Interesting Quotes of the Week

DoctorZin: a few of the more interesting quotes of the week:

European leaders have recently suggested to Iran that it recognize Israel. "No. We don't recognize Israel ... and we are not ready to compromise over this with any country,"

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi

___________________________

"Finally, I've found a pro-American country. Everywhere I've gone in Iran, with one exception, people have been exceptionally friendly and fulsome in their praise for the United States, and often for President George W. Bush as well."

Nicholas Kristof

___________________________

"We intend to turn into an important and a major player in the nuclear fuel supply market in the next 15 years…”

The Iranian Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi

___________________________

“We are able to produce atomic bombs and we will do that. We shouldn’t be afraid of anyone. The US is no more than a barking dog”

A leading member of Iran’s Hezbollah, Hojjat-ol-Islam Baqer Kharrazi

___________________________

"about the suicide bomber who managed to blow up only himself outside a Baghdad polling station ... Iraqi voters walked around his body, spitting on it as they went by."

Thomas Friedman

___________________________

"The question is not if the Iranians will have a nuclear bomb in 2009, 10 or 11, the main question is when are they going to have the knowledge to do it. We believe that in six months from today they will end all the tests and experiments they are doing to have that knowledge,"

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom

___________________________

Syria rushed to distance itself from Iran’s unilateral declaration on Wednesday that they shared a “united front.” “We are not the enemy of the US and we do not want to be drawn into such an enmity,”

Imad Mustafa, Syrian Ambassador to the US.

___________________________

Any talk of a military attack is "just not the truth."

President Bush

___________________________

"I love Iran and I'm no friend of America, but I won't fight."

Ali, a 28-year-old

Saturday’s Daily Briefing on Iran

DoctorZin reports:

New satellite intel shows that Iran is building an underground tunnel just north of the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) at Esfahan. It appears too big to be only for storage. It might be intended to house production facilities for some uranium conversion processes.. Iran already has about 500 tons of uranium concentrate.

Update and observation from jriemer: Follow the road that goes along side the explosive storage site to a black topped building (on right of road) and appears to go into the mountainside.

Here are a few of items you may have missed.

• President Bush and Putin will be meeting next week, and will be discussing Iran’s nuclear program.
• Bush is making it clear that the military option against Iran’s nuclear program is not our first choice.
• But Bush accused Iran of trying to blame any failure of the EU3/Iran talks on the US.
• France hopes that the US will offer Iran admission to the WTO if Iran agrees to halt all nuclear enrichment, permanently.
• Condi warns Russia about trusting the Iranians.
• Iranians threaten to retaliate within 15 minutes of any US attack, but the average Iranian on the street doesn’t appear to want to join in a fight with the US.
• The White House wants more funding for the Voice of America, most which is going towards broadcasts into Iran.
• The Europeans keep pushing for US concessions (carrots) if Iran agrees to a permanent halt to its uranium enrichment. But they seem to forget that Iran's nuclear negotiator has warned there was nothing the West could offer Tehran that would persuade it to scrap a nuclear program.
• And finally, Iranians appear to believe that the mysterious events of the past week: the fire at the Mosque in Tehran and the explosion near the Bushehr nuclear facilities are all part of a US effort towards regime change in Iran, which they appear to welcome.

The Mosque Fire and Blast Near Busher Carries Messages

Safa Haeri, Iran Press Service:

The fire at a big Tehran mosque, the over fly of Iranian sky by foreign drones and a mysterious explosion near the nuclear reactor in the Persian Gulf port of Bushehr are all “signals” heralding incoming operations for toppling the Iranian theocracy, Iranians says in the streets.

Five days after fire at a big and historic mosque in south Tehran killed at least 60 people and injured another 350, the clerical authorities, instead of explaining what caused the fire, have ordered the media not to carry any news about the drama. ...

General Morteza Tala’i, the Commander of Tehran police said "basic safety rules" were ignored, including the installation of the kerosene heater, the official Iranian News Agency IRNA reported on the fire.

But in the absence of any official account, Iranians in general think that the fire, far from being accidental, is the beginning of America’s operations aimed at toppling the present theocracy.

In their inauguration speeches, both President George W. Bush and his new Secretary of State Department tagged the Islamic Republic as a “tyrannical regime” and assured the Iranian people of Washington’s support for their struggle for democracy and freedom.

“This is the first mosque to be set ablaze and this is the beginning”, said a young Iranian who arrived in Paris on Wednesday.

“This is an American operation to change the regime”, he went on, adding that the explosion in Bandar Daylam and the drones overlying Iranian skies are also part of the operations.

He was referring to a mysterious explosion that the Arabic service of the Iranian State-run, conservatives-controlled Radio and Television known as “al Aalam” (the World) said was caused by a missile. ...

"After having crushed and killed the reforms the Iranians had put all their hopes for a smooth change of the present system, 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", one source had told Iran Press Service, speaking on condition of anonymity.

He was reacting to assertions from some Iranian and Western experts and diplomats that any attack on Iran would mobilize the population in support of the ruling ayatollahs, as it happened after Iraq attacked Iran in 1980, resulting in the consolidation of the newly installed Islamic Republic.

“What ever the cause of the explosion near Busher, it carries a message, as the sound of the blast was heard in Tehran”, wrote Mr. Mas’oud Behnoud, a veteran Iranian journalist.

Reminding that the regime is more isolated than ever on the international scene, Mr. Bahnoud concluded: “The Iranians got the message from the explosion, but what about the officials? Did they hear it as well and were they able to decipher it. In this case, they have only one way and that is to change their policy of confrontation with the world outside and with the people inside”.

The Case for Negotiating with the Mullahs

Jean François-Poncet, International Herald Tribune:

While the skies of trans-Atlantic relations have become almost blue again, there persists a very serious disagreement that Condoleezza Rice, in the course of her well-received visit to Europe, either could not or did not want to resolve: Iran's nuclear program.

There is no doubt that this problem and the disagreements it creates will figure strongly in the talks President George W. Bush is about to hold with Europeans.

The difference is not over the desired result, but over how to achieve it. Neither Europeans nor Americans have any doubt about the military character of the Iranian program, nor about the unacceptable threat it poses not only to Israel, but to security and stability in the entire Middle East. They also agree that Iran's declarations, no matter how solemn, and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency are not enough to guarantee that the program remain civil. That kind of certainty can come only from the renunciation by Iran of all activities linked to the enrichment of uranium and the separation of plutonium.

To achieve this assurance, France, Britain and Germany, with the support of their European partners, have chosen the path of negotiations. Not, as it is thought in Washington, out of appeasement or weakness, but because they believe that Iran aspires to escape from its economic and political isolation and is prepared to pay a high price to do so. Iran's industry is obsolete, and its economy is incapable of providing jobs for the 800,000 young people who enter the work force every year, forcing the best to leave the country. ...

But it has become increasingly clear that this interest will translate into an agreement only if the United States becomes involved in the process, directly or indirectly. The economic opening that Iran seeks requires, in effect, at least a partial lifting of the American embargo, which prevents Europe from delivering the equipment, notably the Airbus, and the advanced technologies that Iran wants. It is also obvious that Iran's application for membership in the World Trade Organization has no hope without Washington's support. What Europe can offer on its own is not on the same level as the concessions it demands of Iran.

Condoleezza Rice wished the Europeans the best of luck, which was a departure from the skepticism shown up until then by the Americans. But best wishes are not enough, and there is nothing to indicate that on Iran, the United States is disposed to go any further. The justifiable antagonism that the ayatollahs inspire with their disregard for human rights, discrimination against women or support of Hezbollah and Hamas pushes the United States toward "regime change" as the political priority. Thus the refusal to negotiate, and the temptation to seek immediate Security Council sanctions, and then to proceed, if necessary, to the destruction of Iran's nuclear installations.

Would that weaken the regime? Probably not. More likely, Iranian public opinion, which may be hostile to the religious authorities but remains intensively nationalistic, would rally around the regime and against the West. The Iranian opposition, led by Shirin Ebadi, whose courageous struggle for human rights won her a Nobel Peace Prize, has publicly warned Washington against the politics of force.

What's more, while it is incontestable that the regime in Tehran is unpopular, that does not mean it is fragile. The regime has a totally loyal praetorian guard of 150,000 men in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and with immense oil resources, it can placate malcontents with lavish handouts - which it does not hesitate to do.

That is why the only way out of this dilemma is for the United States to give the European-led negotiations every chance. If they succeed, they will eliminate the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear program while opening Iran to the world and obliging it to liberalize its economy, which is probably the best way in the medium term to weaken the religious regime.

If they fail, which is entirely possible, the Europeans will willingly rally around sanctions. And if Iran's nuclear sites are eventually destroyed, there will be less of a backlash, inside or outside Iran.

(Jean François-Poncet, a member of the French Senate, is a former foreign minister of France.)

The Europeans seem to forget that Iran's nuclear negotiator has warned there was nothing the West could offer Tehran that would persuade it to scrap a nuclear programme.

New Satellite Images Show Tunnel Construction at Esfahan Facility

Institute for Science and International Security:

Just north of the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) at Esfahan, Iran is constructing a tunnel facility. The tunnel is fairly long, and has two entrances, separated by less than half a kilometer. Construction on the tunnel began in September or October 2004, and Iran is working very hard to finish the project.

Iran declared to the IAEA in the fall of 2004 that the tunnel facility is for storage and other activities that are part of the UCF. It appears too big to be only for storage. It might be intended to house production facilities for some uranium conversion processes. It does not appear large enough to be a complete duplicate of the UCF. Iran already has about 500 tonnes of uranium concentrate, a few tens of tonnes of uranium tetrafluoride (UF4), and a couple of tonnes of uranium hexafluoride (UF6).

The IAEA has said that Iran should have declared the facility to the IAEA prior to the start of construction. The IAEA visited the site in November 2004, at which time there was no equipment in the tunnel. The IAEA will continue to visit the facility.

VOA Persian Langauge Broadcasting to Expand

The Washington Times:

The Voice of America's news broadcasts to Muslim countries are in line for significant budget increases this year and next, with much of the new spending aimed at expanding the U.S. message into Iran, administration officials said yesterday.

The White House is seeking an additional $7.3 million for VOA in this year's emergency defense supplemental-appropriations bill for the postwar effort in Afghanistan and Iraq, most of which will be used to expand the agency's Persian-language TV broadcasts to Iran, whose regime Mr. Bush has denounced as part of the "axis of evil" that is suspected of aiding the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. ...

When this year's 6 percent supplemental increase in VOA's budget is added to spending for other VOA-related projects, including new, state-of-the-art TV studios at its Washington headquarters, "the real increase in VOA's fiscal year '06 budget would amount to 14 percent," said Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which operates all of the government's nonmilitary international broadcasting.

An administration official said the increases were pushed aggressively by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is an ex-officio member of the BBG. ,,,

According to VOA plans for the coming year, the supplemental-funding bill will allow its Persian-language satellite-TV programs to expand from daily half-hour broadcasts to one hour "News and Views" newscasts that will be repeated and updated throughout the day, similar to U.S. cable network news programming. ...

Iran Prepares for Invasion as Tensions with U.S. Rise

Borzou Dargahi, The Globe and Mail:

Iran has begun publicly preparing for a possible U.S. attack, announcing efforts to mobilize militia recruits and making plans for the kind of scattershot warfare that has plagued U.S. troops in neighbouring Iraq, officials and analysts say.

"Iran would respond within 15 minutes to any attack by the United States or any other country," said an official close to the conservative camp that runs Iran's security and military apparatus, speaking on condition of anonymity. ...

Iranian authorities say they, too, are preparing for war. Newspapers have announced efforts to increase the number of troops in the country's Basiji militia, now seven million strong, who were deployed in human-wave attacks during the Iran-Iraq war. ...

A Western military expert based in Tehran said Iran is sharpening its ability to wage guerrilla war. "Over the last year they've developed their tactics of asymmetrical war, which would aim not at resisting a penetration of foreign forces, but to then use them on the ground to all kinds of harmful effect," he said. ...

"Right now it's a psychological war," said Nasser Hadian, a University of Tehran political science professor who recently returned from a three-year stint as a scholar at New York's Columbia University. "If America decides to attack, the only ones who could stop it are Iranians."

It is an open question whether young Iranian men -- more materialistic than those who battled Iraq in an eight-year war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives -- would fight with enthusiasm against the United States.

Ali, a 28-year-old who runs a small advertising firm and describes himself as a staunch nationalist, said veterans of the Iraq war have been neglected. "I see all the men who went to the front and fought are damaged and ignored and all those who didn't are the ones running the country," he said. "I love Iran and I'm no friend of America, but I won't fight."

Hamid-Reza, a 23-year-old clothing store manager who lost relatives in the Iraq war, said he would fight the United States, but feared Iran would be no match for it.

"What will I do?" he asked. "Get inside an inner tube and go fight against the American battleships in the Persian Gulf?"

Iran's army includes 350,000 active-duty soldiers and 220,000 conscripts. The elite Revolutionary Guard numbers 120,000, many of them draftees. There are 70,000 in the navy and air force.

The armed forces have about 2,000 tanks, 300 combat aircraft, three submarines and hundreds of helicopters. There are at least a dozen Russian-made Scud missile launchers, of the type Saddam Hussein used against Israel during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and an undetermined number of Shahab missiles.

But Iran's antiquated conventional hardware, worn down by years of international sanctions, would be little match for high-tech U.S. wizardry, outside military experts and Iranians concede.

Still, Iran could create trouble for Washington and the world.

Its spy agencies have extensive overseas experience and assets, experts say. The highly classified Quds forces are believed to have operations in Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Turkey, the Persian Gulf, Central Asia and North Africa, as well as Europe and North America, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Within minutes of any attack, Iran's air and sea forces could threaten oil shipments in the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Oman. Iran controls the northern coast of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which tankers leave the Persian Gulf. ...

Rice: Russia Should Be Wary of Iran on Nuclear Claims

Dow Jones Newswires:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Friday urged Russia to be wary of Iran 's motives on its nuclear program but stopped short of criticizing Moscow for its cooperation with Tehran.

President George W. Bush is scheduled to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin next week, and Rice purposely sought to avoid any criticism of Russia. Word from Moscow Friday that Russia will continue working with Iran to help build a nuclear reactor drew a limited response.

"There are good reasons to be suspicious of what the Iranians are doing," Rice said at a news conference.

She did not criticize Russia for its plans to continue cooperating with Tehran. Rice reminded Russia that it had called for safeguards at the Bushehr reactor.

Questioned about Russia arming Syria, Rice said, "We are not trying to isolate Syria. What we are trying to do is to get Syria to engage in more responsible behavior."

But while Rice offered carefully calibrated statements, two senators, one Republican and one Democratic, introduced a non-binding resolution urging Bush to suspend Russia membership in the Group of Eight industrialized democracies.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., cited Russia's record on human rights, press freedom and the political process. Although a non-binding resolution lacks the force of law, it could prove to be an embarrassment for Bush on his upcoming trip.

France Says US May Reconsider Block on Iran 's WTO Hopes

Dow Jones Newswires:

The U.S. might reconsider its block on Iran 's efforts to join the World Trade Organization if Tehran renounces its uranium enrichment program, the French foreign minister said. Michel Barnier also said France doesn't for the moment want the U.N. Security Council to take up the issue of Iran 's nuclear program while European negotiations with Tehran continue. ...

"If the process of negotiation failed, the Security Council could be referred to, but it is important to do everything to avoid that scenario," Barnier was paraphrased as saying. ...

"Iran must understand that the entire international community is acting in the same direction," Barnier said, according to the summary.

It said Barnier also told senators that the U.S.' refusal to allow Iran to begin WTO membership talks "could be reconsidered if a definitive agreement was concluded on Iran renouncing its uranium enrichment program." ...

Bush Says Iran Using U.S. Refusal as Excuse

Reuters, ABC News:

President Bush said Friday that Iran is trying to use the United States' refusal to join European talks over Tehran's nuclear program as an excuse for not giving up uranium enrichment. He stressed that the United States preferred diplomacy and did not want to use military action against Iran over the nuclear question.

"What they're trying to do is kind of wiggle out. They're trying to say, 'Well, we won't do anything because America is not involved.' Well, America is involved. We're in close consultation with our friends," Bush said. ...

In the ARD interview, Bush insisted that he wants a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the problem and said any talk of a military attack is "just not the truth."

"We want diplomacy to work, and I believe diplomacy can work so long as the Iranians don't divide Europe and the United States. And the common goal is for them not to have a nuclear weapon," Bush told Belgium's VRT television channel.

NEVER SAY NEVER

"First of all you never want a president to say never, but military action is certainly not, is never the president's first choice," Bush said, when asked if he could rule out military action against Iran.

"Diplomacy is always the president's, or at least always my first choice and we've got a common goal, and that is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon," he said in the interview taped in Washington and broadcast before his arrival in Brussels Sunday for summits with NATO and the EU. ,,,

"We've got a common goal and that is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon ... I think if we continue to speak with one voice and not let them split us up and keep the pressure on, we can achieve the objective," he said.

"I'm convinced again that if the Iranians hear us loud and clear and without any wavering, that they will make the rational decision," Bush said in an interview with France 3 television. ...

Bush: Military Action Not First Choice

Reuters:

Military action against Iran's nuclear program is not the United States' first choice but can never be ruled out, President Bush said Friday. "First of all you never want a president to say never, but military action is certainly not, is never the president's first choice," Bush told Belgian television channel VRT, when asked if he could rule out military action against Iran.

"Diplomacy is always the president's, or at least always my first choice and we've got a common goal, and that is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.," he said in the interview taped in Washington earlier and broadcast before his arrival in Brussels Sunday for summits with NATO and the European Union.

EU officials want Washington to show more explicit support to efforts by Britain, France and Germany to win guarantees from Tehran that its nuclear program is peaceful -- for example by easing U.S. resistance to Iran's candidacy for the World Trade Organization. ...

"We've got a common goal and that is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon...I think if we continue to speak with one voice and not let them split us up and keep the pressure on, we can achieve the objective," he said.

Bush, Putin Talks To Focus On Iran 's Nuclear Program

Dow Jones Newswires:

Iran 's nuclear program is likely to be one of the top issues when the Russian leader and U.S. President George W. Bush meet next Thursday in Slovakia and Putin has indicated that the chance of agreement with Washington is minimal.

"The spread of nuclear weapons on the planet does not aid security, it does not strengthen security. The latest steps from Iran confirm that Iran does not intend to produce nuclear weapons and we will continue to develop relations in all spheres, including the peaceful use of nuclear energy," Putin said.

"We hope that Iran will strictly adhere to all international agreements, in relation to Russia and the international community," Putin said.

"We will continue to develop relations in all spheres, including the peaceful use of nuclear energy," Putin said.

He also said that Iran 's leadership had invited him to visit, and he accepted. Russian news agencies said that no date has been set.

A Russian analyst questioned whether Putin's statement was based on actual information or on expediency.

"To my mind, it's hard to find arguments to support Putin's declaration," said Anton Khlopkov, director of the PIR Center which studies weapons issues. He noted that "Iran is potentially an important strategic partner for Russia...(with) a whole series of coinciding interests."

Russia's nuclear chief is expected in Iran next week to sign a protocol on returning spent nuclear fuel to Russia, the only remaining obstacle to the launch of the Russian-built reactor. If the signing goes ahead as planned Feb. 26, it would pave the way for the deliveries of Russian nuclear fuel for the Bushehr reactor, which is set to begin operating in early 2006. ...

Friday’s Daily Briefing on Iran

DoctorZin Reports:

Words are weapons for Iranian bloggers. This UPI article contains some interesting facts. Bloggers take notice:

• Today an estimated 75,000 Iranians maintain online Web logs…
• 5 million Internet users in Iran…
• Some observers say the gathering revolution will be blogged, not televised…
• At a recent U.N. summit, Khatami himself bragged that Iran's official language, Farsi, stands as the third most popular blogging tongue in the world… [Ledeen says Farsi is the 4th most popular]
• "Web logs are much used at times of crisis (in Iran), such as during the June 2003 student demonstrations….
• Nearly 20 people [bloggers] have been arrested over the past three months…
• Iran's prosecutor-general ordered that a number of major reformist Web logs be blocked by Internet service providers…
  

Here are a few of items you may have missed.

• Iran has acquired the means to shut down the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz and worse.
• The NY Sun has a report that alleges that Europe’s negotiations with Iran is all carrots and no sticks
• Blog Iran wonders if Washington is finally serious about supporting democracy in Iran. Plus they have published a report of an “accidental fire” in Tehran’s Gold Bazaar. They are also asking for a letter writing campaign to PBS Frontline to encourage them to air the Canadian film, Prostitution behind the Veil. I am told the film is tragically moving and remarkably poignant documentary on hidden aspects of the Islamic Republic.
• Iran’s Supreme Leader in his own words, with analysis. This is a lengthy but valuable read.
• Russia has finally decided to provide Iran with nuclear fuel in the next three months. It is likely that this will a major issue when President Bush and Putin meet next week.
• Iran warns of a “very rapid response” to an attack. I fear Iran is looking for an excuse to attack, when they are ready.
• France’s new foreign minister, Michel Barnier, may be someone the US can work with.
• Iran makes a desperate call for “Islamic Unity.” But it has fallen on deaf ears.
• NATO wants closer ties with the Gulf Cooperation Council.
• Iran will complete its nuclear fuel cycle in the next six months, according to Israel.
• Syria is feeling vulnerable, even backing away from Iran’s call for a “united front” with Iran. Is the Bush administration beginning to get traction with Syria?
  
• Cox and Forkum have done it again. Check out their latest cartoon, Black Wedding.
  
• And finally, MemriTV.org has released three more Iranian TV videos. Check them out...
  

1. Iranian President Khatami: Difficult to Distinguish between President Bush and Bin Laden
2. Iranian President Khatami Presents His Perception of Democracy
3. Iranian TV Reports a Missile Attack in Iran

Black Wedding

Cox and Forkum:

Encourage PBS Frontline to air this important DOCUMENTARY!

Blog Iran:

Many of you might recall that PBS Frontline broadcasted the documentary by Jane Kokan who had traced the steps of Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian photojournalist who was murdered by the regime in the Summer of '03.

A new Documentary has made its way out of Iran and is currently being aired by Canadian Broadcasting’s Passionate Eye.

If you support the movement for freedom and would like PBS Frontline to air this new documentary, then join with thousands of others acrossthe blogosphere and contact PBS urging them to purchase and air this documentary.

Feel free to copy and paste (use) the following letter in your correspondence to PBS:

To contact PBS, click here!

--------------------------------------

Dear Frontline PBS,

As a long time and ardent fan of your award winning series and excellent documentaries I am writing to you to request that you consider purchasing and airing a tragically moving and remarkably poignant documentary called “Prostitution Behind the Veil, by Swedish-Iranian director Nahid Persson. You can read about the documentary here.

The documentary is also airing this week as part of Canadian Broadcasting’s Passionate Eye:

The documentary reveals the brutal and tragic underside of the Islamic Republic of Iran, where state sanctioned prostitution andheroin addiction under the aegis of Islam, are destroying an entire generation. The documentary also reveals the oppression and indignitiesthat women in the Islamic world are subjected to, much of which is simply never seen by the west and especially in the United States.

Much has been written about the state sponsorship of terrorism and thedevelopment of weapons of mass destruction by the Mullahs in Iran, very little though is ever written about the destruction of the Iranian people by a corrupt and terrorist Islamist theocracy. Most Americans have never really seen images of life inside the dreaded theocracy in Iran, nor have they ever had a chance to watch the ravages and destruction that this theocracy has caused in the lives of its people.

The filmmakers and addict/prostitutes in this documentary have taken great risks to reveal this hideous underside of the Islamic Republic of Iran, you can carry their message to Americans by purchasing and airing this documentary. As a Frontline and PBS supporter I strongly urge you
to purchase and air this documentary.

More Iranian TV Video Clips

MemriTV.org has just released more Iranian TV video clips:

Iranian President Khatami: Difficult to Distinguish between President Bush and Bin Laden

The following are excerpts from a speech by Iranian president Mohammad Khatami. Channel 1, Iranian TV aired this speech on Febraury 13, 2005:

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami:
Our problem is the violent and rigid voices heard in the world. One such voice was heard from Afghanistan during the Taliban rule, and another is being heard from the White House. This is a dangerous thing. Even though they confront one another, and pound and harm one another - Mr. bin Laden says: What I realized, with my narrow understanding… My God is the traditional and fanatic perspective of Islam - the Islam of 10 centuries ago - and I consider any innovation to be heretic. This is my truth. Anyone who doesn't agree with this point of view is an infidel, an atheist, and fair game. In order to kill him it is permitted to pulverize thousands of innocent people. In order to weaken him it is permitted to make millions miserable. This is one perspective. This very same voice is heard from the White House. It says: Whoever is not with us is against us, and war against him is a holy war. But if you delve a little deeper, and exchange the words of Bush and Bin Laden, you will be unable to distinguish between the two.
To View Video Click Here.

Iranian President Khatami Presents His Perception of Democracy

The following are excerpts from a speech by Iranian president Mohammad Khatami. Channel 1, Iranian TV aired this speech on February 13, 2005:

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami: It will be impossible to establish democracy here without the help of Islam. Not only is it impossible to establish a non-religious democracy but we don't want it. The majority of our society doesn't want it either.

You are entitled to ask why there has been no progress on the issues I've been raising. This is true. Many of our mottos have not been realized. But does this mean retreat? But does this mean I have backed down? Am I supposed to declare war against a regime that I accept in principle? I believe that if this regime is gone, it is not at all clear what will follow it - regardless of my religious belief. The people who want to change the constitution and the regime – can they guarantee that once the current regime is gone, Western-style democracy will be established here? Such a thing is impossible. With what public? With what faith? With what support? When there is no global support, will we ask for the support of the US and the others, in order to establish democracy here? After all, America is interested in controlling the world. America protects the most reactionary regimes in the world. They are its allies.

I'm not claiming that the Islamic Republic is faultless. I'm not claiming that there are no human rights violations in some places. I'm not claiming that writers and journalists are always treated justly. I'm not claiming that our situation is ideal, from the Islamic point of view. But this I say, loud and clear: Even by current standards, we are better off than all our neighbors. Furthermore, our people is undergoing a new experience of Islam. In contrast to the Islam of the Taliban, It wants to establish democracy. This regime is being attacked on all fronts by America. So those who oppose this regime and want America's support... We see everything the US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan today. it claims that it wants to devour the entire world. Do they want to create democracy here?! For me backing down means joining these people and joining the opinion of… No, not the public opinion… It means I should join the pressure against the Islamic Republic in order to make it disappear. If, indeed, the Islamic Republic is gone, democratic rule will not be established in this country.
To View Video Click Here.

Iranian TV Reports a Missile Attack in Iran

The following is a breaking news from Al-Alam TV about a missile attack in Bushehr District, Iran.

Newscaster:We have just received this breaking news: a loud explosion was heard this morning in the outskirts of the city of Deilam in Bushehr District in Southern Iran. Eyewitnesses said that the explosion was the result of a missile fired by an unidentified airplane towards an unpopulated area 20 km from the city. Iranian officials have not yet commented officially about this incident.
To View Video Click Here.

Iran, Syria and Bush

The Washington Times, Op-Ed:

Over the past few days, media critics of President Bush's tough stance against Iranian and Syrian roles in supporting terrorism have started to level a patently false charge against the administration: that its recent criticism of these rogue-state regimes has magically transformed them from being friendly (or at least neutral) toward the United States into enemies.

To hear the carping about Wednesday's announcement that Tehran and Damascus were forming an alliance to resist pressure from Washington, one would almost think that neither of these regimes had considered supporting terrorism until Mr. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice began criticizing them the other day. This is nonsense. Iran and Syria have been allies (and part of an axis supporting terrorism) for almost a quarter century. And Syria was up to its eyeballs in supporting terrorism well before that.

After he seized power in a 1970 military coup, Syrian President Hafez Assad (father of current dictator Bashar Assad) frequently employed terror to settle political scores. After Syria occupied Lebanon in 1976, it killed scores of Lebanese politicians who refused to bow to its dictates, among them Druze leader Kamal Jumblatt. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Syrian agents targeted a diverse array of enemies, ranging from Egypt (for making peace with Israel) to the prime minister of Jordan to the Muslim Brotherhood. Targets also included the American consulate in Istanbul and the French ambassador to Lebanon.

Following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the radical Shi'ite regime became Syria's closest ally and partner in terrorism. Tehran and Damascus became very close following Saddam Hussein's 1980 invasion of Iran. In 1982-83, Syria and Iran allowed Hezbollah to set up headquarters in the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon and permitted more than 1,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to base themselves there. Hezbollah, operating with Syrian and Iranian support, carried out a devastating series of bombings against the American embassy, U.S. and French military barracks and other targets, killing more than 300 Westerners during the 1980s.

Hezbollah was also behind the kidnappings of Western hostages and the murders of Lebanese Jews during that period. These actions succeeded in driving American and French peacekeepers out of the country and preventing an Israel-Lebanon peace agreement from being implemented. ...

The above is just a small fraction of the evidence of Iranian and Syrian collaboration in supporting terrorism for close to 25 years. It is ludicrous to assert that Mr. Bush is responsible for this. The truth is that Mr. Bush is the first president to confront the Tehran-Damascus axis in a serious way.

Russia's Nuclear Deal with Iran Raises Middle East Temperature

Times Online:

Russia defied stern American warnings yesterday to announce that it had agreed to start shipping nuclear fuel to Iran in three months. Within hours President Bush vowed to stand by Israel if its security was threatened by Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. He said that it would be unacceptable for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

The twin announcements look certain to generate some frank exchanges when Mr Bush meets President Putin in Slovakia next week. They also raised the already high stakes in the Middle East, and Mr Bush made clear that the region would dominate his discussions with European leaders in Brussels next week. ...

But Iranian state television announced yesterday that a deal would be signed next week during a visit to Iran by Alexander Rumyantsev, head of the Russian Atomic Energy Agency.

The signing will take place on February 26, two days after the Bush-Putin summit. The first shipment of fuel will be delivered three months later, and Russia will provide fuel to Bushehr for the next ten years. Under the deal, Iran is supposed to return spent fuel to Siberian storage units, but that clause is unlikely to allay Washington’s fears that Iran will use it to obtain weapons-grade material. ...

This Time, Syria is Vulnerable in the Face of US Anger

Times Online:

Is America's sudden spike of anger at Syria going to persuade it to change its ways? There is one sign that the answer is yes: the speed with which Syria rushed to distance itself from Iran’s unilateral declaration on Wednesday that they shared a “united front”. “We are not the enemy of the US and we do not want to be drawn into such an enmity,” said Imad Mustafa, Syrian Ambassador to the US.

Well said. That is an entirely sensible response from Damascus, in the name of self-protection. So, too, was its instant condemnation of the assassination of Rafik Hariri, Lebanese opposition leader, on Monday.

Syria does not want to be “next” in America’s sights, a notional competition in which it has always been a contender.

But its scrambled attempt at buying itself distance cannot have bought it peace of mind, given the pitch to which US fury has risen this week.

Relations between the US and Syria, frosty for decades, have worsened since the Iraq war. The US has accused Syria of allowing al-Qaeda militants and Baathist sympathisers to cross the border into Iraq.

But the US appeared prepared, given its troubles in Iraq, to regard Syria as an annoyance that did not need urgent attention. After Hariri’s death, Syria cannot assume that so tolerant a view still holds.

The Bush Administration is exploring at least three separate ways to convince Damascus that it should extract itself from 30 years of interference in Lebanese politics.

As a measure of the new heights of US anger, the Bush Administration is pushing European governments formally to designate Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. Hezbollah, a Lebanon-based Shia group, receives its support from both Syria and Iran, and is the most tangible demonstration of an alliance.

President Bush will raise the subject directly in a meeting with President Chirac of France on Monday, at the start of his European trip. However, it looks as if France will say no, for now.

Its officials regard the move as dangerously inflammatory within Lebanon. No other European country with a stake in the question is much inclined to argue the opposite. Many officials privately regard the designation as symbolic rather than truly important.

The most important practical result of slapping on the label “terrorist” would be the obligation to crackdown on financing. But although the US persuaded European Union countries to treat Hamas, the Palestinian group, as terrorists nearly 18 months ago, the effect on its finances is said to be slight.

Despite the disagreement over Hezbollah, the US and France have linked up to put pressure on Syria through the UN. This is the second focus of US efforts, and perhaps has the best chance of success.

In September, the Security Council passed Resolution 1559, sponsored by the US and France, telling Syria to pull its 15,000 troops out of Lebanon and stop meddling in its affairs.

The Security Council is due to assess progress next month. There has been none so far, beyond a limited pullback of Syrian forces which is essentially meaningless.

The US’s third tool is to look at ways, on its own, of choking off the finances of Syria itself. It could stop Syrian organisations having access to US banks — and even some in other countries. It could also try to freeze Syrian assets in the US.

Those levers are all designed to prise Syria out of Lebanon. But Washington is also keen to remind Damascus of the cost of any alliance with Tehran, at the top of its list of threats, along with North Korea.

The Bush Administration has made clear it is not going to let the question of Iran’s nuclear ambitions dribble away in months of stop-start European diplomacy. That message seems to have got through to Damascus, judging by its anxiety this week to keep an appearance of distance from Tehran.

Will this pressure on Syria work? Or are its rewards from meddling in Lebanon great enough to warrant a refusal? In the past, Syria’s motives were clear. It believed that by controlling Lebanon, it had more influence in the region overall, and access to Lebanon’s resources. It could use Lebanon to put pressure on Israel. It also had the diplomatic fig leaf provided by Israel’s presence in Southern Lebanon.

Those excuses have gone, or are going. The Lebanese are losing faith that the occupation holds any benefits for them, as the support for Hariri showed. International condemnation of the Syrian position has never been so solid.

But one of the greatest fears of Hariri’s supporters is that US anger will fade. They have not forgiven it for its spasmodic attention in the past. They are well aware of the rival claims on its attention — Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq itself.

They hope that this time, the US will not be distracted, at a point when there is a sign of nervousness in the overbearing neighbour to the north.

Iran to Complete Nuclear Fuel Cycle in 2005

Middle East Newsline:

Israel has determined that Iran would acquire the expertise to complete the nuclear fuel cycle by the end of 2005. Israeli officials said that despite the suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment program, Teheran continues to conduct research and other activities meant to acquire capabilities required to develop a nuclear bomb. The officials said Iran would achieve indigenous nuclear capability within 2005.

"The question is not if the Iranians will have a nuclear bomb in 2009, 10 or 11," Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said. "The main question is when are they going to have the knowledge to do it. We believe that in six months from today they will end all the tests and experiments they are doing to have that knowledge." ...

NATO Recommends Ties With GCC

Middle East Newsline:

NATO has recommended the establishment of close ties with Gulf Arab states. NATO officials said the alliance has determined the need for strong relations with Gulf Cooperation Council states as part of an effort to increase defense and security cooperation with the Arab world.

They said the relations with GCC states would be in the areas of border security, intelligence exchange and training.

A key focus of GCC-NATO relations would be counter-insurgency, officials said. They said the NATO recommendations regarded counter-insurgency cooperation as vital for the prevention of terrorist financing and the flow of insurgents into Europe and North America.

Another recommendation called for NATO-GCC cooperation to halt the flow of weapons of mass destruction proliferation throughout the Persian Gulf. In 2003, the United States regarded the United Arab Emirates, particularly the port of Dubai as a major way-station of WMD to such countries as Iran and Libya.

Iran Calls For Islamic Unity

The Associated Press, CBS News:

Iran warned Thursday that any strike on its nuclear facilities will draw a swift and crushing response and called for an expansion of its newly emerging strategic alliance with Syria to create a powerful united Islamic front that could confront Washington and Israel.

The warning by the country's defense minister and the call for an Islamic alliance reflected Iran's concern about growing U.S. pressure to drop all its nuclear ambitions. With Syria under similarly strong American scrutiny — in its case for its role in Lebanon and as an alleged sponsor of terrorism — the two nations were trying to diminish Washington's efforts to isolate them.

Despite tough talk, the Bush administration has stuck with diplomatic pressure against both countries. Still, fears it will attack one or the other abound, and Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani was quoted Thursday by state-run radio as saying Iranian retaliation would be harsh.

"When the Iranian nation sees our crushing response to the enemy, it should know one of our nuclear or non-nuclear facilities has been attacked," he said a day after an explosion in southwestern Iran near a nuclear facility that initially was reported as a missile strike. After varying possible explanations, Iranian authorities said it was due to construction work on a dam.

Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani's call for a powerful alliance among Islamic nations was another sign of the tense situation; it came a day after Syria and Iran declared they would form a united front in the face of any threats.

However, the idea appeared unlikely to go far, with many key Arab states — Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia — close Washington allies and long suspicious of Iran's Shiite Muslim clerical regime. ...

"The Iranian-Syrian common front is not a new phenomenon. Iran and Syria have been strategic allies for the past 2 1/2 decades. What was declared Wednesday was insistence on more coordination and cooperation between the two in the face of growing U.S. hostility," said Mohammad Sadeq al-Hosseini, an Iranian expert on Arab affairs.

"The declaration may lead to closer high-level contacts so that the two can assist each other at crucial moments," he said, noting Iran was a major power in the Gulf. "Closer cooperation between Tehran and Damascus can help delay U.S. plans against the two countries." ...

To France's Busy Diplomat, These Are Days for Dialogue

The Los Angeles Times:

The overnight flight from Paris landed at 9 a.m., and French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier hit the ground running.

Sirens wailing, Barnier's motorcade streaked through the gray desert landscape into Riyadh for meetings with the Saudi foreign minister, French expatriates and Crown Prince Abdullah, this nation's de facto ruler.

French diplomacy is in overdrive these days, particularly in the Middle East, a region where French and U.S. interests now seem to be converging rather than clashing. Barnier's talks with the Saudis were dominated by the issues of the moment: the assassination of the former prime minister of Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and Europe's high-stakes talks with Iran over the latter's nuclear program.

By 5 p.m., Barnier was back on his government Airbus jet, headed home to a banquet to address foreign diplomats. During an interview Tuesday aboard the Paris-bound plane, he spoke of a global mood that is a mixture of hope, tension and uncertainty.

He sounded upbeat on a number of subjects, including a dinner scheduled for Monday in Brussels at which President Bush will sit down with French President Jacques Chirac, an encounter billed as the launch of a renewed transatlantic partnership. Barnier will also participate in the meeting, along with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Bush's decision to meet with leaders of the European Union's governing commission, a first for a U.S. president, illustrates the dynamic between an increasingly united Europe and a U.S. administration that is reaching out, said Barnier, 54. He described a developing "double confidence: confidence of the Americans in Europe and confidence of the Europeans in themselves."

"We have many reasons to talk: Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative, Lebanon, Iraq," Barnier said. "What is important is that we talk." ...

Like his predecessor, Dominique de Villepin, Barnier is tall, lanky and silver-haired. But whereas De Villepin, who left the post in April, was a volcanic orator who approached diplomacy with the verve of a poet-musketeer, Barnier has a more measured style.

De Villepin, a protege of Chirac, led the charge against the Iraq war, causing a rift with his then-counterpart, Colin L. Powell, that marked a nadir in U.S.-French relations.

In contrast, Barnier, a former environment minister, has been France's longtime point man on the EU, a bureaucratic arena defined by compromise and nuance.

Associates describe him as realistic and pragmatic, qualities the French associate with down-to-earth natives of the Alpine region of Savoy, where he is from. Some see him as the man for a moment when both sides are seeking to work together.

Barnier has also displayed flashes of a determination to make his mark. He undertook a historic bid to improve French-Israeli ties during a three-day trip to Israel in October. It was the first time in decades that a French foreign minister had visited the Jewish state exclusively, and the longest period spent there by a top French envoy, officials say.

The trip may have been designed to rebuff a perception France favored the Palestinians.

"There were misunderstandings about the French position in the region," Barnier said, sipping a glass of Bordeaux during dinner on the plane with three journalists. "I wanted to make a gesture. To show that France can be useful to everyone involved." ...

An obstacle to transatlantic harmony may yet emerge in differences over how to approach Iran. Despite the verbal volleys between Washington and Tehran, Barnier said, he believes the Bush administration still supports the mission of France, Britain and Germany. They are trying to persuade Iran to halt its enrichment of uranium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons, in exchange for economic and political incentives.

"The Americans, even though they remain suspicious of the Iranians, see that we are doing this in a serious manner," Barnier said.

If the standoff can be resolved at the negotiating table, it would probably be seen as a victory for European diplomatic "soft power" backed by the "hard power" of U.S. military might. Barnier sees the Iran talks as a model for future EU teamwork.

"This is an example of the new European diplomacy in action," he said.

Words are weapons for Iranian bloggers

United Press International (excerpts):

Iran is already under attack. The opposition is at work both within and beyond its borders, restless, coordinating and sharing intelligence.

Its ranks number in the tens of thousands, most of whom are young and savvy with experience in clandestine activity. Their arsenal, however, includes neither guns nor grenades, but keyboards and flat-screen monitors.

In a country where free speech has price, Iranian bloggers are having a bonanza - and the hardliners have begun to take notice.

The blogging phenomenon has exploded in the Islamic Republic. Today an estimated 75,000 Iranians maintain online Web logs, or "blogs," for short, that engage in a brisk virtual dialogue despite an Orwellian government that has a monopoly on public news media. They are an ever-enlarging faction of the 5 million Internet users in Iran, who have taken the protest for greater social freedom from streets and newsstands to cyberspace. ...

At one level, the anonymity blogs provide has opened a conduit of free expression for legions of increasingly disaffected youth, long deprived access to music, fashion and other spoils of Western pop culture.

"Individuality, self-expression, tolerance are new values which are quite obvious through a quick study of the content of Persian Web logs," said Hossein Derakhshan, a Canadian-based Iranian journalist, in an interview with the BBC.

"The underground lives that Iranian youth have these days. Things like girlfriends, boyfriends, the music they listen to, the films they see."

A random survey of blogs showed that taboo topics, ranging from Valentine's Day celebrations to the assets of actress Angelina Jolie, are discussed in passionate detail.

This variety is itself a significant development in a closed society like Iran, where women are forbidden to expose their hair, let alone air their grievances against the ruling powers.

More notably, blogging has filled the media vacuum created by the forced closure of independent news outlets -- including 110 dailies and periodicals since April 2000 -- and breathed life into an ailing reform movement that has lost faith in President Mohammad Khatami's campaign promises to liberalize the country. ...

Some observers say the gathering revolution will be blogged, not televised, in the country Reporters Without Borders, which advocates for press freedom, has called "the biggest prison for journalists in the Middle East." ...

And yet blogs have become the great equalizer in places like Iran, offering average citizens and upstart journalists the capacity to receive and make news in real time. ...

Additionally, many intellectuals and government officials now rely on blogs to employ a higher degree of nuance and expertise in their political commentaries. They include Mohammad Ali Abtahi, the former vice president of Iran turned parliamentarian, who has started his own Web log, neveshteha.com. ...

At a recent U.N. summit, Khatami himself bragged that Iran's official language, Farsi, stands as the third most popular blogging tongue in the world -- a remarkable statistic considering there are but 75 million native speakers, compared with 1.2 billion Chinese and 400 million Spanish speakers.

Once Derakhshan, the de facto father of Iranian blogging, devised a how-to-blog guide in Farsi that kicked open the door, blogs enabled Iranians to voice their opinions without fear of abuse by state-backed thugs. For the most part, critics of the regime could safely gauge the views of fellow citizens on key reform issues and mobilize collective support for opposition events and protests.

"Web logs are much used at times of crisis (in Iran), such as during the June 2003 student demonstrations, when they were the main source of news about the protests and helped students to rally and organize," according to Reporters Without Borders. ...

Unfortunately, bloggers are no longer out of reach.

The sudden arrest of online journalist Sina Motallebi in 2003 confirmed the mullahs have wised up. Motallebi, the first blogger ever imprisoned by a government, was charged with "undermining national security through artistic activity."

A petition circulated around an international network of bloggers attracted enough media coverage to bring about his release 23 days later. ...

Tehran has harshly cracked down on the online press as of late. Nearly 20 people have been arrested over the past three months, and two Web journalists, Arash Sigarchi and Mojtaba Saminejad, remain in prison.

In January, Iran's prosecutor-general ordered that a number of major reformist Web logs be blocked by Internet service providers. Dozens of others have been banned, and Web journalists continue to be harassed, illegally held in solitary confinement and even tortured for offenses the government deems "un-Islamic." ...

Iran warns of immediate payback for any attack after blast scare

AFP:

Iran warned Thursday that it would respond immediately to any military strike after a roadworks blast near a nuclear site sparked fears of an attack, the state news agency IRNA reported Thursday.

"An attack, whatever it is, against any site, whether it be nuclear or not, would produce a very rapid response," Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said.

"The Iranian nation would not yet have even been informed of an attack against a site, nuclear or not, before learning of our decisive reaction." ...

"Nothing happened in the region" of Bushehr, insisted Shamkhani, accusing the media of exaggeration. ...

Nuclear fuel deal with Russia imminent, Iran says

Reuters:

Russia will sign a deal with Iran next week to start nuclear fuel shipments for the Russian-built reactor there, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ...

"A fuel deal for the Bushehr nuclear power plant will be signed on Feb. 26," Assadollah Sabouri, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, told state television.

The comments indicated that the two countries had settled disagreements over the terms of their accord after years of negotiations. ...

Ayatollah Khamenei in his own words

The American Thinker published this last month. It is long but well worth reading:

Iran is developing a nuclear program, ostensibly for energy, but likely also for acquiring a nuclear weapon. Seyyed Ali Khamenei is the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a life-long office that his predecessor Ayatollah Khomeini created and instituted in the Iranian Constitution. He has held this office since 1990, after the death of Khomeini in 1989. Perched in this position, he gets to appoint members to the unelected institutions.

Iran is a theocratic “democracy.” It is democratic insofar as the people elect the President (now Muhammad Khatami since 1997) and the deputies of the Majlis or Parliament. However, the word “democracy” is in quotation marks because an unelected institution, the Guardian Council, has control over legislation, and this Council, made up of six theologians, is conservative and continually blocks reformist measures. This Council makes Iran a theocracy. For a quick overview of the Iranian government, the BBC, has a helpful flow chart of the elected and unelected institutions and offices.

For a list of the basic facts on Iran, the CIA produces a file on their website, the World Factbook. Also, an online encyclopedia, infoplease, is a helpful resource for quick facts on Iran.

In order to prevent any criticism that this article takes Khamenei’s own words out of context, and in order to promote further research into the hot topic of nuclear technology that is getting hotter daily, Khamenei’s main homepage can be found here, but it has been too often diluted with summaries. This website has fuller and more numerous speeches, but they too have some edits. However, these two sites provide enough information to last a long time.

This article follows a method. First, an introduction to the excerpt of Khamenei’s words is provided, so the reader can know the context and the subject of the excerpt. Second, fifteen excerpts of Khamenei are cited, arranged topically. They represent the same sentiments that are expressed throughout his speeches. The reader should go to the two homepages, because he or she will see for himself or herself that Khamenei comes across as very shrill, very anti-American, very anti-Israel, and very leftist. Finally, an exegesis or detailed analysis is provided right after each excerpt. Sometimes, Khamenei is quite clever with his words—what he says and what he does not say, especially about nuclear weapons.

Khamenei on the US

1. At a speech at Ayatollah Khomeini’s Mausoleum on the anniversary of the death of the revolutionary leader of Iran, Khamenei criticizes the US in terms that the American left can understand.

America speaks of war in order to expand its domination and influence in the world. This is arrogance. Any nation and any government that is intimidated with this literature and this way of treatment and surrenders to it, is digging its own grave and acting against itself.

Analysis: Khamenei believes with the American left that the US is rapacious and greedy, so it seeks world domination. The facts, however, say otherwise. Before the start of the Iraq War, outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell rightly asserted that “the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are.” This is shown by the thousands of white crosses on the cliffs of Normandy, France. Moreover, it is true that the US seeks to expand its influence in the world, but the world is evil, so the US has to step in. (It would be great if it did not have to because that would mean the world has stopped being so evil.) Were it not for the US in the past sixty years, the world would have sunk down into a hell-hole of misery from Nazism, Soviet and Chinese communism—responsible for the deaths of millions upon millions—and an assortment of other –isms that have plagued the globe. Though the US is far from a sinless utopia, it is, on balance, a force for good and freedom on this planet.

2. Khamenei believes that the US’s interest in Iraq is not building a democracy because if the Iraqis voted, they would throw out the occupiers the day after the elections.

The longer they [the US] stay [in Iraq], the worse it will become. This region does not tolerate occupation. They say [they] want to turn the Middle East into a region of democracy. This is a shameless lie. They are opposed to democracy. They know that if they turn to the people's votes in Iraq at this very moment, the decisive majority of the people will take a decision, will take the step, will elect those people who would not allow the Americans to stay in Iraq for a single day. (Crowd chants Allahu Akhbar or God is greatest)

Analysis: Khamenei is wrong on one count, and may he be right on another! On the one hand, the people of Iraq want the US to stay because they need military might to clean out many rat’s nests of terrorists (the ones of whom Khamenei must be so proud), so the Iraqis can hold free elections. On the other, may Khamenei prove to be right about the day after the elections! Americans asked to leave? If only that were the case! That would mean that the elections were as successful as they were in Afghanistan. This leads us to the next point.

3. Khamenei makes this misguided assessment of Afghanistan a year before the free elections and the swearing-in ceremony of Hamid Karzai.

In Afghanistan, in the poor and wronged country of Afghanistan, they [the US] entered the arena under the guise of combating a group or even a few individuals. They did not get their hands on those individuals, but they massacred many innocent people, bombarded them, and killed them. They are violent, but this imposition of violence or expression of violence cannot help America achieve its aims and succeed.

Analysis: The US has provided the conditions for free and peaceful elections in “the poor and wronged country of Afghanistan.” As reported by a free Afghan newspaper, President Karzai was sworn in and Vice President Cheney attended the ceremony and later addressed the troops who have been all but forgotten in their heroism in bringing democracy to the nation.

Khamenei is so far off about Afghanistan, we have the right to question his assessment of world politics in other areas. He seems to be motivated by a metaphysical hatred of the US, which colors his other viewpoints. Why should we take him seriously on those points?

4. The Supreme Leader believes in an American-Zionist plan to take over the Muslim world from the Euphrates River in Iraq to the Nile River in Egypt. He believes Sharon and Bush met to discuss this scheme.

According to reports, at the meeting between the prime minister of the Zionist regime and the American president last week the American president present him with a map of Greater Israel, from the Nile to the Euphrates. What does that mean? How can Islamic countries believe their words? How can they regard America as an arbitrator in the Palestinian issue? That aggressive, bullying, usurping and wrong slogan - from the Nile to the Euphrates - was the cursed and condemned slogan of the Zionists. Recently they have denied it, saying: No, that is a lie, we have no such intentions. Now these American warmongers are advocating it. That has exposed them to the Muslim world.

Analysis: This metaphysical hatred of the US leads Khamenei into irrationality, the same kind to which Osama bin Laden has sunk (as seen in point no. 1 here). The Supreme Leader, like bin Laden, actually believes that the US and Israel want to take over the Islamic world from the Euphrates to the Nile Rivers. This delusion is breathtaking. Nowhere has President Bush ever said this. Apparently, this policy has been simplified into a slogan: “From the Nile to the Euphrates.” The US press before the elections would have had a field day with this slogan—if only it were true, then the press would have played it 24/7 on an endless loop in order to show Bush as a warmonger of the worst kind. He would not have been reelected. The truth is far simpler, but not easy to pull off, with the loss of young men and women in the military. Bush wants to establish a democracy in Iraq as he has in Afghanistan, so Iraq can exercise its own sovereignty. Iraq gets to control the Euphrates as Egypt controls the Nile. How is this a Jewish-Zionist plot? Surely Jews do not control the media in Iraq, do they? Why do so many leaders in the Islamic world traffic in rumors and lies?

5. But Khamenei’s irrationality coming from a metaphysical hatred of the US does not stop at the slogan. After referring to a group of intellectuals who drafted a document justifying the Iraq War and using George Washington as the source of values, Khamenei accuses George Bush of threatening to drop (atomic) bombs:

The American values became a principle for them to justify their warmongering policies and even the application of atom bombs. During the same period George Bush threatened to drop bombs on several countries. See how committed they are to their values.

Analysis: It is difficult to know where to begin with this one. The euphemism “application” of atomic bombs could be amusing, if world politics right now were not so deadly serious. Khamenei is clever enough to leave the timeframe out of his charge of “applying” an atomic bomb. Does he mean Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Also, it is unclear what “during the same period” means in this context. WWII? But that does not make sense because he refers to Bush. Furthermore, Khamenei changes the wording around a little. Bush threatens to drop “bombs” without the modifier “atomic.” This ambiguity is diabolical, obliquely linking atomic bombs to Bush without saying it explicitly.

Khamenei on Israel and Martyrdom

6. Khamenei believes that Israel is a contrived and illegal regime. The tiny nation of Israel makes Khamenei’s language very shrill.

Brothers and sisters, today the Palestinian people's struggle has fallen into place; it revolves around the axis around which the hope of victory lies. In other words, the nation has come onto the stage. Israel is a contrived regime. It is an illegal regime. It is a usurper regime. They have taken a country from its people by force, through injustice and with ploys. Hence, any kind of negotiations that is based on the acknowledgement of this regime is an illegitimate negotiation and it is a negotiation that will not endure.

Analysis: In 1948 the UN restored the ancient land of Israel to its historical owners. On the UN website, in their children’s section, Israel is proclaimed as receiving statehood. That is an historical and legal fact. Millennia of history favors Jewish ownership of Israel, not the late religion of Islam. The Palestinians belong in Jordan. Those are historical facts. Furthermore, they never established an independent Palestinian state under British control, and before that, under Turkish hegemony. Great Britain had enough foresight after WWII (starting after WWI) and hindsight (historical knowledge) to allow Israel to apply to the UN for statehood, which the Palestinians never did. Those are historical facts. It is not far-fetched to believe that the Palestinians are merely jealous that Israel has created a prosperous and free democracy. If the Palestinians would do the same, they would not have time to join, support, or praise Hezbollah, an Iranian-sponsored terrorist group.

7. One would think that the Supreme Leader of a culturally sophisticated nation like Iran would never endorse martyrdom by suicide bombings, but this is not the case with Khamenei.

Let me say to you: these stances [of American administrators on suicide bombings] will not be of any use. This quest for martyrdom is not based on emotions; it is based on belief in Islam and faith in Judgment Day and faith in life after death. Anywhere Islam exists in its true sense, arrogance [the US] faces this threat.

Analysis: This is one of the most serious indictments against Islam. It should no longer be claimed that suicide bombings are supported only in the dark corners of the Islamic world. The Supreme Leader of Iran supports this death-cult. Speaking the truth, he says that homicide bombers do not commit their atrocities out of emotions, but out of the core doctrines of Islam: the Last Day and life after death. In Quran 9:111 and 61:10-13 Allah makes a deadly economic bargain with Muhammad and his Muslims. If Allah’s “submitted ones” or Muslims give up their lives in warfare, he will give them paradise in exchange. Why would not Muslims be inspired by their sacred text? Khamenei is following his Quran, and it leads to death, plainly and bluntly said. This implies that Khamenei’s “truth” is actually delusional—never mind what this says about the Quran and Islam at its root.

8. Khamenei’s logic in the next passage says that to fight the Palestinians is to fight Islam, and to fight Islam is to fight the world of Islam. So what is the solution? Palestine must be occupied by Palestinians, not by usurping immigrants—Jewish immigrants.

In order to gain mastery over Palestine, arrogance has to fight Islam and fighting Islam means fighting the world of Islam. This fight will not lead anywhere. The solution to the problem of Palestine does not consist of these imposed, fraudulent solutions. The solution to the problem of Palestine is for the true people of Palestine - not usurper, occupying immigrants - the true people of Palestine, whether the ones who remain inside Palestine or the ones who are outside Palestine, must determine their own country's ruling system. This is the only solution . . . .

Analysis: Clear enough: the true people of Palestine must occupy the entire land, thus destroying the Jewish state. It is disingenuous to assert that the Jews could live peacefully under Islamic rule. Dhimmitude in the shrill and hateful world of Islam today would mean death and annihilation.

9. Khamenei’s statement here echoes the same annihilation of a Jewish state.

The Zionists imagine that they have managed to gain mastery over Palestine and that Palestine is theirs forever. No, this is not true. The destiny of Palestine is that the country of Palestine will definitely become Palestinian one day.

Analysis: Is it mere coincidence that the high-level cleric and politician Rafsanjani says that Iran should use a nuclear weapon against Israel? (Fortunately, moderates in Iran condemned this wild claim.) Is that the “solution” that Khamenei is alluding to? This leads us to the next section of this article.

Khamenei on Nuclear Weapons

10. On August 6, 2003, in a speech delivered to Iranian politicians, Khamenei speaks with pride in his nation getting ready to join the nuclear club because Iran has been able to produce nuclear fuel. Now the latest pronouncement from the Supreme Leader says that Iran "must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims."

As for superior technology, the world speaks about this with pride. Despite all their enmity they had to concede that Iran is among the ten countries which has been able to produce the nuclear-fuel cycle. This is not a small matter. Of course, it is only natural that when there is such success they should make a commotion about it. They say “Yes, they want to do this and do that, they want to build (nuclear) bombs,” and they say other things. But this is not important. This progress has been made as a blessing of the Islamic system.

Analysis: Unidentified nations among the ten make a commotion about Iran’s nuclear capabilities: “Yes, they want to build (nuclear) bombs.” It is interesting that Khamenei never denies that this is the plan. He says simply, “But this is not important now.” Thus, he waves off any concern. Worse, he believes this capability is a “blessing” to the “Islamic system.” The word “system” is ambiguous, but it seems to mean the Iranian revolutionary government, which Khamenei often extols to the high heavens as representing Islam in its best form because it is ultimately controlled by a committee of theologians in the Guardian Council, who applies the brakes on reform. Whatever the case, nuclear production is seen as a blessing—God is implied here, and national pride is on the line.

Sometimes leftists in America and the West generally assert that the US has nuclear weapons, so Iran should have them too. It is arrogant for Westerners to see themselves above Iranians and to stop them. However, this implies that the US and Iran are morally equal in their governments, but they are not. It is true that US foreign policy over the past sixty years has blundered here and there (we can know this a priori, for we as individuals have blundered); but the US government is a true democracy without plans to impose a religion on any part of the world and without threatening to deploy a nuclear weapon, as Rafsanjani said he would against Israel. On balance, the US has been a force for good in the world—think about WWI, WWII, and the Korean War. (Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, says he keeps a night-time satellite photo of the Korean peninsula, and the South glows with prosperity, but the North is dark.) Also, the leaders in the US and the West are not delusional, but too many leaders in the Islamic world are—as this article has shown and will show. Therefore, comparing the US government with the Iranian government is like comparing a sane, rational human with an irrational, deranged lunatic.

11. In the same speech Khamenei piles on the ambiguities, yet he seems to deny that making nuclear weapons is a goal of Iran.

What are we to do with this challenge [from the warmongering neo-conservatives in the US]? As far as I can see we have to strengthen ourselves and engage in legitimate defence. This is the dictate of reason, and of political and diplomatic logic. Of course, domestic strength, is not in the sense that they imagine, i.e. obtaining a certain sort of weapon. No. Nuclear weapons don't solve any problems, as Mr. President [Khatami] pointed out. Furthermore, we don't agree, logically and principally, with weapons of mass destruction in this form. We are opposed to them. At that time (of war against Iraq), in the discourse on Jihad we argued against biological and chemical weapons, and we banned them. Our government announced this at the time. This is not the case. Domestic strength has another definition. I will briefly refer to this later. However, any form of withdrawal from an arrogant and bullying power is a unilateral act. Any form of withdrawal is an invitation to further aggression. We have learnt this from experience. We have experienced this in the past years and in various fields.

Analysis: No matter how many times one reads this excerpt, it gets more ambiguous. It goes from “Nuclear weapons don’t solve any problems” to “We banned [biological and chemical weapons] to “this is not the case.” What is not the case? Did they ban them or not? Does this ban include nuclear weapons or not? How does this square with Rafsanjani’s desire to use a nuclear weapon against Israel? Moreover, Khamenei says that “any form of withdrawal is a unilateral act.” So does this mean that he will not withdraw? And withdraw from what? From seeking nuclear weapons? Ambiguities multiply.

12. Khamenei delivers a speech on May 11, 2004 during Friday prayers, a date that coincided with the martyrdom of Ali (Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law who was assassinated by hardliners). However, the following is only a summary from his website.

Ayatollah Khamenei further noted that the success of young Iranian scientists in getting access to nuclear fuel production technology, causing Iran to rank among the 10 countries that possess this important technology, is what has mostly angered the United States and other enemies of the Iranian nation. He added that the enemies are trying to detract from this achievement by accusing Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons.

Expounding on Iran's strategy on nuclear weapons, the Leader stressed that the Islamic Republic is not seeking to produce, stockpile or use nuclear weapons. “We believe that a country that has a united nation and so many devoted youngsters does not basically need nuclear arms,” he noted.

Analysis: Here Khamenei clarifies that a unified nation does not need a nuclear weapon. But is this a lie? Is Iran seeking a weapon? More recently (November 5, 2004), Khamenei again denies that Iran is in search of a nuclear bomb. But it is most likely that Iran is and that Khamenei is lying. We have already determined that he is shrill in his speeches and excessive in his beliefs. George Bush (apparently) threatened to drop atomic bombs on nations. Bush and Sharon want a Greater Israel from the Euphrates to the Nile. How can we trust him on a nuclear weapon?

Khamenei on Worldwide Islamic Revival and Dissemination

13. On January 28, 2004, during pilgrimage season, Khamenei says that after Iran shook off the shackles of the US in the 1970 Revolution, Khamenei believes that Islamic worldwide revival is what threatens the US.

Today, the issue of the Islamic revival has spread from east, or at least from Pakistan, to the west and North Africa. The people are demanding Islam. The people are openly demanding support for Islam. This is a great threat to America. They admit that their interests are threatened and they are correct. Of course, their interests are illegitimate. Yes, the Islamic reawakening is threatening their illegitimate and odious interests. They are therefore seriously opposed to our Islamic state.

Analysis: I have already written about the spread and dominance of Islam here. The new twist is that America is threatened by it. The Administration and State Department is indifferent to religion. However, personally, this is accurate only if Islamic rule includes sharia and anti-Semitic bigotry of the worst kind. Islamic rule does include them, so it is accurate. It is diabolically ironic to say that any part of Africa is demanding Islam, because people in the Sudan are being slaughtered by Muslims. Sudan, incidentally, is not located in the North Africa. Khamenei’s omission of this nation is conspicuous and (unintentionally?) too clever by half.

14. During the same speech Khamenei says that Islam has slumbered long enough. It is now waking up.

The world of Islam, after its long weakness and slumber, which ultimately caused the political and cultural preponderance of foreign powers and led to the submission of its material and human resources to its enemies’ growth and dominance, has now re-discovered its identity and has opened a front against wrongdoers and invaders. A new breeze of Islamic awakening has blown to the world of Islam, and the actualization of Islam has become a very serious demand.

Analysis: From Khamenei’s point of view, Islam is God’s greatest gift to humankind, so the spread of his religion is good news. To us Christians who have lived in a real democracy and under the true grace of God, a grace that does not adapt an Old Law in a worse direction like stoning or lashing (an Iranian young man dies from it), this is bad news. The reawakening of Islam presumably includes the core doctrine of death-cult against Jews—a core doctrine according to Khamenei’s own words (no. 7, above)—and the imposition of sharia everywhere. Again, this is bad news for freedom-loving humans. Iran has executed 4,000 homosexuals since 1980, and in 1992 about 100 homosexuals were executed following a raid on a party, says one website. In short, true Islam, following the spirit and the letter of sharia is not good for society.

Khamenei on his and Islam’s worldwide objectives

15. In the same pilgrimage speech on January 28, 2004, Khamenei outlines his and Islam’s clear goals.

Today, the main interests of the Islamic Ummah [community] are: evicting the occupiers of Iraq and stabilizing its national sovereignty; evicting the foreign military troops from Afghanistan and emphasizing Afghanistan’s being an Islamic and independent country; helping the oppressed Palestinians and providing material and spiritual support for the people who are struggling to defend their lives, property, honor and independence against the occupiers; expanding religious rites and beliefs throughout the world; strengthening the ties among Muslim governments and resolving their disputes; activating the Islamic Conference Organization (OIC) and pursuing its veto right in the United Nations Security Council. Therefore, all of these should be incorporated in the policies and efforts of all Islamic governments. The peoples and the elites should claim these from their governments.

Analysis: The goals are not complicated. (1) Resist and evict the US and its allies from Iraq. (2) Resist and evict the US and its allies from Afghanistan. (Khamenei is on the wrong side of these two issues, as is clear now in Afghanistan.) (3) Resist and evict the “oppressors” of the Palestinians, with material and spiritual support. (The material and the spiritual is likely best converged in a human body and soul as a suicide bomber.) (4) Expanding Islam around the globe (see comment on no. 14, above). (5) Strengthening Islamic governments around the globe. (This is frightening, given the shrill language and excessive beliefs widely held in Islamic nations. Islamic Enlightenment, where are you?) (6) Pursuing veto power on the Security Council in the UN (Khamenei can have that corrupt leftist institution, for it will not stop US foreign policy, thankfully.)

The hottest topic right now is Iran and a nuclear weapon, but this topic must be seen in a wider context. Everyone knows that the Supreme Leader (and many in the government of Iran) is (1) anti-American and (2) hysterically anti-Israel. Some have long suspected, without evidence, that he is (3) delusional; but perhaps many did not know that he is (4) pro-Islam in its worst elements, enforced everywhere. He neither preaches nor practices the religion of peace. This article has attempted to confirm with hard evidence that these four facts are true.

These four facts plus the deadliest weapon equal the most dangerous and lethal combination in human history.

Jim Arlandson (Ph.D.) teaches introductory and world religions at a college in southern California. He has written a book Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity (Hendrickson, 1997).