The U.S. is preparing a new tactic to pressure Iran over its nuclear program: targeting the banks and companies it does business with

By ELAINE SHANNON

Sunday, Apr. 23, 2006

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1186528,00.html

Ahead of this week's U.N. Security Council deadline for Iran to abandon its nuclear activities and an expected report from nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei, U.S. officials have been mapping a plan to hit the defiant regime.

But the attacks will be financial, not military. The U.S. and its European allies will ask the council next month for a resolution that would pave the way for political and economic sanctions. If, as expected, Russia and China threaten a veto or stall, the U.S. intends to work outside the U.N. to isolate Tehran "diplomatically and economically," Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said last week. "Countries that trade with Iran ... ought to begin to rethink those commercial trade relationships."

Among the plan's first targets: Iran's accounts and financial institutions in Europe. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met last week with the finance ministers of Britain and Germany, where, according to a U.S. Treasury study, Iranian-government banks operate branches to handle funds generated by the oil trade. The U.S. wants non-Iranian banks to stop facilitating Tehran's money flow. A senior official involved in devising the strategy told Time, "It's about convincing financial institutions not to deal with bad guys, because they're worried about their own reputations."

Iran has shifted some accounts from Europe to Persian Gulf countries in anticipation of a squeeze. So Under Secretary of State Robert Joseph traveled to seven countries in the Middle East earlier this month to talk with officials about "what we can do together to disrupt the proliferation activities," he said. Financial restrictions "can have an effect on Iran's ability to acquire more technology and expertise from the outside."

Another possible move is a disinvestment campaign similar to that used against apartheid-era South Africa. A study by the Conflict Securities Advisory Group, a Washington consultant hired by the State Department, found that 124 publicly traded European companies have ties to Iran and that European banks are financing significant energy and telecom projects there. A disinvestment campaign could be tough to pull off. But U.S. officials hope that while conscience may not get those firms to quit Iran, the threat of bad p.r. might.

04/21/06 FOX News Poll: U.S. Should Have Iran War Plans Ready

Friday , April 21, 2006

By Dana Blanton

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192637,00.html

NEW YORK  — Most Americans agree with the U.S. position of trying diplomacy first with Iran, but want to keep military options open. In addition, a clear majority thinks having war plans for Iran already prepared is the right thing to do, according to the latest FOX News Poll.

By a 62 percent to 27 percent margin, Americans say they agree with the U.S. position for handling the nuclear weapons situation with Iran — try to find diplomatic solutions, but keep military action as an option. A large majority of Republicans (75 percent) agree with this position, as do a slim majority of Democrats (52 percent).

Opinion Dynamics Corporation conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News on April 18 and April 19.

The poll finds disagreement with those who say the United States lacks the military strength to take action against Iran while it has so many troops committed in Iraq. If military action were to become necessary, more than half of Americans (56 percent) think the U.S. military currently has the strength to defeat Iran. About a third (34 percent) disagrees.

Groups traditionally more hawkish, such as men and Republicans, are more likely to think the U.S. military has the strength to defeat Iran. Among Republicans, 66 percent agree, compared to 49 percent of Democrats. Similarly, 64 percent of men think the military could defeat Iran, but that drops to 49 percent among women.

“The fact that a third of Americans say we aren’t strong enough to defeat Iran and another 10 percent aren’t sure is significant,” comments Opinion Dynamics Chairman John Gorman. “ I doubt there would have been that much pessimism about American capabilities before Iraq. Many people clearly worry about repeating the Iraq experience.”

Overall, a sizable majority thinks it would be “responsible” for the United States to have war plans for Iran already prepared. About two-thirds of Americans (67 percent) think it would be responsible; 26 percent say “irresponsible.”

While there is no real gender gap on the war plans issue (69 percent of men and 64 percent of women agree), there is a striking partisan difference: Fully 80 percent of Republicans think the U.S. should have Iran war plans prepared, compared to 59 percent of Democrats.

Views are mixed on whether it is acceptable to allow Iran to become a nuclear nation. Forty-four percent of Americans think the United States could co-exist with a nuclear Iran; almost as many — 40 percent — disagree.

If the United Nations fails to take a hard line with Iran on nukes, over a third of Americans (36 percent) think the United States should take a hard line with the U.N. and stop paying dues, though a 49 percent plurality would continue paying.

In the end, by a slim 10-percentage point margin, people think the United States will have to take military action against Iran.

PDF: Click here for full poll results.

Bolton: Iran test of United Nations

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/04/22/1597537.htm

 

 (UPI Top Stories Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, believes the Iran nuclear program crisis is a crucial test for the world body.

Bolton addressed the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia on Friday, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

If the Security Council can't deal with that threat, then you have to ask yourself what utility the Security Council would be in dealing with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, Bolton said.

Earlier in the day, the ambassador met with the Inquirer editorial board. He suggested that the United Nations' ability to deal with Iran is linked to its ability to reform its operations and said both are hampered by anti-western sentiment.

You all need to come to New York for 30 days, be a part of my mission, and just listen to what goes on there, he told the Inquirer board.

 

Iran To Start Crackdown on Women’s “Bad Islamic Behaviour”.

By Safa Haeri-Delphine Minoui
Posted Saturday, April 22, 2006

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2006/april-2006/social_repression_22406.shtml

Paris, 22 Apr. (IPS) Iran will increase police patrols to enforce women's skirt lengths, proper head scarves and even curtail dog-walking during the summer.

"In our campaign, we will confront women showing their bare legs in short pants", said Tehran's police chief, Morteza Tala’i.

"In our campaign, we will confront women showing their bare legs in short pants", said Tehran's police chief, Morteza Tala’i.

"We are also going to combat women wearing skimpy headscarves, short and form-fitting coats, and the ones walking pets in parks and streets" he added.
Women who do not wear the veil can face 10 days to two months' imprisonment, or a fine.

200 hundred men and women police would roam streets in Tehran to preserve “social order, fighting “noise pollution, car owners who have placed excessive equipments on their vehicles, drug distributors and those assaulting women”, Tala’i told the conservatives-controlled “Fars” news agency.

"We are also going to combat women wearing skimpy headscarves or without socks, short and form-fitting coats, and the ones walking pets in parks and streets", he added.
Owning dogs is seen as unclean in Iran, and parading with them is off-limits.
Women who do not wear the veil can face 10 days to two months' imprisonment, or a fine.

Every woman in Iran, regardless of nationality or religion, must obey the country's dress code and cover her shape and hair outside the home.
Since the election of messianic President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nezhad, conservatives in Tehran's city council have pressured police to get tough.

Organised by the authorities, a hundred women in black chadors demonstrated last week in front of the Majles, or the Iranian Parliament against “bad Islamic dressed women” and called on the government to severely punish not only the “Westoxisied’ women but also the shops selling “bas islamic dresses”.

Hence, General Tala’i’s threat against all the importers, distributors and sellers of such “un-Islamic” dresses.

Cab agencies, known in Iran as “ajans”, were also said they would be responsible for their client’s dresses and in case Moral Patrols notices a cab transporting men or woman passenger in un-Islamic dress, their license would be confiscated, Tala’i warned.

“With the arrival of nice days, the scarves and the coats narrow in the streets of Teheran. The contravening ones incur between 10 and 60 days of prison or a fine”, said Delphine Minou’i, the correspondent of the French centre right daily “Le Figaro” in Tehran, adding:

In Tehran, it became a routine. As soon as the scarves and the coats narrow, the police force launches its hunting to the badly buckled women. The New Persian Year (that starts from the first day of spring) does not escape the rule: "We will prevail against the women who carry light scarves, short trousers and curved coats", General Tala’i had warned last week. He also threatened to sanction the stores which sell too light women’s dresses.

Sat in his shop perched on the second floor of the Ghassem passage, in full heart of the market of Tajrish in the posh north part of the Capital, Hessam, a young salesman, fears the worst. "Here we go again!", he lamented. Last year, he was constrained to put the key under the door during ten days and to pay a fine being equivalent to 500 euros (twice the average monthly wages).

The reason, according to the Moral Guards: a window decorated with "decadent" coats, in other words "too coloured" and "too moulding". Therefore, this year, ht chooses to be prudent. "I have just received a stock of pantacourts, because the Iranian women love them. For the time being, I have left them in store ", he says.

The election, last June, of Ahmadi Nezhad, an ultra conservative has led people to fear for the worst as regard of repressions. But up to now, the President seems to be too absorbed by his political offensive launched on the international scene to be concerned with behaviour of the Iranian women.

I do not intend to change my practices. I refuse to be afraid " says a young girl while adjusting her make up with audacity.

However, one has to wait to see whether the new campaign, launched by the police force, will prove more severe than the previous years. According to announced figures, fifty patrols were deployed through the capital. The contravening ones incur between 10 and 60 days of prison or a fine going of 50 000 to 500 000 Rials (between 5 and 50 euros.

In the neighbourhoods of the Vanak Square, a high spot of the Iranian dredgers, one could see them carrying out checks on sunset, without however attacking outright "badly veiled".

"They surely wait for the beginning of the week to start seriously repressing", Hessam says. With her coloured hairs that come out from the scarf, and her coat curved out of jeans, Mina Elmi, a 21 year old coed, does not look much affraid. "I do not intend to change my practices. I refuse to be afraid ", she says while adjusting her make up with audacity.

At her sides, Sepideh Yazdi, her partner of window shopping, is proud to show us her last purchases: light shoes with arrow ends, the last word for Tehrani modern women.

Despite obligation to wear scarf, enfoced since the seizure of power by the mollahs in 1979, Iranian women do not deprive themselves from being “cocquettes”. On the contrary. Times have changed since the first years that followed the Islamic Revolution during which the "Islamic sisters" took care severely of the grain: colors banned, head to toe large gowns that slip to the ankles and socks in the sandals obligatory.

It was with the arrival with arrival to power of the moderate president Mohammad Khatami in May 1997 that the Iranian women started to enjoy some freedoms: initially half transparent scarves were followed by touches of make-up, then the coats that stop above the knee.

"With the passing of years, the Iranian women succeeded in imposing the change, with homeopathic amount. Condemned to invisibility, they launched out like challenge to become again visible. And they do not seem ready to give up it ", notices the Iranian sociologist Masserat Amir Ebrahimi. ENDS SOCIAL REPRESSION 22406

Mideast's Undeclared War

April 22, 2006
Arab News
Amir Taheri

link to original article

Every decade produces a word or a phrase that is sure to provoke commotion whenever it is pronounced. You can use it to wake up the bored and the blasé in your audience or toss it like a hand grenade into a curmudgeonly crowd.

Since the overthrow of the Taleban in Kabul and the Baathist in Baghdad the current favorite phrase has been "regime change."

To many, especially in the heteroclite anti-war coalition, regime change produces the same effect that waving a red rag does on a raging bull. The more traditional foreign policy gurus who have not grown beyond the "Treaty of Westphalia" regard the phrase as sacrilegious. The more sophisticated quote Immanuel Kant's Project for Perpetual Peace as authority for their claim that intervening in the internal affairs of any state, no matter how constituted, is an infringement of "the basic principles of international life."

The average citizen has been persuaded that even talking of "regime change" must be regarded as the eighth deadly sin.

With all that in mind you can imagine the flack I attracted when, in a recent column, I suggested that no serious study of the situation with regard to the duel between the Islamic republic of Iran and the United States could exclude "regime change" as an analytical option.

Some saw this as a call for a military invasion of Iran. Others claimed that I was trying to get the US involved in an adventure on spurious grounds.

So, let us start by saying that I was trying to do neither.

I am not calling for military invasion of the Islamic republic by the United States or anybody else.

Now let us go back to the analysis of the situation.

The Middle East today is passing through what historians describe as "disequilibrium". This happens when the status quo is shattered while a new one has not yet been formed.

So, who is going to create a new equilibrium and shape a new status quo in the Greater Middle East?

The Arab states, still recovering from the shock of Iraq, plagued by internecine feuds, and preoccupied with Israel, offer no project.

Turkey, one of the region's leading powers, has turned its face away from it in the hope of joining Europe.

For obvious reasons, Israel is also out of this game.

That leaves only the United States and the Islamic republic to make rival bids for reshaping the region.

The real question, therefore, is simple: Will the new Middle East, which is bound to emerge sooner or later, be an American one, an Iranian one or an Irano-American one?

The United States, at least as long as President George W. Bush is in charge, regards the shaping of a friendly Middle East not only as a good thing in itself but also as vital for American security. The Bush Doctrine is based on the axiom that democracies do not export terrorism or start wars against other democracies. The strategic interests of the US, therefore, dictate that hostile regimes be replaced by friendly ones.

Now let us have a look at the view from Tehran.

The Islamic republic is surrounded by regimes that feel closer to Washington than Tehran, to say the least.

What would happen when, say 10 years from now, the whole of the region is pro-American, included in the mainstream of globalization, and more or less prosperous and more or less democratic? Wouldn't an anti-American, isolated, more or less poverty-stricken, and openly undemocratic Islamic republic look like out of place in this new jigsaw?

One law of history, inasmuch as history does have any laws, is that no nation can play the odd-man out in its region for long. You cannot, for example, have a military regime in France when the whole of Europe lives in democracy.

So, if the US is allowed to create the kind of the Middle East with which it feels comfortable, it is obvious that the Islamic republic, as the odd man out, will feel uncomfortable, not to say threatened.

This is why the Islamic republic is determined not to allow the US to succeed in the region.

In every single country of the region — from Pakistan to Morocco — the US and the Islamic republic are engaged in almost daily political, diplomatic and, at times, even proxy military, combat, with varying degrees of intensity. The Islamic republic is actively engaged in sabotaging US plans for Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and has revived its dormant networks in more than a dozen Arab countries. It has to do so because the emergence of a pro-American Middle East would mean the death of the Khomeinist ideology and its global ambitions.

There are only two ways to end this undeclared war between US and the Islamic republic.

The first is a Yalta-like agreement between Washington and Tehran to divide the Middle East into zones of influence, to set out the rules of the game, and to establish red lines. That would allow a new status quo to be shaped on the basis of a new balance of power. The model for such an arrangement is that of the Cold War between the West and the now defunct USSR that ensured Europe's stability for almost half a century.

But even then there is no guarantee that the two ideological adversaries, the Western democracies on the one hand and the Islamic republic on the other, will not pursue a global, low-intensity conflict just as was the case between the Soviet camp and the West throughout the Cold War.

Another problem, of course, is that the other countries of the region — the Arab states, Pakistan, Turkey, the Caspian Basin nations, and Israel — might not be jubilant about an Irano-American condominium, and may try to undermine it.

The second way to end the undeclared war between the US and the Islamic republic is, you guessed it, regime change.

In theory, this could work either way.

If there were a regime change in Washington that leads to a new policy of leaving the Middle Eat to Iran, the undeclared war would end — at least in the short run. Conversely, regime change in Iran could also do the trick by producing a new regional partner for the United States.

Regime change, therefore, is not a dirty phrase that should be kept out of all analyses. On the contrary it is a useful tool for focusing attention on the realities of a complex situation.

Is regime change possible in either Tehran or Washington?

The answer is: Yes.

One could imagine a new Jimmy Carter in the White House who would decide that it was no business of the United States to reshape the Middle East and that it would be better to allow "the natives" in the region to concoct their own witches' brew.

To achieve regime change in Washington, Tehran should do all it can to discredit the Bush Doctrine and to portray Afghanistan and Iraq not as successes, but as total failures. On that score the Islamic republic has many actual or potential allies inside and outside the US who, for different reasons, want Bush to fail and the US to be humiliated. This is why President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has based his foreign policy on a simple stratagem: Waiting Bush out in the hope that his successor will run away from the Middle East.

At the other end of the spectrum, the US, were it to adopt a policy of regime change toward the Islamic republic, something it has not done yet, would find many allies inside and outside Iran.

But even then regime change need not mean military invasion.

The way change happened in Kabul was different from the way it happened in Baghdad. And, were it to happen in Tehran, it would again be different. Nor should we assume that a policy of regime change should be put into immediate effect. For a range of reasons that might not be possible, or even desirable, at this particular moment in time.

The important thing is to realize that the Middle East will not be out of crisis until one side gives in.

Tehran's Trump Card

April 23, 2006
Los Angeles Times
Clifford Kupchan

link to original article

Iran's key ally in the current nuclear crisis is not Russia or China. It's oil. Tehran can easily drive up prices and is already beginning to do so to rattle the West. As the crisis escalates, Washington's diplomatic partners will become gravely worried about their energy supplies. In the end, Iran's petro power will probably trump Western diplomacy.

Just look at what's happening: Tehran's bravado announcement April 11 that it had mastered key nuclear technology drew censure from world capitals. But it also drove oil prices to more than $70 a barrel on fears that increasing tensions or future military strikes might disrupt Iranian exports and damage Western economies. Prices have risen more than $8 a barrel in less than three weeks, primarily because of Iran.

Tehran's oil leverage is formidable, flowing from its role as the world's fourth-largest producer of oil and its strategic location abreast the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's production passes. Iran produces 4 million barrels of oil a day, about 5% of world production, and exports 2.5 million barrels. And it has used oil to build a web of relationships that make key countries dependent on its supplies.

Today, Iran supplies China with 4% of its oil, France with 7%, Korea with 9%, Japan with 10%, Italy with 11%, Belgium with 14%, Turkey with 22% and Greece with 24%. Those dependencies will create increasing unease over U.S. attempts to pressure Tehran. If the U.S. continues to seek economic sanctions against Iran in the nuclear crisis — or if it continues to hint at the possibility of military action — Tehran will increasingly use petro power in three ways.

First, it is likely to reduce exports to spook oil markets. Iranian leaders ranging from radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to technocrat Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh have already threatened to do so. Initially, Iran might temporarily withhold symbolic export volumes (say, 300,000 barrels a day.) That would increase oil prices more than similar cuts by another country because, given Iran's provocative policies over the last year, the markets will worry about Tehran's next steps.

If the crisis deepens, Iran will seek to intimidate U.S. partners and hike world prices by cutting long-term contracts to provide oil. Japan is an especially vulnerable and probable target, but so are European countries.

The second way Iran could use petro power is by threatening to disrupt tanker traffic through the strait. The threat alone would be enough to hike oil prices, even if Tehran would probably take such a drastic step only if attacked. Iran recently staged a seven-day military exercise called Great Prophet, with 17,000 troops from the elite Revolutionary Guards and the unveiling of several new weapons — including a high-speed, sonar-evading torpedo. The flaunting of the latter was widely interpreted in military circles as a boast that Iran could disrupt or even close the strait by threatening to sink passing oil tankers.

Companies that insure tankers certainly took note. Iran could wreak havoc on price and supply simply by making tanker insurance prohibitively expensive. Oil prices rose about $3 a barrel during the exercises and have risen since. Key nations got the message too; oil-thirsty China in particular fears any use of force that could disrupt its supply. Similar Iranian exercises in the future are likely, as this one clearly succeeded. Third, even if Iran takes no overt step, it symbolically flexes its muscles in the oil markets every time it claims an advance in its nuclear program. Tehran's announcement that it had enriched uranium drove up oil $1.82 a barrel in three days because of heightened fears of clashes with the West. Iran's "pedal-to-the-metal" policy on acquiring a nuclear fuel cycle will push up oil prices throughout 2006. If Iran, as planned, enriches more uranium and installs 3,000 centrifuges at its Natanz facility this fall, international fears of military conflict will grow and oil prices will rise even further.

In these three ways, Tehran can — and almost certainly will — build an "oil wall" against U.S. efforts to enlist international partners to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapons capability.

There are limits to Iranian petro power. Threats to close the strait carry only partial credibility, as Tehran's oil revenues are its lifeline — accounting for 80% of export revenues and 50% of the government's budget. What's more, the U.S. could use force to open the strait. And if Iran were to cease exports or hike oil prices too far, Saudi Arabia could increase production to make up part of the difference. Still, Tehran's ability to manipulate markets and cause supply disruptions will remain formidable.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned that the United Nations must soon take strong action to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. If that fails, Washington will likely seek a "coalition of the willing" to do the job. But to succeed in either forum, the U.S. needs stiff spines in Japan, Europe and even China. Tehran's oil could well force Washington to act alone, if it acts at all.

By Clifford Kupchan, CLIFFORD KUPCHAN is a director at Eurasia Group, a political risk consulting firm.

Belarus: Russian Antiaircraft Missiles for Iran?

April 22, 2006
Dow Jones Newswires
The Associated Press

link to original article

MINSK, Belarus -- Russia began delivering advanced antiaircraft missiles to Belarus Friday, the Belarussian defense minister said, and he denied a report that the weaponry was destined for Iran.

Russia and Belarus signed an agreement last year on the delivery of the latest, most advanced version of Russia's S-300SP surface-to-air missile system, capable of shooting down targets some 150 kilometers away.

U.K. defense journal Jane's Intelligence Digest, meanwhile, reported in a recent edition that Belarus had agreed to transfer the S-300SP missiles to Iran in order to help it bolster its defenses against any possible U.S. or Israeli air strikes designed to derail what many in the West allege are its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

The report said the agreement had been reached in January when a high-level military and political delegation from Tehran paid a low-key visit to Minsk. The journal said Moscow had chosen an indirect way of supplying the missiles to allow it to avoid tarnishing its international reputation.

Russia has already agreed to supply sophisticated Tor-M1 air defense missile systems to Iran.

"I have no intention of commenting on this nonsense," Defense Minister Leonid Maltsev told reporters in Minsk. "Under the contract for the delivery of the S-300s from Russia, Belarus does not have the right to transfer these systems anywhere else."

Iranian Commerce Minister Masud Mir-Kazemi, who headed a trade delegation that traveled to Minsk, also denied that Tehran wanted to acquire the Russian S-300 missiles.

"The question of deliveries of S-300 systems wasn't discussed. From the viewpoint of military technology, we are self-sufficient and there is no need for us to consider buying weapons abroad," he told reporters.

The Iranian minister said he had not met Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, who on Friday was also in the Belarussian capital for talks with President Alexander Lukashenko.

The missile shipment is the latest move expanding military ties between Russia and Belarus. In 1996, the two nations signed a union agreement providing for close political, economic and military ties and their armed forces have held frequent joint drills.

In February, Russian air force chief Gen. Vladimir Mikhailov said Russia planned to set up a permanent military air base in Belarus.

Russia has watched warily as former Soviet bloc countries bordering Belarus - Poland, Latvia and Lithuania -have joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Ahmadinejad to Disclose Iran's Decision on UN Deadline on Monday

April 22, 2006
DPA
Khaleej Times Online

link to original article

TEHERAN -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will disclose Iran’s decision on the United Nations Security Council deadline in a press conference on Monday, the news agency Fars reported on Saturday.

The latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran’s nuclear activities is due to be presented by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei on April 28.

The date is also the deadline set by the UN Security Council against Iran to suspend all its uranium enrichment activities.

Iran has so far signalled that it would not follow the UN demand, but it has also affirmed its commitment to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and continued cooperation with the IAEA.

Ahmadinejad himself has already declared Iran as an atomic state and called on the world to treat the country accordingly.

The five Security Council members plus Germany have so far failed to reach a unanimous decision how to approach Iran following the deadline but the Europeans have ruled out a military option, and Russia and China are against any sanctions against Teheran.

Mideast 'Axis of Terror' Forms Against West

April 20, 2006
The Christian Science Monitor
Nicholas Blanford

link to original article

BEIRUT, LEBANON -- Rising tension between the West and Iran is coinciding with the emergence of a loose anti-Western alliance - Israel now dubs it an "axis of terror" - spanning the Middle East, presenting a new challenge to the US's regional ambitions. Centered on Iran, this alignment has hardened in recent months, analysts say, with Tehran shoring up old alliances and strengthening ties with countries (Syria and Iraq) and with groups (Hizbullah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad) that share its hostility toward Israel and the US.

"The alliance that is emerging in this part of the world is a creation of Iran," says Sami Moubayed, a Syrian political analyst. "It wants to bolster its position by allying itself with countries or groups that can temporarily enhance its regional role and influence."

On Tuesday, Israel's UN envoy Dan Gillerman dubbed this alliance the "new axis of terror" following a suicide bombing claimed by the Iranian-funded Islamic Jihad in Tel Aviv the previous day that killed nine Israelis.

"A dark cloud is looming above our region, and it is metastasizing as a result of the statements and actions by leaders of Iran, Syria, and the newly elected government of the Palestinian Authority," Mr. Gillerman said.

The alliance, which is ad hoc and tactical rather than a formalized strategic pact, includes Syria and groups such as Lebanon's Hizbullah, the Iran-backed militant Shiite organization, radical Palestinian organizations such as Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command as well as some Iraqi allies.

So far the strategy appears to be working in their favor. Hizbullah has become one of the most influential players in Lebanon and looks set to retain its military wing for the foreseeable future.

Iran has rarely appeared more resolute, boasting of its success in uranium enrichment and expressing near daily defiance toward the US. Damascus is gaining confidence with a slackening of international pressure lately amid concerns that a collapse of Syria's Baathist regime could trigger Iraq-style instability.

"The Syrians are very supportive of Iran and very supportive of Hamas and Hizbullah," says Mr. Moubayed. "Almost everybody in Syria is praising [Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad's alliance with Iran as a very smart move. Many are saying that the alliance with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad was not political suicide after all."

Iran is the driving force behind the alliance, its strategic position in the region enhanced by the US-led effort to oust Tehran's Taliban enemy in Afghanistan to the east and its Baathist foe in Iraq to the west.

Over the weekend, Iran hosted a three-day conference in support of the Palestinians, pledging $50 million to the newly elected Hamas government and reaffirming its ties to other rejectionist Palestinian groups.

"This is an anti-America alliance," says Joshua Landis, professor of history at the University of Oklahoma and author of Syriacomment.com, who spent 2005 living in Damascus. "My guess is that the US will end up in a weaker position than it started. The war on terror has alienated the Muslim countries who now believe that America is the big bad ogre and specter of imperialism."

A year ago, Syria's strategic position looked grim, having been forced to disengage from neighboring Lebanon, ending 15 years of domination. Hizbullah also was feeling the squeeze amid the departure of its Syrian protector and a growing clamor for its disarmament from the party's Lebanese opponents.

But the election in August of the confrontational Mr. Ahmadinejad as president of Iran reinvigorated the long-standing relationship between Tehran and Damascus. Syria is the geostrategic linchpin connecting Tehran to its Lebanese protégé, Hizbullah, and was also regarded by Iran as the weak link in the chain, one that required buttressing.

A newly emboldened Syria began to display greater defiance against international pressure. In November, Mr. Assad asserted in a speech that "the region [faces] two choices: either resistance and steadfastness or chaos. There is no third choice.

"If they believe that they [the West] can blackmail Syria, we tell them they got the wrong address," he said.

A series of Middle East elections also bolstered the emerging alliance. In late December, Shiite factions close to Tehran dominated the Iraqi elections. The following month, Hamas triumphed in the Palestinian elections, granting Iran greater leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian arena.

In mid-January, Assad hosted a summit in Damascus with Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president's first state visit. Also attending were the leaders of Hizbullah and several anti-Israel Palestinian groups in what analysts regarded as an affirmation of the anti-Western axis.

"The meeting between Ahmadinejad and Assad," commented Sateh Noureddine of Lebanon's As Safir newspaper at the time, "did not come as a sign of defeat, but rather as a joint warning to the world. A warning that the alliance between the two neighbors is on its way to becoming stronger."

The alliance includes the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, who in visits to Tehran and Damascus in January and February vowed to come to the defense "by all possible means" of Iran and Syria if attacked by the US.

There is a commercial dimension, too. In February, Iran and Syria inked sweeping economic and trade agreements including one establishing gas, oil, railroad, and electrical links between Syria and Iran via Iraq. Both countries are looking to the emerging economic powerhouses of Asia to build new trade ties as an alternative to Europe and the West.

"Syria has been signing oil and gas contracts with India, China, and Russia," says Mr. Landis, the Syria expert. "Syria and Iran are thinking they can build Iraq into their northern tier, building gas and oil pipelines across the region."

Turkish Dailies: U.S. Seeks Use of Bases for Duration of Iran Crisis

April 21, 2006
World Tribune
Special to World Tribune.com

link to original article

ANKARA -- Turkish sources said the Defense Department has discussed U.S. military access to several bases in Turkey. They said they included air and naval bases that spanned an area from Central Asia to the Mediterranean. "The request was for temporary access and connected to the crisis with Iran," a Turkish source said.

On April 17, the Turkish daily Cumhuriyet reported that the United States has sought to establish a presence in three naval bases in Turkey. The newspaper said the United States demanded access to bases located along the Aegean and Mediterranean coasts, Middle East Newsline reported.

Turkey's government denied the report. The U.S. embassy in Ankara said the story had "no factual basis."

Another Turkish daily, Aksam, said the United States has proposed the construction of an air base near the Iranian border. Aksam said Ankara has already expropriated land near the Iranian-Turkish border for what was said to be an airport.

The sources said the United States has submitted a range of proposals for closer military cooperation with Ankara. They said the Pentagon has sought to increase the U.S. military presence in Turkey to facilitate reconnaissance and logistics for any air strike against nuclear facilities in Iran.

Iran has warned Turkey not to cooperate with the United States.

On April 17, the leader of the Iranian Hizbullah threatened suicide strikes against Turkey.

"You should have no doubt that we will attack you as well if the United States uses bases in Turkey, receives support from Turkey," Iranian Hizbullah chief Mohammed Bager Kharrazi told Turkish NTV television. "We will retaliate against all of those who support our attacker."

On Thursday, the U.S. intelligence community played down Iran's capability to produce nuclear fuel. National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said Teheran still remains years away from producing a sufficient amount of enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon.

"Our assessment at the moment is that even though we believe that Iran is determined to acquire or obtain a nuclear weapon, that we believe that it is still a number of years off before they are likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into, or to put into a nuclear weapon; perhaps into the next decade," Negroponte said. "So I think it's important that this issue be kept in perspective."

Iran is Behind the Soaring Price of Gasoline

April 21, 2006
Newsweek
Christopher Dickey

link to original article

When your heart starts racing faster than the digital numbers on the gas pump, you know there’s a problem with the price. And if you haven’t had that shock already, you will soon.

Last week, the U.S. Energy Department estimated regular gasoline would cost an average of $2.62 a gallon this summer, up 10.5 percent from last year. Already that sounds optimistic. By the beginning of this week, the average price of regular was $2.79. On Wednesday, the DOE suggested prices might actually get up to around $3 this summer, but wouldn’t remain “that high, on average, over a whole month.” Meanwhile, the price of crude oil—which determines the base price of gasoline—has jumped to record highs, and looks set to climb some more.

Yep, there is a problem. And while oil industry analysts and the Bush administration will make the reasons sound very complicated, throwing in every market variable from refinery capacities to inventories to Nigerian guerrillas, I’ll sum it up for you in one word: “Iran.”

Although Tehran has yet to use “the oil weapon” by cutting supplies—far from it—saber-rattling President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is learning fast that he can shake up the nervous global energy market with just a calculated remark here or there. In economic language so measured it sounded vaguely Greenspanian, the Iranian president told Tehran Radio this week that “the global oil price has not reached its real value yet.” At that, the cost of a barrel went splashing over the unprecedented $72 mark. “Every time there's an issue with Iran, the oil market freaks out," as one New York analyst told the Associated Press.

Ahmadinejad has a reputation as a wild-eyed provocateur. (How often has he said, in various ways, he’d like to see Israel wiped off the map?) And nothing drives up prices like rumors of war. But it’s the United States and Israel cranking up the volume at the moment. After a Palestinian blew himself up in front of a Tel Aviv falafel stand this week, killing nine people and wounding dozens, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman told the press there’s a new “axis of terror” in the Middle East. “A dark cloud is looming over our region, and it is metastasizing as a result of the statements and actions by leaders of Iran, Syria and the newly elected [Hamas] government of the Palestinian Authority,” said Gillerman, that amount to “clear declarations of war.”

President George W. Bush, meanwhile, remains coy about what military options he may or may not use, eventually, to try to eliminate Iran’s rapidly progressing nuclear research, which Iran says is purely for peaceful purposes—even as it perfects possible bomb-related technologies. And while the clock ticks, every dollar increase in the price of oil brings the Iranian government an extra dividend of roughly $2 million a day, plus the tens of billions reaped in rising prices since 2003.

None of these apparent ironies should be surprising. Iran, the second largest petroleum producer in the Persian Gulf, has sometimes been a frustrating ally and sometimes an avowed enemy of the United States. But it has always been the epicenter of major oil shocks.


Consider the performance of the last Shah. A 1953 coup engineered by Britain and the United States restored him to power after his rather more democratic opponents, who’d ousted him, threatened Western oil interests. “I owe my throne to God, my people, my army—and to you!” the Shah told Kermit “Kim” Roosevelt, the CIA’s man in Tehran at the time. Yet 20 years later the same Shah took advantage of the 1973 Arab oil embargo to ram through prices more than 10 times higher than they’d been in 1970. “Iran will be one of the serious countries of the world,” the Shah insisted, evoking the millennia-old glories of Persia’s past.

As Daniel Yergin writes in his classic 1990 study “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power,” after that surge in prices the Shah was soon talking with regal airs about petroleum as a “noble product.” He haughtily advised Western nations that “they will have to realize that the era of their terrific progress and even more terrific income and wealth based on cheap oil is finished.” He talked of the United States, and all of the West, with undisguised disdain. “Eventually all those children of well-to-do families who have plenty to eat at every meal, who have their cars, and who act almost as terrorists and throw bombs here and there, they will have to rethink all these aspects of the advanced industrial world. And they will have to work harder,” said the Shah. “Your young boys and young girls who receive so much money from their fathers will also have to think that they must earn their living somehow.” Ahmadinejad could lift those lines verbatim to rouse Iranian crowds today, and practically does.

In 1979, when the Shah fell to the Islamic revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini, new oil shocks rocked the world economy. Suddenly there were places in the United States where gasoline was not to be had at any price. (I worked at a service station outside Washington, D.C., during the July 4 holidays that year, reporting a story for The Washington Post. Part of my job was to carry the “Last Car” sign down the long line of motorists, marking the end of hope for those who had waited the better part of a day to fill their tanks. I was offered bribes. I was threatened. But there was nothing to be done.) It seemed as if a whole way of life had ended. By 1980, the price of oil reached highs that, adjusted for inflation, would top $90 a barrel today. That same threshold is approaching now.

Before we get that far, it’s worth considering that Iran’s assertiveness in regional and world affairs seems, quite literally, to follow the market. When the Shah depended on the CIA in 1953 (and the barrel of oil was priced in pennies) he was a more-or-less craven ally. Two decades later, flush with petro-dollars, he was a raving imperialist, who later started Iran’s nuclear program. So, too, with the mullahs. When oil prices were astronomical in the early 1980s, ayatollahs were looking to spread their revolution far and wide. When the price had sunk to about $10 a barrel in the late 1990s, reformists were ascendant in Tehran, and wanted to accommodate the West almost any way they could.

More recently, on the nuclear front, when the mullahs agreed to freeze their enrichment research in 2003, the average price of oil was about $30 a barrel. They again started up nuclear fuel enrichment activities—the same process that can be used to make fissionable material for atomic weapons—last year when the price of oil had reached $50. By the time they announced earlier this month that they’d succeeded with enrichment, oil prices were on their way to $70. Tensions drive up the cost of oil, international pressure inspires Iranian nationalism and increased revenues underwrite the mullahs’ ability to resist.

I’m not sure there’s a quick way out of this spiral. But I do know this: if global oil consumption goes down—and the United States accounts for 25 percent of that—then so will the price of oil. And history suggests that if oil prices fall, so will the ambition and intransigence of any Iranian regime. So if you want to force the mullahs to make a deal, talk peace, not war. And think about trading in that SUV before you end up in the line on the wrong side of the “last car” sign.

U.S. Wants Europe to Isolate Iran if U.N. Balks

April 21, 2006
The New York Times
Steven R. Weisman

link to original article

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration called today for Russia and the countries of Europe to impose their own penalties on Iran over its suspected nuclear arms program if no agreement on sanctions can be reached soon at the United Nations Security Council.

"If the Security Council cannot act over a reasonable period of time, then there will be an opportunity for groups of countries to organize themselves together for the purpose of isolating the Iranians diplomatically and economically," said R. Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs and the lead envoy on Iran.

He added that "it's not beyond the realm of the possible that at some point in the future a group of countries could get together, if the Security Council is not able to act, to take collective economic action collective action on sanction."

It was not clear that Europeans or the Russians were interested in a sanctions approach without the United Nations Security Council authorizing it, and American and European officials said they still hope the council will move in that direction next month. A European official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the matter, said several European countries would resist the approach of letting countries proceed without an international consensus.

"If one or more countries break off and impose international sanctions, the Iranians would be thrilled," he said. "They would just be able to play countries off against each other. Going for sanctions, that would be a wasted exercise."

Mr. Burns's comments at a news conference in Washington came after several weeks of what some European and American officials say has been a frustrating period of diplomacy, with both Russia and China resisting the administration's efforts to get the Security Council to act against Iran.

The under secretary was in Moscow last week to try to get the Russians to go along with quick action at the Security Council. He said that he got agreement on the general need for such action but not on specifics. "We did not agree on the specific tactical way forward," he said.

Indeed, nearly three years of threats and diplomatic maneuverings, coupled with offers of economic incentives for Iran if it abandons its uranium enrichment activities, have resulted in Iran speeding its program up rather than slowing it down.

"In terms of activities on the ground in Iran, it's fair to say, I believe, that the Iranians have put both feet on the accelerator," Robert Joseph, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security, said at the news conference with Mr. Burns.

He cited Iran's claim that it had 110 tons of uranium hexaflouride, a precursor for nuclear fuel in a civilian reactor but also potentially enough for 10 nuclear weapons. Iran's additional claim that it had enriched uranium to a level of 3.5 percent means that it is on its way to higher levels for use in weapons.

The Bush administration has sought to organize a widening circle of countries to put pressure on Iran, including the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the so-called Group of Eight nations of leading industrial democracies that will be holding a summit meeting in St. Petersburg in July.

But the price of bringing Russia, China, India and other countries into seeking to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment program has been going along with their refusal to consider sanctions.

In the last two weeks, American officials say they are pleased that at least economic sanctions are being more widely discussed.

The week before last, Javier Solana, the European Union's principal foreign affairs envoy, proposed a series of possible economic penalties on Iran that won approval in Washington. They included imposing stricter export controls on high technology shipments to Iran and revocation of visas for any Iranian officials linked to the nuclear program.

In addition, the European list implied a freeze of personal assets for certain Iranian officials and a halt in defense-related contracts for Iran, which some European countries continue to honor.

But another senior European official, also asking not to be identified, said the list did not mean Europe was ready to impose these steps. The official noted that Mr. Solana listed the steps as "options for reflection" without saying they would be implemented. "We haven't called them options for action," the official said.

Iran's economic links with Europe and Russia are enormous, particularly in the energy sector. Iran is one of the world's leading producers of oil and natural gas, but even American officials say they doubt that any sanctions would include a ban on such imports to the West.

Mr. Burns also acknowledged that Russian officials rebuffed an American request that it half the sale of anti-aircraft missile equipment to Iran. He said that "we hope and trust" that this sale, announced last December, would not go forward.

"It just doesn't stand to reason that Russia would continue with arms sales, particularly of the type envisioned," Mr. Burns said. But he said that the United States still had work to do to persuade the Russian government.

US and UK Develop Democracy Strategy for Iran

April 21, 2006
The Financial Times
Guy Dinmore

link to original article

The US and UK are working on a strategy to promote democratic change in Iran, according to officials who see the joint effort as the start of a new phase in the diplomatic campaign to counter the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme without resorting to military intervention.

A newly created Iran Syria Operations Group inside the State Department is co-ordinating the work and reporting to Elizabeth Cheney, the senior US official leading democracy promotion in the broader Middle East.

“Democracy promotion is a rubric to get the Europeans behind a more robust policy without calling it regime change,” a former Bush administration official commented.

The new direction, the former official said, reflected a growing belief in the US and UK that diplomacy through the United Nations and partial sanctions were unlikely to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. In the absence of a credible military solution, the argument went that international diplomacy could try to slow down the nuclear programme while more “robust” efforts continued towards the ultimate solution of regime change, he said.

US officials said the British input was important because of the Bush administration’s lack of experts on Iran, the legacy of 25 years of frozen diplomatic relations. Some see the UK as having a moderating effect as the US considers whether to fund opposition groups in exile, launch covert activities inside Iran, and/or “independent” satellite television broadcasting in Farsi.

But US officials also detect a hardening of the UK stance in response to the confrontational approach of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s president.

Seeking to fill the US knowledge gap, the State Department last month set up the Iranian Affairs Office in Washington and announced new diplomatic posts for Farsi speakers. Barbara Leaf, an Arabist, is expected to head the office.

At the same time, the separate Iran Syria Operations Group was established to plot a more aggressive democracy promotion strategy for those two “rogue” states. Funding is to come from $75m that Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, announced in February she was requesting from Congress this year, plus some $10m already in the budget.

Adam Ereli, a State Department spokesman, denied the operations group existed.

But two other US officials and a European diplomat insisted that it did. They said the inter-agency group, which is supposed to co-ordinate with the Pentagon and other departments, is heade`d by David Denehy, a special adviser who served in the coalition government in Iraq, and Alberto Fernandez, a public diplomacy official.

Jack Straw, UK foreign secretary, accused Iran of deciding to “take on the international community” through its development of nuclear weapons and support of terrorism in a tough speech on March 13.

Mr Straw said the UK would “not take sides in Iran’s internal political debates” and noted that Iranians were “understandably sensitive about any hint of outside interference”.

But in language that echoed Ms Rice’s testimony to Congress a month earlier, Mr Straw pledged UK support for the democratic “aspirations” of the Iranian people.

He focused on how to give Iranians access to “independent authoritative information” and said governments could help provide this.

The US is planning to increase satellite television programming by Voice of America and may launch a new “independent” network with a prominent Iranian as front-man.

US officials concede, however, that they are not encouraged by their experience in Arabic broadcasting in the wake of the invasion of Iraq.

Serious Iranian opposition politicians are virtually unanimous in saying that foreign funding of activities designed to promote democracy, especially by the US or UK, would be counter-productive.

Ali Akbar Javanfekr, a press adviser to Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, recently said Iranians were “alert” to the “propaganda of enemies”, and in general Iran’s rulers show little concern over existing US broadcasts.

Additional reporting by Gareth Smyth in Tehran

U.S. Wants Russia to Stop Iran Arms Sales

April 21, 2006
The Associated Press
Anne Gearan

link to original article

WASHINGTON -- The United States pressed Russia on Friday to halt missile sales to Iran amid international efforts to defuse a standoff with Tehran over its disputed nuclear program.

The U.S. wants other countries that are concerned about Iran's nuclear intentions to use their influence, be it cutoffs of trade ties or, in Russia's case, cancellation of a planned sale of Tor-M1 air defense missile systems.

``We think it's time for countries to use their leverage individually, and we think it's time for countries to band together collectively to make the same effort,'' said Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns.

The United States and its allies claim Tehran is seeking a bomb under cover of a peaceful civilian nuclear energy program; Iran denies it.

Burns' call for individual nations to do what they can to isolate Iran sets up an alternate way to apply pressure to the clerical regime outside the U.N. Security Council's current review of the Iranian nuclear program.

The United States pushed for more than two years to bring Iran's case before the powerful U.N. body for possible economic and political sanctions. U.S. officials have said that is the best way to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear know-how that could be used for a bomb.

The council is now divided, however, over whether to apply sanctions to the rich oil exporter.

Burns left Moscow after two days of meetings this week with an agreement that something must be done to stop Iran, but no public movement from Iran's commercial partners Russia and China toward supporting sanctions.

U.S. officials denied that asking countries to individually apply their own forms of sanctions shows lack of confidence in the Security Council process or undermines it.

``We're dedicating ourselves to the Security Council process, and you'll see the United States be as actively engaged as anybody,'' Burns said.

``But if the Security Council cannot act over a reasonable period of time, then there will be an opportunity for groups of countries to organize themselves together for the purpose of isolating the Iranians diplomatically and economically.''

Russia dug in its heels Friday, saying there is not yet proof that Iran is pursuing a bomb and that the nuclear crisis should be resolved by the less powerful U.N. nuclear watchdog agency instead of the Security Council.

``There is no such issue (of sanctions) for us,'' Nikolai Spassky, deputy head of the Kremlin Security Council was quoted as saying by the RIA-Novosti news agency. ``We are not discussing it.''

Russia holds veto power as one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

``Those that might prevent the Security Council from acting effectively need to understand that the international community has to find a way - and will find a way - to express our displeasure with the Iranians,'' Burns said.

There should be no export of so-called dual-use technology to Iran, Burns said, a reference to hardware or computer equipment that Iran might legally buy abroad but that could be used to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Beyond those safeguards, ``We think it's very important that countries like Russia, for instance, freeze any arms sales planned for Iran,'' Burns said.

Russia announced plans last year to sell 29 sophisticated Tor-M1 air defense missile systems to Iran under a contract worth about $700 million.

``We hope and we trust that that deal will not go forward because this is not time for business as usual with the Iranian government,'' Burns said.

Russian officials had said earlier Friday that the deal is still on, despite U.S. pressure.

``We'll continue to work at it,'' Burns said. ``We felt it was important to press the issue.''

Al-Qaeda Finds its Missing Link in Iran

April 21, 2006
Asia Times Online
Syed Saleem Shahzad

link to original article

KARACHI -- The US-led "war on terror" is entering a critical phase, with the al-Qaeda leadership being given a chance to revitalize its cause now that Iran is in the US crosshairs over its nuclear program.

"Tehran has taken over the central stage by challenging American hegemony," Hamid Gul told Asia Times Online. "Tehran is today's inspiration force. It charms the Arab youths on the streets. The Arab rulers are terrified of this development, and this is the reason they are coming to Pakistan one after another."

Gul is a former corps commander of the Pakistani army and ex-director general of the Inter-Services Intelligence. Persian-speaking Gul is reckoned as one of the architects of the jihadi movements that finally turned global and made Afghanistan their base in the mid- and late 1990s when the Taliban ruled.

Gul was referring to visits to Pakistan by Saudi Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz and Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Salah. Islamabad is a US outpost in the "war on terror" that the two prominent Arab leaders visited, while at least one more is scheduled in coming weeks.

Contacts close to the echelons of power in Pakistan's military headquarters, Rawalpindi, tell Asia Times Online that judging from the pattern of talks, all of the Muslim countries that side with the United States anticipate a US attack on Iran around October.

And, according to these contacts, their strategy is to consolidate opinion in the Organization of Islamic Conferences to be prepared. This does not mean stopping the attack, but being ready for the fallout in the Middle East and beyond.

"Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's anti-American calls have become the voice of today's Arab youths. They see in him a hero, and it has shaken the foundations of pro-American dictators and monarchs," Gul explained.

"They [Arab rulers] are anxious and restive. They are seeing their doomsday started. Since Pakistan and Arab rulers operate under the US umbrella, they are basically joining their heads together to contain the Iranian threat.

"The way Iran has spun its web in the region, all strategic levers are coming into Tehran's hands. The Hizb-i-Islami Afghanistan led by [Gulbuddin] Hekmatyar is part of the Islamic movement and already close to Iran, but it is only a matter of time when Taliban-related movements will resolve all differences with Iran and join hands with Tehran," Gul said.

Historically, Arabs have viewed Iran with hostility, and there are some who are skeptical whether Iran will continue in its current role as anti-US champion should back-channel diplomacy, especially involving Russia and China, lead to a resolution of the crisis over its nuclear program.

Within two weeks, the International Atomic Energy Agency will give a final report to the United Nations Security Council, the results of which could determine whether or not sanctions are imposed on Iran.

Critics argue that should the crisis be defused, Iran will back down from its present rhetoric and leave all radicals in the lurch. After all, they argue, Tehran has indirectly facilitated US interests in the region, be they in Afghanistan or Iraq.

"I don't agree with this notion," Gul said dismissively. "Iran raised funds for Hamas at a time when the whole Muslim world was sympathetic with Hamas but did not dare to openly support them. Iran [this week] pledged [US]$50 million.

"At the same time, it is untrue that Iran supported US designs in the region. Instead, it cleverly played its cards and now it is evident that it has trapped the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq," said Gul.

Al-Qaeda's grand design

Iran's becoming a rallying point for anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world fits well with al-Qaeda. Asia Times Online has already outlined a pivotal debate in al-Qaeda on two major issues - the question of a base and that of a unified command structure.

Integral to the first issue was whether al-Qaeda should get rid of its shadowy image and fight in the open. This would involve the establishment of an Islamic state (base) from which calls for jihad could be issued and jihadi forces prepared.

Al-Qaeda has achieved this target in the Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan on the Afghan border by setting up a virtual independent state, which is being expanded into South Waziristan and many towns in Afghanistan, in Kunar, Paktia, Khost, Helmand and Zabul provinces.

But although the Afghan resistance is linked with the Iraqi resistance and they have started open battles against US-led forces in Afghanistan, the question of a unified command that would control resistance movements whether they be in Iraq, Palestine or Afghanistan is still unanswered.

This is where Iran could now fit in, by evolving from an inspirational anti-US model to taking a lead role in orchestrating resistance movements, in collaboration with al-Qaeda.

For radical Islamists, the situation is a major turnaround for their cause of pan-Islamicism and one that could even resolve 1,400 years of historical, ideological and political differences in the Muslim world.

"The Islamic Revolution of Iran [1979] was in fact a victory of all Islamic movements which were striving to establish one Islamic role model in the world so that it would be an inspirational force and would convince the masses that the Islamic system of life was still workable after 1,400 years," Muslim intellectual Shahnawaz Farooqui explained to Asia Times Online.

Shahnawaz is a young Pakistan-based Muslim intellectual, a teacher, writer and a poet. His main work is in the field of the interpretation of Muslim history and Muslim ideologies. His views are often aired in the Iranian media.

"The Iranian revolution was in fact a complete revolution under the leadership of imam [Ruhollah] Khomeini. It was above any sectarian bounds. After the revolution, Khomeini announced that the base of Shi'ite-Sunni differences was historical rather than theological.

"Shi'ites believe that Ali deserved to be the first Muslim caliph, and they rejected all three before Ali and believe Ali is the first caliph. Sunnis believe that the first three caliphs, Bakr, Omar and Osman, are all [the] righteous [ones] and that Ali was the fourth caliph. Imam Khomeini addressed this issue and called it historical differences which had no connection with basic Islamic theology, and if Shi'ites gave up their historical point of view on the issue of the caliphate, it would make no difference, but on the other hand it would wipe out Shi'ite-Sunni differences once and for all," Shahnawaz maintained.

"Unfortunately, imam Khomeini could not convince anybody - neither his internal circles of clerics nor Al-Howza [the supreme Shi'ite religious council in Iraq] as no one among the Shi'ites was ready to give up their historical position on the question of the caliphate.

"However, the situation turned bad after the demise of Khomeini and it was felt that during the period of [ex-president Hashemi] Rafsanjani and [former president Mohammed] Khatami the Iranian revolution was somewhere lost.

"However, the victory of President Ahmadinejad has once again revived the very spirit of the Iranian revolution, and once again all Islamic movements, whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-i-Islami, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any other, are joining hands with Tehran," said Shahnawaz.

"To me, President Ahmadinejad has redeemed the Iranian Islamic revolution with all its ideological legacies," Shahnawaz added.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Bureau Chief, Pakistan, Asia Times Online. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com.

Iran's War on the West

April 21, 2006
The Weekly Standard
Thomas Joscelyn

link to original article

In a New York Times op-ed this past Sunday, former National Security Council staffers Richard Clarke and Steven Simon lamented the possibility of a military strike on Iran. They warned, "a conflict with Iran could be even more damaging to our interests than the current struggle in Iraq has been."

At the heart of their concern lies a simple cost-benefit analysis. Iran has not supported anti-American terrorism since the mid-1990s. But if provoked, the mullahs may unleash their terrorist network, which is "superior to anything Al Qaeda was ever able to field." In the war on terrorism, therefore, the potential benefits of a military strike on Iran are rather low, while the costs are prohibitively high.

Clarke and Simon tell us that Iran's last act of anti-American terrorism came in 1996 when the "the Qods Force, the covert-action arm of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, arranged" the Khobar Towers bombing. (It is worth noting that there is still some uncertainty surrounding the Khobar Towers bombing. For example, the 9-11 Commission concluded, "While the evidence of Iranian involvement is strong, there are also signs that al Qaeda played some role, as yet unknown." Eight years after the attack, therefore, the government still wasn't sure if this was a joint Iran-al Qaeda operation.)

While the Clinton administration ruled out a military strike against Iran, Clarke and Simon say that the U.S. intelligence community scared Iran out of the terrorist game. After some unspecified covert action, "Iranian terrorism against the United States ceased."

On its face, this claim is dubious.

Anti-American terrorism has been a central tenet of Iran's Islamic revolution for decades. That the U.S. intelligence community, with its less than stellar track record in fighting terrorism during the 1990s, managed to convince Iran to stop orchestrating or aiding terrorist attacks against American interests seems highly unlikely. How could the mullahs have a terrorist network "superior" to al Qaeda, poised to strike, and yet not have used it for the past decade? Are we really to believe, as Clarke and Simon would have it, that this network of terrorist operatives has lain dormant all this time?

The questionable nature of this claim becomes apparent when one considers what Richard Clarke himself thought less than two years ago. In Against All Enemies, Clarke makes it clear that Iran was a "priority" country "as important as the others," including the Taliban's Afghanistan, in the post-9/11 war on terrorism.

While dismissing the evidence of Iraq's ties to al Qaeda (a claim that is also inconsistent with Clarke's previous statements and a wealth of evidence), Clarke argued in 2004:

. . . al Qaeda regularly used Iranian territory for transit and sanctuary prior to September 11. Al Qaeda's Egyptian branch, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, operated openly in Tehran. It is no coincidence that many of the al Qaeda management team, or Shura Council, moved across the border into Iran after U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan.

Moreover, Clarke explained that the threat posed by Iran's weapons of mass destruction programs, coupled with its ties to terrorism, posed a threat far greater than Saddam's Iraq. He wrote, "Any objective observer looking at the evidence in 2002 and 2003 would have said that the U.S. should spend more time and attention dealing with the security threats from Tehran than those from Baghdad."

Why did Clark believe that Iran should be a priority and Saddam's Iraq should not? He explained: "There is, of course, evidence that Iran provided al Qaeda safe haven before and after September 11."

Even Clarke's famously unequivocal denial of Iraqi involvement with al Qaeda, which supposedly took place the day after September 11 as he was allegedly countering President Bush's pointed questions, includes an admission of Iran's ties. Clarke claims that he told the President, ". . . we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen."

Thus, Clarke's previous views seem inconsistent with his current claim that Iran stopped supporting anti-American terrorism in the mid-1990s. Far from ending its support for terrorism, it seems that Iran has continued its decades-long terrorist assault against the West. Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, touches upon some of this evidence.

A few additional examples of Iranian support for al Qaeda make it clear that Iran was not scared out of the anti-American terrorism game. The 9/11 Commission reports that al Qaeda operatives received explosives training from Iran in the early 1990s. Bin Laden "showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983." This early history of collaboration did not come to an end. Even after 1996, Iran continued to open its doors to al Qaeda. The Clinton administration's original unsealed indictment of al Qaeda in November 1998 states that bin Laden's group had allied itself with Iran and its terrorist puppet, Hezbollah. The 9/11 Commission even left open the possibility that Hezbollah had assisted al Qaeda's execution of the September 11 plot.

This is just a small sample of the evidence tying Iran to al Qaeda. None of this means that military action against Iran is necessarily the most prudent next step. In this regard, Clarke and Simon may very well be right. A strike against Iran may not be in America's best interests, or the most effective way to deal with the Iranian threat. A careful weighing of the costs and benefits of military action should guide America's path. But by dismissing Iran's role in the past decade of anti-American terrorism, Clarke and Simon muddy the public debate and fail to accurately assess the Iranian threat.

Thomas Joscelyn is an economist and writer living in New York.

U.N.'s Sad Circus

April 21, 2006
New York Post
Thomas P. Kilgannon

link to original article

The Midtown Circus, other wise known as the United Nations, opened a new at traction last week: The U.N. Commission on Disarmament elevated Iran to a leadership post - despite the terrorist regime's dogged pursuit of nuclear capabilities and defiance of its international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran on the Disarmament Commission; it's rather like naming a member of the Ku Klux Klan to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. And even as the Disarmament Commission was rewarding the Islamic Republic's behavior, the Security Council was delaying action on the International Atomic Energy Agency's referral of Iran for its nuclear violations.

Created in 1952 and re-established by the General Assembly in 1978, the U.N. Disarmament Commission opened its 2006 session on April 10. Delegates immediately pledged to "effectively deal with new emerging threats and challenges" - and then proceeded to promote Iran to a vice-chairmanship.

Speaking from its new perch of authority, Iran demanded that Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and open all of its nuclear sites to international inspection. Such demands are considered statesmanship by a nation whose leader has vowed to "wipe Israel off the map."

For those who would rather watch train wrecks than tightrope artists, the United Nations may just be the greatest show on earth. It is a collection of corruption and contradictions that undercuts U.S. foreign policy goals, yet still manages to win the support of Congress and the administration. U.S. taxpayers send upward of $4 billion a year to the world body.

Iran's rise on the Disarmament Commission prompted Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) to call for the suspension of funds as long as Iran is a member. "The election of Iran as a vice-chair of the U.N. Disarmament Commission at the same time as Iran clandestinely pursues its own nuclear ambitions," he said, "provides yet another example of the United Nations' inability to establish credible institutions to deal with global issues."

Coleman, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee who spearheaded the Senate's probe of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food corruption, called on the Bush administration to withhold U.S. contributions "to send an unmistakable signal that there will be serious consequences to the U.N. failure to implement real reform."

Yet there's little reason to think most member states want U.N. reform. The U.N. Human Rights Commission booted the United States out in 2001, and the next year chose Libya to represent the hopes of oppressed people the world over. Just this month, Jean Ziegler, the infamous founder of the "Moammar Khadafy Human Rights Prize," was nominated as an expert adviser to the new U.N. Human Rights Council.

Last year, after Zimbabwe's dictator Robert Mugabe orchestrated a man-made famine in his country, the United Nations invited him to address its annual conference on hunger. (He accepted.)

Simply put, too many (quite possibly most) U.N. members put a much higher priority on America-bashing and anti-Semism than on such U.N. ideals as disarmament, fighting hunger or advancing human rights.

As one of its first acts, the new Human Rights Council is expected to condemn the U.S. terrorist-detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - even as it continues to turn a blind eye to the hideous abuses of rights by Cuba's government (and, indeed, by those of countless other U.N. members.) Of course, there's an excellent chance that the council's members will include terror-sponsoring states such as Iran or Syria.

The United Nations is of no use in advancing U.S. foreign-policy goals or in promoting the lofty ideals with which many still associate it. It has discredited itself again and again. The time has come to cage the animals, ship them back home, and bring down the tent on the U.N. circus.

Thomas P. Kilgannon is the president of Freedom Alliance and the author of "Diplomatic Divorce: Why America Should End Its Love Affair With the United Nations."

Bill Clinton & CIA Gave Iranians Blueprint for Nuclear Bomb

April 21, 2006
Post Chronicle
Jim Kouri

link to original article

Recently, radio talk show host and former US Justice Department official Mark Levin shocked many listeners when he reported that President Bill Clinton gave nuclear technology to the Iranians in a harebrained scheme.

He said that the transfer of classified data to Iran was personally approved by then-President Clinton and that the CIA deliberately gave Iranian physicists blueprints for part of a nuclear bomb that likely helped Tehran advance its nuclear weapons development program.

The CIA, using a double-agent Russian scientist, handed a blueprint for a nuclear bomb to Iran, according to a new book "State of War" by James Risen, the New York Times reporter, who exposed the Bush administration's controversial NSA spying operation, claims the plans contained fatal flaws designed to derail Tehran's nuclear drive.

But the deliberate errors were so rudimentary they would have been easily fixed by sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists, the book said.

The operation, which took place during the Clinton administration in early 2000, was code named Operation Merlin and "may have been one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA," according to Risen.

It called for the unnamed scientist, a defector from the Soviet Union, to offer Iran the blueprint for a "firing set" -- the intricate mechanism which triggers the chain reaction needed for a nuclear explosion.

The Russian was told by CIA officers that the Iranians already had the technology detailed in the plans and that the ruse was simply an attempt by the agency to find out the full scope of Tehran's nuclear knowledge.

But, contrary to orders not to open the packet, he added a note which made it clear he could help fix the flaws for money.

Risen states in his book, "It's not clear who originally came up with the idea, but the plan [to give Tehran nuclear blueprints] was first approved by Clinton."

This is just another chapter in the Bill Clinton saga of giving weapons technology to enemies of the United States. He's provided missile technology to the Chinese, which increased the accuracy of their ballistic missiles, and he provided nuclear technology to the North Koreans that eventually enabled them to develop nuclear weapons.

Risen said the Clinton-approved plan ended up handing Tehran "one of the greatest engineering secrets in the world, providing the solution to one of a handful of problems that separated nuclear powers such as the United States and Russia from rogue countries such as Iran that were desperate to join the nuclear club but had so far fallen short."

Mark Levin, director of the Landmark Legal Foundation, said that thanks to Clinton Iran was able to "leapfrog one of the last remaining engineering hurdles blocking its path to a nuclear weapon."

Ironically, Risen's New York Times has declined to cover Mr. Clinton's Iranian nuclear debacle -- concentrating instead on his book's dubious claims that the National Security Agency was first authorized to commence domestic wiretapping by President Bush, according to NewsMax and Levin.

NewsMax stated that Risen's report could also have a serious implications for Sen. Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. Mrs. Clinton has been sharply critical of President Bush's handling of the Iranian nuclear crisis, complaining that a nuclear-armed Tehran would be a much more serious threat to the US than Iraq. However, NewsMax may be proven wrong about Sen. Clinton if the news media continue to ignore this story.

"Don't hold your breath waiting for the elite media to create a frenzy over this story. They will never hurt either Clintons with such a damning report," says former intelligence officer Sid Francis.

THE FRIGHTENING TRUTH OF WHY IRAN WANTS A BOMB

by Amir Taheri
Telegraph
April 16, 2006

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/16/do1609.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/04/16/ixop.html

Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.

According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind's existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad's more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations' General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".

Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.

In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.

According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.

Moments after Ahmadinejad announced "the atomic miracle", the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. "We are going into mass production," he boasted.

The Iranian plan is simple: playing the diplomatic game for another two years until Bush becomes a "lame-duck", unable to take military action against the mullahs, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

Thus do not be surprised if, by the end of the 12 days still left of the United Nations' Security Council "deadline", Ahmadinejad announces a "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment as a "confidence building measure". Also, don't be surprised if some time in June he agrees to ask the Majlis (the Islamic parliament) to consider signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Such manoeuvres would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director, Muhammad El-Baradei, and Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to congratulate Iran for its "positive gestures" and denounce talk of sanctions, let alone military action. The confidence building measures would never amount to anything, but their announcement would be enough to prevent the G8 summit, hosted by Russia in July, from moving against Iran.

While waiting Bush out, the Islamic Republic is intent on doing all it can to consolidate its gains in the region. Regime changes in Kabul and Baghdad have altered the status quo in the Middle East. While Bush is determined to create a Middle East that is democratic and pro-Western, Ahmadinejad is equally determined that the region should remain Islamic but pro-Iranian. Iran is now the strongest presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the US. It has turned Syria and Lebanon into its outer defences, which means that, for the first time since the 7th century, Iran is militarily present on the coast of the Mediterranean. In a massive political jamboree in Teheran last week, Ahmadinejad also assumed control of the "Jerusalem Cause", which includes annihilating Israel "in one storm", while launching a take-over bid for the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza.

Ahmadinejad has also reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. From childhood, Shia boys are told to cultivate two qualities. The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return. For the Imam's return will coincide with an apocalyptic battle between the forces of evil and righteousness, with evil ultimately routed. If the infidel loses its nuclear advantage, it could be worn down in a long, low-intensity war at the end of which surrender to Islam would appear the least bad of options. And that could be a signal for the Imam to reappear.

At the same time, not to forget the task of hastening the Mahdi's second coming, Ahamdinejad will pursue his provocations. On Monday, he was as candid as ever: "To those who are angry with us, we have one thing to say: be angry until you die of anger!"

His adviser, Hassan Abassi, is rather more eloquent. "The Americans are impatient," he says, "at the first sight of a setback, they run away. We, however, know how to be patient. We have been weaving carpets for thousands of years."

Amir Taheri is a former Executive Editor of Kayhan, Iran's largest daily newspaper, but now lives in Europe