G-8 Gives Iran A Deadline; Now What?
June
30, 2006
CBS News
Charles Wolfson
link to original article
Negotiations between Iran and the international
community are shifting into a higher gear.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her
fellow foreign ministers from the so-called G-8
industrialized nations agreed in Moscow this
week on a set of meetings over the next two
weeks which could result in finding out whether
Iran will abandon its nuclear weapons program.
On July 5, the European Union's Javier Solana
will meet with Ali Larijani, Iran's designated
point man on the nuclear issue. The G-8
ministers, disappointed they haven't received a
response to an offer of economic and
energy-related incentives said, in a statement
issued at the conclusion of their Moscow
meeting, "We expect to hear a clear and
substantive Iranian response to these proposals
at the planned meeting ... on 5 July."
According to senior State Department officials,
speaking to reporters on background, Rice
suggested a follow-up meeting of foreign
ministers on July 12 where the representatives
of the international community who made the
offer to Iran can assess Tehran's response.
The timing of these two meetings is meant to
find out whether Tehran will give up its nuclear
weapons ambitions before President Bush and
other G-8 leaders gather in mid-July in St.
Petersburg, Russia. Now the question is, will
Iran actually give a clear answer to the offer
on the table? It is hard to find an American
official who has been dealing with this issue
who will actually predict the Iranians will do
what is being demanded. Skepticism varies among
Washington's partners but the simple fact is no
one seems to have a real handle on what Iran
will decide. If it chooses to ignore the
incentive package offered, senior American
officials say the alternative is to return to
the path leading to sanctions from the U.N.
Security Council.
However, the real problem will be what to do if
Larijani, as many expect, comes to the July 5
meeting and offers to accept part of the package
but reject other parts. The Iranians have a
reputation as both good diplomats and good
bargainers. Even if they eventually sign on to a
deal, it's unlikely they'll do it on
Washington's timeline. Senior State Department
officials say they expect the Iran nuclear issue
to be a key part of the G-8 leaders' agenda,
just as it was this week for their foreign
ministers' meeting.
As of now, Rice and her top aides appear to be
holding their coalition partners together
despite Iranian efforts to drive a wedge between
them. Whether they can continue to do so will
depend on what Larijani has to say, and senior
officials candidly acknowledge they're not
exactly certain about the next diplomatic steps.
Iran
rejects G-8 call to respond to incentives
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200606300901.htm
United Nations,
June 30 (PTI): Iran has rejected the call given
by G-8 nations to respond by July 5 to the
package of incentives they have offered in
return for Teheran giving up its uranium
enrichment programme which they suspect is
geared towards making nuclear weapons.
Addressing a press
conference here yesterday, country's Foreign
Minister, Manouchehr Motaki, asserted that Iran
is "seriously and carefully" considering the
package and could respond only in August but
declined to specify any date.
G-8 Foreign
Ministers, meeting in Moscow, said they want
Iran to reply to the proposal at July 5 meeting
European Union Foreign Policy Chief, Javier
Solana, will have with Iranian nuclear
negotiator, Ali Larijani.
But Motaki said
Iran would use the meeting to seek
clarifications as there were ambiguities in the
package presented to Iran. There are some
questions which need to clarified, he said.
He said that Iran
is considering the proposal at various levels
and in committee and could give its considered
response only some time in August.
The G-8 ministers,
meeting ahead of mid-July summit in St.
Petersburg, expressed disappointment that Iran
had not responded to their positive proposals.
It's the Terrorism, Stupid
June
30, 2006
National Review Online
Michael Ledeen
link to original article
This
in from al-Reuters: Iraqi and U.S. troops
battled Shi’ite militiamen in a village
northeast of Baghdad on Thursday...Iraqi
security officials said IRANIAN FIGHTERS HAD
BEEN CAPTURED IN THE FIGHTING (emphasis
added)...The U.S. military had no immediate
comment.
In recent days there have been several stories
further documenting the Iranian role in the
terror war in Iraq, especially in the south,
where Tehran has been working assiduously for
several years to create a regional Islamic
republic. So the al-Reuters report should not be
a surprise.
But it gives us the opportunity to reflect on
three serious questions, none of which has been
sufficiently integrated into our national debate
on the war:
-
Who’s an
Iraqi?
-
Who’s a
Shiite?
-
What’s the
Iranian threat, anyway?
And then a short riff on the incredible silence
of the White House on life and death in Iraq.
Who’s an
Iraqi?
Al-Reuters speaks of “Iranian fighters” mixed in
with “Shi’ite militiamen.” But lots of Shiite
militiamen entered Iraq from Iran around the
time of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and many of
those had originally fled Iraq in the early
1980s to join Iranian forces in the war against
Saddam. We’re talking big numbers here. Millions
of Iraqi Shiites went to Iran, and tens of
thousands of them (and, later, their children)
were trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards
Corps. They are ideal for infiltration--into
Shiite or Sunni militias--since they speak
Arabic with an Iraqi accent.
I have been saying for years now that those who
have been insisting that the “insurrection” is
primarily an internal, Iraqi phenomenon, have
missed this basic analytical conundrum: are
those people Iraqis or Iranians? Should we call
them “Iranian agents” (or as al-Reuters prefers,
“Iranian fighters”)? Or should we call them
Iraqis who spent time in Iran? Who are they?
The important thing is that they are working for
Iran; their ultimate national allegiance is
irrelevant in terms of understanding the nature
of the terror war. They respond to the terror
masters in Tehran.
What seems to be happening is that the Iraqis
are not playing along with the American
intelligence game of blaming “Baathists” for
most of the terrorism. The Iraqis see Iranians
and Iranian agents all over their country, and
they don’t like it. They have been joined by
British intelligence and military officers, who
know who’s killing their men in and around
Basra, and have been leaking like crazy to the
British press, from the
Telegraph
to the
Guardian. You could publish a
substantial pamphlet of press clippings on this
theme.
Who’s a
Shiite?
The single greatest distortion of reality in the
war is that old chestnut about the profound
hatred and total incompatibility between Sunnis
and Shiites. The truth is that Sunnis and
Shiites happily cooperate when it comes to
killing Americans, Europeans, Jews, Christians,
Suffis, Bahais, and anyone else who can be
defined as an infidel and/or crusader. This has
been going on for a very long time. In the early
Seventies, for example, the (Shiite)
Revolutionary Guards were trained in Lebanon by
the (Sunni) Fatah of Yasser Arafat.
Obsessed by this great distortion, our analysts
have lost sight of the profound internal war
under way within Shiite Islam, the two
contending forces being the Najaf (Iraqi,
traditional) and the Qom (Iranian, heretical,
theocratic) versions. Tehran fears ideological
enemies inspired either by democracy or by
Ayatollah Sistani’s (Najaf) view of the world,
which is that civil society should be governed
by politicians, not mullahs.
Thus it is a mistake to assume--as it is so
often--that Shiites in Iraq are automatically
pro-Iranian. No matter how many times smart
people such as Reuel Gerecht detail the
intra-Shiite civil war, it just goes in one ear
and out the other of the intelligence community
and the policymakers.
What's
the Iranian Threat?
The Iranian threat is both religious and
murderous. Yes, they want to spread their
doctrine, they do indeed want to create
(Qom-version) Islamic republics all over the
world, but that can come later. The main mission
is to drive us out of the Middle East, above all
from their eastern (Afghanistan) and western
(Iraq) borders. The prime instrument for this
mission is terrorism, and they do not care at
all about the ethos of the terrorists. Indeed,
as I reported some months back, Supreme Leader
Ali Khamenei told his closest advisers late last
year that Iran now controlled all the major
terror groups, religious or Marxist, Sunni or
Shiite.
We are wrongly focused on the Iranian nuclear
threat, which is obviously worth worrying about,
but this excessively narrow focus has distracted
us from the main threat, which is terrorism. The
mullahs are not going to nuke our fighters in
Iraq; they are going to kill as many as they can
on the ground with IEDs, suicide terrorists, and
assassins. And we have given them a free hand in
this murderous campaign instead of unleashing
political war against them in their own country.
We hear lots of talk from the president and the
secretary of state, but there is no sign of the
sort of aggressive support we should be giving
to the forces of freedom inside Iran.
The Riff
Al-Reuters blandly notes that there is as yet no
comment from the American military about the
arrests of the “Iranian fighters.” Why is that?
It reminds me of the eloquent silence from the
Intelligence Community about the discovery of
hundreds of WMDs in Iraq, which is an ongoing
process. In both cases there is a policy
explanation for the silence: confirmation of
such facts would demand that we change the
context of our policy debate. There are indeed
WMDs, and there are likely many others. The
intelligence services of half the world were NOT
wrong in their assessment of Saddam, and you
cannot diss the American enterprise by chanting
“Bush lied.” And, most importantly--to finish
with a flourish from al-Reuters--we are involved
in a regional war that cannot be won by playing
defense in Iraq alone.
Faster, please.
Michael
Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most
recently the author of The War Against the
Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the
Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise
Institute.
Iranian Fighters Captured as US, Iraqi Forces
Clash with Shi'ite Militia
June
29, 2006
Reuters
Excite News
link to original article
BAQUBA, Iraq -- Iraqi and U.S. troops battled
Shi'ite militiamen in a village northeast of
Baghdad on Thursday, and witnesses and police
said U.S. helicopters bombed orchards to flush
out gunmen hiding there. Iraqi security
officials said Iranian fighters had been
captured in the fighting, in which a sniper shot
dead the commander of an Iraqi quick reaction
force and two of his men. They did not say how
the Iranians had been identified.
A civilian was also killed and five people were
wounded in the clashes, they said.
The U.S. military had no immediate comment.
Police said the fighting was taking place in the
predominantly Shi'ite village of Khairnabat,
three km (two miles) north of Baquba, capital of
Diyala province. Local residents reported
hearing shooting and explosions.
A bomb in the town's main market killed 18
people on Monday. On Wednesday, Shi'ite
militiamen fired mortars at a Sunni mosque in
nearby Miqdadiya, destroying the building and 20
shops.
Police said the mosque attack and other attacks
on Sunnis in Khairnabat itself persuaded Sunnis
that it would be safer to leave the village. But
as a convoy of vehicles was leaving on Thursday,
"gunmen surrounded them and started shooting," a
captain in Diyala's police intelligence unit
told Reuters.
Baquba's quick reaction force, an Interior
Ministry unit, responded and clashed with the
fighters, the captain said. Iraqi and U.S.
reinforcements then arrived and sealed off the
village.
Police and witnesses said U.S. helicopters had
bombed orchards where militiamen were believed
to be hiding under the cover of date palms.
Police said bombing continued as night fell.
"IRANIAN PRISONERS"
The captain and other Interior Ministry sources
said the commander of the quick reaction force,
Colonel Sami Hussein, and two of his men were
killed by a sniper.
No other casualties were reported from the
clashes and police said it was not clear how
many civilians had been killed or wounded in the
initial shooting at the convoy. The wounded were
taken to a hospital in Baquba.
"We captured a number of militants and were
surprised to see that some of them were Iranian
fighters," the police intelligence captain said.
An Interior Ministry official, who did not want
to be named, also said Iranian gunmen had been
captured. Baquba lies 90 km (60 miles) from the
Iranian border.
The United States and Britain have accused
Shi'ite Iran of meddling in Iraq's affairs and
providing military assistance to Iraq's
pro-government Shi'ite militias. However, there
have been few instances of Iranians actually
being captured inside Iraq.
Some Iraqis, particularly Sunnis, are quick to
label Shi'ite fighters as Iranian agents. And
among the militants are Iraqis who grew up in
refugee camps in Iran, speak Iranian-accented
Arabic and, in some cases, carry Iranian
identity papers.
Police have said Shi'ite fighters in the area
belong to the Mehdi Army of radical,
Iranian-backed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Sadr's
movement, which staged two uprisings against
occupying troops in 2004, denies being behind
sectarian violence.
Diyala, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi was killed earlier this month, has
seen much sectarian violence among its diverse
population. A number of Shi'ite shrines were
destroyed in attacks there six weeks ago.
Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has made
controlling Shi'ite militia groups, as well as
Sunni insurgents, a goal of a national
reconciliation plan unveiled on Sunday.
Many analysts are skeptical of the feasibility
of disarming large paramilitary groups linked to
the most powerful political parties. Without
that, however, persuading the Sunni minority to
lay down their arms will also be difficult.
Sunni political leaders dismissed on Thursday
reports of significant peace moves from
insurgents since Maliki's speech in parliament.
Several politicians and figures who claim to
speak for militant groups said the plan was
short on guarantees about curbing Shi'ite
guerrillas and on the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
(Additional reporting by Ross Colvin, Mohammed
al-Ramahi, Alastair Macdonald, Mussab
Al-Khairalla, Ibon Villelabeitia and Hiba Moussa
in Baghdad)
U.S.
Rebuffs Iranian Calls for Time on Nuclear Reply
June
30, 2006
Reuters
Mark John
link to original article
BRUSSELS
-- The United States rejected on Friday Iranian
calls for more time to study an offer of
incentives to curb its nuclear activities,
insisting Tehran must respond by a G8 deadline
next week.
The Group of Eight industrialised nations told
Iran on Thursday they wanted a "clear and
substantive response" on July 5 to an offer of
incentives to stop enriching uranium, but two
Iranian officials immediately declared more time
was needed.
Speaking to reporters during a trip to Brussels,
U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns
insisted the offer was "very straightforward"
and Iran's chief negotiator Ali Larijani should
respond as requested by next Wednesday.
"There will be a meeting here in this city next
week, where we expect and hope that Larijani
will give us an answer ... This is not a
complicated offer," Burns said.
"It is now high time, frankly, that we had a
response from the Iranian government ... We
always said this was a process of weeks not
months," he told a news briefing.
Larijani is due to meet European Union foreign
policy chief Javier Solana on Wednesday to
discuss the package of trade, technology and
other incentives.
In Tehran, influential cleric Ahmad Khatami told
worshippers at Friday Prayers that Iran would
not discuss "its obvious right to nuclear
technology". But Burns said Western powers were
waiting for a formal reply from Larijani.
"We are waiting for the authoritative channel,
which is the Larijani channel to Solana," he
said.
G8 foreign ministers meeting in Moscow on
Thursday did not say where a negative reply from
Iran would lead.
G8 SUMMIT
The five permanent members of the U.N. Security
Council, plus Germany, are to discuss Iran's
reaction at a July 12 meeting and Burns said
major powers would look to take "essential
decisions" at the G8 summit in St Petersburg,
Russia, on July 15.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said
on Thursday that Tehran would respond in August
and not before to the incentives offer.
"Such a response will be in August. I didn't say
early August or mid-August," he told a news
conference in New York, adding that "questions
and ambiguities" in the proposal needed to be
cleared up.
Iran had previously said it would respond by
August 22.
The United States has accused Iran of having a
secret programme to build nuclear weapons. Iran
says it wants only to enrich uranium to a level
suitable for use in generating electricity.
Burns reiterated that the precondition for Iran
receiving any support in building a civilian
nuclear programme was that it stops enriching
uranium -- something Iran, the world's fourth
largest oil exporter, has refused to do so far.
Russia
Says Ukraine Sold Banned Missiles to Iran
June
30, 2006
RIA Novosti
en.rian.ru
link to original article
MOSCOW -- A Ukrainian firm supplied China and
Iran with six long-range cruise missile in
2000-2001, Russia's defense minister said
Friday. Sergei Ivanov, who is also a deputy
prime minister, said Ukraine's Progress firm had
supplied six Soviet Kh-55 Granat missiles (NATO
reporting name AS-15 Kent) with nuclear capacity
to China and another six missiles to Iran,
adding that the authorities had been informed
and an investigation started.
"This is the grossest violation of the control
regime over missile technologies," Ivanov said.
Ivanov said the deal had been conducted via a
Cyprus-based company. He said the name of the
company and the value of the deal were known,
but declined to elaborate further.
Ivanov said it was the sole violation of the
non-proliferation regime in the post-Soviet
Commonwealth of Independent States.
"Russia has been working to coordinate efforts
in the non-proliferation sphere with its CIS
partners and within the CSTO [the regional
Collective Security Treaty Organization]," the
minister said.
Ministers Warned of Terrorism Threat From Iran
June
29, 2006
Guardian
Press Association
link to original article
The
intelligence agencies have warned ministers that
Iran could launch terrorist attacks against
British targets if the row over its
controversial nuclear programme escalates, it
was disclosed today.
The parliamentary intelligence and security
committee - which oversees the work of the
agencies - said the possibility of Iranian
state-sponsored terrorism was now considered one
of the main threats facing the UK.
"There is increasing international tension over
Iran's nuclear programme and backing of groups
such as Lebanese Hezbollah," the committee said
in its annual report.
"There is a possibility of an increased threat
to UK interests from Iranian state-sponsored
terrorism should the diplomatic situation
deteriorate."
Ministers have previously claimed that
sophisticated roadside bombs used in a series of
deadly attacks on British troops in Iraq have
been supplied through Iran, although they have
not blamed the regime directly.
The committee - which is made up of senior MPs
and peers - took evidence from the heads of MI6,
MI5, GCHQ and the defence intelligence staff in
drawing up its report.
It said that Britain continued to face a
"serious and sustained threat" from
international terrorism - most significantly
from al Qaida and associated networks.
Other security threats included the activities
of dissident groups in Northern Ireland - which
continued to pose a threat in the province and
on the British mainland - and the international
spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Asked about the perceived threat from Iran, Tony
Blair's official spokesman said: "I don't want
to give a piecemeal response to the ISC report.
I think it's better we respond in terms of the
government as a whole."
He said the cabinet this morning, at its regular
weekly meeting, "reviewed the whole
counter-terrorism strategy and approach but, in
terms of the particular aspects of the ISC
report, I think it's better we give our
collective response".
That would probably be in about six months'
time, added the spokesman.
He went on: "The terrorism threat remains very
active and very real. Our commitment is that, if
there is a specific threat the public need to
know about, then we will tell them."
The report also revealed that MI5, the security
service, was expanding so rapidly in order to
meet the threat of terrorism in the UK that it
had outgrown its London headquarters building.
Thames House at Westminster is expected to have
exhausted its capacity by October. The committee
said another building had been found to provide
additional accommodation - but its identity was
censored out on security grounds.
MI5 staff numbers are now expected to grow by
over 50% over the next three years, with over
half its resources now devoted to
counter-terrorism.
The committee welcomed the expansion but warned
that the risks involved in taking on large
numbers of inexperienced staff would have to be
carefully managed.
"This growth carries a series of risks that the
service will need to manage over the next few
years, including the need to maintain standards
in operational capability and service to
customers in spite of the increased proportion
of new and inexperienced staff," it said.
It said that the expansion had been accompanied
by an acceleration of MI5's regionalisation
programme in the wake of the July 7 bombings,
with the opening of a number of regional
stations around the country.
The committee said that with the overall budget
for the intelligence agencies due to rise to
more than £1.5bn, it was essential to have
proper financial controls in place.
"The significant additional funding made
available since 9/11 has generally been accepted
as essential for building capacity across the
intelligence community to counter threats from
international terrorism and to provide an
enhanced standard of coverage and assurance," it
said.
"Given that this represents an unprecedented
level of new funding for the agencies, it is
important, the committees view, that mechanisms
are in place and functioning to ensure that
money is well spent, appropriately controlled
and monitored, and serves as a driver for
increased efficiency."
Iran
May Be Able to Build a Nuclear Weapon by 2009
June
28, 2006
Bloomberg
Jonathan Tirone
link to original article
Iran
may be able to design and arm a nuclear weapon
by 2009, at least a year earlier than previous
estimates, according to a former United Nations
inspector.
To do so, Iran would have needed to start
construction this year on a facility able to
produce weapons-grade uranium, physicist David
Albright, who inspected nuclear sites in
neighboring Iraq, wrote in the July-August
edition of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
Albright based his scenario on interviews and
scientific data. Iran insists it intends only to
enrich uranium for use in a power plant.
The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency in
Vienna said June 8 that it can't be sure that
Iran isn't hiding a nuclear- weapons program.
Iran concealed nuclear work from IAEA inspectors
for 18 years, until 2003. The U.S. and European
Union are offering Iran incentives to stop
enriching uranium.
The three years that Iran needs to build a bomb
means there's enough time for other nations ``to
pursue aggressive diplomatic options'' to
persuade the Islamic Republic to end the
program, Albright wrote. The estimate reinforces
that Iran ``must forswear'' any enrichment
capability, according to the scientist.
After construction and testing of a secret
facility, Iran could use as few as 1,500
centrifuges to produce 28 kilograms (62 pounds)
of highly enriched uranium per year, according
to Albright. A weapon requires at least 20
kilograms of the metal.
Technical
Difficulties
Technical difficulties such as malfunctioning
centrifuges used in the enrichment process
probably will hamper Iran's ability to construct
a nuclear weapon until after 2009, he wrote in
the Chicago-based magazine. Albright heads the
Institute for Science and International Security
in Washington.
Iran could also use its Natanz production
facility for a bomb if technicians decide to
reconfigure the plant's centrifuges to make
highly enriched uranium, Albright said. The
Natanz facility, under IAEA supervision, was
designed to make low- enriched uranium suitable
for power plants.
The U.S. government's Intelligence Review
estimated that Iran is about 10 years away from
producing the main ingredient for a nuclear
weapon, the Washington Post said on Aug. 2,
citing unidentified people familiar with the
report. Iran may be able to produce a nuclear
bomb by 2010, the London-based International
Institute of Strategic Studies estimated on May
24.
The U.S. suspects the Iranian drive to produce
enriched uranium is a precursor to building a
weapon, in contravention of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a
signatory. Iran says the fuel is needed for
electricity generation.
Incentives
Iran began a new round of enrichment June 6, the
day the EU- proposed incentives were delivered
in Tehran, the IAEA said.
The EU's incentive plan was agreed on June 1 by
diplomats from the five permanent members of the
UN Security Council -- the U.S., China, Russia,
the U.K. and France -- as well as by Germany.
Iran may take up to two months before replying
to the proposal, Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad said June 21. That is an ``awful
long time'' to respond, U.S. President George W.
Bush said that day, following a meeting with EU
leaders.
Bush on June 19 threatened ``actions'' by the UN
Security Council should Iran reject the EU-led
offer.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Jonathan Tirone in Vienna at
jtirone@bloomberg.net.
Spelling Zionism in Tehran
June
30, 2006
American Jewish Committee
Reza Bayegan
http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2006&m=06&d=30&a=6
Complete content of 'Antisemitism "Made in Iran"
The International Dimensions of Al Quds Day', in
which Reza Bayegan's article appeared: in PDF
format
In the late 1990s, walking one day in a poor
district of southern Tehran, I noticed a slogan
on a tumbledown wall in Persian script: "Marg
bar Zionism” or "Death to Zionism." There is of
course nothing unusual in seeing such a slogan
on the wall of the capital of the Islamic
Republic. What attracted my attention however
was that the word Zionism was misspelled. The
inescapable irony here is that anti-Israeli
sentiments in Iran go hand in hand with poor
education and underdevelopment.
The animosity of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini,
the leader of the Islamic revolution, towards
Israel was part and parcel of his hatred of what
the Pahlavi dynasty stood for, that is
modernization and advancement. Initially he did
not oppose the democratic shortcomings of the
political system under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi,
but did attack the Shah's plans of equal
opportunity for women, land reform and also
Iran's close relationship with Israel, a country
he used to refer to as "a cancerous tumor." By
declaring the last Friday of Ramadan as "Al Quds
Day," he also aimed to stifle unique Iranian
nationalistic values and bring Iranians—who had
no common aspirations with Arabs—under the broad
umbrella of the Islamic "Omah" or nation. Proud
of their rich culture and language, for the past
1,400 years Iranians have vigorously resisted
assimilation into the larger Arab-Islamic
community.
Located in a turbulent region and threatened by
the encroachment of hostile cultures, both Iran
and Israel have many areas of common interest.
For historical, geographic and political
reasons, Iran's most natural ally in the whole
Middle East is the state of Israel. Beyond
Israel, Iran holds the world's oldest Jewish
community. Even after the mass migration of Jews
from Iran after the Islamic Revolution, Iran is
still home to the largest Jewish population in
any Islamic country. Iranian Jews who have
migrated to Israel have prospered and hold key
positions in the government. Moshe Katsav, the
President of Israel, was born in the Iranian
city of Yazd, and Shaul Mofaz, Israel's Minister
of Defense, was born in Tehran. One proof of the
irrepressible strength and deep roots of the
Jews within Iranian society is that the chairman
of Iran's Jewish Council, Haroun
Yashayaei—albeit under extreme political
pressure—feels confident enough to take to task
president Mahmud Ahmadinejad for saying the
Holocaust was a myth, and calls him ignorant and
politically prejudiced.16
Yet in spite of all these strong ties and
affinities between the two nations, the Israeli
government and Iranian opposition so far have
not been able to form a fruitful alliance. One
important factor contributing to this failure is
a lingering hostility towards Israel harbored by
some backward forces within the Iranian
opposition.
Many members of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq
Organization (MKO), who conducted a violent
fight against the Shah in the years leading to
the Islamic Revolution and now are bitterly
opposed to the rulers of the Islamic Republic,
were trained in Libya and Lebanon and were
brothers in arms with the PLO and other
anti-Israel terrorist organizations. Their
ideology, an amalgamation of fanatical Islam and
Marxism—regardless of tactical shifts and
strategic alliances that they are capable of
making from time to time—is inimical to Israel
and the democratic values of modern Western
civilization.17 The Mujahideen's
classmates in terrorist training camps of the
PLO and PFLP were the Marxist members of Iranian
People's Fedayeen Guerrillas. Up to this day
they pride themselves in having had the
opportunity to fight the "Zionist
enemy"alongside their Palestinian brothers.18
An opposition to the monopoly of the hardliners
has emerged in the past decade from within the
Iranian ruling establishment in the form of the
reform movement. The spiritual leader of this
movement is Mohammad Khatami, the former
president. This political force that at one
point seemed quite promising turned out to be a
flash in the pan. In the June 2005
pseudo-democratic presidential election, people
voted for Ahmadinejad not because they knew him
or trusted him, but because they were totally
disgusted with the hypocrisy and incompetence of
Khatami and his political descendents. The
attitude of the reformers towards Israel is not
very different from that of the hardliners.
In a recent interview reprinted by Kayhan London
(23 February), Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri,
Iran's most prominent dissident cleric and a
darling to many reformers, sharply criticized
the Islamic Republic and Mahmud Ahmadinejad on
the regime's human rights record and suppression
of freedom of speech, but went on to say that he
agrees with Ahmadinejad's stance on the
Holocaust. "I have expressed these viewpoints
myself many years ago. Even if we assume that
the Nazis slaughtered the Jews, why should
Palestinians pay the price? The state of Israel
was created by brute force and is illegitimate."
Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, the so-called moderate
former president, has expressed similar views.
What is obvious is that the future of Iranian
politics does notbbelong to the so-called
reformist movement. Reformists lack the
credibility to galvanize public opinion for
major democratic change or offer any cogent plan
for a modern pluralistic society.
Conversely, many enlightened members of the
Iranian opposition, whose attitude represents
the aspirations of the modern, forward-looking
portion of the Iranian population, show no
hesitation in categorically condemning the
clerical regime's antisemitic stance. Fighting
to reclaim their homeland as a country capable
of meeting the challenges of the 21st century,
they are well aware of the great potential for
future cooperation with Israel as the most
progressive and democratic country in the
region.
In preparation to this article, I managed to ask
Dariush Homayoun—the veteran journalist and
politician who plays a key role in the most
influential Iranian party in exile, The
Constitutional Party of Iran19 —
about Ahmadinejad's wild declarations on wiping
out the state of Israel. He responded by saying:
Once another mad demagogue declared his ‚final
solution' and got on with most of his plan. This
shows that the world should not shrug off IRI's
president as just propaganda for receptive Arab
masses. He and his regime would wipe out Israel
if they could. It also should make the world
more determined to prevent the Islamic Regime
from acquiring atomic weapons. Ahmadinejad, by
denying the Holocaust, is preparing the ground
for something of his own. The Iranian people, as
the longest standing friends of Israel, are
outraged by such criminal statements.
In an article called "Revealing Errors,"20
Abbas Milani, the Iranian scholar and director
of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford
University, provides ample evidence to support
his argument that throughout history Iranians
spared no efforts to protect the Jews and
particularly assisted them in fleeing from Nazi
persecution. Strongly condemning antisemitic
statements made by Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Mr.
Milani concludes his article by saying that
although the nation has been taken hostage by a
cruel dictatorship, Iranians should not be made
responsible for the conduct of their hostage
takers.
In an article published in Kayhan London (23
February 2006), Abdolkarim Lahidji, an Iranian
human rights lawyer who runs the Paris-based
Iranian League for Human Rights,21
refers to the Islamic regime's antisemitism as
part of the hate campaign of the clerical regime
against everyone and everything that does not
fit within its narrow-minded ideology and world
view.
One of the strong voices amongst the Iranian
opposition speaking for modernity, democracy and
universal values of human rights is that of Reza
Pahlavi, the son of the late Shah of Iran.22
He advocates a total separation of religion and
government and a political system that considers
no one as a second-class citizen. In an
interview with Fox News in January 2006, Reza
Pahlavi referred to Ahmadinejad's comments as
"disgraceful" and "abhorrent" to the vast
majority of the Iranian people. It is quite
significant that in the same interview Reza
Pahlavi goes on to say that "what Iranians
desire is nothing less than modernity, freedom
and economic opportunity."23
An Iran that is economically prosperous and
politically democratic would no longer be a
natural breeding ground for fascism and
fanaticism. Through a campaign of hate-mongering
and xenophobia, the regime intends to deflect
attention from its own decadence and
incompetence. The majority of Iranians however
are intelligent enough not to swallow what the
state–controlled media is telling them, and in
spite of many restrictions, turn to the Internet
and to the Farsi service of Radio Israel and
other international media for reliable
information.
Like the rest of the world, Iran is not immune
to the disease of antisemitism. But today
antisemitism as well as anti-Americanism, are
state policy on the part of the clerical
government. Falsification, fear and fanaticism
are essential to the survival of the Islamic
Republic. To bring freedom to Iran, one needs to
make a greater effort to reach the ears and
intellect of its citizens and prepare them for
the final moment when they can cast aside the
manacles of backwardness and tyranny. On that
day of enlightenment, Zionism will not be a
misspelled ugly word on a tumbledown wall in a
depressed district in Tehran, but understood in
all its dimensions by a prosperous nation that
begrudges a prosperous homeland for no other
nation and generously embraces a pluralistic and
peaceful world.
16 BBC News, Feb. 11, 2006, Iran Jews express
Holocaust shock:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4705246.stm
17
http://www.mojahedin.org/ The MEK - also
known as People´s Modjaheddin -
rightfully is on the US and EU list of terrorist
organizations.
18
www.fadai.org/ and www.geocities.com/~fedaian/
19
www.irancpisd.com/
20
www.iranian.com/AbbasMilani/2006/February/Black/index.html
21
www.ldh-france.org/
22
www.rezapahlavi.org/
23
www.rezapahlavi.org/audiovideo/fox10706.html
Azerbaijanis in Iran prevented to march to Bazz
tower
30 Jun. 2006
http://en.apa.az/print.php?id=11630
“Military posts have been organized in the exit
of the city in Iran where Azerbaijanis live, to
prevent their march to Bazz tower. In 150 km
distance of the tower of Kaleybar city,
unofficial emergency case has been established.”
March participant from Iran, Ali Goshachayli has
told APA about it.
“People are examined in the posts, their travel
place identified, stamped permission paper is
given with note of the direction place”, Ali
Goshachayli informed. According to him, some
days ago special organs of Iran implemented
prophylactic measures to prevent march to the
tower. Today also march to the tower has been
prevented, gathering of 10-15 people is
prevented. Ali Goshachayli stated that special
service organs take under control the suspected
Azerbaijanis and they listen to their phone
calls, the people who inform about the situation
in Iran, are coordinated with police./APA/
Cleric
Vows Iran Will Never Talk With U.S. on Nuclear
Program
By HELENE COOPER and JOHN O'NEIL
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/world/middleeast/30cnd-iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
A senior Iranian
cleric vowed today that his country would never
talk with the United States over Tehran's
nuclear program, as an American official
underscored the need for
Iran to respond next Wednesday to a package
of incentives offered by major powers in
exchange for a suspension of uranium enrichment.
The pronouncement
by the cleric, Ahmad Khatami, at Friday prayers
in Tehran today marked a 180-degree shift from a
month ago, when Iran's president,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wrote to President Bush
calling for the opening of a dialogue.
In fact, European
leaders had pressed for years for the United
States to join earlier rounds of talks with
Iran, and when the Bush administration decided
in late May to offer to join any new
discussions, the move was seen as a major
concession and a prime inducement for Tehran.
On Tuesday,
however, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei, said he saw "no use" in
talking with the United States.
And today, Mr.
Khatami went further, declaring that "with
regards to our nuclear case, we have nothing to
do with the U.S. and principally, our officials
will have no talks with the U.S.," according to
the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.
"Who is the U.S.,
that pokes its nose into Iran's nuclear
affairs?" he asked. "Should anybody that has
power and bullies get to be present on all
scenes?"
Mr. Khatami said
that Iran was willing to talk with European
leaders if they recognized Iran's right to
pursue nuclear power.
"If Europeans
really intend to solve the issue, they should
recognize our absolute rights," he said. "Then,
one can sit down at the table to negotiate the
executive methods, the international treaties as
well as controls and supervision."
In Brussels today,
Undersecretary of State Nicholas R. Burns
rejected the idea of giving Tehran any more
time, beyond a meeting scheduled for July 5
between Iranian officials and the
European Union's foreign minister,
Javier Solana.
Diplomats from the
world's eight major industrial nations declared
at a meeting in Moscow on Thursday that they
expected to receive a "clear and substantive"
response from Iran by then.
The statement from
the foreign ministers of the
Group of 8 countries was the first reference
to an explicit deadline for Iran to respond
formally. "We are disappointed in the absence of
an official Iranian response to this positive
proposal," their statement said.
It is unclear,
however, whether Iran will meet the deadline.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that his
government will not respond until late August, a
position underscored by Iran's foreign minister,
Manoucher Mottaki, on Thursday.
After receiving
Iran's response, foreign ministers from the six
major powers that made the nuclear offer — five
members of the Group of 8, Russia, Britain,
France, Germany and the United States, plus
China — will meet on July 12 somewhere in
Europe, perhaps in Paris. They are to consider
whether the Iranian response can lead to an
agreement, and whether to seek economic
sanctions against Iran, according to a senior
Bush administration official who spoke on the
condition of anonymity so as not to interfere
with the diplomatic process.
A spokesman for
the Chinese foreign ministry a issued a
statement on Thursday echoing that of the Group
of 8 and calling on Iran to respond "as soon as
possible," without mentioning a date.
The leaders of the
Group of 8 countries — the other three are
Canada, Italy and Japan — will meet in St.
Petersburg, Russia, on July 15. The group's
meetings are usually rather staid, ending with
bland communiqués and news conferences where all
parties pretend they are one big, happy family.
Thursday's session was different.
Officials forgot
to turn off the audio feed from the luncheon
meeting, so reporters were able to hear parts of
the closed discussion, including bickering
between the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V.
Lavrov, and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, often over arcane points
in the statement.
At one point, the
two squabbled about Russia's desire to include
wording about "urgent methods" to "provide
security for diplomats" in light of the killing
of five Russian Embassy staff members in Iraq.
Ms. Rice balked,
saying that such wording would imply that urgent
measures were not already being taken to protect
Iraqis and American soldiers.
"You know, on a
fairly daily basis we lose soldiers, and I think
it would be offensive to suggest that these
efforts are not being made," she said.
Mr. Lavrov replied
that the sentence was not intended as criticism.
"I don't believe security is fine in Iraq, and I
don't believe in particular that security at
foreign missions is O.K.," he said. "If you feel
uncomfortable about it, maybe we should make it
shorter."
Eventually they
agreed that the text would simply condemn the
killing of the Russians and add that "this
tragic event underlines the importance of
improving security for all in Iraq."
No sooner was that
compromise reached, than Ms. Rice and Mr. Lavrov
were at odds again, this time over Mr. Lavrov's
proposal that the statement include something
about the need for the rest of the world to be
more involved in the Iraqi political process.
Ms. Rice immediately took exception.
"To say the
international community is to be more involved
in the political process seems to me rather odd,
given that they have a democratic elective
process," she said.
"I did not suggest
this," Mr. Lavrov replied. "What I did say was
not involvement in the political process but the
involvement of the international community in
support of the political process."
"What does that
mean?" Ms. Rice asked.
There was a long
pause. Then, from Mr. Lavrov: "I think you
understand."
Ms. Rice: "No, I
don't."
The sparring
continued after the lunch and into a news
conference. "Condoleezza Rice said that she
first came to the Soviet Union in 1979 and she
has noticed — seen a change in the country," Mr.
Lavrov piped up, in answer to an unrelated
question from a journalist. "I also first
visited the U.S.A. in 1979, and I have been
taking note of changes, many of which we strive
to discuss with our American counterparts."
Ms. Rice fumed for
a few minutes while the discussion went on to
other matters. The next time she was asked a
question — about whether she thought Russia had
resorted to energy blackmail against Europe, she
detoured. "Sergey, when did you go and where did
you go in the United States in 1979, that you
saw so much change?" she asked.
"New York," Mr.
Lavrov replied.
"Oh, New York,"
Ms. Rice repeated, smirking. "Now I understand."
Since Iran
received the nuclear proposal, Iranian officials
have continued to say that Iran will never give
up its right to pursue nuclear enrichment, but
they have also described the proposal as
"positive."
What happens after
the Iranians do respond remains unclear. Russia
and China have resisted the idea of hauling Iran
before the
United Nations Security Council for
sanctions, a position pushed by the United
States and Britain, with France and Germany
somewhere in between.
In order to get
Moscow on board, the United States agreed to not
include mention of economic sanctions in the
written part of the incentives package offered
to Iran.
Bush officials
continue to express optimism that if Iran turns
down the package, Russia will sign on to
sanctions, but the Russians continue to send
mixed signals.
Speaking to
foreign diplomats on Tuesday, President
Vladimir V. Putin said, "I repeat once again
that we have no intention of joining in any
kinds of ultimatums that only drive the
situation into a dead end and deal a blow to the
U.N. Security Council's authority."
At the meeting on
Thursday, Russian officials pointedly put copies
of the text of that speech on the table for
journalists.
Helene Cooper reported from Moscow for this
article, and John O'Neil reported from New York.
An Iranian
mullah on Friday ruled out any negotiation
with the US on Iran's peaceful nuclear program.
"With regards to our nuclear case, we have
nothing to do with the US and principally, our
officials will have no talks with the US," said
substitute Friday gathering leader of Tehran
mullah Ahmad Khatami in his second Friday
gathering rant.
Mullah questioned the US qualification for
involvement in the nuclear talks.
"Who the US is that pokes its nose into Iran's
nuclear affairs? What is its position? Should
anybody, that has power and bullies, get present
on all scenes?"
mullah said Iran will not definitely hold
talks on its absolute rights. "Certainly, our
officials will not sit on the table to negotiate
the absolute rights."
He went on to say, "If Europeans really intend
to solve the issue, they should recognise our
absolute rights; then, one can sit on the table
to negotiate the executive methods, the
international treaties as well as controls and
supervision."
Mullah said Iran is indebted its success in
nuclear diplomacy and failure of the US
diplomacy to Supreme Leader of
Islamic Infamy
mullah Ali Khamenei.
"We have not forgotten when they were constantly
threatening to send Iran's case to the UN
Security Council, keeping the UN Security
Council swinging over us alike Damocles Sword
and turning it into a bogey.
"They referred the case to the UN Security
Council and saw nothing happened; our officials
and people did not lose their spirits and
therefore, they came to the conclusion that they
cannot speak to the Iranian people with the
language of force.
Russia denies transfer of missile technology to
Iran
Xinhua
http://english.people.com.cn/200607/01/eng20060701_278930.html
There has never
been an agreement on the transfer of
Russian missile technology to
Iran, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said on
Friday.
"In the state
area, there was not and there is not any
cooperation with Iran in the sphere of missile
technology," Ivanov said at a news conference
dedicated to the presentation of the White Book
on nonproliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.
"Over the past
five to six years, the problems of missile
technology leaks have been always discussed in
our dialogue with the
United States. Russia has repeatedly said
that our stance is crystal clear," Ivanov said.
The sole example
of Russia's cooperation with Iran in the nuclear
sphere is the construction of a nuclear power
plant in Bushehr, Ivanov said.
"But this does not
mean the transfer of technology. All spent fuel
to the last gram will be moved to Russia," he
said.
Ivanov said that
the United States "has understood the
groundlessness of such accusations addressed to
Russia; just for this reason, it has lifted a
number of restrictions in relation to Roskosmos
(the Russian Federal Space Agency)."
Ivanov commented
on a recent report by The Washington Post
alleging that Iranian missile specialists had
been trained at Russia's Samara Aerospace
University.
"We have checked
this information just in case and made sure that
this is a canard," he said.
According to
Ivanov, all possible channels of sensitive
technology leaks from Russia have been shut
down.
"Serious work is
being carried out in Russia to tighten the
control of exporting sensitive technology,"
Ivanov said, "we have begun this work from zero
and achieved certain results. Rigid registration
and control of nuclear weapons and hazardous
materials has been established."
"All possible
channels of leaks of sensitive materials from
the territory of Russia are shut down reliably
enough. If attempts to obtain them occur, they
are stopped by competent organizations," he
added.
'Ukraine supplied long-range cruise missiles to
China, Iran'
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200607010311.htm
Moscow,
July 1. (PTI): Ukraine had supplied 12
long-range nuclear capable cruise missiles to
China and Iran in violation of missile control
regime, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov
claimed today.
The Ukrainian
company 'Progressv, a subsidiary of official
arms exporting agency 'Ukrspetsexport', supplied
China and Iran each with six nuclear-capable
long-range Soviet Kh-55 Granat cruise missiles
(NATO reporting name AS-15 Kent) in 2000-2001,
Ivanov was quoted as saying by Interfax.
"This is the
grossest violation of the Missile Technology
Control Regime (MTCR)," Ivanov said adding that
the Ukrainian authorities had been informed and
an investigation started.
Ivanov claimed the
deal had been conducted via a Cyprus-based
company. He said the name of the company and the
value of the deal were known, but declined to
elaborate further.
Ivanov said it was
the sole violation of the non-proliferation
regime in the post-Soviet Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS).
"Russia has been
working to coordinate efforts in the
non-proliferation sphere with its CIS partners
and within the CSTO (the regional Collective
Security Treaty Organisation)," Ivanov said and
underscored that Russia has put in place all the
non-proliferation measures.
