Is Iran Right?

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Government in secret talks
about strike against Iran</font size></center>


London Sunday Telegraph
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 02/04/2006)

The Government is to hold secret talks with defence chiefs tomorrow to discuss possible military strikes against Iran.

A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence at which senior defence chiefs and government officials will consider the consequences of an attack on Iran.

It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is "inevitable" if Teheran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme.

Tomorrow's meeting will be attended by Gen Sir Michael Walker, the chief of the defence staff, Lt Gen Andrew Ridgway, the chief of defence intelligence and Maj Gen Bill Rollo, the assistant chief of the general staff, together with officials from the Foreign Office and Downing Street.

The International Atomic Energy Authority, the nuclear watchdog, believes that much of Iran's programme is now devoted to uranium enrichment and plutonium separation, technologies that could provide material for nuclear bombs to be developed in the next three years.

The United States government is hopeful that the military operation will be a multinational mission, but defence chiefs believe that the Bush administration is prepared to launch the attack on its own or with the assistance of Israel, if there is little international support. British military chiefs believe an attack would be limited to a series of air strikes against nuclear plants - a land assault is not being considered at the moment.

But confirmation that Britain has started contingency planning will undermine the claim last month by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that a military attack against Iran was "inconceivable".

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, insisted, during a visit to Blackburn yesterday, that all negotiating options - including the use of force - remained open in an attempt to resolve the crisis.

Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from US navy ships and submarines in the Gulf would, it is believed, target Iran's air defence systems at the nuclear installations.

That would enable attacks by B2 stealth bombers equipped with eight 4,500lb enhanced BLU-28 satellite-guided bunker-busting bombs, flying from Diego Garcia, the isolated US Navy base in the Indian Ocean, RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Whiteman USAF base in Missouri.

It is understood that any direct British involvement in an attack would be limited but may extend to the use of the RAF's highly secret airborne early warning aircraft.

At the centre of the crisis is Washington's fear that an Iranian nuclear weapon could be used against Israel or US forces in the region, such as the American air base at Incirlik in Turkey.

The UN also believes that the production of a bomb could also lead to further destabilisation in the Middle East, which would result in Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia all developing nuclear weapons programmes.

A senior Foreign Office source said: "Monday's meeting will set out to address the consequences for Britain in the event of an attack against Iran. The CDS [chiefs of defence staff] will want to know what the impact will be on British interests in Iraq and Afghanistan which both border Iran. The CDS will then brief the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on their conclusions in the next few days.

"If Iran makes another strategic mistake, such as ignoring demands by the UN or future resolutions, then the thinking among the chiefs is that military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis. The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable.

There will be no invasion of Iran but the nuclear sites will be destroyed. This is not something that will happen imminently, maybe this year, maybe next year. Jack Straw is making exactly the same noises that the Government did in March 2003 when it spoke about the likelihood of a war in Iraq.

"Then the Government said the war was neither inevitable or imminent and then attacked."

The source said that the Israeli attack against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 proved that a limited operation was the best military option.

The Israeli air force launched raids against the plant, which intelligence suggested was being used to develop a nuclear bomb for use against Israel.

Military chiefs also plan tomorrow to discuss fears that an attack within Iran will "unhinge" southern Iraq - where British troops are based - an area mainly populated by Shia Muslims who have strong political and religious links to Iran.

They are concerned that this could delay any withdrawal of troops this year or next. There could also be consequences for British and US troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran.

The MoD meeting will address the economic issues that could arise if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president - who became the subject of international condemnation last year when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" - cuts off oil supplies to the West in reprisal.

There are thought to be at least eight known sites within Iran involved in the production of nuclear materials, although it is generally accepted that there are many more secret installations.

Iran has successfully tested a Fajr-3 missile that can reach Israel, avoiding radar and hitting several targets using multiple warheads, its military has confirmed.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/02/ixportaltop.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Government in secret talks about strike against Iran</font size></center>

wiran02cbig.jpg
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes
on Iran's secret sites'</font size></center>


The Telegraph
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.

President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

Some US military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine. The conviction that Mr Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or US forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Teheran's nuclear programme.

Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran.

Although Iran claims that its nuclear programme is peaceful, US and European intelligence agencies are certain that Teheran is trying to develop atomic weapons. In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within Western intelligence about Iran's plans.

This newspaper disclosed recently that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites with long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles. And last week, the Sunday Telegraph reported a secret meeting at the Ministry of Defence where military chiefs and officials from Downing Street and the Foreign Office discussed the consequences of an American-led attack on Iran, and Britain's role in any such action.

The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals. But there are growing fears in No 10 and the Foreign Office that the British-led push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear stand-off, will be swept aside by hawks in Washington. Hersh says that within the Bush administration, there are concerns that even a pummelling by conventional strikes, may not sufficiently damage Iran's buried nuclear plants.

Iran has been developing a series of bunkers and facilities to provide hidden command centres for its leaders and to protect its nuclear infrastructure. The lack of reliable intelligence about these subterranean facilities, is fuelling pressure for tactical nuclear weapons to be included in the strike plans as the only guaranteed means to destroy all the sites simultaneously.

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the joint chiefs of staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said.

The Pentagon consultant on the war on terror confirmed that some in the administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among defence department political appointees.

The election of Mr Ahmedinejad last year, has hardened attitudes within the Bush Administration. The Iranian president has said that Israel should be "wiped off the map". He has drafted in former fellow Revolutionary Guards commanders to run the nuclear programme, in further signs that he is preparing to back his threats with action.

Mr Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?' "

Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".

Publicly, the US insists it remains committed to diplomacy to solve the crisis. But with Russia apparently intent on vetoing any threat of punitive action at the UN, the Bush administration is also planning for unilateral military action. Hersh repeated his claims that the US has intensified clandestine activities inside Iran, using special forces to identify targets and establish contact with anti-Teheran ethnic-minority groups.

The senior defence officials said that Mr Bush is "determined to deny Iran the opportunity to begin a pilot programme, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...09.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixnewstop.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
[frame]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/04/09/wbush09abig.jpg[/frame]
 

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
This is all speculation of course, but as the saying goes...consider the source.

THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2006-04-17
Posted 2006-04-08


The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

SOURCE:http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

What i know is that this article is what prompted Bush to announce the planned strike on Iran is "wild speculation".
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Iran to Let Women Go to Soccer Games

Iran to Let Women Go to Soccer Games
1 hour, 54 minutes ago

Iranian women will be allowed to attend soccer matches for first time since the country's 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran's president said in a decree posted on his Web site Monday.

Women would sit in separate section of the stands, away from the usually raucous male fans.

"The presence of families and women will improve soccer-watching manners, and promote a healthy atmosphere," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. "They will be allocated some of the best stands in stadiums," he added.

Iran's Islamic law imposes tight restrictions on women. They need a male guardian's permission to work or travel, and have rarely been allowed to attend public sporting events. In 2001, a group of Irish women was permitted to attend a World Cup qualifier match between Iran and Ireland that was held in Tehran.

On Sunday, Ahmadinejad criticized those who linked social corruption to the presence of women in public.

"Some consider women as the source of corruption and this is a very wrong attitude," he said. However, he added women sometimes expressed objectionable views, or what he called "ideas that are not related to Islam."

Women in Iran are not allowed to become judges, and a man's court testimony is considered twice as important as a woman's. Iranian men can divorce almost at will, while women must go through a long legal battle and often relinquish rights in return for divorce.

Despite such restrictions, Iranian women have more rights than their counterparts in Saudi Arabia and other conservative Muslim countries. They can drive, vote and run for office.

In March, police charged a peaceful women's rights protest in Tehran, beating women and men and provoking condemnation from international rights groups.

Last week, some 500 conservative activists demonstrated outside the Majlis, or parliament, demanding full implementation of Islamic law, which bans women from wearing short coats and skirts in public as well as premarital relationships. They blamed police negligence for an increase in violations of strict Islamic law.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424...ldI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Iran to Let Women Go to Soccer Games

<font size="5"><center>'Iran will face music' says Powell</font size></center>

ITV News
8.02AM, Sun Apr 30 2006

Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell believes Iran is braced to deal with any sanctions the United Nations might impose on it for failing to stop its nuclear programme.

He said the Security Council was only likely to be able to agree on a "quite limited" range of such measures against the regime.

His comments, on ITV's Jonathan Dimbleby programme, came after Iran was found to have failed fully to co-operate with the UN and its nuclear watchdog.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, published a report on Friday which also said Iran continued to rebuff efforts to get answers to questions linked to suspicions that Iran was attempting to make nuclear arms.

Britain is pledged to discuss "further diplomatic measures" against Iran with its international partners, after the IAEA report confirmed the country had enriched uranium - though only to fuel rather than weapons grade - and possibly used undeclared sources of plutonium.

Asked about the possibility of sanctions, General Powell said: "I don't know that there is a very robust plan, or menu of sanctions. I think that the menu of sanctions would be quite limited ... mean those that could actually get through the Security Council."

He added: "(The Iranians) have decided to go forward even in the face of potential sanctions which suggests to me that they have pretty much decided that they can accept whatever sanctions are coming their way".

Asked if there could be any substance to suggestions that the US would consider a nuclear strike, he said: "No, nuclear weapons have not been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"I think it most unlikely that anybody would seriously contemplate use of a nuclear weapon in the 21st century and especially for such a purpose".

http://www.itv.com/news/index_1167108.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Iran to Let Women Go to Soccer Games

<font size="5"><center>Iran Urges U.N. Action Against U.S.</font size>
<font size="4">President Bush's refusal to rule out a U.S. nuclear strike
on Iran and a similar follow-up statement by Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice are `illegal and insolent threats.'' </font size></center>

The Guardian
Tuesday May 2, 2006 3:46 AM
By EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Iran denounced the United States on Monday for contemplating possible nuclear strikes against Iranian targets and urged the United Nations to take urgent action against what it called a dangerous violation of international law.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan obtained by The Associated Press, Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif called President Bush's refusal to rule out a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran and a similar follow-up statement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ``illegal and insolent threats.''

Bush was asked on April 18 whether U.S. options regarding Iran ``include the possibility of a nuclear strike'' if Tehran refuses to halt uranium enrichment. ``All options are on the table,'' the president replied, but he stressed that the United States will continue to focus on diplomacy.

Iran insists it is legally entitled under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium to provide fuel for civilian power plants but the United States suspects its real aim is to produce nuclear weapons, a view backed by Britain and France.

Zarif said the use of ``false pretexts'' by senior U.S. officials ``to make public and illegal threats of resort to force against the Islamic Republic of Iran is continuing unabated in total contempt of international law and fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter.''

The ``U.S. aggressive policy'' of contemplating the possible use of nuclear weapons also violates the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other U.S. multilateral agreements, he said.

Zarif's letter made no mention of recent threats by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel ``off the map.''

Instead, the Iranian ambassador honed in on statements from U.S. officials, especially from Bush, which he said ``defiantly articulate the United States policies and intentions on the resort to nuclear weapons.''

Zarif said past U.N. failures to respond ``to these illegal and inexcusable threats have emboldened senior United States officials to go further and even consider the use of nuclear weapons as an `option on the table.'''

In a brief statement responding to the letter, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said ``if Iran wants to be treated differently, then Iran should stop pursuing nuclear weapons and give up terrorism.''

The secretary-general had no immediate comment on the letter, said Marie Okabe, a U.N. spokeswoman.

After lengthy negotiations, the U.N. Security Council adopted a statement a month ago demanding that Iran stop enriching uranium. A new report Friday from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, confirmed what the world already knew: Iran has refused to stop enriching uranium.

The United States, Britain and France immediately announced plans to introduce a new Security Council resolution this week which would make Iran's compliance with their demands mandatory. To intensify pressure, they want the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter which means it can be enforced through sanctions or military action.

China and Russia, the two other council members with veto power, oppose sanctions and military action and want the Iran nuclear issue resolved diplomatically, with the IAEA taking the lead, not the Security Council.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, reiterated Monday that Tehran was ``ready for any kind of negotiation to achieve our rights'' and again called for Iran's dispute with the international community to be returned to the IAEA, rather than taken up by the Security Council.

He spoke on the eve of a meeting in Paris of political directors from the six countries that have been trying to find a diplomatic solution to the standoff - Britain, France, Germany, the United States, Russia and China.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5793219,00.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Iran to Let Women Go to Soccer Games

<font size="5"><center>Saudi and Gulf Arab leaders line up with Moscow
and Beijing against sanctions for Iran</font size></center>


DebkaFile
May 7, 2006, 1:55 PM (GMT+02:00)

A one-day Gulf Cooperation Council- GCC consultative summit convened urgently in Riyadh Saturday, May 6, by Saudi King Abdullah added its voice to international opinion on the Iranian nuclear issue. These meetings are rarely top-level, usually attended by more junior officials. This time, the emirs of Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the UAE were there. They joined in calling on Iran to do more to show the nuclear watchdog it was not seeking a nuclear bomb and provide guarantees to ease the concerns of its neighbors that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. The six leaders refrained from asking Iran to halt uranium enrichment or obey the UN Security Council.

DEBKAfile’s Gulf sources add: The GCC agreed essentially not to follow the tough American-led line demanding a UN Security Council resolution permitting sanctions or military action against a defiant Iran, but rather the Russian-Chinese insistence on dialogue with the stress on guarantees. Riyadh appears to have united the bloc on the Iranian question and to be offering to mediate between the West and Tehran on the nuclear controversy.

This position backs up the line taken by Beijing, Moscow and Berlin urging more dialogue and cooperation with the IAEA rather than penalties.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=2399
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Iran's Ahmadinejad writes to Bush, ending 26-year hiatus

Iran's Ahmadinejad writes to Bush, ending 26-year hiatus
2 hours, 34 minutes ago

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written to US President George W. Bush to "propose new ways" to resolve a quarter-century of tensions between the arch-foes.

The historic move brings an end to a 26-year-old break in official top-level contacts with Washington and comes amid US calls for sanctions and even threats of force to stop the hardline Islamic regime's disputed nuclear drive.

"President Ahmadinejad has written a letter to George Bush, which is to be handed to the Swiss embassy," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters, saying the message "goes beyond the nuclear question".

"In this letter, while analysing the world situation and finding the roots of the problems, he has proposed new ways for getting out of the existing vulnerable world situation," Elham said, adding that "the nuclear question is a part" of this situation.

It is the first time an Iranian president has been known to officially communicate with an American president since Washington and Tehran cut off diplomatic relations in 1980.

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told the ISNA news agency that "once the American president has received the letter, its content will be made public".

A source in Ahmadinejad's office told AFP the letter would be handed to the Swiss embassy in Tehran -- which has been acting as a conduit for messages between the two arch-enemies since 1981 -- later on Monday.

"The letter contains interesting things. It is written in English," was all the source would reveal.

The United States and Iran are at loggerheads over Tehran's nuclear programme which Washington suspects is a cover for ambitions to build atomic weapons.

News of the letter came ahead of a meeting in New York of the foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany in a bid to map out a common strategy to force Iran to halt sensitive nuclear fuel work.

Security Council members are bargaining over a Franco-British draft resolution that would legally require Iran to freeze all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.

Tehran vowed Sunday it would refuse to comply, warning the diplomatic crisis was heading toward a "confrontation".

Bush has not ruled out taking military action against Tehran, which Washington also accuses of being the world's "leading sponsor of terror".

Washington has not had direct diplomatic relations with Iran since April 1980, following the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 in which 52 Americans were held for 444 days.

According to diplomatic sources, subsequent communications via the Swiss have invariably been between the Iranian foreign ministry and the US State Department -- far below the presidential level.

Diplomats from both sides have also held confidential meetings, most recently following the defeat of Afghanistan's Taliban in 2001 and prior to the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

A Western diplomat in Tehran, speaking on condition of anonymity, said news of Ahmadinejad's letter was a "diplomatic bombshell".

"This has been on the cards, in as such that the Iranians have been trying to make contact with the Americans for some time. But up until now these contacts have been secretive and not at a particularly senior level, and have not got anywhere in so far as the root of the problem is still there," said the diplomat.

"But this is a huge step. Of course it depends on what Ahmadinejad has actually written. Is there an opening for direct talks for example, or is it just an anti-American rant?" the diplomat added.

"We'll also have to see how the Americans respond, bearing in mind that Ahmadinejad is none too popular in Washington at the moment."

But another Western diplomat questioned Iran's motives and timing, saying the letter may just be "opportunism" by the regime as it seeks to prevent world powers agreeing on tough UN action.

In an interview published Sunday, Bush said he preferred a "diplomatic solution" to the nuclear crisis and Iran's threats against Israel, but said "all options should be placed on the table".

When Ahmadinejad says "that he wants to destroy Israel, the world should take that very seriously," Bush said.

Bush has already lumped Iran into an "axis of evil", a view that has only been reinforced by Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and his view of the Holocaust as a "myth".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060508/ts_afp/irannuclearpoliticsusdiplomacy
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Rice: Iran Letter Doesn't Resolve Standoff

<font size="5"><center>Rice: Iran Letter Doesn't Resolve Standoff</font size></center>


May 8, 7:47 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By ANNE GEARAN

NEW YORK (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed a letter that Iran's president sent to President Bush on Monday, saying the first direct communication from an Iranian leader in 27 years does not help resolve the standoff over Tehran's disputed nuclear program.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator called the surprise letter a new "diplomatic opening" between the two countries, but Rice said it was not.

"This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort," the top U.S. diplomat said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way."

Rice said the letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was 17 or 18 pages long and covered history, philosophy and religion.

Rice's comments were the most detailed response from the United States to the letter, the first from an Iranian head of state to an American president since the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

She would not discuss the contents in detail but made clear that the United States would not change its tack on Iran.

"There's nothing in here that would suggest that we're on any different course than we were before we got the letter," Rice said.

The United States has had no diplomatic ties and almost no economic relationship with Iran since the storming of the embassy and the kidnapping of U.S. diplomats.

Rice was using a two-day trip to the United Nations to confer on the international response to Iran, but she said she expected no quick action on sanctions or other measures.

The letter, which was not made public, appeared timed to blunt the U.S. drive for a U.N. Security Council vote this week to restrain the Islamic regime's nuclear ambitions. It was a striking change after the fiery Ahmadinejad's campaign to vilify Washington and its allies as bullies.

Iran contends it has the right to process uranium as fuel in nuclear reactors to generate electricity. The United States, Britain and France are concerned that the program is a cover for making nuclear weapons.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush had been briefed on the letter, which the White House received Monday through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran. He would not comment on whether it was actually signed by the Iranian president.

"It does not appear to do anything to address the nuclear concerns" of the international community, McClellan told reporters traveling on Air Force One with Bush to Florida.

The Iranian government spokesman who disclosed the communication did not mention the nuclear standoff and said the missive spoke to the larger U.S.-Iranian conflict.

The linchpin to any better understanding between Washington and Tehran, however, would be movement toward a solution of the nuclear issue.

According to government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham, the letter proposed "new solutions for getting out of international problems and the current fragile situation of the world."

Elham declined to reveal more, stressing "it is not an open letter." And when he was asked if the letter could lead to direct U.S.-Iranian negotiations, he replied: "For the time being, it's just a letter."

In Turkey, Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, said the Iranians were looking for a positive response but would be patient.

"Perhaps it could lead to a new diplomatic opening. It needs to be given some time," Larijani said in a television interview. He cautioned that the "tone of the letter is not something like softening."

The United States has publicly sought renewed contact with Iran through its ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, who has been authorized to speak to Iranian officials about security in Iraq.

U.S. officials say the talks await selection of a new Iraqi government and were to be limited to Iraqi security issues. Such meetings would provide an opportunity to broaden discussions about the U.S.-Iranian relationship.

Before the Ahmadinejad letter was announced, Bush said he was paying close attention to threats made against Israel by Ahmadinejad, who has questioned Israel's right to exist and said the country should be wiped off the map.

"I think that it's very important for us to take his words very seriously," Bush told the German newspaper Bild on Friday, according to a transcript released Sunday. "When people speak, it is important that we listen carefully to what they say and take them seriously."

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki delivered the letter to the Swiss ambassador Monday, ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told the AP. The Swiss Embassy acts as a U.S. interest section in the Iranian capital.

The letter appeared as the lead item on several Iranian television and radio news shows throughout the day. The official IRNA announced the letter and carried international reaction to it. Iran's only evening daily, the state-owned Ettalaat, carried a large story on its front page under the headline: "Important letter from Ahmadinejad to the American president."

On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad travels to Indonesia, where Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda said, "We support nuclear development for peaceful purposes, especially energy, but we consistently object to nuclear weapons proliferation."

The United States is backing efforts by Britain and France to win Security Council approval for a U.N. resolution that would threaten possible further measures if Iran does not suspend uranium enrichment. If taken to sufficient levels, the process can produce fuel for nuclear warheads.

Russia and China, the two other veto-holding members of the Security Council members, oppose sanctions.

---

Associated Press writer Nasser Karimi in Tehran contributed to this report.

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20060508/D8HFTHJ01.html?PG=home&SEC=news
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Rice: Iran Letter Doesn't Resolve Standoff

<font size="5"><center>South Africa:
IAEA, only body to verify Iranian nuclear program</font size></center>


South Africa Pretoria,
May 7, IRNA
Iran-South Africa-Pahad

South African deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad said that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the only specialized body eligible to ensure that Iranian nuclear program is for civilian purpose.

"At the board of governors we consistently argued that we have not exhausted the IAEA processes. Indeed, they sent the issue to the Security Council before even Mr. ElBaradei presented his report. We were arguing that this is an unnecessary haste. Our argument was that we should give more time for the Iranians to comply with the remaining issues, since they had complied already. We cannot say that the remaining two issues cannot be resolved. We think that they can be resolved.

"Of course, we defend the right of all the signatories to NPT to have the right to use nuclear power for peacefully means. We ourselves are working on that program, but, at the same time we understand that a climate of mistrust has been created and so we should now try to see what we can do within the rights of Iran's sovereignty and its right to have civilian nuclear technology to build confidence and I believe this is a big challenge for Iran to build that confidence, so that we don't allow the Security Council process to escalate.

We have to wait and see if the Russians and the Chinese are going to allow the Security Council to pass the latest resolution on that issue.

Pahad said, "We should try to convince the United States and the EU3 that if they go again outside the United Nations, it will create another very bad precedent for multilateralism. It will give a message to many parts of the world that the big powers are using their power outside the international law and outside the framework of the United Nations, which will be very bad for them.
It will escalate situation and it will lead to a very very dangerous situation in the region and we believe that all of us, even us in Africa, will suffer the negative consequences of any escalation of that confrontation."

"Clearly, Iran is a major oil producer. It is a major energy source for many countries and it has the capacity to retaliate in a way that it will not help the world economically and politically.

"We would argue strongly that if it is the issue of Iran's intention to build a nuclear weapon, which nobody has proven, then let us continue the IAEA process. Because it is the only body that is mandated to deal with proliferation issues.

"As members of NAM and G77 we must unify our voice in the United Nations and when we talk about UN, we talk about its totality and not just the Security Council. We have to approach the challenges; We face in a united way and with collective programs to ensure that we can strengthen the UN.

"I believe we have reached a stage specially now with the G77 resolution on the secretary general's management reforms, that once again it is raising the old problem that those who pay the largest amount of money into the UN, are going to threaten that they would withdraw their money or cut short their money in order to make the UN not function.

"We need the political and the moral strength to utilize our forces and influence countries like the EU countries and the United States that it is in their own interest to try to solve the conflicts that the international community is facing through multilateralism rather than unilateralism. Because every time these unilateral actions are approached, it causes greater hostility towards the west and the history has proven that to be correct.

"Sometimes I get the feeling that some of the thinking is not based on the objective facts on the ground and we have to make our voices heard.

"If you read the South African papers, you will see that they are picking up things from international papers and there is no independent thinking. Well, of course they are new and young journalists. So we don't have a sufficiently effective counter voice to what has been determined in our thinking through various channels of the western propaganda machinery, we don't have it.

Pahad said, "You see, there was a growing opposition against war in Iraq and this was despite the massive propaganda about Iraq 's weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was called as responsible for 9/11. Now, giving the fact that violence has gone beyond any bodies imagination and the increasing number of victims, I believe that we as the members of the NAM should begin talking to the people and the governments to counter the propaganda campaign. We have to have a balanced approach to try to put across our messages on these issues. it is not getting through."

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0605071206171238.htm
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
She would not discuss the contents in detail but made clear that the United States would not change its tack on Iran.

<img src="http://www.voccoquan.com/SteveR/images/condi%20rice.jpg">

<font face="Times new roman" size="4" color="#333333">
Condi is such loyal RepubliKlan apparatchik, she takes the daily White House “talking points” and repeats them ad nauseam without any input from her own brain. She’s supposed to be America’s chief diplomat, the Secretary of State, not an automaton for Cheney & Rumsfeld’s –“We might Nuke Iran”- delusional armageddon fantasies. She didn’t even bother to fully translate and read the letter the lunatic President of Iran sent her.

<font color="#d90000">
"Rice also admitted to NBC that her dismissal of the letter came before a complete translation was made."</font>
</font>

<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="14"></hr>
<img src="http://www.ap.org/media/images/logo.gif">
<font face="times new roman" size="4" color="#000000">
Following the news yesterday that Iran's president had sent a letter to the Bush administration that offered 'new solutions' to the pressing crisis the government quickly dismissed it but, in <a href="http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComunicados.asp?nid=176014&amp;src=0">an interview with the Associated Press's editorial board</a>, Condaleezza Rice had this to say:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>SECRETARY RICE: Well, let me address the letter first. Let me first say that we have looked at it. We've not done our own translation of it, which of course we will do and we'll look at in greater depth. But the first read of it, there is nothing in this letter that in any way addresses any of the issues really that are on the table in the international community -- the nuclear program -- in a straightforward way -- the terrorism issue. I think it would be best to say it's broadly philosophical in its character; it's 17 or 18 pages, I think. And it is most assuredly not a proposal. Let me be very clear about that. And so we'll do further examination of it, but there is nothing in here that would suggest that we're on any different course than we were before we got the letter.<br />
<br />
QUESTION: When you say it's philosophical, is it a rant? Is it hostile or is it friendly?<br />
<br />
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I'm loathe to say because we haven't done a proper translation of it; and speaking a foreign language myself, I think we want to do a translation of it. But it's not concrete in any way and it does not engage the issues. It's broadly philosophical, a little bit historical and it isn't something that you can sit and say, oh, well, here's what they're trying to tell us (inaudible).<br />
<br />
QUESTION: Is it an opening, though?<br />
<br />
SECRETARY RICE: I don't see it that way.<br />
<br />
QUESTION: What is to prevent the United States from taking up -- if there's an offer, however vague or general, to enter into talks, what is the down side for us?<br />
<br />
SECRETARY RICE: Let me just be very clear. This letter isn't it. This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of that regard. But I don't want to characterize it too much more because it's presidential correspondence. I also think that we need to get a proper translation of it. But it isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in concrete ways.</blockquote>
<br />
<em>Raw Story</em> <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Condoleeza_Rice_admits_she_responded_to_0509.html">reports that Rice also admitted to NBC</a> that her dismissal of the letter came before a complete translation was made.<br />
<br />
<strong>UPDATE</strong>: CNN has the completed English translation <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/world/0605/transcript.lemonde.letter/">here</a>.


</font>


<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="14"></hr>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="4">
Ahmadinejad’s letter to Bush</font size>

Wednesday, May 09, 2006 Posted: 1600 GMT (0000 HKT)

The following is the letter sent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush on Monday. The letter comes from the Web site of the French newspaper Le Monde. A White House official confirmed to CNN that this is the exact English translation of the letter the White House received. (Note: The acronym PBUH stands for Praise Be Unto Him)

`


letter.page01.gif

letter.page02.gif

letter.page03.gif

letter.page04.gif

letter.page05.gif

letter.page06.gif

letter.page07.gif

letter.page08.gif
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
The letter is interesting. I read it once and intend to read it several more times. On my first reading, I could not escape the feeling that it was AIMED at the American public's sentiments against Bush and Iraq. It seems to contain little in the area of overtures to resolve the problem (and maybe it wasn't intended to). From my first read, it seems the letter is an appeal to that growing segment of American public who oppose Bush policy. In that regard, many might see it as a "Great Letter". Fuck Bush. Does Iran pose a threat and what should be done about it ?

QueEx
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
[frame]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901495.html?referrer=email&referrer=email[/frame]
 

hoodedgoon

Potential Star
Registered
This letter is indeed very philosophical. It ignores the fundamental fact that we live in the real world, and in the real world, the big boys on the block makes the rules. It's kinda like the skinny guy in school who is always being beaten up after school trying to reason with the bully.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
america is a bully who is just picking on skinny iran.

i wonder what it will take for americans to stop thinking their country is total shit and only does fucked up shit and is always the one at fault over everything.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Iran’s Nuclear Policy Muddle</font size></center>

WorldNews.com,Thu 11 May 2006
WorldNews Guest Writer Ehsan Ahrari.

The Iranian nuclear issue is being embroiled in a multilateral tug-and-pull. The United States does not like it; however, at the present time, there is very little it can do other than going along with the mounting “policy muddle.”

The Bush administration knows exactly what it wants: harsh sanctions on Iran under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. However, Russia and China are dead set against it. They have political agendas of their own. In the meantime, the Iranian president further complicated the jumble by sending a letter to the American president over the weekend. That letter, even though it is rambling and without much purpose, provides an opening for not only Russia and China, but also for Germany in their respective insistence that diplomacy should be given a chance to work, and that direct negotiations between Washington and Iran are warranted, the sooner the better.

The Bush administration was surprised to get a letter from Ahmadinejad. Not that Washington was looking for a diplomatic opening to have direct talks with Iran on the nuclear issue. What irritates the U.S. official is its timing, and the fact that—in the words of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice—the letter does not contain “an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort. It isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way."

The contents of the letter are not yet officially released either in Washington or Tehran, but the U.N. diplomats made its translation available to the media. Portions of the letter are “a philosophical, historical and religious analysis of Iran's relationship to the West.” In one section, Ahmadinejad asks questions about the cost to the world of the establishment of Israel, while in another section he states that Western-style democracy had failed humanity.” The alternative, according to the Iranian president, “is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?"

Ahmadinejad calls the 9/11 attacks a “horrendous incident,” but asks, "Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?"

Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, was desirous of conducting a civilizational dialogue with the West. However, he could not fulfill his desire. Ahmadinejad, unlike Khatami, is not known for his cerebral prowess. His decision to send a philosophical letter to the American president makes one wonder why it was issued at all and, more important, why now? The United States did not have any doubts. It quickly labeled it “a ploy.” That depiction also underscores the malignant nature of the prevailing political environment between the two countries.

The letter was sent at a time when the U.S., U.K., France, the European Union, Russia, China and Germany were meeting about their next step related to Iran’s refusal to stop its uranium enrichment program. Iran also knows that, aside from the unwillingness of China and Russia for punitive sanctions, even some Republican legislators within the United States are calling on President Bush to negotiate with the Islamic Republic before considering sanctions or military actions. Even if the letter is not a ploy, it is deftly timed to frustrate the Bush administration.

The most helpful development in this controversy is beyond Iran’s control. The United States and Russia are currently engaged in heated rhetorical exchanges at a time when Washington direly needs the Russian (and Chinese) cooperation on the Iran nuclear issue. Vice President Dick Cheney was on a mission to annoy the Russians last week. In a speech in Vilnius, Lithuania, he accused Moscow of using its oil and gas as a “tools of intimidation and blackmail,” and criticized it for backsliding on democracy. Cheney’s remarks were not at all unfounded; only it’s timing was questionable.

In response, the Russian media shot back by accusing Cheney of creating an environment of “Russophobia.” They also compared his speech in Vilnius to the famous 1946 speech of the British Prime Minister Winston in Fulton, Missouri. In that speech, Churchill warned the world of that an iron curtain is falling across Europe.

It is already apparent that neither Russia nor China is willing to go along with any suggestions of punitive sanctions against Iran. President Bush, using the “good- cop-bad-cop” strategy—whereby he is letting Cheney use harsh criticism of Russia so close to the G-8 Summit, while he is maintaining a moderate rhetoric—is still insisting that the Iranian nuclear issue is in the “early stages of diplomacy.” However, the growing irritation of the U.S. government is amply and frequently manifested by Cheney as well as Rice through their respective statements.

As the great powers of this brewing conflict attempt to find diplomatic solution, Ahmadinejad’s letter has become a major media event in the United States. His letter is being dissected for “psychological insights” into his frame of reference and in his thinking, as if the Iranian President sat down and wrote that letter all by himself. A number of talking heads in Washington decided to impress each other by looking for historical analogies and “larger” meaning related to that letter. If Iran wanted to make a big new splash while the great powers are figuring their next move, it definitely succeeded in it.

Iran might not expect a written or an elaborate response from George Bush; however it definitely wants a dialogue with the lone superpower. In the post-9/11 era, Iran’s fears about its security are quite genuine. One wonders whether thoughtful people in the current administration are spending any time thinking about when to start such a dialogue and the modalities of it. As the Bush administration refuses to have a dialogue with Iran on the nuclear issue, it is pushing that country—wittingly or unwittingly—toward the option of developing nuclear weapons. That is an ominous choice, which could be and should be avoided by having a dialogue and by providing necessary security guarantees that Iran seeks.

Ehsan Ahrari is the CEO of Strategic Paradigms Defense Consultancy based in Alexandria, VA, US. His columns appear regularly in Asia Times Online.

http://www.ehsanahrari.com/

http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=44758528&template=worldnews/index.txt&index=recent
 

domex

International
International Member
[FRAME]http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/110506presidentsletter.htm[/FRAME]
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="4">
The following was originallly posted by 12dahead in a new
thread but was moved to this thread on the same subject for
continuity of argument, debate and discussion.

QueEx
______________________________________________________
</font size>



Looks like Bush got Own3d


TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=613>maybe a repost:


[size=+0]http://www.finalcall.com<WBR>/absolutenl/t.aspx?n=28&l=28[/size]
[size=+0]Text of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's letter to President George W. Bush[/size]
By Iranian Republic News Angency (IRNA)
Updated May 9, 2006, 08:13 pm


</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right width=139> Email this article

print_icon.gif
Printable page

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width=250 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
iranian_pres05-2006b.jpg
</TD></TR><TR><TD>Iranian President Ahmadinejad opens dialogue with President Bush. Graphic: http://www.president.ir/ </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The Iranian Government has released to the public, the full text of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to President George Bush.

"The letter to US President George Bush carries the Iranian nation's views and comments on international issues as well as suggestions for resolving the many problems facing humanity," said the Iranian president.

The letter was submitted to President Bush on Monday, May 9, 2006 via the Swiss embassy in Tehran, which takes care of the US interest section in Iran and acts as a liason between the two countries.<SCRIPT><!--D(["mb","

\nThe following is the full text of President Ahmadinejad\'s letter to President George Bush:

\nIn the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,

\nMr George Bush,
President of the United States of America,

\nFor sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, especially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hope that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them. \n

\nCan one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one\'s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, make &quot;War on Terror&quot; his slogan, and finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, but at the same time, have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy (are) set ablaze. \n

\nOr because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families. \n",1]);//--></SCRIPT>

The following is the full text of President Ahmadinejad's letter to President George Bush:

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,

Mr George Bush,
President of the United States of America,

For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, especially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hope that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, make "War on Terror" his slogan, and finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, but at the same time, have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy (are) set ablaze.

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.<SCRIPT><!--D(["mb","

\n\nOn the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with. \nOf course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal; nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the imposed war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West. \n

\nMr. President,
You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can these actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness? \n

\nThere are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals. \n

\nEuropean investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, \ni.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.

\nYoung people, university students, and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

\nThroughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

\nStudents are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel. ",1]);//--></SCRIPT>

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with. Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal; nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the imposed war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West.

Mr. President,
You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can these actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness?

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.

Young people, university students, and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.<SCRIPT><!--D(["mb","

\nI tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families. \n

\nAgain let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained? \n

\nMr. President,
I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:

-Many thousands were killed in the process.

\n-Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.

\n-Hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

\nThis tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now.

\nA regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures, and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory. \n

\nAnother big question asked by the people is &quot;why is this regime being supported?&quot;

\nIs support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values?

\nOr are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine -- whether they are Christian, Moslem or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum? \n

",1]);//--></SCRIPT>
I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.


Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?

Mr. President,
I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:

-Many thousands were killed in the process.

-Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.

-Hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures, and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.

Another big question asked by the people is "why is this regime being supported?"

Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values?

Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine -- whether they are Christian, Moslem or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?

<SCRIPT><!--D(["mb","\nThe newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observers have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognize the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government. \n

\nIf the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also asking &quot;Why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?&quot; \n

\nMr. President,
As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them -- many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies. \n

\nIt is not my intention to pose too many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.

\nWhy is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D [Research & Development] one of the basic rights of nations? \n

\nYou are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed. \n

\nLies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

",1]);//--></SCRIPT>The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observers have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognize the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also asking "Why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?"

Mr. President,
As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them -- many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.

It is not my intention to pose too many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.

Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D [Research & Development] one of the basic rights of nations?

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

<SCRIPT><!--D(["mb","\nMr. President,
Don\'t Latin Americans have the right to ask why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, Why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear? \n

\nThe people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don\'t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others? \n

\nAgain, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

\nThe brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d\'etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and celebrating their country\'s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter. \n

\nMr. President,
September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies. \n

\nAll governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren\'t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial? \n",1]);//--></SCRIPT>Mr. President,
Don't Latin Americans have the right to ask why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, Why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d'etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and celebrating their country's progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr. President,
September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?<SCRIPT><!--D(["mb","

\nAll governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people -- who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks -- some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic? \n

\nAmerican citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity? \n

\nSome believe that the hype paved the way -- and was the justification --for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media.

\nIn media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly -- for the public to finally believe -- and the ground set for an attack on Iraq. \n

\nWill the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate?

\nAgain, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

\nMr. President,
In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.

\nThe question here is &quot;what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?&quot; ",1]);//--></SCRIPT>

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people -- who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks -- some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

Some believe that the hype paved the way -- and was the justification --for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media.

In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly -- for the public to finally believe -- and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate?

Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

Mr. President,
In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.

The question here is "what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?"<SCRIPT><!--D(["mb","

\nAs Your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist – to a larger or lesser extent -- in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign – paid from the public treasury – be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles? \n

\nWhat has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention – which I am hoping you will agree to some of it – is:

\nThose in power have a specific time in office and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures.

\nThe people will scrutinize our presidencies.

\nDid we mange to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment?

\nDid we intend to establish justice or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful -- thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs\'? \n

\nDid we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?

\nDid we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them?

\nDid we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats?

\nDid we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it?

\nWere we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?

\nDid our administrations set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns, intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people\'s rights? \n",1]);//--></SCRIPT>

As Your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist – to a larger or lesser extent -- in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign – paid from the public treasury – be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?

What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention – which I am hoping you will agree to some of it – is:

Those in power have a specific time in office and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures.

The people will scrutinize our presidencies.

Did we mange to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment?

Did we intend to establish justice or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful -- thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs'?

Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?

Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them?

Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats?

Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it?

Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?

Did our administrations set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns, intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people's rights?<SCRIPT><!--D(["mb","

\nAnd finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office – to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets -- or not?

\nMr. President,
How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?

\nWhere will this trend lead the world to?

\nHow long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers?

\nHow much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- hunt the people of the world?

\nHow much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people\'s houses destroyed over their heads?

\nAre you pleased with the current condition of the world?

\nDo you think present policies can continue?

\nIf billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states, and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts, were would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud? \n

\nWould not your administration\'s political and economic standing have been stronger?

\nAnd I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American government?

\nMr. President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.

\nIf Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us? \n",1]);//--></SCRIPT>

And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office – to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets -- or not?

Mr. President,
How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?

Where will this trend lead the world to?

How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers?

How much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- hunt the people of the world?

How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads?

Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?

Do you think present policies can continue?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states, and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts, were would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud?

Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger?

And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American government?

Mr. President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.

If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us?<SCRIPT><!--D(["mb","

\nMy basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect one word and that is &quot;monotheism&quot; or belief in a single God and no other in the world. \n

\nThe Holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran)\n

\nMr. President,
According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine Prophets.

\n&quot;To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases.&quot; &quot;The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds.&quot; \n

\n&quot;The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court&quot; &quot;planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins&quot; &quot;He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors&quot; &quot;He is the Compassionate, the Merciful&quot; &quot;He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness&quot; &quot;He is witness to the actions of His servants&quot; &quot;He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast&quot; &quot;Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds&quot; &quot;A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants&quot; and &quot;A good end and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.&quot; \n",1]);//--></SCRIPT>

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect one word and that is "monotheism" or belief in a single God and no other in the world.

The Holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran)

Mr. President,
According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine Prophets.

"To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases." "The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds."

"The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court" "planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins" "He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors" "He is the Compassionate, the Merciful" "He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness" "He is witness to the actions of His servants" "He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast" "Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds" "A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants" and "A good end and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves."<SCRIPT><!--D(["mb","

\nWe believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvation. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth. \n

\nWe also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well: [19.36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path. Marium \n
Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.

\nThe God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans.

\nWe again read in the Holy Book: &quot;The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purify them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious&quot;. \n

\nAll of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.

\nDivine prophets have promised:
The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly affected by our actions. \n

\nAll prophets, speak of peace and tranquility for man -- based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.

\nDo you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world -- that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance? \n",1]);//--></SCRIPT>

We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvation. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.

We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well: [19.36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path. Marium
Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.

The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans.

We again read in the Holy Book: "The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purify them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious".

All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.

Divine prophets have promised:
The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly affected by our actions.

All prophets, speak of peace and tranquility for man -- based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.

Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world -- that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance?<SCRIPT><!--D(["mb","
Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?

\nDo you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?

\nWill you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?

\nMr. President,
History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted the fate of men to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. \n

\nMany things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

\nCan one deny the signs of change in the world today?

\nIs the situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.

\nThe people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies. \n

\nThe people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.

\nThe people are disgusted with increasing corruption.

\nThe people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organizations, because their rights are not advocated by these organizations. \n

\nLiberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems. \n",1]);//--></SCRIPT>
Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?

Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?

Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?

Mr. President,
History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted the fate of men to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices.

Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?

Is the situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.

The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.

The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.

The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.

The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organizations, because their rights are not advocated by these organizations.

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.<SCRIPT><!--D(["mb","

\nWe increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point -- that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: &quot;Do you not want to join them?&quot; \n

\nMr. President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the
Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

\nVasalam Ala Man Ataba\'al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran



\n\n
",0]);D(["ce"]);//--></SCRIPT>

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point -- that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"

Mr. President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the
Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Iran's Women Barred From Soccer Games

Iran's Women Barred From Soccer Games
Last Updated:
05-09-06 at 9:04AM

Iran's women will be barred from attending soccer games, a reversal by the president that comes a month before the national team plays in the World Cup.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had ruled in April that he would allow women to go to soccer games and sit in a separate section of the stands. He wanted to "improve soccer-watching manners and promote a healthy atmosphere."

But Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei _ who under the Islamic Republic's constitution has the final say _ opposed the move.

"The president has decided to revise his decision based on the supreme leader's opinion," Iranian government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham said Monday.

Ahmadinejad's decision to allow women into stadiums had provoked outrage among hardline Shiite Muslim clerics, who supported his election last year and who have tightly controlled Iranian society since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Iran's Islamic law imposes stringent restrictions on women. They need a male guardian's permission to work or travel, and have rarely been allowed to attend public sports events.

In 2001, a group of Irish women was permitted to attend a World Cup qualifier between Iran and Ireland in Tehran.

The monthlong World Cup begins June 9 in Germany. Iran is grouped with Mexico, Angola and Portugal in the 32-team tournament.

http://www.kfmb.com/sports/story.php?id=49520
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Iran's Women Barred From Soccer Games

<font size="5"><center>Oil for no one if Iran attacked: Chavez</font size></center>

Regional-Venezuela, Politics, 5/12/2006

Visiting Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said in Rome oyesterday that in case of a military attack against Iran, no country in the world would have access to crude oil.

Chavez made the remark at a press conference, adding, "As Iran's President Ahmadinejad has reiterated, if Tehran would come under attack, oil would get scarce for everyone."

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/060512/2006051217.html
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#333333">
Most of the US media didn't mention the letter below. Most European diplomats feel that it represents the true intentions of Iran, because the author is much closer to the absolute power in Iran who is Ayatollah Khamenei. The foreign diplomats are baffled as they watch US chief diplomat Condi Rice join the “American Armageddonist” Cheney & Rumsfeld & Bush in the rush to a unneeded possible military conflict.</font>

<hr noshade color="#333333" size="12"></hr>

<img src="http://img.timeinc.net/time/images/print_logo.gif" alt="logo" width="214" height="50" border="0">
<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#00066">Iran's Nuclear Program: The Way Out</font>

<img src="http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/pics/6889.jpg"><img src="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/khamenei_Imam03_2.jpg" width="200" height="300">
<font face="tahoma" size="2" color="000000"><strong>
Hassan Rohani&nbsp;(left) is close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,(right)
Iran's supreme leader who holds final say in all matters in Iran. </font>

<font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000">
Tuesday, May. 09, 2006

By HASSAN ROHANI</strong><br>
http://www.time.com/time/world/printout/0,8816,1192435,00.html
<br>A nuclear weaponized Iran destabilizes the region, prompts a regional arms race, and wastes the scarce resources in the region. And taking account of U.S. nuclear arsenal and its policy of ensuring a strategic edge for Israel, an Iranian bomb will accord Iran no security dividends. There are also some Islamic and developmental reasons why Iran as an Islamic and developing state must not develop and use weapons of mass destruction.
<br>Three years of robust inspection of Iranian nuclear and non-nuclear facilities by the IAEA inspectors led Dr. El-Baradi to conclude and certify that to date there are no indications of any diversion of nuclear material and activities toward making a bomb. At the same time, El-Baradi has pointed out that the IAEA cannot certify that Iran's program is exclusively peaceful. But the fact is that few among many states with a nuclear program have received such a clean bill of health from the IAEA. Such certification by the IAEA does and should take time and effort. Iran is prepared and willing to invest the time and effort necessary to receive the IAEA clean bill of health. The IAEA is also ready to pursue its investigation of Iran's nuclear activities. So should the states that have concern about it.
<br>What is, then, the motive for the rush to heighten the situation and create a crisis? Could it be that the extremists all around see their interests &mdash; however transient, domestic and short-sighted &mdash; in heightened tension and crisis? This situation, if not contained with cool head and if miscalculations continue, can easily turn into a crisis with potentially global ramifications for the rule of law under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and for the economic and security interests of all concerned in the region and beyond. It is high time to cease sensationalism and war mongering, pause and think twice about where we are heading.
<br>Iran is not accused of having the bomb. There are no indications that Iran has a nuclear weapon program. If Iran were to have a weapons program, the alarmists in the U.S. and Israel have reportedly said that it would take at least another seven to ten years for Iran to make the bomb. What is often cited by American officials as 20 years of Iranian secret nuclear military program turned out to be, as declared by the IAEA, nothing more than the failure to declare, in a timely manner, some experiments and receiving some material and equipment. Such failures to declare are not uncommon among the NPT members. Remedial steps are envisioned in the Safeguards Agreement to address them, and Iran has done so. Moreover, it was no secret that we were in the European, Russian and Asian markets to purchase enrichment technology in the late '80s and '90s. Therefore, an Iranian secret weapon program is only hype, and the sense of urgency about Iran's nuclear program is rather tendentious. The world should not allow itself to be dragged into another conflict on false pretenses in this region again.
<br>Iran is intent on producing nuclear fuel domestically for reasons both historic and long-term economic. The U.S. and some Europeans argue that they cannot trust Iran's intentions. They argue that they cannot accept Iran's promise to remain committed to its treaty obligation once it gains the capability to enrich uranium for fuel production. They ask Iran to give up its right under the NPT, and instead accept their promise to supply it with nuclear fuel. This is illogical and crudely self-serving: I do not trust you, even though what you are doing is legal and can be verified to remain legal, but you must trust me when I promise to do that which I have no obligation to do and cannot be enforced. It is this simple and this unfair. There must be a better way out of this than to top this travesty with threatening Iran in the Security Council with possible sanctions and perhaps even use of force. This path can potentially cause harm and suffering at differing degrees to all parties to the conflict.
<br>A negotiated solution still can and must be found if we intend to strengthen the non-proliferation regime and avoid an unwise and unnecessary conflict. To this end, we must dare to leave the emotions aside and avoid polluting the atmosphere with the baggage of immediate and long-past history of Iran-U.S. relations. A solution imposed on Iran by the Security Council is unlikely to provide the assurances the U.S. seeks about the Iranian nuclear program. In my personal judgment, a negotiated solution can be found in the context of the following steps, if and when creatively intertwined and negotiated in good faith by concerned officials:
<br> <blockquote><font color="#000091" face="tahoma">
<br>&bull; Iran would make an active contribution, provided that other countries with similar sensitive fuel cycle programs also do the same, to fixing the loopholes in the non-proliferation system and to developing a technically credible international control regime.
<br>&bull; Iran would consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and snap inspections.
<br>&bull; Iran would address the question of preventing break-out from the NPT.
<br>&bull; Iran would agree to negotiate with the IAEA and states concerned about the scope and timing of its industrial-scale uranium enrichment.
<br>&bull; Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on enrichment limit of reactor grade uranium.
<br>&bull; Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on the production of UF6 &mdash; uranium hexafluoride, which is used for enrichment &mdash; during the period of negotiation for the scope and timing of its industrial scale enrichment.
<br>&bull; Iran and the IAEA would agree on terms of the continuous presence of inspectors in Iran to verify credibly that no diversion takes place in Iran.
<br>&bull; Iran's readiness to welcome other countries to partner with Iran in a consortium provides additional assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran&rsquo;s nuclear program.
</font></blockquote>

<br>It is not Iran's intention to disregard Security Council decisions. The way out is for the Security Council to mandate the IAEA to address this issue and establish a negotiating process for a fixed period to formulate a credible plan taking into account the suggestions I made in my personal capacity.
<br>Iran is prepared to work with the IAEA and all states concerned about promoting confidence in its fuel cycle program. But Iran cannot be expected to give in to United States' bullying and non-proliferation double standards.
<br><em>Hassan Rohani is representative of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and Iran's former top nuclear negotiator</em>

</font>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
[frame]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE19Ak01.html[/frame]
[hide]
Asia Times
May 19, 2006

Iran: Russia, China drift toward US
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has warned that the current US-led push for United Nations sanctions against Iran could turn out to be a "pretext for war", and yet both Russia and China, long thought to be opponents of any sanctions, are now inching toward the US strategy with regard to Iran.

It is China that has taken the lead, by putting its weight behind the yet-to-be-submitted set of European "conditional incentives" for Iran to give up its uranium-enrichment program, which has had the effect of forcing Moscow to follow suit.

There is, after all, a diplomatic minuet involved here, with Beijing and Moscow carefully crafting every step according to the ebbs and flows of a fluid crisis that features multiple players with distinct, shared, parallel and opposing interests.

The news of China's slow accommodation with the US-EU plan was broken by US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick in his May 10 congressional testimony. He assured members that China "has agreed in principle" to play along. This was followed by a similar report by the Los Angeles Times that Tang Jiaxuan, a leading member of the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee, has called for an Iranian moratorium on all enrichment-related activities.

As expected, this has had the desired effect, from the US point of view, of mollifying Russia, which has been seething at the recent US criticisms of its human-rights and energy policies. Thus at a press conference with his Chinese counterpart, Li Zhaoxing, Lavrov echoed China's backing of the European Union proposal by stating, "We will suggest this approach and will expect Iran to respond to it in a constructive way. We are firmly convinced that this is the only way to settle the situation."

The pertinent question, of course, is what will Moscow and Beijing do once the EU proposal is formally submitted and rejected by Iran, in light of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's preemptive "don't give a damn" reaction? Are they willing to set aside their opposition to UN sanctions? Another question is: How far are China and Russia willing to go to sacrifice their relations with Iran in order to maintain healthy relations with the United States?

The latter question touches on, among other things, the future of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Unfortunately, contrary to the earlier official announcements, particularly by China's officials, the SCO is now on the verge of changing its mind about expanding its membership and accepting Iran, as well as Pakistan and India, as new members.

"There are no plans to fundamentally enlarge the SCO. I don't think the number of SCO members will greatly increase in the foreseeable future," Lavrov said at a press conference on Tuesday, exactly one month prior to the SCO summit in Shanghai, in reaction to the news that the US government has asked Russia for "explanation" about the news that Ahmadinejad plans to attend the June summit.

In turn, the Iranian press has reacted negatively to Russia's turnabout on Iran's membership in the SCO and has questioned the wisdom of Ahmadinejad's participation in the absence of full membership. Iran has only been given observer status so far. Without doubt, should Moscow keep firm on its present line against Iran's inclusion in SCO, this will be interpreted as a major diplomatic setback for Iran and will negatively influence the course of Iran-Russian relations.

Interestingly, precisely at a time when the Russian and Chinese foreign ministers were holding a joint press conference and implicitly, if not explicitly, criticizing Iran's defiant stance, their respective ambassadors in Tehran were meeting with the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, praising Iran's diplomacy and willingness to engage in dialogue with the US on the nuclear issue. Both Russia and China have a history of making deals over Iran with Washington, and naturally one wonders whether we are now witnessing another sad spectacle of trading principles for quid pro quos from Uncle Sam by both countries.

EU's old proposal sold as new
Whereas a top US official has admitted that the EU's "new" package is actually a "dusting off" of the pre-existing proposals "on the table", the Western media have uniformly praised the "new European package of incentives", including the offer of a modern light-water reactor.

In fact, while the final package has yet to be unveiled, and there are reports of serious US misgivings about any EU pledge of nuclear assistance to Iran, awaiting the verdict of the upcoming London meeting of the Permanent Five plus Germany, it is worth remembering that in November 2004, the EU-3 (Germany, France and Britain) signed an agreement in Paris with Iran that called for "cooperation" on "nuclear issues".

The Paris Agreement is dead, long live the Paris Agreement. It stated: "The E3/EU recognize Iran's rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty exercised in conformity with its obligations under the treaty, without discrimination." The agreement called for Iran's suspension of its enrichment-related activities on a temporary basis. There is in fact no ambiguity about this aspect of the document that reads: "The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence-building measure and not a legal obligation."

By all indications, Iran faithfully implemented the terms of the Paris Agreement until January, when it resumed enrichment activities after the EU-3/EU's radical departure from their own agreement by calling for a permanent suspension, after the United States' blunt criticisms of the Paris Agreement. Turning history upside down, Western media pundits have now manufactured a consent about Iran's blameworthy behavior breaking the Paris Agreement, when in reality it was the surrogate Europe that caved in to US pressure and disrespected its own pledge to Iran - to respect Iran's nuclear rights "without discrimination".

Consequently, the EU is about to hurl an old package under new wraps, deemed as "generous" by the German negotiator, Michael Schaffer, in his recent communication to this author, without an iota of guilty conscience or moral qualm about its own pattern of misbehavior toward Iran. The irony that the EU has turned a complete blind eye to Brazil's simultaneous declaration of an ambitious new plan to accelerate its nuclear-fuel program, simply because the world "trusts Brazil" (but don't tell that to Brazil's neighbors!), has simply escaped the attention of Western media.

Jealous of Moscow's monopoly of Iran's nuclear market, the EU's latest proposal is partially aimed at preempting the recent Russian announcement of plans to build two new nuclear reactors in Iran, by potentially luring Iran away from such a deal and toward the more technologically advanced European nuclear market. Russian policymakers would indeed be remiss to overlook the purely self-interest elements of the latest European proposal.

Another clue to the EU's perceived hypocrisy, from Iran's point of view, is the recent joint EU/GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) statement expressing concerns about Iran's nuclear program, coinciding with new, and more energetic, efforts by the GCC with respect to the disputed islands of Abu Mussa, Little Tunb and Big Tunb. The EU's hidden tactic is, in other words, to lend support to the GCC over these Iran-controlled islands, to put additional pressure on the nuclear front.

The SCO historic bloc
Surely the SCO would be hobbled by new headaches caused by a significant expansion of membership that would, in turn, add to its qualitative weight and geopolitical significance. But to assume that the negative side-effects will necessarily outweigh the advantages is to succumb to the seeds of doubt planted by the West, which is wary of the emergence of a formidable anti-North Atlantic Treaty Organization counterweight via the SCO. The SCO, now and in the prospective future, is not so much an anti-NATO coalition as a potential countervailing bloc to the United States' interventionist policies. But surely the time is ripe to take the SCO to the next level.

Certainly, this is not to fall into the naive analyses of an impending "new Cold War" favored by certain Russian politicians, given the complexities of the post-Cold War world order. Taking account of these complexities, including a certain lack of fit between the geo-economic and geopolitical considerations, China and Russia would be well advised to eschew their present drift against the SCO's expansion, which will only appease the US.

One potential advantage of Iran's membership in the SCO is that it would allow China and Russia to influence more positively Iran's foreign policy and, by implication, the Muslim World. The SCO's chief concerns about terrorism can clearly benefit from Iran's inclusion, as this would translate into greater regional cooperation against Islamist extremism in, among others, Russia's and China's Muslim-led regions as well as the entire Central Asia-Caspian basin.

The SCO calls for "force sharing", and this would also translate into enhanced military cooperation among the member states, which, if inclusive of Iran, would have net benefit vis-a-vis the common Russia-China concerns about the undue expansion of NATO in the East.

Concerning the latter, there is talk of a NATO "encirclement of Iran" in Washington these days, championed by certain leading Republican senators, such as Senator John Warner, who have praised NATO's decision to more than double its forces in Afghanistan and to expand ties with some of Iran's other neighbors such as Azerbaijan. This must resonate with Moscow, which has similarly complained of NATO expansion and "encirclement" post-September 11, 2001.

A point of no return
Both China and Russia are on record opposing the Security Council's recourse to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter declaring Iran a threat to peace, in which case the US would be justified, from the prism of international law, in taking unilateral military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. And yet instead of exploring the perfectly viable options of full-scope international monitoring of Iran's limited, contained enrichment program, Russian and Chinese policymakers are slowly but surely adjusting themselves to precisely such a scenario, whose net effect would be detrimental to their own geopolitical vested interests, particularly if war breaks out.

Already, Washington is awash with self-justifying arguments for war against Iran, the main one being that Iran is on the verge of reaching a "point of no return" in terms of nuclear know-how and technology. The other argument is that this situation resembles the pre-World War II period of appeasement, as if 2006 were 1938 again.

Indeed, it is fascinating how many prominent journalists, academics, and present and/or former officials in the US have lent their penmanship to the "never again" 1938 scenario. The long list includes the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer, Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, and former secretary of state Henry Kissinger. To his credit, Kissinger has, however, nuanced this alarmist view with a prudent call for US-inclusive multilateral talks with Iran.

Unfortunately, in the present debates in the US on Iran, the upper hand belongs to those nay-sayers who have persuaded the administration of President George W Bush to turn down Ahmadinejad's call for direct talks, arguing that the "UN is the best forum". Since when have the same neo-conservatives, who have carved out an inglorious history for themselves for hammering the UN for six consecutive years, become such big fans of the UN?

John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, has recently lashed out at International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei for making political statements as the head of only a "technical organization". ElBaradei's latest guilt is that he has played down the news of certain reports by IAEA inspectors regarding traces of highly enriched uranium at a razed military site in Iran.

US nuclear experts have, however, wasted little time putting the right spin on this news, by claiming that this "casts serious doubt" on Iran's declarations on that particular site and the broader issue of alleged military involvement in Iran's civil nuclear program. According to IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming, ElBaradei had been misquoted. His main point had been that the analysis of environmental sampling at Lavizan was still ongoing and that it was too early to reach a definitive conclusion. Iran has already flatly rejected Western media's report on this issue as false.

As the heavyweights gear up for the next round, portending more serious initiatives against Iran at the Security Council, both China and Russia need seriously to re-examine the present drift of their policy, which will only strengthen the United States' "unipolar moment" and weaken their hoped-for multilateralist breakout. The stakes in the Iranian nuclear crisis transcend Iran.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He is also author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction.

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing .)[/hide]
 

PimpThatAss

Potential Star
Registered
Deja Vu....

Iran will not stop until Israel is removed from this planet. Last time this happened Israel lit that ass up and destroyed all of Irans then ongoing construction. Before that in 1967 The Seven Day War. When all of the Muslim States of the Middle east vowed to destroy Israel. The War was over 7 day later. Israel lit all of there asses up and took some land. Fast forward to th current time with the cureent issues in Israel they all stem from that war. A war that the muslims lost after they started.

President Bush received a letter last week in the same fashion as Russias president did back when Reagan was kicking communisms ass. Russia declined help from Iran thus allowing most of communisn to be abolished from Europe.

The UN is slow moving like in most issues: Somolia, Haiti, Ruwanda, and Iraq conflict 1. Where The UN came to finish the arms removal from the 1st conflict. Iraq bitched slapped the UN and then kicked them out of the country before then finish the clean up. The UN needs to start making stands.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
George Bush insists that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. So why,

obviously the iranians are being framed.

George Bush insists that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. So why, six years ago, did the CIA give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb?
In an extract from his explosive new book, New York Times reporter James Risen reveals the bungles and miscalculations that led to a spectacular intelligence fiasco

James Risen
Thursday January 5, 2006
Guardian

She had probably done this a dozen times before. Modern digital technology had made clandestine communications with overseas agents seem routine. Back in the cold war, contacting a secret agent in Moscow or Beijing was a dangerous, labour-intensive process that could take days or even weeks. But by 2004, it was possible to send high-speed, encrypted messages directly and instantaneously from CIA headquarters to agents in the field who were equipped with small, covert personal communications devices. So the officer at CIA headquarters assigned to handle communications with the agency's spies in Iran probably didn't think twice when she began her latest download. With a few simple commands, she sent a secret data flow to one of the Iranian agents in the CIA's spy network. Just as she had done so many times before.

But this time, the ease and speed of the technology betrayed her. The CIA officer had made a disastrous mistake. She had sent information to one Iranian agent that exposed an entire spy network; the data could be used to identify virtually every spy the CIA had inside Iran.

Mistake piled on mistake. As the CIA later learned, the Iranian who received the download was a double agent. The agent quickly turned the data over to Iranian security officials, and it enabled them to "roll up" the CIA's network throughout Iran. CIA sources say that several of the Iranian agents were arrested and jailed, while the fates of some of the others is still unknown.

This espionage disaster, of course, was not reported. It left the CIA virtually blind in Iran, unable to provide any significant intelligence on one of the most critical issues facing the US - whether Tehran was about to go nuclear.

In fact, just as President Bush and his aides were making the case in 2004 and 2005 that Iran was moving rapidly to develop nuclear weapons, the American intelligence community found itself unable to provide the evidence to back up the administration's public arguments. On the heels of the CIA's failure to provide accurate pre-war intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the agency was once again clueless in the Middle East. In the spring of 2005, in the wake of the CIA's Iranian disaster, Porter Goss, its new director, told President Bush in a White House briefing that the CIA really didn't know how close Iran was to becoming a nuclear power.

But it's worse than that. Deep in the bowels of the CIA, someone must be nervously, but very privately, wondering: "Whatever happened to those nuclear blueprints we gave to the Iranians?"

The story dates back to the Clinton administration and February 2000, when one frightened Russian scientist walked Vienna's winter streets. The Russian had good reason to be afraid. He was walking around Vienna with blueprints for a nuclear bomb.

To be precise, he was carrying technical designs for a TBA 480 high-voltage block, otherwise known as a "firing set", for a Russian-designed nuclear weapon. He held in his hands the knowledge needed to create a perfect implosion that could trigger a nuclear chain reaction inside a small spherical core. It was one of the greatest engineering secrets in the world, providing the solution to one of a handful of problems that separated nuclear powers such as the United States and Russia from rogue countries such as Iran that were desperate to join the nuclear club but had so far fallen short.

The Russian, who had defected to the US years earlier, still couldn't believe the orders he had received from CIA headquarters. The CIA had given him the nuclear blueprints and then sent him to Vienna to sell them - or simply give them - to the Iranian representatives to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). With the Russian doing its bidding, the CIA appeared to be about to help Iran leapfrog one of the last remaining engineering hurdles blocking its path to a nuclear weapon. The dangerous irony was not lost on the Russian - the IAEA was an international organisation created to restrict the spread of nuclear technology.

The Russian was a nuclear engineer in the pay of the CIA, which had arranged for him to become an American citizen and funded him to the tune of $5,000 a month. It seemed like easy money, with few strings attached.

Until now. The CIA was placing him on the front line of a plan that seemed to be completely at odds with the interests of the US, and it had taken a lot of persuading by his CIA case officer to convince him to go through with what appeared to be a rogue operation.

The case officer worked hard to convince him - even though he had doubts about the plan as well. As he was sweet-talking the Russian into flying to Vienna, the case officer wondered whether he was involved in an illegal covert action. Should he expect to be hauled before a congressional committee and grilled because he was the officer who helped give nuclear blueprints to Iran? The code name for this operation was Merlin; to the officer, that seemed like a wry tip-off that nothing about this programme was what it appeared to be. He did his best to hide his concerns from his Russian agent.

The Russian's assignment from the CIA was to pose as an unemployed and greedy scientist who was willing to sell his soul - and the secrets of the atomic bomb - to the highest bidder. By hook or by crook, the CIA told him, he was to get the nuclear blueprints to the Iranians. They would quickly recognise their value and rush them back to their superiors in Tehran.

The plan had been laid out for the defector during a CIA-financed trip to San Francisco, where he had meetings with CIA officers and nuclear experts mixed in with leisurely wine-tasting trips to Sonoma County. In a luxurious San Francisco hotel room, a senior CIA official involved in the operation talked the Russian through the details of the plan. He brought in experts from one of the national laboratories to go over the blueprints that he was supposed to give the Iranians.

The senior CIA officer could see that the Russian was nervous, and so he tried to downplay the significance of what they were asking him to do. He said the CIA was mounting the operation simply to find out where the Iranians were with their nuclear programme. This was just an intelligence-gathering effort, the CIA officer said, not an illegal attempt to give Iran the bomb. He suggested that the Iranians already had the technology he was going to hand over to them. It was all a game. Nothing too serious.

On paper, Merlin was supposed to stunt the development of Tehran's nuclear programme by sending Iran's weapons experts down the wrong technical path. The CIA believed that once the Iranians had the blueprints and studied them, they would believe the designs were usable and so would start to build an atom bomb based on the flawed designs. But Tehran would get a big surprise when its scientists tried to explode their new bomb. Instead of a mushroom cloud, the Iranian scientists would witness a disappointing fizzle. The Iranian nuclear programme would suffer a humiliating setback, and Tehran's goal of becoming a nuclear power would have been delayed by several years. In the meantime, the CIA, by watching Iran's reaction to the blueprints, would have gained a wealth of information about the status of Iran's weapons programme, which has been shrouded in secrecy.

The Russian studied the blueprints the CIA had given him. Within minutes of being handed the designs, he had identified a flaw. "This isn't right," he told the CIA officers gathered around the hotel room. "There is something wrong." His comments prompted stony looks, but no straight answers from the CIA men. No one in the meeting seemed surprised by the Russian's assertion that the blueprints didn't look quite right, but no one wanted to enlighten him further on the matter, either.

In fact, the CIA case officer who was the Russian's personal handler had been stunned by his statement. During a break, he took the senior CIA officer aside. "He wasn't supposed to know that," the CIA case officer told his superior. "He wasn't supposed to find a flaw."

"Don't worry," the senior CIA officer calmly replied. "It doesn't matter."

The CIA case officer couldn't believe the senior CIA officer's answer, but he managed to keep his fears from the Russian, and continued to train him for his mission.

After their trip to San Francisco, the case officer handed the Russian a sealed envelope with the nuclear blueprints inside. He was told not to open the envelope under any circumstances. He was to follow the CIA's instructions to find the Iranians and give them the envelope with the documents inside. Keep it simple, and get out of Vienna safe and alive, the Russian was told. But the defector had his own ideas about how he might play that game.

The CIA had discovered that a high-ranking Iranian official would be travelling to Vienna and visiting the Iranian mission to the IAEA, and so the agency decided to send the Russian to Vienna at the same time. It was hoped that he could make contact with either the Iranian representative to the IAEA or the visitor from Tehran.

In Vienna, however, the Russian unsealed the envelope with the nuclear blueprints and included a personal letter of his own to the Iranians. No matter what the CIA told him, he was going to hedge his bets. There was obviously something wrong with the blueprints - so he decided to mention that fact to the Iranians in his letter. They would certainly find flaws for themselves, and if he didn't tell them first, they would never want to deal with him again.

The Russian was thus warning the Iranians as carefully as he could that there was a flaw somewhere in the nuclear blueprints, and he could help them find it. At the same time, he was still going through with the CIA's operation in the only way he thought would work.

The Russian soon found 19 Heinstrasse, a five-storey office and apartment building with a flat, pale green and beige facade in a quiet, slightly down-at-heel neighbourhood in Vienna's north end. Amid the list of Austrian tenants, there was one simple line: "PM/Iran." The Iranians clearly didn't want publicity. An Austrian postman helped him. As the Russian stood by, the postman opened the building door and dropped off the mail. The Russian followed suit; he realised that he could leave his package without actually having to talk to anyone. He slipped through the front door, and hurriedly shoved his envelope through the inner-door slot at the Iranian office.

The Russian fled the mission without being seen. He was deeply relieved that he had made the hand-off without having to come face to face with a real live Iranian. He flew back to the US without being detected by either Austrian security or, more importantly, Iranian intelligence.

Just days after the Russian dropped off his package at the Iranian mission, the National Security Agency reported that an Iranian official in Vienna abruptly changed his schedule, making airline reservations to fly home to Iran. The odds were that the nuclear blueprints were now in Tehran.

The Russian scientist's fears about the operation seemed well founded. He was the front man for what may have been one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA, one that may have helped put nuclear weapons in the hands of a charter member of what President George W Bush has called the "axis of evil".

Operation Merlin has been one of the most closely guarded secrets in the Clinton and Bush administrations. It's not clear who originally came up with the idea, but the plan was first approved by Clinton. After the Russian scientist's fateful trip to Vienna, however, the Merlin operation was endorsed by the Bush administration, possibly with an eye toward repeating it against North Korea or other dangerous states.

Several former CIA officials say that the theory behind Merlin - handing over tainted weapon designs to confound one of America's adversaries - is a trick that has been used many times in past operations, stretching back to the cold war. But in previous cases, such Trojan horse operations involved conventional weapons; none of the former officials had ever heard of the CIA attempting to conduct this kind of high-risk operation with designs for a nuclear bomb. The former officials also said these kind of programmes must be closely monitored by senior CIA managers in order to control the flow of information to the adversary. If mishandled, they could easily help an enemy accelerate its weapons development. That may be what happened with Merlin.

Iran has spent nearly 20 years trying to develop nuclear weapons, and in the process has created a strong base of sophisticated scientists knowledgeable enough to spot flaws in nuclear blueprints. Tehran also obtained nuclear blueprints from the network of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, and so already had workable blueprints against which to compare the designs obtained from the CIA. Nuclear experts say that they would thus be able to extract valuable information from the blueprints while ignoring the flaws.

"If [the flaw] is bad enough," warned a nuclear weapons expert with the IAEA, "they will find it quite quickly. That would be my fear"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1678220,00.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
[frame]http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE24Ak05.html[/frame]

[hide]Iran deploys its war machine
By Iason Athanasiadis

TEHRAN - For Hossein Shariatzadeh, a veteran of the eight-year Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, now navigating Tehran's traffic-choked streets as a taxi driver, the issue of whether the United States will strike Iraq is hardly a frightening prospect.

"This is Iran," he roared. "It is fire. It is a nuclear bomb. Don't look at my sitting behind the wheel of this car. I would get up in a second and head off to the front to fight."

During his 18 months of service at the front, Shariatzadeh claims to have fought in several flashpoint events. Before being evacuated to Tehran after taking a bullet in the stomach, he participated in the 18th Mah, Fath-ul Mubin and Fajrs 1, 2 and 4 offensives, some of the most horrific campaigns of a drawn-out war characterized by trench warfare and tens of thousands of dead in return for minuscule advances.

Despite Shariatzadeh's lust to head to the front and defend his homeland, Iran's strategic planners are acutely aware that a military confrontation with the technologically more advanced US Army would be as rapid and multi-fronted as the Iran-Iraq War was static and slow-paced. Quite simply, there would not be a single front.

Neither the US nor Israel has ruled out taking military action against nuclear-related targets in Iran if ongoing diplomatic efforts to freeze Tehran's nuclear program do not prove successful.

Accordingly, Iran has been quietly restructuring its military, while carrying out a series of military exercises testing its new military dogma. In December, more than 15,000 members of the regular armed forces participated in war games in northwestern Iran's strategically sensitive East Azerbaijan and West Azerbaijan border provinces that focused on irregular warfare carried out by highly mobile and speedy army units.

In another telling development, a second exercise was launched in the majority-Arab province of Khuzestan, reportedly aimed at quelling insurgencies in areas subject to ethnic unrest and prone to foreign influence. Involving 100,000 troops, the exercise provided a taste of how the Islamic Republic would respond to further disturbances in the strategic, oil-rich province.

The exercise came on the heels of news that the irregular Basij forces that led Iran's offensives against Iraq were being bolstered by so-called Ashura battalions with riot-control training.

It is all part of a fundamental transition that Iran's Revolutionary Guard (RG) is undergoing as it moves away from focusing on waging its defense of the country on the borders - unrealistic in view of the vast territory that requires securing and the gulf separating Iranian and US military capabilities - and toward drawing the enemy into the heartland and defeating it with asymmetrical tactics.

At the same time, the RG is moving away from a joint command with the ordinary army and taking a more prominent role in controlling Iran's often porous borders, even as it makes each of Iran's border provinces autonomous in the event of war. Iranian military planners know that the first step taken by an invading force would be to occupy oil-rich Khuzestan province, secure the sensitive Strait of Hormuz and cut off the Iranian military's oil supply, forcing it to depend on its limited stocks.

Foreign diplomats who monitor Iran's army make it clear that Iran's leadership has acknowledged it stands little chance of defeating the US Army with conventional military doctrine. The shift in focus to guerrilla warfare against an occupying army in the aftermath of a successful invasion mirrors developments in Iraq, where a triumphant US campaign has been followed by three years of slow hemorrhaging at the hands of insurgents.

Tehran argues that it is at a high level of preparedness and points to a number of war games carried out in recent months along its coastal zones, from Bandar Abbas and the Strait of Hormuz in January to the Persian Gulf theater in April and the Khorramshahr naval base and the northwestern parts of the Persian Gulf as of Sunday.

From several interviews with Iranian officials, researchers and foreign diplomats, it is clear that the Iranian army considers itself ready to repel a US land offensive and increasingly sees itself as the main regional power.

In line with the new feeling of invulnerability sweeping through Iran's military elite, RG commander-in-chief Yehya Rahim Safavi warned last month that "the Americans should accept Iran as a great regional power, and they should know that sanctions and military threats are not going to benefit them but are going to be against their interests and against the interests of some European countries".

Iran's new asymmetrical-warfare plan appears to be aimed at neutralizing possible US-led offensives across the Mandali-Ilam (central Iraq-central Iran) axis. The Iranian Zagros mountain range offers a natural first line of defense. It has been reported that the RG is constructing new bases at Khorramabad, Pessyan, Borujerd, Zagheh and Malayer in the province of Lorestan, which would assure the logistics of a quarter of a million troops and provide temporary shelter for half a million refugees from the border. These bases are supposedly complementing older ones further west at Sahneh and Kangavar.

"We know for a fact that no two Western wars are similar," said Hossein, a member of the RG, "and we know there are at least three possible scenarios of attacking these [nuclear] sites, including using their submarines in the Persian Gulf, commandos from the sea, or Mujahideen-e-Khalq trained in Israel and Azerbaijan to destroy the Bushehr nuclear power plant from the inside."

Even while Iran's military is choosing to go low-tech, the country's leadership is continuing to apply advanced technology to military uses. Tehran is continuing with development of its long-range missiles and is forging ahead on its indigenous satellite program that centers on Russian-supplied technology.

In addition, Tehran's aging air-defense system will be boosted by Russian-supplied land-to-air rockets. Also, Iran has aging Chinese missiles that it upgraded and could deploy on coastal batteries, fast attack boats or even warplanes. Finally, were Iran to possess the fearsome Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship missiles, it could turn the Persian Gulf into a death trap for the US fleet.

"While Iranian air power is somewhat limited, it has much in terms of land-to-air weaponry and has improvised much as well," Abdurrahman Shayyal, a Saudi Middle East and North Africa analyst, told Asia Times Online. "Furthermore, Iran has proved rather hard to infiltrate, and its military installations and bases are very well protected."

With the confrontation between Washington and Tehran escalating, a new, US-inspired plan to establish an anti-Iranian security regime has further raised tension in the Persian Gulf region. Aside from running covert operations inside Iran's ethnically mixed border provinces, the US administration is marshaling an alliance of Iran's Arab neighbors in the intensifying face-off.

The US media reported last weekend that the United States was trying to create a regional missile-defense system for the Gulf that would be integrated with real-time intelligence using sophisticated US Navy Aegis cruisers.

"Any security regime for the Persian Gulf that doesn't include Iran will not succeed," said Muhammad Reza Saedabadi, an assistant professor at the Institute of North American and European Studies at the University of Tehran. "It's splitting the region. It's good for the arms race and for arms sales to Persian Gulf states, but not for regional security."

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice continued ratcheting up the tension by refusing to offer Iran a guarantee that the United States would not attack it. "Iran is a troublemaker in the international system, a central banker of terrorism. Security assurances are not on the table," she said.

While seen as potentially threatening by several Gulf Arab governments, Iran commands significant popularity among indigenous Shi'ite Arab populations in Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. To a lesser extend, Sunni Arabs in the Gulf region and the wider Middle East applaud Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad for his strident anti-Western rhetoric, which emphasizes his country's independence and echoes the anti-imperialist liberation ideology of 1960s pan-Arabism.

Reflecting this mood, the English-language Gulf News published an editorial on Tuesday titled "An American offer we must refuse". It said, "As if the region was not volatile enough, the US now wants to install an advanced missile system in GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council ] states.

"Gulf countries have enough problems trying to walk a narrow path between the various positions ... so there is no need to exacerbate things further by introducing into the region such controversial measures as heightened security controls and advanced missile systems," the newspaper said.

At a "consultative summit" in Riyadh on May 6, the GCC countries indicated that they did not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, but were also opposed to the use of force against it. Their position with regard to Iran, so far, bears greater similarity with the stance taken by Russia and China than the one adopted by the US and its European allies.

The GCC is a regional organization comprising the six Persian Gulf Arab states. Created on May 25, 1981, the council's members are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

"The US is being completely ridiculous. While it wishes to police the region, it is dealing with a country that is significantly more powerful than Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Vietnam, and every other country bar Germany that it has ever fought," said Abdurrahman Shayyal.

Iason Athanasiadis is an Iran-based correspondent. [/hide]
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
<img src="http://www.ipsnews.net/new_images/head_large_story.jpg">
<img src="http://www.ipsnews.net/imagenes/new/fila2.jpg">

<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel</font>
<font face="trebuchet ms, arial unicode ms, verdana, sans-serif" color="#000000" size="3"> <b>
by Gareth Porter

May 25, 2006

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33350

WASHINGTON - <font size="4"><b>Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and to cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to the secret Iranian proposal to the United States.</b></font> The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. agreement covering all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by IPS, was conveyed to the United States in late April or early May 2003. Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official earlier this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source.

The two-page document contradicts the official line of the George W. Bush administration that Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel and the sponsorship of terrorism in the region.

Parsi says the document is a summary of an even more detailed Iranian negotiating proposal which he learned about in 2003 from the U.S. intermediary who carried it to the State Department on behalf of the Swiss Embassy in late April or early May 2003. The intermediary has not yet agreed to be identified, according to Parsi.

The Iranian negotiating proposal indicated clearly that Iran was prepared to give up its role as a supporter of armed groups in the region in return for a larger bargain with the United States. What the Iranians wanted in return, as suggested by the document itself as well as expert observers of Iranian policy, was an end to U.S. hostility and recognition of Iran as a legitimate power in the region.

Before the 2003 proposal, Iran had attacked Arab governments which had supported the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The negotiating document, however, offered "acceptance of the Arab League Beirut declaration", which it also referred to as the "Saudi initiative, two-states approach."

The March 2002 Beirut declaration represented the Arab League's first official acceptance of the land-for-peace principle as well as a comprehensive peace with Israel in return for Israel's withdrawal to the territory it had controlled before the 1967 war.. Iran's proposed concession on the issue would have aligned its policy with that of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among others with whom the United States enjoyed intimate relations.

Another concession in the document was a "stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.) from Iranian territory" along with "pressure on these organizations to stop violent actions against civilians within borders of 1967".

Even more surprising, given the extremely close relationship between Iran and the Lebanon-based Hizbollah Shiite organisation, the proposal offered to take "action on Hizbollah to become a mere political organization within Lebanon".

The Iranian proposal also offered to accept much tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for "full access to peaceful nuclear technology". It offered "full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols)".

That was a reference to protocols which would require Iran to provide IAEA monitors with access to any facility they might request, whether it had been declared by Iran or not. That would have made it much more difficult for Iran to carry out any secret nuclear activities without being detected.

In return for these concessions, which contradicted Iran's public rhetoric about Israel and anti-Israeli forces, the secret Iranian proposal sought U.S. agreement to a list of Iranian aims. The list included a "Halt in U.S. hostile behavior and rectification of status of Iran in the U.S.", as well as the "abolishment of all sanctions".

Also included among Iran's aims was "recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity". According to a number of Iran specialists, the aim of security and an official acknowledgment of Iran's status as a regional power were central to the Iranian interest in a broad agreement with the United States.

Negotiation of a deal with the United States that would advance Iran's security and fundamental geopolitical political interests in the Persian Gulf region in return for accepting the existence of Israel and other Iranian concessions has long been discussed among senior Iranian national security officials, according to Parsi and other analysts of Iranian national security policy.

An Iranian threat to destroy Israel has been a major propaganda theme of the Bush administration for months. On Mar. 10, Bush said, "The Iranian president has stated his desire to destroy our ally, Israel. So when you start listening to what he has said to their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to see an issue of grave national security concern."

But in 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel. Flynt Leverett, then the senior specialist on the Middle East on the National Security Council staff, recalled in an interview with IPS that it was "literally a few days" between the receipt of the Iranian proposal and the dispatch of a message to the Swiss ambassador expressing displeasure that he had forwarded it to Washington.

Interest in such a deal is still very much alive in Tehran, despite the U.S. refusal to respond to the 2003 proposal. Turkish international relations professor Mustafa Kibaroglu of Bilkent University writes in the latest issue of Middle East Journal that "senior analysts" from Iran told him in July 2005 that "the formal recognition of Israel by Iran may also be possible if essentially a 'grand bargain' can be achieved between the U.S. and Iran".

The proposal's offer to dismantle the main thrust of Iran's Islamic and anti-Israel policy would be strongly opposed by some of the extreme conservatives among the mullahs who engineered the repression of the reformist movement in 2004 and who backed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last year's election.

However, many conservative opponents of the reform movement in Iran have also supported a negotiated deal with the United States that would benefit Iran, according to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer on Iran. "Even some of the hardliners accepted the idea that if you could strike a deal with the devil, you would do it," he said in an interview with IPS last month.

The conservatives were unhappy not with the idea of a deal with the United States but with the fact that it was a supporter of the reform movement of Pres. Mohammad Khatami, who would get the credit for the breakthrough, Pillar said.

Parsi says that the ultimate authority on Iran's foreign policy, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was "directly involved" in the Iranian proposal, according to the senior Iranian national security officials he interviewed in 2004. Kamenei has aligned himself with the conservatives in opposing the pro-democratic movement.

Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service </font>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
[frame]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE31Ak03.html[/frame]


[hide]Khamenei in control and ready to 'haggle'
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - For months, the US news media, the attention of pundits and elected officials have been riveted on the provocative rhetoric of ultra-conservative Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. President George W Bush in particular has invoked Ahmadinejad's alleged drive for nuclear weapons and desire to destroy Israel to justify US isolation and pressure on the regime.

But the almost exclusive focus on Ahmadinejad has been misplaced, because all the evidence indicates that it is Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not Ahmadinejad, who is directing Iranian foreign policy. Despite Ahmadinejad's clever exploitation of the nuclear issue to strengthen his domestic political position, he is playing second fiddle on this issue.

Ahmadinejad "doesn't have much to do with the nuclear issue", David Albright of the Institute for Science and International
Security in Washington, the most experienced US non-governmental expert on Iran's nuclear program, told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty immediately after the Iranian president's election. Albright observed that the policy on Iran's nuclear program is run by the Supreme National Security Council "directly under the Supreme Leader" (Khamenei).

At a briefing in Washington last week, Hadi Semati, a professor at Tehran University who is now a visiting fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, said Ahmadinejad "is third in command" after Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council. Khamenei and the council, he said, "are not going to let the president decide anything on the nuclear issue".

The Supreme National Security Council includes representatives appointed by the Supreme Leader as well as top officials from the military, foreign affairs, intelligence and other national-security-related agencies, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It determines national-defense and security policies on the basis of general guidelines laid down by the Supreme Leader.

Khamenei has not hesitated to set the record straight when Ahmadinejad has strayed from the foreign-policy line he and the Supreme National Security Council have set. Ten days after Ahmadinejad declared in a speech last October 25 that Israel should be "wiped off the map", Khamenei clarified Ahmadinejad's remarks, declaring that Iran "will not commit aggression against any nation. We will not breach any nation's rights anywhere in the world."

By shifting the focus from Ahmadinejad's provocative speeches and rambling letter to Bush to the thinking of Khamenei and his senior advisers, one can see the outlines of a consistent and coherent strategy toward the nuclear issue, the region and relations with the United States. These men may hold a theocratic perspective on Iranian politics and social life, but they base their national-security strategy on an assessment of international power relations and their own bargaining leverage.

Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council are keenly aware that Iran must exist in a region in which US military might is far superior to their own. But they have long viewed negotiations with the United States as the key to Iran's security, as well as its re-emergence as a regional power.

They have long pondered the question of when to negotiate with Washington. When then president Mohammad Khatemi proposed in an interview with CNN in January 1998 to engage the US in a dialogue, Khamenei responded several days later by denouncing the idea of talks or of relations with the United States.

But historian Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University recalls that one of the arguments Khamenei cited in the speech against engaging the United States was that Iran should not negotiate until it was in a stronger position. Since that January 1998 speech, much has happened to change Khamenei's perspective.

When the United States signaled that it intended to overthrow Saddam Hussein and occupy Iraq, Iranian leaders saw both danger and opportunity. On one hand, they were concerned about a possible US attack against Iran if it could consolidate power over Iraq. But they also reasoned that the United States would need their help to stabilize the post-Hussein political situation there, especially given Iran's special relationships with militant Iraqi Shi'ite political-military organizations that would re-enter Iraq from their exile in Iran.

Iranian policymakers also knew that Washington wanted their help on apprehending al-Qaeda leaders who had been detained in Iran after fleeing from Afghanistan. Even more important was Washington's evident concern over progress in Iran's nuclear research program by late 2002.

The awareness of a changed bargaining relationship opened a new stage of Iranian diplomacy. The first effort to engage the United States was the secret proposal of April 2003, conveyed to the State Department through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, which Bush chose to ignore.

Khamenei and his advisers believe Iran's leverage on US policy toward Iran has actually increased since that failed initiative. The United States has become hopelessly bogged down in Iraq, and allies of Iran are in positions of power in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. And most important of all, Washington is now in crisis mode over Iran's uranium-enrichment program.

Those developments are shaping the views of Iran's top policymakers about negotiations. The best indication of Khamenei's current strategic thinking is a recent statement by his top foreign-policy adviser Ali Akbar Velayati, foreign minister from 1981 to 1997. Velyati's closeness to Khamenei is indicated by the fact that, when Khamenei was president in 1981, Velyati was his first choice as prime minister.

At a seminar in Tehran on May 18, Velyati addressed the evolution of Iran's bargaining position in relation to the United States. "We have at no time until now had such powerful means for haggling," he said, nor "the influence we have now in Iraq and Palestine". He referred to friendly forces in power or in key positions in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan.

Velyati drew the obvious conclusion: "Now that we have the power to haggle, why don't we haggle?" The word "haggle" suggests bargaining over a Persian rug rather than negotiations on international security issues. But it conveys accurately the present mentality of the Iranian leadership about negotiations over the nuclear program.

Merchants "haggle" over the price of the goods, and Khamenei and his advisers are hoping to extract a high price from the United States in regard to a new regional order in return for guarantees against an Iranian nuclear-weapons program and other concessions of concern to the Bush administration.

The secret Iranian proposal of 2003, which called for US "recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region with according [that is, concomitant] defense capacity", suggests what Iran hopes to get from the haggling with Washington. The regional order sought by Tehran would still recognize the predominance of US power, but with new limits.

The evidence suggests that the realists who rule in Tehran are offering Washington a transition to a new, more stable Middle East in which Iran's role is more prominent but also more consciously devoted to bringing about change without violence. Up to now, however, the Bush administration has not been willing to accept any such limitation on its power.

Gareth Porter is a historian and national-security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in June 2005.

(Inter Press Service)[/hide]
 
Top