By
DAVID E. SANGER and NAZILA FATHI
The New York Times
April 25, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
WASHINGTON,
April 24 —
Iran has told the International Atomic
Energy Agency that it will refuse to answer
questions about a second, secret
uranium-enrichment program, according to
European and American diplomats. The existence
of the program was disclosed by President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier this month.
The diplomats said
Iran had also refused to answer questions about
other elements of its nuclear program that
international inspectors had focused on because
they could indicate a program to produce nuclear
weapons. The diplomats insisted on not being
identified because of the delicacy of continuing
negotiations between Iran and the West.
Separately, Mr.
Ahmadinejad said he saw no need for Iran to hold
talks with the United States about Iraq now that
a new government had been formed, declaring at a
rare news conference that with the formation of
a government "the occupiers should leave and
allow Iraqi people to run their country."
Together, the
actions seem to show Iran's determination to
move ahead with a confrontation with the West
when the
United Nations Security Council meets,
probably next week, to debate its next steps.
Iran's
decision not to answer the I.A.E.A.'s questions
was conveyed last week to Dr.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of
the nuclear monitoring agency. He is required to
send a report on Iran to the Council by Friday.
As a result, the
diplomats said, Dr. ElBaradei decided to cancel
a trip to Iran by top officials of the agency
that had been scheduled for late last week, a
trip intended to resolve as many of the
questions as possible before the report is
submitted.
Diplomats involved
in the tense dialogue with Iran said that,
barring a last-minute change, Dr. ElBaradei's
report would declare, in what one European
official called "a series of understatements,"
that Iran had done nothing to resolve the
questions that the Council late last month gave
it 30 days to answer.
R. Nicholas Burns,
the under secretary of state for political
affairs, said Monday evening, "We are very
confident that the report is going to be
negative concerning Iran's refusal to meet the
conditions set down by the United Nations
Security Council and the I.A.E.A." He added that
Iran was in "outright violation" of the Council
request.
Some of the most
important questions concerned an advanced
technology, the P-2 centrifuge, for enriching
uranium. International inspectors believe that
Iran obtained designs for the P-2 from the
Pakistani nuclear engineer
Abdul Qadeer Khan in the 1990's.
Iran long denied
that it was doing anything with the technology,
until Mr. Ahmadinejad declared 10 days ago that
the country was "presently conducting research"
on the P-2, which he said could increase
fourfold the amount of uranium the country is
able to enrich.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's
statement took the inspectors and American
officials by surprise. But they seized on his
boasts about Iran's programs to press the
question of whether the country has a separate
set of nuclear facilities, apart from the giant
enrichment center at Natanz, that it has not
previously revealed. Dr. ElBaradei was told when
he visited Tehran, the Iranian capital, two
weeks ago that the country would try to answer
questions about the P-2 program, its dealings
with Mr. Khan in the 1980's and 90's and a
series of other issues.
Dr. ElBaradei's
inspectors were pressing other issues as well,
many related to suspicions that Iran has been
researching or developing ways to produce
warheads or delivery systems for weapons — which
Iran has denied. So far, Iran has answered few
questions about a document in Tehran, apparently
obtained from the Khan network, that shows how
to form uranium metal into two spheres. Metal in
that form can be used to create a basic nuclear
device.
I.A.E.A. reports
show there are also questions about plutonium
enrichment, and a secret entity known as the
Green Salt Project, which seemed to suggest that
there were what the agency has called
"administrative interconnections" between Iran's
uranium processing, high explosives and missile
design programs.
If Iran continues
to refuse to answer the questions, it could
bolster the American argument that the Security
Council should take action under Article 7 of
the United Nations Charter, which could pave the
way for sanctions. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, speaking in Shannon,
Ireland, said Monday that the credibility of the
Council would be in doubt if it does not take
clear-cut actions against Iran.
But China and
Russia have both expressed deep reservations
about any measures meant to coerce Iran, and Mr.
Ahmadinejad vaguely suggested Monday, as he has
before, that he would consider pulling his
country out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty if membership was no longer in Iran's
interests. North Korea did that in 1993,
expelling all inspectors, and they have not been
allowed to return.
"Our current
policy is to work within the framework of the
NPT and I.A.E.A., but if we feel that there is
no benefit in it for us, we will review our
policy," he said. "We must see what the benefits
of cooperating with the I.A.E.A. are after 30
years."
Mr. Ahmadinejad
rejected the United Nations deadline of Friday
for Iran to suspend its nuclear program. He
brushed off threats of economic sanctions,
saying that sanctions would hurt Western nations
more than Iran.
He also rejected a
proposal by Moscow to enrich uranium on Russian
soil. The proposal was aimed at easing
international concern over Iran's nuclear
program. While some Iranian officials rejected
the proposal in the past, others suggested that
Iran might accept it under certain conditions.
There were signs
of dissent within his government, however. The
former chief nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rowhani,
urged the government in a speech on Thursday to
return to talks with Europe over the nuclear
program, the daily newspaper Shargh reported.
David E. Sanger reported from Washington for
this article, and Nazila Fathi from Tehran.
Blair says West must send 'strong signal' to
Iran over nuclear build-up
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/04/24/afx2691151.html
LONDON
(AFX) - The West must send a 'strong signal' to
Iran's leadership that it will not tolerate
defiance over calls to suspend its nuclear
programme, said Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Speaking as oil prices soar over fears of a
military confrontation with Iran, Blair said now
was not the time to show 'weakness'.
However, Blair repeated his assertion last week
that 'Iran is not Iraq', and added that 'nobody
is talking about military invasion'.
'People do however, want to send a very strong
signal to Iran because...Iran is supporting
terrorism in the region to the detriment of
democratic governments, it's in breach of its
nuclear obligations and people want it to
comply,' he told his monthly press conference.
'So
the real issue for me on Iran is: what are you
going to do about it? (and) all I'm saying is
that it's not very sensible at the moment in
time to send a signal of weakness.'
The
US and Iran have been trading increasingly
bellicose statements in recent days, leading to
suggestions that Washington is planning a
military strike against Iranian nuclear
installations.
However, Blair said the US administration was
'very, very well aware' of the implications of
such a move.
Iran's hardline President threatens to quit NPT
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=42281&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
LONDON,
April 25 (IranMania) - Iran will quit the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if Western
powers want to prevent the country from
possessing nuclear technology, Iran's hardline
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned, AFP
reported.
"Our policy is to
work within the NPT and the Agency," he said,
referring to the International Atomic Energy
Agency.
"But if we see
that they don't want to accept our rights we
will reconsider, and nothing important will
happen," the hardline president told a news
conference.
"It is time for
the agency to restore its reputation. They
haven't done anything but cause nuisance," he
said of the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog.
West wants UN to pressure Iran
Tue Apr 25, 2006
By Evelyn Leopold
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-04-25T060927Z_01_N24337550_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN-UN.xml
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - With Russia and China
opposed to sanctions against Iran, the West
wants to ratchet up pressure bit by bit in the
U.N. Security Council next week to curb Tehran's
nuclear ambitions.
But China and Russia are contemplating a meeting
of the 35-nation board of the International
Atomic Energy Agency before any U.N.
consideration of a report due by Friday by IAEA
director Mohammed ElBaradei.
"There are proposals that the IAEA board of
directors should have a meeting first before the
council takes it up," China's U.N. ambassador,
Wang Guangya, disclosed to reporters on Monday.
In Berlin, a European diplomat, speaking on
condition of anonymity, said Russia and China
wanted to emphasise the primacy of the
Vienna-based IAEA board.
The envoy, who was not authorised to speak to
reporters, said the aim was to delay U.N. action
until after an IAEA board meeting in June to
slow down any U.S. drive for sanctions.
The United States and its allies suspect Iran is
trying to build an atomic bomb under cover of a
civilian nuclear program. Tehran says its
program is for energy purposes only.
The Security Council passed a statement last
month asking ElBaradei to report simultaneously
to the council and the IAEA board by April 28 on
whether Iran has halted enriching uranium, a
process that can produce fuel for nuclear
warheads.
As a first step, Western powers want a council
resolution that would turn demands in the March
statement into a legally binding measure under
the Chapter 7 provision of the U.N. Charter. The
council's statement, which also asks Iran to
answer outstanding questions on its program, was
based on earlier resolutions by the IAEA board.
CHAPTER 7 RESOLUTION
"Our expectation would be -- assuming no change
of direction by Iran, and there is no reason to
think there will be a change of direction --
that we will look at a Chapter 7 resolution to
make mandatory all of the existing IAEA
resolutions," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said
on Monday.
"We are going to wait for the April 28 report.
We are in consultations now and will be this
week on the timing and the handling of the
resolution," Bolton told reporters.
While a Chapter 7 resolution allows for
sanctions or even war, it needs a follow-up
measure to make that decision.
A council diplomat, who asked not to be named
because he was not authorised to speak, said the
United States, Britain and France were trying to
reassure Russia and China that the resolution in
question "does not do more than it says."
But to Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov,
Chapter 7 invokes Security Council resolutions
against Iraq, interpreted by the United States
as a legal basis for the 2003 invasion.
However, compared to Iran, U.N. resolutions
against Saddam Hussein's government stretched
over a decade, starting with the 1991 Gulf War
and including cease-fire breaches.
"I know how the Security Council works," Lavrov,
a former U.N. ambassador for 10 years until
2004, told reporters in Moscow in early March.
"You start with a soft reminder, then you call
upon, then you require, you demand, you
threaten. It will become a self-propelling
function," he said. "An enforcement scenario
isn't acceptable both for the Iranian situation
or for the situation in the region."
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be
arriving in Turkey Tuesday on a day-long working
visit to discuss developments in Iran, Iraq and
other issues of common interest.
|
 |
|
Condoleezza Rice |
The secretary is set to come to Ankara from the
Greek capital Athens, where she is
expected to hold talks early Tuesday on the
first leg of a tour of three Balkan countries
that will also take her to Bulgaria.
In Turkey, Rice will be meeting with Turkish
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Foreign
Minister Abdullah Gul as well as with President
Ahmet Necdet Sezer.
Turkey
is the NATO military alliance's sole
predominantly Muslim member and has cooperated
closely with the United States in what the two
sides long called a "strategic partnership" that
has stretched over half a century.
But relations between Turkey and the United
States have become less stable and less
predictable ever since the Turkish parliament
refused three years ago to permit U.S. troops to
use southern Turkey as a staging ground for a
second front against Saddam Hussein's forces in
northern Iraq.
The U.S. occupation of Iraq has led to strong
anti-U.S. sentiment in Turkey. Yet the two
countries have been making a concerted effort to
patch up their differences.
U.S.
officials stress that Secretary Rice's visit
demonstrates the importance Washington continues
to place on relations with Turkey.
"Secretary Rice's visit to Ankara is a very
clear reaffirmation of Turkey's importance to
the United States not only as a NATO ally but as
a partner in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and
the broader Middle East," said Joseph
Pennington, the spokesman of the U.S. Embassy in
Ankara.
U.S.
officials acknowledge that Turkey has played a
constructive role, especially in helping
persuade Iraq's Sunni minority not to boycott
nationwide elections held in January this year.
Asli Aydintasbas is the Ankara bureau chief for
the mass circulation daily newspaper
Sabah.
A veteran observer of U.S.-Turkish relations,
Aydintasbas says Turkey embodies the kind of
political and social system that Washington
would like to see introduced throughout the
Islamic world.
"There really isn't a second Turkey, a country
that is Muslim but secular, Muslim but
democratic but parliamentary, where Islamists
are in power but they can co-exist with human
rights, democracy, rule of law etc.," he said.
But some analysts question to what extent
Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party
can see eye to eye with Washington, especially
on issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict and on Iran.
Turkey
upset its main regional ally - Israel - when it
received senior leaders of the militant Islamic
group Hamas, even before they formed a
government after winning elections in Palestine
in February. Officials from the European Union
that Turkey is seeking to join were also
critical of the move, saying Hamas needs to
renounce violence as a precondition for
establishing ties with the international
community.
Secretary Rice is widely expected to raise the
Hamas issue with Prime Minister Erdogan. Mr.
Erdogan, in turn, is expected to express
Turkey's mounting frustration with the United
States over its refusal to take military action
against separatist Kurdish rebels based
Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.
The U.S. government maintains that it cannot
afford to open a second front against the rebels
when its troops are fighting insurgents in the
central and southern Iraq.
The Kurdish rebel group known as the PKK has
stepped up attacks against Turkish security
forces in recent months and Turkey's chief of
general staff, General Hilmi Ozkok, asserted
Sunday that, if need be, Turkey would pursue the
rebels across the border into Iraq .
Iraq's
President, Jalal Talabani, who is also the
leader of one of the main Kurdish factions
governing northern Iraq warned against a Turkish
incursion Sunday saying Washington would also be
opposed to any such move because this would only
further destabilize Iraq. Kurdish officials
predict this message is likely to be repeated by
Secretary Rice when she meets Turkish leaders
Tuesday.
Church
concerned about Iran's Christians
Swiss info, Adam Beaumont
There are only
110,000 Christians among Iran's population of 70
million people (Keystone)
A Swiss Catholic
Church delegation, which has just returned from
a week-long visit to Iran, says Christians do
not enjoy religious freedom in the Islamic
country.
The ten-strong
delegation found that Christian minorities in
Iran were free to practise their religion but
could only do so within their own communities.
"On one side they
are happy to live in a country where they can
practise their faith. They can organise mass,
they can pray and they can have churches," said
Mario Galgano, spokesman for the Swiss Bishops
Conference.
"But the problem is they cannot do more than
this. They cannot speak about their faith
outside their community. They don't have freedom
of religion."
As a result most Iranians knew little of
Christianity and other religions, added Galgano.
The delegation, which was led by Pierre Bürcher,
assistant bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, Fribourg
and Neuchâtel, also met representatives from
Iran's Jewish community.
Galgano told swissinfo this meeting had revealed
little but he expected more to come out at this
week's "Doha Trialogue" in Qatar between Middle
Eastern Christians, Jews and Muslims, which
Bürcher is attending.
The visit by members of the Swiss Bishops
Conference's "Islam Committee" followed an
invitation from Iran's Islamic Culture and
Relations Organisation (ICRO). As well as
meeting representatives from Christian
minorities in Iran, the Swiss delegation also
visited holy sites such as the Imam Mosque in
Isfahan.
Political crisis
The church
spokesman said the current political crisis over
Iran's nuclear aspirations and the controversy
over the Mohammed caricatures had come up in
discussions. He said Iranians had also been
anxious to find out what people in the West
thought of Iran.
"The political situation is tough and they know
this – it is not a secret there. They know about
the problems in Iraq and the Palestinian
territories, and they don't want a third
conflict in the region. They want peace," he
said.
"A lot of Iranian journalists asked us about our
reaction to the Mohammed caricatures," added
Galgano.
"We explained our position that caricatures
about religious issues should respect the
sensibility of religious faith. But on the other
hand we explained that we have liberty of speech
and this is very important not only for
Switzerland and the West, but also for every
country."
The Swiss Bishops Conference has announced that
a book is to be published in Iran in Farsi and
English containing speeches from this month's
trip and from the visit to Switzerland by ICRO
members in September.
Once the book is released, Galgano expects
further meetings between Swiss Catholics and
Iranian Muslims.
"I think it is too early to say that we are
closer to a better understanding between
Christians and Muslims," he said. "These were
just the first steps and we must continue the
dialogue towards the final goal of peace."
Unfinished Iran business
By Steve
Forbes
April 25, 2006
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060424-093435-7267r.htm
At a
Feb. 15 briefing before the U.S. Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice declared Iran is "in open
defiance" of the world community for violations
of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran's
persistent and flagrant development of a uranium
enrichment program, despite enormous
international pressure, is just one more
disquieting incident in Iran's long history of
troublemaking on the international stage.
Miss Rice suggested there are a "number of
levers" that could be used for dealing with
Iran, speaking generally of diplomatic and
economic sanctions. But the question must be
raised: How seriously will Iran take warnings of
future retribution when we still hesitate to
enforce punishments that are already on the
books?
On Oct. 23, 1983, the barracks of the U.S.
Marine Corps were bombed in Beirut, Lebanon: 241
Marines were killed. In October 2001, the
families of these fallen soldiers sued the
government of Iran in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. Ultimately, the
Islamic Republic of Iran was found guilty for
organizing, funding and managing the attacks. As
punishment, the judge ruled Iran is financially
liable and is now gathering evidence that will
lay the foundation for the enormous damages
figure Iran must pay in compensation for this
heinous crime.
Since the 1983 bombing and the court ruling
in 2003, Iran has not curbed its terrorist
activities nor paid for its crimes. A memorial
in Tehran actually celebrates the bombers who
killed those 241 Marines, and declares Iran's
intentions to continue its violent behavior,
reading, "Memorial for two Lebanese Muslim youth
who at dawn on Sunday, October 23, 1983,...
killed 241 U.S. Marines ... [w]e don't know
their names but we shall continue in their
path."
This monument is a tangible display of
Iran's continued "open defiance. Miss Rice has
acknowledged Iran's recent actions are
unacceptable, and now it is time that action is
taken. Holding Iran accountable to its legal
obligations is a nonviolent option that will
prevent Iran from funding its activities with
money made in the United States.
The government of Iran retains commercial
investments in the U.S. and is using profits
made on American soil to finance more terrorism.
For example, Bank Saderat and Bank Melli are
both owned and controlled under the Iranian
government with offices in New York City and Los
Angeles. In the 1990s, Bank Saderat owned the
California Land Holdings Co., which invested
Iranian funds in U.S. property, for investment
purposes. When dividends are paid on these
investments to the shareholders, the government
of Iran profits. Iran is capitalizing on our
free market economy to fund actions that kill
our countrymen and flout international treaties.
That must stop.
The Justice for Marine Corps Families
Victims of Terrorism Act (S. 1257; H.R. 865)
clarifies language in existing laws that
prohibits the families and victims of the Beirut
bombing and from collecting on court-ordered
damages. This legislation makes changes that
will allow the victims and their families to
collect damages from state sponsors of terrorism
convicted of directing and financing attacks.
The Iranian assets collected when these
bills pass will be distributed to the family
members of the victims. No amount of money will
ease their suffering, but knowing Iran has been
brought to justice and preventative action has
been taken will assure them they have not
suffered in vain. This bill will also make a
statement to Iran that we have not forgotten the
events of the dawn of Sunday, October 23, 1983.
Passing the Justice for Marine Corps
Families Victims of Terrorism Act into law will
"pull" one of the "levers" of which Miss Rice
spoke without physically endangering any
American soldier or civilian. These bills will
enable America to keep Iran from using our
economic system to attacks against our citizens
and the international community.
The State Department has made efforts to
block this legislation, not because of an
ideological debate about its implications for
foreign policy, but because of an old-fashioned,
bureaucratic turf war. In 1996, Congress passed
a law allowing lawsuits against state sponsors
of terrorism without the State Department's
prior consent. State has since been trying to
reassert itself in the process, and blocking
this bill is one way to do so.
Miss Rice, on the other hand, is setting a
new tone at the State Department and, with her
leadership the department can prevent Iran from
continuing down its violent path.
The United States has had sanctions against
Iran for years, and it is clear more action may
be on the horizon. By passing the Justice for
Marine Corps Families Victims of Terrorism Act
and clearing the way to force Iran to pay a
damage award carefully measured by a U.S.
federal court, we can remember the ultimate
sacrifice paid by those 241 U.S. personnel on
that fateful Sunday morning in October 1983 and
acknowledge the gravity of Iran's continuing
defiance and maintain our commitment to holding
Iran accountable.
Steve
Forbes is president and chief executive officer
of Forbes Inc. and editor-in-chief of Forbes
magazine. He was a Republican candidate for
president in 1996 and 2000.
Tehran
Isider Tells of US Black Ops
April 25, 2006
Asia Times
Asia Times Online Special Correspondent
link to original article
TEHRAN -- A former Iranian ambassador and
Islamic Republic insider has provided intriguing
details to Asia Times Online about US covert
operations inside Iran aimed at destabilizing
the country and toppling the regime - or
preparing for an American attack.
"The Iranian government knows and is aware of
such infiltration. It means that the Iranian
government has identified them [the covert
operatives] but for some reason does not want to
show [this]," said the former diplomat on
condition of anonymity.
Speaking in Tehran, the ex-Foreign Ministry
official said the agents being used by the US
"were originally Iranians and not Americans"
possibly recruited in the United States or
through US embassies in Dubai and Ankara. He
also warned that such actions will engender
"some reactions".
"Both sides will certainly do something," he
said in a reference to Iran's capability to stir
trouble up in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan
for the occupying US troops there.
Veteran US journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in a
much-discussed recent article in The New Yorker
magazine that the administration of President
George W Bush has increased clandestine
activities inside Iran and intensified planning
for a possible major air attack as the crisis
with Iran over its nuclear program escalates.
Hersh wrote that "teams of American combat
troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover,
to collect targeting data and to establish
contact with anti-government ethnic-minority
groups". The template seems identical to the
period that preceded US air strikes against the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan during which a
covert Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
campaign distributed millions of dollars to
tribal allies.
"The Iranian accusations are true," said Richard
Sale, intelligence correspondent for United
Press International, referring to charges that
the US is using the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK)
organization and other groups to carry out
cross-border operations. "But it is being done
on such a small scale - a series of pinpricks -
it would seem to have no strategic value at
all."
There has been a marked spike in unrest in
Kurdistan, Khuzestan and Balochistan, three of
Iran's provinces with a high concentration of
ethnic Kurdish, Arab and Balochi minorities
respectively. With the exception of the
immediate post-revolutionary period, when the
Kurds rebelled against the central government
and were suppressed violently, ethnic minorities
have received better treatment, more autonomy
and less ethnic discrimination than under the
shah.
"The president hasn't notified the Congress that
American troops are operating inside Iran," said
Sam Gardiner, a retired US Army colonel who
specializes in war-game scenarios. "So it's a
very serious question about the constitutional
framework under which we are now conducting
military operations in Iran."
Camp Warhorse is the major US military base in
the strategic Iraqi province of Diyala that
borders Iran. Last month, Asia Times Online
asked the US official in charge of all overt and
covert operations emanating from there whether
the military and the MEK colluded on an
operational level. He denied any such knowledge.
"They have a gated community up there," came the
genial reply. "Not really guarded - it's more
gated. They bake really good bread," he added,
smiling.
But that is contrary to what Hersh was told by
his sources, According to him, US combat troops
are already inside Iran and, in the event of air
strikes, would be in position to mark critical
targets with laser beams to ensure bombing
accuracy and excite sectarian tensions between
the population and the central government. As of
early winter, Hersh's source claims that the
units were also working with minority groups in
Iran, including the Azeris in the north, the
Balochis in the southeast, and the Kurds in the
northwest.
Last week, speaking on the sidelines of a
Palestinian solidarity conference, Major-General
Yehyia Rahim Safavi, the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC) commander, sent a warning to
the US and British intelligence services he
accuses of using Iraq and Kuwait to infiltrate
Iran. "I tell them that their agents can be our
agents too, and they should not waste their
money so casually."
On April 9, Iran claimed to have shot down an
unmanned surveillance plane in the southwestern
province of Khuzestan, according to a report in
the semi-official Jumhuri Eslami newspaper. US
media have also reported that the US military
has been secretly flying surveillance drones
over Iran since 2004, using radar, video, still
photography and air filters to monitor Iranian
military formations and track Iran's air-defense
system. The US denied having lost a drone.
This new mission for the combat troops is a
product of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's
long-standing interest in expanding the role of
the military in covert operations, which was
made official policy in the Pentagon's
Quadrennial Defense Review, published in
February. Such activities, if conducted by CIA
operatives, would need a Presidential Finding
and would have to be reported to key members of
Congress.
The confirmation that the US is carrying out
covert activities inside Iran makes more sense
out of a series of suspicious events that have
occurred along Iran's borders this year. In
early January, a military airplane belonging to
Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards went down
close to the Iraqi border. The plane was
carrying 11 of the Guard's top commanders,
including General Ahmad Kazemi, the commander of
the IRGC's ground forces, and Brigadier-General
Nabiollah Shahmoradi, who was deputy commander
for intelligence.
Although a spokesman blamed bad weather and
dilapidated engines for the crash, the private
intelligence company Stratfor noted that there
are several reasons to suspect foul play, not
least of which was that any aircraft carrying so
many of Iran's elite military luminaries would
undergo "thorough tests for technical issues
before flight". Later, Iran's defense minister
accused Britain and the US of bringing the plane
down through "electronic jamming".
"Given all intelligence information that we have
gathered, we can say that agents of the United
States, Britain and Israel are seeking to
destabilize Iran through a coordinated plan,"
Minister of Interior Mustafa Pour-Mohammadi
said. This sentiment was echoed on websites such
as AmericanIntelligence.us, where one reader
commented, "We couldn't have made a better hit
on the IRGC's leadership if planned ... sure it
was just an accident?"
Then, in late January, a previously unknown
Sunni Muslim group called Jundallah (Soldier of
Allah) captured nine Iranian soldiers in the
remote badlands of Sistan-Balochistan province
that borders Afghanistan and Pakistan. And in
mid-February, another airplane crashed just
inside Iraq after taking off from Azerbaijan and
transiting Iranian airspace. The Iranian Mehr
news agency reported that the "passengers on
board were possibly of Israeli origin". It added
that US troops have restricted access to the
site to Iraqi Kurdish officials and that Western
media were reporting the passengers aboard as
having been German.
The Iranian government has not sat idly by and
just taken these breaches of sovereignty. Early
this month, an unidentified source in the
Interior Ministry was quoted by the hardline
Kayhan newspaper as saying that the leader and
11 members of the Jundallah group had been
killed by Iranian troops. Then last Friday,
Iranian missile batteries shelled Iranian
Kurdish rebel positions inside Iraqi territory.
They were targeting a militant group called PJAK
that seeks more autonomy for Iran's Kurdish
population and has been operating out of Iraq
since 1999.
The former Iranian ambassador argues that in the
event that US pressure on Iran continues, "the
end of the tunnel" for President Mahmud
Ahmadinejad's administration is "weaponization
of the [nuclear] technology ... and a military
strike".
"The Americans are pushing Iran to become a
nuclear state. Iran just wants to be a supplier
of nuclear fuel. But [with their threats] they
are pushing it further."
Iran's
Ahmadinejad Rejects UN Deadline on Uranium
Enrichment
April 24, 2006
Bloomberg
Marc Wolfensberger
link to original article
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected a
United Nations deadline to suspend Iran's
nuclear program, threatening to quit the
Non-Proliferation Treaty if the UN doesn't
recognize Iran's right to nuclear technology.
Ahmadinejad also said Israeli Jews should go
back to the European countries from which they
came, as the exodus was created by World War II
belligerent nations, not by the Palestinians.
``Why should we suspend our nuclear program?
Those who are saying we should suspend should
give us a rational answer,'' Ahmadinejad told
foreign and Iranian reporters at a press
conference in Tehran today. Iran, which is
``unwavering'' on its nuclear program, will
``reconsider'' its position vis-a-vis the
nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty if the UN
nuclear watchdog doesn't respect Iran's
``rights.''
Ahmadinejad earlier this month announced his
country had enriched uranium to 3.5 percent,
enough to produce nuclear- reactor fuel. Iran is
``some years away'' from developing a nuclear
bomb, Thomas Fingar, deputy U.S. director of
national intelligence, said on April 13.
The Iranian president said today that Iran
doesn't plan to enrich uranium beyond 5 percent.
That is enough to fuel a nuclear reactor, though
far short of the 90 percent needed for a weapon.
Iran, a signatory of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, has voluntarily abided by an additional
protocol that gives the International Atomic
Energy Agency more inspection powers over
nuclear installations, including the right to
conduct spot checks. The protocol is not binding
on Iran because it was never ratified by the
country's parliament.
Inspections Curbed
Iran has already stopped allowing the UN nuclear
watchdog to ``use the advanced inspection
methods in the Additional Protocol,'' the
Washington-based Institute for Science and
International Security said in an April 14
report.
The UN Security Council demanded the suspension
of Iran's nuclear program by April 28. The
Security Council hasn't outlined any
consequences for ignoring the deadline though
the U.S. wants a binding resolution under
Chapter 7 of the UN charter if Iran fails to
suspend its enrichment activities. Chapter 7
provides for the ``interruption of economic
relations,'' the ``severance of diplomatic
relations'' and the ``use of armed force.''
European Union foreign policy chief Javier
Solana said that the Security Council is ``not
considering at this point in time the military
option.'' A resolution on UN action should be
ready soon, probably next month, he said.
Solution Possible
``There can still be solutions so long as the
international community has confidence that
Iran's nuclear program is strictly limited to
peaceful ends,'' Solana said in an interview in
Tokyo today. ``We can't take the risk of there
being one more country in an area as unstable as
the Middle East where there are more nuclear
weapons.''
The Iranian president said he believed economic
sanctions are ``highly unlikely,'' adding
``foreign powers are rational enough not to make
such a great mistake.''
Iran's nuclear program is the ``most
transparent'' in the world and ``fully
peaceful,'' the president added. Iran has ``no
need to cover up'' its nuclear activities, he
said. The U.S. and the European Union consider
Iran's nuclear program a front for the
development of nuclear weapons while Iran
maintains the program is intended only for the
production of electricity.
Iran ``didn't borrow the technology, it's a
home-grown technology and we are going to defend
it,'' Ahmadinejad said during his 90-minute
press conference.
He said Iran's policies wouldn't change even if
he were killed.
Assassination
``If they believe that, if they assassinate me,
that will be the end of the story, they are dead
wrong,'' Ahmadinejad said. ``There are 70
million people like me in this country who have
the same views.'' He didn't say who might want
to kill him.
Mounting tensions over the Islamic nation's
nuclear research helped push oil in New York
last week to above $75 a barrel. Iran, the
world's second-largest holder of oil and gas
reserves, wants a ``fair price'' for oil on
international markets, Ahmadinejad said today,
without elaborating.
On the Palestinians, Ahmadinejad's statement
contrasted with tougher ones he made in October,
when he said Nazi Germany's Holocaust of World
War II, in which millions of Jews were killed,
was a ``myth.''
``You made Europe unsafe for Jews,'' he said
today. ``Allow them to go back to their own
fatherlands,'' he said, according to a
translation carried live by Bloomberg
Television.
``You have created a problem which you should
solve yourself.'' He said the creation of Israel
had resulted in the persecution of the
Palestinian people.
To contact the reporters on this story: Marc
Wolfensberger in Tehran at
mwolfens@bloomberg.net
Iran
'Worst Threat to Jews Since Hitler'
April 24, 2006
Telegraph
telegraph.co.uk
link to original article
Iran's
nuclear programme is the most serious threat
faced by Jews since the Nazi holocaust, Israel's
defence minister has said. Shaul Mofaz said: "Of
all the threats we face, Iran is the biggest.
The world must not wait. It must do everything
necessary on a diplomatic level in order to stop
its nuclear activity."
He added: "Since Hitler we have not faced such a
threat."
Iran insists that its nuclear programme is aimed
solely at producing energy, and that it has no
ambitions to acquire an atomic arsenal.
But calls by Iran's president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, for Israel to be "wiped from the
map" have increased tensions between the two
countries.
Israel has so far endorsed American efforts to
curb Iran's nuclear programme through possible
sanctions.
Earlier today Mr Ahmadinejad said he did not
think the US would go through with its threats.
"I think it is very unlikely for them to be so
stupid to do that," he said. "I think even the
two or three countries who oppose us are wise
enough not to resort to such a big mistake."
Mr Mofaz said: "Pressure must be applied on the
Iranians to ensure that they realise there is no
returning from the path they are taking."
Shaul Mofaz is likely to surrender the Defence
Ministry to the more moderate Labour Party chief
Amir Peretz in the next Israeli coalition
government.
Iran's
Ahmadinejad Says Israel 'Cannot Survive'
April 24, 2006
AFX News
freeserve.advfn.com
link to original article
TEHRAN-- Iran's hardline President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad said that Israel "cannot survive",
adding that migrants to the Jewish state should
go back to where they came from. "Logically,
this fake regime cannot survive," Ahmadinejad
told a news conference in the latest of a string
of verbal attacks against Israel.
"Why did you force them to take refuge in
Palestine? Why do you think they are comfortable
in Palestine? They left because of your
anti-semitism," he said of European states.
"Open the doors of this big jail and let people
decide for themselves. You will see they will
return to their motherland," he said, repeating
his view that Jews who have settled in the
former Palestine should go back to their
countries of origin.
"Why should the Middle East pay 60 years on"
from the end of World War II, he added.
Report: Iran May Prompt other Mideast States to
Go Nuclear
April 24, 2006
Ha'aretz
Ze'ev Schiff
link to original article
In a
comprehensive report, most of which is top
secret, a military-civilian committee has
determined that other Muslim countries in the
Middle East could follow Iran in equipping
themselves with nuclear weapons. Endorsing the
report, outgoing Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz
said in remarks quoted by Army Radio on Monday
that "For the first time since the days of the
nation's founding, an official document has been
placed before the leaders of Israel, setting out
a comprehensive security viewpoint, both current
and long-range."
The committee, chaired by former minister Dan
Meridor and appointed by former prime minister
Ariel Sharon, recommended to Mofaz on Sunday
that Israel should maintain its policy of
nuclear ambiguity, that as Jordan has strategic
importance for Israel, its stability should be
supported, and that the National Security
Council should become the government's central
military planning authority.
The 250-page report, addressing strategic issues
for the next decade, is considered top secret;
only an elite few will be allowed to read its
entire contents. After its has been redacted, it
will be highly classified. It has not been
decided if portions of the report will be
published to familiarize the public with the
Israeli defense outlook. The report recommends
that defense premises be reexamined at five-year
intervals and that a mechanism be established to
monitor the implementation of recommendations.
A substantial chapter addresses the nuclear
threat to Israel. Iran is capable of kindling
the entire Middle East and constitutes an
existential threat to Israel. The committee
finds that if Iran gets nuclear arms, other
Muslim, Middle Eastern countries will try to
follow suit. The report comments on a proposed
Israeli response to Iranian nuclear testing. The
committee recommends that Israel maintain its
policy of "nuclear ambiguity."
In a chapter on decision-making, the committee
determines that the government does not provide
adequate and complete planning on defense
matters. The report recommends the NSC become
the central planning authority for the
government and include a small agency for
national intelligence. The committee recommends
minor cuts in the defense budget, and setting a
five-year defense budget based on the assumption
that economic growth will continue.
The report indicates that Israel faces major,
rapid strategic changes including technological
changes. According to the report, Israel faces
new risks - the non-conventional weapon threat
and terror. The committee noted that terror
deterrence is complex and difficult,
particularly in territory that lacks
governmental hierarchy or against organizations
without territory, instead of states. The
report's overall approach recommends greater
emphasis on firepower, particularly remote
firepower, over troop movements. which had been
used in the past. It also recommends greater
emphasis on intelligence and operations from
outer space.
Formally, the Meridor Committee was established
by Mofaz. However, Sharon approved the
appointments, vetoing with no explanation former
defense minister Moshe Arens and former Shin Bet
chief Ami Ayalon. The report has been submitted
for comment to Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, Shin
Bet chief Yuval Diskin, Mossad chief Meir Dagan
and Atomic Energy Committee director Gideon
Frank.
The committee met 52 times over 18 months before
submitting its report, during which Israel
disengaged from the Gaza Strip, and Hamas won
the Palestinian Authority elections.
Disputes arose among committee members on
several subjects including terror and how
Israel should define it. The committee debated
strategic-theoretical issues such as defining
"victory" and "deterrence." In a discussion of
all the types of wars, the committee proposed
adding to "deterring," "warning" and "decisive,"
a major chapter on the various aspects of
"defense."
Efforts were made in the past to summarize
Israel's defense outlook under the direction of
then Defense Ministry director general David
Ivri, but that committee's work was essentially
stopped when Ehud Barak was elected prime
minister in 1999.
Plan B for Iran: Sanctions that Bite
April 24, 2006
U.S. News
Thomas Omestad
link to original article
The
Americans were stunned. Moments after
adjournment of closed talks at the United
Nations Security Council, Russian diplomats
strode over to their counterparts from Iran,
waiting in a hallway to be briefed on the
negotiations over Iran's secret nuclear program.
To the American officials, there was no clearer
illustration of their uphill struggle to prod
the U.N. to squeeze Iran. "There was no hiding
it," recalls a U.S. official. "The Russians were
acting as liaison to the Iranians--physically
and intellectually."
President Bush denies that the Pentagon is
intensifying plans for possible airstrikes on
Iran--and vows to stick with diplomacy--but
Russia and China have erected seemingly
immovable barriers to the imposition of
sanctions. Two of the five veto holders on the
Security Council, both Russia and China reject
calls to punish Tehran for flouting U.N. demands
that it stop enriching uranium and open all of
its nuclear facilities to inspection. Against an
April 28 deadline for Iran to meet those
demands, one European diplomat fears that a
solution looks lost "in the long grass of
Security Council politics."
So it is that western nations are now talking
about a "Plan B": a non-U.N. "coalition of the
willing" that would slap "smart sanctions" on
the Iranian leadership. If the Security Council
fails its "test" of rebuking Iran, says John
Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., "we
have to look at other alternatives." Those
include banning travel by Iranian officials,
freezing overseas accounts, restricting Iranian
trade credits, and stepping up probes of
questionable financial deals.
Doing deals. The looming impasse at the U.N. is
feeding fears that the dispute over Iran is
headed for more dangerous terrain. Iran's
hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has
answered the council's call to halt its nuclear
work by announcing that Iran had enriched
uranium to a level usable for nuclear power
plants and that it had plans to accelerate its
enrichment. In trademark fashion, Ahmadinejad
also declared that Iran's nemesis, Israel, was
heading toward "annihilation." Now, officials in
Washington, along with allies in London and
Paris, hope the next step will be a resolution
that insists Iran comply under the U.N.'s
Chapter VII, which invokes the council's role in
protecting international security. In practice,
that could mean sanctions--or worse.
But Moscow and Beijing object to this strategy.
Both have struck large energy and trade deals
with Iran, and both fear a replay of the U.S.
confrontation with Iraq. China, remarked Deputy
Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo, "feels that there
has already been enough turmoil in the Middle
East." A Russian official agrees:
"Unfortunately, this looks familiar to us."
Russia has a considerable stake in Iran,
including the $800 million nuclear reactor
project at Bushehr, future construction
contracts worth $5 billion, and arms contracts
of up to $1.5 billion. But the politics may be
just as important. Moscow does not view Iran as
an adversary to be contained. In fact, Russia
gives Iran high marks for not interfering in
Russia's mostly Muslim southern tier and in the
former Soviet Central Asian republics. Aides to
President Vladimir Putin also fault the Bush
administration for its criticism of Putin's
consolidation of power, as well as for the U.S.
presence in Central Asia. "This has had a
considerable impact on Russian willingness to
accommodate U.S. interests," says Dimitri Simes
of the Nixon Center.
The Chinese, likewise, tread carefully with
Iran, largely because of its clout as a supplier
of oil and natural gas. China has a 25-year deal
with Iran, worth up to $100 billion, to help
develop a key oil field at Yadavaran and to buy
oil and gas. In addition to being a major trade
partner, China is a supplier of weapons to Iran.
China also credits Iran for not abetting
separatist activities by China's Muslim Uighurs.
Though his frustration with Russia and China is
building, Bush is unlikely to abandon the
Security Council route in the short run. If
other governments see that a consensus was tried
but not achieved, U.S. officials reason, they
will be better positioned to act without U.N.
cover.
Behind the scenes, diplomats from other key
countries have urged the administration to drop
its refusal to talk with Iran directly. They
believe that Tehran might limit its nuclear
goals if it gets a comprehensive security deal
with Washington. "We will need, in the end,"
says one official, "to have the United States at
the negotiating table with Iran."
The diplomats welcome Bush's approval for Zalmay
Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, to
hold talks--now delayed--with Iran solely on
Iraq. Khalilzad won Bush's authorization by
arguing that to help stabilize Iraq, he had to
deal with Iran, a U.S. official tells U.S. News.
But broader negotiations, the official says,
have been blocked by hawks who see them as
haggling with a terrorist regime. Such an
approach "has been identified," this official
says, "as capitulation."
Dissident President
April 24, 2006
The Wall Street Journal
Natan Sharansky
link to original article
There are two distinct marks of a dissident.
First, dissidents are fired by ideas and stay
true to them no matter the consequences. Second,
they generally believe that betraying those
ideas would constitute the greatest of moral
failures. Give up, they say to themselves, and
evil will triumph. Stand firm, and they can give
hope to others and help change the world.
Political leaders make the rarest of dissidents.
In a democracy, a leader's lifeline is the
electorate's pulse. Failure to be in tune with
public sentiment can cripple any administration
and undermine any political agenda. Moreover,
democratic leaders, for whom compromise is
critical to effective governance, hardly ever
see any issue in Manichaean terms. In their
world, nearly everything is colored in shades of
gray.
That is why President George W. Bush is such an
exception. He is a man fired by a deep belief in
the universal appeal of freedom, its
transformative power, and its critical
connection to international peace and stability.
Even the fiercest critics of these ideas would
surely admit that Mr. Bush has championed them
both before and after his re-election, both when
he was riding high in the polls and now that his
popularity has plummeted, when criticism has
come from longstanding opponents and from
erstwhile supporters.
With a dogged determination that any dissident
can appreciate, Mr. Bush, faced with
overwhelming opposition, stands his ideological
ground, motivated in large measure by what
appears to be a refusal to countenance moral
failure.
I myself have not been uncritical of Mr. Bush.
Like my teacher, Andrei Sakharov, I agree with
the president that promoting democracy is
critical for international security. But I
believe that too much focus has been placed on
holding quick elections, while too little
attention has been paid to help build free
societies by protecting those freedoms--of
conscience, speech, press, religion, etc.--that
lie at democracy's core.
I believe that such a mistaken approach is one
of the reasons why a terrorist organization such
as Hamas could come to power through ostensibly
democratic means in a Palestinian society long
ruled by fear and intimidation.
I also believe that not enough effort has been
made to turn the policy of promoting democracy
into a bipartisan effort. The enemies of freedom
must know that the commitment of the world's
lone superpower to help expand freedom beyond
its borders will not depend on the results of
the next election.
Just as success in winning past global conflicts
depended on forging a broad coalition that
stretched across party and ideological lines,
success in using the advance of democracy to win
the war on terror will depend on building and
maintaining a wide consensus of support.
Yet despite these criticisms, I recognize that I
have the luxury of criticizing Mr. Bush's
democracy agenda only because there is a
democracy agenda in the first place. A policy
that for years had been nothing more than the
esoteric subject of occasional academic debate
is now the focal point of American statecraft.
For decades, a "realism" based on a myopic
perception of international stability prevailed
in the policy-making debate. For a brief period
during the Cold War, the realist policy of
accommodating Soviet tyranny was replaced with a
policy that confronted that tyranny and made
democracy and human rights inside the Soviet
Union a litmus test for superpower relations.
The enormous success of such a policy in
bringing the Cold War to a peaceful end did not
stop most policy makers from continuing to
advocate an approach to international stability
that was based on coddling "friendly" dictators
and refusing to support the aspirations of
oppressed peoples to be free.
Then came Sept. 11, 2001. It seemed as though
that horrific day had made it clear that the
price for supporting "friendly" dictators
throughout the Middle East was the creation of
the world's largest breeding ground of
terrorism. A new political course had to be
charted.
Today, we are in the midst of a great struggle
between the forces of terror and the forces of
freedom. The greatest weapon that the free world
possesses in this struggle is the awesome power
of its ideas.
The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the
dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on
committing the United States to support the
advance of democracy, offers hope to many
dissident voices struggling to bring democracy
to their own countries. The democratic
earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all
the dangers its tremors entail, offers the
promise of a more peaceful world.
Yet with each passing day, new voices are added
to the chorus of that doctrine's opponents, and
the circle of its supporters grows ever smaller.
Critics rail against every step on the new and
difficult road on which the United States has
embarked. Yet in pointing out the many pitfalls
which have not been avoided and those which
still can be, those critics would be wise to
remember that the alternative road leads to the
continued oppression of hundreds of millions of
people and the continued festering of the
pathologies that led to 9/11.
Now that President Bush is increasingly alone in
pushing for freedom, I can only hope that his
dissident spirit will continue to persevere. For
should that spirit break, evil will indeed
triumph, and the consequences for our world
would be disastrous.
Mr. Sharansky spent nine years as a political
prisoner in the Soviet Gulag. A former deputy
prime minister of Israel and currently a member
of the Knesset, he is co-author, with Ron
Dermer, of "The Case For Democracy: The Power of
Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror"
(PublicAffairs, 2004).
Sunni-Shi'ite Split Deepens
April 23, 2006
The Jerusalem Post
Barry Rubin
link to original article
Something very important is happening that is
changing the Middle East dramatically and
perhaps permanently in a way no one expected:
the decline of the Arab world, the development
of a major conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite
Arabs, and the rising power of Iran.
Certainly, since the Iranian revolution of 1979,
Arabs have worried about Islamist Iran becoming
a major regional power. After all, that was a
key reason behind the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq
war, which included Gulf Arab oil-producing
states giving Saddam Hussein billions of dollars
to defend them, and then pleading for the United
States and Europe to defend their oil tankers
from Iranian attack.
I well remember being in Amman back in 1982 when
there was a sense of panic in the air as Iranian
troops advanced into Iraq. People openly
wondered where or whether Teheran's soldiers
would stop.
But the Iraqi troops held and six years later,
Baghdad "won" the war - if no tangible gains
coupled with massive losses can be called a
victory.
Since then, most Arab attention has been focused
on Israel, Iraq itself, Osama Bin Laden and
other Sunni terrorists, and purported Western
enmity and American imperialist threats.
As for Sunni-Shi'ite conflict, most Muslims
denied there was any real problem, explaining
this as merely one more phony issue raised by
their enemies. Everyone got along just fine,
thank you very much.
But now the crisis is undeniable. One of the
reasons for this situation is the Arab world's
decline since its leaders are refusing to make
necessary reforms whether they involve civil
rights, economic changes, pragmatism, or
moderation toward the West and Israel.
The breakdown is apparent in virtually every
country even though the regimes are still
managing to use demagoguery, Arab nationalism,
and the fear of Islamism to hold onto power.
The Arab League summit conference in Khartoum,
Sudan, was so insignificant it attracted no
attention. The meeting failed to grapple in any
creative way with reform, radical Islamism, the
Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran's nuclear
drive, or any other issue. It even managed to
avoid the crisis in Sudan where Muslim militias
have killed thousands of Christians.
Except for propagandistic - and pretty effective
- exercises, there is no Arab world. Certainly,
Egypt is providing no leadership. In fact, ask
this question: what are the important powers in
the Middle East nowadays? No Arab country comes
to mind, only Israel, Iran, and the United
States.
A SECOND factor is, of course, the US
intervention in Iraq which overthrew a stable
albeit horrible regime and shook up the
political power structure. Ironically, though,
the real cause of the problem is not America but
its enemies. After all, if the Sunni community
in Iraq accepted a multi-cultural regime and
negotiated the best possible deal the current
inter-communal war would not exist.
But three years of terrorism by Sunni on Shi'ite
Muslims (though there have also been bloody
reprisals in the other direction) have stirred
up passions that might not end short of
full-scale civil war. And the Sunnis will lose
that war.
By cheering on the terrorists, the Arab regimes
have taken the side of the Sunnis against the
Shi'ites - and Iraq's Shi'ite majority knows it.
Saudi Arabia supplies money for the insurgents,
Jordanians cross the border to fight, and Syria
sponsors the terrorist war in every way.
WHAT DOES Arab nationalism offer Iraq's
Shi'ites, or the non-Arab Kurds for that matter?
Nothing, except support for their enemies! In
the face of this situation, why shouldn't Iraqi
Shi'ites see Iran as an ally, though not as a
master.
Last year, the leader of the insurgency,
al-Qaida's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi openly called
for a jihad on Shi'ites, in effect denying that
they were Muslims at all. There was virtually no
condemnation of this shocking statement by Sunni
Muslim clerics or political leaders in other
Arab countries.
Jordan's King Abdullah, far more politely,
warned of a Shi'ite alliance of Iran, Iraq, and
others that would threaten the Arab world.
Now Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak added his
views in an April 8 interview on al-Arabiya
satellite television. Saying Iraq is already in
a civil war he added, "I don't know how Iraq
will pick up the pieces. Personally, I do not
see how this can happen. Iraq is half
destroyed."
He then pointed out that Iran has influence over
the Shi'ites in Iraq, which is certainly
somewhat true, but concluded: "The Shi'ites are
always loyal to Iran. Most of them are loyal to
Iran and not to the countries in which they
live."
In other words he portrayed the Shi'ites as
Iranian agents and traitors to the Arabs. This
is simply unfair. Who does he think did most of
the fighting and dying for the Iraqi army during
the Iran-Iraq war?
Of course, some Shi'ites do work for Iran -
Hizbullah in Lebanon is a client of Teheran and
there are groups like that being well-paid in
Iraq, too - but most are not. In Iraq, most
Shi'ites think they are as good or better
Muslims than their Iranian counterparts and do
not want them to be their bosses. Many are loyal
to their community even if they are not pious.
And they have always considered themselves to be
good Arabs.
By reading out the Shi'ites, and certainly by
showing so little sympathy for them, the Sunni
Muslims may be transforming an Iraqi civil war
into a general Arab and Muslim civil war. And if
Iraq's majority is being driven toward Iran, the
Arab leadership and Sunni Islamists are largely
to blame.
If Iran gets nuclear weapons, this new power
alignment will become even more evident and
dangerous.
The writer is director of the Global Research in
International Affairs Center, editor of the
Middle East Review of International Affairs and
journal editor of Turkish Studies.
U.S.
Targets Hezbollah Funds
April 24, 2006
The Wall Street Journal
Jay Solomon
link to original article
The
Bush administration is intensifying efforts to
cut off funding to Hezbollah, the Shiite
organization the U.S. believes is Iran's
principal vehicle for conducting terrorist
attacks globally.
The moves come as counterterrorism officials
grow concerned that if the standoff between
Washington and Tehran over Iran's suspected
nuclear-weapons program heightens tension
between the two sides, that could fuel terrorist
strikes against Western targets in Iraq and
Afghanistan and other nations where American
forces are active.
Many U.S. intelligence officials say they
believe Hezbollah could pose a more serious
threat than the al Qaeda terrorist network,
because of its structured military command and
decades of experience.
Hezbollah, which means "Party of God," is a
militia and sociopolitical party based in
Lebanon with a global following and
infrastructure that could allow it to conduct
operations in Europe, Latin America and even the
U.S., counterterrorism experts say. They note
that Tehran has used Hezbollah as a proxy in its
conflict with the U.S., as evidenced by the
group's attacks against American and Israeli
targets in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Argentina
over the past three decades.
Washington's focus on Hezbollah "is at a pretty
high level now," says Kevin Brock, the deputy
director of the U.S. government's National
Counterterrorism Center. "There are active
investigations" going on against the Islamist
organization's global activities, he said.
U.S. counterterrorism officials emphasize that
they never ignored Hezbollah's threat but that a
priority was placed on al Qaeda after the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks.
The crackdown on Hezbollah comes as the U.S. is
turning off the money spigots to the Hamas
faction in charge of the Palestinian government.
The Bush administration accuses Hamas of backing
terrorism. Both Hamas and Hezbollah are active
in fighting Israel's military presence in the
Palestinian territories and Lebanon, but,
historically, the two groups have drawn from
different religious ideologies and state
supporters.
Over the past month, the Bush administration
moved against a number of operations it believes
played significant roles in funding Hezbollah
activities in recent years, indicting alleged
cigarette smugglers in Detroit and imposing
financial sanctions against Lebanese media
businesses.
Lawyers who represent some of the men charged in
Michigan denied that their clients have ties to
Hezbollah or that they were engaged in illicit
businesses, suggesting the Bush administration
exaggerated the claims of terrorist connections.
In the Detroit case, they noted that their
clients were allowed to post bail, a sign that
the government didn't view them as serious
threats to security. "This case has absolutely
nothing to do with Hezbollah or terrorism," said
Jim Burdick, a Michigan lawyer representing one
of the accused, Majid Mohamad Hammoud. "All
these guys ever have done was work hard and send
money back to Lebanon."
Since 9/11, the Bush administration has
blacklisted more than 400 entities for allegedly
providing material support to terrorist groups,
and nearly a dozen of them for alleged links to
Hezbollah. In 2004, the Treasury Department
proscribed an Arab businessman in Latin America
and two of his companies for allegedly aiding
Hezbollah's operations from his base in the
border area that links Paraguay, Brazil and
Argentina. It also blacklisted in 2001 one of
Hezbollah's chief intelligence officers, Imad
Fa'iz Mughniyah.
In late March, the Treasury Department initiated
financial sanctions against three Lebanese media
organizations that the U.S. charges have funded
and facilitated Hezbollah's military operations.
They are the Al-Manar satellite television
channel, the Nour radio channel and the Lebanese
Media Group, which owns the two companies.
The Treasury action prohibits any financial
transactions between Americans and the
designated entities and freezes any of their
assets under U.S. jurisdiction. A Treasury
spokeswoman said U.S. laws prohibited her from
detailing the amount of any assets that were
frozen.
U.S. officials say the sanctioning of the
Lebanese media companies illustrates how
Hezbollah's military operations are intertwined
with Middle Eastern businesses and civilian
organizations. The Treasury Department alleges
that Al-Manar helped Hezbollah recruit foot
soldiers and transfer money. It also alleges
that an Al-Manar employee cooperated with
Hezbollah to conduct surveillance on suspected
terrorist targets.
Al-Manar "is a good example of how we're trying
to undermine this false dichotomy" between
Hezbollah's military and political wings, says
Stuart Levey, the Treasury Department's
undersecretary for terrorism and financial
intelligence. "Hezbollah is a terrorist
organization. This designation shows that
Al-Manar is owned and operated by Hezbollah."
Al-Manar officials say the channel is an
independent media outlet and denied that it
supports terrorism. Attempts to reach officials
at the company's headquarters in Lebanon were
unsuccessful.
The Justice Department last month indicted 19
men on charges of participating in a global
smuggling network dealing in contraband
cigarettes and pharmaceuticals that allegedly
generates funding for Hezbollah. The arrests of
nine of these men in Detroit last month marked
the second time in the past five years that
federal agents have disrupted what they say are
fund-raising cells for Hezbollah inside the U.S.
In 2002, the Justice Department successfully
prosecuted two men in Charlotte, N.C., for
running an interstate cigarette-smuggling ring
and shifting some of the profits to Hezbollah.
Justice Department officials say the North
Carolina operation was tied to the Detroit one,
supplying it with some contraband cigarettes.
Both rings allegedly reaped large profits by
moving cigarettes from low-tax states to
higher-tax ones in the northeastern U.S., such
as New York.
The Detroit defendants also are accused of
forging tax stamps for the cigarettes to allow
them to generate large profits. The men also
allegedly smuggled contraband pharmaceuticals,
such as knockoffs of Pfizer Inc.'s Viagra, into
the U.S. from Asia and the Middle East.
"The case evidences a real serious federal
effort to combat funding of terrorism at its
root," said Stephen J. Murphy, the U.S. attorney
for the Eastern District of Michigan. "The grand
jury returned a sweeping indictment that
uncovered a racketeering operation that helped
fund Hezbollah."
The indictment alleges that the men imposed what
they called a "resistance tax" to help combat
Israel on some of their buyers, mainly
gas-station and shop owners of Middle Eastern
descent in the Detroit area. The defendants then
sent the money to Hezbollah. The accused men
also allegedly solicited money from buyers for
the orphans of a martyrs program run by
Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
In all, Justice Department officials estimate
that the Detroit operation evaded around $20
million in sales taxes, though they don't know
how much of this may have been sent to
Hezbollah.
During the 1980s, Hezbollah engaged in a stream
of kidnappings, assassinations and suicide
bombings against American targets, in response
to the Reagan administration's deployment of
American troops into Lebanon. But those have
dwindled, with the most recent terrorist attack
U.S. law-enforcement officials publicly
attributed to Hezbollah being the 1996 suicide
bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia,
where U.S. military personnel were housed.
Few counterterrorism officials believe Hezbollah
would currently attack inside the U.S., because
of the significant amount of money it has raised
from American sources. But they do believe Iran
could seek to use Hezbollah if a conflict with
the U.S. over Tehran's nuclear program
intensifies. They believe Hezbollah could be
activated if either the U.S. or Israel used
military strikes to sabotage Iran's nuclear
facilities.
These officials say Hezbollah could prove
potentially more difficult to contain than al
Qaeda, because of its support from Iran and its
following among many Lebanese and Iranians
globally.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah is widely viewed as a
legitimate organization with roots in Lebanese
society -- even by many anti-Syrian political
leaders working with the U.S. government.
Indeed, since Syria withdrew its troops from
Lebanon last year, Hezbollah has expanded its
profile in the Lebanese government and was
allowed to openly participate in negotiations
over the fate of President Emile Lahoud, a
longtime Syrian ally.
"If Iran turns Hezbollah loose on the U.S. and
Western Europe, they'd make al Qaeda look like a
bunch of high-school kids," said a retired
covert U.S. intelligence officer with years of
experience in the Middle East. He noted that
Hezbollah teams have regularly done surveillance
on U.S. embassies in Europe, in case they're
activated to strike.
The Madness of Bombing Iran
April 24, 2006
The Times
Robert Skidelsky
link to original article
There is no doubt that Western opinion is being
softened up for a US or Israeli strike against
the Iranian centrifuges at Natanz. “Can anyone
within range of Iran’s missiles feel safe?”,
screams a full-page advertisement in the
International Herald Tribune, displaying a map
of the Eurasian land mass with Iran at its
centre.
As part of the softening-up come the
justifications, as false as the ones that
preceded the Iraq war, but more disgraceful
second time round. Here are the
counter-arguments.
First, it needs to be trumpeted that a military
strike now would be illegal under international
law. The UN Security Council would never
authorise it, since Iran has not breached the
terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
that allows every signatory to develop nuclear
energy for peaceful use. However, the hawks no
longer even talk about the need to get Security
Council approval — this is the measure of the
damage to international law that Bush and Blair
have inflicted.
The United States (or Israel) would claim it was
acting in self-defence. But by long-established
customary law a pre-emptive strike is justified
only to defend against an “imminent and certain”
attack. True enough, what happens tomorrow is
never certain, but if another country’s troops
start massing at one’s frontier that would be
pretty good evidence of hostile intention. To
claim the right of self-defence against a threat
that may or may not emerge in five years’ time
is to claim the right to wage aggressive war
whenever one chooses. This was one of the two
grounds on which Nazi leaders were convicted and
executed at Nuremberg.
John Reid, the Defence Secretary, has recently
been arguing that the right of pre-emption
should be turned into the right of prevention,
“rather than waiting for the next threat to come
along”. If one happened to “learn” that a threat
was being developed, would it not be one’s duty
to zap it before it became actual? The answer is
“no”. The more “potential” the threat, the less
transparent it will be, the more flawed one's
intelligence, and the more scope leaders will
have to manipulate public opinion.
If Iraq taught us anything it should have been
this. Tony Blair at first stuck to the accepted
justification for a pre-emptive strike by
claiming that Iraq was an immediate threat (the
notorious “45 minutes”). When that was revealed
as phoney, he fell back on the argument that
Iraq “would have” acquired a WMD capability had
we not overthrown Saddam Hussein. Such arguments
allow unscrupulous leaders to make war on a
whim.
To return from Mr Reid’s science fiction to
earth: the technology of making nuclear weapons
is not obscure. The Iranians claim to have
enriched uranium to the “3.5 per cent level”.
This is enough to use as nuclear fuel, but
nowhere near enough for nuclear weapons. That
requires up to 90 per cent enrichment, with 50
to 100 kilograms of it to make a single bomb.
The Iranians say they have 164 centrifuges. But
thousands would be needed to get a significant
amount of weapons grade uranium. Experts say it
would take five years or more to produce an
atomic bomb from domestic processes.
The biggest danger of nuclear proliferation is
not that rogue states will learn how to enrich
uranium enough to build nuclear weapons but that
already enriched uranium stocks will leak out to
terrorist groups. A terrorist group that
obtained 50kg of highly enriched uranium would
probably be able to make a nuclear device. But
it could make it anywhere — in a garage in
London, for instance. The answer to this is not
to bomb Iraq, but to reduce such stockpiles
(mainly in Russia and the United States) to a
minimum, and make sure they are under iron
control.
People who support military action ask: how do
we know that Iran isn't lying when it says that
its uranium enrichment programme is intended
only for civilian use? Surely, this is a clear
case for invoking the precautionary principle:
the risk may be slight but the consequences of
ignoring it may be catastrophic. But no one is
arguing that the risk should be ignored. The
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty now also allows
for intrusive inspections. Hans Blix has
written: “If you want a control system that
gives a maximum of assurance, you can . . .
require that inspectors have the right to go
almost anywhere, any time, and demand any kind
of documents.” Iran has accepted this protocol
and operating under it the International Atomic
Energy Agency has found no evidence that it is
developing a weapons programme. However, the
protocol could be strengthened for states such
as Iran whose leaders make Hitlerian
pronouncements.
Given that it is possible, though difficult, to
put in place a series of checks on Iran's
nuclear ambitions, our leaders need to weigh
very carefully the equivocal comfort that a
so-called preventive strike may buy against the
massive costs of mounting one. It is as certain
as it can be that a strike against Iran would
inflame Muslim hatred throughout the Middle East
and beyond. It would interrupt oil supplies and
disorganise the world economy. It would swell
the insurgency in Iraq, multiply the numbers of
“terrorists” and strengthen their determination
to exact a terrible vengeance, especially on
Israel. It would be against every counsel of
prudent statesmanship. The danger is that we
will drift into war because we lack the will and
imagination to create institutions to make peace
safe.
“The threat posed by Iran has been grossly
exaggerated” will be debated tomorrow at the
Royal Geographical Society in one of a series of
Times debates. www.intelligencesquared.com
In Place of Bluster
April 24, 2006
The Guardian
Menzies Campbell
link to original article
As
Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic
Energy Agency submits his report to the UN
security council on Iran this week, it is time
to consider how to end the impasse over Iran's
nuclear activities. There is no easy way to deal
with a country that refuses to cooperate with
IAEA inspectors and it is suspicion over Iran's
intentions that has brought the issue before the
security council.
But the west has not dealt with the matter in a
sensitive way. The American government has been
full of bluster for several months, discussing
plans for military action and pointedly keeping
"all options on the table". The British
government has not helped to reduce tension.
Last week the prime minister refused to rule out
the use of force or even the use of nuclear
weapons against Iran.
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, on the other
hand, has said that military action would be
"inconceivable" and described as "nuts" the
suggestion that nuclear weapons might be used.
It is easy to see why he holds these views. Any
strike without UN authority would be illegal -
and any strike would struggle to find legitimate
targets since no one knows where the nuclear
installations are. A strike would be the
quickest way to strengthen Iran's determination
to acquire a nuclear weapon, and it would foment
instability across the region, particularly in
Iraq and in Israel-Palestine. It could also
trigger hostile measures in the straits of
Hormuz, the bottleneck of the Gulf's oil supply.
I doubt that any democratically elected leader
would be brave enough to wage an illegal war on
Iran. But by failing to take steps to reduce
tension, the British and American governments
have made a diplomatic outcome less likely. In
Tehran, the threat to Iran's security is seen as
its encirclement.
There are three essential elements to a
diplomatic solution. The first is security
guarantees from the US. The second is for Iran
to end enrichment and reprocessing activities
and to accept full IAEA inspections. And the
third is a regional dimension.
Dr ElBaradei and the former UN weapons inspector
Hans Blix have supported the idea of applying
the North Korean model to Iran. North Korea
withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty in 2003 amid disputes over IAEA
inspections. For months the US resisted talks
but in the end climbed down. Security guarantees
and energy aid were offered to North Korea in
return for an end to enrichment and tough
inspections. This is an eminently sensible
suggestion.
Iran's neighbours are equally concerned about a
nuclear Iran and are loth to see a shift in the
balance of power in the Middle East. A nuclear
Iran would provoke other countries to acquire
nuclear weapons and put an end once and for all
to the UN goal of a nuclear free Middle East.
Meanwhile, double standards over nuclear weapons
are commonplace. Why have Israel, India and
Pakistan received no censure, while Iran is the
target of a global campaign? The best, although
for the moment least realistic, of solutions
would be a regional conference involving
recognition for the state of Israel, security
guarantees and a process of managed disarmament.
Such an agreement should remain a goal, but is
not essential for ending the current impasse.
Iran is not a rogue state. It cares about
international opinion: it has signed the NPT,
while India, Pakistan and Israel have not. The
talks with the EU troika made progress towards
the shape of a final agreement. The best way to
keep Iran nuclear-free is to do whatever is
diplomatically necessary to keep the IAEA
inspectors in there, not blustering about
military action and giving Iran excuses to press
ahead unsupervised.
Menzies Campbell is leader of the Liberal
Democrats
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.
IDF Sharpens Arrow Missile Vigilance
April 24, 2006
The Jerusalem Post
Yaakov Katz
link to original article
Fearing an Iranian missile attack, the IDF has
raised the level of vigilance of its Arrow 2
anti-ballistic missile defense system and has
reinforced personnel at the command center in
the Palmahim Air Force base north of Ashdod, The
Jerusalem Post has learned.
Maj. Elyakim, commander of the Arrow missile
battery at Palmahim, said the missile crews were
always on high alert, but they were recently
instructed to "raise their level of awareness"
because of general developments on the Iranian
front. The increased vigilance level, he said,
was not due to specific intelligence but rather
to the generally tense situation in the region.
The Arrow missile, he said, could intercept and
destroy any Iranian missile fired at Israel,
including ones carrying non-conventional
warheads. Analysts believe that if Iran is
attacked by Israel or the US, it would respond
by firing long-range ballistic missiles at
Israel.
"The [Arrow missile] unit works around the clock
and is always on call," he told the Post. "But
in wake of recent events, we have raised our
level of awareness... we have taken into
consideration what is happening around us."
The Arrow missiles at Palmahim, Blaier said,
were recently upgraded by the manufacturers. The
missile system, he said, was regularly improved
to meet the threats from enemy ballistic
missiles.
"The missile undergoes frequent improvements to
meet the developments our enemies make with
their surface-to-surface missiles," he said. The
improvements are sometimes based on general
technological developments in the missile field
and sometimes on intelligence on enemy missile
advances.
The Arrow 2 was last tested in December and it
succeeded in intercepting an incoming rocket
simulating an Iranian Shihab 3 at an altitude
higher than tested in the previous 13 exercises.
Military officials recently said Iran had cruise
missiles - purchased from Ukraine in 2002 - that
are capable of carrying nuclear warheads 3,000
kilometers.
While the Arrow is Israel's first line of
defense against Iranian missiles, air force
Patriot batteries - used during the first Gulf
War - serve as the country's backup interception
system against incoming missiles. Israel is
known to have two operational Arrow batteries -
one stationed at Palmahim to protect Tel Aviv
and the center of the country and the other at
Ein Shemer near Hadera.
The missile defense system, Blaier said, was
capable of firing several missiles at once to
intercept a number of incoming rockets. If a
missile carrying a chemical or biological
warhead was intercepted by the Arrow, the
payload, Blaier said, would disperse at a
high-enough altitude to prevent damage to
population centers below.
Last month, a high-ranking IDF officer told the
Post that Iranian nuclear missiles could be
intercepted and destroyed by Israel's Arrow 2
missile system. Improvements, the officer said,
had been recently made to the Arrow, which was
now able to detect incoming missiles carrying
multiple warheads and equipped with decoys meant
to fool the anti-missile system.
