Week in Review

DoctorZin provides a review of this past week's [9/25-10/01] major news events regarding Iran. (The reports are listed in chronological order, not by importance)

Ahmadinejad.

• Iran Press News reported that in a meeting with the Islamic regime's assembly today, Ahmadinejad said: The 3 European countrieswho are being manipulated from behind the scenes by their allies are racists and are looking to take the world back to the dark ages.
• Hamid Ahadi, Rooz Online points out the focus in Iran is now turning towards the failure of president Ahmadinejad’s first major international policy .
• Winston, The Spirit of Man reported that the head of religious school of clerics in Qom has sent an appreciation letter to Ahmadinejad saying: The speeches of Pres. Ahmadinejad had the original message of the Islamic Revolution which meant to draw attention of people around the world to the readiness of mankind for the presence of the 12th Imam of Shiites ...
• Hamid Ahadi, Rooz Online reported that while the president and his cabinet are busy making changes, major changes are also under way in the judiciary, the armed forces, and the national TV network. They add: conditions are set for the departure of Saeed Mortazavi, the notorious prosecutor of Tehran.
• Iran Press News reported that a Friday prayer leader said: European governments have shown us [with their recent actions] that they're nothing more than a bunch of delivery boys for the Americans.
• Iranian blogger, Ahmad zidabadi, Rooz Online questioned the lack of open debate on Iran's nuclear program.
  

Iran's Nuclear Program.

• Iran Press News reported that Al Arabiya Television in a report announced: Ahmadinejad has demanded that the authorities of the previous team of nuclear negotiators of the regime, headed by Mullah Hasan Rowhani be prosecuted.
• Iran Press News reported a leading Iranian newspaper saying: Referral of the regime's dossier to the U.N. Security Council will take place with a delay and that way, our 'trigger mechanism' will become operational.
• Iran Press News reported that the Austrian Newspaper, DER STANDARD, thinks a showdown between the European Union and Tehran's regime is inevitable.
• News Max reported that the Bush administration said the United Nations Security Council must review Iran's nuclear record.
• The Sunday Herald reported that Iran’s quest to become a nuclear power may involve the Balkan mafias, after security sources discovered potentially lethal nuclear enrichment material in the region.
• Iranian blogger, Mehdrad Sheibani, Rooz Online reported that Iranian parliament member from Tabriz cleric Mohammad Reza Mir-Tajeddini said “That Britain is leading this effort, makes it even more suspect in our eyes, because it follows the US, while both have been the long-time enemies of the Iranian people.”
• Arash Motamed, Rooz Online reported that Iran was hoping that Russia, China or India who has appeared sympathetic to Iran’s position and reasoning, would stop the resolution from passage.
• Masoud Behnoud, Rooz Online reported that The Iranian nuclear issue is getting more complex and that Iranian rulers cannot live without creating a crisis.
• The Telegraph UK reported Iran Sunday threatened to halt spot inspections of its nuclear sites in retaliation for a harshly worded resolution that brought Teheran a step closer to being reported to the United Nations Security Council.
• Scott Gearity, Export Control Blog asked if the military option and sanctions really off the table now, it's not clear to me what sticks the Europeans have got left. I have an idea.
• Rediff.com reported that Congressman Tom Lantos hailed India's about-face in Vienna in aligning itself with the United States and the European Union and voting to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council.
• MEMRI provided excerpts from a speech by Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani where he said: You have accepted North Korea's nuclear technology in the field of uranium enrichment. So accept ours now.
• Khaleej Times Online reported that Iran's reformist opposition criticized the nation's nuclear policies.
• Parisa Hafezi, Reuters reported that Iran threatened on Tuesday to use trade ties to punish countries that voted against it at the U.N. atomic watchdog.
• Iran Press News reported that Larijani, the Secretary of the High Council of National Security of the Islamic Republic of Iran said: We do not accept the Board of Governor's resolution and added the European trio were: among the most savage nations on earth.
• Sify News reported India on Tuesday briefed Iran on the reasons for supporting the IAEA resolution.
• Dow Jones Newswires reported that Iran will consider reducing its trade with those countries, particularly India that voted for Saturday's U.N. nuclear agency resolution to refer Tehran to the Security Council.
• Radio Free Europe reported that Iran's parliament will hold a closed-door session today to discuss whether to block unlimited inspections of its nuclear facilities.
• The Associated Press reported that Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Iran was asking the Europeans Britain, France and Germany and the IAEA for two things: First, they should not insist (on the terms of the resolution). Second, they should correct it. If the other parties' reaction is not along these lines, the Islamic Republic of Iran will take these measures.
• Reuters reported that Iran on Monday threatened to restart uranium enrichment saying: Unless the resolution is corrected or if its implementation is insisted upon, Iran will be forced to cancel all its voluntary and temporary measures including implementation of the Additional Protocol.
• Financial Times reported that Iran threatened to end “voluntary and temporary” agreements over its nuclear program unless the United Nations' nuclear watchdog amended a resolution condemning Tehran.
• The NY Times reported that the Bush administration played every card it held to win the split decision on Iran's nuclear program before the International Atomic Energy Agency.
• Pyotr Goncharov, Insight Magazine argued that in its relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the EU3, Iran is clearly staking everything.
• Deccan Herald reported India's Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran saying: India actually helped Iran buy time for “negotiations and consultations” thereby avoiding a major diplomatic crisis.
• The Washington Post in an editorial said the Bush administration and its European allies have managed to take a small step toward holding Iran accountable for its secret and illegal steps aimed at the production of nuclear weapons.
• Maryam Kashanim, Rooz Online published an interview with Ahmad Shirzad is a physicist, a former official at Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization who questions the economic soundness of Iran’s nuclear programs and attributed the strong international pressure against it to Iran’s concealments.
• Iran Press News reported that the German Newspaper, Die Welt said: In the most recent session of the IAEA's board of governors in Vienna, Tehran's regime was palpably defeated.
• Ray Takeyh, The Financial Times reported many in the US and European capitals seem to think that a mere invocation of threats and tentative IAEA resolutions will cause Iran to capitulate and but he argues this is a gross misreading of Iran’s newly inaugurated government.
• Reuters reported that Iran's parliament voted to speed discussion of a bill that would force the government to scale back its cooperation with the U.N. atomic watchdog.
• The Christian Science Monitor argued that the EU can do more to block an Iranian bomb.
• BBC News reported that India says Iran has given no indication that it is reviewing ties after Delhi's support for Iran's nuclear programme to be referred to the United Nations. The denial followed reports that Iran had scrapped a $22bn gas deal with India.
• Dow Jones Newswires reported once again that the U.K.'s Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said that military action against Iran was inconceivable.
• The Wall Street Journal reported why the Iranians aren't worried by their escalation of the nuclear crisis?
  
• The Jerusalem Post reported that Russia's minister of atomic energy said Iran does not have the immediate capacity to enrich uranium, despite warning it may do so.
• Rooz Online reported that many within the Iranian government and its hardline supporters outside have not yet reached a consensus on how to deal with the IAEA’s warning to Iran.
• Middle East Newsline reported that Israel has determined that Iran would not be stopped in its drive to produce nuclear weapons.
• JTA Daily Briefing reported that Israeli lawmakers on a visit to Washington hinted that Israel one day could resort to military force to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons.
• Safa Haeri, Asia Times reported that Iran is backpedaling on its threats, for now.
• Eurasia Security Watch, American Foreign Policy Council reported that officials in Tehran are warning of potentially devastating global consequences if Iran is sanctioned for its nuclear ambitions. Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi, Commander of Iran’s clerical army, the Pasdara said Iran: can retaliate accordingly and has the power to attack enemies’ interests in the furthest reaches [of the world].
• Dow Jones Newswires reported that Cuba, Syria and Belarus joined the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board Thursday.
• Alistair Lyon, Reuters reported that for all its hardline posturing, Iran is likely to play a cautious hand in its drawn-out nuclear game with the West to avoid isolation.
• Iranian.com reported that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hailed Venezuela's "brave and judicious" vote against the EU-proposed resolution passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors.
• Iran Press News reported that Hadad Adel, the Director of the Parliament of the Islamic regime, said: If we are forced to surrender to the international scene's blackmail [this time], who knows how far the blackmailing and impositions will go.
• Iran Press News reported that Aladin Boroujerdi, the Director of Islamic Parliamentary's commission on security and foreign affairs said: In the face of the regime's nuclear dossier's referral to the Security Council, it is impossible to expect that China and Russia to veto and opt out of a their relations with the west...
• Outlook India reported that the US took the "unusual step" of sharing highly classified intelligence data on Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear-capable missile to secure India's support for the IAEA resolution against Tehran's controversial atomic program.
• Vivienne Walt, Slate discussed her personal observation from inside of Iran and argued, Why America is Powerless to Stop Tehran's Nuclear Ambitions.
• IranMania reported that Deputy Syrian Prime Minister Abdullah al-Dardari praised Iran's firm and logical diplomacy regarding its peaceful nuclear policies.
• Voice of America News reported that White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the IAEA resolution put Iran on notice that "it is time to come clean."
• Reuters reported that former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said Iran's nuclear impasse could be resolved through diplomacy not confrontation.
• The Washington Times reported that three senior Israeli lawmakers from across the political spectrum warned that the U.S. and its allies must act to stop Iran's nuclear programs -- by force if necessary -- because conventional diplomacy will not work.
• Iranian.ws reported that Judiciary Chief mullah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi referring to Europeans' conduct regarding Iran's nuclear dossier, said the: EU should bear in mind if its conduct would lead to depriving Iran of its natural rights it would definitely have negative effects on our mutual ties.
• Islamic Republic News Agency reported that the head of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said that referral of Iran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council is unlikely.
• The Hindu reported that intense US pressure didn't prompt India to support the resolution that has placed Iran on the verge of referral to the U.N. Security Council, India's ambassador to the United States said.
• Times of India reported that despite liberal anger at the government's support for sending Iran to the UN Security Council, the Indian government is sticking to its guns on the issue.
• Arash Motamed, Rooz Online discussed three options for the current crisis in Iran: war, talks with the US or a referendum.
• Khaleej Times Online reported that Iran would consider using oil as a weapon and denial of access to international nuclear inspectors if the United Nations Security Council is pressured by the US and allies to impose sanctions against it.
• European Voice reported Russian President Putin will be pressed next week to back Iran's referral to the United Nations' Security Council.
  

Iranian Dissidents.

• Iran Press News reported that activist & political prisoner, Arjang Davoodi is to be exiled to Bandar-Abbass prison.
• Iran Press News reported that political prisoners, Behrooz Javid-Tehrani, Bina Darab-Zand and Hodjat Zamani who have been on hunger strike for a month, were threatened by the Islamic Republic's judiciary.
• Mori Jex, Iran Watch Canada reported that Mr. Ahmad Saraji, a blogger from the city of Tabriz who is now in Tabriz central prison, is in great danger! He has been accused of publicity against the system.
• Eli Lake, The NY Sun reported that the wife of Iranian journalist Akbar Ganji went public this weekend with a letter to the head of her country's judiciary, asking the whereabouts of her husband, whom she has not seen since August 26.
• Iran Press News reported that Abdolfatah Soltani, one of the lawyers representing the family of murdered photo-journalist Zahra Kazemi, has not been heard from for over 58 days after his arrest by the regime.
• IranMania reported that Iranian dissident student leader Ali Afshari has been sentenced to six years in jail for attacking national security.
• Iran Press News reported that 23-year-old Kianoosh Sanjari, popular and diligent member of the "United Student Front" is still being inexplicably detained in Evin prison. He has yet to be charged or see an attorney.
• Iranian blogger, Amil Imani, ThinkAndAsk.com interviewed a former Iranian student arrested for protesting the regime. The student provides insight into the methods used against dissidents in Iran.
• Iran Press News reported that the Islamic regime has falsified charges against detainees of recent clashes in Kurdistan.
• Iranian blogger, Korosh, The Price of Freedom reported Iranian dissident and blogger, Ahmad Seraj is in danger.
  

Who's who in Iran.

• Soheyl Asefi, Rooz Online in an interview with cleric Dr Tey Hashemi, considered a moderate among the Majlis (Parliament) hardliners, Tey said: It is possible that the new government here may become active to have a direct dialogue with the Americans, and begin talks with them.
• Iran Press News reported that various regime-run media outlets are saying Mohammad Khatami, the ex-president of the Islamic republic was honorably retired.
  

The Unrest & Power Struggle inside of Iran.

• Iran Press News reported that Reza Jalaali, a member of the "People's Leadership" Party which is faction of the now defunct ruling Reformist's said: The conjecture emerging from the authorities of the Islamic regime, vis a vis the nuclear issues, is confusing and disconcerting to the world. If things continue in this vein, everyone will be consumed.
• Iran Focus reported that Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Prosecutor, Saeed Mortazavi, announced their plan to fight trouble-makers, or dissidents, in the Iranian capital and extended the campaign by one month.
• SMCCDI reported that two more militiamen were killed and another wounded, yesterday, near the City of Yazd located in central Iran.
• Mission Centered News reported that more than 3,000 satellite dishes have been confiscated in Iran as the government cracks down on what they're calling "trouble makers" in the country's capital city and more than 12,000 "social polluters" have been arrested.
• Iran Press News reported that Mohammad Kasraii, 35-year-old shopkeeper, resident of the village of Kaani-Sepilkeh, suburb of the town of Marivaan was shot and killed by the regime's agents.
• Tehran Times reported that Ayatollah Shahrudi called on the authorities to provide the Judiciary with a list of students kept in prisons immediately to free them or grant leave of absence to them.
• Iran Focus reported that Iran’s Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Seyyed Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi called for a “decisive” crackdown on “trouble-makers”, a term commonly used by authorities to refer to dissidents or ordinary Iranians deemed to act un-Islamic ways.
  

Iran's troublemaking.

• Al Mendhar reportef that more than 4000 of the Iranian National Guard, Al Quds Corps and the Intelligence Ministry are in Iraq.
• Iran Press News reported that Hazem Sha'lan, Minister of Defense of the Iraqi interim government said: Abu-Mussab Al-Zarqawi, the head of the Iraqi branch of Al Qaeda is in direct collaboration with the security and intelligence apparatus of the Islamic regime.
• Champress reported that Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zybari said: Iran has a clear influence in Iraq no one can deny.
• New York Post reported that investigators uncovered the secret funneling of millions of dollars from Iran and Saudi Arabia to groups like Hamas in the West Bank.
  

U.S. Policy.

• Adnkronos Internationalreported that the Iranian media has reported a decision by the United States to finance radar stations in the central Asian republic of Azerbaijan. Tehran says this is part of a military strategy by Washington to encircle the Islamic Republic.
• Marc Perelman, Forward Magazine reported that the Bush administration appears to have backed Tehran in a fight over the 1994 bombing of the Jewish community center in Argentina.
• Middle East Newsline reported that a presidential commission has determined that U.S. intelligence had few assets in Iran as well as little direct knowledge of Teheran's missile and nuclear programs.
• Canoe News reported that NASA's top official said that the future of U.S participation in Russian space flights is in doubt due to a congressional measure that aims to punish countries that co-operate with Iran.
• Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State published Secretary Rice's recent speech at Princeton University.
  

The Iranian Military.

• SMCCDI reported that the Islamic regime is making more changes in its top military command. The regular Iranian Army is falling completely in the hands of commanders of the IRGC.
• IranMania reported that Iran's Supreme Leader appointed six commanders to new posts in shake up in the hierarchy of Army of the Islamic Republic.
• The Dawn reported a Pakistani, convicted of exporting missile parts to Iran almost 20 years ago, is being accused in a San Diego court of conspiring to smuggle jet engine components. The Los Angeles Times reported that the Iranian Air Force has both T-38s and F-5s.
  

Human Rights/Freedom of the press inside of Iran.

• Rooz Online reported that Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, said his country had prepared a new resolution to condemn human rights violations in Iran and would propose it to the United Nations General Assembly.
• Shirin Ebadi, Rooz Online argues that Iranian women deserve better laws!
• Yahoo News reported that Canada's Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew launched a new warning to the Iranian government not to try to produce enriched uranium.
• IAEA released the text of the resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors on Iran.
• VOA News reported that Iran is calling an international resolution on its nuclear program politically motivated and illegal.
• The Times of India reported the overt and transparent shift in alignment in support of the U.S. regarding Iran's nuclear program.
• The New York Times reported that a Western diplomat said: The fact that Peru, Singapore, Ghana, India and Ecuador voted to support this resolution undercuts Iran's argument that this is purely Western political pressure.
• Louis Charbonneau, Reuters reported background information on the UN Nuclear Watchdog meeting on Iran.
• Human Rights First called for support of Kurdish Iranian women activists recently detained by the regime.
• Farnaz Ghazizadeh, Rooz Online discuussed 25 Years of unpopular and mandatory head covering by Iranian women.
• Shirin Ebadi, Rooz Online argued that woman's rights are the foundation of human rights and values.
• Morteza Abdolalian, Iran Watch Canada reported that the head of the Tehran appeal court: No political motive in Zahra Kazemi's court file!
• Farah Karimi, Rooz Online discussed Kofi Annan's proposal for creating a "Council of Human Rights" to overview human rights situations in different countries and provide it with sufficient and necessary executive authority to implement its decisions.
  

Protests inside of Iran.

• Iran Press News reported that more than 1600 workers and retirees from the city of Qazveen's thread company gathered in front of the gates of the factory to protest non-receipt of their wages.
• The Media Line reported that Arab opposition groups in Iran's Ahvaz region began a 'full boycott' on Monday against what they called the "Iranian occupier."
• Iran Focus reported that at least two people have been killed during clashes between demonstrators and State Security Forces (SSF) in the city of Ahwaz.
  

The Pro-Democracy Forces Outside of Iran.

• Iranian.com published a call to international artists and activists to perform guerilla street theatres in Tehran.
  

Iran and the International community.

• Iran Press News reported that the regime's representative at the Islamic Parliamentary Assembly said: The British are in the process of putting other operations in action to weaken the Islamic Republic of Iran however what they don't seem to comprehend is that they cannot do a damn thing.
• Islamic Republic News Agency reported that Iran's Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance Davoud Danesh-Jaafari and his Chinese counterpart in a meeting on Sunday examined ways of bolstering economic collaboration.
• Iran Press News quoted Arab reports that Jordan's Deputy Prime Minister said that the government of Jordan is strictly against the intrusion and encroachment of any of Iraq's neighboring countries, including the Islamic Republic, in Iraq's internal matters.
• Islamic Republic News Agency reported that UK Cabinet ministers made it clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair that they will not support any US military strike against Iran.
• The Hindu reported that Iran has informed India that the five-million-ton a year Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export deal, is off.
• Iran Press News pointed out that an Italian Daily called the Islamic regime a two-headed monster with one head inside Iran and the other inside Iraq.
• MosNews reported that Russia is intensifying efforts to sell weapons to Iran while such sales remain legal amid mounting pressure on the Islamic state over its controversial nuclear program.
• India Times reported that Iran on Wednesday asserted that all its agreements with India are still in force.
• SMCCDI reported that about 300 Islamists and members of the repressive para-military Bassij force hurled stones, tomatoes and smoke bombs over the walls of the British embassy compound in Tehran.
• Iran Press News reported that an exhibition entitled "Iran's Science" which was planned to be opened in the Palais des Decouvertes in Paris, was suddenly and unexpectedly cancelled.
• National Post reported an Iranian prosecutor claimed that Canada had trained and supported bombers in southern Iran. Canadian officials denied the report.
  

Insight into the Iranian people.

• Mehdrad Sheibani, Rooz Online discussed the recent discussion of a "change of views" in Iran and what to expect.
  

Can You Believe This?

• Jim Hoagland, The Washington Post argued that North Korea and Iran are getting aid from unexpected allies in the international negotiations over their illicit nuclear weapons programs. Meet the new superpowers of diplomacy: Katrina and Rita.
• The Globe and Mail reported that Sweden has rejected the asylum case of an Iranian journalist who played a key role in revealing the circumstances of the death of Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi.
• Iran Focus reported that Hassan Abbasi, a senior Revolutionary Guards commander, warned: oil prices on the international markets would shoot up to $400 a barrel if an attack were to be carried out on Iran.
• Free2innovate.net warned that France pushed the European Union to propose a new Internet Governance plan which calls for a government-run body to control the Internet and hand over the future of the Internet to countries such as Iran, Syria and China.
  

Must Read reports.

• Sherrie Gossett, Assyrian International News Agencyreported that Al Qaeda plans a series of spectacular terrorist strikes in October. A chilling read.
• Michael Barone, The Washington Times reminds us that despite the bad news in the media we need to keep the big picture in focus saying: Mr. Bush was right - MuslimIranian blogger, Mr. Bedhi said: If you want sanctions, I am not with you.s and Arabs, like people everywhere, want liberty and self-rule.
• Michael Rubin, Ha'aretz asked: Who Killed the Bush Doctrine? One example: Condolezza Rice appointed an ExxonMobil advisor who advised against aiding dissidents to cover the State Department's Iran policy planning portfolio.
• Bill Samii, Radio Free Europe reported Iran's Basij Resistance Force appears to be experiencing a revival which could also be connected with preparations for possible civil unrest. A valuable report.
• Michael Rubin, Middle East Review of International Affairs argued that the pessimism regarding Iraq's future is unwarranted. A long but valuable read.

The Experts.

• Amir Taheri, The NY Post thinks that Ilan Berman new book was so well written that it is as if Berman already knew what was going on in the minds of the new ruling elite in Tehran.
• Amir Taheri, Gulf News reported the flight of capital is a wake-up call for Iran.
• Amir Taheri, The NY Post asked: Are Arabs Anti-American?
  

Photos, Cartoons, Audio and Video of the week.

• Iranian Student News Agency published photos of American Muslim Woman in Tehran.
• Rooz Online latest cartoon on Ahmadinejad: Out on a limb.
• Rooz Online published another cartoon: Larijani headed for battle.
• Mock Photo of Ahmadinejad: Iran Gets Wild.
  

And finally, The Quote of the Week.

Iran Press News reported that Ahmadinejad said:

The prophetic mission of the Islamic revolution is global and we as the standard-bearers of the "Velayateh Faqih" (Shiite version of khalifa) will be ready for responding to the world's needs.

Saturday's Daily Briefing on Iran

DoctorZin reports, 10.1.2005:

Questioning the Lack of Open Debate on Iran's Nuclear Program

Iranian blogger, Ahmad zidabadi, Rooz Online:

The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran insists on calling Iran’s nuclear issue the “national case”. I do not understand this insistence or why is the issue a ”national” one.

If those who call the issue a national one mean that its outcome will determine the destiny of the Iranian nation, which it will, what is the importance and value of this interpretation of the word “national” for its insistence? The fluctuation of the price of oil in international markets too affects the destiny of the Iranian nation so should that too be called “national?”

If the meaning of the word is that the goal of attaining the nuclear fuel cycle at any cost is a national goal of the whole Iranian population because it provides the national interest, then this is what I ask: How so? Did the Iranian nation have the possibility of openly and publicly debating the benefits and disadvantages of attaining the nuclear fuel cycle? READ MORE

The Iranian government wants the world to believe that Iranians are unified on the need for its nuclear program. In reality an open and free public discourse on the issue would likely show a divided nation on the issue. Many Iranians question the wisdom and the cost of the program domestically and internationally.

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

• Times of India reported that despite liberal anger at the government's support for sending Iran to the UN Security Council, the Indian government is sticking to its guns on the issue.
• Iranian blogger, Mehdrad Sheibani, Rooz Online discussed the recent discussion of a "change of views" in Iran and what to expect.
• Iranian blogger, Arash Motamed, Rooz Online discussed three options for the current crisis in Iran: war, talks with the US or a referendum.
• Iranian blogger, Farah Karimi, Rooz Online discussed Kofi Annan's proposal for creating a "Council of Human Rights" to overview human rights situations in different countries and provide it with sufficient and necessary executive authority to implement its decisions.
• Iranian blogger, Amil Imani, ThinkAndAsk.com interviewed a former Iranian student arrested for protesting the regime. The student provides insight into the methods used against dissidents in Iran.
• Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State published Secretary Rice's recent speech at Princeton University.
• New York Post reported that investigators uncovered the secret funneling of millions of dollars from Iran and Saudi Arabia to groups like Hamas in the West Bank.
• Michael Rubin, Middle East Review of International Affairs argued that the pessimism regarding Iraq's future is unwarranted. A long but valuable read.
• Free2innovate.net warned that France pushed the European Union to propose a new Internet Governance plan which calls for a government-run body to control the Internet and hand over the future of the Internet to countries such as Iran, Syria and China.
• Khaleej Times Online reported that Iran would consider using oil as a weapon and denial of access to international nuclear inspectors if the United Nations Security Council is pressured by the US and allies to impose sanctions against it.
• European Voice reported Russian President Putin will be pressed next week to back Iran's referral to the United Nations' Security Council.
• National Post reported an Iranian prosecutor claimed that Canada had trained and supported bombers in southern Iran. Canadian officials denied the report.
• Iran Press News reported that the Islamic regime has falsified charges against detainees of recent clashes in Kurdistan.
• And finally, Iranian blogger, Korosh, The Price of Freedom reported Iranian dissident and blogger, Ahmad Seraj is in danger.

India sticks to its guns on Iran issue

Times of India:

The UPA government appeared to be heading for a confrontation with Left on Friday over Iran after the Cabinet Committee on Security turned down CPM's demand that India should reverse its stance against Iran for suspected violation of nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Despite a severe assault from the Left, which saw CPM general secretary Prakash Karat holding Manmohan Singh directly responsible for India's vote against Iran at the IAEA meeting in Vienna earlier this week, government seems to be digging its heels on the issue raising the spectre of policy confrontation like the one on the issue of disinvestment in BHEL. READ MORE

It has decided to justify its vote at Vienna by citing how AQ Khan, father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb and a notorious proliferator, helped Iran further its nuclear ambitions.

The decision on Iran was defended also at the meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs, where foreign secretary Shyam Saran briefed about the reasons behind the vote at IAEA. Emerging from the meeting, defence minister Pranab Mukherjee rebutted the charge that the Cabinet was not taken into confidence over the vote.

Mukherjee, who enjoys a better rapport with Left leaders, said that the issue was not discussed at the Cabinet because nobody expected that it would lead to a vote.

In a not-so-unrelated development, US president George Bush rang up PM Manmohan Singh to discuss the implementation of the nuclear deal the two countries signed recently. Apart from the fact that it came in the middle of this spat, the conversation took on significance also because of the government's attempt to justify the vote against Iran as necessary for getting the US to keep its part of the bargain, which is expected to result in the flow of nuclear technology and recognition of India as a legitimate nuclear power.

War, Talks with the US, Referendum

Iranian blogger, Arash Motamed, Rooz Online:

Two months after Ahmadinejad took over the helms of Iran’s government, Iran’s nuclear issue has strongly influenced not only its foreign but even domestic policy. It’s most important impact has been the new alignment of political forces, whose epicenter is “national interest.”

Today, all political forces, whether those supporting the current hardline regime in Tehran or those calling for its complete removal agree that Iran is threatened by a serious danger. Ali Shamkhani, who is his new post, is in fact the commander of the war task force talks of preparing to confront the global forces and mentions “damage” in his analysis. Sazemane Mojahedin Engelab Eslami (Islamic Revolution Mojahedin Organization) cautiously puts aside its self imposed silence and warns, through a statement, of “the approaching danger”. “Referring Iran’s nuclear issue to the UN Security Council means relegating Iran’s sovereignty and national security to the United States”, it says. This is the very same danger that Ali Larijani fears too when he says “I hope Iran’s case does not go to the Security Council.”

Even the government of India, who in the words of Siavosh Zargar Yaghoobi, Iran’s former ambassador to New Delhi, “shocked Iran’ through its IAEA vote last week, talks of a danger that may be related to the same threat that Iranian officials have been refereeing to. According to AFP, India’s deputy Foreign Minister Shyam Saran says, in response to Iran’s protest that India’s affirmative vote at the IAEA was to “avert a major international confrontation between Iran and the international community.” Calcutta Telegraph newspaper as quoted by AP explains the issue in even more detail when it writes that in their talks with European and US teams, representatives of India had been assured that they would refrain from taking a hard and military posture against Iran.

The “approaching danger” that Iranian officials talk about is interpreted by some to mean economic sanctions, while others see it as military action against the country. Whatever form the danger takes, it will come through decisions at the Security Council. According to BBC, “UN Security Council can take harsh measures such as economic sanctions or even military action against Iran.” This possibility is becoming clear to Iranian officials five days after the IAEA vote that has threatened referral of Iran’s nuclear issue to the Security Council. The opposition groups too have become more vocal on the issue since the IAEA ruling. Sazemane Mojahedin Engelabe Eslami (Organization for the Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution) group says that the current challenges and consequences of the nuclear issue lie in the hands of those officials who are responsible for current policies.

The brain child of the current approach to the nuclear issue is no other than Ali Larijani, who chairs the Supreme National Security Council and is Iran’s chief negotiator at the IAEA talks. His goal and that of his team is to buy time to respond properly to a situation that they themselves have created. A situation that is protested even by Mohsen Rezayi, the former Passdaran Revolutionary Guards chief who is very vocal these days. He calls the current nuclear policies “diplomatic mistakes.” A look at the events since the IAEA vote confirms that the only action taken in this regard, aside the usual threats and blames, is last week’s vote at the Parliament. In that vote, the government is given two weeks to respond to the Parliament’s call to withdraw from the NPT. Hadad Adel, the Speaker of Iran’s Parliament clarifies, however, that the Majlis resolution does not mean withdrawal from the NPT or the Additional Protocols.

The coalition against Iran seems to be strengthening and widening, after the IAEA resolution. Immediately after the vote, the German and British press made new claims against Iran. The German press has spoken of the presence of Amin Zarghavi - a leader AlQaeeda member – in Iran. German magazine Focus claims that Iran had a hand in the November of 1985 Frankfurt bombing at an American military base. This increased isolation is part of the goal of the US foreign policy, as described by the deputy US Secretary of State Nicholas Burns.

The British press has been advancing the notion that Passdaran Revolutionary Guards and Iran’s security forces are engaged in terrorist activities. This news that was not published in the Iranian press, found its answer in the demonstrations outside the British embassy in Tehran. But the meeting between Ali Larijani and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in New York put an end to the event. According to IRNA news agency, Ali Larijani said “Jack straw insisted on the continuation of talks with Iran in New York, and called for a calm atmosphere in this regard. But your behavior at the IAEA was contrary to our agreements and talks.” READ MORE

It is not clear in Iran what this “agreement” is and what is the reason that Britain has not honored it publicly and opted for a strong resolution against Iran. Iran’s response to the change was the demonstrations that took place in front of the British embassy last week. They ended with the intervention of the security forces. The protesters were calling for the “destruction of the British Embassy buildings over the heads of its residents.” The demonstrators did not seem to calm down even when Straw announced that Britain against military action against Iran.

War, Talks and Referendum

In the words of a university professor, “the current situation in Iran leaves three alternatives for the hardliners: Confrontation with the world and acceptance of its price; talks with the US; and, a referendum on the issue.

Observers have taken note that the idea of a referendum has originated from a newspaper that belongs to the military, indicating that it is something that the inner decision and policy members of the regime are discussing among themselves.

Change in Views

Iranian blogger, Mehdrad Sheibani, Rooz Online:

“Views must change.” This “must” belongs to Alireza Avayi who is to replace Abbasali Alizadeh the head of Tehran’s Justice Department, as if resistance is the agenda of the Islamic Republic. The new director has not yet prepared the programs for this change because his appointment comes only two days after “they talked to him” about the new job offer. But he has said something that smells of a change from Mortezavi’s judiciary. He heralds changes in officials who are not in line with the new views, adding that “at the moment, there is no need to change individuals at the judiciary.”

Hossein Saffar Herandi, unlike Alizadeh’s successor, has already announced his comprehensive program, and of course this is with a new view. He has said “We have now entered a period of a new view towards cultural issues. In this view, the emphasis is on cultural and religious and national values.” “This new view must apply to the culture of cinema, theater, music etc”, he has added. The former editor of the ultra conservative Kayhan newspaper is bold. “We shall operate in this framework and do not care what some may call it”, he has warned. The groundwork for this “new view” has already been prepared. The news coming out of the Ministry of Islamic Guidance is the translation of Boof-e Koor (Sadegh Hedayat’s “Blind Owl”) has been banned and the design for the cover of the “Sag-e Velgard (again Hedayat’s “Stray Dog”) has been rejected. Ms Fatemeh Rahbar, the chairman of the mass media committee of the Parliament confirms the “fundamental changes” that are forthcoming in the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. READ MORE

Commander Ghalibaf, the new mayor of Tehran too talks of changes. “Today if injustice and poverty exist in layers of our society and people are unhappy with us, our problem is not America, but our own”, he has stated, departing from the long tradition of official blame on the US for everything bad that happens in the country. He has added that there is nothing wrong if former security individuals work in the government bureaucracy and public offices.

Akbar Elmi, a member of the seventh Parliament’s minority too states that “Those who until yesterday knew nothing of the country nuclear issues have suddenly become experts on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear case.”

Mohsen Ejeyi, who is the new Minister of Intelligence, heralds the same news. “Torture will end”, he categorically declares. Mohammad Khatami, former president of the country announces his resignation at the age of 62 and after 28 years and ten days of service so that, in the words of Mohammad Abtahi “unlike others he does not cling to the seats of power.”

In the realm of human rights the day is a good one. Here too views seem to be changing! There is still no news of Akbar Ganji, the prominent reformist journalist whose imprisonment was elevated to international status after his long duration and hunger strike, but his defense attorney says that he has requested a change in the status of his client from the judiciary. In a related news, the Islamic Society of Alame University has requested a suspension of Ali Afshari’s sentence.

“Dr Hosseinallah Karam” shall give a talk at Azad University at the invitation of Fatemiyun philosophy belonging to the leader, and the subject is change in views with the aim of discussing the two principles of “simple life” and “justice” for the purpose of preparing the return of the final Prophet. This is precisely what president Ahmadinejad has said should be the task of the government. “The Islamic Administration that is now operating in the form of the Islamic Republic has no other duty than prepare the groundwork for the return of the Prophet,” he has said.

So everything seems to be in order in the Islamic Republic, if one only listens to its authorities and officials. In this light, Saeed Mortezavi even brags [sic] that “other countries must work for years to get to our level.”

There seem to be just two issues in the way of all of this and both related to sports. Jomhurie Eslami newspaper, spokesmedia for the hardliners, calls for a official sanctions against Ali Daee for participating in singer Googoosh’s music concert. So it appears that the warm reception that the conservative press gave to the accusations of an opposition group that Googoosh and Daee were agents of the Islamic Republic was not without cause.

Mansur Barzegar, the Iranian gold and former world record medallist in wresting, also warns of a looming danger. “Iran’s wrestling has reached the zero level. Do not destroy the wrestler. You have committed treason,” he declares with an accusatory tone. He points to the results of Iran’s wrestling team in the world competitions in Budapest, Hungary, where Iran scored only one bronze medal, and reminds his audience that at the world competitions, Iran had brought seven gold medals in the past.

National issue

Iranian blogger, Ahmad zidabadi, Rooz Online:

The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran insists on calling Iran’s nuclear issue the “national case”. I do not understand this insistence or why is the issue a ”national” one.

If those who call the issue a national one mean that its outcome will determine the destiny of the Iranian nation, which it will, what is the importance and value of this interpretation of the word “national” for its insistence? The fluctuation of the price of oil in international markets too affects the destiny of the Iranian nation so should that too be called “national?”

If the meaning of the word is that the goal of attaining the nuclear fuel cycle at any cost is a national goal of the whole Iranian population because it provides the national interest, then this is what I ask: How so? Did the Iranian nation have the possibility of openly and publicly debating the benefits and disadvantages of attaining the nuclear fuel cycle? READ MORE

Unfortunately the authorities of the Islamic Republic have created such a closed atmosphere on the issue and react so strongly towards any criticism of the issue that no one dares to say anything publicly on the issue, let alone oppose the goal.
The possibility that, in an open and free atmosphere, the majority of Iranians may opt for the goal of acquiring the nuclear fuel cycle even at the expense of economic sanctions and military attack on the country’s infrastructure cannot be ruled out, but without such a discourse how can one talk of such a support?

The issue of course does not end here. Labeling the issue “national” raises responsibilities and bears consequences. There is a price for the relegation of the issue to the national level. The term assumes a belief in the supremacy of the nation-state in the contemporary age. Such a belief is based on the acceptance of equal rights for all the inhabitants or at least citizens of the land, regardless of their religious or political views. Do the authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran believe in such a principle or see themselves bound by it?

Unfortunately not only do the authorities not see themselves committed to the principle of equal rights for all its citizens, they do not even believe in it and in fact expressly and formally reject it. One should note the response of the Iranian conservatists against the motto of Iranian reformers: “Iran for all Iranians”.

This motto is the most general and all-encompassing goal in accepting the principle of supremacy of the nation-state and equal rights for its citizens. The conservatists have declared this motto not only to be incompatible with their understanding of religion, but have even said it equals atheism. On what basis do those who do not want “Iran for all Iranians” and do not understand the principle, speak of the nuclear issue being “national”?

Is it even possible to divide the Iranian nation into different castes and accept special rights and privileges to those who believe in the principles of the authorities while denying those who criticize or oppose them politically their very basic rights and yet talk of a “nation” or “national” issue?

So if the Iranian government wishes to insist that the nuclear issue is a “national” one, it must first recognize the equal rights of people and only then use such terms. Otherwise, it only deforms the true meaning of such concepts.

A United Front from United States to Iran

Iranian blogger, Farah Karimi, Rooz Online:

The recent UN General Assembly meeting in New York could take a historical step towards human rights in the world. Structural reform in the UN was discussed and many suggestions were brought up by different organizations as well as countries.

From the perspective of human rights, the most considerable proposal was by Kofi Anna, U.N. Secretary General himself and was discussed by participating leaders. Annan suggested creating a "Council of Human Rights" to overview human rights situations in different countries and provide it with sufficient and necessary executive authority to implement its decisions.The importance of this proposal is the fact that the U.N. Human Rights Commission that is dealing with human rights issues now has severe structural weaknesses. The main challenge is that there are no specific criteria for its membership. Therefore, there are countries that sit on the government board that themselves have serious records of human rights violations and therefore are really not credible sources of dealing with human rights issues. Libya is a good example of this. READ MORE

Another structural weakness of the Commission is the fact that there is no guarantee for the implementation of its fruitful decisions even when critical steps need to be taken. As a result, countries continue violating the human rights of their citizens.

By suggesting a "Human Rights Council" Annan means a permanent council with executive power that can implement the necessary reforms so that these countries would not be allowed to be member of the Commission. Such a permanent and powerful Council can effectively pressure the governments that have records of human rights violations.

However, this positive proposal faces barriers from a wide range of countries, ranging from the US to Iran whose violations of human rights stood against the U.N. secretary General. But despite their diplomatic differences, these countries united and opposed Annan's proposal. But Annan’s recommendations should be followed up seriously. Human rights activists most likely will and with the cooperation of international public opinion such united fronts such as that between the US and Iran will hopefully be overcome.

Former Student Warns of Islamic Republic's Plan

Iranian blogger, Amil Imani, ThinkAndAsk.com:

Ali was a student at the University of Tehran. He was brutally attacked by the Ansar-i Hezbullah, (the militia force of the Islamic Republic,) during its attack on the university's dormitory 9 July 1999.

It was an attack that sent shock waves around the country prompting six consecutive days of unrest across Iran.

The notorious Evin prison became Ali's new educator. He was interrogated and charged for being a protester. He was brutally beaten, forced to confess crimes of which he never committed, and he was imprisoned for nearly four years.

The Islamic Republic practices a similar style to Stalin, using forced confessions to prosecute the open-minded activist in Iran. This is not a 30-minute television drama; and unless you've been deprived of the basic necessities for weeks on end or longer, and physically attacked by guards each night, it may impossible to see yourself admitting to a crime you didn't committed.

Arrests usually occur in the dead of night. Individuals later find themselves held in detention without any formal charges whatsoever. And after days or weeks of torture it is easy for the mullah to obtain self-incriminating confessions. The Islamic Republic is focusing on destroying the individual's reputation, dignity, and honor one by one. They sow seeds of contention, enmity, friction, and tear to pieces the best of human characteristics.

The Intelligence Ministry of the Islamic Republic often arrest and persecute people not necessarily for what they did, but for who they are and what the Republic perceives to be a threat. Their targets have been those groups of people who were acclaimed or fluent with foreign languages, educators, members of pen organizations, writers, poets, intellectuals, and of course the journalists. [Read about the death of Ziba Kazemi.]

I ran into Ali recently and he gave me permission to tell the world his story. Ali is not his real name, but he fears that certain details or any likeness of or about him could still jeopardize the safety of his relatives living in Iran. READ MORE

He recalled how he was interrogated. He spent most of his time in solitary confinement and they told him he'd waged a war against Allah, which is a crime punishable by death. According to the words of the merciful and compassionate God of Quran, "The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly." 5:33

While it is difficult for him to speak of the experience, Ali first describes harassment and intimidation of the Iranian youth by the Islamic Republic lackeys. He concludes the Islamic Republic is set upon world domination through Islamic wars and conquests, and for this they need to brutalize Iranian people to bring them to the will of Allah.

Terror, brutality and violence are necessary tools to achieve their ultimate goal in regional and world domination. At times, Ali was confined in a very small cell. It was too small to sit or lie down. He was confined in that position for months. Others, he could hear, faced a more terrible fate. They were subjected to inhuman tortures.

They all were subjected to different methods of torture. Some escaped by going insane. He paused for a moment as I caught his eyes filling with tears. He deeply sighed and asked, "Where were the human rights and humanitarian groups during that time?"

There were four revolutionary guards who took turns beating Ali, usually during the nighttime hours. "They would strip all my clothing, take me into a room and put on my knees with my head down," Ali said softly. "A bearded, heavy man pushed the edge of his knife down against the back of my neck.

"He told me, he would slit my throat if I didn't confess that I am part of the 'monafeghin' organization, the 'MKO' who actually were the fuel behind the Islamic Revolution."

Time would stand still with the edge of the knife against Ali's throat. "Suddenly, you hear nothing except silence.

"One wonders how these people live with themselves. Do they have children of their own? How would they like their kids to be treated like animals?"

I kept gazing into his eyes with disbelief. He started mumbling as though there were not enough time in his lifetime to express his story. This is the story of so many innocent Iranians who are forced to waste their precious time inside the Islamic Republic prisons for simply wanting a better life not only for themselves, but for their fellow countrymen as well. To the Islamic Republic, this is called waging a war against Allah.

"Some would sit in solitary confinement, starving and rotting. Many die due to the heavy beating and they remove the bodies quickly in the middle of the night to an unknown area," he said.

"My cell was very small and impenetrable. The walls were made from heavy cement. No windows. The doors were made of thick metal and very strong. On the ceiling almost 6 meters above, there were two ventilation holes from which you could hear the screams of others, repenting and begging the torturers to stop beating them up."

The methods of torture he described ranged from the use of mechanical instruments for which to inflict tissue damage, to psychological and physiological techniques, such as solitary confinement and sleep deprivation.

Ali had a lot more to say, certainly more than a caring man can bear even second hand. Ali and others like him are prisoners of conscience. They believe in freedom, justice and liberty. These three principles of humanity are forbidden in the Muslim countries. These words equate to waging war against Allah, thus death will be awaiting you.

Iranians must learn that history does not repeat itself. We repeat history! What is sad is that the world community and, in the case of Ali, Iranian communities outside Iran do not do enough to expose the Islamic Republic's war against all living things.

Unfortunately, most Iranians in the West are more interested in making money than helping people like Ali. Iranian communities have become extremely nonchalant, thus, they have become pseudo-Iranians, or merely spectators.

Secretary Rice's Speech at Princeton University

Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State:

Princeton University's Celebration of the 75th Anniversary Of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs

Speach by Secretary Condoleezza Rice READ MORE
Princeton University
New Jersey
September 30, 2005

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Thank you very much. Madame President, other distinguished members here on the dais, and especially to Anne-Marie Slaughter who I know not just as a fine Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School but also as an extraordinary scholar whose expertise I've tapped on a couple of occasions since I've been Secretary, thank you for your leadership of this great university and your leadership in this great school.

I am honored to be here today at Princeton. From George Kennan and John Foster Dulles, to George Shultz and James Baker, and of course, Woodrow Wilson, many renowned American statesmen have worn the orange and black.

I am especially honored to help all of you celebrate this historic 75th anniversary of the Woodrow Wilson School. As a professor myself, I understand how important it is to root the practice of statecraft in the study of statecraft in the systematic examination of politics and history and culture that the Wilson School offers to its students.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Seventy-five years ago, when this school was founded, it was a difficult time when the world's democracies were like islands in a raging sea. Adolph Hitler was planning his ascent to power in Germany and plotting his conquest of Europe. And Joseph Stalin was consolidating his rule and building a Soviet Union that would threaten the entire free world.

Today, however, democracies are emerging wherever and whenever the tides of oppression recede. As President Bush said in his Second Inaugural Address, "The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

Now, to forge realistic policies from these idealistic principles, we must recognize that statecraft can assume two fundamentally different forms. In ordinary times, when existing ideas and institutions and alliances are adequate to the challenges of the day, the purpose of statecraft is to manage and sustain the established international order. But in extraordinary times, when the very terrain of history shifts beneath our feet and decades of human effort collapse into irrelevance, the mission of statecraft is to transform our institutions and partnerships to realize new purposes on the basis of enduring values.

One such extraordinary moment began in 1945 in the wreckage of one of the great cataclysms in human history. World War II thoroughly consumed the old international system. And it fell to a group of American statesmen -- individuals like Truman and Acheson and Vandenburg -- to assume the roles of architects and builders of a better world.

The solutions to those challenges seem perfectly clear now with half a century of hindsight. But it was anything but clear for the men and women who lived and worked in those unprecedented change. Long after he was present at the creation, Dean Acheson remembered the early years of the Cold War as cloudy, and puzzling, and perilous. "The significance of events," he wrote, "was shrouded in ambiguity and we hesitated long before grasping what now seems obvious."

But despite the extraordinary nature of their time, the statesmen of that era succeeded brilliantly. They conceived doctrines and created the alliances and built the institutions that formed the foundation of a new international system, one organized to defend freedom from the spread of communism.

The ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union initiated a new moment of transformation. This was a glorious revolution, a cause for celebration throughout Russia and Eastern Europe. The Warsaw Pact countries became the new heart of NATO, and we transformed that alliance into one that Truman and Acheson would never have recognized, but would certainly have applauded. Some even thought that the engine of globalization might just make the possibility of conflict remote.

But lurking below the surface, old hatreds were gaining new power. And on a warm September morning, America encountered the darker demons of our new world.

People still differ about what the September 11th calls us to do. And in a democratic society, that debate is healthy and just and right. If you focus only on the attacks themselves and believe they were caused by 19 hijackers, supported by a network called al-Qaida, and operating from a failed state -- Afghanistan -- then our response can be limited. The course of action presumes that we are still living in an ordinary time.

But if you believe, as I do and as President Bush does, that the root cause of September 11th was the violent expression of a global extremist ideology, an ideology rooted in the oppression and despair of the modern Middle East, then we must speak to remove the source of this terror by transforming that troubled region. If you believe as we do, then it cannot be denied that we are standing at an extraordinary moment in history.

Some would argue that this broad approach to the problem is making the world less stable by rocking the boat and wrecking the status quo. But this presumes the existence of a stable status quo that does not threaten global security. This is not the case. A regional order that produced an ideology of hatred so savage as the one we now confront is not serving any civilized interest.

For 60 years, we often thought that we could achieve stability without liberty in the Middle East. And ultimately, we got neither. Now, we must recognize, as we do in every other region of the world, that liberty and democracy are the only guarantees of true stability and lasting security.

There are those who worry that greater freedom of choice in the Middle East will only liberate and empower extremism. In fact, the opposite is true: A political culture of transparency and openness is not one in which extremist beliefs can ultimately thrive. Extremism is most dangerous when it lurks in the dark and hides underground. When there is no political space for individuals to advance their interests and redress their grievances, then they retreat into the shadows to grow ever more radical and divorced from reality. We saw the result of that on September 11th and now we must work to advance democratic reform throughout the greater Middle East.

Now, to support democratic aspirations, we must be serious about the universal appeal of certain basic rights. When given a truly free choice, human beings will choose liberty over oppression; the right to own property over random search and seizure. Human beings will choose the natural right to life over the constant fear of death. And human beings will choose to be ruled by the consent of the governed, not by the coercion of the state; by the rule of law, not the whim of rulers. These principles should be the source of justice in every society and the basis for peace between all states.

To support democratic aspirations, we must also promote democratic institutions that function transparently and accountably. We must help all young democracies to protect minority rights, to enforce the rule of law, and to build the foundations of good governance, from a thriving economy and a vibrant civil society, to a free media and opportunities for learning and for health for their people.

To support the democratic aspirations, we must recognize that liberty still faces opponents in our world. Some will never support the free choices of their citizens because they stand to lose arbitrary powers and unjust privileges. Others know that the ideology of hatred they espouse can only thrive in a political culture of oppression and poverty and hopelessness. In a world where evil is still very real, democratic principles must be backed with power in all its forms: political, and economic, and cultural, and moral, and yes, sometimes, military. Any champion of democracy who promotes principle without power can make no real difference in the lives of oppressed people.

There are those who falsely characterize the support of democracy as "exporting" democracy, as if democracy were somehow a product that only America manufactures. These critics say that we are arrogantly imposing our principles on an unwilling people. But it is the very height of arrogance to believe that political liberty and democratic aspirations and freedom of speech and rights for women somehow belong only to us. All people deserve these rights and they choose them freely. It is not liberty and democracy that must be imposed. It is tyranny and silence that are forced upon people at gunpoint.

We know that the march of democracy is not easy. We know that coming to terms with the provision of these rights takes time. We know because of our own history in which imperfect people put together institutions that allowed us to strive everyday toward a more perfect union. But of course, in our 250 years, we are still striving and as we look at others who are still striving, we owe them our respect and our confidence that they, too, can achieve their aspirations.

For years, the entire world talked about ending the Taliban’s tyranny in Afghanistan. But it was finally the United States, leading a coalition of willing nations and brave Afghans that finally put an end to that regime’s persecution of its people. Although many challenges remain, Afghanistan has amazed the world with its rapid progress toward democracy even as many people begin to take it for granted.

For years, the entire world also talked about ending Syria’s occupation of Lebanon. But it was the United States and France, leading a broad international coalition, with a UN Security Council mandate that together with Lebanese patriots finally achieved the withdrawal of Syrian forces after the brutal murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Since then, the Lebanese people have held their first free elections in decades. And we are now supporting them in the hard work of democratic reform that will continue long into the future.

For years, the entire world sought to make peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, while overlooking the corrupt nature and terrorist links of Yasser Arafat’s rule. But President Bush refused to deal with Arafat and encouraged the Palestinian people to undertake the democratic reforms they so justly deserved. Since Arafat’s death, the Palestinian people have elected a president who calls for peace with Israel and recognizes the need to fight terrorism. Now, if both Palestinians and Israelis meet their obligations, there is a true opportunity for a lasting peace.

For years, the topic of reform was not even a part of our dialogue with Egypt and Saudi Arabia. But President Bush insisted on having these difficult discussions with our two oldest friends, in private and in public. Both countries are now taking steps to greater political openness. Saudi Arabia held imperfect municipal elections earlier this year because women did not vote. But they have promised that they will vote in the future. Egypt held flawed but landmark presidential election this summer in which there was, at least, vigorous debate of the options before Egyptians. And they will turn to parliamentary elections next year. Democracy, however, is more than a matter of holding elections. And we therefore expect both Egypt and Saudi Arabia to begin reforming the political institutions that are the key to lasting success for any democracy.

And of course, for many years, the entire world talked about ending the tyranny in Baathists Iraq. Despite 17 Security Council resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein stop oppressing his people, refrain from threatening his neighbors and cease the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, he remained in power. The United States and a large coalition of nations finally removed Saddam Hussein. By any moral standards, the liberation of the Iraqi people was long overdue.

Now, it was only two and a half years ago that Saddam Hussein was still in control of Iraq. He was torturing his political opponents and he was plundering the Oil-for-Food program and using the money to corrupt individuals and institutions worldwide, while Iraqi children died of malnutrition and lack of medicine. He was forcing male dissenters to witness the rape of their wives and daughters. And he was shoveling the stale dirt of mass graves onto the latest of his 300,000 innocent victims. A monster like Saddam Hussein could not be a part of anyone's vision for a better Middle East.

Now, Saddam Hussein is gone and the Iraqi people have a more hopeful future. To be sure, Iraqis still face a long, hard path to that hopeful future. Historical changes of the scope and magnitude of this one are bound to be difficult. And this is a country that rests on the major fault lines of religion and ethnicity in the Middle East. It was held together for most of its history through coercion and repression. Now, despite having known little but tyranny, the Iraqi people are trying to govern themselves through politics, not violence; through compromise, not conflict. Millions of Iraqis risked their lives to vote last January. And their free representatives have drafted a constitution that enshrines the principles of democracy and the equality of all Iraqis before the law.

The United Nations having increased its presence in Iraq tenfold in just the past year is helping to organize its constitutional referendum as well as the elections that will follow at the end of the year. In both of these important votes, American and coalition soldiers will join Iraq's security forces to defend the Iraqi people's freedom of choice, whatever course of action they favor.

There is a path to success and Iraqis are progressing along it. But they must themselves maintain their commitment to the democratic political process and to a life of cooperation and compromise rather than violence. We must help them to fully develop their own security forces and they must build institutions that sustain accountability and provides public services. For their part, Iraq's neighbors must provide greater financial support and stronger diplomatic support. And the international community must continue to stand firmly at Iraq's side.

Now, clearly, the path is made more difficult by the brutal insurgency that Iraqis face. Iraq's security forces are fighting its enemies vigorously, coalition forces are helping and America's men and women in uniform are performing heroically. Nearly 2,000 American servicemen and women have given their lives to this mission. And our nation will always honor their names and their sacrifice.

So let us be very clear about exactly who they and we are fighting. Some of the insurgency is fueled by the same thugs and henchman who enforced Saddam Hussein’s tyranny for decades. They fight now to regain the unjust privileges they once had. There are many others, however, foreign terrorists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who seek to ignite the very civil war that ordinary Iraqis are trying so hard to prevent.

These terrorists target Iraqi children receiving candy from American soldiers. They line up schoolteachers and execute them in their classrooms. They murder hospital workers caring for the wounded. And they massacre innocent Muslims who want to serve as policemen and soldiers and government officials in the new Iraq. This is not some grassroots coalition of national resistance. These are merciless killers who want to provoke nothing less than a full-scale civil war among Muslims across the entire Middle East. And having done so, they would build an empire of terror and oppression.

The choice we face in Iraq is, thus, stark. If we quit now, we will abandon Iraq’s democrats at their time of greatest need. We will embolden every enemy of liberty and democracy across the Middle East. We will destroy any chance that the people of this region have of building a future of hope and opportunity. And we will make America more vulnerable. If we abandon future generations in the Middle East to despair and terror, we also condemn future generations in the United States to insecurity and fear.

Ladies and Gentlemen: We have set out to help the people of the Middle East transform their societies. Now is not the time to falter or fade.

Only four years ago, the democrats of the Arab world were hiding in silence or languishing in prison or fearing for their very lives. Now, from Cairo and Ramallah, to Beirut and Baghdad, men and women are finding new spaces of freedom to assemble and debate and build a better world for themselves and their children. They most certainly have determined enemies. But they also have determined defenders. And it is possible to envision a future Middle East where democracy is thriving, where human rights are secure, and where hope and opportunity are within the reach of these people.

I know that this vision can seem very distant at times, especially when we see so many tragic images of death, of innocent Iraqis and Afghans, and of course, Americans dying overseas. There are legitimate differences about the war we are now fighting in Iraq and in a great democracy like ours, everyone has the right to express those views freely.

But I hope that we can all step back and look at other extraordinary times and though they are not perfectly parallel, they can help us to gain a perspective on the challenges we face.

In 1989, I was lucky enough to be the White House Soviet specialist at the end of the Cold War. It doesn't get any better than that. I was there for the liberation of Eastern Europe; the unification of Germany; and for the beginnings of the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union itself. I saw things that I never thought possible. And one day, they seemed impossible; and several days later, they seemed inevitable. That is the nature of extraordinary times.

But as I look back now on those times, I realized that I was only harvesting the good decisions that had been taken in 1947, in 1948, and in 1949. And sometimes, I wonder how in the course of events, the course of the moment, people like Acheson and Truman and Marshall and Vandenberg saw a path ahead. After all, in 1946, the Germany Reconstruction was still failing and Germans were still starving. Japan lay prostrate. In 1947, there was a civil war in Greece. In 1948, Germany was permanently divided by the Berlin Crisis; Czechoslovakia was lost to a communist coup. And in 1949, the Soviet Union exploded a nuclear weapon five years ahead of schedule; and the Chinese communists won their war. In 1950, a brutal war broke on the Korean Peninsula.

These were not just tactical setbacks for the forward march of democracy. Indeed, it must have seemed quite impossible, that we would one day, stand at a juncture where Eastern Europe would be liberated, Russia would emerge, and Europe would be whole and free and at peace. If we think back on those days, we recognize that extraordinary times are turbulent and they are hard. And it is very often hard to see a clear path. But if you are -- as those great architects of the post-Cold War victory were -- if you are true to your values, if you are certain of your values, and if you act upon them with confidence and with strength, it is possible to have an outcome where democracy spreads and peace and liberty reign.

Because of the work that they did, it is hard to imagine war in Europe again. So it shall be also for the Middle East.

Thank you very much.