Week in Review

DoctorZin provides a review of this past week's [8/27/06 - 9/02/06] major news events regarding Iran. (The report is organized by various categories in chronological order, not by importance). Catch up on all the past week's news developments. READ MORE

Iran's Nuclear Program & The UN Security Council.

• Reuters reported that Iran said a U.S. threat to form an independent coalition to impose sanctions if the U.N. Security Council failed to act over Tehran's nuclear program was an insult to the council's work.
• The Washington Times reported that the Bush administration plans to move rapidly to organize and impose international economic sanctions on Iran, but not until after a Thursday U.N. deadline passes.
• Forbes.com reported that the EU's Solana and the French are ready to talk to Iran over its nuclear work.
• The Washington Times reported that the UN nuclear watchdog agency will hand over a report that says Iran has resumed enriching a small amount of uranium to the U.N. Security Council.
  
• The Christian Science Monitor reported that we should expect Thursday's deadline for Iran to stop enriching uranium to pass with more of a whimper than a bang. As the United States experiences what one observer calls "confrontation fatigue," and as international unity against a nuclear-armed Iran threatens to splinter under pressure, quick action against Iran is not likely.
• The New York Times reported that with Iran defying a Thursday deadline to halt production of nuclear fuel, the United States and three European allies are assembling a list of sanctions they would seek in the United Nations Security Council, beginning with restrictions on imports of nuclear-related equipment and material.
• Reuters reported that the UN said Iran failed to meet its nuclear deadline.
• Vital Perspectives published a copy of the IAEA report being distributed to diplomats at the UN today on Iran's nuclear program.
• Reuters reported that President George W. Bush said "It is time for Iran to make a choice... We've made our choice. We will continue to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution, but there must be consequences for Iran's defiance and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon."
• Reuters reported that European foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, agreed on Thursday to meet soon to discuss Iran's response to incentives to curb its nuclear activities.
• Claudia Rosett, The Wall Street Journal argued why U.N. sanctions on Iran won't work.
• The Washington Times reported that the U.S. military is operating under the assumption that Iran is five to eight years away from being able to build its first nuclear weapon, a time span that explains a general lack of urgency within the Bush administration.
• United Press International reported that the IAEA told the U.N. Security Council its inspectors have found new traces of enriched uranium in Iran. The discovery marked the third instance that highly enriched uranium was found at an Iranian facility.
• The Times Online reported that Iran's defiance of the United Nations' deadline was supposed to be the climax of this long-running stand-off. Instead, Europeans blinked. What happened...
• The Times Online reported that Iran’s defiance of the deadline to stop its nuclear work may have increased the chances of a US attack on Iran.
• Reuters reported that Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov called sanctions on Iran a "dead end."
• Chicago Tribune reported that Iranians are used to sanctions. What made them bristle Thursday, as the United Nations deadline passed for Iran to halt its nuclear-enrichment program, was the thought that their country could become an international pariah.
• CNN News reported that European Union foreign ministers agreed on Saturday to give Iran two more weeks to clarify its stance on halting sensitive nuclear work.
• DW-World reported that Germany urged Iran Saturday to send a signal that it is serious about talks on its suspending some nuclear activities. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said: "We don't want to slam the door but we need a signal from Iran that it is ready to move in our direction."
• EU Observer reported that a number of EU member states are growing impatient with the secretive handling of the Iran issue by foreign policy chief Javier Solana and the EU's "big three."
  

Former president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Khatami, invited to speak in Washington DC.

• Eli Lake, The New York Sun reported that Iran's ex-president is scheduled to address a U.N. conference next week as part of a charm offensive that may extend to Washington — if the White House lets him have a visa. A Bush administration official said: "No one wants him here. The real question is whether we lose more in terms of international leverage by denying him a visit. That's being weighed, not debated."
  
• Yahoo News reported that the Bush administration decided Tuesday to allow former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to visit the United States.
• Iran Press News reported that Khatami warned that if he is to be fingerprinted in the US upon arriving he will cancel his trip to the US.
• The Washington Post reported that former president Jimmy Carter has agreed in principle to host former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami for talks during his visit to the United States.
• The National Review Online published an NRO Symposium on Mohammad Khatami’s upcoming visit to the United States.
• Chicago Sun-Times reported that former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was expected to arrive Thursday in Chicago to speak at two Muslim conventions over the weekend. The report added that a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Chicago said American Muslims consider Khatami "a kindred spirit in faith."
• The New York Sun in an editorial examined why Harvard University is choosing to mark the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks by hosting Mohammed Khatami, a former president of Iran, an enemy state levying a terrorist war against America.
• Eli Lake, The New York Sun reported that the State Department's decision to grant a visa to Iran's former president is sparking a rebellion among Republican members of Congress who seek a tougher line on the rogue country.
• The Chicago Tribune reported on the first speech on American soil by a high-ranking Iranian official in three decades, former President Mohammed Khatami. But neither Khatami nor his aides took questions from the audience or the media. But he was well received by the Muslim convention he spoke to.
  

Iran behind Hezbollah's war on Israel - The cease fire.

• Joseph Klein, FrontPageMagazine.com reported that despite all of its public bluster, Iran suffered a serious setback to its long-term strategic interests as a result of the Hezbollah-initiated war against Israel. He explained how the UN turned Iran's defeat into a victory.
• LA Times in an editorial argued that Hezbollah is not a headache for Israel alone. If unchallenged, the Iran-Hezbollah axis of power will end the millenniums-old Sunni Arab domination of the Middle East.
• Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center published part one of a translation of a booklet found in Lebanon among the Hezbollah called: “Al-Jihad” - Exporting the radical ideology of the Islamic revolution in Iran.
• U.S.News & World Report published a report on Lebanon and its movement towards becoming an Iran by the sea.
• YNet News reported that Iran’s Foreign Minister offered UN Secretary General Kofi Annan his country’s full cooperation over a Security Council resolution on the truce between Israel and Hezbullah.
• Ali Afshari and Akbar Atri, The Wall Street Journal suggested that when UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is visiting Iran he should place the issue of human rights as the top priority on his agenda, civil and human rights are in dire need of the secretary-general's attention.
• Time reported that when Iranians watched on their illegal satellite dishes Hezbollah doling out thick stacks of cash, courtesy of Iran, a majority of Iranians who are barely scraping by, such news is infuriating.
  

The threatening, strange and sad statements of Iranian leaders.

• De Velt Blog reported that they are sure Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottakisaid: 'that the US aggrandizes such deceitful notions as democracy and human rights so as to impose its hegemonic policies.' didn't mean it to say it so plainly when he They're against democracy and human rights. Got that everyone?
• Yahoo News reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told German Chancellor Angela Merkel that the Holocaust may have been invented by the victorious Allied powers in World War II to embarrass Germany.
• Reuters reported that Ahmadinejad challenged President Bush to a televised debate, saying: "The debate should be go uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say and they should not restrict the American people from hearing the truth."
• Dow Jones Newswires reported that the White House dismissed the idea of a televised debate between President George W. Bush and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a diversion. A White House spokesman added: "Iran may want to look first to allowing free expression and open debate within its borders, as opposed to the current practice of crushing dissent."
• Karl Vick, The Washington Post reported on a meeting in Tehran at the headquarters of Ansar al-Hezbollah where its speaker, Mehdi Koochakzadeh, said: "We have no such thing as majority rule in Islam ... If the majority says, 'We don't want an Islamic regime,' they have no right."
  

Iranian dissident's.

• The Washington Post reported that Iran released on bail liberal intellectual Ramin Jahanbegloo, who was accused of working with the U.S. to overthrow the government.
• Ottawa Citizen reported that an Iranian-Canadian man, Ramin Jahanbegloo, held in a Tehran prison for four months without charges was released on bail, but news of his freedom was tempered by reports of a supposed confession made to national media shortly after his release.
• The International Herald Tribune reported that the State Department accused Iran on Friday of detaining a number of student activists and demanded their release. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement "The Iranian regime's continued efforts to suppress freedom of speech and assembly make clear the hollowness of professed openness to peaceful dialogue and debate."
  

Interesting reports inside of Iran.

• The Scotsman reported that at least 30 people died when an Iranian airliner skidded off the runway and caught fire as a tire burst while it was landing at a north-eastern airport yesterday.
  

Human Rights and Freedom of the Press in Iran.

• IranMania reported that Iran warned it would prosecute any individual or business inside the country from working with foreign-based Persian language satellite channels.
• Time Magazine reported that for the past few months, Iranians have been subjected to stronger enforcement of Islamic codes using a new tactic. Is this a revival of the dogmatic strictures of the country's revolutionary past? A must read.
• Radio Free Europe reported that activists in Iran have started a petition drive calling for changes to laws that discriminate against women. Organizers hope to attract the signature of 1 million Iranians -- a challenge that they say public officials could not ignore.
• The Washington Post reported that the managing director of an Iranian daily has been acquitted of insulting Iran's Azeri minority, four months after the newspaper was banned for a cartoon that sparked protests. The cartoonist is still awaiting trial.
• Ha'aretz reported that AIPAC is urging the United States government to disconnect an Iranian news site, Baztab, from American Internet servers, charging that the site has ties to terrorist organizations.
• The New York Times reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faced a freewheeling two-hour news conference and found himself challenged by local reporters who questioned the government’s economic program and its treatment of the press. A must read.
• Iran Focus reported that hundreds of new “judicial police” have begun to roam the streets of Tehran arresting those who the judiciary suspected of “illegal activities”.
• The Financial Times reported that when Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad spiced up a press conference this week by challenging George W. Bush to a live television debate he displayed a keen grasp of American-style politics. But a diplomat said "If he doesn't answer questions, and it's shown live on TV anyway, what's the point?" The local Iranian journalists put him on the hot seat.
  

The Iranian Military.

• MyWayNews reported that Iran test fired a new submarine-to-surface missile during war games in the Persian Gulf on Sunday. A brief video clip showed the long-range missile, called Thaqeb, or Saturn, exiting the water and hitting a target on the water's surface within less than a mile.
  

The Iranian Economy.

• The Japan Times reported that Iran has warned Japan of a possible move to seek joint development of its giant Azadegan oil field with Russia or China if it cannot reach an agreement with Japan by Sept. 15.
  

Iran and the International community.

• The Sunday Times reported that Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources. The conflict with Hezbollah has led to a strategic rethink in Israel. A key conclusion is that too much attention has been paid to Palestinian militants in Gaza and the West Bank instead of the two biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the region, who pose a far greater danger.
  

The US Congress on Iran.

• Philadelphia Inquirer reported that U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum called Iran the principal leader of the "Islamic fascist movement" that poses the greatest threat to America's freedom and way of life, and said the country must be prevented from developing nuclear weapons.
  

Must Read reports.

• Rachel Makabi, Newsweek International interviewed Reza Pahlavi to get his thoughts on the standoff, the effectiveness of U.S. policy toward Iran and his ongoing work with Iranian dissidents. Reza described Iran's standoff with the West as a "Race against time."
• Stanley Kurtz, The National Review Online argued that American politics is about to undergo a sea change. Our lives are going to be transformed on a more personal level as well. Sometime between now and five-to-ten years from now we’re going to be forced to choose between preemptive war with Iran, and living in a post-proliferation world. A must read.
• The New York Sun argued that the world, it seems, has passed this way before. The summer's events in south Lebanon, Iraq, London, Afghanistan, North Korea and, above all, Iran, have filled the air with a sense of foreboding that few except the very oldest among us have ever felt. We appear to be teetering on the edge of a catastrophe.
• David Frum, National Post reported that the US dollars Hezbollah has been handing out to Lebanese whose home were destroyed in the conflict are counterfeit.
• Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post reported on the failure of the mainstream media to critically report the news and lauded the growing role of the blogosphere to correct the record.
• Zaman.com reported that U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld indirectly warned Iran that the U.S. army was capable of waging another war somewhere else. “We are capable of dealing with other problems, were they to occur.”
• The Boston Globe reported that Iranians have NOT been flocking to the museum in Tehran where 204 winning entries in the ``Holocaust International Cartoon Contest" are on exhibit.
• Asian Tribune, in a report published August 12th, claimed that a Voice of America correspondent, Matiur Rahman Chowdhury, called reports that the British foiled a mega terror plot a "game of the British government." Chowdhury made his comments in a local TV interview. Chowdhury went on to accuse "western governments," and in particular the United States and the United Kingdom, of deliberately fabricating the terror plot to deflect world attention from what he called "Hezbollah victories."
• The Washington Times reported that Newt Gingrich in an impromptu speech said "I am opposed to a military strike on Iran because I don't think it accomplishes very much in the long run." Instead he argued "we need a strategy to replace the regime."
• The New York Sun reported that while the West's war on terror is going tactically well enough, with its mission to put out fires here and there before they start. But it sorely misses the larger strategy that must be implemented. Just like the war on communism, the war on terror must combine the force of arms with the power of ideas.
• Govindini Murty, FrontPageMag, a conservative film critic reported that she attended an advance screening of ABC’s epic miniseries "The Path to 9/11" (airing this September 10-11), and came away enormously impressed.
  

The Experts.

• Amir Taheri, Gulf News examined the history of the Islamic Republic's failed "talks" with other nations, from Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, Turkey and Egypt. In every case the Islamic Republic has interpreted the readiness of an adversary to talk as a sign of weakness and, as a result, has hardened its position.
• Amir Taheri, Prospect Magazine produced a detailed analysis of the Hezbollah war on Israel and argued that the battle of summer 2006 may be a prelude to a bigger conflict between the US and Iran.
• Michael Ledeen, The New York Sun argued that the Islamic Republic is in fact a clerical fascist, a violent anti-Semite and an intensely chauvinistic anti-American. This evidence is readily available to anyone willing to look at it. He reviewed the origins of its ideology and the astonishing sympathy these leaders receive from the West.
• Michael Rubin, AEI Online published a must read report: Can Iran Be Trusted? He examined how the Iranians themselves approach and understand diplomacy.
• Michael Rubin, Bitterlemons-International discussed: "Is the West racist toward Muslims and Arabs?" and argued why the US should hold Arabs and Muslims to a universal standard.
• Amir Taheri, Asharq Alawsat reviewed the book: Guests of the Ayatollah - Was this the first clash between the United States and militant Islamism?
  

Photos, cartoons and videos.

• A cartoon on how the Mullahs achieved "victory" in Lebanon: We Won.
• Jerry Holbert, Townhall published a cartoon: What the Middle East Sees.
• MEMRI.org published excerpts from interviews with Iranian army generals on the subject of recent war games. Video.
• Cox & Forkum published a cartoon: Militant Message.
• Cox & Forkum published another cartoon: Five Minutes to Midnight.
• Bob Gorrell, Town Hall published a cartoon, I call: Why Talking to Ahmadinejad is a waste of time.
• Gary Varvel, Townhall.com published a cartoon: The UN Pressures Ahmadinejad.
• Anglican.tk reported that Iranian leaders claim they are producing heavy water to fight cancer. A great new site.
  

The Quote of the Week.

The Washington Post reported on a meeting in Tehran at the headquarters of Ansar al-Hezbollah where its speaker, Mehdi Koochakzadeh, said:

"We have no such thing as majority rule in Islam ... If the majority says, 'We don't want an Islamic regime,' they have no right."

Tags: iran, news, nuclear, lebanon, isreal, iraq,

Sunday's Daily Briefing on Iran

DoctorZin reports, 9.3.2006:

The EU gives Iran two more weeks.

• CNN News reported that European Union foreign ministers agreed on Saturday to give Iran two more weeks to clarify its stance on halting sensitive nuclear work.
• DW-World reported that Germany urged Iran Saturday to send a signal that it is serious about talks on its suspending some nuclear activities. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said: "We don't want to slam the door but we need a signal from Iran that it is ready to move in our direction."
• EU Observer reported that a number of EU member states are growing impatient with the secretive handling of the Iran issue by foreign policy chief Javier Solana and the EU's "big three."
  

Khatami refuses to take questions in Chicago.

• The Chicago Tribune reported on the first speech on American soil by a high-ranking Iranian official in three decades, former President Mohammed Khatami. But neither Khatami nor his aides took questions from the audience or the media. But he was well received by the Muslim convention he spoke to.

Ahmadinejad know how to play the Western media. But...

• The Financial Times reported that when Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad spiced up a press conference this week by challenging George W. Bush to a live television debate he displayed a keen grasp of American-style politics. But a diplomat said "If he doesn't answer questions, and it's shown live on TV anyway, what's the point?" The local Iranian journalists put him on the hot seat.

Israel preparing for a major war with Iran and Syria.

• The Sunday Times reported that Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources. The conflict with Hezbollah has led to a strategic rethink in Israel. A key conclusion is that too much attention has been paid to Palestinian militants in Gaza and the West Bank instead of the two biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the region, who pose a far greater danger.

Annan: Iran offers full cooperation in Lebanon truce.

• YNet News reported that Iran’s Foreign Minister offered UN Secretary General Kofi Annan his country’s full cooperation over a Security Council resolution on the truce between Israel and Hezbullah.
• Ali Afshari and Akbar Atri, The Wall Street Journal suggested that when UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is visiting Iran he should place the issue of human rights as the top priority on his agenda, civil and human rights are in dire need of the secretary-general's attention.

But Iranians are furious over the regime's cash handouts to the Lebanese.

• Time reported that when Iranians watched on their illegal satellite dishes Hezbollah doling out thick stacks of cash, courtesy of Iran, a majority of Iranians who are barely scraping by, such news is infuriating.

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

• The New York Sun reported that while the West's war on terror is going tactically well enough, with its mission to put out fires here and there before they start. But it sorely misses the larger strategy that must be implemented. Just like the war on communism, the war on terror must combine the force of arms with the power of ideas.
• Govindini Murty, FrontPageMag, a conservative film critic reported that she attended an advance screening of ABC’s epic miniseries "The Path to 9/11" (airing this September 10-11), and came away enormously impressed.
• Anglican.tk reported that Iranian leaders claim they are producing heavy water to fight cancer. A great new site.

Tags: iran, news, nuclear, lebanon, isreal, iraq,

The West Needs To Fight Islamofascists With Big Ideas

Youssef Ibrahim, The New York Sun:

The West's war on terror is going tactically well enough, with its mission to put out fires here and there before they start. But it sorely misses the larger strategy that must be implemented. The concept is this: It isn't enough to get the guys with the bombs or beards but to alter the environment that produces them.

Just like the war on communism, the war on terror must combine the force of arms with the power of ideas, a higher moral purpose with a mechanism of action. In other words, the West, along with Russia and China — which have no interest in jihadist uprisings within their own territories, needs a roadmap for its war on terror, clearly detailing its ultimate goals and how it will achieve them. READ MORE

Such a strategy must be forged in G-8 Summit Meetings as well as the manuals of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the parliaments of the European Union. It must be defined unambiguously as the obliteration of an ideology that reduces Islam to a cult of mass murder and suicide.

Here is a blueprint:

1.The West needs strategies conveying to the vast majority of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims that acquiescence to jihadists and their ideologies means a rupture with Western civilization. The consequences for this should be spelled out by withholding Western commerce, the Internet, arms, machinery, and know-how — all of which still represent the bulk of progress as we define it in today's world. Imagine a ban on weapons and technology, on Microsoft and IBM, on Boeing, Ilyushin transport planes, and Airbus spares.

2. Draconian sanctions such as these should be applied in unison with Russia and China and clearly framed within the U.N. code. Islamic so-called moderate or client states including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Indonesia, among others, as well as enemies such as Iran, should be provided with a yardstick to define the dismantling of the infrastructure and software of terror at home — in mosques, in schools, in theocratic institutions, and inside government itself.

That will demand total elimination of the madrassa rote systems, the restructuring of religious teachings, and the outlawing of political groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopt religion as political vehicles.

3. In the West itself, the last vestiges of tolerance toward Islamic fundamentalism must be removed. Laws targeting extremist speech, Islamic dress, storefront unregulated mosques, and the traffic of immigrant Muslims who do not speak the language nor share the values of freedom must surface in the legal codes of America, Europe, and Australia. The West must clearly process the fact that it is facing an existential threat to its core values, and it cannot be shy about installing tools of war in its democratic practices.

Lest anyone think this is much ado about little, five years ago on one of America's darkest days when airplanes were crashed into the World Trade Center, it seemed that only a few hundred jihadists were aiming to make a point.

Now, it is clear that the people responsible for those burning towers in Manhattan were only small filaments of a spider's web encompassing millions of Muslims. Beyond towers, their aim is a freeze on freedom, democracy, and secularism — foundations that took centuries to develop, requiring the defeat of communism in order to prevail. The new plan is tyrannical rule by another name — jihad. But jihadists and secular tyrants are quite willing to join hands on this one.

Long before 9/11, jihadist adherents and sponsoring secular states, even communist states, had been stretching cobwebs into the suburbs of London and Islamabad, the streets of Baghdad and Kabul, the valleys between Syria and Lebanon, Iran and Iraq, and inside Western Europe and across Africa.

Enablers include our closest allies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, tribal leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the merchants of Dubai and Kuwait, all the way into the Indian Ocean, Indonesia, and Asia.

So, just imagine a world where the likes of Muammar Gadhafi of Libya, President Chavez of Venezuela, Bashar Al-Assad of Syria, Fidel Castro of Cuba, President Ahmadinejad of Iran, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, along with Hosni Mubarak and his sons in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood movements of Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and carbon copies in Indonesia, Pakistan, and across Asia all join hands.

This is the perspective that the larger strategy requires. It's the big picture.

ABC's 'The Path to 9/11'

Govindini Murty, FrontPageMag:

I recently attended an advance screening of ABC’s outstanding, epic miniseries "The Path to 9/11" (airing this September 10-11), and I came away enormously impressed. Writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh ("Into the West"), director David Cunningham ("To End All Wars"), and the whole production team have done a magnificent job in presenting the complex events leading up to 9/11 with accuracy, fairness, and artistry. READ MORE

The writing, acting, directing, editing, cinematography, and overall story-telling are first-rate. "The Path to 9/11" is fast-paced and thoroughly gripping the entire way. The five-hour miniseries (aired over two nights) is based on the 9/11 Commission report, and also on ABC News correspondent John Miller’s book, "The Cell." ABC is going to air the first three hours on Sunday, September 10, and the final two hours (which culminate in a shattering depiction of 9/11) on Monday, September 11.

Let me start by saying that "The Path to 9/11" is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I've ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible.

This is the first Hollywood production I’ve seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent. The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly thereafter bomb the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 225 men, women, and children, and wounding over 4000. The episode is a perfect example of Clinton-era irresponsibility and incompetence.

The miniseries also has a scene in which the CIA has crucial information identifying some of the 9/11 hijackers in advance of 9/11, but refuses to share the information with the FBI because of the “wall” put up by certain Democrat officials to prevent information sharing between government agencies. The CIA is depicted as sitting in a meeting with the FBI (with John O’Neil present), and showing the FBI surveillance photos of terrorism suspects - some of whom will later turn out to be the 9/11 hijackers. The CIA asks the FBI for help in identifying the men in the photos, but refuses to give the FBI any of the information they have on who the men are. John O’Neil protests that it’s impossible for the FBI to help the CIA identify the men if they won’t provide any information whatsoever on them. When O’Neil tells the FBI to keep the photos so they can at least work on them, the CIA becomes hostile to O’Neil and takes the photos back. Tragically, John O’Neil himself will later die in the 9/11 attacks, in part because agencies like the CIA refused to share crucial information like this. Scenes like these really challenge the prevailing liberal media and Hollywood mindset by showing that the Patriot Act's information-sharing and surveillance provisions are crucial to the safety of this country, and that political correctness and bureaucratic inefficiency are Islamic terrorism’s greatest friend.

The acting is also excellent in "The Path to 9/11." Harvey Keitel is strong, sympathetic, and quirky as FBI agent John O’Neil, and Donnie Wahlberg is also sympathetic and believable as CIA agent “Kirk.” The standouts though are the wonderful South Asian and Middle Eastern actors who play both the heroes who help the U.S., and the terrorists out to destroy it. The actor playing Ishtiak, the Pakistani informant who helps the CIA capture Ramzi Youssef, is terrific. Played by newcomer Prassana Puwanarajah, Ishtiak is a shy, unassuming figure who makes a very unexpected -- but very sympathetic -- hero. The Ishtiak character tells the CIA that he's helping them because he is a scholar, and morally and philosophically he does not believe in the destruction of innocent life. Ishtiak risks his life, and the life of his young wife and baby, to help the U.S. capture Ramzi Youssef and thwart his terrorist plans. The Ishtiak sequence is one of the most moving segments of the miniseries. The producers told me that the actor playing Ishtiak is actually a doctor living in London, who does theater on the side.

The actor playing Ahmed Shah Massoud (the heroic leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and one of America’s strongest allies in that area) is also an inspired piece of casting. Actor Mido Hamada looks remarkably like Massoud, and is highly effective at playing the noble and charismatic leader. The producers informed me that Hamada, who is quite handsome, has been the particular favorite of ladies at the advance screenings. The Al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban are also very well cast. The actors playing Ramzi Youssef (Nabil Elouhabi of "Eastenders"), Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (Michael Benyaer of "24"), and Mohammed Atta (Martin Brody) do a fine job portraying characters who are three dimensional and non-stereotypical in their villainy.

"The Path to 9/11" starts with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and covers the international terrorist conspiracy that unfolded over the next eight years and led to 9/11. The miniseries is shocking for taking a pro-American, anti-terrorist approach that is all too lacking in Hollywood’s depictions of the War on Terror ("Syriana," "Fahrenheit 9/11," and "V for Vendetta" anyone?). At a time when the resolve of this country in fighting the War on Terror seems to be flagging, "The Path to 9/11" - much more than Oliver Stone’s "World Trade Center" - will remind the nation why we’re in this war. "The Path to 9/11" provides the context and the history that "World Trade Center" misses. FrontPage Magazine ran an excellent interview recently with writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh (who spoke at the 2005 Liberty Film Festival). This quote from Cyrus will make clear why I’m so excited about this miniseries:

"Nowrasteh: This miniseries is not just about the tragedy and events of 9/11, it dramatizes “how we got there” going back 8 years to the first attack on the WTC and dealing with the Al Qaeda strikes against U.S. embassies and forces in the 90s, the political lead-up, the hatching of the terrorist plots, etc. We see the heroes on the ground, like FBI agent John O’Neill and others, who after the Œ93 attack felt sure that the terrorists would strike the WTC again. It also dramatizes the frequent opportunities the Administration had in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks ‹ but lacked the will to do so. We also reveal the day-by-day lead-up of clues and opportunities in 2001 right up to the day of the 9/11 attacks. This is a terror thriller as well as a history lesson. I think people will be engaged and enlightened.

FP: When you refer to the failed effort to stop Bin Laden in the 1990s, this was obviously the time of Bill Clinton. How much do you think his administration made us vulnerable to 9/11?

Nowrasteh: The 9/11 report details the Clinton’s administration’s response ‹ or lack of response ‹ to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing."

Fortunately, Nowrasteh and the producers of this miniseries have gone out on a limb to honestly and fairly depict how Clinton-era inaction, political correctness, and bureaucratic inefficiency allowed the 9/11 conspiracy to metastasize. Let me say here though that "The Path to 9/11" is not a partisan miniseries or a “conservative” miniseries. It simply presents the facts in an honest and straightforward manner (the producers have backed up every detail of the miniseries with copious amounts of research and documentation), and the facts are that for seven years, from 1993 to 2000, the Clinton administration bungled the handling of the world-wide terrorist threat. The miniseries is equally honest in depicting the Bush administration. It shows a few points where administration officials, following in the tradition of the Clinton years, do not follow certain clues about the terrorist plot as zealously as they should have. Nonetheless, "The Path to 9/11," by honestly depicting the unfolding of events over eight years, makes it clear that most of the conspiracy leading up to 9/11 was hatched during the seven years of the Clinton administration, and that since Bush was in power for only eight months when 9/11 occurred, he can hardly be blamed for the entire disaster.

"The Path to 9/11" does a tremendous job in bringing to life the complex web of international characters and organizations that lay behind the events of that tragic day. ABC has created a miniseries that is truly epic in scope - a richly textured tapestry that weaves together a fascinating array of people, places, organizations and events both here in America and around the world. I was impressed by how vivid every character was, however briefly he or she may have been on the screen - and how quickly, clearly, and economically Nowrasteh and Cunningham depicted complex events. I absolutely loved the on-location work they did, and the great character actors of every nationality that they brought together. Cyrus Nowrasteh's background as an Iranian-American seems in particular to have given him a special insight into both the Middle-Eastern and American aspects of the story. Director David Cunningham, the son of a missionary, also brings an obvious love of foreign cultures and locales to his direction. The result is an engrossing, atmospheric tale of foreign intrigue. It was fascinating to see the crowded urban slums of Pakistan where the CIA captured Ramzi Youssef, the desert fortresses of the Taliban and Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the Manila nightclubs where the 9/11 hijackers planned their attacks, the Tanzanian locales where the embassies were blown up, the meetings of the terrorists in Spain, and the various locations across America where the conspiracy comes together.

Let me wrap up by saying that what I truly loved about "The Path to 9/11"
was the following: the honesty with which it told the story behind 9/11 with all its political ramifications; the epic scope and sweep of the story; the vivid and interesting characters of all nationalities; the great use of international locations; the terrific use of ethnic source music in tying the segments together and giving the miniseries a musical, propulsive pace (often reminding me of the musical quality of such 1940s Warner Brothers classics as "Casablanca" and "The Sea Hawk"); and the outstanding cinematography and editing (the miniseries has a great documentary-realist style that comes from director David Cunningham’s background as a documentarian). Cyrus Nowrasteh tells me that they had five cameras shooting at all times, which accounts for the great natural moments they caught between the actors, and the swift pace of the storytelling.

Overall, I thought "The Path to 9/11" was infinitely better than Oliver Stone’s "World Trade Center" (granted, Stone decided to tell a narrower story), and if this is properly marketed, ABC should have a huge hit on its hands. The problem is that I don’t see ABC marketing it at all, and I’m concerned that they’re dropping the ball on getting the word out about this show. They’ve reportedly spent more than $40 million producing "The Path to 9/11," and yet I see little advertising or promotion anywhere. Conservatives need to really step in here and spread the word via talk radio and the internet. Every American, and everyone alarmed by Islamic terrorism around the world should see this miniseries. "The Path to 9/11" should get every Emmy award and Golden Globe award out there - if Hollywood is willing to be fair and open-minded.

I’m highly encouraged by the ad that 84 Hollywood filmmakers and celebrities took out on August 17 in the Los Angeles Times denouncing Hamas and Hezbollah, and I’m thrilled by this ABC miniseries. I hope this heralds a new, saner approach on the part of Hollywood toward the world-wide problem of Islamo-fascism -- one that recognizes Islamic terrorism for what it is, and is willing to denounce it so that better things, such as democracy, civil rights, women’s rights, and free speech -- can take its place. These are issues that all conservatives and liberals can get behind, and I’m glad to see that the entertainment industry is finally, at least in these two instances, uniting for the greater good of this country and for the noble cause of democracy around the world.

Last Chance for Iraq?

Michael Rubin, Michael A. Ledeen, Newt Gingrich, David Frum, AEI Online:

No issue has so shaped America's recent politics or defined its present role in the world as the Iraq War. NR asked a symposium of military experts, geopolitical thinkers, Middle East scholars, and conservative writers the two paramount questions: Are we winning; and, if not, how can we? Here is what they had to say. READ MORE

David Frum

The U.S. has not yet lost in Iraq, but it is on the verge of losing at home. Public opinion has turned strongly against the war, driven both by a torrent of bad news over the past three years and, especially, by the explosion of sectarian violence in Baghdad this summer. What's most urgently needed now is a strategy to restore order and government authority in Baghdad. A visible success in Iraq's highly televised capital would in turn strengthen resolve at home.

Will 4,000 U.S. troops redeployed from elsewhere in Iraq suffice to do the job? I don't know anyone who thinks that they will. Not for the first time, we are left to wonder: Does the Bush administration truly believe Iraq is as important as it says it is?

If we are to believe the administration's words--if Iraq is truly the central front in the war on terror--then what's needed now is a reinforcement of enough U.S. troops to retake Baghdad sector by sector and block by block, as the French retook Algiers in 1959. The operation would have to be conducted sensitively, with Iraqi forces visibly in the lead. At the same time, the U.S. would have to undertake a much more serious effort to sever the connections between Iran and its proxies in Iraq: not only doing a better job sealing the border, although that is important, but also engaging in political action to remove pro-Iranian officials from Iraqi ministries and security services.

A dramatic and visible success in the capital would restore morale in the U.S.--and enhance the credibility of the elected government in Iraq.

But make no mistake: A fight like that would represent a major escalation of the U.S. commitment to Iraq, a reversal of an 18-month-long policy of de-escalation and de-commitment. And if the Bush administration, for its own reasons, cannot or will not do what is now necessary to win--well then, it had better begin seriously contemplating a fallback position, a Plan B. As it is, the sacrifices of U.S. troops and the effusion of U.S. treasure are succeeding only in slowing the pace of U.S. failure.

Newt Gingrich

Today, Iraq is certainly not where, in early 2003, we had hoped it would be. If the current violence, instability, and confusion are measured against the planning assumptions of that period, this campaign to create a free and stable Iraq is clearly failing. What is still neither understood nor accepted is that Iraq is only one campaign in an emerging Third World War. Iraq is to our generation what Guadalcanal and North Africa were in the Second World War--important, but part a much bigger picture.

In that context, we must "think and act anew" to deal effectively in the much larger global conflict against the forces of terrorism and dictatorial regimes. Within that framework, we need a new commitment to winning in Iraq as one of the key campaigns in winning the larger war. The first step is to face some hard truths about Iraq, so we can fix the problems for the wider war:

* Our enemies' communications campaign is radically better than our own and all of our efforts to improve have been trivial compared with our opponents' agility and pervasiveness.
* Our intelligence capabilities inside Iraq remain weak five years after 9/11.
* Our language capabilities remain minimal.
* Our civilian instruments of national power remain lethargic and expensive.
* We have failed to deliver on our promises to the people of Iraq.
* We remain confused about our goals. Senior leaders continue to use terms with neutral connotations ("civil war") or positive ones ("insurgency") to describe the actions of uncivilized, brutal killers who are trying to defeat a government for which 80 percent of the Iraqis voted.

America has historically adapted quickly to the realities of war, and we can again--but it requires frankness from our elected leaders. The American people will support what it takes to win if offered a coherent, grounded path toward victory. It starts by ending the failures they see every day in the news.

Michael Ledeen

Are we winning? No, if by "winning" you mean "ensuring stability all over Iraq." There are many areas where things are getting worse. Yes, if you mean "expanding areas of stability." Many areas, Kurdistan above all, are quite peaceful. But the "no" part is more important than the "yes" part, because, in key areas such as Baghdad and Basra, things are alarmingly bad.

What to do? First, recognize that the Iraqi enterprise rested on a failure of strategic vision: It was never possible to secure Iraq so long as Iran and Syria were left free to wage terror war against us. Our military, and some Iraqi units, are terrific, but you can't win a regional war by playing defense in one place. It is, as I have said ad infinitum, a sucker's game. Ergo, work for regime change in Iran and Syria, the only way to win the war. Mostly this requires vigorous support of revolution, although we have waited too long and it is more difficult than it once was. If we continue to dither, we will soon face two terrible options: surrender or bomb.

Michael Rubin

The U.S. is losing in Iraq because American politicians and the general public have not decided they want or need to win. Many congressmen look at Iraq through the lens of the 2006 election: They care neither how their words embolden the enemy nor how their grandstanding impacts Iraq. Meanwhile, many commentators have cast accuracy aside to cater to, and cash in on, public ennui.

Iraqis are now as pessimistic as they have ever been. Corruption and organized crime run rampant. True, some metrics are positive: Oil production is on the rebound, shops are opening, agricultural production is up, and defense-ministry forces are increasingly trained and competent. But the corrupt police are running rampant.

While U.S. diplomats have become masters of their cubicles, Iranians have become masters of Iraq. We hold sway over the Green Zone; they hold sway over the rest of the country. Their dominion includes, increasingly, Kurdistan. Why? Because they have provided overwhelming force, patronage, and staying power.

Militias exist to impose through force what they cannot win through the ballot box. Iran exerts its influence through militias, and the U.S. fails to counter them. Left alone, they metastasize. While USAID takes weeks to allocate a paperclip, and months more to study its impact, the militias create elaborate charities to establish themselves in society. Thus Iran is replicating the Hezbollah strategy. It is no accident that Iran's current ambassador to Iraq was formerly Tehran's liaison to the Lebanese terrorist group.

How to win? We're suckers if we trust Iran. In Iraq, we need to cut the supply lines to the militias, roll up Iranian intelligence, and replace Iranian charities with our own patronage. We've got to treat the commanders of Iran's revolutionary guard as the combatants they are. If imposing firm demands pushes Iran toward a fight, we cannot shrink from it. In the Middle East, projecting weakness leads to defeat. Unfortunately, the Rice State Department is all about weakness.

David Frum is a resident fellow at AEI. Newt Gingrich is a senior fellow at AEI. Michael A. Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at AEI. Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at AEI.

The Backlash Against Iran's Role in Lebanon

Azadeh Moaveni, Time Magazine:

One very early morning this week, the people in my neighborhood who wanted fresh bread for breakfast congregated outside the local bakery, wondering why the doors were locked and the stone oven cold. Fifteen minutes later, when it became clear there would be no bread that day, people began speculating why a bakery that has been open every weekday for literally decades should mysteriously be shut. The small crowd swiftly concluded the worst: the Iranian government had sent all the country's flour to Lebanon.

By noon, when I was up and contemplating a sandwich, word had spread around the neighborhood. Everyone blamed the dearth of fresh bread on the government's over-generous aid to the Shi`ites of Lebanon, displaced in the recent fighting between Israel and Hizballah. I should point out that my neighborhood is split between religious and secular families, and that the most pious of the bread-deprived were just as quick to shake their heads with resentment. No one said "let them eat cake," but it came pretty close. READ MORE

Two days later, a gleaming new counter arrived outside the bakery. The baker was remodeling, and as far as he knew, there had been no massive delivery of grain to Lebanese Shi`ites. But as is so often the case in such matters, the truth is almost less relevant than what becomes the prevailing belief. That people so readily accepted that their government would forsake their daily loaf for a distant Islamic cause just speaks to the overwhelming bitterness these days in Tehran. Most people are convinced the government is spending outrageous sums on the Lebanese, and ever since the Iranian government declared a "victory" for the militant group Hizballah, rumors of what the Lebanese are 'getting' have been flying. Free SUVs? Plasma televisions? Nothing seems out of the question. Nightly news broadcasts that Iranians watch on their illegal satellite dishes have shown Hizballah doling out thick stacks of cash, courtesy of Iran. "Did you see the cash? They're giving each family ten thousand dollars!" one of my relatives phoned to tell me.

For the majority of Iranians who are barely scraping by, such news is infuriating. In fact, unpopular government spending on a faraway Arab community brings out a rather ugly Persian chauvinism. One story has Mrs. Nasrallah, the wife of Hizballah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, receiving a gift of Iranian caviar, and thinking it some sort of jam. There is no jam that looks like tiny eggs, I told the friend who repeated the story to me. Her look told me I was being obtuse. The fact is, the more President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his government pander to public sentiment in the Arab world, which is ecstatic over Hizballah's defiant stand against Israel, the more Iranians feel neglected.

The government of former President Mohammad Khatami was much more sensitive to Iranians' feelings, in particular their ripe tendency to fume when state money is spent outside Iran's borders. It underplayed the amount of cash and aid Iran pumped into Afghanistan after the removal of the Taliban. As a result, Iranians had no idea that for once, their government played a noble role in rebuilding a war-ruined neighbor. But it also saved them from resentment. Earlier this week, a front page headline in an Iranian newspaper read: "In Arab countries, they call the president Mahmoud." I know the president is popular in the Arab world. My Arab friends grin like Cheshire cats when he appears on Al-Jazeera, fire breathing his revulsion for the U.S. But would they like him to appoint him as honorary head of the Arab League? I hardly think so.

The main reason Iranians dislike the government's Islamic generosity is because in general, they believe their leaders use Islam as a cloak for their own economic greed. When police started confiscating illegal satellite dishes earlier this month — ostensibly satellite is banned for its impure Western content — in about two days the whole city knew exactly why. The story went like this: the son of a prominent regime-connected ayatullah had recently begun importing small, laptop-size satellite dishes. If the government rounded up the ungainly, rooftop dishes, and flooded the market with the discreet little one, everyone would be forced to buy the ayatullah's son's dishes. This connection between regime piety and corrupt wealth dominates how Iranians see the world — the little events that transpire in their daily lives, from bread shortages to satellite raids.

Iran's President Proves a Star Turn

Gareth Smyth, The Financial Times:

When Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad spiced up a press conference this week by challenging George W. Bush to a live television debate he displayed a keen grasp of American-style politics.

Mr Ahmadi-Nejad is skilled in the art of campaigning. This week, he impressed the visiting syndicated US columnist David Ignatius, who wrote that Mr Ahmadi-Nejad "played the roomful of 150 journalists [at the press conference] like a master performer". And his campaign film for last year's presidential election, featuring his humble home and "normal" family life, was reminiscent of former US President Bill Clinton's 1992 movie focused on a home town fortuitously called Hope.

The challenge to Mr Bush grabbed some headlines in the US, where voters are familiar with such head-to-head confrontations from presidential elections. But while the techniques may recall those of the US campaign trail, Mr Ahmadi-Nejad is not about to face a ballot against Mr Bush, and his critics in Iran are questioning whether such attention-grabbing moves are likely to serve the national interest or encourage negotiations with the west over Iran's nuclear programme.

At the press conference that Mr Ignatius attended, Iranian reporters pressed Mr Ahmadi-Nejad over the government's economic record, and Etemad-e Melli, the reformist newspaper, later attacked the idea of a TV debate with Mr Bush on the grounds that it was time for negotiations, to bring people together, rather than for a debate that would reinforce polarised positions. "How can a debate between two enemies have a result other than increased hostility?" its editorial asked.

Two months ago, the same newspaper said Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's unanswered letters on world problems sent to Mr Bush in May and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, in July, had failed in the most basic task of diplomatic chess - inducing a counter move.

Undaunted, Mr Ahmadi-Nejad has continued on his mission, eager to carry his message to Americans through interviews with USA Today and CBS.

"What he wants is what the people want - the promotion of the country's dignity as Islamic Iran," says Mehdi Chamran, chairman of Teh-ran city council and a close political ally.

Some who know Mr Ahmadi-Nejad say his strong faith in his beliefs and ideology does not suit the give-and-take of dialogue.

"He's methodical, looking at things like an engineer," says Nasser Hadian, a politics professor at Tehran university who has known the president since school.

This week, Mr Ahmadi-Nejad made his 19th provincial tour along with his entire cabinet, telling a large crowd in the north-west city of Urumieh that the world's problems stemmed from "certain powers" who "follow Satan".

"One of the reasons they are avoiding a direct debate is that they lack logic," he said. "They are unaware the era of the use of military force has come to an end. Today, the Iranian nation's ideas, culture and logic have been overwhelmingly welcomed by the nations of the world."

Mr Ahmadi-Nejad has gained a popular reputation in the wider Muslim world, where his criticism of Israel and accusations of western double standards chime with the views of many.

And for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader and pre-eminent political voice in Iran, Mr Ahmadi-Nejad remains an effective communicator.

Hints of a compromise on the nuclear issue have continued and Iran's collective leadership group of about eight top officials has - regime insiders say - endorsed the idea of a deal in which Iran would enrich almost all its uranium abroad.

But Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's critics say his message does little to satisfy those seeking answers to real questions.

Some Tehran-based foreign correspondents have drawn the same conclusion. None of the political reporters of one important Asian country turned up this week for his press conference. "If he doesn't answer questions, and it's shown live on TV anyway, what's the point?" said a diplomat. READ MORE

Israel plans for war with Iran and Syria

Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter, The Sunday Times:

THREATENED by a potentially nuclear-armed Tehran, Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources.

The conflict with Hezbollah has led to a strategic rethink in Israel. A key conclusion is that too much attention has been paid to Palestinian militants in Gaza and the West Bank instead of the two biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the region, who pose a far greater danger to Israel’s existence, defence insiders say.

“The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defence agenda, higher than the Palestinian one,” said an Israeli defence source. Shortly before the war in Lebanon Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, the commander of the air force, was placed in charge of the “Iranian front”, a new position in the Israeli Defence Forces. His job will be to command any future strikes on Iran and Syria. READ MORE

The Israeli defence establishment believes that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear programme means war is likely to become unavoidable.

“In the past we prepared for a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities,” said one insider, “but Iran’s growing confidence after the war in Lebanon means we have to prepare for a full-scale war, in which Syria will be an important player.”

A new infantry brigade has been formed named Kfir (lion cub), which will be the largest in the Israeli army. “It is a partial solution for the challenge of the Syrian commando brigades, which are considered better than Hezbollah’s,” a military source said.

There has been grave concern in Israel over a military pact signed in Tehran on June 15 between Iran and Syria, which the Iranian defence minister described as a “mutual front against Israeli threats”. Israel has not had to fight against more than one army since 1973.

During the war in Lebanon, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, the Iranian founder of Hezbollah, warned: “If the Americans attack Iran, Iran will attack Tel Aviv with missiles.”

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, both Iran and Syria have ballistic missiles that can cover most of Israel, including Tel Aviv. An emergency budget has now been assigned to building modern shelters.

“The ineptness of the Israeli Defence Forces against Hezbollah has raised the Iranians’ confidence,” said a leading defence analyst.

In Washington, the military hawks believe that an airstrike against Iranian nuclear bunkers remains a more straightforward, if risky, operation than chasing Hezbollah fighters and their mobile rocket launchers in Lebanon.

“Fixed targets are hopelessly vulnerable to precision bombing, and with stealth bombers even a robust air defence system doesn’t make much difference,” said Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative.

The option of an eventual attack remains on the table after President George Bush warned on Friday that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

While the American State Department favours engaging with President Bashar Assad of Syria in the hope of detaching him from the Iranian alliance, hawks believe Israel missed a golden opportunity to strike at Syria during the Hezbollah conflict.

“If they had acted against Syria during this last kerfuffle, the war might have ended more quickly and better,” Perle added. “Syrian military installations are sitting ducks and the Syrian air force could have been destroyed on the ground in a couple of days.” Assad set off alarm bells in Israel when he said during the war in Lebanon: “If we do not obtain the occupied Golan Heights by peaceful means, the resistance option is there.”

During the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, the Syrian army briefly captured the Israeli strategic post on top of Mount Hermon on the Golan Heights.

Some Israeli analysts believe Syria will try again to take this post, which overlooks the Syrian capital, Damascus.

As a result of the change in the defence priorities, the budget for the Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza is to be reduced.

The Israelis are integrating three elite brigades that performed well during the Lebanon war under one headquarters, so they can work together on deep cross-border operations in Iran and Syria.

Advocates of political engagement believe a war with Syria could unleash Islamic fundamentalist terror in what has hitherto been a stable dictatorship. Some voices in the Pentagon are not impressed by that argument.

“If Syria spirals into chaos, at least they’ll be taking on each other rather than heading for Jerusalem,” said one insider.

An Undemocratic Iran Is Dangerous . . .

Ali Afshari and Akbar Atri, The Wall Street Journal:

This weekend, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is scheduled to visit Iran. The trip is taking place in the context of growing tensions between Iran and the world community over the nuclear issue, and as Iran continues to defy the resolutions of the Security Council.

No doubt, resolving this impasse is first and foremost on Mr. Annan's agenda, so as to prevent a potential war against Iran.

Over a decade as two leaders of the student movement, we have worked to focus the attention of the international community on the plight of the people of Iran. We are concerned that the country's nuclear activities may overshadow other subjects that are equally, if not more, important. Unlike the nuclear threat, these issues are affecting the lives of Iranians here and now, as we speak.

In particular, civil and human rights are in dire need of the secretary-general's attention. In his remarks at the inaugural session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, Mr. Annan vowed that as long as he is secretary-general, the U.N. will remain an organization that will place human rights at the center of its work; and no government will ever have the license to violate the rights and the freedoms of its citizens and then expect to hide these violations behind the façade of national sovereignty. READ MORE

In the one year of his presidency, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already created one of the bleakest human-rights records in Iran's recent history. Even as the secretary-general prepared to visit Iran, the regime arrested four leading student activists: Mehdi Makaremi, Jamal Zaherpour, Abolfazl Jahandar and Saeid Derakhshandi. Held in custody since Aug. 19, the authorities have refused to grant visits even to the families of these students. When Mr. Jahandar's father asked to see his imprisoned son, he was told that if he insists too much he may be referred to the morgue. Mr. Jahandar's crimes cannot be any more than being a popular blogger, a prominent leader of the student movement, and the editor in chief of one of the best journalistic Web sites on Iran, called Pooya News. Mr. Derakhshandi's father, a farmer who is at a loss in Tehran dealing with prison authorities, cannot even get the prison officials to grant him a telephone conversation with his son.

* * *

Scores of other student activists are languishing in prisons throughout the country. The noose has been tightened around the neck of writers, journalists and bloggers in the past few months -- in their struggle to still remain afloat, they are committing bizarre acts of self-censorship. Satellite dishes are being collected so as to cut off the public's access to the free press and the news of the global community. Women's groups, labor organizations and student groups are not permitted even the most peaceful acts of protest. Women don't have the right to dress as they choose. And to show their respect for the international community, to the very inaugural session of the Human Rights Council where Mr. Annan delivered his historic speech, Iran sent the notorious Chief Justice Saeed Mortazavi, who is known to us as the butcher of the free press. These are the law-enforcement officials of the government with whom Mr. Annan plans to conduct civilized negotiations.

In the nearly three decades since the 1979 revolution, Iranian activists have learned the hard way how essential it is to respect international conventions. We have realized that nothing can be accomplished by radicalism or unilateralism. Our dream is to see an Iran that stays true to the U.N. and its values and covenants. We also believe that all the violent rhetoric of our rulers, especially that of President Ahmadinejad, is rooted in our domestic problems. An undemocratic Iran will be a danger to the world, with or without nuclear arms. An Iranian government that has no regards for human rights cannot be a reliable party in any negotiations. Time and time again, these very points have proven true about Iran in the last 30 years. When the regime conducted its political assassinations of Iranian dissidents on European soil, European countries thought this was only the domestic problem of another country -- until terrorism became a global affliction.

As two student activists, we urge Kofi Annan to place the issue of human rights as the top priority on his agenda. His visit happens to coincide with the anniversary of the massacre of political prisoners in 1987, when several thousand were executed in the span of two weeks -- a crime for which the regime has never been held accountable, and whose perpetrators remain in power. We hope that Mr. Annan pays a visit to the Evin prison to lend an ear to the numerous peaceful activists who want nothing but to see Iran join the world community as a credible partner.

Messrs. Afshari and Atri are the founding members of Iranian Students for Democracy and Human Rights.

Ex-Iran leader speaks in Chicago

E.A. Torriero and Stephen Franklin, The Chicago Tribune:

In the first speech on American soil by a high-ranking Iranian official in three decades, former President Mohammed Khatami appeared in the Chicago area Saturday and urged people to engage in a "dialogue of civilizations."

With his country firm on its nuclear development program, Khatami -- a reformist who led Iran from 1997 to 2005 -- did not engage in the worldwide debate over Iran's actions and its refusal to meet the UN deadline to suspend uranium enrichment.

Instead, at an appearance at a suburban Chicago mosque Khatami rallied Muslims to work for the cause of peace.

"There is a great opportunity of dialogue and cooperation by people's of faith," he said through a translator at an invitation-only gathering at the Bait ul Ilm Islamic Center in Streamwood on Saturday afternoon.

And by people of faith, Khatami said, he was not referring to those who create mayhem in the name of God.

"I don't mean the extremists," he said. "I don't mean the terrorists."

Khatami is on a mission these days to be an Islamic diplomat of dialogue to the West.

A key part of his visit to the United States -- which only on Tuesday granted him a last-minute visa -- is to appear at a United Nations conference in New York next week at which one of the themes will be bridging the gap between the Islamic world and the West.

The State Department has downplayed the visit, calling it private. Yet State Department security was on hand at the mosque screening all entrants. Streamwood police and U.S. Secret Service kept close watch outside. Despite outcries last week by some American legislators and Jewish organizations over granting Khatami's visa, there were no demonstrators.

Neither Khatami nor his aides took questions from the audience or the media. The status of a possible visit with former President Jimmy Carter remained unclear Saturday. And there was no indication Khatami would meet with anyone in the Bush administration.

Mosque leaders said Saturday that they were inundated with requests to attend Khatami's visit, which was put together quickly.

"People wanted to come by buses and trains," said Amir Mukhtar Fayzi, the mosque's imam, or spiritual leader.

Khatami was scheduled to speak Saturday night to the Islamic Society of North America, meeting in Rosemont for its 43rd annual convention. Leaders of the group said that had they learned earlier that Khatami had obtained a visa they would have staged a "million man Muslim march" around Chicago. READ MORE

On Saturday afternoon, Khatami took a campaign line from former President Ronald Reagan.

Asking whether the world was better off than it was in the 400 years before the Renaissance, Khatami answered by saying there is "too much material and materialism."

The result, Khatami said, is a world of "insecurity."