Saturday, April 16, 2005

Week in Review

DoctorZin provides a review of this past week's [4/10-4/16] major news events regarding Iran.

Iran's Presidential Elections:
The EU3 Negotiations with Iran:
Iran's Nuclear Program:
Iran's trouble making outside of Iran:
US Policy and Iran:
The MEK:
Rumors of War:
Iran's economy:
Human Rights/Freedom of the press inside of Iran:
Popular struggle for freedom inside of Iran:
Popular struggle for freedom outside of Iran:
Lunacy in the west:
Iran's and the world community:
Iranian TV:
Middle East Experts:
And finally, The Quote of the Week:
Mr. Amir Abbas Fakhravar is serving an eight years imprisonment, on charges of insulting the leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i:

"I can tell you very frankly that if the present rulers come out in broad daylight telling people that it is noon time and the sun is shining, people would not believe them and go saying it is full night."

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/16/2005 11:07:00 PM  

Saturday's Daily Briefing on Iran

DoctorZin reports, 4.16.2005:

Iran's second front
The American Thinker:

Iran's leaders are now implementing a course of action similar to one that Hitler adopted after the failure to win the Battle of Britain over 60 years ago: turn east and establish a Second Front. READ MORE
Here are a few other news items you may have missed.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/16/2005 03:30:00 PM  

Rafsanjani says more definite to run in Iran poll

Reuters:
Iranian political heavyweight and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani says he is now "more definite" to run for president on June 17, Iranian newspapers reported on Saturday.

Rafsanjani, 70, said he had been waiting for a more suitable candidate to come forward but was now increasingly pessimistic that one would turn up.

"My candidacy has become more definite," he was quoted as saying at a religious meeting in north Tehran by the official Iran newspaper.

"My presence would maximise voter turnout," he was quoted as saying in the Sharq reformist daily. ...

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/16/2005 03:03:00 PM  

EU-US coordination on Iran's nuclear issue not welcome: negotiator

People.com.cn:
A top Iranian nuclear negotiator said Saturday that Iran would not welcome coordination on Iran's nuclear issue between the European Union (EU) and the United States, the official IRNA news agency reported. READ MORE

"Iran is in no way going to pay for coordination Europe is making with other countries," Sirous Nasseri, head of Iran's nuclear negotiation team with Europe, was quoted as saying.

"Iran is not against any coordination of this kind, but Iran's partner in nuclear negotiations is Europe, not the United States," Nasseri said.

The negotiator also voiced Iran's optimism that Washington would not make an incautious decision to attack Iran since the Islamic Republic is capable to defend itself and wields influence in the region.

"The United States thought it was the most powerful country in the world when it started to threaten Iran two years ago, but it has by now come to realize the reality better by understanding the scope of Iran's influence on regional development, especially in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon," he said.

"Such a condition makes the United States wise enough and not to think of attacking Iran because if it does so, it will receive heavy damage itself," Nasseri added. ...

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/16/2005 02:58:00 PM  

Iranian Group Asks State To Lift Terror Designation

Eli Lake, The NY Sun:
Three hundred supporters of an Iranian opposition group characterized by the State Department as a terrorist organization gathered here yesterday to pressure the Bush administration to lift the designation. READ MORE

Supporters of the Mujahedin e-Khalq, or MEK, gathered just four blocks from the White House at Constitution Hall, where a handful of congressmen and two former military officers praised the group as the vanguard of a democratic opposition to the reigning mullahs in Iran.

Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Cantwell, the former military police commandant of Camp Ashraf, a facility in northern Iraq where some 4,000 fighters associated with the MEK are under military supervision, expressed solidarity with fighters he used to guard. To cheers of support, he told the audience, "If there is a terrorist group in Ashraf, where are the terrorists?" ...

The MEK and its political arm, known as the National Council of the Resistance in Iran, are considered terrorists by the State Department for their role in a string of successful attacks on Iranian regime targets in the country throughout the 1990s. The organization, which initially supported the Islamic revolution in 1979, was purged by Ayatollah Khomeini in the early 1980s. With many of its leaders in prison, the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war by 1985.

In 1991, MEK fighters were on the front lines of Saddam's brutal counterinsurgency campaigns in the Shiite south and Kurdish north. "Up until the fall of the regime, they were part and parcel of the Iraqi military. And they were heavily involved in suppressing the Kurdish uprising of 1991," the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan representative in Washington, Qubad Talabani, said yesterday.

Nonetheless, before the Gulf War, the group reached out to America and shared intelligence on a clandestine Iranian nuclear centrifuge program in Natanz. President Bush this year acknowledged that the first bit of information on the Iranian program came from the group.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, American special forces initially encountered MEK military units equipped with tanks, artillery, and armored personnel carriers. According to reserve Army Captain Vivian Gembara, the military lawyer who negotiated the deal for the MEK fighters to hand over their arms in 2003, the MEK was highly disciplined and knowledgeable about military affairs.

"We have more reason to trust them than some of the other groups we worked with," Captain Gembara said. Specifically, she said she was mystified as to why coalition forces allowed the militia trained by Iran's revolutionary guard, known as the Badr Brigade, to remain intact while dismantling the MEK fighting unit. "We let the Badr Brigade keep their uniforms, but we disarmed people willing to work with us," she said.

Yesterday's event, which the organizers called a national convention, featured groups of regional supporters of the MEK, who were in the audience and identified with the vertical placards of state names normally associated with political conventions. The similarities ended, though, when a message from an MEK leader, Maryam Rajavi, was beamed to an audience that shrieked and applauded with rapturous fervor.

"Just as the time has come to abandon the appeasement of tyrants, so the time has come to remove the ominous legacy of that policy, namely the terror label against the Iranian resistance," Ms. Rajavi said to thunderous cheers. In 2003, members of the MEK immolated themselves in protest when French police briefly arrested Ms. Rajavi in Paris.

Some congressmen shared Ms. Rajavi's position on the terrorist designation. Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican of Colorado, compared those gathered yesterday to America's Founding Fathers.

Not all members of the Iranian opposition, however, have such fond words for the MEK. The organization has been left out of the nascent movement inside the country to press for a constitutional referendum.

An Iranian activist in Los Angeles, Roxanne Ganji, told The New York Sun yesterday, "They are definitely a cult, and that is a dangerous thing. If anyone goes to Iran and takes the pulse of the people, though, 90% would never allow them to go back. That does not mean the information they gave America was not good. But they are a terrorist organization. If the United States wants information, then they can get it from viable groups and not terrorists."
The article failed to mention that the MEK were responsible for the murder of Americans in the 1970's.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/16/2005 02:22:00 PM  

US Asks Turkey in 'Anti Russia-Iran Project'

Zaman.com:
The power struggle between Moscow and the US over the former Soviet republics in a tussle over a series of "soft" revolutions is continuing in the Caspian region now.

The US is now trying to control the region to influence the Ural region, Russia's industrial center. READ MORE

According to Moscow based news, the US Department of Defense is working on projects with Azerbaijan and other countries in the region to form the Caspian Guard Forces Organization. Russia, meanwhile, is building up its Navy in Caspian Sea. US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld discussed the issue with his Azari counterpart Sefer Abiyev in Azerbaijani capital Baku this week.

According to the news, Turkey will also participate in the Caspian Guard Forces that will be formed with the participation of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkey as a "Rapid Reaction Force" to prevent possible sabotages on oil pipelines.

The forces will most probably be based in Baku. The US is said to be arming the coast guards of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan for the purpose. The five countries that border on the Caspian Sea and dispute the sharing of its rich energy sources now defend their territorial waters separately but Russia has the strongest force in the region.

Meanwhile, US is establishing strong cooperations with all the regional countries except Russia and Iran to protect its rich energy sources. Turkmenistan President Saparmurat Turkmenbasi asked the United Nations (UN) to protect oil pipelines in 1997. According to some claims, the US insists the base be located in Baku as it wants to control Russia and pressure Iran constantly in the region.

posted by Anonymous @ 4/16/2005 01:24:00 PM  

Shell to Open Iran's Soroush Field in Weeks

Iranian.ws:
Royal Dutch Shell Group (RD SC) has pumped oil into a new platform and facilities in Iran's offshore Soroush field in preparation for commissioning of the field, the weekly Middle East Economic Survey reports in its Monday edition. MEES said commissioning operations were previously postponed after problems with a pressure vessel. READ MORE

The reintroduction of hydrocarbons is the first step in a process which is expected to see production raised to full capacity of 190,000 barrels a day from Soroush and the nearby Nowruz field over the next few weeks, the report said. Both fields are being developed by a Shell-led consortium.

The $800 million combined project involved the installation of three new platforms and the refurbishment of four platforms damaged in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88. Shell had been delivering 60,000 b/d of oil from Soroush through an early production system on a jack-up rig, but in the build-up to the transfer to platform-based production, a pressure vessel was discovered to be faulty and had to be replaced, MEES said. After the completion of the Soroush project, Iran's spare oil capacity will rise further. Iran, the second-largest producer among the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries after Saudi Arabia, currently has an output capacity of around 4.1 million b/d and is pumping close to that figure.

posted by Anonymous @ 4/16/2005 01:22:00 PM  

Iran’s second front

Douglas Hanson and Dr. Mohamed Ibn Guadi, The American Thinker:
The US is executing a well-planned regional and global strategy in our war against Islamo-fascism, as indicated in recent reports. The geo-political thrusts and counter-thrusts in this conflict are being deftly managed by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and the other members of GW’s national security team. The SecState’s visit to Asia and the announcement that the US will sell F-16s to Pakistan and other military gear to India reveal a maneuver to counter Iran’s latest gambit to maintain its status as the region’s terror-master. READ MORE

Looking at a map of the entire region, stretching from Israel on the Eastern Mediterranean to the Indian sub-continent, prior to 9-11, we would see a massive land area anchored on the flanks by two relatively prosperous democracies: Israel and India. The nations between these two countries were essentially a vast land barrier comprised of radical Islamo-fascist states. From this perspective, Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom take on even more significance beyond the obvious benefit of getting rid of two bloodthirsty dictatorships. By invading Afghanistan and Iraq, the US and the Coalition struck at the dual keystones of this massive barrier, and have started the process of tearing down the wall between the two democracies on the flanks of this volatile region.

Iran was not about to take the invasion of Iraq, a country on their Western Front, lying down. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) immediately went on the offensive and began infiltrating agents of influence into the newly liberated Iraq. Iranian-trained and -supported mercenaries twice took on the Coalition with operations centered in Najaf and Baghdad’s Sadr City. Iran also embarked on a campaign of sabotage against Iraq’s oil terminals south of the Al-Faw Peninsula in the Persian Gulf using the same tactics they used in the Tanker Wars of the 1980s. Ultimately, the so-called “Shia” uprisings were defeated in September of 2004, and the oil terminals were secured with additional US and UK naval forces.

The US has also taken a more aggressive posture in the Persian Gulf, perhaps signaling future military action if the mullahs insist on continuing their nuclear weapons program. As if to emphasize our intentions, it was reported last month that the US is sending even more naval forces into the Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.

It should be clear to the mullahs that the initiative on their Western Front has decisively shifted in favor of the Coalition. Iraq is steadily increasing the capabilities of its security forces, thereby enhancing its ability to protect its border with Iran. Also, the heavily reinforced Naval and Marine forces in the Gulf not only ensure a swift and deadly response to any Iranian attack on Gulf shipping, but provide the ability to initiate offensive action to seize key terrain in and around the Straits of Hormuz if necessary.

Faced with the failure of their not-so-covert operations in Iraq, and their inability to shut down Iraq’s oil trade without suffering severe consequences, Iran’s leaders are now implementing a course of action similar to one that Hitler adopted after the failure to win the Battle of Britain over 60 years ago: turn east and establish a Second Front.

Contrary to popular belief, Iran is not surrounded. They have one remaining open avenue to influence the outcome of our campaign in the Central Region. By turning east through Baluchistan and dangling the economic and energy carrots to the eastern democratic anchor in the region, India, and our nominal ally in the War of Terror, Pakistan, the mullahs hope to keep their regime intact, while suppressing the nascent democratic movement within their borders.

Rather than massed conventional armies, Iran’s Second Front involves the revival of an expanded energy trade scheme coupled with politico-military pressure using the old stand-by of terror attacks. Simply put, India and Pakistan are energy consumers, and Iran will use its vast energy reserves to its geo-political advantage. Iran has the world's second largest natural gas reserves at an estimated 812 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), while India’s and Pakistan’s reserves amount to only 23 Tcf and 22 Tcf respectively. (A detailed discussion of South Asia’s energy needs and the Iran-India Pipeline can be found here.)

The strategic import of all of these facts and figures is simple: India’s growing economy has a daily natural gas requirement shortfall of almost 30 million cubic meters per day (mcmd). Pakistan is no better off, with its demand for natural gas increasing by about 50 percent in a few short years. Iran is also a consumer of natural gas, but its huge reserves puts it in a position to economically squeeze its neighbors to the east, and to potentially split off our two important allies in the War on Terror.

The major source of Iran’s natural gas reserves is the South Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf. The South Pars is the world's largest gas field with an estimated capacity of 436 Tcf. Control of the South Pars area is a shared arrangement between Iran and Qatar (Iran seems to be a fan of these joint control agreements, since it also had a similar joint occupation arrangement of the oil-rich island of Abu Musa with UAE, until Iran took complete control in 1992). Iran has wanted to build an Iran-India pipeline since 1993, and in 1995, Pakistan and Iran signed an initial agreement to build a pipeline from the on-shore South Pars terminal to Karachi, Pakistan. The extension of the pipeline from Pakistan to India was a logical next step given India’s large energy requirements and Iran’s need to expand its export markets.

But all of the assumed mutual economic and cultural benefits to be gained from this “Peace Pipeline” project were based on a pre-911 construct. Referring to the map in the detailed pipeline report, it shows how the route of the pipeline and current world events place the entire project in jeopardy. The pipeline starts in Asaluyeh, Iran (only 150 miles southeast of the Bushehr nuclear power reactor) on the coast of the Persian Gulf close to South Pars gas fields. From there it goes to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas to Khuzdar, Pakistan, to Multan, Pakistan, and from Multan, the pipeline travels to Delhi, India.

Unfortunately for Iran, the pipeline must pass through Baluchistan, one of the most rugged and fearsome areas in the Central Region. Neither Iran nor Pakistan has any control over this area. Fiercely independent, some Baluchs have been in the employ of Saddam Hussein since the Iran-Iraq war. And, the recent spate of terrorist attacks in Khost and Kandahar in Afghanistan seem to indicate that terrorist forces are using Baluch territory for their base camps.

Pakistan has also had their problems with this “Wild West” province. The BBC reported that Pakistani forces had clashed with Baluch tribesmen who are demanding greater political autonomy and are demanding a greater share of revenue from the province's natural gas reserves. Not only that, since Baluchistan spans the entire Iran-Pakistan border area, pipeline construction workers and equipment must be secured from tribal warlords and terrorists in an area that can be arguably called “Terrorist Central.”

In one the most delicious ironies in the War on Terror, Iran, one of the Axis of Evil nations and the world’s premier sponsor of terrorism, may be done in by an entity of Saddam’s own creation. Since the fall of Iraq and Afghanistan, and because Pakistan is cooperating with the Coalition, the terrorists have been forced to fall back on this area to establish their version of a “national redoubt.” Unfortunately for Iran, the pipeline that they so dearly want to build in order to bribe our democratic friends in India will have very long odds of succeeding going through Baluchistan.

Nevertheless, the US has mounted an effective counter to Iran’s move to the east. During her visit to India, Secretary Rice referred to the pipeline deal when she stated,

"'Our views concerning Iran are very well known and we have communicated to the Indian government our concerns about gas pipeline cooperation between Iran and India,' Rice told a news conference in New Delhi. 'We need to look at the broader question of how India meets its energy needs in the next decade.' "

The sale of the F-16s to Pakistan is said to have angered some Indian leaders. But this sale must not be viewed in isolation, since this is only the beginning of a comprehensive strategy to defend against Iran’s Second Front. The Australian reports that the US is embarking upon a wide-ranging plan to help India become a major power in the 21st century. The US will boost India’s military capabilities with sales of fighter aircraft, anti-missile defense systems, and the latest digitized command and control gear. And most notably, the US and India will cooperate on economic and energy initiatives.

Without the co-operation of both India and Pakistan, the pipeline project would obviously go nowhere, and the delicate nuclear balance between Pakistan and India would have to be constantly monitored by the US. In a sense, the role of peacemaker would have fallen to Iran, since the pipeline would cross both Indian and Pakistani territory. No Iranian pipeline would mean no regional investments, which in turn would stifle mutual economic benefits that would likely lead to further instability in the area. GW is not about to accede the role of “peacemaker” to an Axis of Evil nation.

Of course, Russia lurks in the background, since it is rebuilding the German-made nuclear reactor at Bushehr in Iran. Putin is now confronted with a cruel dilemma. If he supports the US in pressuring the mullahs to give up their nuclear quest, he and his cronies are not only likely to lose juicy contracts, but also yield to China a considerable lever of influence in the region. In the final years of the Clinton presidency, the "Iranian question" became one of our most important foreign policy challenges. Of course, his national security team adopted the standard approach of the time - punt. Russia’s Iranian problem is that they don’t have Bill Clinton to kick around anymore, whereas GW did not hesitate in placing Iran on the Axis of Evil list, which effectively painted a big bulls-eye on Tehran, and labeled any support of the regime as deserving of diplomatic, economic, or military action.

Iran is in a pickle. Its Western Front effort has gone nowhere and is under increasing pressure from the military forces of the US and the Coalition in the Persian Gulf and Iraq. The mullahs' attempt to bribe India and Pakistan with the promise of cheap energy and a “jobs program” to construct the pipeline will come to naught. Also, the largest terrorist stronghold in the Central Region will see to it that maximum pain will be inflicted on any attempt to run the pipeline through Baluchistan.

There are very few options left to the Islamic Republic, none of which are very satisfactory from the mullah’s point of view. First, it can do a complete about face, and establish a formal relationship again with the United States. This would entail giving up its nuclear projects, completely halting its intervention in Shia areas of Iraq, and its stopping its political and economic support of terror groups in the Middle East, such as Hezbollah. This option seems implausible, considering the decades of enormous investment by the mullahs in their theocratic political and economic power structure.

A second possibility is that Iran continues to play the current cat and the mouse game, by employing the tried and true tactics of delay and deception in order to save time and to avoid the risk of American overt and covert intervention. This option also involves continuing to play the "European-3" (Great Britain, France and Germany) against the US while simultaneously threatening attacks against shipping in the Persian Gulf , or hinting at accelerated production of nuclear weapons material and delivery systems. The mullahs realize, however, that this second option can only last so long with GW in command of beefed up military forces in the Central Region.

Sources indicate that a third option is frequently discussed in the inner circles of Iranian leadership: that of secret negotiations with the United States, including agreements on oil. The losers in this deal would certainly be the Iranian people. Not only would the rich natural resources of the country be plundered for the likely benefit of the insiders and cronies ruling Iran, but the mullahs would have even a freer hand to continue their political repression. Despite the desire of Western energy companies to exploit the huge oil and natural gas reserves in Iran, the administration will not embark on a course of action that would fall short of establishing a democracy in Iran. President Bush understands that any short-term gain would surely come back and haunt us in the future with a revitalized terror campaign built with Western capital.

The ideological nature of the Islamic Republic prevents Iran from adopting a realistic national policy to avoid its coming economic decline, or a possible military operation by the world’s only remaining super-power. And, if the mullahs attempt to play the E-3 card to counter the US, it will hurt more than help their situation.

The people of Iran are watching, and are increasingly restive and belligerent towards the terrorist regime. The mullahs need to realize that their demise will, in fact, be sooner rather than later.

Douglas Hanson is the American Thinker’s military affairs correspondent.

Dr. Mohamed Ibn Guadi is an Islamologist at Strasbourg University and a researcher in Semitic Philology, and is the Director of the Islamology Program at the French Center of Middle East Studies (AFEMO) in Toulouse. He was a policy analyst for the Iran Free Press, and is currently preparing a book on Islam and the West.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/16/2005 11:38:00 AM  

Yemen Finishes Off Iran-backed Insurgents

World Tribune.com:
Yemen's military said the have routed Iranian-backed insurgents in an offensive near the Saudi border. For the fifth straight day, Yemeni main battle tanks and artillery pounded strongholds of the Believing Youth movement in the Saada province. READ MORE

Yemeni government sources said special forces units raided several hideouts of the Shi'ite insurgency group in the area of Razamat about 240 kilometers north of Sanaa as dozens of fighters surrendered.

Many of the insurgents were said to have fled north toward the border with Saudi Arabia as fighting was reported to have died down over the last day. Yemeni sources said more than 200 people have been killed in the fighting, including the No. 2 member of insurgency movement, Middle East Newsline reported.

On Tuesday, Yemeni sources reported that authorities killed Abdullah Izza Al Razami, the No. 2 member of the Believing Youth. Al Razami was said to have died in a battle near the Yemeni-Saudi border during what appeared to be an attempt to flee Yemen.

The sources said Believing Youth members were believed to be behind the bombing of military targets in Sanaa over the weekend. Two military vehicles were bombed in Sanaa, in which four people were injured.

The Defense Ministry daily "September 26" reported that authorities were searching for the bombers and had identified several suspects. The newspaper, quoting security sources, did not elaborate.

"The authorities will strike with an iron fist anyone that tries to destabilize the national security and civilian peace," a Yemeni security source said.

The bombings in Sanaa led to the closure of the British and U.S. embassies. The sources said Yemeni troops were reinforced throughout the capital and over the last two days the two Western embassies reopened.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/16/2005 11:16:00 AM  

Cheney Says U.S. Supports the European-led Negotiations

Julie Hirschfeld Davis, The Baltimore Sun:
On Iran, Cheney reaffirmed the administration's support for diplomatic efforts by Germany, France and Britain to rein in Tehran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. But he suggested that there is a limit to how long the United States will wait for those negotiations to bear fruit.

"We share the view that a great many governments do, that the Iranians should not have nuclear weapons," Cheney said, adding that U.S. officials have "made it clear we support" the European-led negotiations.

"I wouldn't specify, at this point, a timetable," Cheney said. "There will be a point at which either they'll close the deal or, if they're not successful, if the Iranians were to begin operating again, obviously we'd have to consider next steps and do that in conjunction with our allies."

Cheney declined to speculate on whether Iran is working toward developing a nuclear arsenal. He said it is too soon to tell whether the Europeans are doing enough to halt such steps. "We won't know until the negotiations are over," Cheney said.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/16/2005 11:06:00 AM  

I shoulder a heavy duty in elections: Rafsanjani

MehrNews:
“If the future president is elected by a low voter turnout, one could hardly call him the people’s representative,” Expediency Council Chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said on Thursday, adding that such a president would not be popular enough to rule the country.

He stated that his participation in the presidential elections could decrease disputes in society and increase voter turnout, adding that he felt a heavy responsibility to run for president.

Elsewhere in his remarks, he said that people’s problems could be solved through development, increasing production and domestic and foreign investment, and creating job opportunities.
It is important to remember that Rafsanjani is so unpopular in Iran, due to his role in the political corruption inside of Iran, that he could not even be elected to parliament.

posted by Anonymous @ 4/16/2005 04:34:00 AM  

Iran's Rafsanjani blames Khatami for dissident killings

Iran Focus:
Iran’s former president Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani accused Mohammad Khatami’s government of having a hand in the 1998 dissident serial murders. Speaking to a gathering of students north of Tehran, Rafsanjani said, “A crime occurred for which the present government is responsible. They should have answered for it.” READ MORE

Rafsanjani, who also heads Iran’s State Expediency Council, which arbitrates between the watchdog Guardian Council and the Majlis (Parliament), was answering a question about who was responsible for the chain murders. At least 120 politically-motivated killings were carried out in Iran in the 1990s.

Authorities at the time blamed the gruesome murders on "rogue agents" from Iran’s notorious Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS). The agents who were allegedly involved in the killings were tried behind closed doors, in what was widely seen as a whitewash by the theocratic regime. The main suspect, Saeed Emani, who was the Deputy Intelligence Minister at the time, was reported to have “committed suicide” in prison.
Once again, Rafsanjani attempts to rehabilitate himself.

posted by Anonymous @ 4/16/2005 04:33:00 AM  

Friday, April 15, 2005

Friday's Daily Briefing on Iran

DoctorZin reports, 4.15.2005:

Europe "Rock-Solid" That Iran Cease Enrichment
Yahoo! News:

European diplomats are saying the EU is "rock-solid" in its insistence that Iran cease uranium enrichment.
The EU3 needs to be applauded if they stick to this position. We reported back in November that the likely reason Iran wants to maintain a small number of centrifuges to continue to run, it was necessary to hide an undeclared enrichment program. ... READ MORE

Here are a few other news items you may have missed.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/15/2005 08:32:00 PM  

Former Khomeini Staff Member Calls for Democracy

The internet blog, The Word Unheard published the following response Mohsen Sazegara's recent article, Iran's Road to Democracy published by OpenDemocracy.
A former member of Ayatollah Khomeini's staff and one of the student leaders of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran is calling for democracy - true democracy - in Iran (PDF here) and has sparked a timely and interesting debate. His story is compelling, his approach is as a realist and he sees transition to democracy in Iran as natural and inevitable. READ MORE
A formative moment came in 1984. I was then deputy minister for heavy industry and president of the Industrial Development and Renovation Organisation. Something happened that made me say to myself: something is going wrong in this country. But we were in the middle of the war with Iraq, and I felt I had to stay in the government. It took about a year before I resigned.

With the end of the war in 1998 [1988], and the death of Imam Khomeini in 1989, I decided I needed time to study. I refused offers of a variety of posts in the new government, saying that I would prefer to study history. I gradually realised that there were big mistakes in the underlying ideas of the revolution. I saw a kind of fascism at work in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Naturally, he has been arrested, gone on a hunger strike while imprisoned, and subsequently been released. The regime decided that it would be unwise to detain him further, as he was spontaneously referred to as mayor of Tehran and large protests were scheduled to demonstrate in the streets of Tehran against the regime's political prisoners. Sazegara asserts that the call for democracy in Iran can be delayed by the regime but not avoided.
Those in power in Iran have created a fascist version of Islam – an absolutist and authoritarian system. Everything has to be unified, singular, one, a total state. They even use the methods of fascism, like that militia of thugs, the Revolutionary Guards. They are called “white shirts”, a variant of Nazi Germany’s “brown shirts”. They are at every demonstration in Iran, violently attacking all opposition groups.

But now things are really changing. That’s what I told my interrogators: “it” has happened and is happening in Iran. By “it” I mean one thing: the promise of democracy.

This promise is being led by what I call the “reformation movement”, based on a fourfold set of principles: democracy, human rights, civil society and involvement in the international community. This is something much wider and deeper than the “reform process” of President Khatami, which is now dead.
So who is Mohsen Sazegara, a man recently arrested by the Islamic Republic's regime for "making propaganda against the regime"?
Mohsen Sazegara served on Ayatollah Khomeini’s staff during the cleric’s exile in France and accompanied him on his “victory flight” back to Iran in February 1979. He was part of the inner sanctum of power in the new Islamic Republic, helping found the notorious Revolutionary Guard Corps and authoring its constitution. Throughout the 1980s Sazegara held a range of bureaucratic positions within the regime, including political deputy of Islamic Republic radio and television and vice-minister of planning and budget.

Sazegara’s disillusionment with the regime intensified after the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88. He came to believe that the conceptual foundation the Islamic Republic was flawed and that Islamism must be eschewed in favour of a pluralist and tolerant democracy. He developed and published these views in a variety of journals later closed by the regime, including Golestan-e-Iran, Jamee, and Toos.

In 2001, the Council of Guardians refused to allow Sazegara to register as a candidate in the presidential election. He became one of the chief organisers of a campaign for a referendum on a new Iranian constitution. He has been arrested repeatedly and endured two hunger strikes. He remains one of the Islamic Republic’s most vocal dissidents.

In March 2005, he joined the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on a two-month fellowship.
Read the entire piece. It is well worth your time.

Kaveh Ehsani disagrees and thinks the idea of a referendum is foolish fantasy. While he makes some valid points, it seems as if he is resigned to the idea that if the Mullah's cannot be dethroned through peaceful protest then Iranians will just have to live with whatever can be managed within the Islamic "Republic's" existing system.
This plan [a referendum to change Iran’s constitution from an Islamic Republic to a secular polity inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights] is all tactics and literally no strategy. Suppose millions of Iranians (the website is called www.60000000.com) click the internet link and sign this petition. What then? The notion that the coercive apparatus of the Islamic Republic – the “guardians of the revolution”, the veterans, the “devotees”, families of martyrs – will stand by to see this system’s demise is simply too divorced from Iranian realities.

The claim that civil disobedience will then force the regime’s hand is speculative, since there are daily instances of local riots and upheavals in Iran, but there is no linking organisation to channel discontent into collective demands.

If the regular electoral tallies of the eight years since Mohammad Khatami’s election in 1987 have proven anything, it is that the “conservative” forces in Iran have the solid devotion of 8-12 million supporters. By calling for complete system change (without having built the political and organisational network to back it up) the referendum movement is inviting a brutal crackdown, with no means on the ground to resist it. No undemocratic regime will stand aside and accept regime change, unless actual organised opposition overwhelms it. Electronic signatures on a website will not do.

Changing an unpopular political system will be difficult. It is the task of political leadership to ready and organise the population in practical ways to make it possible. No such network-building has been pursued by those calling for the referendum. It is easy enough to call for signatures for a change; the job of building such political networks is far harder, thankless, and risky.
He makes an excellent observation about the need to have a framework, an organization prepared to step into positions of power and responsibility. He is correct on that point. However, that is not likely to happen with the IRGC prowling around killing, beating and arresting all those who would attempt to do so.

From a standpoint of American security, leaving the framework of this regime of lunatics in place is not an option. Removing them without considerable bloodshed is likely not a possiblity.

Mansour Farhang counters that there are a great many in Iran (and enough by his measure) who understand the risks and are driven to rid themselves of the Mullahcracy.
A coalition of Iranian dissidents inside the country have issued an appeal for a nationwide referendum to choose between the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and a new constitution based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This invitation is a veiled method of announcing that the reform movement of the Khatami era is dead and nothing but a secular democracy can liberate the Iranian people from the grip of their tyrannical rulers.

Since many signatories of the appeal began their opposition to the reigning ayatollahs as reformers, their call for a plebiscite on the essential claims of the theocratic order is equivalent to rejecting the legitimacy of the regime and embracing the democratic path.

Iranian activists abroad ought to be inspired by the courage of the brave men and women who struggle for freedom in the oppressive environment of the Islamic Republic. We are all aware that they risk arrest and torture by publicly protesting the arbitrary rule of the self-appointed viceroys of God on earth.
With a sense of fear and a vivid recollection of Hizballah (yes, Hizballah) and IRGC violence against protesters in 2003, Afshin Molavi is both afraid and ready to participate in bringing change.
And yet, here we were in 2003, four years on from those protests, and a bearded thug – a member of Ansar-e-Hezbollah, loosely affiliated with regime hardliners – stood in the way: a stark symbol of the violence that underpins the regime. With chants of Mashallah Hezbollah (Mashallah meaning literally “what God wishes”), he and his henchmen rushed the crowd, their sticks crashing on backs, fists flying, prompting screams and roars of anger. Nearby, police in anti-riot gear watched. Revolutionary guardsmen rumbled by on fat motorcycles. Helicopters circled overhead.

When the dust settled, I saw a tattered sign on the ground. It read, in both Persian and English: referendum. Instinctively, I reached down to pick it up: a souvenir of the day’s events. My second instinct, the “Islamic Republic instinct”, kicked in, and I put the sign back down: was the souvenir worth the trouble I would be in if I got caught with the sign?
So the question is, what are we left with at the end of the day?

A decision. Pure and simple. There's just no tapdancing around the issue.

Islamic Republic, Yes or No?
Italian blogger, Stefania, has also weighed in.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/15/2005 07:58:00 PM  

Iran's Road to Democracy

The contoversial Iranian dissident Mohsen Sazegara published the following recently in openDemocracy. It can be read here.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/15/2005 07:21:00 PM  

Protests Turn Violent in Southwestern Iran

The Jerusalem Post:
More than 250 people were arrested Friday in southwestern Iran after demonstrations against an alleged plan to decrease the proportion of Arabs in the area became violent, a political activist said. READ MORE

Mohammad Navaseri said Arab residents of Ahvaz, the capital of Khuzestan province, gathered Friday morning, chanting slogans against alleged government plans to move more non-Arabs in the city.

He said they set fire to banks and police stations in Ahvaz before more than 250 of them were arrested.

Another Ahvaz resident, Yousef Nabitaraf, said protesters smashed the windows of several banks and set at least one police station on fire.

A copy of a letter allegedly signed by former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi outlines a plan for changing the population composition in Ahvaz through relocating non-Arabs to the city to make them the majority population.

The letter was widely circulated in Ahvaz and other cities in Khuzestan, an oil-rich province that borders Iraq and is home to a large Arab population.

Arabs make up about 3 percent of Iran's population; Persians account for 51 percent of the population of 69 million.

Abtahi has denied writing such a letter, saying it was "illogical."

"Anyone reading it learns that a decision like that, even if approved by the Supreme Leader or the Supreme National Security Council or the president, can't be implemented in Iran. How could the office of the president issue such an illogical directive and change the population in the vital and important region like Khuzestan?" Abtahi asked.

"I've never had such a power to issue a directive to change the population," Abtahi wrote.

Government officials were not available for comment.

Journalists in Ahvaz also confirmed that demonstrations had turned violent.

"Demonstrations in several districts in Ahvaz turned violent when police tried to disperse the angry crowd," said Hadi Yunesi, editor of Fajr-e-Khuzestan daily, which is based in Ahvaz.

Activist Navaseri said protests in the mainly Arab districts of Dayereh, Khashayar and Kian continued late into the night and authorities responded by cutting off water and power.

"These districts have been encircled by security forces and no one can get into or leave them," he said.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/15/2005 07:16:00 PM  

Europe "Rock-Solid" That Iran Cease Enrichment

AFP, Yahoo! News:
European diplomats say the EU is "rock-solid" in its insistence that Iran cease uranium enrichment, ahead of crucial talks next week designed to win guarantees from Tehran that it will not make nuclear weapons.

European Union negotiators Britain, France and Germany are studying an Iranian proposal that would allow some enrichment, and there have been hints of a crack in their unity over this issue. READ MORE

But the European trio is "rock-solid on cessation" by Iran of uranium enrichment, which makes fuel for nuclear reactors but what can also be the explosive core of atom bombs, one European diplomat told AFP on Thursday.

The trio is to meet with Iran starting Tuesday in Geneva in a nuclear issues working group, ahead of a meeting of senior foreign ministry officials from the two sides scheduled for April 29 in London, diplomats said.

Iran proposed at such a senior-level meeting in Paris in March a project to do low-scale enrichment in a pilot project, and the Europeans agreed to consider this.

The European diplomat said however that the EU position remains that "cessation means cessation."

The EU wants so-called "objective guarantees" from Tehran that its nuclear program is a peaceful one.

Iran is trying to soften this demand, and some European diplomats told AFP that French President Jacques Chirac had said in February at a meeting in Paris with Iranian President Mohamad Khatami that France would agree to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) determining what these objective guarantees would be.

Other diplomats said this was not the case and that Chirac had only said that the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog would have a role to play.

The IAEA is a verification arm of the United Nations rather than a policy-making body.

A non-European diplomat said Iran felt it could get a better deal from the IAEA than it would get from the Europeans, who agree with the United States that Iran should not be allowed to develop the capacity to make nuclear weapons.

One European diplomat said that the idea of having the IAEA determine the objective
The EU3 need to be applauded if they stick to this position. We reported back in November that the likely reason Iran wants to maintain a small number of centrifuges to continue to run, was to hide an undeclared enrichment program.

John Loftus (a Fox News intelligence correspondent and director of IntelCon) claimed that uranium enrichment centrifuges, which run at supersonic speeds, emit a unique “sound” that our intelligence satellites can detect. He believes that Iran is aware of this capability of US intelligence.

If Iran has an “undeclared” centrifuge program as many claim, then Iran needs a few centrifuges to be permitted to stay in operation to mask this larger program they have in operation. Once Iran declares that all enrichment has ceased US intelligence would be “hear” the undeclared centrifuges and thus be able to prove their deception. This would explain the Iranian insistence on running the empty centrifuges it convinced the EU3 to permit to continue to run.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/15/2005 06:59:00 PM  

Iran: Imminent Execution/Flogging

Amnesty International, Urgent Action:
PUBLIC AI Index: MDE 13/012/2005
14 April 2005

UA 86/05 Imminent execution/flogging

IRAN Rasoul Mohammadi (m), aged 17
Mousa Ali Mohammadi (m), aged 46, his father

Seventeen-year-old Rasoul Mohammadi is reportedly due to be executed on 16 April. Iran has ratified international treaties that prohibit it from executing anyone for crimes committed when they were under 18. His father, Mousa Ali Mohammadi, is due to be executed at the same time. Each is to receive 74 lashes before he is put to death. READ MORE

According to 11 April reports in the Persian-language newspaper Iran, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Office of Sentence Implementation (in Persian, Daftar-e Ejra’-e Ahkam) has announced to the press that Mousa Ali Mohammed will be publicly hanged in 24 Metri Street in Esfahan at 6.30am on 16 April, and his son will be hanged at the same time, in Esfahan Central Prison.

Rasoul Mohammadi and his father had been found guilty by a court in the city of Esfahan of abducting 40 young girls, stealing their jewellery and raping at least four of them. They apparently confessed to the charges during interrogation.

The sentence has been upheld by the Supreme Court, and Rasoul Mohammadi and his father are now in the custody of Esfahan General Court, which will carry out the sentence. According to the report in Iran, because of "complaints" by the accused, the case has been again referred to the Supreme Court. The report gives no further details of this process.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Rasoul Mohammadi’s parents divorced when he was one year old, and he went to live with his grandmother. When he was four years old he was sent to a children’s home, where he lived for several years before being returned to the custody of his father.

As a state party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Iran has undertaken not to execute anyone for an offence committed when they were under the age of 18.

Nevertheless, 11 child offenders have been executed in Iran since 1990. On 20 January 2005 Iman Farokhi was executed for a crime committed when he was 17 years old. On the same day an Iranian governmental delegation claimed that Iran does not execute people under the age of 18, in a declaration to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.

The Committee, which monitors states' implementation of the CRC, urged Iran to immediately stay all executions of people convicted of crimes committed when they were under 18, and abolish the use of the death penalty in such cases. The Committee said that it "deplored" the fact that Iran had continued to carry out such executions even after it ratified the CRC, including the execution that had taken place that day.

For the last three years, the Iranian authorities have been considering legislation that would prohibit the use of the death penalty for offences committed under the age of 18.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/15/2005 06:53:00 PM  

Don't expect another Osirak

Christopher Holton, SPECIAL TO WORLD TECH TRIBUNE.COM:
On 7 June 1981, Israeli pilots flying F-16s, escorted by F-15s, bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, near Baghdad.

Though almost universally condemned at the time, for the most part the world later realized that it owed these pilots a great debt of gratitude, for they prevented Saddam Hussein from obtaining nuclear arms.

Had Israel not destroyed that reactor, the course of history could have been far different. Kuwait would probably now be a province of Iraq and Saddam Hussein might also be the most powerful man in the Middle East, instead of a prisoner.

Of course, the Israelis were certainly acting in their own self-interest. Given Saddam’s professed hatred of Israel and his support for terrorist attacks on the Jewish nation, there is little doubt that Israel would have eventually become a target of his nuclear weapons.

Fast Forward to 2005

There is now speculation in the media and on various weblogs that Israel will repeat its Osirak operation, but this time in Iran.

This speculation is unfounded. Israel does not have the capability to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program through air attack.

Most of the speculation that Israel would conduct such a strike on Iran centers around Israel’s acquisition of three weapons systems:
  • The F-15I Ra’am
  • The F-16I Sufa
  • “Bunker Buster” Bombs
READ MORE

The F-15I

The F-15I Ra’am is a two-seat, multirole version of the ubiquitous F-15 Eagle, capable of long-range precision strike in day or night and in all weather conditions. It is roughly equivalent to America’s F -15E Strike Eagle. It features conformal fuel tanks that give it great range without increasing drag and thus hampering performance.

The F-15I almost certainly possesses the combat radius/payload capacity combination to strike any target in Iran, however, the Israelis only have 25 of these aircraft in service.

The F-16I

The F-16I Sufa is the most advanced version of the F-16 anywhere in the world. Especially suited for strike missions, the F-16I addresses two long-perceived weaknesses of the original F-16: the F-16I has larger internal fuel capacity that greatly increases its range and the two-seat F-16I’s avionics package makes it capable of precision strike in day or night and in all weather conditions. (The original F-16 has been criticized for its short range and lack of night and adverse weather strike capability.)

However, even with its increased range, the Sufa’s combat radius is listed only as “well in excess of 500 miles.” The Israeli Air Force has stated that it is capable of striking targets in Iran without refueling. Still, the nearest high-value Iranian target is twice as far as 500 miles, which means that such an operation would no doubt stretch the Sufa to the very outer limits of its capabilities—at least without aerial refueling, which given the political geography of the region, could also be problematic.

Calculating actual combat radius is in fact tricky and the final number depends on many factors, including mission profile, weather conditions and, most importantly, payload. And if the aircraft has to engage in air combat maneuvering on the mission, all calculations are out the window.

Eventually, the Israelis will field 102 Sufas, but the first example was delivered in November 2003 and production was expected to run at just 1.5 aircraft per month, according to the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. This means that Israel probably has no more than 30 Sufas in their inventory at this time.

The bunker buster

Properly known as the EGBU-24 Paveway III, this munition is a 2000-lb bomb with a special BLU -109/B penetrator warhead. It is precision-guided by Global Positioning Satellite (GPS). The Bunker Buster can penetrate nearly 8 feet of concrete.

Because Iran’s nuclear facilities are said to be hardened and, in some cases, buried underground, a weapon such as the Bunker Buster would probably be needed to achieve the desired result.

This combination of weapons systems—the F-15I, F-16I and EGBU-24—seem ideally suited for attacking Iran’s nuclear program in an air raid reminiscent of the Osirak raid 24 years ago.

The reality, however, is somewhat different.

Not enough aircraft, too many distant targets

While these systems are suited to carry out an attack on hardened targets, such as Iran’s nuclear sites, Israel does not have enough of any them to carry out a raid to successfully eliminate Iran’s nuclear program.

As previously mentioned, Israel has just about 30 F-16I and 25 F-15I. Iran has at least 15 significant nuclear sites. While some observers maintain Israel would not have to destroy every site to cripple Iran’s program, Israel’s intelligence would have to be extremely good to skip over any known sites, much less sites that are not widely known. Iran has been secretive about its nuclear program for nearly two decades and it is possible that crucial activities are hidden in unknown areas and sites.

Israel would not want to leave any aspect of Iran’s nuclear program intact, therefore, to suggest that an attack would need to destroy 15 sites may be conservative.

Israel used 16 aircraft just to destroy Osirak. Osirak was relatively poorly defended and was only approximately 570 miles from Tel Aviv. By contrast, Iran’s largest nuclear site is 1,000 miles from Israel. The furthest Iranian nuclear site is in Tabas, in the eastern end of the country, some 1600 miles from Israel. The other 13 nuclear sites are widely dispersed.

The Iranians are very aware of what happened at Osirak. Their nuclear sites are hardened—often built underground—and are heavily defended by Russian-made surface to air missiles and anti- aircraft artillery. Israeli planning tends to be very good, but with so many targets, follow-up strikes would almost certainly be needed. This makes the fact that the Iranians have gone to great lengths to defend their nuclear facilities a problem. Even if the initial strikes get by Iranian defenses, the Iranians will be that much more alert for follow-up strikes. And Israel does not possess stealth aircraft or long- range cruise missiles to conduct such missions. The Israelis would need to be uncannily accurate in their initial strikes to ensure success and this is not the same Israeli Air Force that existed in 1981. Today, many Israeli pilots have not seen true combat, have not had to deal with sophisticated air defense systems and have never flown long-range precision strike missions.

The problem of Iran’s missiles

The nuclear facilities are not the only problem. Iran’s Shihab-3 ballistic missile has the range to hit Israel. It is not certain how many of these missiles Iran has (though some published reports give a number of 15, with no acknowledged source), nor is it known if any are equipped with chemical or biological warheads. But the Israelis would probably not want to depend solely on their Arrow-2 anti- missile system for protection in such a scenario. While the Arrow-2 has performed pretty well in tests, even a small number of incoming WMD-tipped ballistic missiles could be catastrophic for a tiny, densely populated country like Israel.

So, Israel would also have to try to account for potential Iranian missile sites in any strike and it simply does not have the number of long-range aircraft necessary to do so. There are at least 8 known sites throughout Iran capable of launching ballistic missiles: Tehran, Bakhtaran, Garmsar, Karaj, Mashhad, Qom, Semnan, and Shahroud,

This means that Israel would be faced with having to strike no fewer than 23 separate targets, all more than 1,000 miles from Israeli air bases.

The mission profile would also be problematic to say the least. Israeli aircraft would have to fly over foreign airspace to conduct a fairly large air campaign. Should the Israelis overfly Saudi Arabia, they face the real possibility of being intercepted since the Saudis are equipped with AWACS airborne early warning aircraft and F-15 Eagles of their own.

The more obvious route would take the aircraft over Jordan and Iraq. The Jordanians are probably incapable of intercepting Israeli F-16I and F-15I aircraft dashing at low altitude over their airspace and, if America was informed ahead of time, getting over and through Iraq would obviously be no problem. Iraq could even provide airspace for aerial refueling and air bases for emergency landings. But this scenario is politically unlikely.

If America were to participate even passively in an operation of this sort, it would run the risk of irreparable harm to its relations with “friendly” Arab governments, including Iraq. All of this risk would be excessive for an operation that would not have a great chance of success due to limited numbers of suitable Israeli aircraft.

If America decides that Iran’s nuclear program needs to be destroyed, it alone possesses the combat power and geographical location of forces to successfully conduct such an attack. With aircraft based in Iraq, Afghanistan, Diego Garcia and on aircraft carriers, as well as cruise missiles on board submarines, cruisers and destroyers in the Persian Gulf, U.S. forces could overwhelm Iranian air defenses and pound them for as long as it took to destroy each and every nuclear and missile site in Iran. These capabilities are simply on another order of magnitude from those of Israel.

Christopher Holton has been writing on strategic, military and economic issues for over 12 years. He can be contacted at prgraph3@bellsouth.net.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/15/2005 06:23:00 PM  

Iran seeks admission to UN's high-res satellite network

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM:
Iran wants to join a United Nations satellite network that produces high resolution imagery.

Western diplomatic sources said Teheran has requested participation in a UN-funded satellite network for border security. The sources said the Islamic republic has cited its war against drug trafficking from neighboring Afghanistan.

"The Iranians have made a good case for joining the program," a diplomatic source said. "But the United States believes that Iran will use the satellite to spy on the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq." READ MORE

[Iran has announced plans to launch three satellites, including a reconnaissance facility, over the next year, Middle East Newsline reported. Russia was said to be a leading contractor in the project.]

The proposed satellite network would focus on Afghanistan and the surrounding region. The sources said the UN satellites would provide high-resolution imagery meant to monitor borders and detect the movement of drug traffickers.

The satellite proposal has been drafted by the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, based in Vienna, and meant to cover Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. But under U.S. pressure, the sources said, the UN satellite program has been shelved.

Iran has already received Western security and military equipment ordered by its anti-drug program. They included delivery of 250 night vision goggles and 1,000 body armor sets from Britain and mobile global positioning systems and computers from France.

The UN office has already trained Iranian representatives in global navigation satellite system [GNSS] technologies. In May 2004, the Iran Space Agency and European Space Agency organized a UN workshop on environmental security.

[On Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that Iran has withdrawn virtually all of its troops from Lebanon. The Post quoted U.S. officials as saying that Iran has between 12 and 50 military trainers in Lebanon.]

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/15/2005 06:17:00 PM  

Can Iran be Thwarted?

Yonah Alexander and Joe Swiecki, The Washington Times:
Although the recent Commission on Intelligence Capabilities of the United States' report regarding weapons of mass destruction is critical of U.S. intelligence failures regarding Iraq's programs of WMD development, one fundamental fact is undeniable: The net balance now and in the foreseeable future is tilting toward the risk of suicide nuclear terrorism. This shift should be a matter of urgent concern to the international community.

A case in point is the current and future challenges posed by Iran. READ MORE

What is particularly alarming about the regime's integrated strategy of systematic and carefully orchestrated terrorism are two intensifying trends. A glimpse of the first accelerating phenomenon is related to Tehran's expansion of "jihad" (holy war) and "shahada" (self-sacrifice). In January, Iran's leader Ali Khamenei praised the culture of shahada and called on the young generation of students to follow the path of martyrdom because "this is the most beautiful human value." This assures the centrality of the suicide weapon in its arsenal of terrorism, which is currently conventional and will ultimately be unconventional.

The second disturbing trend is the regime's decision to pursue actively a policy of nuclear development. Iran has repeatedly claimed that this project has been designed as a "peaceful" undertaking and will "never" be diverted to weapons production. In fact, Iran's nuclear infrastructure consisting of six major sites, coupled with the real possibility that Iran has also a clandestine program not subject to any international verification and safeguards established by the International Atomic Energy Group, does not provide the world any "objective guarantees" that Tehran will not construct atomic weapons.

Thus, Iran's apparent intentions to create a military application to its nuclear program, coupled with that nation's traditional utilization of suicide terrorism abroad, make it possible, if not probable, that the regime will determine it would deploy the ultimate weapon -- from a primitive "dirty device" to a more sophisticated bomb -- through a terrorist "proxy."

Can the United States and like-minded nations deny Iran nuclear capabilities and their utilization as terrorist weapons? Is a military response to such a threat a realistic option for the United States and other countries?

Iran is not Iraq, where Baghdad's nuclear research program at Osirak was destroyed in June 1981 by an Israeli air strike. Even if Israel and the United Sates were to decide to mount air strikes against multiple-targeted Iranian nuclear facilities, the challenge would be Herculean.

After all, Iran has already deployed advanced air defense systems to guard its nuclear sites, and the dispersed and underground nature of the facilities make potential air strikes difficult and without guarantee of success. Finally, any air attack would prove to Tehran that its conventional defense capabilities are too weak to protect itself from an "aggressive" external threat, leading the regime to accelerate its nuclear weapons program.

The more drastic military course of action is a cross-border invasion of United States or coalition land forces. However, the danger with extreme military action is that it is likely to elicit international outrage, incur higher casualties and create a much longer period of intense, widespread insurgency than experienced in Iraq. It would also result in continued strain on the overall U.S. military structure and its available resources, affecting long-term sustainability of any such operation.

In view of the foregoing, two parallel nonmilitary actions are needed: first, to allow Iran to keep its nuclear power plants if it agrees to stop its uranium enrichment program in exchange for outside sources of nuclear fuel; and second, to secure pledges from Iran to stop sponsorship of terrorism in exchange for a massive commitment of foreign investment in the order of about $18 billion required to generate an optimum economic development in the country.

Such incentives are realistic in light of the recent policy shift of the U.S. administration in supporting the "engagement" efforts of European nations. The world community has one more diplomatic opportunity, particularly after Iran's presidential elections in June, to move forward to prevent nuclear terrorism with devastating consequences for global security concerns. However, if Iran refuses to cooperate in this area within a reasonable time frame, then the U.N. Security Council should consider smart sanctions as well as military options.

In sum, the carrot-and-stick approach of both incentives and punishments will suffice for the moment. Hopefully, Iran's prime concern with its national self-preservation will dictate willingness to consider the profound observation of the French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand: "True strength restrains itself -- true greatness sets its own limits."

Yonah Alexander is a professor and the director of the International Center for Terrorism Studies at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington. Joe Swiecki is a U.S. Army captain currently in Georgetown University's Masters Program for Policy Management.
The author seems to forget that the Iranian regime's radical religious mandate to aggressively export its form of Islam is its very reason for being. Without such a mandate it has no reason for existence. Therefore the regime can never give up its support for Islamic terrorism. The current regime wants economic growth, but not at the price of its radical religion. Our best option is to aggressively support a regime change in Iran. But time for this option is running out.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/15/2005 12:15:00 PM