.

After weeks of threats, Iranian officials said they decided to hold off for now on a plan to notify the International Atomic Energy Agency today of their intent to restart a uranium-conversion facility in the town of Isfahan. Instead, an Iranian diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity said his government was exploring an offer contained in the letter for a four-way meeting sometime in the next two weeks to discuss the latest flare-up.

The willingness of the European trio to take Iran to task if it ends a suspension of its nuclear program after six months indicated that the Bush administration is having some success in persuading key allies to take a tougher approach with the Islamic republic.

The European shift was prompted in part by frustration with Iran but also by a change in tactics by the White House. After two years of refusing to back Europe's diplomatic track with Iran, the administration decided in March to support the process in exchange for written guarantees that if talks fell apart, Europe would agree to take the issue to the U.N. Security Council.

"This is the closest we've gotten to reporting Iran to the council since November 2003," said one U.S. official. If Iran informs the IAEA that it plans to resume work at any nuclear facility, "it will set off a series of outcomes and escalations towards the Security Council that will be hard to stop," said the official, who would discuss the sensitive discussions only on the condition of anonymity.

But neither European nor U.S. officials were confident yesterday of what a referral to the council would ultimately mean or how much support they could expect there. Unlike the IAEA board, the council has the international legal authority to impose economic sanctions or threaten Iran with force if its program is seen as a danger.

Both China and Russia have said they want the issue resolved within the IAEA, and Security Council members are leery of making any moves that could be perceived as hostile or that might be used to justify later military action against Iran.

Iran's program is within its rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows countries access to sensitive technology as long as it is used for peaceful purposes and not for weapons development.

Iran maintains that it is adhering to that arrangement. But the scale of its program, as well as the secrecy under which it was developed, has undermined its position and led the Bush administration to believe Iran intends to build nuclear bombs.

Iran's main nuclear site was exposed by a dissident group in 2002, setting off an investigation now in its third year. The U.N. inspectors have said they have no proof that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration has not accepted those findings.

Under pressure, Iran suspended its program in an agreement with France, Britain and Germany that was supposed to yield economic benefits in exchange. In their letter, a copy of which was made available to The Washington Post yesterday, the European countries emphasized that the prospect of lucrative trade deals is still on the table but that "this sort of progress will be jeopardized" if the suspension breaks and the talks fall apart.

Iranian officials, too, have expressed frustration. They had expected the negotiations to be brief but say they now find themselves deep in Iran's presidential election season with little to show after six months.

At a round of talks in London last month, Iran offered a four-phase plan that would allow it to resume operating much of its program, including 3,000 centrifuges, equipment used to enrich uranium. That kind of industrial-scale capability could allow Iran to produce enough bomb-grade uranium for a single nuclear device within a year.

Iran, which is considered by U.S. intelligence to be seven years away from a bomb, has promised not to enrich uranium to those levels and said the machines could operate under 24-hour surveillance by U.N. inspectors.

But that offer was rejected by European negotiators who believe the only guarantee is an end to enrichment. If the sides are not able to resolve the latest crisis, Iran could go ahead with work at Isfahan. That decision would trigger an emergency meeting of the IAEA board next Wednesday in Vienna, where U.S and European negotiators would issue an ultimatum to Iran to back down, officials said.

If Iran breaks IAEA seals on equipment in Isfahan, one European official said, "they will be referred to the U.N. Security Council" during the board's regularly scheduled meeting on June 13. IAEA inspectors arrived in Isfahan yesterday and are standing by in case the Iranians decide to restart the facility.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5051102121.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

Greed · May 21, 2005

Dissident cleric rails against Iran's system

Dissident cleric rails against Iran's system

By Paul Holmes and Barry Moody Fri May 20, 5:56 AM ET

QOM, Iran (Reuters) - Iran's Islamic system has been abused to deny the president real power, sapping public interest in next month's election, the country's top dissident cleric says.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, an architect of the Islamic revolution, told Reuters Iranians would not vote in large numbers on June 17 because real authority lay not with the president but with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"Some figures have power, while responsibilities have been given to the president," Montazeri, one of the authors of Iran's constitution, said on Thursday at his office in the holy city of Qom, a center of Shi'ite Muslim learning.

"That is why young Iranians do not want to cast their votes. That is why I have remained silent about this election," he said, adding that the constitution had been misused by people who wielded Islam "as a tool to put pressure on people."

Opinion polls have predicted a low turnout in the presidential election.

Montazeri, a frail but mentally sharp 83-year-old, called the seizure of American hostages at the U.S. embassy in 1979 a mistake and said Tehran should now resume ties with Washington.

He also said the United States had done well to topple Saddam Hussein, but should get out of Iraq for its own good.

"Some people criticize America, saying they invaded Iraq in search of an atomic bomb while there was no bomb.

"I say that Saddam himself was more dangerous than 1,000 atomic bombs. It was a great job, but they should let Iraqis enjoy their freedom," Montazeri said.

Asked whether Iraq's new Shi'ite-led government could quell a raging insurgency on its own, he said:

"The presence of Americans in Iraq causes the insurgency. If they leave, then this thing will be finished."

FALL FROM GRACE

Montazeri was hailed as "the fruit of my life" by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, spiritual father of the 1979 Islamic revolution, who designated him as his successor.

He fell from grace in 1988 after criticising Iran's rulers and was kept under house arrest in Qom from 1998 until 2003.

Montazeri helped develop the political system in Iran, which is based on a theory called the "rule of the jurisprudent" that says clerics should directly supervise political life.

He said the constitution he helped to write had not only been misused but also was flawed -- a mistake he put down to inexperience.

He said it should be changed to give the president control over state matters, including the military, the police and official media.

"There is a contradiction in our constitution. It gives a lot of responsibilities to the president without giving him enough authority," Montazeri said.

"Responsibility and authority should come together. You cannot give responsibility to someone (the president) without giving him authority."

He said Iran's Supreme Leader should limit his role to religious matters and to ensuring that laws conformed to Islam.

LEARNING FROM MISTAKES

Montazeri said he had an important message for the United States -- that it had lost popularity in the Middle East by seeking to impose democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"You cannot impose democracy on Islamic countries. You should help people to develop their country and decide their own fate," he said.

Montazeri was among leaders who endorsed the 444-day occupation of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, when radical Islamic students held 52 hostages. The event led Washington to break diplomatic ties, which Montazeri said should now be restored.

"What Americans are doing in the region is against their own interests. One of the mistakes was occupying Iraq. One of our mistakes was occupying the American embassy," he said.

"Our Prophet says all human beings make mistakes but the wise learn from their mistakes."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050520/ts_nm/iran2_montazeri_dc

Visualface · May 21, 2005

It's because they are scared. They knew there were no WMD in Iraq, so they had nothing to worry about. This country will never invade a country that can fight back. America is a big bully. If this was was about spreading democracy and freedom, then they might want to speak to china. But, that will never happen because they can't even pressure them to unpeg the Yuan.

Greed · May 23, 2005

Most Iran Reform Candidates Disqualified

Most Iran Reform Candidates Disqualified

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer Sun May 22, 7:49 PM ET

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line constitutional watchdog has rejected all reformists who registered to run in next month's presidential elections, approving only six out of the 1,010 hopefuls, state-run television reported Sunday.

The announcement prompted a crisis meeting by reformers, who immediately threatened to boycott the election.

"We are warning the Guardian Council that we will not participate in the election if it doesn't reverse its decision," Rajabali Mazrouei, a top member of the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front, told The Associated Press.

"Barring reform candidates means there will be no free or fair election," he said.

There was similar outrage last year when the Council — which supervises the elections — disqualified more than 2,000 reformists from legislative elections, leading to a low turnout. Reformists denounced that vote as a "historical fiasco."

The council's announcement, however, appeared to be the final decision and effectively leaves reformers seeking democratic changes within the ruling Islamic establishment without a candidate.

Ruling clerics are seeking to consolidate their power following the departure of President Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who is barred from seeking another term. Khatami came to power in a popular landslide in 1997, but hard-line clerics led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have succeeded in stifling his program for political and social reform.

The approved candidates for the June 17 presidential race included the powerful former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who moves frequently between the hard-line and more moderate camps and was seen as a front-runner.

Other approved candidates were former police chief Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf; former radio and television chief Ali Larijani; Tehran Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; former parliamentary speaker Mahdi Karroubi; and former head of the elite Revolutionary Guards Mohsen Rezaei.

Former Culture Minister Mostafa Moin, who was the sole candidate of Iran's largest reformist party, the Islamic Iran Participation Front, was among those disqualified. Another top reformist hopeful was Vice President Mohsen Mehralizadeh, who heads Iran's sports organization.

The Guardian Council said in a statement that its announcement did not mean the other registrants could not get other government posts.

The Council is controlled by hard-liners loyal to Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters. The council barred women from running for the office.

The presidential election comes as Iran is facing international pressure over its controversial nuclear program, trying to convince the United States and Europe that it is not seeking to develop weapons.

Moin was the only hopeful who supported continued suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities by Iran to avoid a nuclear crisis and reach a political compromise with the Europeans.

Iran has vowed to restart some uranium reprocessing activities soon, saying it will unilaterally resume such activities if last chance talks with Europeans fail later this week.

Rezaei, Larijani, Ahmadinejad and Qalibaf are widely seen as Khamenei candidates because of their strong loyalty to him. All of them are former military commanders. Karroubi is a hard-liner turned reformer who has shown increasing support of Khamenei and his hard-line policies.

With the reformist movement severely weakened, Rafsanjani is seen as the most credible force to stop hard-line allies of Iran's supreme leader from seizing the post of president — although the savvy politician has changed his stripes frequently in the past, sometimes backing the hard-liner camp, sometimes taking a more moderate line and seeking to build ties with the West.

Saeed Leylaz, a political analyst, suggested hard-liners were hoping to avoid a candidate, like Moin, who has the support of young people.

"For hard-liners, Khatami's victory was equal to allowing the predominantly young nation criticizing the ruling establishment. Allowing Moin to run may repeat that historical event. They don't to take such a risk again," he said.

Leylaz said the disqualification of reformers undermines the legitimacy of the elections.

"Apparently hard-liners prefer discrediting the country rather than giving up power despite unpopularity," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050522/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_elections

tehuti · May 27, 2005

Day After Nuclear Deal, Iran Is Cleared to Start W.T.O. Process

By ELAINE SCIOLINO

GENEVA, May 26 - The World Trade Organization announced today that it would start talks to admit Iran as a member, a reward for Tehran's agreement to continue to freeze its nuclear activities.

The decision came after the United States, in a small but important conciliatory gesture, dropped its longstanding opposition to Iranian membership in the organization that governs global trade.

"It is a long-overdue decision but it is a positive decision," Mohammad Reza Alborzi, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, said in a telephone interview. "We have a Persian proverb, 'A fish is always fresh, even if it is caught when you go fishing late in the day.' "

In Washington, a State Department spokesman, Richard A. Boucher, said the timing of the American decision on Iran's W.T.O. membership talks was "not totally coincidental." He said the talks between the Europeans and the Iranians on Wednesday demonstrate "that efforts to achieve a peaceful, diplomatic solution on the Iran nuclear issue do continue."

The United States, which accuses Iran of secretly developing nuclear weapons, has vetoed its efforts to join the W.T.O. since it first applied in 1996. Even though politics is not supposed to play a role in issues relating to W.T.O. membership, both the Clinton and Bush administrations used the W.T.O. veto as one of an array of American economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Because the Geneva-based W.T.O., which has 148 members, votes by consensus, the United States alone was able to block Iran more than 20 times over the years.

Last March, President Bush announced that he would reverse that policy and also agreed to consider sales of commercial aircraft parts after European leaders warned him that their nuclear negotiations with Iran would fail unless the United States joined Europe in a common bargaining position.

Iranian officials dismissed the American gestures as too small to be significant.

But the United States decided to make good on its pledge to the Europeans on W.T.O. membership talks only after the Europeans reported a successful outcome of their nuclear talks with the Iranians in Geneva on Wednesday, a senior State Department official said today.

Senior State Department officials are often under instructions to speak to reporters on the condition of anonymity when they are discussing the diplomatic process. There is no hard and fixed rule on when officials allow their names to be used.

Under a preliminary accord reached with Iran in Paris last November, France, Germany and Britain promised Iran economic, political and security benefits in exchange for Iran's "objective guarantees" that its nuclear program is totally peaceful.

In the economic sphere, the benefits included helping Iran gain membership in the W.T.O., the promotion of private investment and technical help or cooperation in automobiles, telecommunications, civil aviation, agriculture and other fields. Joining the W.T.O. offers access to a club of nations that are attempting under current negotiations to reduce tariffs on trade in goods and services. The W.T.O. also settles trade disputes among members, and offers technical assistance to developing nations.

In Geneva on Wednesday, the foreign ministers of the three countries persuaded Iran to continue its freeze on nuclear activities, averting a diplomatic crisis that could have led to punitive international measures against Iran.

In exchange, the Europeans offered to present Iran with detailed, step-by-step proposals by early August at the latest on how to move toward consensus on the shape of Iran's nuclear program.

The senior State Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that after the talks, the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, spoke by phone with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and said that progress had been made and that the European side wanted the United States to carry through with its pledge on the W.T.O. as a confidence-building measure with the Iranians.

Before the meeting on Wednesday, Iran had threatened to restart uranium conversion activities at its vast Isfahan site, citing its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and complaining about lack of progress in the talks.

The Europeans responded to that threat with a letter signed by the foreign ministers of three countries and Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, warning Iran that restarting work would violate the Paris agreement and force them to recommend Iran for censure.

The letter specifically mentioned Europe's support for moving forward with Iranian membership of the W.T.O., saying, "This sort of progress will be jeopardized if Iran now moves away from the Paris agreement."

The decision made today to start W.T.O. talks does not mean that Iran will easily gain entry into the W.T.O. Membership takes years and requires a broad range of economic and political reforms; it took China more than 15 years of negotiations for it to become a member in 2001.

But the move may make it easier for Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rowhani, to persuade Iran's leaders to wait for the Europeans' proposals on implementing the Paris nuclear accord before deciding whether to restart its nuclear activities.

It also means Iran has observer status and can sit in on all meetings of the W.T.O. Iran has been eager to gain access to advanced Western technology, including nuclear reactors, promote international trade and investment and shun its reputation as an unreliable partner that, according to the United States, is the world's foremost supporter of terrorism.

The Bush administration has made clear that it has no intention of offering Iran any more incentives at the present time. In testimony before Congress last week, R. Nicholas Burns, the new under secretary of state for political affairs, said, "There is no reason to believe that extra incentives offered by the United States at this point would make a difference." He added, "We don't have any reason to think that if the U.S. were at the table, the Iranians would be any more open."

The Iranian side sees it very differently. One of the items highest on their shopping list with the Europeans is access to advanced nuclear reactors.

But Europe cannot sell Iran nuclear reactors without American approval, because they contain American technology that is banned under American sanctions against Iran.

At one point at a working-level meeting in Brussels on Tuesday between Iranian and European negotiators, Hossein Mousavian, one of the Iranian negotiators, asked the Europeans why they did not just ask "their big boss," the United States, to directly supply Iran with 10 nuclear reactors, two participants in the meeting said.

"The United States," said one European participant at the talks, "has always been the ghost at the table."

Tom Wright of The International Herald Tribune contributed reporting for this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/i...&en=1aefdeae22085f84&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Greed · Jun 10, 2005

Iran's hardline cleric urges high turnout

Iran's hardline cleric urges high turnout
By Parisa Hafezi
Fri Jun 10, 7:12 AM ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) - A leading hardline cleric urged Iranians on Friday to turn out in force for presidential elections next week, warning that a low turnout would be a defeat for the Islamic republic.

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati refrained from endorsing any of the eight men vying for the job in June 17 polls, but called on people to defy Iran's "enemies" by ensuring a high turnout.

"The prestige of the Islamic republic depends on your votes. It is our religious and political duty to vote," Jannati told worshippers at Friday prayers at Tehran University. "Your votes will make the country stronger."

The clerical establishment has been trying to overcome apathy and disillusionment among voters, particularly young Iranians, over the slow pace of President Mohammad Khatami's reforms since his landslide election wins in 1997 and 2001.

Khatami is barred from standing for a third consecutive term.

Half the country's 67 million people are under 25 and the minimum voting age is 15. But many have indicated they will not vote.

Jannati said the country's enemies, a reference to the United States, had been trying to discourage Iranian voters through the "bombardment of hostile propaganda," aimed at questioning the Islamic states' legitimacy.

"If you want to make America angry, make queues at voting booths," Jannati said.

Washington accuses Iran of sponsoring "terrorism" and trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charges.

"Cast your vote as each vote means Death to America," Jannati said in a speech broadcast live by state media.

The crowd of worshippers broke into repeated chants of "Death to America," denouncing the Islamic republic's arch-foe.

MOUNTED CAMPAIGN

As the elections draw near, the Islamic state has mounted a media campaign to urge a big turnout, which officials say would show the popularity and legitimacy of the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, bidding to regain the post he held from 1989 to 1997, is considered the most moderate of the five conservative candidates vying to replace Khatami. Three reformists are also standing.

Rafsanjani holds a commanding lead in opinion polls but is still well short of the 50 percent support he needs to avoid a run-off vote. Former police chief, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, is second in the polls.

Prominent among the large banners at the prayer meeting was one that declared "Iranians, despite the conspiracies of America, will go to the polls."

All eight presidential rivals, aware of the importance of appealing to young voters, have been promising in their campaign messages to create more jobs and ease social restrictions.

But some people remain unconvinced.

"Why should I vote when each vote means a vote for the clerical rule?" said Mahin, 25, one of many young people who seem set to challenge the Islamic state by boycotting the vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050610...OdZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

QueEx · Jun 16, 2005

Re: Iran's hardline cleric urges high turnout

<center>Iran 'misled UN on nuclear work' </center>

June 15, 2005

United Nations nuclear monitors say Iran has admitted to misleading them over its experiments with plutonium.
The UN's nuclear watchdog is expected to confirm later that Iran continued experimenting with plutonium - a key component of atomic bombs - until 1998.

Iran had previously told the body it had ended its experiments in 1993.

Correspondents say these latest inconsistencies in Iran's account will fuel suspicions about the real aims of its nuclear programme.

Iranian presidential favourite Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has told the BBC that Iran did not report all nuclear work.

"It's possible that at times, Iran has not reported its activities," Mr Rafsanjani told the BBC's Newsnight television programme.

And he accused the UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), of neglecting its duty to help Iran make peaceful use of nuclear technology.

Mr Rafsanjani, a former Iranian president seen as a frontrunner in Friday's presidential election, insisted his country would not abandon its nuclear programme.

But, he said, there was no risk of war with the US because Iran was not pursuing a nuclear bomb.

'Changing story'

According to a draft speech to be delivered on Thursday to the IAEA's board of governors, the agency's deputy director Pierre Goldschmidt will confirm that Tehran has changed its version of events.

Tehran has now admitted that experiments took place in 1995 and 1998 after the IAEA confronted it with its analysis of its plutonium samples, according to the draft speech obtained by Reuters news agency.

"In a letter dated 26 May, 2005, Iran confirmed the agency's understanding with regard to that chronology," the draft speech says.

It also says Iran had acquired sensitive technology that could be used to make nuclear weapons earlier than it originally stated.

"This is nuclear material and, yet again, when Iran's backed into a corner the story changes," a Western diplomat on the IAEA board of governors told Reuters.

Iran is seeking the closure of a two-year UN investigation into its nuclear programme, which it says is solely for peaceful civilian purposes.

The US has threatened to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for sanctions over what Washington says are plans to build a nuclear bomb.

Iraq 'progress'

In his interview with the BBC, Mr Rafsanjani said the US had recently indicated it was willing to work with Iran.

He said the US had lifted obstacles to Tehran's entry into the World Trade Organization, had given consent to carry out limited enrichment of uranium and had agreed to sell it plane parts.

Mr Rafsanjani also urged the US to "leave Iraq as soon as possible" and hand over the running of the country to Iraqis.

Iran was pleased with recent political developments in Iraq, he said, pointing to the formation of new government in Baghdad.

"We hope the situation continues to progress like this," he said. "If it does... it will be easier for the Americans to leave Iraq."

Mr Rafsanjani said Iranians who were dissatisfied with the political process in the country should be free to speak their minds.

"If they have reasonable points, we should accept them," he told the BBC. "If not, we should persuade them of our case."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4097288.stm

Greed · Jun 20, 2005

Bush Remarks May Have Spurred Iran Voters

Bush Remarks May Have Spurred Iran Voters
By BRIAN MURPHY, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jun 19, 7:04 PM ET

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's spy chief used just two words to respond to White House ridicule of last week's presidential election: "Thank you." His sarcasm was barely hidden. The backfire on Washington was more evident.

The sharp barbs from President Bush were widely seen in Iran as damaging to pro-reform groups because the comments appeared to have boosted turnout among hard-liners in Friday's election — with the result being that an ultraconservative now is in a two-way showdown for the presidency.

"I say to Bush: `Thank you,'" quipped Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi. "He motivated people to vote in retaliation."

Bush's comments — blasting the ruling clerics for blocking "basic requirements of democracy" — became a lively sideshow in Iran's closest election since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. And they highlighted again the United States' often crossed-wire efforts to isolate Iran.

Bush described the election as an exercise in futility because Iran's real power rests with the non-elected Islamic clerics, who can override the president and parliament. Many agree with that description of a regime that allowed just eight presidential candidates from more than 1,000 hopefuls.

On Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the election shows that the country is out of step with democratic reforms in the Middle East.

"I just don't see the Iranian elections as being a serious attempt to move Iran closer to a democratic future," she said in an interview on ABC's "This Week."

But the harder the United States pushes, even with the best of intentions, the more ground it has seems to lose among mainstream Iranians, who represent possible key allies against the Islamic establishment, say some analysts of Iranian politics.

"Unknowingly, (Bush) pushed Iranians to vote so that they can prove their loyalty to the regime — even if they are in disagreement with it," said Hamed al-Abdullah, a political science professor at Kuwait University.

In 2002, most Iranians were indignant when Bush placed their nation in an "axis of evil" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Since then, U.S.-led pressure over Iran's nuclear program has put even liberal Iranians on the defensive.

Bush's pre-election denunciations seemed to do the same. Iranian authorities claim Bush energized undecided voters to go to the polls and undercut a boycott drive led by liberal dissidents opposed to the Islamic system.

The unexpectedly strong turnout — nearly 63 percent — produced a true surprise in the No. 2 finish of hard-line Tehran Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, He will face the top finisher, moderate statesman Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, in a Friday runoff.

Rafsanjani, Iran's president in 1989-1997, has said he is open to greater dialogue with the United States.

But Ahmadinejad offered no such opening after the vote was tallied Saturday, and he could take a harsher stance toward the United States and its concerns — especially accusations that Iran is secretly seeking nuclear arms. Iran denies the charges and puts them down to U.S. anger with the clerical regime.

"You only have to look at the comments" by Bush to understand that he "seeks hostility" against Iran, Ahmadinejad said.

The conservative hard-line Iranian newspaper Kayhan wrote: "People crushed the U.S. comments and wishes under their feet."

But even many opponents of the Islamic establishment objected to Bush's tone and timing.

The president's words sounded too much like the pre-war rhetoric against Saddam, and many on-the-fence voters were shocked into action, said Abdollah Momeni, a political affairs expert at Tehran University.

"People faced a dilemma," Momeni said. "In people's minds it became a choice between voting or giving Bush an excuse to attack."

Another political commentator, Davoud Hermidas Bavand, believed the fallout from Bush's statements went beyond the election by destroying lingering hopes that Washington policy-makers finally would accept Iran's regime.

The United States broke ties with Iran after the revolution when militants seized the U.S. Embassy and held 52 hostages for 444 days.

At a news conference Sunday, Iran's foreign minister, Kamel Kharrazi, said Bush "should apologize to the people of Iran for his comments." He also extended another wry "thank you."

"Bush's statements brought out voters who didn't want to participate in the elections," Kharrazi said. "We have to thank him for this."

Across the Middle East, Bush's blast hit a fault line.

The president is trying to firm up the United States' pro-democracy credentials by encouraging gradual reforms in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.

But at the same time, the White House often is seen as having double standards with the occupation of Iraq and alleged abuses of Muslim detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

The Bush comments are an example of "the kind of American intervention" that often boomerangs in the region, said Egyptian political analyst Salama Ahmed Salama.

"Bush meant to discourage the hard-liners," he said, "but instead he mobilized their supporters."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050619...8FI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

CAPTAIN · Jun 21, 2005

Re: Bush Remarks May Have Spurred Iran Voters

Greed said:
Bush Remarks May Have Spurred Iran Voters
By BRIAN MURPHY, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jun 19, 7:04 PM ET

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's spy chief used just two words to respond to White House ridicule of last week's presidential election: "Thank you." His sarcasm was barely hidden. The backfire on Washington was more evident.

The sharp barbs from President Bush were widely seen in Iran as damaging to pro-reform groups because the comments appeared to have boosted turnout among hard-liners in Friday's election — with the result being that an ultraconservative now is in a two-way showdown for the presidency.

"I say to Bush: `Thank you,'" quipped Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi. "He motivated people to vote in retaliation."

Bush's comments — blasting the ruling clerics for blocking "basic requirements of democracy" — became a lively sideshow in Iran's closest election since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. And they highlighted again the United States' often crossed-wire efforts to isolate Iran.

Bush described the election as an exercise in futility because Iran's real power rests with the non-elected Islamic clerics, who can override the president and parliament. Many agree with that description of a regime that allowed just eight presidential candidates from more than 1,000 hopefuls.

On Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the election shows that the country is out of step with democratic reforms in the Middle East.

"I just don't see the Iranian elections as being a serious attempt to move Iran closer to a democratic future," she said in an interview on ABC's "This Week."

But the harder the United States pushes, even with the best of intentions, the more ground it has seems to lose among mainstream Iranians, who represent possible key allies against the Islamic establishment, say some analysts of Iranian politics.

"Unknowingly, (Bush) pushed Iranians to vote so that they can prove their loyalty to the regime — even if they are in disagreement with it," said Hamed al-Abdullah, a political science professor at Kuwait University.

In 2002, most Iranians were indignant when Bush placed their nation in an "axis of evil" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Since then, U.S.-led pressure over Iran's nuclear program has put even liberal Iranians on the defensive.

Bush's pre-election denunciations seemed to do the same. Iranian authorities claim Bush energized undecided voters to go to the polls and undercut a boycott drive led by liberal dissidents opposed to the Islamic system.

The unexpectedly strong turnout — nearly 63 percent — produced a true surprise in the No. 2 finish of hard-line Tehran Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, He will face the top finisher, moderate statesman Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, in a Friday runoff.

Rafsanjani, Iran's president in 1989-1997, has said he is open to greater dialogue with the United States.

But Ahmadinejad offered no such opening after the vote was tallied Saturday, and he could take a harsher stance toward the United States and its concerns — especially accusations that Iran is secretly seeking nuclear arms. Iran denies the charges and puts them down to U.S. anger with the clerical regime.

"You only have to look at the comments" by Bush to understand that he "seeks hostility" against Iran, Ahmadinejad said.

The conservative hard-line Iranian newspaper Kayhan wrote: "People crushed the U.S. comments and wishes under their feet."

But even many opponents of the Islamic establishment objected to Bush's tone and timing.

The president's words sounded too much like the pre-war rhetoric against Saddam, and many on-the-fence voters were shocked into action, said Abdollah Momeni, a political affairs expert at Tehran University.

"People faced a dilemma," Momeni said. "In people's minds it became a choice between voting or giving Bush an excuse to attack."

Another political commentator, Davoud Hermidas Bavand, believed the fallout from Bush's statements went beyond the election by destroying lingering hopes that Washington policy-makers finally would accept Iran's regime.

The United States broke ties with Iran after the revolution when militants seized the U.S. Embassy and held 52 hostages for 444 days.

At a news conference Sunday, Iran's foreign minister, Kamel Kharrazi, said Bush "should apologize to the people of Iran for his comments." He also extended another wry "thank you."

"Bush's statements brought out voters who didn't want to participate in the elections," Kharrazi said. "We have to thank him for this."

Across the Middle East, Bush's blast hit a fault line.

The president is trying to firm up the United States' pro-democracy credentials by encouraging gradual reforms in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.

But at the same time, the White House often is seen as having double standards with the occupation of Iraq and alleged abuses of Muslim detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

The Bush comments are an example of "the kind of American intervention" that often boomerangs in the region, said Egyptian political analyst Salama Ahmed Salama.

"Bush meant to discourage the hard-liners," he said, "but instead he mobilized their supporters."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050619...8FI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

JA-JA Bush does it again! Would someone tell him to shut the f*ck up? A cowboy is one thing, but a dumb loud mouth idiot of a cowboy is a dangerous thing.

Greed · Jun 21, 2005

Re: Bush Remarks May Have Spurred Iran Voters

how simplistic. maybe just maybe america the institution wants iran to elect a hardliner so relations will never be normalized, and america will keep its favorite enemy an enemy.

i would rather believe thats the plan from the military establishment before i beleive bush said something like this without permission from his handlers. american politicians know more about elections than what to do after they win the damn thing. i would sooner believe they wanted this result and made it happen.

but you go ahead and keep underestimating your enemies as dumb...bush43 may be dumb but the powers than be arent.

QueEx · Jun 23, 2005

Re: Bush Remarks May Have Spurred Iran Voters

<center>Rafsanjani Mulls Quitting
Presidential Race</center>

DEBKAfile’s Exclusive Report from Tehran
June 21, 2005, 1:22 PM (GMT+02:00)

By Monday night, June 20, rumors were swirling around Tehran that Iran’s non-elected strongman, Ayatollah Ali Khameni had found a way of rigging the presidential election. Round one took place last Friday, June 17, and the run-off is scheduled for Friday, June 24. The favorite, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, barely pulled ahead of a contestant who popped up out of the blue, the extremist Tehran mayor Mahmud Ahmadinez. He faces him again on Friday.

Rafsanjani, speaking of a “tarnished” election, was not alone. The Guardian Council was forced by more such accusations to allow a recount of 100 randomly selected vote boxes in between rounds.

DEBKAfile’s Iranian experts maintain that “spiritual ruler” Khameini would never have left the presidential election to chance. A special brew must have been cooked up in his bureau for a near nonentity like Ahmadinez to pick up 5.7 million votes compared with the charismatic former president Rafsanjani’s 6.1 million ballots.

Reformist candidate Dr. Mostafa Mo-In, who came in fifth, accused the all-powerful body of spending millions to mobilize hundreds of thousands of Islamic militiamen to get a hardliner president voted in. By any true standards, Mo-In should have done much better in a country where half the electorate is under 30 and pining for a better life and democratic liberties.

Another complainer was former majlis speaker Hojjat-ol Eslam Mahdi Karrubi, a reformist candidate widely expected to place second. He was blunter than Mo-In, charging a general call-up had been arranged on voting day for Revolutionary Guards officers, men and reservists who were sent to cast their ballots for the Tehran mayor. Another failed candidate, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, a former commander of Iran’s internal security forces, leveled a similar charge.

But none of the candidates were let into a critical secret, revealed here by DEBKAfile’s sources: Khamenei surreptitiously instructed all the religious leaders, heads of medressas, seminaries and Islamic revolutionary bodies to throw their combined weight behind Ahmadinez and not spread their votes among the other six candidates.

The message was carried by the extremist senior cleric Ayatollah Mohammaed Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, the religious authority behind the Iranian fatwa that automatically sentences political opponents of the Islamic regime to death.

The enigma remains of why the spiritual ruler picked the colorless Tehran mayor over the other conservative candidates as his favorite, when none of the field was exactly left-wing liberals? Why humiliate his longtime close friend, ally and adviser Rafsanjani?

The answer may be found in Ahmadinez’s campaign speeches. He constantly harped on such phrases as: we did not fight a revolution for the sake of democracy. We must stifle at birth every voice challenging the revolution. We must mobilize as one man to support the spiritual ruler and obey him. To those who would offer Iran to America on a silver tray, we say: We will never let this happen!

These sentiments chime closely with the advice Khamenei has been receiving from his close advisers. They have been telling him he must intensify the crackdown against internal dissenters straight after the elections. They warn that the laxness and liberal ways practiced by the outgoing president Mohammed Khatami in his eight years in office have brought the country to the verge of civil rebellion. This must be stifled before it gets out of hand.

This same inner circle - radical clerics and ambitious Revolutionary Guards commanders - is pressing for a greater share in government and important state decisions, so as to sustain the country’s advances on the development of nuclear arms and long-range missiles. Khamenei’s power as unelected spiritual ruler depends heavily on the support of these two groups.

The man they want in the presidency is the tough-minded, stern Ahmadinez. They believe they can count on him to further harden the Islamic republic’s posture on nuclear weapons and intensify its sponsorship of Islamic terrorism worldwide.

While aware that Rafsanjani also advocates an Iranian nuclear bomb and favors support for terrorist organizations, Western governments believe he is pragmatic and flexible enough to appreciate that the Islamic regime requires a sensible balance of its interests. They hope therefore that, out of a stable of conservatives, he will be elected president. With him they can do business on both issues in return for generous economic incentives. Domestically too, he is expected to preserve the limited civil liberties granted by Khatami.

DEBKAfile’s Iranian experts postulate two alternative motives for Khamenei’s abrupt desertion of his ally Rafsanjani:

Either Khamenei engineered a stunning victory his old friend Rafsanjani in the second round and therefore chose a colorless contestant to run against him.

Or, Khamenei never trusted his close ally Rafsanjani’s ambitions and found a way to bring him low once and for all by encouraging him to run as favorite candidate. Above all, he fears Rafsanjani may decide to amend the Islamic constitution to limit the spiritual ruler’s authority and powers. The candidate recently remarked he was willing to let the constitution be amended to meet opposition demands.

The outcome of the run-off next Friday will indicate which of the two theories fits the facts, as well as pointing to the path the Islamic republic has chosen to follow in the next stage of its history. But if Rafsanjani decides to back down and quit the race at the last ditch, that too will betray his conviction that the spiritual ruler has stacked the chips against him and he has chosen to avoid a second humiliation.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1043

QueEx · Jun 25, 2005

Re: Bush Remarks May Have Spurred Iran Voters

[frame]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4621249.stm[/frame]

QueEx · Jun 27, 2005

Re: Bush Remarks May Have Spurred Iran Voters

[frame]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4624193.stm[/frame]

Is Iran Right?

tehuti

Guest

The Quizatz Haderach

Rising Star

tehuti

Guest

tehuti

Guest

Star

Star

Star

The Quizatz Haderach

Rising Star

tehuti

Guest

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

tehuti

Guest

Rising Star

tehuti

Guest

Rising Star

tehuti

Guest

tehuti

Guest

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Potential Star

Star

tehuti

Guest

Star

Rising Star

Star

Support BGOL

Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star