Saturday, April 30, 2005

Week in Review

DoctorZin provides a review of this past week's [4/24-4/30] 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:
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:
Iran and the world community:
Middle East Experts:
And finally, The Quote of the Week:
Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said:

"human rights are a weapon in the hands of our enemies to fight Islam."

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/30/2005 11:50:00 PM  

Saturday's Daily Briefing on Iran

DoctorZin reports, 4.30.2005:

As I predicted: EU-Iran nuclear talks fail, more planned.
Reuters:

The European Union's so-called "Big Three" and Iran failed to reach agreement over Tehran's nuclear program on Friday but decided to hold more talks in the future.

"The informal talks have concluded. No conclusions were reached and both sides, the EU Three and Iran, have agreed to go away and reflect on what was discussed.
The EU3 are waiting for the June 17 elections. It was the worst possible response, as it will slow down U.S. efforts to support a regime change inside of Iran this summer. READ MORE

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

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/30/2005 01:56:00 AM  

European Parliament censures Iran rights abuses

Iran Focus:
The European Parliament adopted a resolution yesterday, calling on Iran to end its increasing human rights violations.

The EP resolution said that it was “very concerned that the human rights situation has deteriorated in the last two years and calls on the Iranian authorities to make a serious commitment to reversing this trend”.

It condemned “the serious increase in human rights violations, particularly the increasing number of reports of public executions, and floggings.” READ MORE

The EP called “on the Council (of Europe) and the Commission to closely monitor the implementation of commitments made by Iran to moratoriums in the three key areas of stoning, execution of minors and amputations”.

It added that is was “concerned at the large number of arrests, particularly of women and young people, on the basis of unclear or minor charges” and expressed “its deepest concern, that a minor was recently executed for sexual misconduct”.

The European Parliament condemned “Iran’s abject policy of arrests and imprisonment of journalists and cyber-dissidents and the stifling of press and media freedom”, and called on the Iranian regime “to cease support for terrorist organisations”.

The EP also expressed alarm at “the high number of executions in Iran, in particular of minors, and Iran's refusal to release official statistics on the death penalty”.

In February the EP passed a similar resolution condemning Iran's human rights violations, calling on the European Union to sponsor a separate resolution, censuring Iran in the United Nations and demanding that a special representative be re-appointed to monitor the human rights situation in Iran.

The EP condemned "the serious increase in human rights violations, notably the growing number of reports about executions, including executions of juvenile offenders, amputations, flogging in public, a generalised crackdown on the press and media, widespread arrests – especially of women and young people – on unclear or minor charges".

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/30/2005 01:44:00 AM  

Russia plans nuke fuel shipments to Iran mid-2005

Reuters:
The Russian nuclear fuel trader TVEL should start fuel shipments for a Moscow-built nuclear reactor in Iran six months before the unit becomes operational in early 2006, a senior company official said on Thursday. READ MORE

Russia is building a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant in Iran despite strong opposition from the United States, which believes Iran could use Russian know-how to make nuclear weapons.

Tehran denies wanting a bomb and says its atomic ambitions are limited to the peaceful generation of electricity.

"The construction of the Bushehr's plant is progressing and as part of the technology process, half a year before launching the unit, the fuel should be supplied," Anton Badenkov, vice president of TVEL, who is on a visit to Sofia, told reporters.

"The unit should become operational in the beginning of 2006," said Budenkov, who also chairs the board of directors of Atomstroiexport, the company building the Bushehr's plant.

In February, Moscow and Tehran signed a fuel supply deal, under which the spent fuel will be sent back to Siberian storage units after about a decade of use, a condition that Badenkov said removes all obstacles before the project.

"We have already signed the deal to take back the spent fuel from the plant, for which the international agencies were insisting, and all obstacles are removed," he said.

TVEL, Russia's state nuclear fuel producer, has for years kept the fuel, produced for the Bushehr plant, at a storage facility in Siberia, awaiting greenlight from the country's Atomic Energy Agency to start shipments.

"We are now awaiting a licence from the Russian authorities for nuclear fuel exports," Badenkov said.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/30/2005 01:39:00 AM  

Why? - (Good Question!)

ActivistChat.com asks:
In the name of Zahra Kazemi. In the name of Thomas Jefferson. In the name of all human beings, young and old, big and small, why oh why do current British politicians (and some American politicians) continue to favor greater trade cooperation with the Mullahs, especially when the Iranian people are on the verge of achieving their long awaited FREEDOM?

Important Read:
Zahra's Memory

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/30/2005 01:29:00 AM  

It's Called Nonproliferation

Henry Sokolski And George Perkovich, The Wall Street Journal:
Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi has just stated in no uncertain terms that if today's talks with France, Britain and Germany fail, there will be "no choice but to restart" his country's uranium-enrichment program. The Iranian people, he says, "believe it is their inalienable right to have access to this technology for peaceful purposes."

Iranian negotiators recognize the leverage that nuclear "rights" give them; so they say that the only issue is to establish the procedures under which they will exercise their rights to operate enrichment centrifuges. READ MORE

In February, Hassan Rohani, Iran's national security council secretary, offered to open up Iran's enrichment plants to even more intrusive inspections than those now currently allowed. If this was not acceptable, he suggested that Iran would be willing merely to run a pilot enrichment plant that he claimed would be too small to make even one bomb's worth of highly enriched uranium. He even offered to allow the U.S. to buy up to one-half of Iran's entire nuclear program to build confidence that Iran's program would only be used for peaceful purposes.

* * *

These offers are beguiling. They are also bad. The reasons why, though, are likely to remain obscure so long as our diplomats continue to agree with Mr. Kharrazi that all states that are not in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty have a right to make nuclear fuel and that such activity can be monitored to prevent quick diversions to make bombs. In fact, there is no such right and nuclear fuel-making of the sort Iran is planning to engage in still cannot be safeguarded in any meaningful way.

The NPT's history and common sense clarify why the right to peaceful nuclear energy is qualified. First, the NPT, to which Iran is a signatory, is a nuclear nonproliferation treaty, not a nuclear bartering tool. If it authorized states to get all they needed to come within days of having a nuclear arsenal, perversely it would be no more than a legal cover for proliferation. A state could be fully compliant with the NPT so long as it declared all of its nuclear activities and avoided taking the final step (which in extreme cases would take no more than hours or days) of assembling the nuclear weapons-usable materials it had into bombs.

Second, if there are different ways to interpret a contract, the one that lends the greatest support to its provisions and prime intent is the one any sound lawyer or judge must back. Unfortunately, nuclear promoters and diplomats have disobeyed this sensible rule. When it comes to the NPT, they read the treaty's "inalienable right" to develop "peaceful nuclear energy" as being absolute. This is what leads them to conclude that a state has a right under the treaty to get everything up to but not including a complete nuclear weapon so long as it continues to claim that its nuclear activities are peaceful and there is no clear international determination otherwise.

This reading of the treaty, besides making a hash of the NPT's intent to block bomb-makers, is simply wrong. Article IV of the NPT makes clear that non-nuclear weapons state members are free to exercise their right to develop peaceful nuclear energy, but only if they do so "in conformity" with the NPT's nonproliferation restrictions. Which restrictions are these? The first is the stipulation in Article II that nonweapons states are "not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons." The other is the requirement in Article III of the treaty that all nonweapons states must place all of their civil nuclear activities under International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear safeguards -- i.e., nuclear inspections geared "to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons."

Nuclear activities and materials that cannot be safeguarded, then, cannot count on being protected by the NPT. Centrifuge enrichment of uranium for power reactors, which can be switched to produce weapons-grade uranium overnight; chemical separation of weapons-usable plutonium from spent reactor fuel; and the fabrication of weapons-usable plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) reactor fuels, all fall into this category.

The following recent examples betray the inherent limitations of IAEA efforts to try to safeguard such plants. Earlier this year, the United Kingdom publicly admitted to having "lost" nearly 30 kilograms -- or five crude nuclear devices worth -- of weapons-usable plutonium at its commercial reprocessing facility. The year before, the British reported 19 kilos had gone missing. Japan, meanwhile, announced in early 2003 that it had lost 206 kilos of plutonium at its pilot reprocessing plant. These losses, it claimed, occurred over the previous 15 years. This revelation came after the Japanese had already admitted to having lost 70 kilos at an entirely different plutonium fuel fabrication plant.

All of these facilities were under the IAEA's watchful eyes. What's more frightening, the IAEA found all of these losses to be within permissible limits: Inspectors assumed the material simply was "lost in the plant's pipes." This is not the margin of safety needed to ensure that all safeguarded nuclear activities are solely for peaceful purposes, as required under the NPT. With facilities like these and with uranium enrichment and HEU fabrication plants, the IAEA should admit that it cannot yet know if and when a bomb's worth of bomb-usable material might have been stolen. It also should be candid that a state could divert these activities and the materials they produce to make a bomb well before the IAEA or any outside power could step in to block it.

What, then, does this recommend?

# First, unless there is a clear economic imperative to proceed with these dangerous nuclear fuel-related activities, the security reasons for holding back should take precedence. The burden of proof should clearly be on those who seek to expand such activities to demonstrate clear civilian benefits and market economic competitiveness in comparison with alternatives. Reprocessing plutonium for civilian use, fabricating HEU or plutonium-based fuels, building new enrichment capacity to expand now beyond the world's already large surplus of uranium-enrichment capacity, are unnecessary to promote peaceful nuclear energy today and, in most cases, are clear money losers.


This suggests adoption of some variant of President Bush's or IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei's proposed curbs on these activities. Certainly, nuclear industry can well afford to put the further addition of any new net capacity to make enriched uranium or to recycle plutonium-based fuels on hold for several years. The European Union has already signed on board to some kind of limits. This pause could be used to try to drive to ground just what nuclear activities and materials the IAEA can and cannot truly safeguard against quick diversion.

# Second, using the time gained from this pause, the U.S. and others should return to the NPT's original, commonsensical intent regarding what's peaceful, what's protected, and what's dangerous, and should be curbed as much as possible. In this regard, Congress, and especially the U.S. Senate, should ask for clarification of what nuclear activities are allowed under what circumstances under Article IV of the NPT and why.

Certainly, it makes no sense for the U.S. to be fighting Iran and other would-be bomb makers if we share their views on how much is allowed under the rules. Indeed, if we cannot get others to return to the NPT's original, tougher view of what peaceful nuclear energy means, our current campaign to prevent Iran from going nuclear will not only fail, but will make the rules all but meaningless.

Mr. Sokolski is executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington. Mr. Perkovich is vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
This is a MUST READ for all those wanting to understand the NTP.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/30/2005 01:01:00 AM  

Press Conference of the President - Iran Excerpts

The White House, President Bush's Remarks: READ HERE
Q Mr. President, it was four years ago when you fist met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. You said you looked into his eyes and you saw his soul. You'll also be meeting with the Russian leader in about a week or so. What do you think of Putin now that he has expressed a willingness to supply weapons to outlaw regimes, specifically his recent comments that he said he would provide short-range missiles to Syria and nuclear components to Iran?

THE PRESIDENT: We have -- first, just on a broader -- kind of in a broader sense, I had a long talk with Vladimir there in Slovakia about democracy and about the importance of democracy. And as you remember, at the press conference -- or if you weren't there, somebody will remember -- he stood up and said he strongly supports democracy. I take him for his word.

I -- and we'll continue to work. Condi just -- Condi Rice, our Secretary of State, just came back and she briefed me that she had a very good discussion with Vladimir about the merits of democracy, about the need to listen to the people and have a government that's responsive.

We're working closely with the Russians on -- on the issue of vehicle-mounted weaponry to Syria. We didn't appreciate that, but we made ourselves clear. As to Iran, what Russia has agreed to do is to send highly enriched uranium to a nuclear civilian power plant, and then collect that uranium after it's used for electricity -- power purposes. That's what they've decided to do.

And I appreciate that gesture. See, what they recognize is that -- what America recognizes, and what Great Britain, France, and Germany recognize, is that we can't trust the Iranians when it comes to enriching uranium; that they should not be allowed to enrich uranium.

And what the Iranians have said was, don't we deserve to have a nuclear power industry just like you do? I've kind of wondered why they need one since they've got all the oil, but nevertheless, others in the world say, well, maybe that's their right to have their own civilian nuclear power industry. And what Russia has said: Fine, we'll provide you the uranium, we'll enrich it for you and provide it to you, and then we'll collect it. And I appreciate that gesture. I think it's -- so I think Vladimir was trying to help there. I know Vladimir Putin understands the dangers of a Iran with a nuclear weapon. And most of the world understands that, as well. ...

Q Do you feel that the number of troops that you've kept there is limiting your options elsewhere in the world? Just today you had the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency say that he was now concerned that the North Koreans, for example, could put a weapon, a nuclear weapon on a missile that could reach Japan or beyond. Do you feel, as you are confronting these problems, the number of troops you've left tied up in Iraq is limiting your options to go beyond the diplomatic solutions that you described for North Korea and Iran?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate that question. The person to ask that to, the person I ask that to, at least, is to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, my top military advisor. I say, do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq? And the answer is, no, he doesn't feel we're limited. He feels like we've got plenty of capacity. ...

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/30/2005 12:48:00 AM  

Russia's Position on Iran

Pyotr Goncharov, United Press International:
The "unanimity" displayed by Moscow and Tehran on the eve of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to the Russian capital was most opportune. READ MORE

Moscow had called on Iran to show a certain restraint in terms of using its right to develop nuclear technologies, and Iran had obliged by treating these wishes with understanding.

Hussein Musavian, chairman of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council's foreign policy committee, said, during his recent talks in Moscow, Russia had supported Iran's right to develop modern peaceful nuclear technologies. But Moscow had stressed it would be undesirable for Tehran's wish to exercise this right to undermine the current atmosphere of trust between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

"We intend to retain our rights," said Musavian. "However, we also believe maintaining the atmosphere of trust existing between Iran and the IAEA to be essential."

These comments can only mean that Iran will not lift the moratorium on uranium enrichment or withdraw from the negotiating process either at the current Geneva talks with the European Union on the fate of the Iranian "nuclear file" or in the near future.

The statement is highly symbolic, considering that on the eve of the meeting between the Iranian and EU working groups in Switzerland, Sirus Naseri, Iran's senior negotiator on nuclear talks with Europe, said Iran would withdraw from the negotiating process with the EU unless progress was made in this dialogue.

By progress at the talks, Tehran means the EU's unconditional recognition of Iran's right to create a full fuel cycle of its own, in other words, to develop a uranium enrichment program. This demand is completely unacceptable for the EU, considering that the United States is strongly opposed to anything of the kind.

Musavian's statement is also symbolic because it was made literally a few hours before Rice arrived in Moscow.

Russian-Iranian cooperation in the nuclear field has blighted Russian-U.S. relations for years. An agreement on supplies of Russian nuclear fuel to Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, signed in Moscow right before Russian President Vladimir Putin met President George W. Bush in Bratislava, Slovakia, was fiercely criticized by many figures within the U.S. president's inner circle. Rice was no exception. No one doubted she would raise the matter in Moscow in a bid to clarify the Kremlin's position in the run-up to the next presidential meeting May 9.

Moscow's position on the Iranian "nuclear file" is fundamentally different from Washington's. It prioritizes the IAEA's role and diplomatic efforts, notably, Tehran's talks with the EU troika: Britain, Germany and France. Moscow has never concealed its belief a perfect solution for all sides would be if Tehran and the IAEA signed an additional protocol giving the agency the right to conduct inspections without prior notification and Iran promised to maintain its uranium enrichment moratorium in the near future.

Musavian's visit to Moscow showed on the one hand, nothing has changed in Russia's position either in Iran's or America's favor, and on the other, that sometimes Tehran is inclined to heed Moscow's wishes, if not recommendations. Many experts are inclined to think Moscow deliberately timed Musavian's arrival in Russia to pre-empt Rice's visit.

All this has a logic of its own. Moscow let the United States understand that it still intends to be guided by its own interests and uphold its own position in nuclear cooperation with Iran, whatever Washington's reaction. Lastly, by declaring its position in advance, Moscow saved Rice the trouble of clarifying some details that may be unpleasant for the United States.

When talking about Iran's nuclear project in Moscow, Rice did not fail to point to the "dubious" nature of Iran's civil nuclear research. This was hardly a surprise. What was genuinely surprising, though, was that she acknowledged that from the standpoint of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the agreement between Russia and Iran on the supplies of nuclear fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant "promotes the cause.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/30/2005 12:27:00 AM  

Iranian News Agency says: For the People of Iran, Vote Blair Out

Islamic republic News Agency:
A new anti-war campaign group is seeking support for voters in Britain to vote tactically at next week's general election to prevent Prime Minister Tony Blair winning another majority for a record third term. READ MORE

"We owe it to the people of Iraq and Iran to unite behind whoever can defeat New Labour," Strategic Voter said. "We need to set aside our various party-tribalism," it said in an advertisement in the Independent newspaper Friday.

The independent non-party peace group said it was aiming to "outwit" Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system that "relies on and inflames our macho Divide and Rule, Winner-Takes-All political system."

In its task to seek a 'balanced parliament,' it said it did not believe there was any 'One Size Fits All party' to vote for across the country and instead urged voters to tactical back the best- placed anti-war candidate in their constituency.

"The results we hope to see include: Blair decisively checked; Troops speedily withdrawn from Iraq; Racism and Islamophobia resisted and Public services and the environment defended board," it said.

On its webpage, Strategic Voter listed recommendations for each constituency, with the aim of steering towards a balanced (or "hung") Parliament. "We want to punish the government, but not finish up with a Tory majority either," it said.

A variety of campaigns have been launched by the anti-war movement that has grown up in Britain opposed to the Iraq war, including vote4peace, which is demanding 'No More Iraqs' and calling on Blair to tell the US it "can't attack Iran."

There is also the DitchBlairProject, the dumpBlair campaign, makevotescount, stolenvotes and many others, often with the support of traditional Labour voters and mostly intent on forcing the Prime Minister out of office as soon as possible by weakening his power. ...

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/30/2005 12:16:00 AM  

Rafsanjani Says Iran Will Have Uranium Enrichment "at Any Cost"

Parisa Hafezi, Reuters:
Uranium enrichment is a right that Iran will never give up, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the influential former president who is preparing to run again, said on Friday.

Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment activities, which can produce bomb-grade fuel, will not last long, he said. Iran suspended the activities as a goodwill gesture in the run-up to its talks with European Union nations. ... READ MORE

But Rafsanjani, who is preparing for a June 17 presidential vote, said: "Iran is determined to have all branches of nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment."

"And we will have it at any cost," he told worshippers at Friday prayers in Tehran.

Rafsanjani, head of the Expediency Council policy-making body, said Iran "is strong enough not to let Europeans impose indefinite uranium enrichment suspension." ...

"We have enough patience to continue talks and convince the globe about the peaceful nature of our activities," he said.

"But I tell the Europeans that this kind of attitude, under America's pressure, will not bring about the desired outcome," he added in comments broadcast live on state radio. ...

He urged Iranians to use their votes in the presidential election to prevent the United States from weakening the Islamic state through a low turnout.

"Everybody should vote to defuse America's threats against Iran."
This is the man the Europeans are hoping will be Iran's next President. They are grasping at straws.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/30/2005 12:05:00 AM  

Friday, April 29, 2005

Pressure Off in EU-Iran Nuke Showdown

Deutsche Welle:
An expected showdown in Iran-EU nuclear talks Friday in London should be more sound than fury as both sides feel the negotiations are basically on hold until after Iranian presidential elections in June, diplomats said.

"It is still not the end game. Look to June," a European diplomat close to the talks told AFP. But in Tehran on Thursday a key Iranian negotiator said the Islamic Republic was "very pessimistic" on the eve of new talks since the European Union has been dragging its feet. READ MORE

"Up until now and from the start of the process (in December), especially since the Paris meeting (March 23), the Europeans have not undertaken any serious step to bring it to a close," said Hossein Mussavian, spokesman for the negotiating team.

"If this tendency is confirmed and the Europeans do not change their attitude, I am very pessimistic," he told AFP.

In The Hague, Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said that if there were no agreement or the talks collapsed, "it is our right to restore the program" of uranium enrichment which has currently been halted for the duration of the talks.

Iran accusses EU Three of dragging heels

Iran is waiting for an answer from EU negotiators Britain, Germany and France to a proposal that would allow Iran to enrich uranium, a process that makes fuel for nuclear reactors but in highly refined form what can be the explosive core of atom bombs.

The European trio is holding fast, however, to its position that Iran must give up on all nuclear fuel activity in order to provide "objective guarantees" that it will not make atomic weapons, diplomats said.

The United States, which backs the EU diplomatic initiative but is not party to the talks, charges that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons and must be kept from obtaining the weapons breakout capability which enrichment represents.

Presidential elections put deal on hold

Diplomats said the Iranians will not be able to make a deal on the nuclear issue until they have chosen a president on June 17, with the West hoping that former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is still mulling his candidacy, will be elected and will be a pragmatist.

"With wider support from the mullahs, he might be able to make moves," a European diplomat close to the talks said.

The diplomat said the talks were in fact in a holding pattern but that neither side "can trumpet this and say to the world we are in a holding mode now."

A second European diplomat, also close to the talks, said that while Iran may try to provoke some sort of crisis, it would not "in the midst of a presidential election make a strategic political decision to try to change the terms of this whole (negotiating) process."

Iran suspended enrichment last November as a confidence-building measure to start the talks the following month with the EU, which offers Tehran trade, security and technology rewards if it makes the suspension permanent.

Centrifuge production has ominous overtones

According to the text of the proposal, read to AFP by a diplomat close to the talks, the Iranians seek the "assembly, installation and testing of 3,000 centrifuges in Natanz," the site where Iran wants to build an enrichment plant and has already set up a pilot project of 164 centrifuges.

A sequence, or cascade, of about 2,000 centrifuges could make enough highly enriched uranium in a year to make one atom bomb, experts say.

The first European diplomat said the Europeans will get a "no" to this on Friday but "camouflaged as well as possible."

"The Europeans will say they are ready to discuss the proposal but not adopt it," the diplomat said. The diplomat said the idea was to keep the talks going through the elections.

The second diplomat said the European position remained that "for objective guarantees, the Europeans see nothing other than that Iran stops its fuel cycle activities."
The Europeans are pinning their hopes on the election of Rafsanjani as president in the June elections. But today, he made his postion clear.
Tehran is determined to embark on uranium enrichment and other branches of nuclear technology. "And we will have it at any cost," he told worshippers in Tehran.
Isreal believes that soon Iran will be at point of no return in Iran's nuclear capabilities.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/29/2005 11:00:00 PM  

Sale Of 'Bunker Busters' Seen As Warning To Iran

Abraham Rabinovich, The Washington Times:
An Israeli arms specialist suggested yesterday that the proposed sale by the U.S. to Israel of 100 bunker-busting bombs, announced in Washington this week, was intended primarily as a warning to Iran because Israel already produces such bombs. READ MORE

Yitzhak Ben-Israel of Tel Aviv University, a retired general who formerly led the Israel Defense Ministry's research and development branch, told Israel Radio that the purchase of the bombs had no operational significance because Israel manufactured very similar bombs.

'Perhaps there was a symbolic reason for the sale, perhaps a signal to Iran,? " he said on Israel Radio. "We already have the capability.?" Mr. Ben-Israel did not suggest whether the signal might have been initiated by Israel or the U.S.

The Pentagon notified Congress on Tuesday of a proposed sale to Israel of 100 laser-guided GBU-28 bombs that are capable of penetrating 90 feet below ground and destroying a bunker encased in 30 feet of concrete.

The 2-ton weapon could be carried on the U.S.-built F-15 aircraft in Israel's possession. The conventional bunker buster, which is not nuclear, was first used in the first Persian Gulf War in 1991.

The Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency said Israel had requested the purchase of the bombs from the Lockheed Martin Corp. for $30 million.

There has been considerable speculation in the U.S. that Israel might attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear plants the way it had bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. Vice President Dick Cheney suggested the possibility in a television interview in January.

To some viewers, it sounded more like a hope than a warning. Unlike Iraq, Iran has scattered its nuclear plants and reportedly placed many of them deep underground.

On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made a plea to Congress to refund research on bunker-busting nuclear bombs, noting that key military assets — including chemical, biological and nuclear facilities — increasingly are placed underground.

However, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon repeatedly has said that it is up to the international community, not Israel alone, to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capability.

'It's not for Israel to provide the answer to the international problem,' he told Fox News earlier this month.

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/29/2005 10:50:00 PM  

'Iran Liberty Walk' Sets 209-Mile Route

WorldNetDaily.com:
Organizers of the "Iran Liberty Walk" to promote peaceful, democratic change in Tehran announced today the 209-mile route that will take hundreds of Americans, including lawmakers, through towns and cities between Philadelphia and the nation's capital. READ MORE

The two-week event, led by Jerome Corsi, founder of the Iran Freedom Foundation, will begin May 16 at the Liberty Bell and culminate with a large demonstration on the Capitol Mall.

Corsi, author of the newly released "Atomic Iran," said reports from the walk will be broadcast to Iran via radio, television and the Internet, including live interviews with participants such as Rep. Peter King, R-Iowa.

Along with sending a signal for peaceful change, the IFF is calling for civil disobedience from Iranian citizens.

Corsi and the IFF urge Iranians to flood the streets June 17, the date of the presidential vote, and vote "no" in the "sham elections the mullahs are planning."

Along the way, Corsi plans to talk to Americans at churches, town halls, schools and other civic centers about life in Iran.

With many Iranians able to follow the event through foreign broadcasts, he hopes to provide them with "some background about the real America, not the fiction trumped up by the Islamic Republic's propaganda machine."

Corsi many native Iranians from across the nation will participate.

"The purpose is to show solidarity with the Iranian people, the vast majority of whom -- as many as 90 percent or higher -- want the regime out," he said.

The event will be filmed by Timothy Watkins, producer of the documentary film "In the Face of Evil," which recounts the courage of Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II and their resolve to stand up to communism.

The planned route is as follows:

STAGE ONE: Philadelphia to Lancaster, Pa. (76 miles)

* The walk will follow roughly along Route 30, with stops in and around:
* Philadelphia to Springfield: 9 miles
* Springfield to Ridley Creek State Park: 8 miles
* Ridley Creek State Park to Exton: 14 miles
* Exton to Coatesville (via Downingtown): 13 miles
* Coatesville to Gap: 13 miles
* Gap to Ronks: 9 miles
* Ronks to Lancaster: 10 miles


STAGE TWO: Lancaster, Pa., to York, Pa. (28 miles)

* Lancaster to Columbia: 13 miles
* Columbia to York: 15 miles


STAGE THREE: York, Pa., to Baltimore, Md. (62 miles)

* Route 83 and 45
* York to Potosi: 13 miles
* Potosi to New Freedom: 8 miles
* New Freedom to Wiseburg (Gun Powder Falls State Park): 11 miles
* Wiseburg to Cockeysville: 12 miles
* Cockeysville to Woodbrook: 9 miles
* Woodbrook to Baltimore: 9 miles


STAGE FOUR: Baltimore, Md., to Washington, D.C. (43 miles)

* Baltimore to Elkridge: 10 miles
* Elkridge to Laurel: 11 miles
* Laurel to College Park: 10 miles
* College Park to Washington, D.C.: 12 miles

posted by DoctorZin @ 4/29/2005 10:40:00 PM  

Analysis: How could Iran vote be like?

Modher Amin, UPI, Washington Times:
Iranians will go to the polls in June -- for the ninth time since the establishment of the Islamic Republic 26 years ago -- amidst widespread speculation that, due to voter apathy and disenchantment, the right wing may win the presidency by default. This would be a repeat of their success in general elections last year and local elections one year earlier.

In the March 2003 city-council elections, the turnout was very low, about 20 percent in big cities and as low as 12 percent in Tehran, where reformists had swept the board in 1999. READ MORE

Likewise, in Feb. 2004, a record low turnout of 50 percent -- 17 percent lower than the previous elections in 2000 -- was recorded. In the capital, the figure was as low as 28 percent, although in small constituencies in the provinces, up to 70 percent of participation was reported.

Many observers have seen this as an indication of growing frustration with the apparent inability of the reform movement to bring about change in the face of resistance from the conservative establishment.

Iran's political system combines elements of modern Islamic theocracy with democracy. The whole system operates under a supreme leader (the Vali-e Faqih) who, although appointed by an elected body, is answerable to no one.

The constitution, however, recognizes the popular will, creating a system where the elected president and parliament struggle against the more powerful, but un-elected, institutions the supreme leader influences. Consequently, although reformists have been holding the executive position for the last eight years with the parliament in their control for half this period, the political system has failed to see the expected changes.

The reformists, led by the massively elected President Mohammad Khatami, argue that ultimate sovereignty lies with the people, and that the entire political establishment -- including the supreme leadership -- should be responsive, transparent and accountable to the electorate.

While the reformists accept in principle the concept of Velayat-e Faqih (the Rule of the Jurisprudent) which is one of the pillars of the Iranian Islamic regime, many of them would prefer the role of the supreme leader to be advisory, almost papal, rather than political, intrusive, and engaged with the levers of temporal power.

By contrast, most conservatives, and certainly the hard-liners, believe that the Vali-e Faqih has a kind of divinely bestowed authority which makes his intervention, on any issue he chooses, decisive and unchallengeable.

The Khatami era, coming to an end in a few months' time, was clearly marred by a political civil war, in which reformers fought for the rule of law, a civil society, and the marriage of democracy and Islam.

Not long after Khatami's landslide victory in May 1997 -- when the mid-ranking charismatic cleric secured some 80 percent of votes to become the fifth president of the Islamic republic -- powerful hard-liners began striking back, using their two major strongholds, the Judiciary and the Council of Guardians, as a springboard.

The courts launched a concerted campaign against liberal figures and journalists, and closed down dozens of pro-reform publications.

Meanwhile, the Council of Guardians, a constitutional watchdog that vets election candidates and vetoes legislation, used its powers to block reformist bills of any significance. In parliamentary elections in Feb. 2004, the council barred some 2500 reformist candidates, including more than 80 lawmakers, from standing in the elections.

On why Khatami was elected on a landslide eight years ago, a leading political analyst and university professor, Sadeq Ziba-Kalam, once put it this way: "... The main reason for the victory of the pro-reform president in 1997 was that the people simply did not want the opposite side, namely the fundamentalists."

"In 1997, only a few people were of the view that Khatami and the fundamentalists are in the same boat. But now the number of those believing so has risen drastically," he said.

Reform candidates for the coming presidential election -- among them the mid-ranking cleric and former speaker Mehdi Karroubi and the ex-minister of Higher Education Mostafa Mo'een -- are surely less charismatic than Khatami.

Hard-liners, on the other hand, after weeks of bickering over whom to nominate as their candidate, have chosen Ali Larijani, former head of state broadcast and now security advisor to the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Larijani's nomination, however, has not prevented other hopefuls from the same political faction to be in the lineup.

The son of a senior ayatollah and a former officer of the Revolutionary Guards -- or Pasdaran in Persian -- Larijani is the director of a think tank that advises the leader on important, complicated and complex international issues. He is said to have the credit of having urged Khamenei to authorize the signing, in Oct. 2003, of the controversial additional protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The act is believed to have helped his country escape possible international sanctions that could have been decided by the United Nations Security Council in the event that Tehran did not bow to the demands of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency. ...

But the fear of a hard-line victory may prompt an unexpected alliance between reformists and moderate conservatives to back the former president (1989-1977) and chairman of the powerful Expediency Council, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Being known as a center of political gravity since the 1979 Islamic revolution and as a figure strong enough to tackle hardliners, Rafsanjani, 70, has yet to state officially he will stand in June's presidential elections, though he said last month he was "completely ready" to run if no other "capable and popular person is found."

Earlier this week, he said he felt he had to "swallow the bitter pill" of contesting for the sake of the country and to prevent a low turnout because the other candidates were not well known or experienced. But on Thursday, he was quoted as saying that he had still not decided whether to run for election again.

"I have no desire to stand; I wish that someone else would take this responsibility, but if I see things are not going the way I want, I will stand," he said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

Moreover, Rafsanjani is widely seen as Iran's de facto number-two behind the supreme leader in recent years. He has nevertheless managed to keep a distance from tensions between reformists and hardliners and to acquire an image of a conservative-leaning pragmatist.

Nominations are not due until mid-May, but campaigning has, in a sense, already begun with several candidates holding news conferences to explain their agendas.
Some opinion polls conducted so far indicate that public participation could be between 42 and 51 percent, however lower than the average 64 percent in the past eight presidential races.

Another contender in the race who has added to the uncertainties surrounding the elections is the popular former police chief, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf.
Having resigned his job recently to participate in the election, Qalibaf, 44, has a Ph.D. in political geography. Eight years ago, he was appointed commander of police.
On the impact of his decision on future developments, he told the media earlier this month that he was a fundamentalist, "but not affiliated to any political factions."
"I believe I should not become indebted to any particular group.... In the ideology of fundamentalism, national interests take precedence over collective interests and even personal gains."

Asked whether the atmosphere of the country would become militaristic if he were elected chief executive, he said, "The presence of people with military backgrounds (as chief executive) has been experienced in advanced and modern countries. I consider being an officer a dignified profession, but I do not consider myself a military man."

"If I wanted to create a militaristic atmosphere, the police department was the best choice. Most of my complaints during my tenure in the police department were that I gave more importance to sociological aspects than militaristic considerations," Qalibaf added.

Though the military is barred by the constitution from political activities, their participation in elections has no constitutional limitation on condition that they have got out of the ranks in due time, according to Iranian lawyers.

After a long struggle between hard-line conservatives unwilling to trim their absolute power and reformers, there are signs that a gradual political change is underway in Iran. Most analysts share the view that conservatives also have been taking on elements of the reform agenda by showing a new pragmatism on both domestic and international scenes.
While the article provides a introduction to Iran's political process, it is either deceptive or naive. The writer appears to want us to believe that the new conservatives, consolidating their power in Iran will be more "pragmatic."

The writer rightly pointed out how the Iranian people thought that Khatami would produce real reforms, "In 1997, only a few people were of the view that Khatami and the fundamentalists are in the same boat." But the writer is making the same error that the Iranian people made back in 1997.

Rafsanjani is now being repackaged to be seen as a moderate, because of his more "pragmatic" approach. But while he occasionally makes "moderate" statements, he also makes extreme "hardline" statements. The Iranians often speak out of both sides of their mouth as it confuses the western press. But we need to remember that Rafsanjani has been the "number two man" of the regime, many believe he is in reality the real power behind the policies of the regime. Western support for Rafsanjani will not find the moderate they hope for, instead it will provide Iran with what it wants most, time.

posted by Anonymous @ 4/29/2005 06:58:00 PM  

Belgian firm mired in Iran nuclear scandal

Expatica:
An inquiry is under way into accusations that a Belgian company sold military material illegally to Iran.

On Friday, the daily newspaper Le Soir reported that Finance Minister Didier Reynders is investigating whether a nuclear and military arms embargo on the middle-eastern country was broken. READ MORE

A tele-fax, dated 22 December, was leaked to Le Soir, in which Belgium’s customs managers stated isostatic nuclear presses were being sent to Iran.

Customs recommended the seizing of the equipment.

According to Le Soir’s investigation, one nuclear press was certainly sent to Tehran - without an export licence - in January.

It was made by Epsi, a firm based in Temse in East Flanders.

The company has denied supplying an atomic or military programme, stating it sold a nuclear press to the aeronautical industry, which meant a licence was not necessary.

However, Reynders wants to know whether what was sold to Tehran had a “double use”.

posted by Anonymous @ 4/29/2005 06:55:00 PM  

As I Predicted: EU-Iran Nuclear Dispute Talks Fail, More Planned

Reuters:
The European Union's so-called "Big Three" and Iran failed to reach agreement over Tehran's nuclear program on Friday but decided to hold more talks in the future. READ MORE

Iran had threatened before the five-hour meeting to resume sensitive atomic activities unless France, Britain and Germany agreed to allow it to carry out small-scale uranium enrichment.

"The informal talks have concluded. No conclusions were reached and both sides, the EU Three and Iran, have agreed to go away and reflect on what was discussed and to continue the discussions in future," said a British Foreign Office spokesman.

No immediate comment was available from Iran, accused by the United States of having a secret agenda to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the U.S. charge, saying its nuclear program is solely for the generation of power.

The EU's three biggest powers, which share Washington's concerns, are spearheading talks aimed at persuading Iran to scrap its atomic fuel program in exchange for economic and political incentives. Tehran has so far refused.
The latest proposal from Tehran suggests it be allowed to build up its uranium enrichment program in stages, beginning with a small "pilot" enrichment plant and ending with a commercial-scale complex.

HARD NEGOTIATIONS

The EU powers hope to leave the hard negotiations on Tehran's atomic ambitions until after Iran's June 17 presidential elections on grounds that campaigning for the ballot could produce heightened tensions.

"We don't want to break things up now and have a row. We want to continue the negotiating process after the Iranian election," said a European diplomat, declining to be identified.

But a senior Iranian official, Sirus Naseri, said before the London meeting he wanted agreement soon.

"The foundation for agreement is in place," said Naseri. "We think it is unreasonable to avoid agreement," he added, insisting he was not putting "undue pressure" on the EU powers.

Iran has suspended its enrichment program under international pressure, but four months of talks with the Europeans have yielded no breakthrough and Iran says the program must resume.

"If there is no agreement and the Europeans insist on further time ... we may have to readjust the situation so it will be a more balanced position. It will not be balanced if the suspension will remain," said Naseri, in an apparent threat to resume enrichment unilaterally.

He later told Iran's official news agency IRNA: "In case of not reaching an agreement in London, Iran might be obliged to resume part of its uranium enrichment program, but in that case it will still continue the talks."

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an influential former Iranian president preparing to run again in June, said Tehran was determined to embark on uranium enrichment and other branches of nuclear technology.

"And we will have it at any cost," he told worshippers in Tehran.
Washington warned Tehran not to leave the negotiating table or resume any parts of its enrichment program.

It also reminded the EU of its pledge to help refer Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council, which could lead to economic sanctions, if Tehran followed through on its latest threats.

"If Iran chooses to walk away from talks with the EU Three and end its current suspension ... the EU Three have already made clear to Iran that they would work with us and others to report Iran's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council," a U.S. official in Vienna told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

EU diplomats say Tehran knows the idea of "pilot" enrichment is unacceptable to them and to Washington, which takes a harder line than the Europeans despite last month giving its backing to the diplomatic initiative.
Unfortunately, I was right. I predicted this response earlier today. It was the worst possible response, as it will slow down U.S. efforts to support a regime change inside of Iran this summer. Read my analysis here.

posted by Anonymous @ 4/29/2005 06:52:00 PM  

Spain to help resolve Iran's nuclear dossier: Spanish MP

Islamic Republic News Agency:
Head of Foreign Policy Commission at Spain's Parliament Josep Antoni Lida leading a parliamentary delegation is to visit the Islamic Republic of Iran on Monday. In an exclusive interview with IRNA, he said the visit is to help resolve Iran's nuclear dossier. READ MORE

Both the European Union and Spain have adopted a common stand on Iran's nuclear dossier, he said adding "We seek to speed up the trend of negotiations through close discussions with Iranian officials." The visit should not being interpreted as interfering the ongoing discussions between the EU troika (Germany, England, France) and Iran on nuclear dossier, he said.

Since the issue is very complicated for Europe, it is not possible to set an exact time to conclude the dossier, he said.

The Spanish delegation will stay in Tehran for three days and are to visit Cuba and US in the coming months.

posted by Anonymous @ 4/29/2005 06:51:00 PM  

Could Iran Checkmate America?

Rachel Neuwirth, AmericanDaily.com:
On March 29, 2005 the London Arab daily “Al-Hayat” published a report on Iran's current preparedness for an American or Israeli attack. The report was translated by www.memri.org (Middle East Media Research Institute). MEMRI introduced the report as follows:

“In recent months, commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guards and armed forces have announced their complete preparedness for a possible military attack on Iran's nuclear installations and other sensitive sites. Iranian spokesmen have declared that Iran's response would be formidable.”

The interview indicates the hostility, confidence, determination and intractability of the Iranian leadership. Following are excerpts from that article:

"Iranian military sources say that the armed forces and the Revolutionary Guards have made all the field preparations for handling a surprise attack on targets within Iran. [These preparations] are not limited to the nuclear installations, which are dispersed among the cities and various locations - Bushehr, Isfahan, Arak, Natanz, Tehran, Yazd, and others - but also include military and industrial plants and dams.

"...Iran's military command has taken into account the possibility of a disruption of [communications] between military posts and the central command... As a precautionary measure, the command has ordered all military and Revolutionary Guards sectors to respond swiftly - within no more than an hour and without waiting for orders - against pre-selected targets, [in light of anticipated] international political pressures that might force Iran to not respond.

"The objective is to deliver a harsh blow to the U.S. and its ally Israel at the outset, and then to expand the arena, in light of international efforts to contain the crisis and limit its scope and intensity, so as to ignite the whole region [emphasis added]. This way Iran will assure its right to respond.

"...All the countries that host U.S. military forces - particularly Iraq, CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] in Al-Siliya [Qatar], the Al-'Odeid base in Qatar, and the Fifth Fleet command in Bahrain - are among the sites Iran might consider as targets. However, the biggest fish of all is Israel, which is likely to suffer 'hellfire' - particularly when the Iranian response 'will use [varied] weapons and reach other targets that the aggressors are not expecting them [to reach].'

"These sources added that although Iran anticipates a devastating attack that will destroy a significant part of its economic and industrial achievements of the past 26 years, it is now pondering an issue that seems to it to be justified: Can the Bush administration grasp that it will have to send home at least five [dead] American soldiers per day? And how will the administration respond to the [American] people, who will question the benefit of the attack on Iran..."

According to Al-Hayat, Iranian military sources had reported that during a meeting between a French diplomat and Expediency Council Chairman Rafsanjani, the diplomat asked Rafsanjani whether Iran would relinquish its nuclear program, and was answered with an unequivocal "no." When the diplomat said that the U.S. had selected 325 targets within Iran as the first targets in any possible American attack, Rafsanjani explained to his guest that the Iranian counter-attack would be just as powerful and devastating.

The report continued,

"When the Western diplomat asked, 'What if the place in which you are convening (the Marble Palace, a few dozen meters from the Islamic Republic's Presidential Building and the residence of Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei) is also among the targets?' Rafsanjani answered succinctly, 'Even if I am the target, [Iran will not relinquish its nuclear program].'"

The above interview represents the public posture of Iran’s leadership, which is determined to freely enrich uranium, and appears immune from any bribe or any threat.

They are raising the stakes to the limit and daring us to take them on, apparently believing that we will blink first. What do we do now and how big a price can we afford to pay?

The following describes a hypothetical threat to American security based on plausible possibilities. The 9/11 Commission cited “a failure of imagination,” by our government for our being unprepared for the 9/11 attack. Some may say the following hypothetical scenario is far-fetched but in the wake of 9/11 this scenario appears a lot less unlikely than before. READ MORE

Imagine that a sealed, top-secret message were received in the White House from clandestine sources in the Middle East, to be read only by the President and Vice President. The message would read as follows:

“This message represents the government of Iran in brotherly alliance with al Qaeda and other revolutionary Islamic organizations based in many countries. This is payback time for what America did to us in the past. As you now prepare to deny us our right to develop nuclear power we now tell you that we have already triumphed over you. It is checkmate, and we now give you our ultimatum because you are now under our power and we are not anymore under your power.

“We remember your past crimes against Iran. Your C.I.A. forced our elected leader Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh from power and installed your agent, the hated Shah. You armed and supported Saddam Hussein even after he attacked Iran.

“When the Ayatolla Khomeini came to power we tested you by holding your diplomats hostage for 444 days under Jimmy Carter while you, the great superpower, remained helpless and humiliated. When 241 U.S. Marines were blown up in Beirut in 1983 Ronald Reagan turned tail and ran away. We observed how Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter made a deal with North Korea that any child could see was meant to be broken. Now that they have announced they violated that agreement and have nuclear weapons and missiles, we observe your confusion and helplessness.

You claim to be a super power but your foreign policy is amateurish and your society is weak because your values are corrupt. You lack resolve and you cannot bear the pain of real sacrifice. After we understood your weakness we began our long-term program to become stronger than you.

“We have learned from the Soviet experience during the cold war. Over the years we have implanted many sleeper cells all over your country. Your internal security and border control are weak and allow millions to illegally enter your country and to vanish from sight. If you cannot block massive amounts of drugs from flowing into your country you certainly cannot block WMD components which occupy far less volume. Today our agents are multi-ethnic, men and women and various ages, so that they resemble ordinary Americans and are nearly invisible. Your country is easy to penetrate and easy to hide out in for long periods.

“We now have developed the ability to inflict any degree of damage on your country that we choose. We can strike anywhere, and in the process multiply the effects by also paralyzing your population through terror. We can do it anonymously so you will not know for certain against whom to retaliate because you have so many enemies. Sleeper agents eliminate our need to depend on long-range missiles that also reveal their country of origin when fired.

We have a variety of WMD in position and are constantly increasing their lethality along with improved battle tactics. We will retain power in reserve so that you will never know just how much additional damage we could inflict and any attack on Muslims anywhere will bring additional retaliation on your soil. We have enough power in place now to quickly reduce America to a third world status. The same technology infrastructure that allows you to project power abroad becomes your great internal vulnerability. We have long analyzed your entire internal infrastructure, from your economic vulnerabilities to the psychology of terror, and we know very well how to exploit them all to our advantage.

“Any attempt on your part to root out our sleeper cells would fail because they are so well hidden and also because it might trigger painful retaliation. This means that we can hurt you far more than you can hurt us. Even if you kill millions of us it will not save you from a devastating response by our sleeper cells on your people. We also have the capability in an extreme situation to simultaneously attack your troops and bases throughout the Middle East while creating havoc inside your country.

How many millions of Americans are you willing to sacrifice in a war with us? This is our version of the mutual assured destruction policy of the cold war, but with a big difference. Unlike the Soviets, we do not fear death, while you are terrified over incurring small loses. Even exterminating Iran still leaves over 1.2 billion enraged Muslims in the world seeking vengeance, plus a devastating cutoff in your oil imports.

Despite your great offensive power, including nuclear weapons, you are actually more vulnerable than we are, and this is now going to cost you dearly. You have foolishly waited too long to confront us and now it is too late for you to safely do so.

“Our ultimatum: First, you will keep this message secret to prevent your own embarrassment, avoid creating public panic and to avoid helping your political opponents. You will invent a pretext to cease interfering with our nuclear development in any way. You will begin to withdraw all of your forces from the Middle East. You will remain passive as we create a two-tier international oil market. One tier for America and another for everyone else who cooperates with us.

America will face external imposed rationing of oil imports combined with higher prices. All of our friends will get preferred treatment regarding allotment and price. We will be working with other oil exporting countries to shift their exports away from America and to the huge and growing markets of Asia including China and India. We will be influencing Canada, Mexico and Venezuela to shift their oil exports away from America and towards Asia.

It will be interesting to see how many of your so-called friends and allies will choose to stick by your side if it requires them to sacrifice on your behalf. We will punish them if we find them trans-shipping the oil we sold them to you. We will continue to isolate you so you will be standing alone and friendless.

“You will stave off internal destruction only as long as you comply with our ultimatum. In the long run your power will be greatly diminished and Iran will emerge as the dominant power in the Middle East. In the longer run America will continue to weaken internally while Islamic influence increases inside your own society.

We of the Islamic revolution represent the wave of the future and you Americans are a declining power. The best you can hope for is to avoid attack while your society gradually becomes Islamic.”

After reading the Iranian message the President and Vice President pondered whether the message was authentic and whether the threat was credible. And suppose Iran were to actually send such a secret message to the President. Could we be certain that they are only bluffing? There was no certain answer because our intelligence on internal developments inside Iran is very poor. Deciding on a proper response presented a grave dilemma. We need wise leadership, and time may be running out.

Likely? It's hard to tell--but given the public remarks by Iranian officials, perhaps it ought to be considered.

According to Breaking News on www.WorldNetDaily.com, US intelligence has identified a new possible threat from Iran. This makes the above hypothetical scenario more plausible.

posted by Anonymous @ 4/29/2005 06:50:00 PM