Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed

[falcon]

Iran's Nuclear Impasse: Next Steps By Michael A. Ledeen Posted: Thursday, July 20, 2006 TESTIMONY Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security (U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs) Publication Date: July 20, 2006 I am most grateful for your kind invitation to discuss American policy toward Iran. Sadly, recent events have made this discussion more urgent than ever. But that is what often happens when successive administrations, of both political parties and of various political convictions, avoid dealing with a serious problem. It doesn’t go away. Instead, the problem gets worse and the cost of dealing with it becomes more and more burdensome. The theocratic tyranny in Tehran is a very serious problem, and it is becoming graver. It has already cost a great number of American lives, and an even greater number of innocent Iranians, Iraqis, Israelis, Lebanese, Argentineans and others around the world have fallen prey to the mullahs. And now they are hell-bent to become a nuclear power. The bottom line is that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with us for twenty-seven years, and we have yet to respond. Fanatical Iranians overran the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and subjected diplomats to four hundred forty-four days of confinement and humiliation. Our policy was to negotiate a deal, which was consummated in the last hour of the Carter Administration. In the mid-1980s, Iranian-supported terrorists from Hizbollah killed hundreds of Americans in our Beirut Embassy, and, six months later, killed two hundred forty-one Marines in their barracks there. A couple of years after that, Hizbollah took other Americans hostage, from the CIA station chief in Beirut to Christian priests to a distinguished military man, Colonel Higgins, who had served as General Colin Powell’s military assistant in the Pentagon. The priests were eventually ransomed; Higgins and Buckley were tortured and murdered. No one should have been surprised that the Islamic Republic waged war against us from its first days in power. After all, the founder of the Iranian clerical fascist state, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, declared America “the great Satan,” an existential threat to the Islamic Republic as to all true Muslims. They have waged an unholy proxy war against us ever since. They created Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad, and they support most all the others, from Hamas and al Qaeda to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. Iran’s proxies range from Shi’ites to Sunnis to Marxists, all cannon fodder for the overriding objective to dominate or destroy us. This point needs to be stressed, since a lot of nonsense has been written about the theoretically unbridgeable divide between Sunnis and Shi’ites, and we should remind ourselves that the tyrants of the Islamic Republic do not share these theories. The recent terrorist assault on Israel--a coordinated two-front war--was conducted by Hamas and Hizbollah. The one is Sunni, the other, Shi’ite. Both are Iranian proxies. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards--as Shi’ite as they come--were trained in Lebanon’s Bekka Valley, beginning in the early 1970s, by Yasser Arafat’s Sunni al Fatah. Arafat, whose pedigree came from the Sunni Islamic Brotherhood, was the first foreign leader to be invited to Tehran after the overthrow of the shah, proving that when it comes to killing infidels, theological disagreements are secondary to the jihad. Yet for decades, we have been deceived by experts, in and out of government, who maintained that such cooperation--including cooperation between countries like Iran and Syria--was next to impossible. It was very good news, therefore, that the White House immediately denounced Iran and Syria for Hizbollah’s attack on Israel, just as Ambassador Khalilzad, on the 12th of July, tagged the terrorist siamese twins as sponsors of terrorism in Iraq. One of the best informed people in that country, who blogs under the title of “Iraq the Model” put it very well, if a bit ungrammatically: "Hizbollah is Iran's and Syria's partner in feeding instability in Iraq as there were evidence that this terror group has a role in equipping and training insurgents in Iraq and Hizbollah had more than once openly showed support for the "resistance" in Iraq and sponsored the meetings of Baathist and radical Islamist militants who are responsible for most of the violence in Iraq." When he says Iran “sponsored the meetings of Baathist and radical Islamist militants...” he is talking about Sunnis, the same Sunnis who, according to CIA deep thinkers and scads of academic experts, cannot possibly work closely with Shi’ites like the mullahs of Tehran. Iraq the Model isn’t burdened by this wisdom, and so he just reports what he sees on the ground in his own country. It is no accident that, the weekend before the two-front attack on Israel, there was a “security summit” in Tehran, involving all of Iraq’s neighbors, at which Iran’s infamous President Ahmadi-Nezhad issued one of his trademark warnings to Israel. “The existence of this regime will bring nothing but suffering and misery for people in the region,” he raged, and then said that the anger of the people might soon “lead to a vast explosion that will know no boundaries.” Perhaps he had a hint of what would soon explode. And well he should, because Iran has been quite busy in Lebanon of late. The Lebanese Tourism Ministry’s Research Center announced an amazing statistic in early July: in the first six months of the year, 60,888 Iranian tourists visited Lebanon. No other Asian country came close (the Philippines ranked second, with a bit over 12,000). Iranians are poor, suffering under the predations of greedy rulers and the usual miseries of a controlled economy. It is hard to believe that more than 12,000 Iranian “tourists” headed for the Beirut beaches each month without a considerable subsidy. Many of them were undoubtedly working for the Revolutionary Guards Corps, or were Hizbollah operations people. Iran is invariably atop the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, and we know from public court records in Italy and Germany that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi created a European-wide terrorist network in the latter years of the last century from a stronghold in Tehran. Among the evidence introduced by the prosecution were intercepts of phone conversations between terrorists in Europe and Zarqawi in Tehran. We also know--from abundant evidence ranging from documents to photographs captured by American forces in both Fallujah and Hilla--of the intimate working relationships between terrorists in Iraq and the regimes in Tehran and Damascus. Indeed, the terror war in Iraq is a replay of the strategy that the Iranians and the Syrians used in the 1980s to drive us and our French allies out of Lebanon. Those Americans who believed it was possible to wage the war against terrorism one country at a time, and that we could therefore achieve a relatively peaceful transition from Saddam’s dictatorship to an elected democracy, did not listen to the many public statements from Tehran and its sister city in jihad, Damascus, announcing in advance that Iraq was about to become the “new Lebanon.” It is open knowledge that Iran is making bigger and badder IEDs--the roadside bombs that are the single greatest cause of death and injury to our sons and daughters in Iraq--and sending them to the terrorists across the border. The British press has long reported this fact, which has been confirmed by Secretary of State Rumsfeld, and by Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief, who put it bluntly: "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that...the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops." There are still those in Foggy Bottom, Langley or academia who believe that somehow we can sort out our differences with the Islamic Republic. I wish they were right, but the Iranians’ behavior proves otherwise. Religious fanatics of the sort that rule Iran do not want a deal with the devil. They want us dominated or dead. There is no escape from their hatred, or from the war they have waged against us. We can either win or lose, but no combination of diplomatic demarches, economic sanctions, and earnest negotiations, can change that fatal equation. It is not our fault. It is their choice. The Nuclear Question A few months ago, the CIA concluded that Iran could not produce nuclear weapons in less than a decade, but given the history of such predictions, we should be very skeptical of that timeline. Some Russian experts reportedly think it could be a matter of months, and they probably have better information than we do. Numerous Iranian leaders have said that they intend to use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel, and contemporary history suggests that one should take such statements at face value. A nuclear Iran would be a more influential regional force, and since its missiles now reach deep into Europe, it would directly menace the West. Moreover, once Iran manages to put nuclear warheads on their intermediate range missiles, they might even be able to direct them against American territory from one or more of the Latin American countries with which the mullahs are establishing strategic alliances. I would be the last to suggest we should not do everything possible to prevent the emergence of a nuclear Iran. But the nuclear question simply adds urgency to the Iranian threat, which is already enormous, and which should have prompted our maximum thought and energy long since. The mullahs don’t need atomic bombs to kill large numbers of Americans; they have long worked on other weapons of mass destruction, and they have an imposing network of terrorists all over the Western world. Hardly a day goes by without chest-pounding speeches from the mullahs warning us about the wave of suicide bombers headed our way. I am afraid that the obsession with the nuclear question often obscures the central policy issue: that the Islamic Republic has waged war against us for many years and is killing Americans every week. They would do that even if they had no chance of developing atomic bombs, and they will do that even if, by some miracle, the feckless and endlessly self-deluding governments of the West manage to dismantle the secret atomic facilities and impose an effective inspection program. The mullahs will do that because it is their essence. It is what they are. The nuclear threat is inseparable from the nature of the regime. If there were a freely elected, democratic government in Tehran, instead of the self-selecting tyranny of the mullahs, we would in all likelihood be dealing with a pro-Western country that would be more interested in good trade and cultural relations than in nuclear warheads. In other words, it’s all about the regime. Change the regime, and the nuclear question becomes manageable. Leave the mullahs in place, and the nuclear weapons directly threaten us and our friends and allies, raising the ante of the terror war they started twenty-seven years ago. And still no Western leader at any time in all these years has advocated regime change in Iran. What to do? The first step is to abandon the self-deception that we will be able to arrive at a negotiated settlement. It can’t be done. The Iranians view negotiations as merely tactical enterprises in support of their strategic objectives. The London Sunday Telegraph reported several months ago that Hassan Rowhani, the mullah in charge of nuclear negotiations with the Europeans, bragged in a public speech that Iran had duped European Union negotiators into thinking it had halted efforts to make nuclear fuel while in reality it continued to install equipment to process yellowcake--a key stage in the nuclear-fuel process. It could hardly be clearer, or so one would think. The “negotiations” were merely a tactic. Nor is there any reason to believe we can count on the United Nations to impose the rules of civilized behavior on the mullahs, either on nuclear issues or terrorism. The Supreme Leader, Ali Khamene’i, has told his associates that Iran now has a “strategic relationship” with Putin’s Russia, and that China is so dependent on Iranian oil that it is highly unlikely Peking would vote against Tehran in the Security Council. That leaves us with three courses of action, none of which is automatically exclusive of the others: sanctions, military strikes, and support for democratic revolution. Sanctions I do not know of a case in which sanctions have produced a change in behavior by a hostile regime. The two cases in which sanctions seem to have worked had to do with regimes that thought of themselves as friends of the United States, and wanted to be embraced by us: Pinochet’s Chile and apartheid South Africa. Enemy regimes don’t respond to sanctions, whether it be Castro’s Cuba or Qadaffi’s Libya or the Soviet Empire. Indeed, sanctions aimed against the national economy are misconceived, because they harm the people--who are highly likely to be our best weapon against the tyrants--while leaving the tyrannical and oppressive elite largely untouched. We should want to punish hostile regimes and help the people. Big-time economic sanctions or embargoes cannot do that, but very limited sanctions and other economic and financial actions can. I am very much in favor of seizing the assets of the Iranian leaders, because while the mullahs have ruined the lives of most Iranians, they have greatly enriched themselves at the people’s expense, and a good deal of that money has been squirreled away in foreign bank accounts. That money properly belongs to the Iranian people, whose misery grows from day to day. We should hold it for them, and return it to a freely elected government after we have helped them overthrow their oppressors. I also agree that a travel ban on the top leaders would be useful, if for no other reason than its symbolic value. It tells the Iranian people that we consider the mullahs unworthy of acceptance in the civilized world; it brands the mullahs for what they are. The Iranians know it far better than we. But they need to see that we have taken sides, and the travel ban is one good way to do that. Military Action While nobody this side of the yellow press is talking about an invasion of Iran, there is considerable speculation about limited strikes against nuclear facilities. I do not know enough to be able to offer an informed opinion on this matter. I would only point out that our intelligence about Iran has been bad since before the revolution of 1979, and one would have to be very optimistic to base a military plan on our current intelligence product. Iranians are skilled at deceit, and have been hiding their nuclear projects from us for a long time. Military action carries enormous risks. Some number of Iranians would likely be inclined to rally to the national defense, even if they hate the regime. It’s impossible to estimate how many of them would take this path. Moreover, there would inevitably be innocent victims, and our strategy should aim at saving innocents, not killing them. On our side of the equation, it is virtually certain that Iran would respond with a wave of terrorism, from Iraq to Europe to the homeland, and with efforts to drive up the price of oil even higher. That said, our failure to design and conduct a serious Iran policy for so long has narrowed our options, and we may be faced with a choice among various unattractive actions. If we and our allies decide that Iranian nuclear facilities must be taken out, we should first make clear to the Iranian people that we have come slowly and reluctantly to this position, that the regime could have avoided this terrible situation by negotiating in good faith, and that we would never dream of doing such a thing if Iran were governed by reasonable people. In fact, whatever policy we adopt, it is very important for us to talk--a lot--to the Iranian people. Revolution Iran had three revolutions in the twentieth century, and boasts a long tradition of self-government. The demographics certainly favor radical change: roughly 70% of Iranians are twenty-nine years old or less. We know from the regime’s own public opinion surveys that upwards of 73% of the people would like a freer society and a more democratic government, and they constantly demonstrate their hatred of the regime in public protests (from oppressed ethnic groups to university students and public employees), in the blogosphere in both Farsi (the internet’s fourth most popular language) and English, in strikes ranging from the oil workers to the Tehran bus drivers, and from time to time in violent acts against officials on the ground. The regime’s reaction is ruthless, but the protests continue, and there is good reason to believe that the mullahs are extremely worried. In response to recent demonstrations in Khuzestan, the oil-producing region in the south, the regime sent in members of the Badr Brigade (the Iranian-trained militia in Iraq) and of (Lebanese) Hizbollah. This suggests a lack of confidence in the more traditional security organizations: the regular Army, the Revolutionary Guards, and the thuggish Basij, generally described as fanatically loyal to the Islamic ideals of the mullahcracy. Yet, just as it was generally believed that there was no hope of a peaceful overthrow of the Soviet Empire, today the conventional wisdom intones that there is no hope for democratic revolution in Iran, and even if there were, we no longer have enough time for it. As if one could fine tune the timing of a revolution! The pessimism is as bizarre as it is discouraging. We empowered a successful revolution in the Soviet Empire with the active support of a very small percentage of the population. In Iran revolution is the dream of at least 70% of the people. The regime is famously vicious, as the mounting numbers of executions and the ongoing torture in Iran’s prisons unfortunately demonstrate. But the KGB was no less vicious, and tyranny is the most unstable form of government. We should remind ourselves that democratic revolution invariably surprises us. If anyone had forecast a successful democratic revolution in the Ukraine, even three months before it occurred, most of us would have considered it a fantasy. Nobody knows with certainty whether revolution can succeed in Iran, or, if it can, how long it will take. But in recent years a surprising number of revolutions have toppled tyrants all over the world. Most of them got help from us, which should not surprise Americans. Most revolutions, including our own, required external support in order to succeed, and there is a widespread belief in Iran that a democratic revolution cannot defeat the mullahs unless it is supported by the United States. They are waiting for concrete signs of our support. Support means, above all, a constant critique by our leaders of the regime’s murderous actions, and constant encouragement of freedom and democracy. Too many people have forgotten the enormous impact of Ronald Reagan’s denunciation of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” The intellectual elite of this country condemned that speech as stupid and dangerous, yet we learned from the Soviet dissidents that the it was enormously important, because it showed that we understood the nature of the Soviet regime, and were committed to its defeat. In like manner, the Iranians need to see that we want an end to the Islamic Republic. We need to tell them that we want, and will support, regime change in their country, peaceful, non-violent regime change, not revolution from the barrel of a gun. We also need to talk to them very specifically about how such revolutions succeed. We should greatly expand our support for private radio and television broadcasters, both here and in Europe, and we need to get serious about using our own broadcasts as revolutionary instruments. We should not compete for market share, and we should not be in the entertainment business; we should be broadcasting interviews with successful revolutionaries from other countries, as well as with the few Iranian dissidents who reach the free world. We should also broadcast conversations with experts on non-violent revolution. The Iranians need to learn, in detail, what works and what does not. They need to see and hear the experiences of their revolutionary comrades. We must also provide them with the wherewithal for two vitally important revolutionary actions: build resources for a strike fund, and get them modern instruments of communication. The strike fund speaks for itself: workers need to be able to walk off the job, knowing they will be able to feed their families for several weeks. The instruments of communication include servers, laptops, satellite and cell phones and phone cards. Finally, the president should appoint an eloquent, charismatic person to advise him on Iranian policy, and to work closely with Congress in its design and implementation. Once again, the Iranian people need to see real action. They have heard lots of fine speeches, now it’s time to move. www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24687,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

[American Patriot]

Iran intent on nuclear weapons, says US
Irish Examiner ^ | 01SEP06 | George Jahn






IRAN has left no doubt it intends to seek nuclear weapons now that it has violated a UN Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment, and the council must now be ready to impose sanctions, US Ambassador John Bolton said yesterday.


Iran’s president defiantly refused to compromise, saying his country won’t be bullied into giving up its right to nuclear technology.


Security Council unanimity was not needed before taking action against Iran, Bolton said in a reference to continued Chinese and Russian reluctance to move quickly on sanctions.


He spoke shortly after the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iran shows no signs of freezing enrichment, adding that Tehran started work on a new batch August 24.


Iran’s refusal to cooperate fully with the IAEA and its continued development of nuclear technology makes clear that it is seeking a nuclear bomb, Bolton told reporters. Iran contends its program is for peaceful purposes.


“There’s simply no explanation for the range of Iranian behaviour which we’ve seen over the years other than that they’re pursuing a weapons capability,” Bolton said.


Last month, the Security Council gave Iran until August 31 to suspend uranium enrichment, and warned that it would consider sanctions if those activities weren’t stopped.


Bolton said the Security Council will wait to take any action until the foreign policy chief of the European Union, Javier Solana, meets with Ali Larijani, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, sometime next week.


“We’re certainly ready to proceed here in New York when we’re given the instructions to do so,” Bolton said.


Despite statements from Russia and China expressing their reluctance for sanctions, Bolton said the world should not assume that they would not punish Iran. He underscored that the two had agreed to the council resolution warning of possible sanctions.


In Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a large crowd that “the Iranian nation will not accept for one moment any bullying, invasion and violation of its rights.”


He also said enemies of the country were trying to stir up differences among the Iranian people, but “I tell them: you are wrong. The nation is united.”


“They claim to be supporting freedom but they support the most tyrannical governments in the world to pursue their own interests,” he said, referring to the United States. “They talk about human rights while maintaining the most notorious prisons. Those powers that do not abide by God and follow evil are the main source of all the current problems of mankind.”

[Joey Bagadonuts]

Does he think anyone is buying this??

Iranian Nuclear Chief Mohammad Sa'idi Explains Why Iran Produces Heavy Water: Drinking It Helps Fight Cancer and AIDS

================================================== =========

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD127506



Special Dispatch Series - No. 1275

September 1, 2006 No.1275

Iranian Nuclear Chief Mohammad Sa'idi Explains Why Iran Produces Heavy Water: Drinking It Helps Fight Cancer and AIDS

The following are excerpts from an interview with Mohammad Sa'idi, international affairs deputy of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, which aired on the Iranian News Channel (IRINN) on August 27, 2006.
TO VIEW THIS CLIP, VISIT: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1251

"Patients... Consume [Heavy Water] Daily to Heal Their Diseases "





Interviewer: "You just said that in some cases, heavy water can even be used for drinking."

Mohammad Sa'idi: "Yes."

Interviewer: "Could you elaborate on this?"

Mohammad Sa'idi: "One of the products of heavy water is depleted deuterium. As you know, in an environment with depleted deuterium, the reception of cancer cells and of the AIDS viruses is disrupted. Since this reception is disrupted, the cells are gradually expelled from the body. Obviously, one glass of depleted deuterium will not expel or cure the cancer or eliminate the AIDS. We are talking about a certain period of time. In many countries that deal with these diseases, patients use this kind of water instead of regular water, and consume it daily in order to heal their diseases.

"In other words, the issue of heavy water has to do with matters of life and death, in many cases. One of the reasons that led us to produce heavy water was to use it for agricultural... medical purposes, and especially for industrial purposes in our country."

[...]

"When You Commit to Using Nuclear Technology for Peaceful Purposes Only, This Includes All the Nuclear Issues"

Mohammad Sa'idi: "There is no connection whatsoever between heavy water and plutonium. As I have said, the nuclear industry can be used for diverse purposes."

Interviewer: "Right."

Mohammad Sa'idi: "Some countries possess this kind of weapon, and use this technology to make weapons. There are also countries which are NPT members, and which accepted the NPT [regulations], and they have therefore committed themselves to use this technology for peaceful purposes only. When you commit to using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only, this includes all the nuclear issues. Let's say tomorrow you build a heavy-water research reactor, OK? This research reactor uses fuel that has the plutonium element as well. We have declared to the world that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, and the IAEA can supervise it fully. Now, when we are in the process of building this reactor - the concrete has just been poured and the walls are being installed - the IAEA is present, so of course it will be present when the reactor becomes operational. When it becomes operational the inspectors will definitely be there. Just like they supervise our facilities at Natanz, they will supervise these facilities, so that there will be no deviation in a certain direction."

[...]

"The Heavy-Water Research Reactors Have Slightly Simpler Technology [Than Light-Water Reactors]"

Mohammad Sa'idi: "You may ask why we pursued a heavy-water research reactor, rather than a light-water reactor. This is a [legitimate] question, which deserves an answer. [It is] because this involves simpler technology. The heavy-water research reactors have slightly simpler technology. In what way are they simpler? Light-water research reactors require fuel that is 20% enriched. Do you follow, Mr. Emami?"

Interviewer: "Yes."

Mohammad Sa'idi: "It requires 20% enriched fuel. Heavy-water research reactors do not require enriched fuel. What you need is not 3.5% [enriched uranium], but UO2, which is produced in the [UCF] facilities at Esfahan. These products are produced at Esfahan, and heavy water is currently produced at Khondab in Arak, so this technology is readily available to us. All we need to do is build the reactor. The fuel is available, and so is the moderator and the cooler, so the reactor can become productive very quickly. Let's say you build a light-water research reactor, OK? As soon as you want to move from 5% to 20% - in other words, to produce enriched fuel - the same countries that are shouting that there is plutonium in heavy-water reactors will shout and say that Iran has moved from 5% to 20% enrichment."

[...]

Interviewer: "With regard to Natanz, the 164 centrifuges continue to operate. When will we reach the 3,000 we announced?"

Mohammad Sa'idi: "We are now carrying out work at the R&D stage. A plan has been drawn up, and we are following it."

Interviewer: "When do you think we will reach 3,000 [centrifuges]?"

Mohammad Sa'idi: "According to the plan."

"We are Planning a Light-Water Power Reactor With a Capacity of 360 Megawatt"

Interviewer: "Thank you. I had other questions... We have done all these activities, so why aren't we building a [nuclear] power plant?"

Mohammad Sa'idi: "Of course we are. One of the important issues that may arise in the future for our dear people is that in order to complete this technological process in the Islamic Republic of Iran, we have begun designing a power reactor for the production of electricity. When I say 'power,' I mean production of electricity. This is a power reactor with a capacity of 360 megawatt. We are working towards an Iranian-made reactor. Adjacent to the heavy-water reactor that we are building, and which is also Iranian-made, we are planning a light-water power reactor with a capacity of 360 megawatt, which will serve as a basis for construction of [other] power reactors in the future."



***

[American Patriot]

GLOVES OFF ON IRAN...
(BUSH'S LOGIC SUGGESTS STRIKE)
NY Post ^ | September 6, 2006 | John Podhoretz

GEORGE W. Bush just delivered what may be the most important speech of his presidency since he went before the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, and declared his intention to seek regime change in Iraq. The time has come, the president all but said yesterday, to take the gloves off with Iran.


"The world's free nations will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," he said flatly. He prefaced those words by saying that efforts were being made to find a diplomatic solution to the problem. Nonetheless, Bush has now said in the strongest sentence he has yet spoken on the matter that Iran will not go nuclear. He is unconditional about it.


In a carefully crafted speech, Bush laid out the parallels between the extremists of al Qaeda - Sunni Muslims - and the Shia extremists led by Iran. While they both use fiery rhetoric that may be easy to dismiss in certain quarters as an Islamic cultural affect, they are also uncommonly specific about their strategies and goals to achieve their aims.


Using captured documents, he showed how Osama bin Laden and the head of al Qaeda in Iraq have laid out with great precision their strategy to weaken and exhaust the United States and the free nations of the world - a strategy that is having some effect after three-plus hard years fighting in Iraq.


When discussing bin Laden's writings, Bush compared them to those of Lenin and Hitler a decade before they took power. The president pointed out: "History teaches that underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake." Then, almost immediately, he jumped from bin Laden to Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


"Iran's leaders," he said, "have also declared their absolute hostility to America.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

[Brian Baldwin]

Good news and sad news all at once. But only an idiot will say we didn't try the other path first.

[Sean Osborne]

Two items...


First a comment:

If we have any warrants or secret indictments they would be from the Reagan Administration era.

In any case we should avail ourselves of this opportunity to snag the punk next week and hold him while we do a search for those documents.

From Drudge..

FLASH: Islamic Republic News Agency reports that Ahmadinejad intends to travel to NYC, hopes to speak at UN on Sept. 19 at 7 PM; same day as Bush [whose speech is set for 11:30 AM] and day before Hugo Chavez... Both Ahmadinejad and Chavez will fly from Havana where they will see Castro... Earlier, Ahmadinejad said he was ready for debate with Bush at UN General Assembly... Developing...

Second item.


I like this, I like it a lot... especially the last part. A sort of Muhammed's alleged "Night Flight" reversed. We should have done this on August 22 over Tehran!

However, a truly perfect opportunity for such a nuclear light show over Tehran is just a couple of days away.

The specifically Shi'a holy day of 15 Sha'aban 1427 (9 September 2006) is this Saturday. It is celebrated by the Shi'a because it is the birthday of the 12th and final Imam.

What's more is that night there's also a FULL MOON. Detonate the nuke so that it eclipses or seems to appear like the full moon is exploding.

AhNazi-Nejad and his Hojjatieh are fervently looking for a sign... so let's give 'em one they'll never forget.

America's Strong Hand in Dealing with the Mullahs
September 6th, 2006


A dangerous fatalism has gripped too many people with regard to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear weapons program. America holds much better cards than the mullahs. We have let ourselves be spooked for far too long. History is full of instances that instruct us in the dangers of wallowing in pessimism.
General Abel D. Streight plumbed the low point of his life in the spring of 1863. His cavalry raid into Alabama got off to a good start, but then he came to the attention of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a nightmare situation for any Union horseman. A four-day series of running battles followed, stretching right across the northern tier of Alabama into Georgia.

At last, on May 3rd, his exhausted horses and men able to go no further, Streight watched in despair as dozens of Confederate artillery batteries rolled past two hills flanking his position. He surrendered shortly afterward, to discover that he’d heavily outnumbered Forrest all along (Forrest was forced to draft local civilians to guard his prisoners), and that the vast array of Confederate artillery was a single battery trundled repeatedly over the same spot.

The point of this story is: never allow your opponent all the aces. Don’t assume that the odds are on his side, that he outnumbers you, can outfight you, that there’s no such thing as bad luck in his corner. The iron laws of war – the risk factors that make it such a perilous enterprise in the first place – apply to both sides.
All else being equal, it’s a matter of will, ability, and pure luck, any of which can tip the result one way or another. It’s very possible—as we saw in recent weeks in Lebanon—to take a winning hand and throw it away. It’s also possible to take the worst imaginable situation and spin it into victory—think of Great Britain in 1940. Whatever the case, it remains an egregious error to concede superiority, of any sort, to the enemy. That’s an important lesson to contemplate in the wake of the rejection of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1696, because it appears to be exactly what’s happening with Iran.

Fatalism has become the dominant attitude toward Iran. The mullahs’ acquisition of nuclear weapons is inevitable, there’s no possible counterstrategy, the best we can hope for is some kind of accommodation. The latest expression of this attitude comes from Stanley Kurtz, who predicts a universal return to Cold War civil defense complete with “duck and cover” drills. This is probably not a bad thing in and of itself (the civil defense aspect of the current conflict has been completely and dangerously neglected), but it certainly does not rate highly as a substantial response to Iran.

The Iranians are probably not as clever as Forrest (though they may well match the ex-slave trader and Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan for sheer nastiness). But they’ve proven his superiors as far as bluff goes. Forrest at least had a cannon to display. The ayatollahs don’t even have that much. Their atomic weapons have barely passed the design stage. All they’ve been trundling back and forth is crazy rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – which has been more than enough to cow Europe and the international commentariat. Not at all bad for a phantom weapon. No wonder they want the real thing so much.

Aside from the blueprints, the Iranians possess a third-rate army (one, count it, one fully-equipped armored division), a nominal navy stocked with quarter-century-old warships, and a large cache of semi-obsolete missiles. Their most feared hole card, the Hezb’allah, has suffered a severe drop in reputation over the past six weeks. The quiet support of Russia and China may be handy but cannot be relied upon. Neither can their alliance with Moqtada al-Sadr, a man rapidly approaching the end of his string. Not a particularly impressive hand, on the face of it. It’s impossible not to feel some grudging admiration at how far the ayatollahs have gone with it – along with considerable puzzlement as to why we, the West at large, can’t bring off something similar.
Because there are, in fact, aces on the table. Aces that the Iranians don’t hold. Aces that are lying there waiting to be picked up.

Here’s the short list:
* Nationalities – It’s odd how often it’s pointed out that Iraq is a state created from a patchwork of nationalities while the same is never mentioned about Iran. In truth, the situation in Iran makes Iraq look like Sweden.
Aside from the Shi’ite Persian majority, there exist substantial minorities of Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris, Armenians, Bakhtiaris, and Turkomans, in addition to a large Sunni population comprisng 8% of Iran’s total (most of the Kurds, Baluchis, and Turkomans are Sunni). Relations between the minorities and the dominant Shi’ite Persians are about what you’d expect. Persian arrogance, coupled with Shi’ite fanaticism, have created a pressure-cooker atmosphere.
Continual ill-covered riots and demonstrations have been accompanied by serious attempts at assassination of government figures, including Ahmadinejad, who nearly fell victim to a group of Baluchis. Recent Iranian attacks against Kurds in Iraq can’t have done much to calm things.
It would be surprising if overtures haven’t been made to some of these groups. Anything beyond that is speculation.

* The Sunni States – It’s clear that the bulk of the Gulf states are worried about Iran. They are, after all, Sunnis contemplating the sudden apotheosis of a Shi’ite state, a radical Shi’ite state at that. Some of them, such as the United Arab Emirates, already have blood in their eyes over Iran concerning lost territory (Iran seized a group of islands belonging to the UAE early in the Iran-Iraq War and has refused to discuss their return).
How deep all this goes can be gauged by the fact that several of these same states gave the nod to Israel’s attack on Hezb’allah in the first days of its recent Lebanon incursion. It shouldn’t present much of a challenge to form a pressure group of Muslim states – not all, necessarily, on the Gulf – to lean on the Iranians. Myriad possibilities suggest themselves. While such an effort might not provide a complete solution, Middle Eastern states having the tendency to fade in the clutch, it would complicate things for Iran. And it’s certainly superior to attempting anything further with the Europeans.

* Gasoline – It is now widely understood that Iran possesses no capability of refining the higher petroleum fractions, including gasoline. Refineries do exist in Iran, but apparently they’re intended only to separate various grades of petroleum from crude. This lack of technology is a serious vulnerability. Cutting the country off would be a simple matter of sanctions, perhaps reinforced by a blockade directed at tankers. This is probably the most straightforward method of putting serious pressure on the ayatollahs. It’s difficult to impress the world with plans for conquest when your Mercedes limos are being pulled around by oxen.
Of course, a riposte, probably involving oil exports, must be anticipated. But that can be handled (see below).

* Oil – Another open secret involves the actual locations of Iranian oilfields. A glance at a resource map reveals that most are located on or near the shoreline, with a smaller though still substantial fraction further inland. Most of Iran’s oil resources could be interdicted by naval action. But the most interesting point is that the largest fields aren’t located in Iran at all. They’re offshore, in the middle of the Gulf which, since 1988, has been completely controlled by the U.S. Navy.
Not only can the U.S. cut Iran off from the bulk of its oil resources with little in the way of effort – it’s also possible, by taking over working oil platforms, that Iranian oil could continue flowing to the outside world with little interruption, negating one of the more serious objections to such a strategy. Many fields are run by foreign third parties (e.g., the Romanian installation the Iranians attacked so inexplicably), but a number of these are either allies or else states long deserving some kind of black eye.
Such a move would be the penultimate effort – but it’s something that should not be overlooked.

* The Forrest Effect – We shouldn’t forget that Forrest was an American (of sorts). Iran has, for past eighteen months, held the stage by its lonesome. Thanks to Ahmadinejad a new threat or bizarre proposal comes every other day. (the latest is an offer to debate President Bush on television – or was it the newest claim that the Holocaust never happened? I don’t know – it’s hard to keep track.) This stuff is transparently designed to generate confusion and dismay, and to keep the diplomatic and political elites guessing.
It’s about time that we started acting in turn – throwing a few curves in the direction of Tehran designed to cause the same – if not greater – unease and foreboding. One possibility is a campaign aimed directly at the Iranian peasantry consisting of leaflets condemning Ahmadinejad and alleging to originate from the 13th imam himself, backed up by radio broadcasts and so forth. Iran remains a relatively unmodernized society and is very susceptible to this kind of stimulus. (Think Orson Welles’ Martian invasion broadcast – though the U.S. was more advanced than Iran even then.) The U.S. is not as vulnerable due to the media – we’ve been inoculated, in a sense. Rumors begin, and flash past quickly through the tube, talk radio, or the Internet, but they seldom settle in.
Iran seems to have convinced itself that the U.S. is too enmeshed in the Iraqi insurrection to throw anything in their direction. They should be given reason for second thoughts. Consider the story of FUSAG. In 1944, a completely bogus army group supposedly based in Southeast England under the command George Patton was fabricated, backed by evidence ranging from fake vehicle parks and supply dumps down to “lost” paperwork and imaginary unit insignia. It so convinced the Germans that numerous units of Army Group B – units that might well have turned the tide in the Normandy battles following D-Day – were held in reserve to meet a completely fictitious Patton-led invasion of the Pas de Calais.
It wouldn’t be necessary to concoct an entire army. Miracles have been worked with mere paper. Consider Richard Meinertzhagen’s elaborate ruse that cleared the way for the British attack on Beersheba in 1917, or the famed Man Who Never Was operation carried out by British intelligence agent Ewan Montagu a quarter-century later. There’s no reason why it can’t be attempted again, on all kinds of levels.

Southern Iraq is supposedly overrun with Iranian agents. Fine—let’s consider them as a resource. A series of contradictory, incomplete, and frightening reports backed up by maps, documents, and a few troop movements are just what the ayatollahs have coming. The point of these deceptions is that, no matter how suspicious an enemy may be, he cannot ignore them. He has no choice but to expend resources to meet the possible threat. A nice variation, always useful when dealing with a totalitarian dictatorship, lies in documents suggesting that one or more of the ayatollahs (or Ahmadinejad’s goons) are traitors. The possibilities are endless.

And don’t forget that fleet either. After 1988, there may well no other military force the thinking mullah fears more than the U.S. Navy. The U.S. exercises more control over the Gulf than it does some parts of its own coastline. Plenty can be done with it in the way of harassment, including close passes by Navy vessels, hounding (or seizing) Iranian vessels, strange events on oil platforms, and so on. There is also such a thing as a “blockade”, which appears to have been overlooked, and could be put in effect just short of open warfare. In fact, any workable sanctions regime will of necessity feature some aspects of a blockade.
Aircraft are also useful in this effort. One method pioneered by Harry Truman against the USSR involved what might be called the suggestive reconnaissance flight. Truman several times sent RB-36 recon planes, which at that time could not be intercepted, over Moscow during tense interludes to underline just how vulnerable the Soviets were. A variation involves sonic booms. In the late 80s, SR-71 spyplanes were sent over Managua to treat the Sandinistas to a good loud bang every time they began menacing their neighbors. Tehran should receive similar treatment on a regular basis.

* The Biggest Bang—Which brings us to our final possibility, which can be carried out as the last action short of open war. This would involve setting off a low-yield nuclear warhead 50,000 feet over Tehran. At that altitude, a bomb of precise power would break every window in the city, blind a few unfortunates, but kill no one. This may seem a drastic proposal, but in a climate where even gentle souls like Michael Coren are suggesting far worse, ‘drastic’ is a matter of debate.
A nuclear explosion is the most foreboding sight in nature it is possible to witness and survive. Many eyewitnesses of atmospheric bomb tests speak of the almost unreasoning terror that the sight creates. During the 1960s, an Air Force officer suggested that a single exception be made to the atmospheric test ban treaty: that a single bomb be set off annually with the leaders of all major powers present. “Once they see it, they will never forget it.”
That’s the problem with the ayatollahs and their servants – they haven’t seen it. A single example of what their longed-for toy actually is might concentrate their minds wonderfully. It might also result in every bearded man in Tehran being strung up by a terrified citizenry. And if it doesn’t work? If the ayatollahs remain defiant? We set off another one 45,000 feet above Qum. Repeat as many times as necessary. Anything is better than genocide.
Those are our cards. If I were sitting in on this kind of game, those are cards I’d like to have. If we played any of them, they would inevitably cause difficulties for an Iranian government that is unstable and enjoys little backing from its own people. We could easily carry them out in the form of a ladder of escalation, one after the other, until we get results.
Or, and this is my preference, we could try them all at once (all except the last, which we hold in reserve). There may be no aces in that pile; Iran may be able to bluff until the end. But it’s absurd and dishonest to claim that there are no alternatives, that we have to sit passively, hands folded, while a pack of throwbacks dictate events. So let’s pick up those cards. Who can say they won’t add up to a full house? We’ll never know unless we play the hand.

J.R. Dunn edited the International Military Encyclopedia for twelve years, among many other accomplishments. He is a frequent contributor.



J.R. Dunn

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=5831

[Brian Baldwin]

I like that article Sean. It is unfortunately common sense. We seem to have decided that in European fashion that we should not exercise such thinking. Instead we deal daily with an anti-american body known as the UN and flinch and cover our eyes from small cartoonish dictators that think their stick and rock technology can bring ruination to the greatest super power that has ever existed.

We not only have the ability to show them sky lights of a magnitude without compare, we also have the ability to wipe the middle east off of the face of the earth. Yet still we can be found licking spittle from the boots of the secretary general of the UN and nations like France and Germany. So if we can not wake up to the fact that Europe and the UN are in fact useless; How do we ever hope to wake up to the fact that we are infinitely more powerful than Iran?

[falcon]

U.S. cracks down on Iranian bank

(9/8/2006)
By Jeannine Aversa, Associated Press

The Bush administration, stepping up the pressure on Tehran, moved Friday to sever a big Iranian state-owned bank from the U.S. financial system.

Stuart Levey, the Treasury Department's under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said the government's action is against Bank Saderat, which the United States contends is used by Iran to transfer money to terrorist groups, including Hezbollah.

While Iranian financial institutions are barred from directly accessing the U.S. financial system, they are permitted to do so indirectly through a bank in another country. The United States is closing down that avenue for Bank Saderat, a U.S. Treasury official explained. The action, which involved a change in regulations, doesn't apply to other Iranian banks, the official said.

"Today we have cut off one of the largest Iranian state-owned banks, Bank Saderat, from the U.S. financial system," Levey said.

It marked the administration's latest effort to turn up the heat on Iran.

The United States wants the U.N. to impose sanctions against Iran unless the country stops enriching uranium, a key step in making nuclear weapons.

Friday's action also is the latest step to financially clamp down on Hezbollah, which the United States says is bankrolled in large part by Iran.

The U.S. calls Lebanon-based Hezbollah a terrorist group that is suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks worldwide. The U.S. also blamed Hezbollah for triggering recent bloodshed in the Middle East involving Lebanon, Israel and the terrorist organization.

Levey said that since 2001 a Hezbollah-controlled organization, which he did not identify, received $50 million directly from Iran through Bank Saderat.

"Hezbollah has used Bank Saderat to transfer funds, sometimes in the millions of dollars, to support the activities of other terrorist organizations such as Hamas in Gaza," Levey said. "We will no longer allow a bank like Saderat to do business in the American financial system, even indirectly."

Levey will be traveling to Europe, where he'll talk to government officials and business people about persuading banks and other financial institutions to stop doing business with Iran. Some banks are already rethinking their relationships with the country, he said.

"Earlier this year, the Swiss bank UBS cut off all dealing with Iran," Levey said. "HSBC and Credit Suisse have also limited their exposure to Iranian business."

It is a difficult decision for banks to make given Iran's standing in the global economy, including its position as a major oil supplier, Levey acknowledged in an interview with The Associated Press last week.

"The next steps may involve sacrifice, but I think that people are beginning to recognize that the costs we face now pale in comparision to those we might face in the future if Iran does not change course," Levey said Friday.

www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/headline.htm

[falcon]

The U.S. vs. Iran
One side is playing for real, the other only for time.

BY MICHAEL RUBIN
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

The Iranian government continues to enrich uranium despite Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's generous package of incentives--and in defiance of the U.N.'s Aug. 31 deadline. Still, European officials hold out hope for the success of diplomacy. On Sept. 15, Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said, "We are really making progress. Never before have we had a level of engagement . . . as we have now." Diplomats will look for any hopeful sign from Iranian President's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's forthcoming U.N. speech. But can talk work? Successful diplomacy requires that both sides negotiate in good faith and honor commitments. That Tehran's track record undercuts confidence should not surprise. From its very inception, the Islamic Republic has eschewed diplomatic norms.
On Nov. 4, 1979, Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding 52 hostages for 444 days. Warren Christopher, deputy secretary of state during the crisis, called the Iranian move a "flagrant violation" of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. But Iranian officials endorsed the seizure. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini praised the students. His successor as supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, showed support with a visit to the embassy soon after its seizure. Ironically, while the Iranian leadership often demands apologies for transgressions both real and imagined, it continues to uphold the righteousness of hostage seizure, underscoring official contempt for diplomatic convention.
Still, the embassy seizure might be long forgotten had Tehran's disdain for diplomatic norms been the exception rather than the rule. In 1986, former U.S. national security advisor Robert McFarlane's traveled to Tehran. While the Iran-Contra Affair is remembered today for the Reagan administration's attempts to circumvent Congressional prohibition of funding of the Nicaraguan resistance, it also illustrates the inadvisability of trusting Tehran. President Reagan sought to win the release of American hostages in Lebanon but, as soon as Washington compensated Tehran for its bad behavior, its militias accelerated hostage seizure. Diplomatic enticement--bribery by another name--backfired. But diplomacy is not just about incentives; it is also about trust. What could have been just a failed initiative turned to scandal when, on the seventh anniversary of the embassy seizure, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, today the chairman of the Expediency Council, broke a pledge of secrecy and revealed the meetings to the international press.
Iranian authorities showed diplomatic duplicity once again after Khomeini issued a declaration calling for author Salman Rushdie's death. Four months before Khomeini's death, then-president Khamenei demanded that Mr. Rushdie apologize in exchange for cancellation of a religious edict ordering his murder. Mr. Rushdie apologized, but the Iranian government nevertheless kept the bounty in place. President Khamenei was insincere, his diplomacy was a tactic. By winning an apology, he confirmed Mr. Rushdie's guilt.

Iranian lying should not surprise; what should is how often Western governments fall prey to it. The British government demanded that Tehran lift the bounty on Mr. Rushdie's head as a precondition to re-establish relations. On Sept. 24, 1998, the Iranian government said it would do nothing to harm Mr. Rushdie. No sooner had London and Tehran exchanged ambassadors, than Iranian authorities once again reversed themselves. For U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the cost of Iranian lying is high. While Iranian diplomats pledged not to destabilize Afghanistan and, indeed, cooperate in its reconstruction, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps sent in operatives disguised as school teachers to further instability. As Afghan President Hamid Karzai struggled to wrest control away from warlords, Afghan commanders intercepted a dozen Iranian agents and proxies organizing armed resistance.
In Iraq, too, Iranian diplomacy has been duplicitous. Prior to the Iraq war, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Javad Zarif, pledged Iranian noninterference to British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and Zalmay Khalilzad, then President George W. Bush's envoy to the free Iraqis. But, Iranian journalists now describe how, days after Saddam's fall, the Iranian leadership dispatched 2,000 Revolutionary Guards replete with radio transmitters, money, and supplies. On Nov. 18, 2003, Mr. Kharrazi again pledged good behavior. He lied outright; his promise coincided with a new deployment of Iranian intelligence across Iraq. The Revolutionary Guard stepped up its training of Muqtada al-Sadr's militia. Hasan Kazemi Qomi, previously Iran's liaison to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, became Tehran's top diplomat in Baghdad. Mr. Qomi assured diplomats that "Iran will not accept anything that destabilizes Iraq." Four months later, Iraqi forces captured 30 Iranians fighting alongside Sadr's militia.

Earlier this month, I traveled to the Middle East to meet Shiite tribal leaders and urban notables from southern Iraq. They described how Iran has transformed its consulates in Karbala and Basra into distribution points for everything from money to shaped charges. That Tehran uses diplomatic pouches and protocols to safeguard its network reflects their insincerity. While the West approaches diplomacy with sincerity, the Islamic Republic mocks diplomatic convention to shield subversion. Iran's nuclear program raises the stakes of its deceit to U.S. national security. There is little doubt that Tehran's nuclear program is not peaceful. On Feb. 14, 2005, Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer Kharrazi, secretary-general of Iranian Hezbollah, promised, "We are able to produce atomic bombs and we will do that." In February 2006, Mohsen Gharavian, a Qom theologian well-connected to the Islamic Republic's staunchest ideologues, called Iran's possession of nuclear weapons "natural."
Iran's nuclear program has advanced through the trust of diplomats and their willingness to provide hard currency in the name of dialogue and engagement. Between 2000 and 2005, European Union trade with Iran almost tripled. Tehran invested much of this money in arms and nuclear infrastructure. For more than a decade, through both the Rafsanjani and Khatami administrations, Iranian authorities hid the existence of a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy water plant at Khondab. That Western diplomats label Mr. Rafsanjani a pragmatist and Mr. Khatami a reformer underscores the danger of judging Iranian officials by style rather than action.
In February 2003, the Iranian authorities opened the secret plants to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. Their subsequent report was damning: Not only had the Iranian government designed the Natanz facility to house at least 50,000 centrifuges, but Tehran had the import of almost a ton of uranium from China, and could not account for missing processed uranium. During subsequent inspections, Iranian authorities repeatedly changed their stories when asked about the origin of weapons-grade uranium traces. Subsequent inspections exposed other lies. Finally, on Sept. 24, 2004, the IAEA Board of Governors, after recalling a litany of Iranian mistruths, found Iran in breach of its Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement. While Iranian officials have made many subsequent pledges to cooperate, their actions belie their words. They have yet to abide by the Additional Protocol's inspection standards and, earlier this year, turned away IAEA inspectors from Natanz in violation of the NPT.
While diplomacy necessarily involves talking to adversaries, Washington should not assume that the ayatollahs operate from the same set of ground rules. During his long exile in Najaf, Khomeini endorsed taqiya, religiously sanctioned dissembling. From his perspective and that of his followers, the ends justify the means. Hence, Khomeini saw nothing wrong when he told the Guardian newspaper, just months before his return to Iran, "I don't want to have the power of government in my hand; I am not interested in personal power." Tehran may still conduct diplomacy to fish for incentive and reward but, at its core, Iranian diplomacy is insincere. The Iranian leadership will say anything and do anything to buy the time necessary to acquire nuclear capability. That Foggy Bottom still advises against any strategy that might undercut the possibility of some illusionary breakthrough signals triumph not of realism but of negligence. Diplomacy cannot succeed if one side is playing for real and the other only for time.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008968

[falcon]

Is Ahmadinejad KGB Agent Or Another Fool OR MAD TAAZI (Islamist Fanatic) Leader?
Is there any possibility that Ahmadinejad KGB Agent ? Or is he another TAAZI (Islamist fanatic fool) in the hand of Mullahs? OR IS HE MAD TAAZI??????? Public Information: 1) Mr. Putin was first person within less than 24 hours to congratulate Ahmadinejad. Why was Putin ( this top KGB officer) so excited? 2) “We seek to strengthen Russia’s role in the world,” Ahmadinejad stressed. 3) "Many of my interrogations were at odd hours, after midnight, during which Mr. Ahmadinejad advised me that they knew of my handicapped son's name, address and school," said former US hostage, Col. Dave Roeder (Ret.). "They had full knowledge of my son's school pick-up and drop-off schedules, threatening that my wife would receive his small body parts, by mail, if I did not cooperate," he added. "I was in Tehran, I was there, I saw him [Ahmadinejad] for months and months, I can tell it was him. No one can tell me otherwise," said Bill Daugherty, also a former hostage, in Tehran, whose point was to challenge any skeptics of his and his fellow hostage's accounts and recognition of Ahmadinejad. 4) When Islamist students suggested to take U.S. Embassy , Ahmadinejad suggested to take Soviet Union Embassy as well, if he was an agent for KGB this was a good way to cover and test Islamist students. 5) Involved in plotting Dr. Bakhtiar assassinations? 6) The Austrian authorities are in possession of detailed and extensive data and information implicating Mr. Ahmadinejad's personal involvement in the July 12, 1989 assassinations of Mr. Abdul-Rahman Ghassemlou -- the Secretary- General o! f the Iranian Kurdish Democratic Party -- and two of his colleagues in Vienna, Austria. 7) Ahmadinejad was for nearly two years an intelligence chief for the unit of the revolutionary guard alleged to plot assassinations against Iranians living abroad. After the 1979 revolution, the twenty-three year old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Ayatollah Khomeini's universities' representative in the Student Office for Strengthening Unity, which played the command and control center for the seizure, and subsequent occupation, of the US Embassy for 444 days. Later in the 1980's he joined the Revolutionary Guards and eventually helped create the infamous Qods Brigade, which is today, still tasked with the super-secret special terror operations dictated by the clerical leadership. OR IS HE TAAZI (MAD Islamist Fanatic) ???????

[falcon]

Here is the last part of his speach. More from the "Religion of Violence".

Iran leader's U.N. finale reveals apocalyptic view
Ahmadinejad makes allusion to return of messianic Islamic 'madhi'
Posted: September 21, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
WASHINGTON – While most of the reporting and analysis of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the U.N. focused on what he had to say about the West and specifically the U.S., his chilling closing remarks were lost on most listeners – and apparently all reporters.

The last two paragraphs of his remarks revealed his steadfast and driving conviction, as previously reported in WND ,that a messianic figure, known as the "Mahdi" to Muslims, is poised to reveal himself after an apocalyptic holocaust on Earth that leaves most of the world's population dead.

"I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet," Ahmadinejad said. "Oh, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause."

With Iran on the verge of producing nuclear weapons and already in possession of sophisticated medium-range missiles, mystical pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah is of particular concern because of Iran's potential for triggering the kind of global conflagration Ahmadinejad envisions will set the stage for the end of the world.

Ahmadinejad is on record as stating he believes he is to have a personal role in ushering in the age of the Mahdi. In a Nov. 16, 2005, speech in Tehran, he said he sees his main mission in life as to "pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance."

According to Shiites, the 12th imam disappeared as a child in the year 941. When he returns, they believe, he will reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about a final judgment and the end of the world.

Ahmadinejad is urging Iranians to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi by turning the country into a mighty and advanced Islamic society and by avoiding the corruption and excesses of the West.

All Iran is buzzing about the Mahdi, the 12th imam and the role Iran and Ahmadinejad are playing in his anticipated return. There's a new messiah hotline. There are news agencies especially devoted to the latest developments.

"People are anxious to know when and how will he rise; what they must do to receive this worldwide salvation," says Ali Lari, a cleric at the Bright Future Institute in Iran's religious center of Qom. "The timing is not clear, but the conditions are more specific," he adds. "There is a saying: 'When the students are ready, the teacher will come.'"

Ahmadinejad and others in Iran are deadly serious about the imminent return of the 12th imam, who will prompt a global battle between good and evil (with striking parallels to biblical accounts of "Armageddon"). Some interpretations of the events that precede his coming include a war that wipes out most of the world's population.

In Iran, an institute set up in 2004 for the study and dissemination of information about the Mahdi had a staff of 160 and influence in the schools and children's magazines earlier this year. Theologians there say end-times beliefs appeal to one-fifth of the population. And the Jamkaran mosque east of Qom, 60 miles south of Tehran, is where the link between devotees and the Mahdi is closest.

As of last year, Ahmadinejad's cabinet had given $17 million to Jamkaran.

Shiite writings describe events surrounding the return of the Mahdi in apocalyptic terms. In one scenario, the forces of evil would come from Syria and Iraq and clash with forces of good from Iran. The battle would commence at Kufa – the Iraqi town near the holy city of Najaf.

Even more controversial is Ahmadinejad's repeated invocation of Imam Mahdi, known as "the Savior of Times." According to Shiite tradition, Imam Mahdi will appear on Judgment Day to herald a truly just government.

Ahmadinejad made reference to the Mahdi in his first speech to the U.N., too. He called on the "mighty Lord" to hasten the emergence of "the promised one," the one who "will fill this world with justice and peace."

Who stands in the Mahdi's way?

A top priority of Ahmadinejad is "to challenge America, which is trying to impose itself as the final salvation of the human being, and insert its unjust state [in the region]," says Hamidreza Taraghi, head of the conservative Islamic Coalition Society.

Taraghi says the U.S. is "trying to place itself as the new Mahdi." This may mean no peace with Iran, he adds, "unless America changes its hegemonic ... thinking, doesn't use nuclear weapons, [or] impose its will on other nations."

After Ahmadinejad last spoke to the United Nations, in September 2005, he told Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli in Tehran, in a videotaped discussion, about a strange, paranormal experience he had while speaking.

He recounted how he found himself bathed in light throughout the speech. But this wasn't the light directed at the podium by the U.N. and television cameras. It was, he said, a light from heaven.

According to a transcript of his comments, obtained by WND last year, Ahmadinejad wasn't the only one who noticed the unearthly light. One of his aides brought it to his attention.

The Iranian president recalled being told about it by one of his delegation: "When you began with the words 'in the name of Allah,' I saw a light coming, surrounding you and protecting you to the end."

Ahmadinejad agreed that he sensed the same thing.

"On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad,' he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura," he says. "I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes – Alhamdulillah!"

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52071

[American Patriot]

He saw the light of the suffering, the dead, the murdered who were watching him. He is suffering a delusion that will eventually kill him. Mark my words.

[American Patriot]

Transcript

President Ahmadinejad's News Conference

CQ Transcripts Wire
Thursday, September 21, 2006; 1:27 PM

SEPTEMBER 21, 2006
SPEAKER: MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, PRESIDENT OF IRAN
[*]
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I thank God, the almighty God, for giving me an opportunity to meet with my friends once again, and to speak about the important world affairs we face today.


At the outset, I'd like to seize the opportunity to thank the people of New York, the New York police and the security forces here for all their efforts.
I know it is not easy when world leaders arrive in New York. The regular life of New York City is disrupted. The movement with cars around the streets, and with the convoys, these people to stand behind traffic, and at times they even have to wait before being able to cross the green light on the street. So on my part, I'd like to apologize to the people of New York and thank them for accepting us.


I was hoping that on this trip I would have an opportunity to meet with people here in New York, to talk with them face to face, to speak with them and meet with them on the streets closely, to see them all and for them to see me and hear what we have to say.


But regretfully, though, pressure of our work program, and the current conditions that we face when we travel here, has not allowed me to do that. But I do hope in the future there will be an opportunity.


People in the United States, like all people around the world, are highly respected by us. They are good-willing people who seek justice. They care and understand the fate of humanity is important. And there are many people here who care. Many people in the United States believe in God and believe in justice.


At the U.N. General Assembly, I raised a new point. After covering problems facing mankind today, and just, sort of, reviewing them, talking about some conflicts and wars and the problems we face and the atmosphere of threats we face, I tried to touch of some of the root causes of our problems.


AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Some root causes of today's problems facing humanity has to do with the international system, a system that has remained with us since World War II, emanating from the concept of a group of victors emerging from a world war and ruling the world.
That is an old system, because it leads some to believe that they have more rights to rule the affairs of the world than others, to run world affairs. And as a result, justice is hurt as long as this system prevails in the world.
It is not possible for all humanity to taste freedom in the full sense of the word, as well as justice in the full sense of the word.


When we look at the Security Council, we see that some members of the council are, in fact, one party to many conflicts of the world. They are involved, in fact, in many conflicts around the world. They are a direct party to many conflicts and have created them. Nonetheless, they sit in judgment of world affairs at the Security Council when they're a party to the conflict themselves.


We think and feel that this system must change. We believe that all nations should enjoy equal rights for all human beings should be respected, all nations must be respected. All have the right to a dignified life and to enjoy justice and, more importantly perhaps, enjoy peace and tranquility.
International organizations must, therefore, pave the way and lead the way so that all nations can, without any pressure or imposition of political or economic nature, defend their rights and feel that they're able to do so.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The world system must be able to absorb the confidence and the trust of all nations around the globe in order to implement and enforce justice in the best manner.


Regretfully, there is a great mistrust among nations and people today because they feel they are unable to find and achieve their rights through international fora. We must find a solution for 60 years of past failed experience.


It's perhaps enough the world conditions have changed. Many governments and groups that had no role in World War II, regretfully, are impacted by the consequences of World War II. To this day they were dominated by other groups, their rights were ignored and repressed.


We, therefore, must strive to achieve a world filled with peace and freedom and brotherhood and humanity and justice. And for that, again, I emphasize that we do need justice, for justice creates love, and justice guarantees viable security, and justice paves the way for permanent stability.


This is what I like to say to you. And I hope that all those involved will be able to respect justice, to submit to justice, and to make every effort to help realize justice, because it will benefit all. Those who seek justice have more followers, are loved more and, therefore, can guarantee their long-term interests more.


Therefore, it's clear that all humanity seeks justice throughout the world, from the most southern corners of the world, whether in South America, to the eastern corners of the world, in the Pacific, to the west and north. Everyone wants justice. In Africa, over 52 countries are in search of justice, as well as in Asia and in Europe, in northern America too.


It is, therefore, incumbent upon world leaders to move hand in hand to help lead nations toward justice -- a true and complete justice.


And I believe the media have a very important role to play in this respect, for media upholds the rights of the people, for media supports peace and security, as well as stability.


AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And therefore media must call for peace and justice. For justice will benefit everyone.


Nobody, except people who are selfish, will benefit from injustice. The vast number of human beings in the world by nature seek justice.
I hope that in the very near future we will bear witness to the establishment of a true sense of justice in the international system, along with what will be followed by peace, love and permanent peace in the world.


Thank you.


MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
As is common practice in this house, the first question goes to the president of the U.N. Correspondents Association.
QUESTION: Mr. President, allow me to welcome you on behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association.
And my question to you will be in the form that you are one of the highest-profile leaders over here in the United States now, at this point in time. And there are concerns, as you know, about Iran's nuclear power program. And Western powers believe that you are at the threshold of creating a bomb, which you have denied time and again.
And in the fact that you are talking about justice and fairness to everybody, what is it that you can do, at one point in time, to assure the international community, completely and totally, that this will not be the case, that you will not make a nuclear bomb, and that you will reach (ph) Iran, the country which is -- where justice and everything --will not seek to destroy any country, including Israel?
That is what is the perception, which has to be corrected. And I think it's very important that you tell the world community that this is what it is.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Thank you very much.
In addition to speaking on behalf of the press here in the United Nations, I'm sure that you've raised the question on the minds of many here.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The authorities in the United States, I believe, are aware that Iran's nuclear issue is a political one with no legal background.
For 27 years, United States government officials have been hostile with the Iranian government and, by default, against the development of our country.
For 27 years, spare parts or even airplane -- passenger airplanes -- have been denied to us. These will have no military usage but, nonetheless, we've been denied even such technology.
So it seems to us that the question is political.
Let us remember that for eight years, the United States supported an aggressor to attack Iran. We had just freed ourselves from a dictator who depended on the United States, who was violent toward his own people, who put down regular demonstrations and used guns to silence people.
We did not have any elections in his time. Our officials and authorities were chosen in other corners beside popular corners. And people rose to establish a republic to introduce freedom and democracy.
We expected that the United States government would support the initiative taken by the Iranian people, but from day one, hostilities arose.
There were, of course, acts of terror. There were confrontations in our country. And we had been under siege, including economic sanctions, from the first day of our revolution almost.
Almost from 1979, even before our government institutions were able to shape, we were in the initial stages of drafting a constitution, having parliamentary elections, we were placed under sanctions.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And not only that, this has continued for 27 years under various pretexts. Today the pretext happens to be the nuclear issue.
We have been, for many years, a member of the IAEA. We have been a signatory. We are a signatory to the NPT. And we've demonstrated the largest volume of cooperation with the IAEA. Iran has provided the IAEA the largest number of documents that any country has ever given.
Even in the past several years, all the works that we have done we have also seen that the IAEA has published many reports, numerous reports saying that they do not see any violation of the treaty requirements of NPT by the Iranian government.
So when we talk about concerns about Iran's nuclear issue, I want to say that it's not the nuclear bomb that the American government is afraid of, for there are countries in our region who are armed with a nuclear bomb and are supported by chance by the United States government. Now, how is this?
In Iran, we sees there are two skies over one ceiling, or two kinds of wind running over the same ceiling. It doesn't seem plausible.
They're not concerned about the bomb, but it seems to us they like to prevent the development of our country, as they have in the past.
We were ready for a dialogue. However, some countries believe that they can speak for the entire world community.
Let us recall that in a declaration that was very transparent, 180 member states of the non-coalition movement recognized Iran's right to nuclear technology.
I am at a loss in understanding what else we need to do to provide guarantees.
I have said to the dear gentleman here that there is no provision in the NPT that says that we do not have the right -- that perhaps it says that we need the vote or the confidence of the U.S. government to have peaceful nuclear technology.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): There's no such provision, especially coming from a country that not only has an immense nuclear arsenal, but is developing new nuclear bombs -- the second, third generation -- that are even more frightening than previous nuclear bombs, and that is even today supporting countries that produce nuclear bombs. Now, this, it seems to us, seems that it should be of more concern.
I*f we consider and accept that there is a logic behind what we are saying too, then we have to also ask the right questions. Should Iran shut down every technological development in the biological field and the medical field and the chemical field? Because in any of these fields, there's a possibility of dual usage, possibly a chemical bomb.
So when we speak of justice, we mean that everyone is equal when we act within the framework of international law and we follow the provisions of NPT.
Now, if the U.S. government submits a report, as a member of an NPT, I'd like to ask, what have they done to destroy their nuclear weapons? To what extent? Where are these weapons? And who inspects their weapons program? They, too, need to submit a report.
And it's also important for the IAEA to also publicize the extent of what they've done in Iran, for example, versus what they've done elsewhere, let's say the United States.
We've acted in a very transparent manner. I've even invited journalists and members of the press to visit our nuclear facilities with me. I opened the doors and let them see what we do.
So it's very important to make these nuclear facilities program a transparent one, for it is a technology for development and growth that should be used for agricultural growth, as well as growth in other industries.
There's no need to hide such development. Those who seek to violate the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty or nonproliferation international program are those who hide it.
But we've actually given information to the IAEA. We've invited international world community to visit our facilities.
Now, we are told by some that you have to gain our trust and confidence, but we don't have any criteria developed for confidence- building as such. It may take a hundred years or more for you to gain confidence in what we do.
What are we supposed to do, given the context that in the past 27 years you've demonstrated so much hostility towards our nation? And let us not forget, you're just a few countries talking like that with us.
Our logic is quite clear and simple. I think everybody understands what we're saying.
We say that nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes, granted if it's a good thing, should be good for everyone. And if it's a bad act, it should be bad for everyone. It should be banned for everyone.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Throughout our history, our country has not taken away the rights of any other country, has not initiated war against any other country, has not been an aggressor, has had no territorial claims over other countries. We love all nations and countries.
Last year, let us recall, when Katrina happened, my administration announced readiness to dispatch relief aid to the victims of Katrina. We suffered from the pain that the victims of Katrina suffered. When we saw bodies floating on waters, when we saw homeless people, we felt that we needed to help.
This comes, might I say, from our religion but also from our culture, from our beliefs. We believe in peace everywhere.
And so when we speak of Palestine, it's because we don't want to see war there. We don't want the continuation of displacement and death and destruction, the destruction of homes, the death of young people on their way to school, from school to home. We want people to feel safe and secure, not fear imprisonment.
So our proposals on Palestine are quite clear. We have proposed a referendum. We've had enough of an experience, over 60 years, all failed, tens and tens of solutions, simply because they did not give justice to all sides.
Justice means allowing, as well, the Palestinian people to decide over its own fate. It is a right they must enjoy. It is the right of all human beings. Why should some people not recognize such rights for the Palestinian people directly?
It seems to me that it's the Palestinian nation that it would be convenient if it is wiped off the map of the world. Why should a nation be destroyed as such?
They are human beings. They have children, women, daughters, men. They care for each other. They're human beings who have been living in that homeland for many years. They have been displaced, though.
On the other hand, there has been an effort to bring others from all over the world to place in that territory. Now, this is unprecedented in world history.
Where in the U.N. Charter is this allowable and permissible? Is there a law that endorses -- not so much permissible, but it might endorse the displacement of a whole nation and its replacement by another group and the establishment of a state by the second group to rule the fate of the first group?
Now, even if Ahmadinejad, even if I as a person would keep my silence, do you think that such injustice will go unnoticed, such aggression will go unnoticed?
This is a wrong assumption to make because nations are awake and they move forward. Nations will reawaken. And they have already, might I say.
So it's wrong to think that this is a problem with me, with Ahmadinejad as a humble person. No, it is a question for humanity.
You're facing public voices in Venezuela, in Argentina, in Brazil, in Sudan, in South Africa, in China, Indonesia, Japan and China. All across the world, people are upset by the aggression committed there.
Let us recall what happened recently in Lebanon. No matter what religion or belief people belong to, they condemned what happened in Lebanon because people are more aware.
Even yesterday, in New York, we saw that after a few days of heavy propaganda in the media there were even ads as long as a whole page -- 100 people, maybe, more or less, gathered (inaudible) support perhaps with the Zionist agenda. And the buses were all the same. It seems they had rented buses to all come here together, or maybe these buses were -- I mean, I don't even know, you know -- were these people paid?
But what I do want to say is that there are hundreds of millions of other people around the world who spend their own money to gather, demonstrate, publish and raise awareness about the aggression that happens in Palestine and condemn those acts.
Now, some people think, if they accuse me as being a terrorist, as a murderer, as being anti-Jew, that they can solve the problem that is in Palestine.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): No, I'm not anti-Jew. Jews are respected by everyone like all human beings. And I respect them very much.
Let us remember that in Palestine there are Muslims, Christians and Jews who live together. We speak of the Palestinian nation, of a people all in all embracing everyone. I never have said the Muslims in Palestine alone should decide about their fate.
They used to live freely together. But ever since the arrival of the British, with the imperialistic goals they had, and then the arrival of the Zionist system of thinking into that land, the problems were created.
So why not let the people there decide for themselves, and then let's see what happens? Let's give that a chance.
QUESTION: For 18 years, your country hid its nuclear program until it was revealed by a dissident. The IAEA says there are still many questions left with your nuclear program.
Mr. President, why should anyone trust what you say?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, I believe we need to put this in context.
For over 27 years, we feel under attack. And the U.S. government calls us a terrorist.
Now, let us recall that a large number of our government officials were assassinated by a group who are recognized as a terrorist here but nonetheless get to walk in the U.S. Congress and lobby against the Iranian government.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Many of my own friends lost their lives walking on the streets in Tehran with their wives and children. They were assassinated by these same terrorists that you're referring to. And they, let us recall, were then later supported by the U.S. government.
We have not hidden anything. We are working transparently. We are working within the framework of the NPT. And according to NPT provisions, every country has the right to enjoy the fuel cycle.
Six months before giving UF6 to centrifuge machines, we have to inform the agency. We've even taken that step, to inform them when uranium enrichment occurs, when the activities happen, six months in advance, according to provisions.
It's interesting that American officials should say that we're hiding things. Now, let us see. Will the American government allow the press to come and visit their nuclear facilities, their nuclear weapons arsenals? We've opened everything for everyone to see.
If you come to Iran, you can go and see for yourself. It's actually an open area. Students go and visit it. Teachers do. University professors go and see it. Even people who work in the farms (ph) or even people who graze their sheep there, I'm talking about villagers, people go and visit there. They know where everything is.
The bottom line is, we do not need a bomb, unlike what others think.
Regretfully, some believe that the nuclear bomb can be effective in international relations. They're wrong, because the time for nuclear bombs has ended. We know that. These nuclear arsenals will not benefit anyone.
They have to spend so much money destroying them. If the nuclear bomb could have saved anyone, it would have prevented the collapse of the Soviet Union. If the nuclear bomb could have created security, it would have prevented, perhaps, September 11th. If the nuclear bomb could have done anything, it could have, perhaps, stopped the Palestinian intifada.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Today is a time of thought and ideas. We know that and we felt that across the world.
And let me say that at the same time, we are Muslims. And based on a decree given by the leader of the Islamic republic, moving toward having a nuclear bomb is banned and forbidden. Therefore, no one has the right to move in this direction. In our country, it is not permissible.
Now, let me say again, I believe this all is a political issue. At least the politicians know it is. And, of course, they have an outlet to speak their views.
QUESTION: Mr. President, we all know how important your role is in Lebanon, in Syria and in the Middle East. Will you be ready to press the Hezbollah to disarm in order to get peace in Lebanon?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Iran is a large and powerful country. Its spiritual influence in the world is very effective. Naturally, given the long civilization of the country, we have an impact on the region.
I like to stress that Lebanon's internal affairs is its own affairs. We don't interfere in its affairs. We don't want to, because we believe that people in Lebanon, various groups in Lebanon are strong enough to discuss issues among themselves and resolve problems with each other.
We speak at an international level. We like to fix problems that are on an international level and do not involve ourselves, and would not like to, in internal affairs.
QUESTION: On Lebanon, I'm not sure I understood precisely your answer. Are you going to respect the resolution and not ship any weapons to Hezbollah, which you support?
And on Iran, could you give us any details on your meeting with Italian leader Prodi and whether you've come to any kind of agreement with the E.U.-3 on timing?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I responded to the first part of your question.
We give spiritual support to all those who want to uphold their rights, because even according to the U.N. Charter we believe that all countries have the right to legitimately defend themselves. When we support nations, it's a spiritual and cultural support. That is our position, and it is a clear position.
As far as the meeting with the Italian leader is concerned, it was a very good meeting. We both spoke about our viewpoints. Our relations with Italy are a very long and historical one that are also expanding and growing.
We are interested, I'd like to say, to have relations with all countries based on the framework of international law, including mutual respect, friendship ties. And Italy is a country that we are interested in having such relations with.
We know that in one session alone you cannot arrive at all forms of agreement, but the Italian and Iranian authorities are meeting on all levels, and we are interested in expanding relations on regional issues, as well as on international issues.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I understand the importance of the spiritual support that you have just spoken about toward Hezbollah and others, but there is a resolution called 1701, and there is a demand of countries to respect an arms embargo to anyone in Lebanon other than the legitimate government.
You have twice evaded saying clearly whether you plan to respect that resolution and implement it, so can you kindly be forward and say will you stop giving Hezbollah arms and will you implement that resolution?
And do you support, by the way, like you did last year, the tribunal of an international character for the assassinations in Lebanon, including the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri, which the president of France called crimes against humanity?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Thank you very much.
Are you a representative of the U.N., it seems? I mean, you are definitely very powerful in making sure that the resolutions here are enforced.
QUESTION: Yes, I am a journalist at the U.N.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Or are you against Hezbollah?
QUESTION: No, sir, I am asking whether you plan to respect a resolution that clearly demands of all countries to stop armament to any party in Lebanon other than the legitimate government.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Thank you very much.
Yes, we support, actually, peace and permanent stability in Lebanon, and we will fall short of no measure in promoting this goal. Whether it's in the cultural or spiritual support that we can render or whether it is the role that we can play in the international arena, we will do our best. And this is the fundamental principle of our foreign policy, and it does not preclude Lebanon.
QUESTION: The French president, Jacques Chirac, when he was here, offered for the E.U.-3 to resume negotiations with Iran, provided there are two good-will gestures from each side, would stop for the E.U.-3 requesting sanctions and for Iran, which would be a suspension of uranium enrichment.
What's your answer to that proposal?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): As far as the nuclear issue is concerned, we have carefully examined the package given to us by the E.U.-3, by the European group. Some expected us to actually turn it down right away, but given the recommendation by the U.N. Security Council, we were determined to read it carefully, to give an appropriate answer.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And throughout the period that we were examining it, regretfully, a resolution was passed.
We didn't understand and couldn't understand why a resolution was passed in the midst of an examination of a package. We think it was probably under pressure by some powers who constantly want to place pressure on countries.
The secretary general told me to disregard what has happened for the time being, resort to diplomacy. And he's right to respond to the package.
In our response, we delineated a clear framework for the continuation of the negotiations, based on a legal framework as well as on the principle of justice. We maintain that that is a very good foundation for working together.
Mr. Chirac also proposed that we will talk until we arrive at a negotiation (inaudible) level.
Yes, we are talking. And we accept that. And negotiations, let us remember, needs a framework. And we need to know who the parties to the negotiation are and what the prerogatives and the responsibilities of each are and what guarantees there are on enforcement measures.
You see, we have some bitter experience from the past. We've talked on numerous occasions. We've been given promises on numerous occasions, but those promises fell short of happening.
We even had and have had nuclear agreements with the United States that were unilaterally abrogated and (inaudible). We have had similar agreements with Canada, with Europe, other places, that were unilaterally abrogated.
And so therefore we've decided to propose a framework within our legal responsibilities under international law so we know what that framework for negotiations is, so that it is clear who will support the decisions taken as a result.
You are quite aware that over 30 years ago we did have agreements to build the Bushehr reactor facility. However, the party to the agreement, which were the Europeans, unilaterally decided to disregard the agreement. And so the Bushehr reactor remains suspended. Its operations for completion have not gone through.
We have the right to criticize governments for falling short of rendering their side of their agreement. We want guarantees.
So we have, therefore, offered a framework and we are negotiating within that framework. And we believe that those negotiations are moving on the right track, unless, hopefully, others will not disrupt the work in small ways, perhaps. We think that it is a constructive path to take.
QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Mr. President, since the president of the United States has not responded to your letter, what is your message to the American people?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Our response is clear. We believe that all nations have the right to live in a dignified manner. And we believe that the American nation is a great nation. We've never had problems with the American people.
The problem comes from the American government directed toward the people of Iran, really. Our people don't have any problems with the American people because our people too seek justice and peace, just as people in the United States do.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We ask for peace around the world.
But we also stand up when there is tyranny against us, when there is repression, when people like to force their will on us, or to say we won't submit to that, never. And we like people here to understand that.
QUESTION: Yesterday, I approached you and asked you a question. And after you found out that I'm an Israeli reporter, you ignored me.
I want you to know I'm an authentic Palestinian Jew. My family arrived to this area in 1882, when the Turks ruled this area. So I think I deserve an answer from you, even according to your definitions.
One thing: Can you clarify once and for all, do you seek the destruction of Israel, or don't you seek the destruction of Israel?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We love everyone around the world: Jews, Christians, Muslims, non-Muslims, non-Jews, non- Christians. We have no problem with people.
What we object to are acts that are inappropriate against us, or acts of occupation, of aggression, of violence, of displacement of nations. We have no problem with regular people.
We have no problem -- everyone we respect. Everyone should enjoy their legitimate rights.
But, again, I repeat that we oppose aggression and violence and murder. And we say that loudly.
QUESTION: You're talking about negotiations. First of all, at what point during the negotiations do you foresee suspending enrichment of uranium?
And you had talked about guarantees just before that. What kind of security guarantees are you looking for in the negotiations?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We are not talking of getting security measures. We are able to protect ourselves and our security. The experience of the eight-year war should have shown that to everyone in the world.
You know, the world powers were behind Saddam. Our country was fighting with empty -- with no real arms, but it was the power of our young people that upheld the territorial integrity of Iran.
What we speak of are guarantees of enforcement of the provisions agreed upon. Well, we, for example, as I gave the example, had agreements in the past to -- nuclear agreements for peaceful purposes, building reactors, et cetera. Not only were those neglected, but they also neglected agreements to provide, say, helicopters to us; to provide spare parts for civilian aircraft. So we want to make sure that whatever we agree on has a guarantee of enforcement.
But speaking about suspension, our position on suspension is very clear. In the package given to the Europeans, we've discussed that. We have said that under fair conditions and just conditions, we will negotiate about it -- under fair and just conditions, I repeat. Thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you and President Chavez did not really address the concerns of your own citizens in the speeches you gave at the General Assembly. Both of you primarily expressed your anger at the United States and American hegemony.
Since you just visited Venezuela, and both of your countries are large oil producers and members of OPEC, is this a new close relationship, an alliance between Iran and Venezuela?
As well, are the speeches you gave a type of alarm for the energy industry and a threat to the United States?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): No. Not at all. We do not seek to represent a threat to any country. We have relations with all countries, you must note, and we like to have friendly relations with all, as you must note.
I'd like to point out here that, despite the support of the American government of a former dictatorial regime in our country, after the victory of the revolution, the late Ayatollah Khomeini said that (inaudible) two countries that we consider are illegitimate are the apartheid system of South Africa first, and the occupying regime of Jerusalem.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We like to have friendly relations with all countries. Our imam and our people were saddened, but yet forget the support of the United States gratefully of the former regime in Iran, because we have practically sought good relations with everyone, and we still do.
Venezuela, let us not forget, is a large country with sincere people, with great people, with an independent government, let us not forget. And we must have relations, just as have relations with India, with Pakistan, with Algeria, with 195 countries in the world. We have relations that are sincere and friendly and close.
While the United States, let us not forget, cut its ties with us unilaterally. They look at us with hostility in a very unilateral way. If they change toward us, there, too, we can solve our problems.
The expansion of our ties with the rest of the world is based on the interest of nations and people, and toward the promotion of peace and justice worldwide.
QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The question I have, you speak of (inaudible) you suspended the enrichment as a precondition. Is it really possible for Iran to consider spending enrichment once negotiations begin (inaudible)? And if you give a positive answer to this, will the leader support that or not?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): You actually managed to get two questions in the form of one here.
You see, our position is very clear: We work within the framework of NPT. We seek to define our rights within that framework and nothing more.
I don't quite see why so many people are so sensitive about the "enrichment" word. It seems that this "enrichment" word has become the sort of lingua franca of our time and day.
But let's see, it looks to me that the problem is something else. It seems to me again that the United States government and some European countries should make some changes and alterations in the way they treat the Iranian government and speak with us.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): You see, they can't look at our nation as they have in the past 27 years (inaudible) trying to impose their views on us because that's not possible.
But if they recognize that we too, as a nation, have rights that they too recognize international law, well then many things are possible, and the concerns too will be removed.
Again, we have given another suggestion, too. Since they have bombs themselves, they know what bombs are. They're actually more afraid of it, I think.
(LAUGHTER)
They should destroy their arsenal, and I think they'll be less fearful about it. And they'll be less suspicious of others.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: India has always maintained it has a civilizational relationship with Iran. But at the same time, it does not want to see another country in the region develop a nuclear weapon and it's urging Iran not to produce a nuclear weapon.
What do you think of this position, also given India's blossoming nuclear relationship with the United States, your archrival right now?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, their suggestion is a good one, because we are not seeking the nuclear bomb. I mean, that's quite clear.
QUESTION: Your Excellency, I'm not a speaker of Farsi, but there is a debate going on as to what exactly you said at the conference on the World Without Zionism.
Did you say that Israel as a state should be wiped off the map or did you say something else? Could you just please specify this, because there is this debate going on?
And if you said Israel should be wiped off the map, that's very scary. If you said something else perhaps less alarming; perhaps you could tell us.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): It's quite interesting. I mean, it seems to me that there's a strong Zionist lobby. And it seems to me that I face this question wherever I go. And I have always been ready to answer.
I am not saying that you are a Zionist lobbyist, sir. I'm just saying that wherever I go I face questions like this.
But I'd like to say that we are opposed to aggression. We are opposed to occupation. We are opposed to murder and violence, whoever commits them -- does not matter -- whoever is an aggressor, whoever who is the source for disgracement or is a murderer.
I mean, I'm talking about aggression and occupation as an abhorrent act wherever it occurs, whether in Palestine that is occupied, whether in Lebanon, in Vietnam, in Iraq.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We oppose killing on such scale. And, you know, we have tried to offer some proposals on Palestine: the referendum that I discussed earlier, with the participation of everyone.
Now, when you speak of referendum, you're thinking of a process, naturally. You're not speaking of anything else. It's within the framework of the United Nations Charter.
We do believe that the Zionist role in creating conflict around the world should be thoroughly examined by the media. It is a responsibility. Let us not forget that they represent a complex group, a complex organizational system, that has been the source of many problems.
Now, we cannot force our will on the vast part of the world because there is a small group that has a certain interest related to wealth and power.
Let's not forget that Zionism is a party that, in fact, it has no religious affiliations. They might say that, "Well, we're Jews," but that's really not true and that's not the fundamental foundation of Zionism.
And let's not forget that after all, the prophet Moses, was a supporter of peace, was a supporter of justice. He opposed aggression and occupation, and he opposed war and the displacement of people. He saved the children of Israel, banning Israel from pharaohs of the time, from occupiers from aggressors of the time.
So how can the followers of Moses possibly destroy the homes of people over their heads in their homeland to take, and to kill, actually, an infant that is feeding in the arms of a mother?
These Zionists, I want to tell you, are not Jews. That's the biggest deception we've ever faced.
Zionists are Zionists, period. They are not Jews, they are not Christians, and they are not Muslims. They are a power group, a power party. And we oppose oppression and the aggression that any party that seeks pure power, raw power goes after.
AHMADINEJAD: And we announce and (inaudible) loudly that if you support that, you'll be condemned by the rest of the world.
If you usurp the rights of others, you'll be condemned by the rest of the world. If you displace people from their homeland, the rest of the world will condemn you.
And you too must condemn these acts. Everyone should. As a conscienced voice, we must.
Would you like to be displaced from your homeland and replaced by others and, when you raise objections, to be named a terrorist? I really doubt that anyone in the world would like that.
So this is an imposition on humanity.
QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In your remarks, you have mentioned that the leaders and presidents of the world should turn to justice and enforce justice.
You are the president of Iran and you have the opportunity to enforce justice. Reports coming from Iran seem to indicate that student movements are being repressed, that justice is not being served, as far as the followers of the Baha'i faith, as well as for women, who object to the Islamic laws that discriminate against them.
And this justice that you speak of in the political realm does not exist. So why are against justice?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In the meeting we had with the Foreign Press Council last night, it seemed to me that this was the main question on the mind of many people.
I want to give you two figures.
There are about 219 million people in the United States and in Iran we have about 68 million people.
Now, there are about 3 million prisoners in the U.S. There are about 130,000 -- there are exactly 130,000 prisoners in Iran, 90 percent of whom are illicit drug traffickers who have been arrested in direct armed conflict with our security forces, who were trying to prevent the transit of drugs from Iran into Europe and the United States.
Now, let's find out, and I think you should, what the composition of the backgrounds of prisoners in the United States is.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I asked this question yesterday, but nobody had an answer.
Now, let's see, a high percent of American people are in prison, whereas only 0.2 percent of the Iranian population is in prison. Let's just put these figures in proportion now.
You know, I like to speak of law as a framework. If you violate a traffic regulation, you will be governed (ph) by law. If not, there will be no rule of law.
Now, we do have law in our country. We have a judiciary system. And, in fact, our courts are quite independent because the president does not have the right by law to interfere in the judgments of the judiciary. It therefore represents an independent power, an independent branch of government. We have a judiciary, we have lawyers, we have judges, we have trials. There are violations under law.
Now, let me just clarify what the political situation in Iran is and for you to understand better.
There is a newspaper in Iran that is affiliated with the government and it's a voice, a podium for government position. Three months ago they had a violation under law and they were shut down. The president could not do anything.
Now, I mean, what happened there is really a concept of freedom, a dimension of freedom that we must examine, because if we are to allow insults to happen, if we allow violations of law to happen, then we are acting against justice, we're allowing those with power to tell others what to do.
The courts are set up to defend the rights of the people. A citizen might raise a complaint against me. The judge must consider and examine that and they might give a sentence against me and force me to leave office. This, to me, is a power given to our courts and is a dimension of freedom, it is a dimension of democracy that we've been attained.
Now, let us not forget that there is a possibility of failing to carry out law completely (ph) everywhere. It's in our country as well. Sometimes an enforcement official may not carry out his duties in the right way. But we are all involved, we are all responsible, we have to tell people not to do that, we have to make our efforts.
And everywhere in the world, when you look, such things do happen, and in Iran, too. But we believe that the freedom that we enjoy in Iran and the kind of justice we enjoy in Iran today is, sort of, self-grown, home-grown, and we made every effort to get to where we are, and we hope you respect that.


I thank you all. I know many of you had many questions. I am sorry that my time is limited. Our time is really tight. But if you coordinate with my friend Mr. Zaid (ph), inshallah, meet you in Tehran in the near future in a press conference.
Thank you for your time.
END
.ETX
Sep 21, 2006 13:21 ET .EOF
Source: CQ Transcriptions © 2006, Congressional Quarterly Inc., All Rights Reserved

[falcon]

globalresearch.ca/index.p...cleId=3325

Israel Deploys Nuclear Weapons against Iran

September 25, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca
globalresearch.ca

The following report, while presenting Iran rather than Israel as the threat must be taken very seriously.

The decision by Israel to deploy its nuclear weapons against Iran is consistent with America's nuclear doctrine which also considers the use of tactical nuclear weapons as an act of "self-defense".

The US with the support of Israel and NATO has already deployed tactical nuclear weapons directed against Iran. The US led coaltion is in an advanced state of readiness to wage war on Iran.


Michel Chossudovsky, 25 September 2006

------------------------------------------------------------

Israel seen lifting nuclear veil in Iran stand-off

Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:38 PM BST
By Dan Williams

TEL AVIV (Reuters) - In October 1973, with its forces battling to repel invasions by Egypt and Syria, Israel did what had previously been unthinkable: It briefly wheeled its nuclear-capable Jericho-1 missiles out of their secret silos.

That, historians believe, was picked up by U.S. spy satellites and stirred up fears in Washington of a catastrophic flare-up between the Jewish state and the Soviet-backed Arabs. Message received, an urgent American shipment of conventional arms to Israel was quick to follow, and helped turn the war.

With Israel's current arch-foe Iran seen gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons within a few years, and preventive military options limited, some experts now anticipate another "lifting of the veil" on the assumed Israeli atomic arsenal.

Were that to happen, experts say, the objective would be to establish a more open military deterrence vis-a-vis Iran and perhaps win Israel's nuclear option formal legitimacy abroad.

"No one should simply assume that Israel would stay where it is now with its ambiguous capability if Iran becomes a nuclear power," said Professor Gerald Steinberg, head of the Conflict Management Programme at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv.

"Israeli policy is likely to change, in order to demonstrate that the country has continued strategic superiority," he said.

Israel neither confirms nor denies it has the Middle East's only nuclear weapons, under an "ambiguity" policy billed as warding off enemy states while avoiding a regional arms race.

Steinberg said this might be abandoned only as a last resort to persuade a nuclear-armed Iran that it stood to suffer far greater devastation in any full-blown future conflict.

"It's not desirable, but this is about survival," he said.

Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, says its nuclear programme is for energy needs alone. But calls by its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for Israel to be "wiped off the map" have fuelled Western calls for the programme to be curbed.

MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION?

Talk of a nuclear stand-off between Israel and Iran has sparked comparisons with the "mutually assured destruction" formula that reigned during the Cold War and, more recently, between India and Pakistan.

But those precedents assume a parity that may not exist with Israel and Iran. Militarily advanced Israel is geographically small and vulnerable. Iran's atomic ambitions are at fledgling stage but its large size could help it survive a major strike.

"The use of a nuclear bomb against Israel would completely destroy Israel, while (the same) against the Islamic world would only cause damage. Such a scenario is not inconceivable," former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said in a 2001 speech.

There is also speculation that Ahmadinejad might welcome an apocalyptic confrontation, meaning the idea of a deterrent would not work. Yet he answers to Iranian clerics who work by committee and thus provide a rational set of safeguards.

Reuven Pedatzur, defence analyst for the respected Israeli daily Haaretz, proposed that the country, under U.S. guidance, go public with its nuclear capability in the hope of building back-channel ties with Iran and establishing mutual deterrence.

"Israel cannot continue to rely on it (ambiguity policy) if Iran has nuclear weapons. This is because ambiguity leaves too many grey areas. The enemy cannot know with certainty what the red lines are and when he is risking an Israeli nuclear response," he wrote.

"There must be a deterrent policy that will leave no room for misunderstandings," he added. "Thus, for example, we would make it clear that the identification of any missile launched from Iran in a westerly direction means, as far as we are concerned, the launch of an Iranian nuclear missile at us."

Declaring capabilities is one way for a nation to becomes an official nuclear power. The other is a controlled atomic blast.

"If the Israelis really have any doubt about the credibility of their deterrence, they could conduct a nuclear test, say, in the Negev desert," said Gary Samore, a former adviser on nuclear non-proliferation in the U.S. National Security Council under President Bill Clinton.

But he said the diplomatic fall-out of such a move would draw scrutiny away from Tehran and further alienate those Arab nations willing to endorse Western pressure on the Iranians.

"It would be a godsend for Iran," Samore said.

NPT IN QUESTION

Israel did not sign the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It thus kept its main nuclear facility, outside the desert town of Dimona, exempt from inspection. It has received billions of dollars in aid from Washington, whose laws ban funding states with unregulated non-conventional arsenals.

A nuclear weapons test by Israel would effectively blow away that U.S. blind eye. Iran, in turn, could withdraw from the NPT and argue that it should not be subjected to sanctions. After that, other Middle East states would likely seek atomic arms.

Avner Cohen, author of the seminal study "Israel and the Bomb", has suggested that Israel seek to form a new nuclear pact along with India and Pakistan, which refuse to join the NPT.

"Such a protocol might permit them to retain their atomic programmes, but inhibit further development. It could also require cooperation with international nuclear export controls, prohibit explosive testing of nuclear devices, and call for the phased elimination of fissile material production," Cohen said.

Iran would not be able to join such a pact, he added, as it has violated the NPT by pursuing unauthorised nuclear projects.

Cohen poured cold water on the idea of Israel seeking mutual deterrence with a nuclear-armed Iran, noting that during the Cold War parity was achieved only after Washington and Moscow scraped through two crises -- over the 1948 Western airlift to Berlin and the 1962 deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba.

"The sense of stability associated with mutually assured destruction grew out of a learning curve," he said. "Israel had its learning through crisis, especially the 1973 war. Do we have time for the Iranians to learn? Will they learn?"

[American Patriot]

Iran Blocks Access to YouTube.com
AP ^ | December 5, 2006 | ALI AKBAR DAREINI

Posted on 12/05/2006 1:35:45 PM MST by West Coast Conservative

Iran has blocked access to the popular video-sharing Web site YouTube.com, and a press rights group warned on Tuesday that Internet censorship in the Islamic state is on the rise.
Internet users who tried to call up the YouTube site on Tuesday were met with the message, "On the basis of the Islamic Republic of Iran laws, access to this website is not authorized" _ which appears on the numerous opposition and pornographic Web sites that the government blocks.
It was not known how long the site had been on Iran's Web blacklist. The Paris-based press rights group Reporters Without Borders said YouTube had been blocked for the past five days.
It also said the New York Times Web page was also blocked since Friday and that the English site of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia was blocked from Friday to Sunday.
However, an AP reporter was able to access the New York Times site on Tuesday and other Internet users said it could be reached over the weekend. The blocking of Wikipedia could not be independently confirmed, and Iranian officials were not available for comment.
Iran's Shiite cleric-run government regularly blocks opposition Web sites, including blogs, and the number of sites that bring up the "unauthorized" message has been increasing over the past year. Western news sites, however, are generally available.
Videos from the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and other Iranian opposition groups have been posted on YouTube.com, along with videos posted by individual Iranians critical of the regime. The site also has Iranian pop music videos, which are frowned upon by the religious leadership.
In its statement Tuesday, Reporters Without Borders warned that "censorship is now the rule rather than the exception" in Iran.
"The government is trying to create a digital border to stop culture and news coming from abroad _ a vision of the Net which is worrying for the country's future," it said.
"The Iranian government policy is not an isolated case. It is getting closer and closer to that of the authorities in China, with particular stress being laid on censorship of cultural output," it said.
The group cited Western press reports that the government issued a ban on high-speed Internet connections in October. Iranian telecommunications officials have denied any such ban was issued, saying high speed connections had not been extended to some areas because the government had too few lines. High-speed connections are available in some part of Tehran, but not in many others.
In October, Reporters Without Borders put Iran in a club of the 13 worst culprits for systematic online censorship along with Belarus, China, Cuba, Egypt, Myanmar, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.
Hard-liners have severely restricted pro-reform newspapers over the past six years after they blossomed following the 1997 election of reformist president Mohammed Khatami. Conservatives in the courts shut down many even before Khatami was succeeded by hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last year. Some independent newspapers remain, but their criticism of the government is muted for fear of being shut down.

[falcon]

Photos of the Student Demonstration in Tehran

Fox News reported that as many as 2,000 students turned out to demand personal freedom in the Islamic state, which has cracked down on political activity on campus this year.
Iranian Student News Agency published photos of the large demonstration in Tehran with statements on their banners such as: "If I rise up and you rise up, everyone will rise up." For more photos see Fars News, here and here.

The full text:

"What do we want? Freedom!" That was one of the banners a large crowd waved on Wednesday at a demonstration at Tehran University.
As many as 2,000 students turned out to demand personal freedom in the Islamic state, which has cracked down on political activity on campus this year in what some have called the Second Cultural Revolution.
The theme of Wednesday's protest was Student Life is Alive.
The police apparently made no effort to stop the demonstration, which ended peacefully.
One banner, in Persian, read: "If I rise up and you rise up, everyone will rise up."
Another read: "Our struggle is twofold: Fighting against internal oppression and external foreign threats."
Photographs of Wednesday's demonstration were posted on Iranian websites and in the blogosphere.
The student protest was openly defiant of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who at the beginning of the school year asked students to speak out against the secularization of the education system.
The students apparently didn't, but an unknown number of professors who had been critical of the regime were forced into early retirement.
At the same time, students returning to the university were given "star" ratings by the administration. Students with borderline political leanings were assigned one or two stars. Students deemed to be vocally anti-regime were assigned three or four stars.
In many cases, three- and four-star students — regardless of their academic performance — were barred from returning to campuses this fall.
According to eyewitness reports, the area of the demonstration was blocked off by buses, and police forced cameramen away so that they could not shoot video.
According to one report, some students threw stones at news cameramen, suspecting they might be agents of the state documenting the protests for a future retaliation.
Student and academic sentiment could pose a problem for the Iranian regime. Seventy percent of Iran's population is under the age of the 30, and 90 percent of the under-30s are literate, well-read and seemingly aspire to greater personal and political freedom.

http://regimechangeiniran.com/2006/1...dent-demonstr/

[Backstop]

A March 2007 nuclear celebration?
I think we should send them a gift to help celebrate.

In other news: "The UN To Impose Sanctions".
Ho Hum ho hum, surprise surprise.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....8mjamnal.html

Follow God or vanish, Ahmadinejad tells West
Dec 06 5:14 AM US/Eastern

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned Western leaders to follow the path of God or "vanish from the face of the earth".

"These oppressive countries are angry with us ... a nation that on the other side of the globe has risen up and proved the shallowness of their power," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the northern town of Ramsar, the semi-official news agency Mehr reported Wednesday.

"They are angry with our nation. But we tell them 'so be it and die from this anger'. Rest assured that if you do not respond to the divine call, you will die soon and vanish from the face of the earth," he said.

The outspoken president also maintained Iran's defiance over its controversial nuclear programme, saying it was on course to fully master nuclear technology.

"Thank to God's help, we have gone all the way and are only one step away from the zenith.

"We hope to have the big nuclear celebration by the end of the year (March 2007)," Ahmadinejad said, echoing comments he has made on numerous occasions in recent months.

A defiant Iran has refused to suspend its uranium enrichment work, a process that the West fears could be extended to make nuclear weapons.

Iran however insists its nuclear programme is solely aimed at generating energy.

France's Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Wednesday after a Paris meeting on Tehran's nuclear programme that the UN Security Council is agreed "there will be sanctions" on Iran, though their extent is yet to be decided.

[Sean Osborne]

DEBKAfile from Tehran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s adherents apply strong-arm tactics to falsify election results after early gains by his opponents

December 18, 2006, 5:32 PM (GMT+02:00)

Only one-tenth of the votes had been counted in Tehran 60 hours after balloting ended because the president’s followers, backed by Revolutionary Guards stormed the central election committee. They stopped the counting several times to force the counters with threats and physical harassment to falsify the results and reverse the president’s opponents’ gains. The most painful blow has been the victory of his main rival ex-president Hashem Rafsanjani in early results to the powerful Assembly of Experts. Therefore, the results when published later this week may hold surprises.

DEBKA Exclusive Report coming soon.

http://www.debka.com

[Sean Osborne]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...814.shtml?s=lh



Uzi Landau: 'Israel's Churchill' Warns of Iran's Hitler

Kenneth R. Timmerman

Monday, Dec. 18, 2006

Former Israeli Interior Minister Uzi Landau, a leading contender to succeed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, was in the United States last week to sound the alarm on Iran.

He believes the world needs to wake up to the threat from Iran, and compared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler in 1938.

"In 1938, the world faced a gathering storm, when there was a fanatic enemy who publicly said he was going to destroy you, and the world did nothing."

Today, Iran is presenting a similar dilemma to the world with its nuclear weapons program, Landau believes. "Iran is Germany, and Ahmadinejad is Hitler," he told NewsMax in an exclusive interview.

Landau, who left the Israeli parliament (Knesset) last year after losing a leadership battle within the conservative Likud party, is poised to make a political comeback.

As minister of public security in the government of Ariel Sharon in March 2002 when a Palestinian suicide bomber murdered scores of Jews at a Passover dinner, he advocated a full-scale invasion of the Palestinian territories and is known for his hard-line approach to Israel's enemies.

During Hezbollah's attack on Israel this summer, he told NewsMax that Israel should strike Damascus because the Syrian government was harboring the Hezbollah leadership and allowing Iran to openly supply missiles and other weapons to the terrorist militia in Lebanon through the Damascus airport.

Landau says he was dismayed by the recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton commission for the United States to open negotiations with Iran and Syria. "This is 1938 revisited," he said.

That was when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned from negotiations with Hitler in Munich and declared that Hitler had promised "peace in our time."

"The Baker report recalls Chamberlain's policy of appeasement," Landau said. "One would have hoped, instead, for this report to sound the alarm."

A stubborn British opposition leader named Winston Churchill sounded the alarm against Hitler, but no one listened to him at the time. While not pretending to be a reborn Churchill, Landau said he believed it was critical to learn from the past "to make sure we avoid a similarly bleak future."

The Islamic regime in Tehran is "motivated by a malignant ideology," he said. "This is a regime that has no regard for freedom, no regard for human life, that turns its own kids into suicide bombers," he said. "You would have wished a study group of such learned people would alert the American people" to the threat that Iran is posing to U.S. forces in Iraq, the region, and the United States.

"Instead, the Baker committee report reflects the belief that if you throw sheep one after another to a hungry wolf, you will turn it into a vegetarian," he said.

Landau noted with dismay the Baker-Hamilton report's repeated calls for the United States to put pressure on Israel in response to the deteriorating security situation in Iraq.

"What does Israel have to do with the United States getting bogged down in Iraq?" he wondered. "This all goes back to Arab rhetoric, and State Department rhetoric. This is a view that is totally detached from the realities of the Middle East."

While the Iraq Study Group report acknowledges that Iran and Syria have power to influence events in Iraq, it concluded that both countries saw it in their interest to prevent Iraq from descending into chaos.

"This is simply out of touch with reality," Landau said. "Iran is very much behind the violence, as is Syria. Do the people on the Baker commission really believe they want the United States to leave Iraq as a free a democratic country? On the contrary: Syria and Iran fear a free and democratic Iraq because that example will endanger their own dictatorial regimes."

Understanding the goals of Iran and Syria was not all that complicated, Landau said. "These things are clear to every boy in the Middle East."

His real concern, even more than the Baker panel's suggestion that the United States put pressure Israel, is the message the report sends to other countries in the Middle East who would potentially look to the United States for protection or support.

"Countries such as Sudan, Qatar, Yemen and others are wondering with whom they should align themselves. Should they go with Iran, which these days is backed by Russia and China, or with the United States?"

By beating up on the Iraqi government and on Israel, a long-standing American ally, the Baker-Hamilton report sends the message that it is worse to be a friend of America than to be America's enemy. "Who is going to make an alliance with a broken reed?" Landau said.

Faced with Iran's nuclear program, Landau believes Israel must take a "conservative" view. "We have to do whatever we can to stop them," he said.

Whether Iran is two, three, or five years from the bomb, what is clear is that they are building facilities "capable of producing 25 atomic bombs a year," he added.

Iran has already test-fired missiles capable of reaching Europe, and have announced they are working on a future generation missile that can reach the United States. "They mean business," Landau said.

Landau said the U.S. and its allies also needed to keep an eye on Iranian subversion in Saudi Arabia's oil-rich eastern province. "Iran's political objective is to gain dominance in this region, and if they do, they will become a power with global influence that will dominate the air and maritime routes connecting Southwest Asia and the Far East to Europe and the West."

Should Iran ever reach that point, "it will be a totally different kind of ball game," he said. "I think we need to alert the free world. This is a global plan in the service of a mad ideology."

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert broke 40 years of ambiguity toward Israel's alleged nuclear weapons arsenal in an interview with a German television network.

Olmert was widely condemned in Israel for his remarks, which openly referred to Israel as a nuclear weapons state. Former Likud colleague, Yuval Steinitz, called on him to resign.

Landau pointed out that "there is no change in Israel's policy" of nuclear ambiguity, but said he would withhold further comment until returning to Israel next week.

For some, politics still stops at the nation's shores.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is president of the Middle East Data Project, author of "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran," and a contributing editor to NewsMax.com.

[Jag]

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/

BREAKING - UN Sanctions Imposed Against Iran

December 23rd, 2006

The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution Saturday imposing sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, culminating two months of negotiations aimed at pressuring Tehran to clarify its nuclear ambitions.

The resolution orders all countries to ban the supply of specified materials and technology that could contribute to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. It also imposes an asset freeze on key companies and people in the country’s nuclear and missile programs named on a U.N. list.

If Iran refuses to comply, the resolution warns Iran that the council will adopt further nonmilitary sanctions.

Jag