Iran sees atomic deal with EU

SwissInfo:

Iran is optimistic it can reach a deal on its disputed atomic programme with three European states, avoiding the U.N. Security Council where it cannot count on strong support. ...

Senior nuclear negotiator Hossein Mousavian was quoted on state television on Saturday as saying the European stance was encouraging.

"The three EU countries appeared more serious in this round of negotiations compared with before and progress is being made," he said of talks that took place in Geneva this week.

"If the Europeans continue this seriously in the next two rounds, talks will continue and there is a possibility of an agreement after three months," he was quoted as saying. ...

Iran is adamant it will never permanently end fuel production and is seeking to solve the nuclear impasse by promising stronger guarantees that it will never seek arms. ...

Hassan Rohani, Secretary General of the Supreme National Security Council, said that if the talks with the EU trio failed, the issue would be transferred to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions.

"But if Iran's case is referred to the council, the probability of those countries using their veto right is very low," he was quoted as saying in the Hamshahri daily.

His remarks contrasted with those of other Iranian officials who have said Tehran, which has cultivated ties with permanent members Russia and China, need not fear referral to the council. ...

Still more MEMRI TV Videos

MEMRI TV Project latest video clips:

Clip #538: Producer of Anti-Semitic Iranian TV Series "Zahra's Blue Eyes": A White Zionist Ship Sails Around the World, Kidnapping Babies to Use Their Organs

An excerpt: "There is a white ship sailing the oceans. It doesn't enter the territorial waters of Iran or similar countries. Our Arab brothers must look out for this ship. In it [the Zionists] hold children only one or two years old, who don't know anything. These are children no one cared for. They are kidnapped by various means under the pretext of wanting to take care of them. These children are held on this ship, and no one knows their fate. They become teenagers, not knowing what their fate will be. They receive the best medical care and are under constant physical monitoring and supervision. Why do [the Zionists] give them such care? To use them for medical purposes. They use the heart, the kidneys, and their other organs."
To View Video Click Here.

Clip #534: Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: Freedom Means Freedom to Establish Islamic Religious Law, Not Freedom for Secularism

An excerpt: "When the tyrannical regime in Iran fell, the Shah's regime, which worked for the Americans, and ruled the people by bloodshed, oppression, prisons, and blood, when this regime fell, and Khomeini came to power, they held a referendum: Do you want to be ruled by Islamic law? Ninety-nine percent said: Yes, we want Islamic law. Therefore, freedom should be in the service of Islam. I think that our peoples, for the most part-- there is a faction that has become secularist, Western, and Marxist -- but the vast majority of this people still believes that Islam is the solution and the source of authority and the foundation. They don't want to import anything from the East or from the West."
To View Video Click Here.

Iran Nobel Winner Complains About Threats, Summons

Reuters:

Iran's 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi on Saturday complained that the conservative judiciary had summoned her to court again without saying why.

"I have received another summons to appear before a public court, this time as an accused on the fifth of Esfand (Feb. 23)," the human rights lawyer told Reuters by telephone.

She said the summons stated no charge against her.

"I have not yet decided whether to appear myself, but will be sending my lawyers," said Ebadi, 57, who has riled religious hard-liners defending high-profile political dissidents.

Ebadi, the first Muslim woman and first Iranian to win the Nobel Peace Prize, was summoned last month to appear before the feared Revolutionary Court, but she ignored the order saying it was invalid because it failed to cite a reason.

In a rare climbdown, the judiciary acknowledged it had made several mistakes in summoning her.

Ebadi said agents claiming to be police had visited the Center for Defense of Human Rights, which she directs, but her staff had turned them away as they showed no judicial orders.

"They threatened our secretary, saying they would arrest her," she said, adding that police had denied any involvement. ...

Iran adamant over Rushdie fatwa

BBC News:

Iran's hard-line Revolutionary Guards have declared the death sentence on British author Salman Rushdie is still valid - 16 years after it was issued. ... The order was issued after publication of Mr Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses", condemned as blasphemous. ...

The Revolutionary Guards, who answer directly to Iran's current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said: "This statement, while stressing the irrevocability of the death verdict against Salman Rushdie, says history shows that the Muslims have in no era accepted their sanctities being defiled."

"The day will come when they will punish the apostate Rushdie for his scandalous acts and insults against the Koran and the Prophet (Mohammed)," they said, two days before the anniversary of the order. ...

The guards' statement comes a month after Ayatollah Khomeini's successor Ayatollah Khamenei said he still believed the British novelist deserved to die.

"They talk of respect for all religions but they support an apostate worthy of death like Rushdie," he said.

The BBC's Frances Harrison reports from Tehran that religious authorities in Iran say the only person who can lift the sentence was the man who imposed it, Ayatollah Khomeini, who died in 1989....

Last year, the Khordad Foundation, a charity that put a $2.8m bounty on Mr Rushdie, declared the fatwa remained valid. ...

Why Iran Will Go Nuclear

Time Magazine:

North Korea has unexpectedly declared itself a nuclear state — although the fact that they have made the announcement verbally rather than through the more traditional route of actually testing a bomb leaves room for a measure of skepticism over just how nuclear they are. ...

Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld noted Thursday that "I don't think that anyone would characterize the leadership in that country as being restrained," which would suggest that if it does, in fact, have nuclear weapons and has repeatedly used blackmail and brinkmanship as instruments of foreign policy, then trying to slowly starve it to death may not the most rational course of action. And initiating a direct military confrontation remains almost unthinkable, not only because analysts estimate it could cost up to one million lives but also because the government of South Korea would be adamantly opposed.

North Korea's nuclear announcement certainly blindsided Washington, which had hoped to restart the six-party talks next month. U.S. attentions were elsewhere, most notably on stopping Iran from doing what North Korea claims to have done. Frankly, the administration's chances of stopping Iran from joining the expanding club of nuclear-armed states may not be much better than its prospects of holding back North Korea.

On her European tour this week Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put forth the idea that Iran now faces a united front of the U.S. and Europe pressing for an end to its uranium enrichment activities. But Dr. Rice may be mistaking the general desire of the Europeans to mend fences with Washington, and their general dismay at the idea of Iran emerging as a nuclear state, as support for the Bush administration's approach to dealing with the problem. That would be wishful thinking, although hardly the first time the Bush administration had been guilty of such miscalculation over matters Middle Eastern. Rice's upbeat assessment requires ignoring the obvious signs that if the U.S. does pursue confrontation with Iran, it will almost certainly do so with even fewer allies than it had over Iraq. ...

The Europeans are pursuing negotiations, but also making clear — with increasing urgency — that diplomacy can't work unless the U.S. joins the process. But Dr. Rice repeatedly emphasized during her tour that Washington has no intention of joining the diplomatic effort, which is openly scorned by administration hawks.

Indeed, even as Rice touted diplomacy, she also gave plenty of hints that her administration prefers the option of regime-change in Iran — a position that effectively undermines the European negotiation position. That's because the basis of the diplomatic effort is not a "do as we say or else" ultimatum, but rather to convince the regime in Tehran that it faces no strategic threat to its survival, and can therefore manage fine without nukes and instead enjoy the fruits of reintegration into the international community.

By staying out of the process and indicating its preference for regime-change in Tehran, the Bush administration essentially dooms the negotiations to long-term failure, even if they stagger along for months or years. Diplomacy and the pursuit of regime-change simply cannot coexist in a single strategy for very long. The hawks are not unaware of this, of course, they simply believe it's naive to trust any agreement with the Iranians to refrain from doing a North Korea — and advocate diplomacy largely as an exercise in building support for tougher action. ...

Tehran is simply following the strategic logic that drove the proliferation of nuclear weapons over the past half-century: The Soviet Union saw acquiring nuclear weapons as a matter of survival because the U.S. had built and used them to decisively tip the balance in a conventional conflict. ...

Even if the U.S. did manage to win European support for a Security Council resolution holding Iran in violation of its non-proliferation obligations, there's little doubt that China — now heavily invested in Iran's energy resources — would veto any call for sanctions or any other punitive action. In light of the Iraq WMD debacle, imagining that the UN Security Council is likely to take up Washington's Iran case in a manner favored by the Bush administration is wishful thinking.

Either way, the failure of diplomacy would leave the Bush administration forced to choose between some form of military action and simply living with a nuclear-armed Iran. Dr. Rice was reportedly shocked to hear, at a meeting with French intellectuals in Paris, that European public opinion, and even many elected officials, may incline toward accepting a nuclear-armed Iran as inevitable. ...

The French foreign policy wonks with whom Rice met pointed out to her that they considered a nuclear-armed Pakistan a far greater danger than a nuclear-armed Iran — a point with which she demurred. That's unsurprising, given that despite the fact that Pakistan's own nuclear program has served as the world's secret nuclear supermarket and its military regime faces a substantial domestic challenge from radical Islamists of the Qaeda stripe, the country remains a U.S. ally.

The realpolitik that forced the world to accept India and Pakistan's nuclear arrival in 1998 will see likely see new nations accepted into the club, because the options for enforcing its exclusivity are seldom palatable. As long as nations have been prone to conflict with one another, each new military technology that altered a strategic balance has compelled rivals to match it as quickly as possible. ...

Countries without nuclear weapons, especially in the Middle East and Northeast Asia, may decide to seek them as it becomes clear that their neighbors and regional rivals already are doing so. The assistance of proliferators, including former private entrepreneurs such as the A.Q. Khan network, will reduce the time required for additional countries to develop nuclear weapons.

In other words, get used to it.

DoctorZin's thoughts: The author of this report assumes that Iran's nuclear intentions are defensive and ignores Iran's threatening statements of what it would do if it aquires nuclear weapons. Further, the author assumes the reason the EU3 negotiations are failing due to the lack of US involvement, while the failure in the negotiations is primarily due to Iran's absolute unwillingness to consider ending it's uranium enrichment program.

But more surprising is that while the author mentions the interest of the US administration on regime change in Iran, the author argues the options are either military or to accept the inevitable, a nuclear Iran.

The author ignores the clear signs that the US administration is seeking to support an internal regime change policy. The fact that the administration has been assisting the newly introduced Senate regime change legislation which is focused on supporting the people of Iran in overthrowing their own regime is entirely ignored.

Thank God he is not responsible for US policy.

U.S. intelligence reviews Iran information

Reuters:

The U.S. intelligence community, responding to Bush administration concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran, has begun reviewing its assessments of the Islamic Republic, from weapons capabilities to the stability of Tehran's government, U.S. officials say.

The broad review includes a new National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, intended to provide U.S. policy-makers with a comprehensive profile of Iran's economic, political and military strengths, officials said.

A second report, called a "memo to holders," is aimed at updating information on Iran's weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The memo, whose focus is subject to change, would amend a 2001 NIE on Iran."It's a community assessment.

It's an ongoing update and it's going to take several months to do," said one U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. ...

The reports are being produced by separate authors without input from Bush administration policy-makers, an official said.

The review was ordered by the CIA's National Intelligence Council, which focuses on longer-term intelligence issues, at a a time when the Bush administration has hardened its rhetoric over Iran. ...

CIA Operation in Iran Failed When Spies Were Exposed

Greg Miller, LA Times:

Dozens of CIA informants inside Iran were executed or imprisoned in the late 1980s or early 1990s after their secret communications with the agency were uncovered by the government, according to former CIA officials who discussed the episode after aspects of it were disclosed during a recent congressional hearing. As many as 50 Iranian citizens on the CIA's payroll were "rolled up" in the failed operation, according to the former officials, who described the events as a major setback in spying on a regime that remains one of the most difficult targets for U.S. intelligence.

The disclosures underscore the stakes confronting the CIA and its informants at a time when the United States is under pressure to produce better intelligence on Iran and especially its nuclear activities. The Bush administration has indicated that preventing Iran from obtaining an atomic weapon will be a priority of the president's second term. Like Iraq before the U.S. invasion in 2003, Iran is regarded as a "denied" territory by U.S. intelligence, meaning the CIA has no official station inside the country and is largely dependent on recruiting sources outside the Islamic Republic's borders.

Details of the setback were first outlined by former Pentagon advisor Richard N. Perle on Feb. 2 in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. During a hearing on security threats, Perle was critical of U.S. intelligence capabilities and cited the crackdown on American sources in Iran as an example of the failures that have beset U.S. espionage in the Middle East. Perle referred to the "terrible setback that we suffered in Iran a few years ago when in a display of unbelievable, careless management we put pressure on agents operating in Iran to report with greater frequency and didn't provide improved communications."When the CIA's sources stepped up their reporting, "the Iranian intelligence authorities quickly saw the surge in traffic and, as I understand it, virtually our entire network in Iran was wiped out."

Former CIA officials familiar with the matter confirmed portions of Perle's account and provided additional details. But they said the incident occurred in the late 1980s or early 1990s, not "a few years ago," as Perle suggested, and that it was not clear that the informants were exposed because of any pressure from the agency to file reports more frequently.

The CIA declined to comment on the matter, but a U.S. intelligence official rejected Perle's criticism of the agency's record in the Middle East as ill-informed and outdated. "Intelligence methods evolve constantly," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Trying to use these things from the past to make assertions about the present is in this case ill-advised."In a phone interview, Perle acknowledged that he has "a poor sense of time" concerning the events he described and was uncertain about details."I don't recall the details, or the mechanism by which the (Iranian agents) were communicating," Perle said. "What I was told was that our entire network was destroyed" and that as many as 40 of the informants were executed.

According to a former CIA official who served in the Middle East at the time, the Iranian informants were part of a network of spies that was run by CIA officers based at the agency's station in Frankfurt, Germany.The Iranian spies communicated with the agency "via secret writing," the former official said, referring to messages printed in invisible ink on the backs of letters that were mailed out of the country.

The spies received messages in the same fashion from a CIA officer in Frankfurt.It is not clear what aroused the Iranian government's suspicion, "but all of the letters went to a handful of addresses in Germany," the former CIA official said, speaking on condition of anonymity."Once they had one agent and they recovered the letters that had come in to him and found out where he was sending his letters out, they quickly identified others who fit that profile," the former official said. As many as 50 spies were exposed. They included members of Iran's military and were providing information on an array of activities, the former official said. Iran was a major intelligence priority for the United States at the time. During the 1980s, the United States was supporting Iraq in its war against Iran.

The regime in Tehran had also launched its clandestine nuclear program by then, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog group. The CIA's Iran operation in Frankfurt was disbanded in the mid-1990s, and portions of it were relocated to Los Angeles, where the CIA still seeks to capitalize on southern California's large Iranian population by cultivating sources who travel to the country or have relatives there.

Although the spies in Iran were using one of the older forms of secret communication, even high-technology systems have proved vulnerable. During the 2003 war in Iraq, the CIA received regular reports from 87 informants it had equipped with satellite telephones, according to an account of the operation in journalist Bob Woodward's recent book, "Plan of Attack."Calls from sources close to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein provided the intelligence that led to the first strike of the war, when the United States launched missiles at the Dora Farm compound in Baghdad because of reports that Saddam and his sons were staying the night there. Weeks later, it became clear that Saddam and his sons had survived the strike, and the still-standing Iraqi government banned the use of satellite phones by citizens. Perle, who was an assistant Defense secretary in the Reagan administration and was a Pentagon adviser who advocated the invasion of Iraq, is a longtime critic of the CIA.

He said he mentioned the Iranian operation to highlight how the agency has struggled in the region."I think we're in very bad shape in Iran," Perle said during his testimony.He also complained that CIA leaders have not been held accountable and noted that the official who had been in charge of the exposed Iran operation was later promoted. Perle declined to name the individual, but other sources said it was Stephen Richter, who was appointed head of the agency's near east division in 1994. He has since retired and could not be reached for comment. ...

Will Washington Support Democracy in Iran?

Michael Rubin, Institute for Contemporary Affairs:

After a first term marked by schizophrenic Iran policy initiatives, the Bush White House will soon develop a coordinated policy to promote peaceful regime change in Iran. The Bush administration is heartened by the apparent success of the Iraqi election and believes that Iranians are ready to exert their democratic rights.

Bush policy is motivated by the grave and growing threat from the Islamic Republic's nuclear weapons program, and the realization that neither Iran nor the European Union are sincere in preventing Iran's acquisition of nuclear weaponry. The Islamic Republic's potential threat to American security emanates from Tehran's determination to develop satellite launching capability which could well substitute as an intercontinental ballistic missile delivery system as well as from the regime's continued sponsorship of terrorists.

A new U.S. policy will also recognize that the dichotomy within Iran is not one of reformers versus hardliners within the Islamic Republic, but rather proponents of democracy versus proponents of theocracy. Even if Iranian acquisition of nuclear capability is inevitable, the threat comes from the nature of the regime rather than from the Iranian people.

As hardline ideologues consolidate power in Tehran, Iran will mark a number of important anniversaries which might spur ordinary people to agitate against their government and for democracy as they call for a new national referendum on the future of Iran.

A Stalemated Iran Policy

In his January 20, 2005, inaugural speech, President George W. Bush declared, "America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude." Less than two weeks later, Bush argued in his State of the Union address that "the victory of freedom in Iraq will...inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran." Such statements are not mere rhetoric, but mark a new willingness to advance democracy in Iran.

During Bush's first term in office, the U.S. government lacked an Iran policy. The State Department, Pentagon, Central Intelligence Agency, and Treasury Department twice failed to reach consensus on a National Security Policy Directive. Neither then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice nor the President forced the issue. As a result, American policy was schizophrenic. While Bush labeled Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" in his January 2002 State of the Union Address, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage described Iran as a "democracy."1

With no clear White House policy direction, Senate Republicans likewise took contradictory positions. While Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania) dined with the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations,2 Sam Brownback (Kansas) introduced an Iran Freedom and Democracy Support Act which would have created a $50 million fund to support opposition satellite stations and civil society.

State Department lawyers, meanwhile, argued that non-interference clauses in the 1980 Algiers Accords, the agreement which had led to the release of the U.S. embassy hostages, prohibited funding of opposition media. Retired National Security Advisors, though, disputed the State Department's line.3 In recent weeks, the White House legal office has opined that nothing in the Accords prevents assistance to Iranian democrats.

New National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley's decision to remove Richard Haass protégé Meghan O'Sullivan from the Iran portfolio (she retains her position as senior director for Iraq at the National Security Council) also bodes well for a more activist policy, especially as the new National Security team again reviews Washington's policy - or lack thereof - toward Tehran. O'Sullivan had long been both dismissive of Iranian dissidents and a proponent of engaging the Islamic Republic.

Why Now?

The Bush administration's new focus on Iran is a reflection not only of the President's sincere conviction that the Iranian people deserve freedom and liberty, but also of the belief that the United States cannot live with a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran.

While many European officials and American academics describe Iranian politicians like former president and current Expediency Council chairman 'Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as a pragmatist,4 U.S. policymakers do not dismiss his December 14, 2001, threats to initiate a nuclear first strike against Israel,5 nor do they dismiss as rhetoric banners reading "Israel must be uprooted and erased from history," draped over medium-range Shihab-3 missiles in a September 22, 2003, military parade.6

The Islamic Republic's potential threat to American security is just as serious, though, both because of Tehran's determination to develop satellite launching capability which could well substitute as an intercontinental ballistic missile delivery system,7 and because of the regime's continued sponsorship of terrorists. American officials continue to blame Iranian intelligence for planning the 1996 bombing of an American military barracks in Khobar, Saudi Arabia.8 The 9/11 Commission's bipartisan intelligence review found that the Iranian regime lent passive support to many of the 9/11 hijackers, between eight and ten of whom transited Iran in the year before the attack.9 Washington also takes seriously reports that Iranian authorities have sheltered senior al-Qaeda figures in Revolutionary Guard bases near the Caspian town of Chalus.10

While some editorialists and politicians argue that Washington should support the diplomacy of the European Union troika of London, Paris and Berlin, many European diplomats and analysts privately acknowledge that they believe Tehran's acquisition of a nuclear bomb to be inevitable, a tacit admission that European diplomacy is a charade. American officials may not be so blunt, but many believe their European counterparts care more about the preservation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty than they do about Iran going nuclear. If the European Union allows the Islamic Republic to negotiate acquisition of nuclear capability, then they need not admit the emptiness of the current non-proliferation regime.

Even if Iran's acquisition of the bomb is inevitable, to American strategists, the question is not whether the United States can live with a nuclear Iran, but rather whether the United States can live with a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran. To many Bush administration officials, the danger is not necessarily that the Islamic Republic would use its nuclear weapon against the United States, but rather that the feeling of immunity from retaliation that a nuclear capability might lend regime ideologues would lead to an increase in terrorism in the Middle East and Europe, and violent attempts to subvert Iraq and Afghanistan. Iranian authorities, for example, ignored numerous Turkish diplomatic demarches, and only scaled back support for Kurdistan Workers Party [PKK] terrorists operating in Turkey after the Turkish Air Force bombed the Iranian border town of Piranshahr.11 Had the Islamic Republic enjoyed a potential nuclear retaliation capability, Turkish authorities could likely have not forced an abandonment of Tehran's PKK support.

Meanwhile, American authorities are increasingly concerned by the resurgence of the Revolutionary Guards within the Islamic Republic's political class. Revolutionary Guard influence has been most recently evidenced by their effective veto of Turkish commercial involvement in the communications sector and Tehran's new airport.12

Such concerns - and the unwillingness to assume that regime ideologues will not try to act upon their deeply-held beliefs about the United States and Israel - are responsible for the current debate about the efficacy of military action. While targeted strikes on nuclear and ballistic missile sites might not eliminate the Islamic Republic's capability, the question is whether they could delay Tehran's nuclear ambitions beyond the lifespan of the Islamic Republic.

Are Iranians Ready for Democracy?

The best option from an American point of view would be a peaceful transition of power leading to an Iranian abandonment of the Islamic Republic's more threatening convictions. The relevant question therefore becomes whether the Iranian people are ready for democracy and, if so, when they might rise up and demand real rather than cosmetic rights. No one in Washington seeks to use military force to oust the Iranian regime, and rumors that the U.S. government even considered lending support to the Mujahidin al-Khalq are without basis. Democracy advocates within the Bush administration are likely to ask whether they can take any actions which would catalyze the Iranian people's ability to replicate last year's peaceful revolutions in Georgia and the Ukraine.

Both anecdotal and statistical evidence indicate the Iranian people are ready for change. While some outside analysts continue to speak of a dichotomy between hardliners and reformers, most Iranians now accept that the political tension within Iran is between regime and dissident. On December 6, 2004, students heckled Mohammad Khatami, chanting "Shame on you" and "Where are your promised freedoms?"13

In August 2002, the Tarrance Group, a professional polling outfit, conducted a survey of Iranian public opinion. They randomized the last four digits of every Tehran telephone exchange, and surveyed residents rich and poor. Just 21 percent of the statistically-representative sample of more than 500 people said that the Guardian Council represented the will of the Iranian people, while only 19 percent supported a politically-active clergy. The poll also found significant economic malaise, perhaps motivating the disillusionment with their leadership. Only 16 percent felt that their economic situation had improved during the Khatami years, while 68 percent said their family's financial situation had declined since the Islamic Revolution.14

A quarter century of theocracy has moderated the Iranian people. While studying in Iran in 1996 and 1999, many Iranians told me they supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini less out of an endorsement of his views than out of a reaction to the dictatorship of the Shah. While American and European intellectuals may criticize Bush's "Axis of Evil" rhetoric as simplistic, the fact remains that there is a correlation between Bush's moral clarity and the willingness of Iranians to take to the street, as they did en masse in July 1999,15 October 2001,16 November 2002,17 and July 2003,18 and at a number of more localized demonstrations.19

Historic Opportunity: The Call for a Referendum

Iranians, inheritors of a 2,500-year-old culture, are far more historically aware than many in the West. Recent democratic developments in Iran coincide with a number of symbolic anniversaries. December 2005 marks the hundredth anniversary of the start of Iran's Constitutional Revolution when merchants, liberals, clergy, and nationalists rose up to demand basic rights in the face of an autocratic ruler. After a year of struggle, the Shah granted the Iranian people a constitution. In December 2006, Iranians may ask why their forefathers had rights today's Iranians no longer enjoy.

On April 1, 2004, Iranians marked a more recent anniversary - the 25-year anniversary of Khomeini's declaration of an Islamic Republic. On that day, Khomeini announced the results of a referendum asking a simple question: "Do you want an Islamic Republic." Ninety-eight percent of Iranian voters said "Yes." "By casting a decisive vote in favor of the Islamic Republic," Khomeini told an enthusiastic crowd, "you have established a government of divine justice."

Increasingly, though, a growing and disparate number of Iranian groups are suggesting that Iran is ready for a new referendum.20 Many Iranians suggest a simple question, "Theocracy or democracy." The Tarrance Group poll found that 71 percent of Iranians would favor such a poll.21 While it is not likely that the Islamic Republic's leadership would ever consent to an internationally-supervised referendum - they understand the contempt with which most of their charges view them - such a referendum would better focus international attention on the fundamental issue of the Islamic Republic's lack of legitimacy and moral bankruptcy.

Into this tinderbox was inserted the success of Iraq's January 30, 2005, elections, that country's first free poll in a half century. It is a juxtaposition Iranians - many of whom believe themselves to be culturally superior to their Arab neighbors - cannot miss. In June 2005, Iranians will march to the polls to elect a president. Under the terms of the Islamic Republic's constitution, the new president will have only limited power and will remain subordinate to the unelected Supreme Leader, Ayatollah 'Ali Khameini. While the unelected Guardian Council in Iran severely limits the choice of candidates in Iran, Iranians have already noted the full range of candidates allowed to compete in Iraq's elections. Many European, American, and Arab commentators sought to correlate voter turnout with election legitimacy in Iraq. The same standards might be applied to Iran, where many Iranians may choose to stay home as Iranian pilgrims in Iraq estimated that 80 percent of their compatriots did during the February 2004 Majlis elections.

After four years of policy ambiguity, the Bush administration will finally make a concerted approach to change the status quo in Iran. European officials may calculate they can live with a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran, but they are wrong. If the current regime goes nuclear, Iran will unleash a new and potentially devastating wave of terrorism which will end any hope for stabilization in Iraq and Afghanistan, and peace in the Middle East. The White House is right to pursue democratization as a solution. Europe would be wise to hope for its success because the alternative for Washington might not be acceptance of a nuclear Iran, but rather military action.

Footnotes:

DoctorZin Note: This is an excellent introduction to our current situation with Iran. A must read.

Iranians would not defend the regime against a foreign attack

Iran Press Service:

"Iranians would not rise in support of the present clerical regime in case it is attacked by a foreign power", travellers coming to Europe from different parts of Iran assured.

Western and Iranian experts, diplomats, political analysts and intelligence sources are in general on the view that a military intervention, like what the Americans did in Afghanistan and Iraq, would drew the population closer to the ruling ayatollahs, as it happened after former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980.

But the travellers, among them important dissident personalities and political observers not only refuted this argument, but say that "grounds for a regime change would be prepared within one year.

"After having crushed and killed the reforms, the Iranians had put all their hopes for a smooth change. After taking the control of the Majles (parliament) with dubious methods and now preparing to grab also the presidency, one can be sure that the Iranians would not raise in support of the regime they hate more than ever", the sources told Iran Press Service, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Reacting to recent declarations from American officials, including President George W. Bush, who, in his State of the Union Address, assured that America "stands by the Iranian people", the sources said the statements had had an important impact on the Iranians, seeking support for their "peaceful struggle".

In a speech pronounced on the occasion of the victory of the Islamic revolution, the embattled Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said, "the whole Iranian nation is united against any threat or attack. If the invaders reach Iran, the country will turn into a burning hell for them".

"This nation does not seek war, does not seek violence and dispute. But the world must know that this nation will not tolerate any invasion", the powerless President added in reaction to mounting international pressures over the ayatollahs plans for nuclear power.

Apparently, Mr. Khatami, who is serving his last months as president, has forgot that many Iranians did came out into the streets after a foul named Hakha, from his desk on a television station in Los Angeles, had promised to fly to Tehran with 50 planes to boot out the clerics from power.

"Even though they were laughing at the man and his pledges, yet many Iranians came out on the Hakha’s D-day, in a demonstration of their hate of the regime and the mullahs", one analyst observed.

During her first visit to European and Middle Eastern capitals, Ms. Condoleezza Rice, the new US State Secretary urged them, particularly the European Troika that is engaged with Tehran over its nuclear program to apply more pressures on the Islamic Republic to abandon its efforts for getting atomic power.

"Visibly, not only the ayatollahs are more and more aware of the dangers of a military action by the United States, but also fears the consequences of a rapprochement between Europe and the United States", the sources said.

In his last Friday sermon, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president, warned the United States against "any military adventurism" in Iran."The Persian Gulf is not a region where they can have fireworks and Iran is not a country where they can come for an adventure", Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani, who heads the powerful Expediency Council, told worshippers in Tehran. ...

Iran's strategic spot complicates decisions

Reuters News Service:

Iran's perch on the Strait of Hormuz, a potential choke point for Persian Gulf crude oil shipments, will complicate the Bush administration's thinking on possible action on Iran, a U.S. foreign policy think tank said Thursday.

About 40 percent of the world's crude oil exports pass through those sea lanes — a two-mile channel flanked by Iran on one side and Oman and the United Arab Emirates on the other.

Crude oil supply concerns will be at the forefront as President Bush contemplates action over Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program, said experts at the Iran Policy Committee, a think tank made up of former government officials.

Iran denies that it is trying to develop nuclear arms. A U.S. military strike against Iran could rock the global economy, the policy group said.

"Any military action that causes the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz will have an immediate and significant effect on the world economy," retired Navy captain Chuck Nash said.

The Iran Policy Committee urged the Bush administration to pursue a policy of supporting regime change in Iran rather than military action.

Iran, OPEC's second-biggest producer behind Saudi Arabia, holds about 10 percent of the world's oil reserves.

Iran has missiles on its shores along the Strait, which it used against tankers during its war with Iraq in 1980-88.

With Iran dependent on oil for its revenue, the U.S. Navy could intercept and turn back its tankers to apply more economic pressure, said Paul Vallely, a retired major general in the U.S. Army.

"Shut down their flow of oil for a few weeks, and see how they react to that," Vallely said. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said a few days ago that the United States has no immediate plans to attack Iran, stressing diplomacy. ...

The statement also included praise for the MEK's intelligence inside of Iran. While the MEK's intelligence on Iran's nuclear weapons program has been vital in exposing the Iranian nuclear threat, it is important to note that the people of Iran do not support the US lifting of the state department's classification of the MEK as a terrorist organization. The MEK supported Sadddam in the Iran/Iraq war hand thus have little popular support among the Iranian public.

N. Korea voices support for Iran, sees closer ties

Reuters:

North Korea has sent a message of solidarity to Iran amid suspicions the reclusive communist state had boasted of having nuclear weapons to raise the stakes while U.S. attention is focused on Iran's nuclear programmes.

North Korea declared on Thursday for the first time it possessed nuclear weapons and pulled out indefinitely from six-party talks on its weapons programme, saying it needed a defence against a hostile United States.

The North's official news agency reported on Friday that two top officials had sent messages of congratulations to Tehran on the 26th anniversary of the Islamic Republic, which took power after the fall of the Shah's U.S.-backed government.

"The Iranian government and people have gained a great success in their work for defending the gains of the Islamic revolution and building independent and prosperous Iran, bravely shattering all sorts of trials and challenges in the past 26 years," said a message from the number two in North Korea's hierarchy, head of parliament Kim Yong-nam.

A second message from the North Korean prime ministrr, Pak Pong-ju, praised Iran's success in its work to defend its sovereignty.

"The friendly and cooperative relations between the two countries would invariably grow stronger," the message said. ...

People of Iran Draw Backing in Washington

ELI LAKE , NY Sun:

As President Bush ratchets up pressure on Tehran, a member of the Republican leadership in the Senate has introduced legislation supporting Iran's internal opposition.

Senator Santorum, a Republican of Pennsylvania, yesterday introduced the Iran Freedom and Support Act, legislation that commits America to "actively support a national referendum in Iran with oversight by international observers and monitors to certify the integrity and fairness of the referendum." Mr. Santorum, as the chairman of the Republican Conference, is the third-ranking member of the Senate Republican leadership.

The legislation would support the movement in Iran to force a vote that could overturn the theocracy there, which America lists as a top sponsor of international terrorism. The bill would also commit the president to funding pro-democracy forces inside Iran, following in the pattern of amendments inserted into law in the last two years by Senator Brownback, a Republican of Kansas. ...

American diplomats in Vienna yesterday told the Associated Press that votes are being lined up inside the International Atomic Energy Agency for the possibility of taking Iran's violations of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty to the U.N. Security Council. Iran's ruling clerics could avert such a move it they accept a deal from Britain, France, and Germany to abandon their weapons program and freeze uranium enrichment. ...

Yesterday on Iranian television, Mr. Khatemi said, "Those who have been thumping the drums of war and have launched psychological warfare against Iran must know that the Iranian people will not allow the aggressors to put one foot on Iranian soil."

In recent weeks Mr. Bush has also signaled his support for the Iranian democracy movement. In his State of the Union address last week, the president addressed the Iranian people, saying, "As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

A spokeswoman for Mr. Santorum said that he had coordinated his bill with the White House. Last year, the Bush administration did not support such legislation. "This is a priority for Senator Santorum, this is one of the first pieces of legislation he has dropped in the new Congress," Christine Shott told the Sun. "Our office has worked with the White House in preparation for introducing this bill."

A press release from Mr. Santorum announcing the bill's introduction noted that Iran has "been linked to attacks against American military personnel in Saudi Arabia at Khobar Towers in 1996, and to al Qaeda attacks against civilians in Saudi Arabia in 2004." The senator said the bill "will provide much needed assistance for pro-democracy groups who are committed to advancing democratic ideals and principles despite living at the hands of a government that views freedom as a threat to their power."

Last year the State Department opposed legislation that more explicitly made "regime change" with regard to Iran a policy for America. Mr. Santorum's legislation this year would not make regime change American policy. However, the referendum it supports would likely result in a new government in Tehran.

The legislation this year would also add language that reauthorizes sanctions against American and foreign companies that do business with Iran's oil sector. The bill would end most sanctions against Libya, a country that in 2003 announced its intentions to end its nuclear program. At the same time, it would address a loophole in the current legislation that allows foreign subsidiaries of American companies to do business in Iran without consequence.

The Santorum legislation, dubbed the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005, authorizes the president to "provide financial and political assistance (including the award of grants) to foreign and domestic individuals, organizations, and entities that support democracy and the promotion of democracy in Iran. Such assistance may include the award of grants to eligible independent pro-democracy radio and television broadcasting organizations that broadcast into Iran."

Iran's ambassador to Britain recognizes Iranian security forces killed Kazemi

RSF:

Reporters Without Borders today hailed comments made yesterday at Oxford University by Iran's ambassador to Britain in which he recognised that Iranian officials killed Iranian-Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi while she was in custody in Tehran in July 2003.

"We welcome this statement by an official contradicting the position of the Iranian judicial authorities, who concluded that Kazemi's death was accidental, but it is necessary that the authorities in Tehran now confirm what he has said," the press freedom organization said.

"We also call on the judicial authorities to hold a new trial to establish who was responsible for this journalist's death," Reporters Without Borders added.

Questioned during an address at St Antony's College, Oxford, ambassador Seyyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli said, "I don't support the killing by some shrewd security forces of that lady." He added : "We are sorry for it."

Kazemi was arrested on 23 June 2003 as she was photographing the relatives of detainees outside Evin prison. She probably died on 10 July 2003, while still in custody. After trying to cover up for a week, the Iranian authorities finally recognized that she was beaten to death.

Following an Iranian parliamentary enquiry and strong pressure from Canada and elsewhere in the international community, the judicial authorities blamed an intelligence official who had been one of Kazemi's interrogators. He was charged with her death but was then acquitted in a sham trial on 24 July 2004.

Iran Vows 'Burning Hell' for Any Aggressor

Reuters:

Iran, facing mounting U.S. pressure over its nuclear program, promised Thursday a "burning hell" for any aggressor as tens of thousands marched to mark the 26th anniversary of its Islamic revolution.

"The Iranian nation does not seek war, does not seek violence and dispute. But the world must know that this nation will not tolerate any invasion," President Mohammad Khatami said in a fiery speech to the crowd in central Tehran.

"The whole Iranian nation is united against any threat or attack. If the invaders reach Iran, the country will turn into a burning hell for them," he added, as the crowd, braving heavy snow, chanted "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!."

Senior officials had called for a big turnout at the revolution anniversary parades to send a message to Washington which has toughened its stance on Iran in recent weeks. ...

HEADING FOR SECURITY COUNCIL?

Diplomats said while the chances of a U.S. or Israeli attack were slim, Iran appeared to be on a collision course with the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

"It's hard to see how they can avoid going to the Council, unless they substantially change their position," said a Western diplomat in Tehran.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday Tehran must accept a deal being offered by the European Union -- to scrap potentially weapons-related work like enrichment in return for trade deals and other incentives -- or be referred to the Security Council.

I apologize

To all my readers:

I want to apologize for the light posting this week.

I am in Washington DC all week for an intelligence conference and quite simply have not had the time to provide you with all the updates you deserve on the major breaking news on Iran.

The good news is that I have learned much this week that I will begin relaying to you in the next few days.

Please be patient.

DoctorZin

Iran says it won't give up nuclear technology

CNN:

President Mohammad Khatami vowed Wednesday that no Iranian government would ever abandon the progress that the country has made in developing peaceful nuclear technology.

The comment did not augur well for negotiations with the big three European powers who are currently trying to persuade Iran to cease permanently the enrichment of uranium.

Khatami warned that if the talks with Britain, France and Germany fail, his government will not be bound by its undertaking to suspend enrichment.

"If other parties [to the negotiations] are not committed to their promises, we will not be committed to our promises at all," Khatami told a meeting of foreign diplomats in Tehran. The Europeans have promised Iran economic and technological aid in return for cooperation on the nuclear issue.

Khatami then went further and warned of a course of action that would reach far: "If we feel you [Europeans] do not fulfill your promises, we will adopt a new policy, and the responsibility of its huge consequences will lie with those who broke their promises," he said. He did not say more about this policy. ...

"Neither my government, nor any other [Iranian] government can give a convincing reply to people [who seek our] giving up peaceful nuclear technology," said Khatami, whose second and final presidential term ends later this year.

"Iran has achieved nuclear technology without the help of others, and it will never give up its right [to use it] under illegitimate pressure from others," Khatami said. ...

Khatami reiterated that Iran would never make nuclear weapons. He said the country was a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and had reaffirmed its commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear power in November.

The United States says it supports the European negotiations with Iran, but U.S. officials say privately they expect them to fail. The United States has long wanted the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions on the country.

In Belgium on Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran must live up to its international obligations to halt its nuclear program or "the next steps are in the offing." (Full story)

In Washington, U.S. President Bush said Wednesday, "The Iranians just need to know that the free world is working together to send a very clear message. You know, 'Don't develop a nuclear weapon.'

"And the reason we're sending that message is because Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a very destabilizing force in the world."...

Rice Criticises Britain For Not Laying Down The Law To Iran's Leaders

The Telegraph, UK:

Condoleezza Rice issued a thinly veiled rebuke to Britain and other European allies yesterday for failing to lay down the law to Iran over nuclear weapons.

Her remarks cast a chilly air over a whirlwind European tour that has otherwise been dominated by swooning coverage of the new US secretary of state, from her expensively-tailored suits to her life story as the first black woman to reach such high rank in American history.

In an interview that was aimed at domestic American television viewers, Miss Rice told Fox News that Iran should be warned it faces United Nations sanctions unless it accepts a last-minute European Union diplomatic deal on scaling back its nuclear activities.

"[The] Iranians need to hear that if they are unwilling to take the deal, really, that the Europeans are giving … then the Security Council looms," she said.

"I don't know that anyone has said that as clearly as they should to the Iranians," she added.

The remarks put pressure not only on Iran, but also on the trio of EU nations - Britain, France and Germany - behind the attempted diplomatic settlement.

Speaking later after a meeting with European commissioners in Brussels, Miss Rice struck a more emollient tone.

She preferred to stress what she called a "unity of purpose" shared by Europe and America over the need to promote a peaceful "positive" future for Iran, and for China - another source of tension - with the EU planning to lift an arms embargo on Beijing imposed after the 1989 Tiananmen massacre.

But in Teheran, President Mohammed Khatami said that no Iranian government would ever give up what he insisted was a "peaceful" nuclear programme. The president defended what he said was Iran's "clear right" to pursue uranium enrichment. He warned the EU that if Iran felt that the promises made to it were being broken, then it would walk away from the EU deal, and might adopt an unspecified "new policy", which would have "massive consequences".

US routinely updating war plan for Iran

Reuters:

The US military is updating its war plans for Iran on a routine basis, but is not in a heightened state of planning over Tehran's suspected nuclear arms ambitions, a senior American general said today.''

As far as the planning efforts, we simply go through our normal mode of updating whatever war plans we have for all parts of our region,'' Air Force Lt Gen Lance Smith told reporters in response to questions at a Pentagon briefing.''

And, you know, although I haven't paid particular attention to the Iran piece, we are in that normal process of updating our war plans,'' added Smith, deputy commander of the US Central Command.His command oversees US military operations in the Middle East, parts of Asia and north Africa.

Austrians sold 800 sniper rifles to Iran; U.S. protests

Associated Press:

Iran has contracted to buy hundreds of high-powered rifles from an Austrian firm, the company's owner said Wednesday. The sale drew an indirect rebuke from the United States, but Austrian government ministries said no laws were broken.Wolfgang Fuerlinger, head of Steyr Mannlicher GmbH, confirmed the deal between his company and Iranian authorities and said U.S. Embassy officials had expressed concerns the arms could make their way to Iraq for use against American troops.

He said he could not confirm Austrian media reports that part of the order -- 800 long-range semiautomatic rifles that can penetrate thick metal, along with high-tech snipers' scopes -- was flown to Iran last month.

The United States has strict embargoes in place against Iran on sales of weapons or technology or materials that could be used to make weapons. ...

U.S. Embassy spokesman Bill Wandlund declined direct comment on the sale but said that in general, "the U.S. opposes all arms transfers to state sponsors of terrorism, including Iran." Police Maj. Rudolf Gollia, spokesman for the Austrian Interior Ministry, said his ministry, in consultation with the foreign ministry, approved the sales in November.

He said Iran had provided written documentation that "the end destination of the weapons is Iran and that they would be used to fight drug-related criminality and to secure the borders of Iran."

Fuehrlinger told The Associated Press that U.S. Embassy officials who recently contacted him expressed concern that at least some of the weapons could end up in Iraq for use by insurgents against American troops and their Iraqi allies. He described the 12.7 x 99 mm "Steyr 50 HS" as a high-power weapon able to penetrate metal as thick as a man's thumb.

The gun is about 4 feet long, weighs more than 20 pounds and counts as an anti-armor weapon among experts because of the high punch of its projectile, Fuehrlinger said. ...

Rice, Playing Down Rift, Urges EU to Get Tough on Iran

Reuters:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear program was "in our grasp" if Europe sent the same tough message as Washington, threatening U.N. sanctions.

Her comments came as Britain, France and Germany held a third round of talks with Iran in Geneva on a deal under which Tehran would be expected to give up uranium enrichment in return for economic benefits and security guarantees.

Iran denies U.S. charges that it seeks nuclear weapons. But President Mohammad Khatami said on Wednesday the Islamic Republic would never abandon its quest to master nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment.

"(The) Iranians need to hear that if they are unwilling to take the deal, really, that the Europeans are giving ... then the Security Council referral looms," she earlier told Fox News. "I don't know that anyone has said that as clearly as they should to the Iranians."

US may employ Iran's opposite group for spying

IranMania News:

The US State Department has singled out the Iranian Mujaheedin Khalq Organization (MKO) as a terrorist group, but some administration hawks think its members could be useful, Newsweek said in its latest edition.

According to Iran Daily, at a camp south of Baghdad, known as Ashraf, 3,850 MKO members have been confined but gently treated by US forces since the 2003 invasion of Iraq (once they were allies of Saddam against their own country in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war).

Now the administration is seeking to cull useful MKO members as operatives for use against Tehran, all while insisting that it does not deal with the MKO as a group, American government sources say.

Some Pentagon civilians and intelligence planners are hoping a corps of informants can be picked from among the MKO prisoners, then split from the movement and given training as spies, US officials were quoted as saying by the magazine.

After that, the thinking goes, they will be sent back to Iran to gather intelligence on the ruling establishment, particularly its alleged plans to develop nuclear weapons. Some hawks also hope they could help to "reawaken" the democratic reform movement in Iran.

"They [want] to make us mercenaries," one MKO official told Newsweek.

The group's own former role in terrorist attacks dates back to its support for the US embassy takeover in 1979.

Another activist arrested in Tehran!

Iran Press News:

Based on reports, Nargess Adeeb, another of the tireless and intrepid political activists and founding member of the "Pioneer's Movement of Iran" was arrested by the regime's forces in Tehran.

Nargess Adeeb was violently ceased away [by agents of the Ministry of Propaganda] from her house at 9:30 AM in plain sight of her young children and husband; she was taken to detention sector 209.

The regime's agents, after tossing her house, ceased her personal belongings and other objects such as computers, phone books, satellite dish, et al.

The news of this courageous woman's arrest is being internationally broadcast.

MUST READ! Remarks at The Institut d'Etudes Politiques - Science Politique Paris

US Department of State, Secretary Condoleezza Rice speech in Paris, France February 8, 2005:

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very, very much. Thank you for those warm and welcoming words. And let me also thank the people of France for being such perfect hosts. I've just arrived. I wish I could stay longer. But it's such a wonderful city; it's wonderful to be here. I look forward to my discussions here with President Chirac, with Foreign Minister Barnier and with others. And -- as a pianist -- tomorrow I look forward to visiting one of your fine music schools.

It is a real special pleasure for me to be here at Sciences Po. For more than 130 years, this fine institution has trained thinkers and leaders. As a political scientist myself, I appreciate very much the important work that you do.

The history of the United States and that of France are intertwined. Our history is a history of shared values, of shared sacrifice and of shared successes. So, too, will be our shared future.

I remember well my first visit to Paris -- here -- my visit to Paris here in 1989, when I had the honor of accompanying President George Herbert Walker Bush to the bicentennial celebration of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Americans celebrated our own bicentennial in that same year, the 200th anniversary of our nation's Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Those shared celebrations were more than mere coincidence. The founders of both the French and American republics were inspired by the very same values, and by each other. They shared the universal values of freedom and democracy and human dignity that have inspired men and women across the globe for centuries.

Standing up for liberty is as old as our country. It was our very first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who said, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." Now the American founders realized that they, like all human beings, are flawed creatures, and that any government established by man would be imperfect. Even the great authors of our liberty sometimes fell short of liberty's promise – even Jefferson, himself, a slave owner.

So we are fortunate that our founders established a democratic system of, by, and for the people that contained within it a way for citizens -- especially for impatient patriots -- to correct even its most serious flaws. Human imperfections do not discredit democratic ideals; they make them more precious, and they make impatient patriots of our own time work harder to achieve them.

Men and women, both great and humble, have shown us the power of human agency in this work. In my own experience, a black woman named Rosa Parks was just tired one day of being told to sit in the back of a bus, so she refused to move. And she touched off a revolution of freedom across the American South.

In Poland, Lech Walesa had had enough of the lies and the exploitation, so he climbed a wall and he joined a strike for his rights; and Poland was transformed.

In Afghanistan just a few months ago, men and women, once oppressed by the Taliban, walked miles, forded streams and stood hours in the snow just to cast a ballot for their first vote as a free people.

And just a few days ago in Iraq, millions of Iraqi men and women defied the terrorist threats and delivered a clarion call for freedom. Individual Iraqis risked their lives. One policeman threw his body on a suicide bomber to preserve the right of his fellow citizens to vote. They cast their free votes, and they began their nation's new history.

These examples demonstrate a basic truth -- the truth that human dignity is embodied in the free choice of individuals.

We witnessed the power of that truth in that remarkable year of 1989 when the Berlin Wall was brought down by ordinary men and women in East Germany. Yet, that day of freedom in November 1989 could never have happened without the full support of the free nations of the West.

Time and again in our shared history, Americans and Europeans have enjoyed our greatest successes, for ourselves and for others, when we refused to accept an unacceptable status quo -- but instead, put our values to work in the service of freedom.

And we have achieved much together. Today, a democratic Germany is unified within NATO, and tyranny no longer stalks the heart of Europe. NATO and the European Union have since welcomed Europe's newest democracies into our ranks; and we have used our growing strength for peace. And just a decade ago, Southeastern Europe was aflame. Today, we are working toward lasting reconciliation in the Balkans, and to fully integrate the Balkans into the European mainstream.

These achievements have only been possible because America and Europe have stood firm in the belief that the fundamental character of regimes cannot be separated from their external behavior. Borders between countries cannot be peaceful if tyrants destroy the peace of their societies from within.

States where corruption, and chaos and cruelty reign invariably pose threats to their neighbors, threats to their regions, and potential threats to the entire international community.

Our work together has only begun. In our time we have an historic opportunity to shape a global balance of power that favors freedom -- and that will therefore deepen and extend the peace. And I use the word "power" broadly, because even more important than military and indeed economic power is the power of ideas, the power of compassion, and the power of hope

I am here in Europe so that we can talk about how America and Europe can use the power of our partnership to advance our ideals worldwide. President Bush will continue our conversation when he arrives in Europe on February 21st. He is determined to strengthen transatlantic ties. As the President said in his recent Inaugural Address: "All that we seek to achieve in the world requires that America and Europe remain close partners."

I believe that our greatest achievements are yet to come. The challenges of a post-September-11 world are no less daunting than those challenges that we faced and that our forebears faced in the Cold War. The same bold vision, moral courage and determined leadership will be required if we are again to prevail over repression and intimidation and intolerance.

Our charge is clear: We on the right side of freedom's divide have an obligation to help those unlucky enough to have been born on the wrong side of that divide.

This obligation requires us to adapt to new circumstances -- and we are doing that. NATO has enlarged not only its membership, but its vision. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe now operates not only on a continent whole, free and at peace, but beyond Europe, as well. The agenda of U.S.-EU cooperation is wider than ever, and still growing, along with the European Union itself.

We agree on the interwoven threats we face today: Terrorism, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and regional conflicts, and failed states and organized crime.

We have not always seen eye to eye; however, on how to address these threats. We have had our disagreements. But it is time to turn away from the disagreements of the past. It is time to open a new chapter in our relationship, and a new chapter in our alliance.

America stands ready to work with Europe on our common agenda -- and Europe must stand ready to work with America. After all, history will surely judge us not by our old disagreements, but by our new achievements.

The key to our future success lies in getting beyond a partner based on common threats, and building an even stronger partnership based on common opportunities, even those beyond the transatlantic community.

We can be confident of our success in this because the fair wind of freedom is at our back. Freedom is spreading: From the villages of Afghanistan to the squares in Ukraine, from the streets in the Palestinian territories to the streets of Georgia, to the polling stations of Iraq.

Freedom defines our opportunity and our challenge. It is a challenge that we are determined to meet.

First, we are joining together to encourage political pluralism, economic openness and the growth of civil society through the broader Middle East initiative.

The flagship of that initiative is the Forum for the Future -- a partnership of progress between the democratic world and nearly two-dozen nations, extending from Morocco to Pakistan. The Forum's mission is to support and accelerate political, economic and educational reform. Its first meeting in Rabat last December was a great success.

Beyond this bold initiative for reform, in which America and European efforts are fused, we also work in parallel. The European Union has a decade-long experience with advancing modernization through the Barcelona Process.

Individual EU member-states have also been working for years to nurture the attitudes and institutions of liberal democracy in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

And it is not just our governments that are promoting freedom. American- and European-based non-governmental organizations devote huge efforts to the reform process.

Our people exemplify the values of free society as they work in their private capacities. Our societies, not just our governments, are advancing women's rights and minority rights.

Our societies, not just our governments, are making space for free media, for independent judiciaries, for the right of labor to organize. The full vitality of our free societies is infusing the process of reform, and that is a reason for optimism.

Just as our own democratic paths have not always been smooth, we realize that democratic reform in the Middle East will be difficult and uneven. Different societies will advance in their own way. Freedom, by its very nature, must be homegrown. It must be chosen. It cannot be given; and it certainly cannot be imposed. That is why, as the President has said, the spread of freedom is the work of generations. But spreading freedom in the Arab and Muslim worlds is also urgent work that cannot be deferred.

Second, we must build on recent successes by stabilizing and advancing democratic progress in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Last October, the people of Afghanistan voted to set their country on a democratic course. And just nine days ago, the people of Iraq voted not just for a government, but for a democratic future.

All of us were impressed by the high voter turnout in Iraq. Each ink-stained finger belonged to a man or a woman who defied suicide bombers, mortar attacks, and threats of beheading, to exercise a basic right as a citizen.

There comes a time in the life of every nation where its people refuse to accept a status quo that demeans their basic humanity. There comes a time when people take control of their own lives. For the Iraqi people, that time has come.

There is much more to do to create a democratic and unified Iraq; and the Iraqis themselves must lead the way. But we in the transatlantic partnership must rise to the challenge that the Iraqi people have set for us.

They have shown extraordinary bravery and determination. We must show them solidarity and generosity in equal measure.

We must support them as they form their political institutions. We must help them with economic reconstruction and development. And we must stay by their side to provide security until Iraqis themselves can take full ownership of that job.

Third, we are working to achieve new successes, particularly in the Arab-Israeli diplomacy. America and Europe both support a two-state solution: An independent and democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace with the Jewish State of Israel.

And we all support the process of reform in the Palestinian Authority, because democratic reform will enlarge the basis for a genuine peace. That is why we were supportive of the Palestinian people in their historic election on January 9.

And Europe and America support the Israeli Government's determination to withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. We both see that withdrawal as an opportunity to move ahead -- first to the roadmap, and ultimately, to our own -- to our clear destination: a genuine and real peace.

We are acting to transform opportunity into achievement. I have just come from meetings with Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas. I was impressed with the fact that they said the same thing: This is a time of opportunity and we must not lose it. I urged them to build on this momentum, to seize this chance. And today's meeting of the Palestinian and Egyptian Presidents, the Israeli Prime Minister, and Jordan's King was clearly an important step forward.

The United States and the parties have no illusions about the difficulties ahead. There are deep divisions to overcome. I emphasized to both sides the need to end terrorism; the need to build new and democratic Palestinian economic, political, and security institutions; the need for Israel to meet its own obligations and make the difficult choices before it; and, the need for all of us -- in America, in Europe, in the region -- to make clear to Iran and Syria that they must stop supporting the terrorists who would seek to destroy the peace that we seek.

Success is not assured, but America is resolute. This is the best chance for peace that we are likely to see for some years to come; and we are acting to help Israelis and Palestinians seize this chance. President Bush is committed. I am personally committed. We must all be committed to seizing this chance.

Next month in London, Prime Minister Tony Blair will convene an important conference to help the Palestinian people advance democratic reform and build their institutions. All of us support that effort.

And we will continue to share burdens that will one day soon, we hope, enable us to share in the blessings of peace between Israelis and Palestinians, between Israelis and all their Arab neighbors.

A G8-Arab League meeting will also convene in Cairo next month. This meeting has the potential to broaden the base of support for Middle East peace and democracy. The Tunis Declaration of this past May's Arab Summit declared the "firm resolve" of the Arab states to "keep pace with the accelerated world changes through the consolidation of democratic practice, the broadening of participation in political life and public life, and the reinforcement of all components of civil society."

If that resolve forms the basis of Arab participation in this meeting, only good can come from it.

Our efforts in Lebanon also show that the transatlantic partnership means what it says in supporting freedom. The United States and France, together, sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 1559. We have done this to accelerate international efforts to restore full sovereignty to the Lebanese people, and to make possible the complete return of what was once vibrant political life in that country.

The next step in that process should be the fourth free democratic election in the region -- fair and competitive parliamentary elections this spring, without foreign interference.

In Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and throughout all of the broader Middle East and North Africa, the nature of the political conversation is changing. Ordinary citizens are expressing thoughts and acting together in ways that they have not done before. These citizens want a future of tolerance, opportunity, and peace -- not of repression.

Wise leaders are opening their arms to embrace reform. And we must stand with them and their societies as they search for a democratic future.

Reformers and peacemakers will prevail in the Middle East for the same reason the West won the Cold War: Because liberty is ultimately stronger than repression and freedom is stronger than tyranny.

Today's radical Islamists are swimming against the tide of the human spirit. They grab the headlines with their ruthless brutality, and they can be brutal. But they are dwelling on the outer fringes of a great world religion; and they are radicals of a special sort. They are in revolt against the future. The face of terrorism in Iraq, Abu Musabl-Zarqawi, called democracy "an evil principle." To our enemies, Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite are also evil principles. They want to dominate others, not to liberate them. They demand conformity, not equality. They still regard difference as a license to kill.

But they are wrong. Human freedom will march ahead, and we must help smooth its way. We can do that by helping societies to find their own way to fulfill the promise of freedom.

We can help aspiring societies to reduce poverty and grow economically through sound development strategies and free trade. We must be aggressive and compassionate in fighting the HIV/AIDS pandemic and other infectious diseases that tear families apart, destroy individuals and make development of whole continents impossible.

Ultimately, we must learn how to put developing states on the path to self-sustained growth and stability. After all, it is one thing to fix a sanitation plant or to repair a schoolhouse; it is another to establish the essential components of a decent society: A free press, an independent judiciary, a sound financial system, political parties, and genuine representative government.

Development, transparency and democracy reinforce each other. That is why the spread of freedom under the rule of law is our best hope for progress. Freedom unlocks the creativity and drive that produces genuine wealth. Freedom is the key to incorruptible institutions. Freedom is the key to responsive governments.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a time of unprecedented opportunity for the transatlantic Alliance. If we make the pursuit of global freedom the organizing principle of the 21st century, we will achieve historic global advances for justice and prosperity, for liberty and for peace. But a global agenda requires a global partnership. So let us multiply our common effort.

That is why the United States, above all, welcomes the growing unity of Europe. America has everything to gain from having a stronger Europe as a partner in building a safer and better world. So let each of us bring to the table our ideas and our experience and our resources; and let us discuss and decide, together, how best to employ them for democratic change.

We know we have to deal with the world as it is. But, we do not have to accept the world as it is. Imagine where we would be today if the brave founders of French liberty or of American liberty had simply been content with the world as it was.

They knew that history does not just happen; it is made. History is made by men and women of conviction, of commitment and of courage, who will not let their dreams be denied.

Our transatlantic partnership will not just endure in this struggle; it will flourish because our ties are unbreakable. We care deeply about one another. We respect each other. We are strong, but we are strongest when we put our values to work for those whose aspirations of freedom and prosperity have yet to be met.

Great opportunities await us. Let us seize them, now, together, for freedom's sake.

Thank you for your attention.