The Week in Review

DoctorZin provides a review of this past week's [2/27-3/5] major news events regarding Iran.

The news on Iran has been coming fast and furious. Here are the headlines and a few of items you may have missed.

The EU3 Negotiations with Iran:

• Iran warns that it will make atomic fuel if they are sent to UN Security Council.
• The EU3 criticize Iran for not keeping it's pledge to suspend all sensitive parts of its nuclear program.
• Iran demands that the EU3 compromise and lectures the US to get used to the idea of a nuclear Iran.
• Europe Should Be Careful What It Wishes for in Iran, says Ruel Marc Gerecht.

Developments in Iran's Nuclear Program:

• Iran has now acquired all it needs to produce nuclear weapons.
• DigitalGlobe photo of Iran's heavy water reactor shows it is nearing completion.
• Iran wants to test it's nuclear enrichment equipment, in violation of the spirit of the EU3 agreement.
• Iran's heavy water reactor nearly complete? If so, once operational, Iran be able to produce a plutonium bomb in a year.
• Iran's secret nuclear storage tunnels are reportedly 1/2 mile below ground.
• The Bushehr nuclear plant has serious technical problems.
• Iran rejects the IAEA's latest request to inspect the Parchin Military base that other accuse are developing nuclear weapons materials.
• In 1987, AQ Khan offered Iran nuclear a starter kit for nuclear enrichment.
• Iran and Russia finally sign their deal for nuclear fuel. But the deal is dangerously full of holes.
  

Popular struggle inside of Iran:

• The regime has finally given up on trying to make women where black.
• Strikes and protests on the rise inside of Iran.
• 150 Students protest in Tehran.
  

And a frightening development for Iranians outside of Iran:

• The Mullahs are once again assassinating foreign dissidents.
  

Iran's Neighbors:

• Iran may have 40,000 agents in Iraq on its payroll.
• Russia denies having Russian troops in Iran, sort of.
• Pakistan would remain neutral in the case of a U.S. attack against Iran.
• After massive public protests the Lebanese government resigned.
  

US Policy and Iran:

• The US is calling for guarantees in the EU3/Iran talks.
• The US wants to fund Iranian activists, the question is how.
• Bush is considering offering Iran participation in the WTO.
• Chief US delegate to the IAEA charges Iran of "cynically" pursuing nuclear weapons.
• VOA to expand their news and commentary into Iran.
• Dan Darling tries to help us to understand US policy options on Iran.
  

Rumors of War:

• Iran threatens an attack will risk all Middle East oil.
• Russia is arming the "Axis of outcasts," in the Middle East and Latin America.
• General Abizaid says a nuclear Iran may invite an attack by others.
• A top Israeli bomber reportedly says Iran is "within reach."
• The American Thinker has published a report of preparations for possible military action the US is preparing against Iran.
  

Odds and Ends:

• Must See Iranian TV, courtesy of MemriTV.org (thanks to Frontpagemag.com and Iran va Jahan).
• Dr. Jerry Corsi's new book has pre-sold 150,000 copies of his new book Atomic Iran.
  

Must Read Articles and Reports:

• DoctorZin says "don't worry" about a possible shift in US policy towards Iran.
• Mark Steyn says the Arab's Berlin wall has fallen.
• We are living in a revolutionary age, says Michael Ledeen.
• The Department of State has issued an important but length report, Iran - Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2004. I have excerpted portions of it here.
  

And finally, The Quote of the Week:

Does Bill Clinton feel ideologically at home with Iran? Speaking of Iran he said:

"In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own." and much more...

Washington: Condi's Clout Offensive

Newsweek:

Just two years ago, Donald Rumsfeld was the big man on George W. Bush's campus—the "matinee idol," as the president once called him—and Condoleezza Rice was just another obstacle for the Defense chief to run through. Former staffers on Rice's National Security Council, some still bitter, describe Rumsfeld's contempt for the NSC, and his numerous end runs around Rice. read more

One official recalls a day when Rumsfeld and other "principals" were at a White House meeting. Someone referred to the NSA. "What's that?" Rumsfeld asked mockingly. "That's the national-security adviser," came the answer. Rumsfeld shot back, "Who's that?" Rice leaned over and said, "Don, that would be me."

Suffice it to say, Condi Rice doesn't need to remind Donald Rumsfeld where she is in the pecking order any longer. It's not just that two years ago was a time of war, of knocking things down, while now is supposed to be a time of diplomacy, of building things up—Arab democracy, renewed alliances, a new and improved U.S. global image. The new secretary of State has also rushed onto the world stage with force and style, and with the fair wind of the Arab Democratic Spring at her back. Suddenly the controlled, impeccably mannered woman who spent four years ducking into Bush's shadow is drawing every spotlight, black boots and all. "I think she's having the time of her life," says her old friend Coit Blacker, a former Stanford colleague. "Condi has been a performer since—well, I think her first piano recital was when she was 4 or 5 years old. She's not particularly shy."

Though by most accounts she and Rumsfeld are friendly—they talk on the phone at 7:15 a.m. every day—the 72-year-old Defense chief may not be taking his partially eclipsed status very well. Last month, while on his own (far less covered) trip to Germany, Rumsfeld was asked by a NATO parliamentarian about Rice's policy of consulting with European allies. Would he do the same? "Condi Rice doesn't have a policy," he responded. "The president of the United States and the United States have policies." Asked to comment for an article on Rice's performance, one Pentagon official, sounding a bit defensive, said, "Isn't it a little early to be writing a story on how well she's doing as secretary of State?"

No one should ever count out Rumsfeld, a brilliant infighter who in two separate eras outmaneuvered two giants of foreign policy, Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell. But whereas Bush defined himself as a "war president" in his first term, now he can't get enough of his "new diplomacy," and Rice is his chief instrument. With the Army still strapped down in Iraq, and resentment lingering inside the White House that the Pentagon did not keep Bush fully apprised on the insurgency and Abu Ghraib Prison scandal, some Washington observers see Rumsfeld as, if not quite a spent force, then a lesser one. "The White House lost confidence in Rummy in late 2003 when his predictions on Iraq weren't panning out," says conservative journalist Bill Kristol. Rumsfeld is now said to be somewhat detached from Iraq, focused inwardly on what he sees as a big part of his legacy, the unglamorous if necessary task of military "transformation." Though he has given no sign he might depart early, rumors have flown for weeks that Rumsfeld could leave after the quadrennial defense review—a major rethink of military policy—expected by the end of 2005. "It seems like Rumsfeld's daily involvement in Iraq has evaporated," says a State official.

Among those said to be eying his post is newly retired deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage, a bitter rival of Rumsfeld's. Armitage, who tells friends that the Defense job is the only one that could lure him back into government, recently decided not to return to his old consulting firm, Armitage Associates, but to set up a new one, Armitage International. The new firm will mainly arrange speaking engagements for him, avoiding corporate contracts that could cause him conflict-of-interest problems. "It makes things easier from a number of angles if Mr. Armitage does go back to government soon," an Armitage associate, Kristin Burke, told NEWSWEEK. Asked about Rumsfeld's future, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said only, "He has spoken to the fact that the president has asked him to stay on."

While Rumsfeld watches his rear, Rice is a wellspring of fresh activity. Up at 5 a.m. every day, she is building a mini policy empire that includes considerable sway over her old domain, the NSC (where a key deputy, Elliott Abrams, will answer to her on the Mideast as well as to her former deputy, new national-security adviser Steven Hadley). And after four years in which she herself suffered sometimes savage criticism—her total devotion to Bush resulted in a weak, disorganized NSC, critics said—she is probing every murky corner of Foggy Bottom. "She calls early-morning meetings, late-night meetings," says one senior State official, eyes rolling in exasperation. "Then there are the Saturday meetings. This is her life." Adds senior adviser Jim Wilkinson: her "approach to the job is based on the principle of no wasted motion. That means every meeting, trip, phone call or statement should count."

For the moment, most big decisions are being shoved onto Rice's diplomatic track. That includes Mideast talks; shaping nascent democracy in Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt; combining with the French to prod Syria out of Lebanon, and rejuvenating talks with Iran to force dismantlement of its nuclear program. "I like the way it's going," says Sen. Joe Biden, the senior Foreign Relations Committee member who lectured Rice at her confirmation hearings in January, "Don't listen to Rumsfeld!"

Perhaps the critical test of Rice's influence at the moment is Iran. Pentagon hawks, said to be backed by Vice President Dick Cheney—still considered the "tiebreaker" in policy battles—want to confront Tehran. Rice has urged that diplomacy be tried first, and she seems to have the president on her side. European sources say the president told European leaders that he would back their negotiations with Tehran, including an offer of such inducements as World Trade Organization membership and badly needed airplane parts, with a possible sale of new civilian airliners from Boeing or Airbus. But Bush will provide these "carrots" only if Iran completely stops its uranium-enrichment program. That could mean a blowup with Tehran, which warned last week that it would never permanently halt its program. And Bush clearly hasn't lost his martial instincts: "All options are on the table," he pointedly reminded the Europeans. Yet for now, the option being played is diplomacy, and that's Condi Rice's hand.

Iranian workers increase protest actions

SMCCDI (Information Service):

Iranian workers are increasing their protest actions by reducing work load, increasing absenteeism and rallying in order to protest against their degrading conditions or requesting their unpaid salaries. Acts of sabotage and arson are also increasing as the Islamic regime is unable to respond to workers aspirations nor to fulfill its reiterated empty promises. read more

Today's alone, two new demonstrations took place in two different Iranian cities of Khoram-Abad and Dezful. Hundreds of workers rallied in front of the Governors' offices by shouting slogans against the official managements of their factories and threatening of a more harsher way of action if an immediate attention is not given to their requests.

Last week in the City of Arak, tens of female workers got out of their Soaks factory and protested. They were supported by hundreds of residents who shouted slogans against the regime despite the presence of the security forces who closed the perimeters.

Hundreds of Iranian factories are shutting down due to the ill-policies of the Islamic regime and the frauds made by their governmentally nominated managers. Many of the so-called privatizations are made in order to benefit the regime's affiliates by allowing them to close the factories in order to speculate on the price of their lands.

US: Burden on Iran to Show World it Doesn't Have Nuclear Weapons

Serena Parker, VOA News:

State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher says the burden is on Iran to show the world that it means what it says. “Iran claims it doesn't want a nuclear weapon,” he said. “They should be going out of their way to demonstrate to the world, to show the world with confidence that is true. They've been found for 20 years in covert programs.” read more

The IAEA says Iran has hidden nuclear activities for almost 20 years. Agency Chief Mohamed ElBaradei has called on Iran to provide a full accounting of its nuclear activities to IAEA inspectors, but it's unclear if Iran will cooperate.

Earlier this week Iran threatened to break seals put in place by IAEA inspectors and test essential parts for machines for nuclear work. Meanwhile, satellite images indicate that Iran has begun construction on a second nuclear facility, which could be used to produce bomb-grade plutonium.

Western diplomats close to the IAEA said Friday that Iran is building deep tunnels to store nuclear material at a site where it is known to have carried out uranium enrichment activities. They speculate the tunnels are to hide and protect nuclear components from a possible aerial strike by the United States or Israel.

State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher said these all fit into the pattern that Iran has followed over the years, to say one thing and do another.

"There are repeated situations where Iran has been found to not be disclosing the whole truth about its programs, which continues to raise questions about Iran,” he added. “And so rather than making statements that raise further questions about their intentions, one would think that if Iran were really sincere about what it has promised, they would be going out of their way to show that they were not seeking a nuclear weapon. They would be going out of their way to build confidence in the international community." ...

Powell Sees No Need to Use Military Against Iran

Reuters:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Saturday said he saw no need for military action against Iran for its suspected development of nuclear weapons, given strong diplomatic efforts to address the issue. read more

Powell told Fuji Television in an interview that although military force remained an option, President Bush had made it clear that he wanted to find a diplomatic solution.

"Just because there is the possibility you could use military force, I don't see any need to think about that right now because there are ... strong diplomatic efforts under way," Powell told Fuji Television's "Hodo 2001" program.

"The international community has come together to make it clear to Iran that they should not develop nuclear weapons and we are developing the efforts of the European Union ... and we are working with the International Atomic Energy Agency, so the issue of conflict for Iran I don't think arises yet," he told the Japanese television station in a live interview. ...

He said the cases of North Korea and Iran were different from the situation in Iraq, primarily because there was a "hot conflict going on" with then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein over his repeated violations of U.N. resolutions.

"They were violating UN resolution after UN resolution after UN resolution, and it was time to do something about Iraq," he said. "But I think there is time for democratic efforts to produce a solution to the effort with North Korea and with Iran."

He acknowledged that he had differences with some U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, over how much time to give the United Nations to resolve the dispute with Iraq before the United States declared war.

But he insisted that Washington's preference was "always to try to find a peaceful solution to the problem and not look for an opportunity to go to war."

Assad Secretly Deploys Joint Iranian-Syrian Units in Lebanon

Debka Weekly:

Syrian ruler Bashar Assad gave nothing away on Lebanon in his unscheduled address to parliament in Damascus Saturday, March 5. Repeatedly contradicting himself, he said: “We will not stay one day if Lebanese consensus asks us to leave”. He then added: but we cannot desert the Lebanese president to whom we have a commitment.

Assad’s decision to redeploy Syrian troops eastward to the Beqaa Valley up to Syrian border sidestepped the issue. The Syrian ruler did not promise to pull a single Syrian troop or secret agent out of Lebanon. He also declared for good measure that Syria's role in the country would not end with a military withdrawal (which he did not promise.)

Assad joked about the international and Arab clamor to quit Lebanon: “I know that the minute I finish this speech, they will say it is not enough. So I say it now: It is not enough.” He burst out laughing and the chamber roared with him. read more

Disappointed Lebanese opposition leaders predictably rejected Assad’s statement. We want him to “redeploy” on the other side of the Syrian border, they said. Even for the relocation of the Syrian army in the east, he has set no timetable; nor has he mentioned the removal of his secret agents.

DEBKAfile’s Washington sources reveal the Bush administration’s decision to act for Syria’s total international isolation. US National Security Council head Stephen Hadley notified European Washington-based envoys of moves to cut off Damascus’ international banking ties and the flow of international funds to and from Syria through Lebanese banks. The volume of these transfers is such that it could bankrupt Syria.

Hadley told the Europeans that UN Middle East envoy Terje Roed-Larsen would take off Sunday on a 12-day tour of Europe, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Gulf emirates to finalize the US-Arab-European consensus on international sanctions against Syria.

On March 17, Larsen will visit Damascus to give Assad his last chance to implement Security Council resolution 1559 in full, or else face up to UN sanctions. Chirac has already ordered French ties with Damascus severed at all government levels.

DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources account for the Syrian president’s confident bearing when he sidestepped all demands to remove Syria’s overbearing presence from Lebanon by the fact that he was acting out a pre-planned strategy.

On February 25, DEBKA-Net-Weekly 195 exposed the key move he had set in motion to help him stand up to any military threat. Realizing he could not count on Arab support, Assad furnished himself with an alternative ally.

Sunday, February 20, as US Air Force One was ferrying President George W. Bush between meetings with European leaders, Iranian military transports were putting down in Damascus military airport. They were the tail end of the biggest military airlift Iran has launched in the Middle East to date. Its objective was to set up shared Iranian-Syrian safeguards against attacks on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear installations and/or Syrian strategic targets.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military and intelligence sources obtained some of the details of the new hush-hush deployment.

The fleet of Iranian military transports secretly offloaded complete elite units for operating, maintaining and guarding a sophisticated system of Iranian electronic warning stations, radar networks and anti-aircraft missiles to be deployed in Syria and Lebanon. More than 1,000 Iranian soldiers and technicians and 600 Revolutionary Guards commandos took up positions on the South Lebanese border with Israel, along the Syrian-Israeli Golan frontier to the south and up Syria’s Mediterranean coastline to the west. They also spread out along Syria’s northeastern frontier with Iraqi Kurdistan and its southern border with Iraq’s al Qaim and al Anbar provinces.

(See DEBKA Special Map attached)

The incoming Iranian forces quickly assumed the command and control of electronic and radar systems at Syrian early warning stations in Syria and Lebanon, supplemented by elements of Signal Intelligence and Human Intelligence. Stationed alongside Syrian units, they have undertaken shared operational responsibility. The two chains of command have been merged except in units where Iranian officers have taken command.

Assad believes he is gaining on the United States in their duel over Lebanon and holds winning cards.

1. The things he left out of his speech to parliament were significant. In announcing the redeployment of his troops on the Syrian border, he omitted mention of the disposition of Syrian intelligence agents and even more pointedly of the early warning stations and the Iranian units who will stay on to man them in Lebanon. With Iranian backing and the presence of Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the south, Syria will retain its grip on Lebanon.

2. Assad saw no need to mention the mixed Syrian-Iranian units scattered in Lebanon since President Bush has only called for Syrian personnel to leave the country.

3. Should the US or Lebanese governments decide to get rid of Iranian forces, they will have to turn to Tehran and the Hizballah. Damascus will be off the hook.

4. The Syrian ruler exploited American pressure on the Lebanon issue to invoke his secret military cooperation pact with Tehran and quietly install Iranian forces, including intelligence units, on the borders of Israel, thereby upgrading Syria’s and the Hizballah’s defenses and bolstering the Iranian umbrella over Hizballah’s missile emplacements facing Israel. This strengthened structure also signaled the spreading Palestinian opposition to Mahmoud Abbas’ leadership that aid is available from a strong Syrian-Syrian-Hizballah across the border.

5. No Israeli response was forthcoming to the new Iranian deployment in Syria and Lebanon, aside from intelligence messages speeding from Tel Aviv to Washington. This has left the Assad regime cock-a-hoop with a sense of achieving yet another coup after pulling off the February 14 assassination of the primary threat to Syria’s domination of Lebanon, Rafiq Hariri.

If this report is accurate; and the Syrian ruler has invoked his secret military cooperation pact with Tehran; then the Middle East chessboard has become more complicated. Your move Mr. President.

U.S. Readies Aggressive Counterintelligence Plan

David Morgan, Reuters:

The Bush administration has adopted a new counterintelligence strategy that calls for pre-emptive action against foreign intelligence services viewed as threats to U.S. national security, officials said on Saturday. read more

The first national U.S. counterintelligence strategy, which President Bush approved on March 1, aims to combat intelligence services from countries hungry for U.S. military and nuclear secrets, such as China and Iran, both at home and abroad, counterintelligence officials said.

Officials at a counterintelligence conference at Texas A&M University described the strategy as an extension of the post-Sept. 11 foreign policy initiative known as the Bush doctrine, which calls for pre-emptive action against nations and extremist groups perceived as threats to the United States.

"The United States has become the No. 1 target for the intelligence collection of other nations," said John Quattrocki, a senior U.S. counterintelligence official.

"What we'd like to do with the counterintelligence program is what we've done with counterterrorism, which is take the fight to other guy's back yard and exploit and interdict where we can, and at home, interdict where we must."

The strategy is due to be released to the public as an unclassified document in coming days.

Officials said the plan aims to protect U.S. intelligence and information systems from foreign agents including al Qaeda by integrating counterintelligence through a recently formed agency called the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive.

Counterintelligence efforts are currently dispersed across the 15 agencies that make up the intelligence community.

"We have a great deal of bilateral cooperation between agencies. But we need strategically orchestrated operations directed against prioritized foreign intelligence threats," said National Counterintelligence Executive Michelle Van Cleave, who will oversee the plan.

REVITALIZE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

Former intelligence officials described the strategy as an attempt to revitalize counterintelligence after years of neglect and demoralization following notorious espionage cases including CIA agent Aldrich Ames and FBI agent Robert Hanssen, who were both caught spying for the former Soviet Union.

"Today we are at war and the potential harm to this country from intelligence losses is far more immediate," said Van Cleave.

The strategy marks a departure from a long-standing counterintelligence practice of waiting for foreign-sponsored agents to act against intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

"Instead of being willing to take a punch and be damaged, we in fact take the skills of counterintelligence and ... impose damage on other intelligence services," explained Quattrocki, a top aide to Van Cleave.

He declined to identify countries seen as potential targets. But other officials cited China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Libya as nations that have tried to collect U.S. secrets through means including cyber espionage.

Van Cleave's office produced the new strategy with input from the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon and other agencies.

A former top intelligence official said the strategy offered an opportunity to establish a much-needed cadre of officers to carry out investigations across the intelligence community.

Much of the implementation will depend on priorities set by John Negroponte, Bush's nominee for director of national intelligence.

Support NITV - The Main Iranian Opposition Communication Tool!

SMCCDI (Urgent Action) an open letter from the student movement organization:

One of the main bridges of communication with Iran, which is the Los Angeles based "National Iranian TV" (NITV), has been forced to cut its programs for Iran due to financial problems. read more

NITV has also granted its airtime in the past to groups, such as, SMCCDI and thereby helped create a bridge between the opposition groups and the people of our nation who are struggling for liberty and a just system of government that has no place for theocrats or any religious political ideology associated with a future Iran. ...

We ask from all people of good will to help out financially as able to do so, to support directly NITV as quickly as possible so it can resume its programming for Iran especially with the approach of key dates.

We call on the US Legislative body to consider proper measures to support this trusted and irreplaceable digital tool which is necessary in the freedom process of Iran.

These legitimate aspirations for liberty cannot be obtained in isolation or silence, and NITV is essential to the contact that we and other non-violent opposition groups have inside Iran.

With this line of communication re-opened, we can better defeat the deception tactics of the Islamic Republic regime, and better inform the people.

NITV's bank references are:
City National Bank
21800 Oxnard Street
Woodland Hills, CA 91367 (USA)
Phone: +1 (818) 227-4300
Account # 022409840
Routing # 122016066

NITV's contact references are as follow:
21050 Irwin Street
Woodland Hills, CA 91367 (USA)
+1 (818) 716-0000 Phone
+1 (818) 716-0023 Fax
http://www.nitv.tv/

Thank you for your consideration and support in this most urgent matter!

Millions of Iranians are looking for this light in the darkness of Iran!!
You're their only hope!!!

The "Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI)

Israel demands withdrawal of Iranian Guard

Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz:

Israel has informed a number of countries, including the United States and France, that the demand for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon, in keeping with the UN Security Council decision, will not be complete if it doesn't also lead to the departure of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps members, who have been in Lebanon for a long time and are providing assistance to Hezbollah's military wing. read more

Israel's official position is that the Syrian forces deployed in Lebanon are not the only foreign army in that country. Despite the fact that the Syrian force is a large one, and includes numerous units and an extensive intelligence set-up, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards play a significant and negative military role in Lebanon - a role that undermines Lebanese sovereignty.

The individuals in question are a group of dozens, perhaps more, of Iranian military officers and experts.

Unlike the overt Syrian military presence, the members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard keep a low profile. Iranians questioned on this presence have said the group consists only of medical personnel who are there to provide medical logistics assistance and the like. This claim is refuted.

Reports determine that the Iranian officers and experts have provided operational assistance to Hezbollah, and have even patrolled along the Israeli border with Hezbollah operatives.

Furthermore, an Iranian-made drone, which, according to Hezbollah sources, was sent on a reconnaissance mission over Israeli territory, took photographs above Israeli territory before crashing on its way back to Lebanon.

The Iranian explanation after the incident was that, if they wanted to, they could send a UAV armed with explosives into Israel.

In addition, it is well known that the Iranian experts are involved in the array in southern Lebanon of long-range Fajr rockets that threaten Israel. These are Iranian-made rockets that were given to Hezbollah together with numerous other ordnance. Members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard were involved in setting up Hezbollah's rocket formation.

Israeli officials have also informed Egypt of the government's position.

While the withdrawal of the Syrian forces from Lebanon depends first and foremost on a decision by Damascus if and when to respond to the Security Council's demand, the demand for the withdrawal of the Revolutionary Guards must come initially from the Lebanese government and must be directed at the government in Tehran.

According to assessments, the withdrawal of the Syrian forces from Lebanon will boost Hezbollah's weight as a military organization, leading in turn to a broader role for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in that country. The Lebanese army has no direct link to the Iranian activities in Lebanon, just as it has no control over arms shipments from Iran to Hezbollah.

Iran Says No!

Associated Press:

Iran said Saturday it will never agree to a permanent halt on enriching uranium and warned that a more unstable Middle East would result from a U.S.-backed effort to haul Tehran before the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

Any effort by Washington to bring Tehran's suspended uranium enrichment program under Security Council scrutiny is a dangerous path, warned Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hasan Rowhani. read more

Speaking during a two-day international conference on nuclear technology, Rowhani said Iran will halt negotiations and resume uranium enrichment "without any hesitation" if European negotiators insist Iran make its temporary suspension of uranium enrichment permanent.

"Americans and Europeans will be the first to lose in that case," he told more than 50 nuclear scientists and experts attending the Tehran conference. "It will cause problems for regional energy and for the European economy.

"And it will cause additional problems for America. Therefore, no one will benefit from this. It's playing with fire." ...

Rowhani said Tehran will call off the talks entirely if it sees no signs of progress by the time a committee of Iranian and European negotiators meets March 17-18.

"If there is no tangible progress, we won't continue the talks," he said. ...

Rowhani suggested that if EU negotiators succumb to U.S. pressure for a harder line, the negotiations will fail. Europe's prowess as an intermediary in international crises will suffer, he said.

"If there is no U.S. pressure, we will reach a compromise with Europeans in the near future," Rowhani said. "Europeans are not seeking a permanent halt to our peaceful nuclear program and denying the Iranian nation of its rights." ...

Iran has been saying this all along, but it appears the media is finally willing to make it clear to the public.

Saturday's Daily Briefing on Iran

DoctorZin reports, 3.5.2005:

Iran Says to Make Atomic Fuel if Sent to UN Council

Reuters is reporting that Iran warned on Saturday it would return to making nuclear fuel and that the Middle East would get even more unstable if the Islamic Republic was sent to the U.N. Security Council over its atomic program. ...

"If the Americans succeed in referring Iran's case to the Security Council, Iran will immediately suspend all its voluntary confidence-building measures," Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani told a conference. more

Here are a few of items you may have missed.

• Ralph Peters reminds us not to be cocky about the recent successes in the Middle East.
• Bill Clinton feels ideologically at home with Iran?
  
• Jerome Corsi says "not to worry" about the EU3's pressure on Bush.
• Iran threatens an attack will risk all Middle East oil.
• DigitalGlobe photo of Iran's heavy water reactor shows it is nearing completion.
• The US wants a harder line if the EU3/Iran negotiations fail.
• Chester takes a look at two stories under reported this week.
• And finally, Chrenkoff wonders if 2005 is THE year for Iran.

Iran Says to Make Atomic Fuel if Sent to UN Council

Paul Hughes, Reuters:

Iran warned on Saturday it would return to making nuclear fuel and that the Middle East would get even more unstable if the Islamic Republic was sent to the U.N. Security Council over its atomic program.

Washington is seeking to haul Iran before the council for possible sanctions, arguing that Tehran is making fuel for atomic warheads. Iran insists it intends to use enriched uranium only in power stations.

"If the Americans succeed in referring Iran's case to the Security Council, Iran will immediately suspend all its voluntary confidence-building measures," Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani told a conference. ... read more

"Parliamentarians may even come up with a harder decision," Rohani added.

Many conservative parliamentarians have called for Iran to pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

In the shorter term they have threatened that Iran will not ratify the Additional Protocol to the NPT, which permits snap U.N. inspections of nuclear sites. ...

But Rohani still held out hope that talks with Europeans could pay dividends.

"If there is no U.S. pressure, we believe that in the near future we will reach an agreement in our talks with the Europeans because we feel the European do not want to deprive us of our legitimate rights," he said.

Iran-EU talks continue in Geneva next week, according to diplomats.

Will 2005 be THE year in Iran?

Chrenkoff writes:

Afshin Molavi writes a letter from Iran:

"Perhaps the most striking thing about anti-Americanism in Iran today is how little of it actually exists. Nearly three-fourths of the Iranians polled in a 2002 survey said they would like their government to restore dialogue with the United States. Though hard-line officials urge 'Death to America' during Friday prayers, most Iranians seem to ignore the propaganda. 'The paradox of Iran is that it just might be the most pro-American or, perhaps, least anti-American populace in the Muslim world,' says Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst in Tehran for the International Crisis Group, an advocacy organization for conflict resolution based in Brussels.

"Traveling across Iran over the past five years, I've met many Iranians who said they welcomed the ouster of the American-backed Shah 26 years ago but who were now frustrated by the revolutionary regime's failure to make good on promised political freedoms and economic prosperity. More recently, I've seen Iranians who supported a newer reform movement grow disillusioned after its defeat by hard-liners. Government mismanagement, chronic inflation and unemployment have also contributed to mistrust of the regime and, with it, its anti-Americanism. 'I struggle to make a living,' a Tehran engineer told me. 'The government stifles us, and they want us to believe it is America's fault. I'm not a fool'."

(you can read the whole article in PDF).

2005 might just be the year when the regime in Teheran implodes. read more

Arguably, it probably wouldn't need much push to collapse, and the revolution currently sweeping the region might just provide that extra spark for the Iranian conflagration. In a secret report to the leadership, the Revolutionary Guards Corp is said to have admitted that should rioting in Teheran last longer than six hours, they won't be able to control the situation.

There might not be much that the Free World can do to assist Iran's dissidents and democrats (although I recommend my recent interview with Iran expert Michael Ladeen for some useful ideas and suggestions), but speaking as a child of communism I can say that the most important thing we and our leaders can do is to let people of Iran know that they are not alone, that we support their aspirations, and that their struggle is important to us. When you're facing your oppressors, one of the potentially most demoralizing feelings is that you're alone in the world and no one gives a stuff.

Our Schemes and Theirs

Adventures of Chester reports:

Two stories have been largely under-reported this week. Or at least under-thought about. Both deserve some special attention.

Earlier this week, The American Thinker posted an article entitled, The Next Domino by Douglas Hanson. [h-t: Regime Change Iran.] Hanson deserves credit for thinking outside the box on possible US action. He formulates something other than "invade or bomb" which is the conventional wisdom, and his article raises many intriguing questions. Hanson's thoughts deserve the full treatment...

Next, via sometime Adventures contributor, USMC_Vet over at The Word Unheard, Michael Scheuer, of CIA various punditry fame, writes in The Jamestown Foundation that Al Qaeda has completed a cycle of warnings that Sunni scholars warned had to take place before the next mass-casualty attack against Americans.

Read the full report here.

US wants harder EU3 line on Iran if incentives fail

Arshad Mohammed writing for Reuters appears to confirm my analysis of yesterday:

The United States wants Europe to take a harder line toward Iran if Washington supports incentives for Tehran and Iranian authorities still refuse to give up their nuclear program, U.S. officials said on Friday.

The United States would like Britain, France and Germany, the so-called EU3 who are trying to negotiate an end to Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program, to back taking Iran to the U.N. Security Council and perhaps imposing U.N. sanctions.

"We'd love to get both," said one U.S. official who asked not to be named and who noted that it would be hard to persuade the Europeans to explicitly back U.N. sanctions at present. read more

"We've talked about having some kind of assurance that if this effort fails then the recourse is to bring this to the Security Council but we have not been able to achieve that (so far)," the official added.

After an agreement appeared close this week, several U.S. officials predicted it would take some time -- anywhere from one to several weeks -- to work out an agreement on the question of U.S. support for offering Iran incentives.

Incentives under discussion are the United States dropping its opposition to Iran joining the World Trade Organization and allowing the sale of spare parts for Iran's aging fleet of U.S.-made civilian airliners.

"We're trying to work out a package and an end game, if you will," said another U.S. official, suggesting that the United States did not want to make a gesture without some assurance that if the EU3 negotiations fail a harder line will follow.

Asked if the United States was trying to get the Europeans to back its long-standing push to have the International Atomic Energy Agency refer Iran to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions, this official replied, "Exactly."

TACTICAL MANEUVER

The first official said backing incentives was a tactical maneuver and that many in the Bush administration believed Iran would never abandon its suspected pursuit of nuclear arms and Washington wants to avoid being blamed if the talks collapse.

"We are inoculating ourselves," said he said. "We can adopt the tactic of tying ourselves to the European approach without fundamentally believing it's going to succeed."

"We don't think the Iranians have given up on (acquiring) a nuclear bomb or that any amount of coaxing ... is going to convince them otherwise," he added. ...

Rep. Tom Lantos of California, the House International Relations Committee's top Democrat, said there needed to be a time limit set in advance on the EU3 talks and an EU3 promise to "freeze any additional investments" in Iran after this.

"We have to play this like an intelligent chess player, agreeing on all the steps at the beginning of the game," Lantos told Reuters late on Thursday. "If we don't do that we will end up negotiating with the Europeans and not with the Iranians."

A European diplomat said a freeze on investments was not part of the current U.S.-European discussions.

He said he would view U.S. support on Iran's WTO bid and on spare parts as a small gesture unlikely to have a huge impact on Iran but it is the "camel's nose under the tent" that would finally get Washington more closely tied to the EU initiative.

Photo of Iran's Heavy Water Reactor

ISIS-Online.org:

Iran Constructing the 40 MW Heavy Water Reactor at Arak Despite Calls Not to Do So by the European Union and the IAEA Board of Governors.



In his briefing to the IAEA Board of Governors on March 1, 2005, Pierre Goldschmidt, IAEA Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Safeguards, said Iranian officials have, "indicated that the Heavy Water Research Reactor (IR-40) project is progressing."

The IAEA board, in its September 2004 resolution, called on Iran "as a further confidence-building measure, voluntarily to reconsider its decision to start construction of a research reactor modified by heavy water."

New satelllite imagery obtained by ISIS from Space Imaging and DigitalGlobe supports the Iranian statement and other statements of unnamed sources that, "Iran has laid the foundations for the research reactor at Arak," as reported by Reuters on March 3, 2005. read more

The construction complicates negotiations currently underway between the European Union and Iran. The Europeans are asking that Iran abandon all uranium enrichment activities, reprocessing-related activities, and the heavy water reactor project. The Europeans have offered to replace the heavy water reactor with a light water research reactor that would be more proliferation resistant. The spent fuel from this imported reactor could be sent out of Iran, a step that Iran has agreed to do with the fuel from the Russian-supplied Bushehr power reactors.

Adjacent to the reactor construction site is the heavy water production plant, which is anticipated to supply the necessary heavy water for the heavy water reactor. The Secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, Dr. Hasan Rowhani, said on February 7, 2005 on Iranian television, "We may be able to produce heavy water soon, within the next few weeks."

No evidence of any reprocessing facilities can be seen in the satellite images.

Iran threat: Attack by West risks all 'Middle East oil'

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM:

Iran has warned that Gulf Arab oil would be endangered by any U.S. attack on the Islamic republic.

In the first such threat, a leading Iranian official raised the prospect of Iranian retaliation against Middle East oil exports. The official said such Gulf oil states as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia could be threatened, Middle East Newsline reported. read more

"An attack on Iran will be tantamount to endangering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and in a word the entire Middle East oil," Iranian Expediency Council secretary Mohsen Rezai said on Tuesday.

About 40 percent of the world's crude oil shipments passes through the two-mile wide channel of the strategic Straits of Hormuz. Iranian forces are deployed at the head of the channel. Oman and the United Arab Emirates are located on the other side.

Teheran could easily block the Straits of Hormuz and use its missiles to strike tankers and GCC oil facilities, according to the new edition of Geostrategy-Direct.com. Within weeks, the rest of the world would be starving for oil and the global economy could be in danger.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that oil tanker traffic through the Straits of Hormuz will rise to about 60 percent of global oil exports by 2025.

Rezai, a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and a candidate for president, told the Fars News Agency that any Western attack on Iran would send oil prices rocketing to $70 per barrel.

He said such a significant increase in oil prices would also be sparked by international sanctions on Teheran.

Bush prepares to get tough with Iran - no nukes for the mullahs

Jerome Corsi, WorldNetDaily.com:

After President Bush returned from Europe, reports in the liberal mainstream media circulated to the effect that the administration had changed policy regarding Iran. When President Bush suggested the United States would support the E.U.-3's negotiations with Iran, even to the point of offering incentives should the mullahs drop their nuclear weapons ambitions, the administration was seen as backing off from playing tough.

Not to worry. read more

President Bush didn't set foot on France and Germany only to get infected with John Kerry's flip-flopping determination to appease the mad mullahs. Nor did he look into Putin's eyes and see the wisdom of handing over nuclear fuel to the mullahs so they could power up their nifty Soviet-built reactor at Bushehr.

President Bush is on an understandable and consistent path with the mullahs. Sure, he said in Europe that an American decision to attack Iran would be "ridiculous," but he quickly added that the military option yet remained on the table.

What is the president up to? Simple. He's positioning the debate. If George Bush acted and talked totally hawkish, the liberal Democrats in Congress would come unglued. We would hear all over again the chant from the left that no WMDs had been found in Iraq, despite the ample evidence we found that Saddam had plenty a more than ready capability to produce them virtually at will. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden would have to elbow each other to be the first on the Sunday talk shows to charge that George Bush understood nothing about diplomacy.

So, OK. Bush tells the world he's all for diplomacy, even European-style "carrots" for the mullahs, provided they dismantle their ability to produce nuclear weapons. No more promises that the mullahs can break in secret. What would stand as proof for Bush? Again, simple. Let the mullahs dismantle their centrifuges, so they could not enrich uranium to weapons grade. Let them destroy the heavy water facility they have at Arak, since they won't need to produce plutonium if the Russians are going to give them fuel for peaceful purposes. Then, let's put into place reliable verification procedures where the world can inspect Iran at will to make sure no weapons program is working secretly.

Does President Bush believe the E.U.-3 will get this type of agreement from the mullahs? Probably not – that is, unless he started drinking again in Europe, indulging in all the French champagne John Kerry would have enjoyed or all the German beer Ted Kennedy might have liked had he been there as president.

Without a solid agreement resulting from these negotiations, the administration can head quickly to the Security Council, a necessary stopping-off place to head off the Democrats ready to scream and cry about another "pre-emptive" war, should the administration decide to use the military option.

It's all about positioning the argument. Let's give the Democrats preference for diplomacy and international agency control a chance, until it fails, which most certainly it will. Then George Bush can tell the world clearly what is already apparent to many – the mullahs have no intention of abandoning their pursuit of a nuclear weapon. All the mullahs want to do is bribe the Europeans and get an "agreement" they can wink and nod at while signing.

A revolution of peace is sweeping the Middle East. Getting nukes is the mullahs' last ditch try at maintaining power. With nukes in hand, the mullahs figure they can muscle not only their own people, but also the world.

George Bush has made his intentions clear: "No nukes for mullahs" is his clear and unwavering determination. This is the same George Bush who gave a inaugural address a few weeks ago in which he declared that all men in all nations were born free – something no American leader has ever as clearly proclaimed.

The mullahs better watch out. There's a new sheriff in town and they're on the wanted list.

Who Should Apologize to Whom?

Amir Taheri, Arab News:

Where is the country that Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States, feels ideologically most at home?

Before you answer, here is the condition that such a country must fulfill: It must hold several consecutive elections that produce 70 percent majorities for “liberals and progressives.”

Well, if you thought of one of the Scandinavian countries or, perhaps, New Zealand or Canada, you are wrong. read more

Believe it or not, the country Bill Clinton so admires is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Here is what Clinton said at a meeting on the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, just a few weeks ago: “Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.”

And here is what Clinton had to say in a recent television interview with Charlie Rose:

“Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties. In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.”

So, while millions of Iranians, especially the young, look to the United States as a mode of progress and democracy, a former president of the US looks to the Islamic Republic as his ideological homeland.

But who are “the guys” Clinton identifies with?

There is, of course, President Muhammad Khatami who, speaking at a conference of provincial governors last week, called for the whole world to convert to Islam.

“Human beings understand different affairs within the global framework that they live in,” he said. “But when we say that Islam belongs to all times and places, it is implied that the very essence of Islam is such that despite changes (in time and place) it is always valid.”

There is also Khatami’s brother, Muhammad-Reza, the man who, in 1979, led the “students” who seized the US Embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days. There is Massumeh Ebtekar, a poor man’s pasionaria who was spokesperson for the hostage-holders in Tehran. There is also the late Ayatollah Sadeq Khalkhali, known to Iranians as “Judge Blood”.

Not surprisingly, Clinton’s utterances have been seized upon by the state-controlled media in Tehran as a means of countering President George W. Bush’s claim that the Islamic Republic is a tyranny that oppresses the Iranians and threatens the stability of the region.

Clinton’s declaration of love for the mullas shows how ill informed even a US president could be.

Didn’t anyone tell Clinton, when he was in the White House, that elections in the Islamic Republic were as meaningless as those held in the Soviet Union?

Did he not know that all candidates had to be approved by the “Supreme Guide”, and that no one from opposition is allowed to stand?

Did he not know that all parties are banned in the Islamic Republic, and that such terms as “progressive” and “liberal” are used by the mullas as synonyms for “apostate”, a charge that carries a death sentence?

More importantly, does he not know that while there is no democracy without elections there can be elections without democracy?

Clinton told his audience in Davos, as well as Charlie Rose, that during his presidency he had “formally apologized on behalf of the United States” for what he termed “American crimes against Iran.”

But what were those “crimes”? Clinton summed them thus: “It’s a sad story that really began in the 1950s when the United States deposed Mr. Mossadegh, who was an elected parliamentary democrat, and brought the Shah back and then he was overturned by the Ayatollah Khomeini, driving us into the arms of one Saddam Hussein. We got rid of the parliamentary democracy {there} back in the ‘50s; at least, that is my belief.”

Duped by a myth spread by the Blame-America-First coalition, Clinton appears to have done little homework on Iran. The truth is that Iran in the 1950s was not a parliamentary democracy but a constitutional monarchy in which the Shah appointed, and dismissed, the prime minister. Mossadegh was named prime minister twice by the Shah and twice dismissed. In what way that meant that the US “got rid of parliamentary democracy” that did not exist is not clear.

There are at least two things that Clinton does not know about Iran and Iranians.

The first is that the claim that the US changed the course of Iranian history on a whim would be seen by most Iranians, a proud people, as an insult from an arrogant politician who exaggerates the powers of his nation more than half a century ago. The second thing that Clinton does not know is that in the Islamic Republic that he so admires, Mossadegh, far from being regarded as a national hero, is an object of intense vilification. One of the first acts of the mullas after seizing power in 1979 was to take the name of Mossadegh off a street in Tehran. They then sealed off the village where Mossadegh is buried to prevent his supporters from gathering at his tomb. History textbooks written by the mullas present Mossadegh as the “son of a feudal family of exploiters who worked for the cursed Shah, and betrayed Islam.”

Apologizing to the mullas for a wrong supposedly done to Mossadegh is like begging Josef Stalin’s pardon for a discourtesy toward Alexander Kerensky.

Clinton does not know that it was President Harry S. Truman’s energetic intervention in 1946 that forced Stalin to withdraw his armies from northwestern Iran thus foiling a Communist attempt to dismember the Iranian state.

Clinton does not know that if anyone has to apologize it is the mullas who should apologize to both the Iranian and the American peoples. He does not appear to remember images of American diplomats paraded in front of TV cameras, blindfolded, and threatened with summary execution every day — images that did lasting damage to the good name of Iran as a civilized nation.

Speaking of apologies, Clinton also ignores the fact that Iranian agents in Lebanon, led by the “ liberal progressive” Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Mohtashami, organized and carried out a string of terrorist attacks in the 1980s that cost the lives of over 300 US citizens, including 240 Marines.

And does Clinton remember the dozens of American citizens who were held hostage by the mullas’ agents in Lebanon, sometimes for more than five years?

Clinton forgets that anti-Americanism, and hatred of the West in general, is the ideological backbone of Khomeinism; that that the devise of the mullas’ regime is “Death to America”, and that the American flag is burned or trampled under foot in thousands of official buildings throughout Iran every day?

Clinton claims that the mullas “still kind of like the West in general, and America in particular.” That must be as much news to the mullas as to anyone else.

The former president endorses another claim of the mullas that Saddam Hussein, the deposed Iraqi dictator, invaded Iran on behalf of the United States.

Clinton says: “Most of the terrible things Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s he did with the full, knowing support of the United States government.”

Don’t be surprised if Clinton’s next apology is addressed to Saddam Hussein, another victim of American Imperialism!

Don't Get Cocky

Ralph Peters of the NY Post gives us some advice:

For three years, this column has shot down the pessimists who warned we were bound to fail in the Middle East. Now those of us who see our confidence vindicated must beware a premature euphoria.

There's plenty of work ahead.

Our successes have been remarkable. In the past six weeks, we've seen more positive movement in the region than we saw in the preceding six decades. The political landscape of the old Islamic heartlands has changed breathtakingly since our first special-operations team went to work in the wake of 9/11.

Afghanistan's finding its footing as a democracy. Iraq welcomed its first free elections with an enthusiasm and valor that should shame apathetic Western voters. Inspired, the people of Lebanon took to the streets to demand freedom from Syrian occupation. Palestinians voted, too — and their new government is resisting the terrorists who want to frustrate peace efforts.

From Iran through Saudi Arabia to Egypt, the first breezes of change are beginning to blow. read more

But they're not gale-force winds just yet. We would be almost as foolish as the eternal naysayers were we to imagine that our mission is nearing completion.

Excessive euphoria would only play into the hands of those who wanted freedom's campaign to fail all along. If our rhetoric becomes too exuberant, even positive events on the ground could be dismissed as falling short of our promises.

This isn't a time to gloat. Instead, we need to work harder than ever, to keep pushing, to exploit the current momentum.

We should be encouraged -- our enemies are certainly discouraged -- but more American soldiers and civilians are going to be killed in the days ahead. The Middle East's degenerate regimes will not all go down without a fight. Nor will the many terrorists they spawned.

Army planning offices used to have a saying tacked to the wall: "The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes slightly longer." In the greater Middle East, we've accomplished much that our critics warned was impossible. Without slighting those achievements in the least, let's consider just a few of the challenges ahead:

Iran: We're in a race against time with Tehran. Will the Iranian people rid themselves of their oppressors before the ruling mullahs gain nuclear weapons? Would those "men of God" use nukes against Israel as their regime crumbled?

Iraq: Every current indicator is positive. But a unified, democratic Iraq isn't yet a reality. Old rivalries and the cancer of corruption could still undo much of what's been achieved. If the Kurds are cheated, the country will disintegrate.

Syria: The clumsy Baathist regime could topple with surprising swiftness or it could turn even more oppressive and provide even greater support to the terrorists it harbors. Cornered by history, Syria's rulers could lash out or divide against themselves in civil strife. We still may need to conduct military operations against yesterday's men in Damascus.

Saudi Arabia: Our continued indulgence of the "royal" mafia that runs this country is an ugly blot on America's refurbished record of fighting for freedom, human rights and democracy. We can't change everything at once, but our pressure on the Saudis to reform should be relentless even if we don't like all the choices the population makes in future elections. This perverted state could implode if it clings to the past and yes, the oil matters. We may need to intervene to keep it flowing.

Egypt: President Hosni Mubarak is trying to stave off serious change with a promise of "free" elections his government intends to manipulate. We need to cut off the annual billions in aid we send to Egypt until the regime frees legitimate dissidents from its jails and allows truly free, multi-party elections. Half-measures play into the hands of Islamic extremists.

Terror: Al Qaeda and its affiliates have suffered one catastrophic defeat after another since 9/11. Our efforts have cut deep into their base and reduced their freedom of action. But the hard-core terrorists will continue to use slaughter as a tool to advance their agenda until the last man among them is killed or captured. Progress in the Middle East will cut the ranks of future terrorists, but for now we must fight those already converted to fanaticism. This war is far from over.

What our government and, especially, our men and women in uniform have achieved is worthy of our highest praise and gratitude. Even I didn't believe that we could come so far so fast. But we need to remain sober, to keep our eyes on the long game and to keep up our guard for the challenges still to come.

So go ahead: Crack open one bottle of bubbly (I recommend Dr. Konstantin Frank's elixir from New York's Finger Lakes). But save the rest of the case for the triumphs ahead.

Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."

Friday's Daily Briefing on Iran

DoctorZin reports, 3.4.2005:

Is there a shift in US policy towards Iran?

If so, the President may be getting more out of the deal than most think.

Many of us watching these developments feel President Bush may be making a strategic move aimed at bringing the EU3/Iran negotiations to an end, sooner rather than later. Time is important here as the Iranians are daily getting closer to their goal of a nuclear bomb.

If President Bush joins the EU3 and offers possible WTO membership and other trade benefits for an end to Iran's nuclear uranium enrichment programs, it will force Iran to respond to the offer.

Iran has consistently said that it will NEVER give up these programs.

If Iran surprises the US and offers to end the programs Condi has made it clear that we will demand verification of compliance. Again, this is something Iran is almost certainly not willing to agree to.

For weeks now, Condi has been in discussions with EU3 leaders as to what constitutes failure of the negotiations, and what actions would they jointly take if this occurs. It appears that President Bush is willing to make concessions, if EU3 makes a few as well.

Thus, I would expect that if we learn that the President is making these trade concessions it is because he has privately obtained an agreement with the EU3 regarding what constitutes a failure of the negotiations and what our joint efforts will be as a result.

If so, the US and EU3 will stand united in the next phase of bringing the Iranian threat to an end.

Here are a few of items you may have missed.

• Are the Mullahs assassinating foreign dissidents again?
• Condi feels Iran has no interest in a deal.
• Will France become radical Islam's nuclear state?
• The US wants to fund Iranian activists, the question is how.
• The US is calling for guarantees in the EU3/Iran talks.
• Iran is resisting the EU3 deal.
• The Russian/Iran nuclear fuel deal is dangerously full of holes.
• Iran's heavy water reactor nearly complete? If so, once operational, Iran be able to produce a plutonium bomb in a year.
• Iran wants to test it's nuclear enrichment equipment, in violation of the spirit of the EU3 agreement.
• Iran threatens to end the EU3 agreement.
• And finally, Michael Ledeen reviews Ken Pollack and David Harris's books on Iran. Ledeen hasn't forgotten as have most, that Iran has long ago declared war on the US.

Iran threatens to end nuclear treaty with EU

Iran Focus:

Iran today threatened to end its nuclear agreement with the European Union "big three", saying that it would not be bound to previous commitments, if they continued to call for permanent suspension of uranium enrichment by the Iranian regime.

If the Europeans do not abide by the Iran-EU nuclear agreement and ask for a permanent suspension of uranium enrichment, Iran will not fulfill its commitments, the regime's spokesman Abdollah Ramezanzadeh said in an interview with the state-run Mehr news agency.

Ramezanzadeh said that the EU big three had not officially demanded that Iran to permanently suspend its uranium enrichment program, but were they to make such a demand officially, Iran would have no reason to fulfill its previous commitments.

He said Iran "voluntarily" suspended enrichment activities, but if the International Atomic Energy Agency or the Europeans try to make it an obligation, then Iran will not accept it.

Earlier this week an Iran expert said, "Emboldened by signs that the United States may be about to join the European Union's nuclear negotiations with Iran by offering incentives to Tehran, Iran is hardening its position and making a serious bid to dictate its terms during the nuclear talks with the European "big three", Britain, France, and Germany".

Ali Safavi, President of the Washington-based Near East Policy Research institute, told Iran Focus, "Signs that the Bush administration would be willing to join Europe's failing 'carrot and stick' approach to dealing with Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program, have now convinced the ruling theocracy that they get away with even more violations of their nuclear obligations without fear of reprisal".

Safavi said that the regime was using the negotiations as a mechanism to buy time to secretly carry out nuclear weapons related activities in accordance with the order handed down by Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who had decreed that the regime must be able to obtain the bomb by the end of the year 2005.

"The EU's appeasement policy has failed on all counts, be it human rights related, on Iran's sponsoring of terror abroad, its meddling in Iraq, or its pursuit of nuclear weapons", Safavi said.

Safavi urged both the EU and the US to blacklist the Iranian regime by referring its nuclear file to the UN Security Council, rather than appeasing it by "offering the regime concessions for agreeing not to break international rules which they are legally bound by under terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty ".

"The mullahs feel they can now dictate the terms of their nuclear treaty with the West. To stop the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation those dealing with the regime should stop resisting attempts to send Iran's nuclear file to the UN Security Council after today's IAEA Board of Governor's session", he said.