April 23, 2006
The Times
Sarah Baxter, Washington and Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel
Aviv
link to original article
Iran's
president,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, attended a
meeting in Syria earlier this year with one of
the world’s most wanted terrorists, according to
intelligence experts and a former national
security official in Washington.
US officials
and Israel intelligence sources believe
Imad Mugniyeh,
the Lebanese commander of Hezbollah’s overseas
operations, has taken charge of plotting Iran’s
retaliation against western targets should
President George W Bush order a strike on
Iranian nuclear sites.
Mugniyeh is on the FBI’s “Most Wanted
Terrorists” list for his role in a
series of high-profile attacks against the West,
including the 1985 hijacking of a TWA jet and
murder of one of its passengers, a US navy
diver.
Now in his
mid-forties, Mugniyeh is reported to have
travelled with Ahmadinejad in January this year
from Tehran to Damascus, where the Iranian
president met leaders of Hezbollah, Islamic
Jihad and Hamas.
The meeting has been dubbed a “terror summit”
because of the presence of so many groups behind
attacks on Israel, which Ahmadinejad has
threatened to wipe from the map.
Jane’s Intelligence Review cited “reports in
recent weeks” of Mugniyeh’s presence alongside
the president.
Michael Ledeen, a Middle East expert and former
Pentagon and National Security Council official
who wrote that Mugniyeh had “probably” been
there, said last week senior American officials
had confirmed it.
“It’s hard to identify Mugniyeh because he is
said to have changed his face and his
fingerprints,” Ledeen said. “But senior
government officials have told me I was right.
He was there.”
Shortly after the Damascus summit Henry Crumpton,
head of counter-terrorism at the state
department, singled out the elusive Mugniyeh as
a threat. The Iranians, Crumpton said, “have
complete command and control of Hezbollah. Imad
Mugniyeh works for Tehran. And you can’t talk
about Hezbollah and not think about Iran. They
really are part and parcel of the same problem.”
Mugniyeh lives in Iran and has evaded capture
for more than 20 years, despite a $5m American
bounty on his head. Western intelligence reports
claim he has many connections to terrorist cells
in Europe, Africa, Latin America and the US and
he is said to have met Osama Bin Laden.
“When and if the Iranians decide to hit the West
in its soft belly, Imad will be the one to act,”
a western intelligence source said last week.
An Israeli defence source claimed Mugniyeh was
in regular touch with the new Iranian
intelligence minister, Gholamhossein Mohseni
Ezhei. The minister is a long-time confidant of
Ahmadinejad and was appointed by him.
“We know that Mohseni Ezhei holds routine
meetings with Mugniyeh, who is today Iran’s head
of overseas operations,” said the Israeli
defence source. “Since we know from previous
Iranian terror attacks that it takes about a
year to plan a substantial one, we should not be
surprised if operations against western targets
are already in high gear and Mugniyeh is
certainly playing a major role.”
The young Mugniyeh first attracted the attention
of the West when he was involved in the
kidnapping, torture and mutilation of William
Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, in
1984. He kept his victim at the Sheikh Abdullah
camp in the Lebanese Bekaa valley and was
allegedly the last person Buckley saw before he
died.
“Imad had good reason to retaliate,” said a
well-informed source. “A car bomb killed his
brother Jihad, who had taken Imad’s old job as
bodyguard to Hezbollah’s spiritual leader.”
Mugniyeh blamed the CIA, and Buckley was chosen
to pay the price.
The kidnapping led to the Iran-contra affair,
one of the most embarrassing episodes of the
Reagan presidency, in which arms were swapped
for hostages. But by the time the Americans were
negotiating with the Iranians, Buckley was
already dead.
Mugniyeh has also been linked to the demolition
of the American embassy and marine barracks in
Beirut in 1983 and is wanted in Argentina for
his role in recruiting the bombers of the
Israeli embassy and Jewish centre in Buenos
Aires in the early 1990s.
Mugniyeh left Lebanon for Iran in 1994 with his
wife and son after an assassination attempt. He
is since believed to have played an active role
in fomenting trouble in Iraq.
Ledeen
described him last week as the “spinal column of
the terror war against America in Iraq from the
beginning”.
According to Robert Baer, a former CIA agent who
pursued Mugniyeh in the 1980s,
“he is the most
dangerous terrorist we have ever faced. Mugniyeh
is probably the most intelligent, most capable
operative we have ever run across, including the
KGB or anybody else”.
“He enters by one door, exits by another,
changes his cars daily, never makes appointments
by telephone — he is never predictable. He is
the master terrorist, the grail we have been
after since 1983”.
Elite Iranian army officers who arrived in south
Lebanon this month have taken command of
thousands of rockets aimed at cities across
Israel. They are believed to have been given
control of the missiles by Hezbollah to deter
possible Israeli attacks against Iran’s nuclear
facilities.
Iran's
President vows no dress clampdown
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=42245&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
LONDON,
April 24 (IranMania) - According to an AFP
report, Hardline Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad moved to reassure Iranian women
fearful of an imminent police crackdown that his
government would not use strong-arm tactics to
enforce the Islamic dress code.
"Iranian women
respect the Islamic headscarf," said
Ahmadinejad, who won election last year on a
conservative religious platform aimed at Iran's
poor.
"There is no need
for authoritarian action to spread the culture
of the headscarf," Iran's state television
quoted the president as saying.
"It's unfair to
claim that women lie at the root of any social
problem you care to discuss.
"We can't put the
world to rights overnight ... but unfortunately
there are some who think the only solution is
enforcement action and building walls in the
streets" to separate the sexes.
"We must at all
costs avoid ill-considered actions and prevent
cultural issues being tranformed into political
debates and conflicts."
Since the 1979
revolution, every woman beyond puberty in Iran
has been required to observe the Islamic dress
code, regardless of religion or nationality, AFP
noted.
The rules are
generally interpreted as meaning that women must
cover their hair and body outline whenever
outside the home.
In recent days,
Islamist women dressed in traditional black
chadors have held several rallies, one in front
of parliament, to protest the authorities'
failure to enforce respect for the dress code.
Earlier Sunday
Tehran police chief General Morteza Talai vowed
there would be no clampdown on women flouting
the code after earlier hinting at such a
campaign.
"Our patrols will
not interfere with the veil. They will act
against men and women on the streets who
threaten the security of society," Talai told
the government daily Iran.
"We reassure
citizens that we are not going to act against
the general public but against thugs and people
who harass women."
Talai had spoken
Tuesday of a "campaign" to make women better
respect the Islamic dress code following
protests by a number of conservative officials.
He had been quoted
as saying the police would confront "women in
short coats and Capri pants showing their bare
legs as well as the ones with skimpy
headscarves".
Bush adviser dismisses call for talks with Iran
By Daniel Dombey in London
Financial Times
April 24, 2006
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12452757/
One of the US
government's top advisers has rebuffed European
calls for Washington to negotiate directly with
Iran over Tehran's nuclear programme.
In an interview
with the Financial Times, Philip Zelikow,
counsellor at the US State Department, also said
the Bush administration's commitment to the
democratisation of the Middle East was undimmed,
despite the recent victory of Hamas, the
militant Islamist group, in Palestinian
legislative elections.
"The US position
has been that at this time we don't see value in
having direct talks with the Iranians about,
say, the nuclear issue," he said, rejecting
calls for such negotiations from Frank-Walter
Steinmeier, German foreign minister, and other
senior European diplomats.
Mr Zelikow, who
has played an important role in framing US
strategy as an adviser to Condoleezza Rice, US
secretary of state, also brushed aside European
suggestions that a long-term understanding with
Tehran might involve a promise from the US that
it has no intention of attacking Iran.
"The fallacy in a
lot of the arguments about security
assurances....is the assumption that the agenda
of the current government in Iran is
fundamentally entirely defensive," he said.
"Unfortunately,
we're engaged in a process with a regime that is
dictatorial in its practices and revolutionary
in its aims, with an agenda for destabilising
neighbours and the broader Middle East."
The tabular
content relating to this article is not
available to view. Apologies in advance for the
inconvenience caused.
However he played
down the prospect of US military action against
Iran, even though President George W. Bush has
repeatedly said that all options are on the
table.
"When we say all
options are on the table, that includes
diplomatic options too," Mr Zelikow said. "Let's
try diplomacy first. Let's give it a chance. And
then we can judge whether or not it's effective
and take the conversation from there."
Mr Zelikow also
indicated that the US would not object to more
European Union funding for social services for
the Palestinians in the wake of the EU's
decision to suspend direct aid to the
Palestinian Authority.
"We worked out
some rules of the road on how to proceed in
concert with the Europeans," he said, in
response to a question about the EU's interest
in providing direct funding for doctors and
teachers. "I don't think this is an area of
division between us."
Ambassador of Iran: "US want to use Azerbaijani
territories as base in its war against Iran"
24 April 2006 [10:08] -
Today.Az
http://www.today.az/news/politics/25455.html
"US want to use Azerbaijani territories as a
base in its war against Iran, but I am sure than
these efforts of Washington will not yield any
results."
As APA reports,
this interview was given by the Iranian
Ambassador to Azerbaijan Afshar Suleymani to the
Makor Rishon paper. He said that US's facing
numerous problems in international and regional
levels: "US have serious problems in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The international public opinion
also condemns the war against Iran. Besides,
both Great Britain and Russia with China do not
support military operations against Iran."
Afshar Suleymani
valued information spread in the British press
on the trainings conducted by US and British
troops for the purpose of imitation of the war
against Iran as "next stage of psychological war
against Iran".
"I am sure that
Azerbaijan would follow the agreement on
cooperation and prevention of mutual attacks
signed with Iran in 2002. Iran is ready for the
war in any case; however we hope to solve the
problem in diplomatic way."
Iran's
High Speed Torpedo Scam
by James Dunnigan
April 23, 2006
Iran
recently announced the successful test of a new,
high-speed torpedo, one that could move through
the water at speeds of up to 100 meters a
second. This is four times as fast as
conventional torpedoes, and is thus nearly
"unavoidable" by its intended target.
The new Iranian
weapon is apparently based upon Russia's VA-111
Shkval (Squall) torpedo. The Shkval is a
high-speed supercavitating rocket-propelled
torpedo originally designed to be a
rapid-reaction defense against US submarines.
Basically an underwater missile, the
solid-rocket propelled torpedo achieves its
speed by producing an envelope of
supercavitating bubbles from its nose and skin,
which coat the entire weapon surface in a thin
layer of gas. This drastically reduces
metal-to-water friction. The torpedo leaves the
tube at nearly a hundred kilometers an hour,
then lights its rocket motor. In tests in the
1990s the Shkval reportedly had an 80 percent
kill probability at a range about seven
kilometers, although steerability was reportedly
limited.
The reliability of
such rocket-propelled torpedoes remains
uncertain. The much publicized loss of the
Russian submarine "Kursk" was, according to some
sources, likely due to an accidental rocket
motor start of such a torpedo while still aboard
the boat. News of this new Iranian weapon was
accompanied by the announcement that Iran had
also tested a new ballistic missile, the Fajr-3,
which employs some stealth technology and
carries several warheads.
Iran's
possession and successful testing of this weapon
is troublesome for several reasons. One is
Iran's increasing belligerence, especially
towards nuclear-armed Israel (which is estimated
to have at least 200 nuclear weapons and the
missiles and submarines to deliver them) as well
as an almost equal antipathy towards the US.
Another reason to worry is Russia's apparent
intent to continue close economic ties with Iran
and the resulting transfer of its technology to
this Islamic state run by fanatics and others
who are apparently just plain nuts.
Iran
is believed to have three late-model Kilo class
SSKs bought from Russia, eight mini-subs
purchased from North Korea, and several older
boats of unknown type. The navy has several
dozen fast attack boats that might carry the new
torpedo but whose capabilities are in other ways
modest. Its small fleet of P-3K "Orion" aircraft
could conceivably also carry such a torpedo
although it is unknown if Iran plans to arm its
Orions with the new torpedo. Iran's navy is the
smallest of its armed forces.
However, there is
also the matter of credibility and capability.
For decades, Iran has continually boasted of
new, Iranian designed and manufactured weapons,
only to have the rather more somber truth leak
out later. Iran's weapons design capabilities
are primitive, but the government has some
excellent publicists, who always manage to grab
some headlines initially, before anyone can
question the basic facts behind these amazing
new weapons. Take, for example, the new wonder
torpedo. The Russians have not had any success
convincing the world's navy that their rocket
propelled torpedo is a real threat. For one
thing, the attacking sub has to get relatively
close (within seven kilometers) to use it.
Modern anti-submarine tactics focus on
preventing subs from getting that close. For
that reason, the Russians themselves tout the
VA-111 Shkval torpedo as a specialized
anti-submarine weapon for Russian subs being
stalked by other subs. This is also
questionable, because Shkval is essentially
unguided. You have to turn the firing sub and
line it up so that the Shkval, on leaving the
torpedo tube and lighting off its rocket motor,
will be aimed directly at the distant target. Do
the math, and you will see that there is little
margin for error, or chance of success, with
such a weapon. If the Iranians bought the
Shkval technology from Russia, they got the bad
end of the deal.
Taking a Hard Line on Iran
Monday, April 24,
2006; A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/23/AR2006042300820.html
David Ignatius
looks to the Cold War for a blueprint on how to
deal with today's Islamic extremists ["An
Iranian Missile Crisis," op-ed, April 12].
However, unlike the communists of yesteryear,
Islamic terrorists crave to die for their cause,
as was illustrated on Sept. 11, 2001.
Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also is not Nikita
Khrushchev. His rants and bizarre belief that he
is a modern-day caliph who may need to be
martyred paint a picture of irrationality. He
can't be trusted with his finger on a nuclear
trigger.
Perhaps most
telling about the erroneousness of Mr.
Ignatius's argument is one of the sources upon
whom he relied: Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Under Mr.
Brzezinski's guidance, President Jimmy Carter
pursued a do-nothing Iran policy that helped
give birth to today's problem. Mr. Carter's
weakness emboldened the Iranians to hold U.S.
hostages for 444 days.
Successive
presidents have followed this appeasement
approach to Iran. President Bush may have no
choice but to strike Iran and decapitate its
insane leadership or risk Iranian mushroom
clouds coming soon to a city near us.
Iran
prosecutor shot by gunmen
Tehran,
Iran, Apr. 21 – The prosecutor in the Department
of Justice in the southern town of Shadegan was
shot and seriously wounded, a semi-official
daily reported on Saturday.
The official, identified as Najafabadi, was shot
in his car on his way from work by masked gunmen
who made their escape on a motorbike, the
hard-line daily Kayhan wrote.
Najafabadi sustained injuries in the face and
foot, according to the report.
Shadegan is situated in the Arab-dominated
province of Khuzestan. Ahwaz, the capital of
oil-rich province, has been the scene of
unremitting anti-government protests since early
2005.
Mullahs: Iran will destroy Turkey's military
bases if attacked
Apr 23, 2006
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_15088.shtml
Addressing
domestic and foreign reporters, Asefi said about
remark by secretary-general of Iran's
Hezbollah Party, he said, "The
secretary-general told a Turkish reporter that
Iran will attack Turkey's military bases if
Ankara puts its military base at the disposal of
the US.
"This issue is
related to surprising questions of the Turkish
reporter who received astonishing responses". It
is does not suit the dignity of media to stir up
the calm atmosphere of the region, he added.
Asked about latest status of Iran's ambassadors
to three European states (Germany, France and
Britain), the spokesman said, "Mohammad-Mehdi
Akhoundzadeh submitted a copy of his credentials
(to German foreign minister) and will hand over
his credentials to the German president in the
near future.
"There is no problem with Iran's ambassadors to
Britain and France. We are waiting for
completion of relevant process and receiving
their acceptance."
Olmert: Iran Nukes Threaten Western Civilization
April 23, 2006
The Associated Press
JPOST.com
link to original article
Interim Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday urged the
international community to work against the
Iranian nuclear program, saying Teheran's
ambitions threaten not only Israel but all of
Western civilization.
Israel has long identified Iran as its biggest
threat, and these concerns have grown amid
repeated calls by Iran's hard-line president,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for Israel's destruction.
"The Iranian nuclear program should concern many
countries, especially those with global
responsibility," Olmert told his cabinet. He
said the international front against Iran should
include the United States, Europe and other
Western countries.
Iranian Envoy Denies Deal
April 23, 2006
Reuters
today.reuters.com
link to original article
Soltanieh says
Iran and Russia have not reached uranium
enrichment agreement. Iranian state radio
reported that Iran and Russia had reached a
basic deal to enrich uranium in a joint venture,
but Iran's Ali-Ashghar Soltanieh, Iran's envoy
to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
later on Saturday denied the existence of a
deal.
Moscow, while joining Washington and European
powers in calling on Iran to end enrichment, has
made it clear it would not at this stage back
imposing sanctions on the Islamic state.
Iran announced earlier this month that it had
produced its first batch of enriched uranium.
Video - Jim Drury reports
SOUNDBITE: Iranian ambassador to the
International Atomic Energy Agency Ali Asghar
Soltanieh, saying (English):
"I said there was no discussion on the Russian
deal and therefore there is no agreement. This
has been maybe the misinterpretation from
English to Russian or so. We have not had such a
discussion."
The Last Straw
April 23, 2006
Sunday Herald
James Cusick
link to original article
Threats from the
US State Department are supposed to sound
authoritative and determined. Under-secretary
Nicholas Burns, say his colleagues “hit all the
right notes” when he warned the United Nations
Security Council last week that if it didn’t
take action against Iran and its nuclear
ambitions within “a reasonable time”, groups of
other countries would pull together and take
action themselves.
Washington expects a re-run of unconditional
back-up from Britain. But they may be
disappointed. The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw,
has already distanced himself from Tony Blair’s
full support for the White House. Although
Downing Street denies there is any split,
Foreign Office lawyers are already asking just
how far will Blair be prepared to go this time?
The Prime Minister has effectively signed
Britain up to a “Mark II” version of the
“coalition of the willing” by offering
unquestioning support to President George W
Bush’s policy of refusing to rule out military
action. Early last week Bush said all options,
including the use of military force, were “on
the table”. The Prime Minister backed the
stance, saying anything less would “send a
message of weakness”.
The US President, as he did over Iraq,
subsequently called for “a united effort with
countries who recognise the danger of Iran
having a nuclear weapon”. The subtext was clear
enough and was reinforced by Burns at the state
department only a few days later: if the UN
won’t take action, the US, plus a few friends,
will.
With other US government officials now openly
saying Iran is “close to the point of no
return”, the White House, as it did in the
run-in to the Iraq war, is pressurising the UN
Security Council to deliver what it wants, with
the threat that if there is no approved action
taken against Iran and its uranium enrichment
programme, the US will again act outwith the
authority of the UN.
With lawyers inside the Foreign Office already
active in examining any move by Downing Street
to offer Bush support that would help legitimise
military action, Straw is understood to have
taken advice from lawyers inside his own
department and to have informed key Cabinet
allies that the attorney general, Lord
Goldsmith, could not – as he did over Iraq –
approve as legal any British contribution to a
military strike. Iran, according to FO lawyers,
does not represent a threat to the UK and
therefore a pre- emptive strike against Tehran
would be illegal in international law.
Thus for Blair there is a hint of weakness in
his own camp. Without the full support of his
Foreign Secretary in the Commons, Blair would
never have won the vote to back the US-led
invasion of Iraq. But this time there will be no
agreed policy on Iran, no Commons vote (because
Blair wouldn’t dare risk certain defeat), and
therefore no need to carry his Cabinet with him.
Instead, Straw’s divergence from Number 10’s
expressed view indicates Blair’s weakening
authority and his inability to impose US foreign
policy on the Foreign Office as he did over
Iraq. For Blair, Straw’s new-found independence
will be an increasing embarrassment as the Iran
crisis deepens.
To some extent this is familiar territory to
Straw. In 2002, he knew – based on advice from
his department’s lawyers – that the legal case
for action against Iraq was poor to
non-existent. Goldsmith, who also met with the
FO lawyers, believed invasion without the
authority of the UN would leave British forces
legally exposed. But Goldsmith, under political
pressure, changed his view in March 2003, and
Straw eventually fell in line.
THREE years down the line, Straw appears
unwilling to back Blair again in the face of
similar advice on the rule of law. According to
one party adviser close to Straw: “Jack may be
taking a long view of the implications this
time. Blair’s premiership is limited. But he
[Straw] has been consistent on Iran. He said
last year that this Iranian crisis would not be
resolved by military means. Nothing he has
learned since has changed that view.”
On Friday, the head of the International Atomic
Energy Agency, Mohammed el-Baradei, will deliver
a report to the UN Security Council on Iran’s
nuclear programme.
The Foreign Office is already working on the
assumption that the report from el-Baradei will
change nothing. The April 28 deadline from the
security council for Iran to halt its uranium
enrichment programme is therefore expected to
come and go without any significant result.
Straw has said “we are working on the basis that
Iran will not meet the proposal [from the
security council] … The matter will then move
back to the security council for discussions
about the next steps.”
El-Baradei’s report, according to sources at the
UN, is not expected to deliver a clear answer
one way or another, but it is expected to back
the view that the UN was correct in ordering
Iran to halt its uranium enrichment programme.
El-Baradei – just like Dr Hans Blix over Iraq –
is anxious for his organisation not to make any
political decision. One UN source said:
“Although Iran says it is fully co-operating
with IAEA, it isn’t. Access is not full and
open. There are gaps in our knowledge. The
report will say that.”
The US initially gave the UN’s weapons
inspections teams inside Iraq in late 2002 and
2003 more time to find weapons of mass
destruction it insisted it knew were there. But
it eventually called time on the inspections
process. Invasion followed. The indication is
that the US will only allow the diplomatic
process a limited time once again before an
acceleration towards military action. “All
options on the table” will mean that the US has
already began planning what military action is
required.
For Blair, who recently attacked any criticism
of the way the UK and the US acted in Iraq as “a
doctrine of benign inactivity”, there is no
problem in supporting the continuing
neoconservative aggression of Bush’s White
House. In January, Blair said: “Obviously we
don’t rule out any measures at all. It’s
important Iran recognises how seriously the
international community treats this.”
In the run-up to the Iraq invasion in 2003,
Blair, knowing the security council was not
going to bail him out with a second resolution
against Saddam Hussein’s regime, increasingly
referred to the diplomatic authority of the
“international community – namely Britain and
the US. The same language is being used again
because both the White House and Downing Street
expect the security council to fail to deliver
what they want.
Burns in the US State Department pointed out
Russia and China’s interests in opposing
sanctions, stating “billion-dollar commercial
relations” were influencing their potential
vote. Russia has plans to sell Tehran 29 TOR M1
mobile surface-to-air missiles, a deal worth
$700 million. “This is not the time for business
as usual with the Iranian government,” said
Burns.
But for many of the Arabists inside the Foreign
Office this is exactly the right time for
business as usual with Iran. At a meeting of
European foreign ministers in Luxembourg last
week, Straw’s “dialogue first” policy received
widespread support.
But some European countries are wary of putting
too much faith in Straw or indeed the British
government to be able to soften the White
House’s aggression. There is no indication that
Blair is doing anything other than echo the
neocon foreign objectives of the Bush
administration. Iran is still a key element of
Bush’s “axis of evil” .
According to intelligence allegedly given to the
US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the
Bush administration have already increased
clandestine military action inside Iran and
intensified planning for major air attacks. The
cut-off point for Bush is that by the spring of
next year, Iran will be in a position to begin a
pilot project based on enriched uranium, thus
bring weaponisation closer. The White House
believe it is necessary to stop Iran reaching
that point. “Regime change” – or “democratic
promotion”, as it is now called in Washington –
is the objective.
The target is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who
has said Israel should be “wiped off the map”,
and who promised the Iranian military will deal
with any attack by “cutting the hand of the
aggressor”.
Bush’s military strategy is said to be premised
on the belief that a sustained bombing campaign
would humiliate the religious leadership in
Tehran and lead ordinary Iranians to overthrow
Ahmadinejad. Given the misjudged predictions and
planning that the US forecast for a
post-invasion Iraq, there is little weight being
given in liberal diplomatic circles for such a
tempered outcome.
As in Iraq, high-level planning appears to be
going into the attack strategy, with less
thought going into the post-Ahmadinejad
stability of Iran. But as the world’s fourth
largest oil producer, the energy needs of the US
and the ability of the Middle East to continue
serving world markets will not be far from minds
of the White House strategists.
In Hersh’s article for The New Yorker, a retired
military analyst, Colonel Sam Gardiner,
estimated at least 400 Iranian targets would
have to be hit, including chemical production
plants, airfields, submarines and underground
facilities . For suspected under-ground nuclear
sites, Hersh claimed the US has considered the
use of “bunker-busting tactical nuclear
weapons”. Such targets include Iran’s main
centrifuge plant at Natanz, 200 miles from
Tehran, no longer part of the IAEA’s inspection
regime.
The National Security Council in Washington has
refused to discuss military planning, insisting
that Bush is pursuing a “diplomatic solution”.
The Pentagon was clearer: the issue of the use
of nuclear weapons was never taken off or put on
Bush’s table.
But if negotiations fail? The Pentagon repeated
what Bush has said – nothing has been ruled out.
In line with the way the US military does
business, the US air force is said to have been
recently updating its contingencies for dealing
with what it terms “Iran’s nuclear ambitions”.
Although Jack Straw says it is “inconceivable”
that Britain would support any military strike
against Tehran, he did accuse Iran of deciding
to “take on the international community”. On the
prospect of the US deciding to use tactical
nuclear weapons to halt Iran’s nuclear
programme, Straw said such an decision would be
“nuts”.
Divisions over the viability and need for
military intervention are met with equal doubts
over Ahmadinejad’s nuclear timetable. Robert
Galluci, dean of the School of Foreign Service
in Georgetown, Washington, insists Iran is still
eight to 10 years away from deliverable nuclear
weapons. Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency,
says one to two years.
Whatever the true figure, the impact of the
debate is already hitting world oil. Prices this
weekend are above $75 a barrel . Iran’s
Ahmadinejad says the price hike is “very good” –
indicating that he believes Tehran is safe
because of the influence it holds on oil. But it
works both ways: oil price instability could
both encourage and discourage action, and given
Washington and Bush’s record, there’s no easy
way of predicting whether diplomacy will be
given a decent chance.
And there is doubt over what “diplomacy” means.
Straw has ruled out military action, but Blair
and his defence secretary, John Reid, are
falling in line with Washington on Iran just as
they did over Iraq. Reid said recently that his
favourite definition of diplomacy was the art of
saying “good dog, good dog” until you find a
rock big enough to bash the animal. He said the
world community would not allow Iran to develop
a nuclear weapon “without seriously taking some
form of action”.
The conclusion? The US is already holding a big
rock in its hands – the question now is whether
it intends to throw it, and how hard.
Iran
'Models Nuclear Plan on Pakistan'
April 23, 2006
Telegraph
Philip Sherwell
link to original article
The United States
arms control chief has given warning that Iran
is "very close to the point of no return" in
acquiring the technological expertise to make a
nuclear weapon. "In terms of activities on the
ground in Iran, it is fair to say that the
Iranians have put both feet on the accelerator,"
said Robert Joseph, the senior US State
Department official responsible for countering
nuclear proliferation.
His comments, which come as the United Nations
Security Council prepares to meet to discuss the
crisis this week, indicate that Washington
believes that the stakes are rising rapidly in
the West's confrontation with the Islamic
republic.
Earlier this month, Teheran claimed to have
enriched uranium for the nuclear fuel cycle. It
has pushed ahead with its programme while taking
advantage of a diplomatic stand-off between
Moscow and Washington over possible UN
sanctions.
Iran is following tactics outlined by its former
chief nuclear negotiator in comments to clerics
and academics previously unreported in the West.
Hassan Rowhani made clear that Iran's goal was
to present the world with a fait accompli over
its nuclear ambitions.
"If, one day, we are able to complete the fuel
cycle and the world sees that it has no choice,
that we do possess the technology, then the
situation will be different," he told the
Supreme Cultural Revolution Council. "The world
did not want Pakistan to have an atomic bomb or
Brazil to have the fuel cycle, but Pakistan
built its bomb and Brazil has its fuel cycle."
He delivered the speech in September, a month
after Iran sparked the latest stage of its
showdown with the international community by
resuming uranium conversion, in breach of
previous accords, following the election of its
hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Mr Rowhani reiterated to his audience Iran's
public insistence that it is seeking nuclear
technology only for peaceful civilian purposes.
But his comparison to Pakistan's secret
development of an atomic weapon is significant,
as Iran acquired much of its nuclear know-how
from A Q Khan, the rogue scientist known as the
father of the Pakistani bomb.
During the speech, Mr Rowhani emphasised that
Iran had intended to complete its programme in
secret. "This was never supposed to be in the
open. But in any case the spies exposed it," he
said, in reference to the revelation by
opposition exiles of Iran's clandestine nuclear
operations.
Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian analyst with the
International Crisis Group, said Teheran was
aiming to shape the debate with its claims.
"Iran is betting that it can redraw the West's
red lines by creating facts on the ground. At
the time they re-commenced uranium conversion
activities in Isfahan, last August, much fuss
was made in the US and EU, but it eventually
became an irreversible fait accompli. They may
well believe that the West will eventually come
to accept their enrichment activities as well."
The Security Council meets on Friday to hear a
report on Iran's nuclear activities from the
International Atomic Energy Agency. But although
the agency's director, Mohamed ElBaradei, is
certain to report that Iran has ignored the
ultimatum to halt enrichment work, US, British
and French hopes of moving towards imposing
sanctions are slim.
Russia hardened its stand against such punitive
measures last week. Its foreign ministry said
Moscow would consider sanctions only if
"concrete facts" emerged that Iran was
developing nuclear weapons. China, which also
holds a Security Council veto, leans towards the
Russian position.
Iran made an apparent attempt yesterday to
confuse the situation ahead of the UN meeting
when it said it had reached a "basic" agreement
with Moscow to enrich uranium in Russia. The
announcement made no mention of whether Teheran
would cease enrichment in Iran - a key UN
demand.
Last week, Moscow rejected an appeal by
Washington to halt the sale of air defence
missile systems to Teheran in a $700 million
(£392 million) deal. "This is not the time for
business as usual with the Iranian government,"
said Nicholas Burns, a senior US State
Department official.
Gender Apartheid Policy Increases in Iran
SMCCDI
(Information Service)
April 23, 2006
http://daneshjoo.org/publishers/currentnews/article_5309.shtml
The Gender
Apartheid Policy and repression of Iranian women
has increased following the start, yesterday, of
a new official campaign intended to enforce the
observance of the Islamist mandatory veil in
Iran.
Hundreds of fully
black veiled and armed female security agents,
qualified as "black crows" by most Iranians,
have been deployed in each of Iran's main
cities. Their official mission has been
qualified as a 'suggestive guidance task
intending to make respect the Islamic and moral
values' and 'to fight the increasing western
decadence'.
While officially
they're 'not to use of any force or brutal
manners', never less various reports are
contrary to the official statements made, today,
by the Islamic regime's President and heads of
security forces. Reports are stating about the
use of brutality, insults and fines against
hundreds of maverick Iranian females who were
seen opposing the black crows injunctions in
several areas of Tehran, such as, Vali-e-Asr
(former Pahlavi), Madar (former
Mohseni) and
Tajrish. Several young girls were seen arrested
and transferred to security posts in order to
what has been qualified as 'proper
identification'.
In some places
maverick Iranian males, offended or intending to
protect their mothers, sisters, female friends
or the victims, from the repressive female
agents, were seen beaten by male security agents
who have been deployed to protect their female
colleagues.
It seems that some
harsh critics made by some European and American
circles against the discriminatory campaign have
caused the sudden issuance of official
statements on the 'peaceful nature of the
guidance task'.
Reports of the
same type of repressive measures have been
received from some of the provincial cities,
such as, Esfahan, Rasht, Ghom, Mashad or Shiraz
where they have already been applied before its
start in the Capital.
In reality, the
whole campaign has started following the
quasi-official rally which took place in front
of the Islamic Parliament last week. It took
place in order to offer a so-called legitimate
and popular back up for the discriminatory
crackdown on Iranian women and was composed by
dozens of fully dark veiled female agents, as
well as, foreign Islamist females and even what
some many Iranians call as 'veiled governmental
prostitutes'. This third category is used for
various purposes by the Islamic regime, such as,
collecting information or approaching foreign
journalists while having a more western look or
in some cases wearing more provocative clothing.
Tens of Iranian
women have died and hundreds of other have been
injured, since 1979, for fighting for gender
equality in Iran. Many of them have used mass
gatherings to burn their mandatory veils and to
denounce the existing repression while some
naive foreign circles have started to promote,
since 1997, individuals, such as, Shirin Ebadi
or Mehranguiz Kar as defenders of women's
rights.
In reality, while
thousands of Iranian women were marching in the
streets of Tehran, in 1979, and shouting "No
Veil, No Submission"; Ebadi and Kar were
endorsing Rouh-Ollah Khomeini's backwarded
Islamist revolution. Worst, they were seen as
wearing the Islamist veil in sign of such
support, despite having had higher law education
and human rights courses.
For a better
understanding of Iranian women's case and their
persistent struggle, check the following links:
http://daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3043.shtml
http://daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_2007.shtml
SMCCDI has always
been heavily involved in the genuine defense of
Iranian women's rights and has been a major
factor in denouncing their persistent
repression. The group, which is using its
website and independent satellite TV and radio
networks, has always believed that Iranian women
will never obtain their full rights and equality
other than in the frame of a genuine secular
regime. Its work has lead to a better
understanding of their situation by abroad media
and NGOs:
Islamist General Gunned Down by Soldier
SMCCDI
(Information Service)
April 23, 2006
http://daneshjoo.org/publishers/smccdinews/article_4548.shtml
Official sources
of the Islamic republic regime are revealing the
murder, on Wednesday, of a top Pasdaran Corp.
(Islamic
Revolutionary Guards) commander in the religious
city of Ghom.
General Kamal
Kazemi was gunned down, by a 'crazy'
conscript soldier
'who will then commit suicide', according to the
same official sources which have not revealed
the name of the soldier.
Kazemi was a top
Pasdaran Corp. instructor and the local
commander of the repressive Bassiji elements who
are dealing with what the Islamic regime
qualifies as "immoral behavior" or ?social
corruption?.
Most Iranians
reject the rule of the Islamic regime and
radical signs of exasperation, against the
symbols of the theocratic power, are increasing
in Iran.
