Week in Review

DoctorZin provides a review of this past week's [9/03/06 - 8/09/06] 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.

• The Telegraph reported that Iran brushed aside Kofi Annan's efforts to mediate in the crisis over its nuclear ambitions.
• The Australian reported that Iran's foreign ministry spokesman said the scale of the Holocaust has been "greatly exaggerated."
• Reuters reported that Iran said the threat of sanctions was a "psychological game" aimed at putting pressure on the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program.
• Expatica reported that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has underlined there can be "no military option" for dealing with Iran's nuclear program.
• Die Welt reported that Britain, France and Germany each received a secret letter in response to the demand that Iran cease producing nuclear fuel. 'Some of the other EU states are growing impatient with the secretive handling of the Iran issue by foreign policy chief Javier Solana and the EU's "big three."
• The Times Online argued that an Iranian nuclear capacity would, finally, make a mockery of the United Nations. It would be seen as confirmation that the phrase “Security Council ultimatum” is close to a contradiction in terms.
• The Times Online argued that Moscow is kidding itself if it thinks it has much leverage with Tehran.
• Reuters reported that Germany said Iran could not be allowed to harm the United Nations by pursuing its nuclear program. But Merkel made clear that military action against Iran was not an option.
• The Telegraph reported the casual contempt with which Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, rejected Kofi Annan's attempt to mediate in the stand-off over Teheran's nuclear ambitions is alarming and that the UN is in danger of becoming an expensive irrelevance.
• The Australian reported that talks to kickstart negotiations on Iran's nuclear ambitions between Iranian and EU officials had been postponed.
• The Jerusalem Post reported that Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said his country supports placing sanctions on Iran, in hope that implementing sanctions would rule out the possibility of military action against Iran.
• Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online reported that Iran may soon have nuclear weapons and argued Iran may soon dictate that its neighbors treat it as a de facto nuclear power and that will change the world.
• The New York Sun reported that Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience in New York that President Bush is preparing to ditch the United Nations to take on Iran alone.
• China Daily reported that according to a confidential document, key European nations warned that Iran is trying to weaken international opposition to its contentious nuclear program by stalling on giving a clear response to terms set by six world powers for negotiations.
• Iran Focus reported that Tehran’s chief nuclear negotiator will travel to Paris as part of his previously-unannounced tour of European countries.
• RIA Novosti reported that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia expects Iran to more fully explain its answer to the group of six proposals on its nuclear program.
• Deutsche Welle reported that the six world powers meeting in Berlin discussed "the next steps in the Security Council," a senior European diplomat said in a clear allusion to possible sanctions against Iran, but there was little sign the powers agreed on what to do.
• YNet News reported that a high-ranking Russian source on Friday said Moscow would stop building Iran's first atomic power reactor if the Islamic Republic expelled UN nuclear inspectors.
• YNet News reported that Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema demanded Friday that Iran respond to the international community’s plea to halt uranium enrichment by Saturday.
  

Former president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Khatami in the US.

• Iran Press News published two must-read letters about Khatami's visit about Khatami's visit to the U.S.
• SOSIran also published a letter on Khatami's visit to the US called: Khatami - Master of deception.
• Kathryn Jean Lopez, The Corner reported that Governor Mitt Romney today ordered all Massachusetts state government agencies to decline support, if asked, for former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s September 10 visit to the Boston area saying: “State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel.”
• A Press briefing will take place in Washington D.C. September 7th on the visit of former President Khatami. Led by torture victims of the Islamic Regime, former political prisoners and opposition figures to the Islamic regime.
• Sardar Haddad reported that Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 6:00pm a protest of Khatami's speech will take place outside of the Washington National Cathedral. Join them if you can.
  
• Joseph Puder, FrontPageMagazine.com reported on Khatami's academic enablers.
• RegisterGuard reported that Khatami is using his visit to the US to bash Bush but still refuses to take questions from the media at these events.
• Iranian Solidarity Congress published a statement condemning Mullah Mohammad Khatami’s crimes against the Iranian people.
• Kenneth R. Timmerman, NewsMax.com reported on the press conference of former Iranian political prisoners and their relatives gave grisly testimony of torture under the regime of former president Mohammad Khatami, who is currently visiting the United States.
• Senator Sam Brownback, who attended the press conference, introduced the Iran Human Rights Act, which would establish a State Department special envoy for human rights and democracy in Iran, support Iranian pro-democracy and human rights groups, and reform U.S.-funded broadcasts to the Iranian people.
• U.S. Senator Rick Santorum said regarding former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s request for a visa to visit the United States. “I am outraged... Mohammed Khatami is one of the chief propagandists of the Islamic Fascist regime. "
• Eli Lake, The New York Sun reported that when Iran's president addresses the U.N. General Assembly later this month, he will not be treated to a one-on-one debate with President Bush, as he has requested, but will be met by a crowd of thousands of protesters.
• PRNewswire reported that seven Jewish-Iranian families have filed suit in an American federal court against former President Mohammad Khatami over charges that he is responsible for the kidnapping and torture of their missing family members. The summons was served on Khatami at a reception hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
• Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal interviewed President Bush on Iran who said he personally signed off on the U.S. visit this week by former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami and said "I was interested to hear what he had to say."
  
• The Weekly Standard reported why the National Cathedral was the perfect setting to welcome Khatami. They also reported Iranian exiles lined the Cathedral sidewalks accusing Khatami of everything from journalistic repression to coddling terrorists to murder.
• Iran Freedom Concert published a call to join them in a protest of Khatami's speech at Harvard.
  

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

• Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun Blog reported that Hezbollah published a photo on its website claiming to be the sinking of an Israeli warship. But the photo is exposed to be the decommissioned Australian destroyer-escort HMAS Torrens off the coast of Western Australia in 1998.
  

Ahmadinejad's promised message to the world coming soon... August 22nd?

• Jamie Glazov, FrontPageMagazine.com published a symposium: Ahmadinejad's Armageddon.
  

Iranian dissident's.

• Iran Press News, World Politics Watch reported that 33 days after the death of activist Akbar Mohammadi, another political prisoner dies in Iranian prison, Valiollah Fayz-Mahdavi.
• Amnesty International expressed its deep concern at the death of political prisoner Valiollah Feyz Mahdavi in Gohar Dasht Prison near Tehran. The death in custody is the second to occur in Iranian prisons in recent weeks.
  

Interesting reports inside of Iran.

• Amir Taheri, Asharq Alawsat reported that Ali-Akbar Meshkini, the second most powerful Ayatollah in Iran, Meshkini said "Among all the governments in the world, the only legitimate government endorsed by the Almighty is the Islamic Republic of Iran." There cannot be give-and-take between "an extension of God" and an "illegitimate and oppressive regimes." A must read.
• Ardeshir Dolat reported that Seyed Yahya Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards Corps said “The Islamic world will soon become a major world superpower.”
• Iran Focus reported that Iran demanded that United States-led forces leave Iraq.
• Iran Focus reported that Iran suggested that the United Nations headquarters be relocated from New York to a country other than the United States.
• Islamic Republic News Agency reported that Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Farouq Taha conferred here Monday with Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and said that continued consultations between Iran and Syria has foiled sections of plots hatched by the Americans and the Zionists.
• Bloomberg reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his government plans to purge liberal and secular faculty members from Iran's universities.
• The Jerusalem Post reported that the Iranian parliament took the first step toward requiring the government to block international inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities if the United Nations Security Council imposes sanctions.
• Yahoo News reported that EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani will probably meet Wednesday in Vienna.
• Khaleej Times Online reported on a veiled threat from hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to US President George W. Bush.
• Reuters reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged the West to turn to God's path and said that failure to do so would tempt fate.
• Rooz Online published an interview with Majlis (Iran's Parliament) representative from Tabriz Akbar Alami who complained of restrictions that have been placed on MPs and said that nothing except a posh building façade remains of the Majlis (Iran's Parliament).
• The New York Sun reported that President Ahmadinejad of Iran declared that he intended to attend the General Assembly of the world body on September 19 and to debate his country's nuclear program with President Bush.
  

Human Rights and Freedom of the Press in Iran.

• Rooz Online reported that Iran's Ministry of Islamic Guidance, which controls the media in this country, issued a directive to press publications which in practice bans them from quoting all available news sources in their reporting.
• Dallas Morning News reported that Iranian activist Manouchehr Ganji argued that at least 70 percent of Iranians would help the democracy movement succeed if they could be convinced that it has the support of the West for the long haul.
• National Review Online reported on the growing calls to save the lives of Iranian women Nazanin Fatehi, Malak Ghorbany, and many others just like them.
  

The Iranian Military.

• Iran Focus reported that Iran’s air force has begun a series of military maneuvers in the north-western province of East Azerbaijan. During the drills, Iran’s air defense systems also successfully targeted and destroyed “enemy planes” in radar-blackout areas in Iranian airspace.
• International Herald Tribune reported that Iran said it had tested a new air defense system to counter missiles and aircraft during large-scale military exercises.
• International Herald Tribune reported that Iran said that it successfully tested laser-guided bombs during recent large-scale military exercises.
• Forbes reported that Iran unveiled its first locally manufactured fighter plane, similar to the American F-18 fighter plane, but "more powerful."
• DNA India reported that Iran announced that it has developed a 900 kg guided bomb named Ghased, or "Messenger."
• Defense Industry Daily reported on the recent news of Iran's new indigenous Saegheh aircraft which they claim is "similar to the F-18 fighter jet. They shed a more sober and reasoned light on this new development.
  

The Iranian Economy.

• USA Today reported that as Iran hurtles toward a confrontation with the United States over its nuclear program, the nation's economy remains a dysfunctional wreck.
  

Iran and the International community.

• Reuters reported that Iraqi border guards accused Iran on Friday of shelling their territory and taking six soldiers prisoner after a clash on the border northeast of Baghdad.
  

The US Congress on Iran.

• YNet News reported that Benjamin Netanyahu met with 15 American senators, and said he was surprised by the level of their distress and worry over the developments in Iran.
• Eli Lake, The New York Sun reported that the editor of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol proposed a resolution authorizing force against Iran for its defiance of a U.N. deadline to end uranium enrichment. The proposal received a lukewarm reaction at the White House.

Must Read reports.

• Power Line commented on NRO's Corner yesterday, Michael Ledeen drew attention to an article by Steven Knipp on Knipp's two-week visit to Iran. " The bottom line is that the Iranian people love America, and they do not, not, not, like Ahmadinejad."
• President Bush, The White House in a major speech at the Capital Hilton Hotel outlined the National Strategy For Combating Terrorism and said "America will not bow down to tyrants."
• Newsweek International reported on Ahmadinejad: How Popular Is He Really?
• John Pohoretz, The New York Post reported that President Bush just delivered what may be the most important speech of his presidency. The time has come, the president all but said yesterday, to take the gloves off with Iran.
• The Wall Street Journal reported that in a major speech President Bush quoted extensively from recent threats by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad such as his call for "a world without the United States and Zionism."
• Reuters reported that a major transatlantic opinion survey showed most French and Americans would support military action against Iran as a last resort if other means fail to stop it acquiring nuclear weapons.
• The Boston Globe reported on the visit of Khatami to the US and argued that when it comes to Iran, the Bush administration has been consistent only in its inconsistency. Time and again it has condemned the Tehran regime and time and again it has failed to back up those condemnations with action.
• The Wall Street Journal reported that the Bush administration is seeking to isolate a network of European and Middle Eastern banks and companies controlled by the Iranian government that U.S. official's suspect Iran is using to acquire sophisticated weapons technology.
• Marc Sumerlin, The Weekly Standard reported how the new Treasury Secretary can help in a showdown with Iran.
  

The Experts.

• Amir Taheri, Asharq Alawsat reported that Ali-Akbar Meshkini, the second most powerful Ayatollah in Iran, Meshkini said "Among all the governments in the world, the only legitimate government endorsed by the Almighty is the Islamic Republic of Iran." There cannot be give-and-take between "an extension of God" and an "illegitimate and oppressive regimes." A must read.
• Amir Taheri, Arab News explains why there cannot be a Bush 'Moment' in Iran, similar to Nixon's in China.
• Amir Taheri, Gulf News argued that as the midterm Congressional election campaign gets under way in the United States, Iraq may prove the key factor in deciding who will control the next legislature in Washington. A must read.
• Kenneth R. Timmerman, NewsMax.com reported on the press conference of former Iranian political prisoners and their relatives gave grisly testimony of torture under the regime of former president Mohammad Khatami, who is currently visiting the United States.
• Amir Taheri, Asharq Alawsat examined the popular assertion that "the British Muslim community" is "seething with anger" against Blair, because of his foreign policy.
• Amir Taheri, The Jerusalem Post reported the state-owned media in Teheran are conducting a psychological campaign to prepare the public for a long crisis if not actual war. He claimed that Iranians are increasingly asking whether the confrontational course adopted by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the only, not to say the best, strategy. He also examined why Ahmadinejad has chosen this course of action.
• Newt Gingrich, The Guardian outlined his position why a military strike on Iran should be our final option and argued that until the Iranian regime itself is replaced with one that does not sponsor terrorism and does not seek a nuclear program, then the threat will remain and grow.
  

Photos, cartoons and videos.

• Cox & Forkum published a cartoon: Purging 101.
• Cox & Forkum published another cartoon: Charm Offensive.
• SOSIran featured a video interview of Dr. Iman Foroutan on CNN's Headline News with Glenn Beck.
• The People's Cube published a bit of satire: Khatami In Harvard - Mullahs and Liberals Not That Different!
• IranCartoon.com.ir published Ahmadinejad's anti-Holocaust Cartoon Gallery.
• Cox & Forkum published a cartoon: Confronting Terrorism V.
  

The Quote of the Week.

Amir Taheri, Asharq Alawsat reported that Ali-Akbar Meshkini, the second most powerful Ayatollah in Iran, Meshkini said

"Among all the governments in the world, the only legitimate government endorsed by the Almighty is the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Sunday's Daily Briefing on Iran

DoctorZin reports, 9.10.2oo6

Khatami served with a court summons at CAIR reception.

• PRNewswire reported that seven Jewish-Iranian families have filed suit in an American federal court against former President Mohammad Khatami over charges that he is responsible for the kidnapping and torture of their missing family members. The summons was served on Khatami at a reception hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Bush personally signed off on Khatami's visit.

• Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal interviewed President Bush on Iran who said he personally signed off on the U.S. visit this week by former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami and said "I was interested to hear what he had to say."
  
• The Weekly Standard reported why the National Cathedral was the perfect setting to welcome Khatami. They also reported Iranian exiles lined the Cathedral sidewalks accusing Khatami of everything from journalistic repression to coddling terrorists to murder.
• Iran Freedom Concert published a call to join them in a protest of Khatami's speech at Harvard.
  

Why Ahmadinejad chose a path of confrontation.

• Amir Taheri, The Jerusalem Post reported the state-owned media in Teheran are conducting a psychological campaign to prepare the public for a long crisis if not actual war. He claimed that Iranians are increasingly asking whether the confrontational course adopted by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the only, not to say the best, strategy. He also examined why Ahmadinejad has chosen this course of action.

Gingrich explains why an internal regime change in Iran is the best option.

• Newt Gingrich, The Guardian outlined his position why a military strike on Iran should be our final option and argued that until the Iranian regime itself is replaced with one that does not sponsor terrorism and does not seek a nuclear program, then the threat will remain and grow.

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

• Marc Sumerlin, The Weekly Standard reported how the new Treasury Secretary can help in a showdown with Iran.
• Defense Industry Daily reported on the recent news of Iran's new indigenous Saegheh aircraft which they claim is "similar to the F-18 fighter jet. They shed a more sober and reasoned light on this new development.
• IranCartoon.com.ir published Ahmadinejad's anti-Holocaust Cartoon Gallery.
• Cox & Forkum published a cartoon: Confronting Terrorism V.

Tags: iran, news, iraq, nuclear, military

Families Of Kidnapped Persian Jews Sue Khatami In US Court

PRNewswire:

Seven Jewish-Iranian families have filed suit in an American federal court against former President Mohammad Khatami over charges that he is responsible for the kidnapping and torture of their missing family members. The families, currently residing in Los Angeles and Israel, contend that Khatami instituted the policy of imprisoning their relatives without trials and refusing to provide them any information concerning their whereabouts. The Jews were arrested on different occasions during the years 1994 through 1997, as they sought to leave Iran across its border with Pakistan.

On Friday evening copies of the complaint and summons were served on Khatami at a reception in Arlington, Virginia hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Khatami has twenty days to file an answer denying the allegations or default the case. READ MORE

The plaintiffs, who are not U.S. citizens, brought the suit under special laws - the Alien Torts Act and the Torture Victims Protection Act - which permit foreigners to sue their tormentors for torture and kidnapping in American courts. The lawsuit filed in the New York District Court is being represented by attorneys Robert Tolchin of New York, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Jerusalem and Pooya Dayanim of Los Angeles. The plaintiffs are seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages against Khatami for his role in the on-going disappearance of their loved ones.

Since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, millions of Iranian citizens have sought to escape from the Islamic regime. In normal circumstances when Muslim citizens are arrested attempting to leave without official permission, the established punishment is a small fine or a short jail term. However, in the instances where Jewish citizens have been similarly arrested, the Islamic government has instituted much harsher penalties. The Plaintiffs allege that Khatami has singled out the Jewish community and authorized the policy of secretly imprisoning the Jews indefinitely.

Over the years, the Jewish families have received reports from other former prisoners and guards that the missing Jews are alive and being held in different prisons. In the case of the Tehrani family of Los Angeles, a former Muslim neighbor has sworn out an affidavit testifying that he has seen their missing son, Babak Tehrani, in a Tehran prison two years after his disappearance.

"These Persian Jewish families are seeking to bring Khatami before an American court for his involvement in the torture and imprisonment of their loved ones in Iran," stated the families' attorney Nitsana-Darshan-Leitner, "It is shocking that the State Department would grant this anti-Semitic criminal a travel visa instead of joining with the families in the struggle to bring him to justice. The court case will establish that these missing Jews are indeed still alive in Iranian prisons and that the former President violated international law with his policy of arrests and torture which targeted the Jewish community."

The New York Sun has more.

Newt Gingrich: We Need to Bring About Regime Change in Iran

Newt Gingrich, The Guardian:

Iran's pursuit of a nuclear program in defiance of the United Nations has led some to call for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent the terror-sponsoring regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon. While I agree that a military option to replace the regime must be left on the table, I worry that some believe a military strike on Iran's nuclear installations is a viable long-term solution to stopping the Iranian regime's pursuit of greater power in the region.

In truth, until the Iranian regime itself is replaced with one that does not sponsor terrorism and does not seek a nuclear program, then the threat will remain and grow. READ MORE

Iran's nuclear facilities are well-hidden and well protected. Many of them are spread out and underground, making them especially difficult to target. The same weakness in our intelligence capabilities that led most countries to overestimate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program can also swing in the other direction, causing us to underestimate the extent of Iran's nuclear program (as it did in 1991 when intelligence underestimated Saddam's program).

A military strike would likely degrade their capabilities, but it would not guarantee that Iran would not ultimately acquire a nuclear weapon, whether by shifting to alternative facilities or simply purchasing one. And it would not stop Iran from continuing to sponsor terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel.

Let me be clear: Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad has said he is committed to seeing Israel "wiped off the map". If a military strike to replace the regime is the only option left to prevent this from occurring, then I would support it. However, it should be the last option because it isn't a very good one.

Instead, we should seek to replace the regime by bringing to bear the non-military weapons in our arsenal. A successful policy of regime change in Iran should start with what President Ronald Reagan did in eastern Europe to defeat communism.

By using America's full economic, political, and diplomatic clout and by working with dissident groups, the Soviet Union was defeated without firing a shot. This can be our goal in Iran as well. Remember, over 1,000 candidates were removed from the ballot in the recent Iranian election because they were too hostile to the current regime. Certainly there are those among the 1,000 candidates who we could work with immediately to help the Iranian people overthrow the current, oppressive government. Still more could be found in the pro-democracy and religiously moderate college professors that Ahmadinejad is now trying to purge from Iranian universities.

The Iranian regime is indeed dangerous and must be stopped. However, it is dangerous not just because of what weapons it has or is pursuing, but because of its evil intent. Therefore, the only viable long-term strategy for safety against Iran is replacing the regime - with force if necessary, but without force if possible.

Making Sense of Ahmadinejad

Amir Taheri, The Jerusalem Post:

While diplomats at the United Nations ponder what to do next about the Iranian nuclear program, the state-owned media in Teheran are conducting a psychological campaign to prepare the public for a long crisis if not actual war.

Many Iranians, however, are not sure what the fuss is about and are asking whether the confrontational course adopted by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the only, not to say the best, strategy. READ MORE

Doubts about the wisdom of Ahmadinejad's defiant posture, initially voiced by the anti-regime opposition at home and abroad, are now spreading to factions within the Khomeinist regime itself. One example is an article by Mostafa Tajzadeh, a former deputy interior minister and advisor to former president Muhammad Khatami. The article, published by an online newspaper owned by former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, warns that the Islamic Republic may be courting diplomatic isolation and possible UN sanctions solely because the new radical administration wishes to cultivate a macho image at home and abroad.

At first glance, Tajzadeh's concern, echoed by several members of the Islamic Majlis (parliament), appears well placed. Ahmadinejad decided to reject the package offered by the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany, because he was not prepared to offer a minor concession in return.

The concession demanded was that Iran should agree to suspend its uranium processing and enrichment activities. This should not have been difficult for two reasons.

The first is that Iran, in any case, is doing very little uranium processing and no enrichment, despite the threat to embark upon enrichment on an industrial scale at the Isfahan plant.

The second is that Iran has no immediate need of any enriched uranium. In fact, Iran does not have any nuclear power station at all and thus does need enriched uranium for fuel. The only nuclear power station that Iran is building, with Russian help, is scheduled to go on stream next March. Even then, Russia has already signed contracts to provide all the fuel that the plant would need for the first 10 years of its existence. Russia is even ready to provide the fuel for the entire 37-year lifespan of the plant.

AT THE very least, Iran could have agreed to a temporary suspension until next March, allowing negotiations on the 5+1 package to begin. The talks could then have helped foster an atmosphere of trust on both sides and shifted the focus from the very narrow and precise issue of uranium enrichment.

Accepting a temporary suspension would not have hurt Ahmadinejad's macho image. For one thing, his opponents, both within the regime and outside it, support the suspension and could not have blamed him for accepting it. The Rafsanjani-Khatami faction would have had nothing to say on the issue because it had itself accepted a three year-long suspension without receiving any rewards whatsoever.

Launching a process of negotiations would have had further benefits for the Islamic Republic, if only by alleviating the political tension that is already wreaking havoc with the Iranian economy.

Locking the United States into a process of negotiations with the Islamic Republic would have tied the hands of all those in Washington who support regime change in Iran. The process would have enabled the Islamic Republic to call for a lifting of American sanctions that have already crippled the nation's vital oil and gas industry.

In other words, the Islamic Republic would have had everything to gain and virtually nothing to lose from a process aimed at preventing it from doing things that it shouldn't be doing anyway in exchange for massive economic, scientific and technological aid, not to mention international acceptability.

SO, WHY did Ahmadinejad, no doubt with the consent of the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi, choose to reject the package and vindicate the "regime change" faction in Washington?


The first is that Ahmadinejad believes that the Bush administration will not be in a position to turn the heat on Iran at least until the November mid-term elections in the US. If Bush manages to maintain a majority in Congress, Teheran could always agree to a temporary suspension and re-start the process. If, on the other hand, Democrats win control of one or both of the chambers of Congress, Bush would become a lame duck president facing a political elite and public hostile to any new confrontation in the Middle East.

The failure of Americans to develop bipartisan positions even on issues of vital national interest, plays into the hands of adventurers like Ahmadinejad.

The second reason is that Ahmadinejad and his faction have their own electoral calculations. Soon, Iranians would be called upon to choose a new Assembly of Experts and local and municipal councils across the country. If Ahmadinejad's faction succeeds in winning control of the assembly, they would be in a position to either replace Khamenehi as "Supreme Guide" with one of their own, or divest the position of much of its real power.

Finally, it is clear that the Islamic Republic fears any prospect of normalization with the American "Great Satan" at least as much as it worries about ineffective sanctions. The Islamic Republic does not feel self-confident enough to enter a process through which the US will exercise some influence on the course of Teheran's policies. While the conventional wisdom is that it is the US that does not want to talk to the Islamic Republic, there is evidence that the opposite may be true. This is why Teheran has refused to make the symbolic gesture of goodwill the 5+1 group demanded as a prelude to talks.

Iran's New Saegheh Fighter Enters Service

Defense Industry Daily:

There's been a bit of a kerfuffle in some quarters over the recent announcement by the Iranian news agency IRNA. It quoted the commander of the Iranian army General Attollah Salehi as saying their new indigeous Saegheh [DID: "thunder" or "lightning", reports vary] aircraft is "similar to the F-18 fighter jet, but it is more capable and has been manufactured domestically... designed, remodeled, optimized and made more capable by our engineers... no country has aided us in its production." Reports are also noting Iran's claim that it is developing a 5th generation "Shafagh" stealth fighter, oddly enough without appropriate laughter or ridicule.

Readers may recall past Iranian claims re: "stealth" flying boats that obviously used stealth-killing propellers and other such nonsense. Perhaps we can help shed a more sober and reasoned light on this new development... READ MORE

The official FARS news agency article that touted the new aircraft as "more difficult to pick up on the radar systems compared with the normal version due to its higher maneuverability" was especially funny. The Saegeheh must be something special to be able to out-maneuver radar beams traveling near the speed of light.

Risible claims aside, there is evidence that Iran has built a more effective domestic manufacturing base for aircraft and missile spares and modifications than they are commonly given credit for, in order to keep their existing fleet flying and armed. Readers may recall DID's citation of Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop's books "Iranian F-14 Units In Combat" and their more comprehensive but poorer publishing quality work "Iran-Iraq War in the Air 1980-1988," which provide information along these lines. Their original reporting re: Iran's ability to keep its F-14 fleet flying throughout the Iran-Iraq war and beyond, and adaptations like modifying US-made Hawk SAMS into air-air weapons, are useful indicators.

The ability to modify and upgrade existing aircraft would be a natural development from that base. True indigenous production of the kind Iran is claiming, on the other hand, is a difficult endeavour indeed. Taiwan's experience with their F-CK fighters is instructive as a data point, and exemplifies the difficulties and trade-offs that even a more advanced nation with limited access to global suppliers faces. India's experience trying to develop its Kaveri engines for the HAL Tejas lightweight fighter is also worth pondering.

Instead, the general consensus among more informed observers is that Iran's new fighter is a modified F-5E Tiger II fighter. the F-5E was an early 1970s era low-cost export fighter update of the 1960s-era F-5A fighter/ T-38 supersonic trainer, and it proved very popular with US allies. While Northrop Grumman's F-5 page doesn't mention Iran as an F-5 customer, the Shah's air force most certainly was.

Twin tails, wings mounted above the intakes with the addition of leading edge strakes, and new avionics would appear to be the major modifications. The reports were careful not to tout new engines or the ability to fire medium-range missiles, for instance, and barring Russian assistance a radar that would be on par with even the AN/APG-65 of the 1980s vintage F/A-18As is highly unlikely.

That last question is an important one, because the addition of the Kopyo radars to India's upgraded MiG-21 'Bisons', which allowed them to fire R-77/AA-12 "AMRAAMski" medium-range missiles, turned them into very effective interceptors when used in conjunction with AWACS assets during the COPE India exercises. The Sageheh, however, doesn't appear to reach even the level of its MiG-21 'Bison' contemporaries, let alone the bragged-of F/A-18.

The real result would appear to be an F-5E fighter with slightly improved avionics and improved "low and slow" flight characteristics, but not much more. Iran's ability to modify and/or replace their F-5 E/F fighters and F-5B trainers is not entirely useless, as it will help them bolster their sagging force structure. Nevertheless, comparing the resulting aircraft to even an F/A-18A Hornet would appear to be just more of the usual bluster and overstretch as the clock ticks down on Iran's nuclear program and its leadership's subsequent plans.

In other news, Iran is also boasting about developing a "2,000 pound guided bomb." DID would remind our readers that America was successfully using 2,000 pound GBU-10 Paveway laser-guided bombs in Vietnam against targets like the Doumer Bridge back in 1972.

Addendum and Additional Reading

DID recommends the Washington Institute of Near East Policy's December 2005 report by Fariborz Haghshenass for a serious analysis of Iran's two air forces (yes, TWO), which includes organizational/command issues as well as its equipment. Among other things, it clearly describes the Saegheh as "based on the F-5E, but has a twin vertical tail configuration to improve takeoff and maneuvering performance".

How the Treasury Secretary Can Help in a Showdown with Iran

Marc Sumerlin, The Weekly Standard:

As Wall Street veteran Hank Paulson settles into his new job as Treasury secretary, the conventional wisdom is that he can't accomplish much in the waning years of President Bush's second term. Paulson fiercely resists such assertions, and there is reason to believe he is right. But the arena in which he is most likely to shine is one the conventional wisdom has mostly ignored: crisis management with Iran. READ MORE

Paulson is taking over Treasury at a momentous time. This month, the debate over Iran's nuclear program will turn to sanctions--an area where his experience will prove an immense asset. The best nonmilitary hope for turning back Tehran's decision to become a nuclear power is aggressive financial sanctions targeting Iranian leaders. Such sanctions would naturally be led by the Treasury Department, building on its expertise in suppressing money laundering and financial support for terrorism. It would be a significant achievement if Paulson were able to gain international agreement on sanctions and the cooperation needed to enforce them. At the G-7 finance ministers' meeting in Singapore this month, he will have an excellent setting to make the case.

So far, Iranian leaders have suffered little for their nuclear ambition--in fact they have gained as oil prices have risen. But if they were to suffer severe and personal financial losses, it might affect their calculus. Securing financial sanctions is no easy task. European cooperation is needed to get at Iranian bank accounts, and European political leaders face resistance from business leaders who prefer cozy relations. An even more aggressive sanctions strategy would turn the oil weapon on its head and restrict gasoline exports to Iran, on which they are surprisingly dependent. This, however, would require cooperation from both Europe and India, and is even higher up on the ladder of diplomatic difficulty.

Even with punitive personal sanctions, Iran's leaders, fueled by a dangerous mixture of hate and religion, may not be deterred. A broader containment strategy may ultimately involve targeted strikes on Iran's key nuclear facilities. It is true that many foreign policy experts argue that taking on Iran militarily is highly unlikely. But given that Iran's leaders are pursuing a nuclear weapon and that President Bush is committed to preventing them from acquiring one, it is impossible to say military action will not be taken.

Should such a conflict happen, Paulson, again, would be in the spotlight. His role would be to ensure that someone who is sensitive to markets has a strong voice at the table. Oil prices would undoubtedly surge with any military action. But, if handled well, the administration would give oil traders a reason to take profits as early as possible. Buy stocks on the cannons, goes the old market saying--but the inverse should be true for oil.

The most important policy would be to announce without delay a coordinated release of strategic petroleum stocks led by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and International Energy Agency executive director Claude Mandil. Global government-controlled petroleum of IEA member countries could offset about 20 months of Iranian oil exports--a figure that should not only make Tehran nervous, but could also allow for an over-release, providing more oil to markets than was taken off-line. A coordinated oil release would shift supply from religious fanatics to known allies and demonstrate that oil vulnerability can be a two-way street. During the Persian Gulf war, a release of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was announced on the same day that the war began. The price of oil fell by one-third over the next six weeks, as the military action proved successful. After Hurricane Katrina, the administration waited five days to announce a coordinated release of strategic oil--a period too long for traders experiencing pain with every tick.

Parrying Iran's oil dagger will require substantial preparation beyond a release of the strategic petroleum stocks. If Iran were to mine the Strait of Hormuz, for example, the administration would ideally provide markets with immediate information about the status and progress of mine-clearing ships. Markets would react positively to such information even if mine-clearing (or similar activity) were to take time. Silence, on the other hand, would increase uncertainty and push oil prices even higher.

Another challenge would be the risk of hostile action by Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, a committed ally of the Iranian regime. Eleven refineries in the United States use significant amounts of Venezuelan crude, and these refineries are tuned to run most efficiently with Venezuela's heavy oil. (In an additional complication, four of these refineries are also owned by Venezuela.) Should Chávez cut off shipments, it could take more than 30 days for a similar type of crude to arrive from the Middle East.

The administration will thus need to make sure that alternative supplies of the same type of oil are available from the strategic reserve or elsewhere on short notice. The administration should also have plans to facilitate the purchase of any oil on the high seas that does not have a final port of destination--which at times is a significant amount.

It is impossible to calculate the "Iran premium" in the current price of oil, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that a durable political or military solution to the dispute could drop today's price by as much as $10 per barrel. Rational traders fear shorting oil in a world where large amounts of supply can go off-line while they sleep. The largest worry, of course, is with Iran, which not only exports 2.7 million barrels a day but also sits on a strategic position at the Strait of Hormuz, where one-fifth of the world's oil supply passes under its gaze each day.

A $10 drop in the price of oil over the course of a year would add about $75 billion in income to U.S. consumers and take about $30 billion from U.S. oil producers. This $45 billion net improvement to U.S. income would directly improve our trade deficit since oil imports would cost less. The effect on economic growth could be even larger than this calculation alone suggests. The change in the price of oil would shift from being a drag on growth to a supporter of growth, providing a net swing that could add a one-half percent or more to the next year's growth rate. More important, a fall in oil prices would help ease inflation concerns, allowing the markets and the Federal Reserve to take a longer-term perspective on the recent increase in inflation.

In short, successfully handling the economic and financial aspects of a potential Iran crisis may be the best opportunity for Paulson to simultaneously and immediately make a contribution to raising growth, lowering inflation, and reducing global imbalances. Even better, reducing inflation and trimming our external deficit is the best way to strengthen the currency that will soon bear his name. A well-prepared policy response that reveals the weakness of Iran's oil card would offer benefits that far outweigh the economic impact of a sizable but brief spike in the price of oil.

Marc Sumerlin, formerly deputy director of the National Economic Council, is managing director of the Lindsey Group, a global economic consulting firm.

Bush Personally Signed Off On Khatami Visit

Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal:

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi?

"That's not going to happen," snaps the president of the United States, leaning across his desk in his airborne office. He had been saying that he hoped to revisit Social Security reform next year, when he "will be able to drain the politics out of the issue," and I rudely interrupted by noting the polls predicting Ms. Pelosi's ascension.

"I just don't believe it," the president insists. "I believe the Republicans will end up being -- running the House and the Senate. And the reason why I believe it is because when our candidates go out and talk about the strength of this economy, people will say their tax cuts worked, their plan worked. . . . And secondly, that this is a group of people that understand the stakes of the world in which we live and are willing to help this unity government in Iraq succeed for the sake of our children and grandchildren, and that we are steadfast in our belief in the capacity of liberty to bring peace."

Love or loathe President George W. Bush, you can't say he lacks the courage of his convictions. Down in the polls, with the American people in a sour mood over Iraq, Mr. Bush isn't changing his policy or hunkering down in the Oval Office. Instead he's doubling down, investing whatever scarce political capital he has to frame the November contest as a choice over the economy and taxes and especially over his prosecution of the war on terror.

The strategy carries no small risk, because if Republicans lose, Democrats will feel even more emboldened to challenge him on national security. The final two years of his presidency could be dreadful and the chances of a U.S. retreat in Iraq would multiply. On the other hand, his senior aides say, Mr. Bush will be blamed if Republicans lose in any case, so he might as well play his strongest hand to prevent such a result. And if the GOP holds both houses, he'll deserve much of the credit.

* * *

The president is certainly in feisty, even passionate, form as I meet him for 40-some minutes Thursday afternoon, coming off the third of his speeches this week on the lessons of 9/11 and a fund-raiser in Savannah, Ga., for GOP House candidate Max Burns. The critics are saying the Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy in the Middle East is dead, but the Beltway coroners must not have talked with Mr. Bush. I pose the frequent complaint that his policy has succeeded only in unleashing the radical Furies in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq.

[George W. Bush]

"I would remind the critics of the freedom agenda that the policy prior to September 11th was stability for the sake of stability: Let us not worry about the form of government. Let us simply worry about whether or not the world appears stable, whether or not we achieve short-term geopolitical gain," he says. "And it looked like that policy was working, and, frankly, it made some sense when it came to dealing with the Middle East vis-à-vis the Communists.

"The problem with that philosophy, or that foreign policy, was that beneath the surface boiled resentment and hatred, and that resentment and hatred helped fuel this radical Islam, and the radical Islam is what ended up causing the attacks that killed 3,000 of our citizens. So I vowed, and made the decision that not only would we stay on the offense and . . . get these people before they could attack us again. But in the long run the only way to make sure your grandchildren are protected, Paul, is to win the battle of ideas, is to defeat the ideology of hatred and resentment."

But would he concede that elections have so far empowered mainly the radicals? "It's a part of the process. I think Americans must remember we had some growing pains ourselves. It wasn't all that smooth a road to the Constitution to begin with in our own country. Democracy is not easy," he says, coiled and intense in his presidential flight jacket.

Take the Palestinian elections that elevated the terrorist group Hamas to power. "I wasn't surprised," he says, "that the political party that said 'Vote for me, I will get rid of corruption' won, because I was the person that decided on U.S. foreign policy that we were not going to deal with Mr. Arafat because he had let his people down, and that money that the world was spending wasn't getting to the Palestinian people. . . . They didn't say, 'Vote for us, we want war.' They said, 'Vote for us, we will get you better education and health.'"

Mr. Bush concedes that Hamas's "militant wing," as he calls it, is "unacceptable." But he says he sees a virtue in "creating a sense where people have to compete for people's votes. They have to listen to the concerns of the street." The answer is for other Palestinian leaders to out-compete Hamas to respond to those concerns. "Elections are not the end. They're only the beginning. And, no question, elections sometimes create victors that may not conform to everything we want. . . . On the other hand, it is the beginning of a more hopeful Middle East."

* * *

I try to dig a little deeper on Egypt, where the political opening of 18 months ago seems to have been abruptly closed by President Hosni Mubarak, with a muted U.S. response to the arrest of the moderate opposition leader, Ayman Nour. Has the U.S. given up on promoting reform in Egypt?

"Of course we have not given up," Mr. Bush says. "We were disappointed" about Ayman Nour. Does he believe Mr. Mubarak should release Mr. Nour? "Yes, I do, but he'll make those decisions based upon his own laws." Mr. Bush says he's spoken to Mr. Mubarak's son and heir-apparent, Gamal, about Mr. Nour, "and I have spoken to Mubarak a lot about democracy. And, equally importantly, I've talked to . . . a group of young reformers who are now in government. There's an impressive group of younger Egyptians -- the trade minister and some of the economic people -- that understand the promise and the difficulties of democracy."

The pace of Middle East reform will vary by country, he adds. In Kuwait, they now let women vote. "And so if you look at the Middle East from 10 years to today, there's been some significant change. Jordan changed, Morocco, the Gulf Coast countries, Qatar," and of course the nascent democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regarding Iraq, Mr. Bush is a bit reflective, if also insistent about the costs of failure. "I'm not surprised that this war has created consternation amongst the American people," he concedes. "The enemy has got the capacity to take -- got the willingness to take innocent life and the capacity to do so, knowing full well that those deaths and that carnage will end up on our TV screens. So the American people are now having to adjust to a new kind of bloody war.

"Now, my view of the country is this: Most people want us to win. There are a good number who say, get out now. But most Americans are united in the concept -- of the idea of winning."

On that point, I ask Mr. Bush to address not his critics on the left who want to withdraw, but those on the right who worry that he isn't fighting hard enough to win. "No, I understand. No, I hear that, Paul, a lot, and I take their word seriously, and of course use that as a basis for questioning our generals. My point to you is that one of the lessons of a previous war is that the military really wasn't given the flexibility to make the decisions to win. And I ask the following questions: Do you have enough? Do you need more troops? Do you need different equipment?" The question I failed to ask but wish I had is: Does this mean that, like Lincoln, Mr. Bush should have fired more generals?

With sectarian strife in Iraq, some critics (such as Sen. Joe Biden) are saying the best strategy now is for the country to divide into three -- Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni. Mr. Bush says partition would be "a mistake," though he does add that "the Iraqi people are going to have to make that decision." But he says Iraqis didn't vote for partition when they approved their new constitution or new government, and "this government has been in place since June; 90 days is a long time for some, but it's really not all that long to help a nation that was brutalized under a tyrant to get going."

Mr. Bush is most emphatic when he links Iraq to the larger struggle for Mideast reform. "In the long run, the United States is going to have to make a decision as to whether or not it will support moderates against extremists, reformers against tyrants. And Iraq is the first real test of the nation's commitment to this ideological struggle. . . . I believe it strongly. One way for the American people to understand the stakes is to envision what happens if America withdraws." He has been hitting that last point hard in his recent speeches, and it is the linchpin of the argument Mr. Bush will make through November against the Democrats who insist on pulling out immediately.

Intriguingly, the president broke a little news on the subject of Iran, acknowledging that he personally signed off on the U.S. visit this week by former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. The trip has angered many conservatives because Mr. Khatami presided over the nuclear weapons development and cheating that Mr. Bush has pledged to stop. Why let him visit?

"I was interested to hear what he had to say," Mr. Bush responds without hesitation. "I'm interested in learning more about the Iranian government, how they think, what people think within the government. My hope is that diplomacy will work in convincing the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions. And in order for diplomacy to work, it's important to hear voices other than [current President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's."

One thing Mr. Khatami has said this week is that because the U.S. is bogged down in Iraq it will never have the will to stop Iran's nuclear program. Is he right? "Well, he also said it's very important for the [coalition] troops to stay in Iraq so that there is a stable government on the Iranian border," Mr. Bush replies, rather forgivingly.

On other hand, Mr. Bush remains as blunt as ever about the nature of the Iranian regime when I ask if one lesson of North Korea is that Iran must be stopped before it acquires a bomb. "North Korea doesn't teach us that lesson. The current government [in Iran] teaches that lesson," Mr. Bush says. "Their declared policies of destruction and their support for terror makes it clear they should not have a nuclear weapon."

The impression Mr. Bush leaves is of a man deeply engaged on the Iran problem and, like several presidents before him, trying to understand what kind of diplomatic or economic pressure short of military means will change the regime's behavior. One way or another, Iran will be the major dilemma of the rest of his presidency, and Mr. Bush knows it. READ MORE

* * *

Five years after 9/11, I ask the president if he is surprised that -- and can explain why -- both Iraq and his larger antiterror policies have become so politically polarized. "Well, first of all, I do believe there's a difference between the political rhetoric out of Washington and what the citizens feel," he says.

"But this is a different kind of war. In the past, there was troop movements, or, you know, people could report the sinking of a ship. This is a war that requires intelligence and interrogation within the law from people who know what's happening. . . . Victories you can't see. But the enemy is able to create death and carnage that tends to define the action.

"And I think most Americans understand we're vulnerable. But my hope was after 9/11, most Americans wouldn't walk around saying, 'My goodness, we're at war. Therefore let us don't live a normal life. Let us don't invest.'" Mr. Bush calls it an "interesting contradiction" that he wants "people to understand the stakes of failure" in this conflict. But on the other hand, he also wants "the country to be able to grow, invest, save, expand, educate, raise their children." This is another way of saying how hard it is for a democracy to maintain support for a war without a tangible, ominous enemy such as the Soviet Union or Imperial Japan.

Could he have done more, as president, to win over more Democratic allies? "I met with a lot of Democrats over the course of this war, and" -- he pauses for the longest time in our interview -- "you know, it's hard for me to tell, Paul, whether I could have done a better job. . . . I don't know. I just don't know."

He then says that he has GOP majorities, and thus Republican leaders, to deal with. "Obviously, I wish that the effort were more bipartisan; it has been on certain issues. It certainly was when it came time for people to assess the intelligence that they had seen and knew about and vote on a resolution to remove Saddam Hussein from power." And it was as well on his policy of pursuing state sponsors of terror. But then the 2004 campaign intervened, he says, and now it's another campaign season.

Mr. Bush is an avid reader of history, and he has a contest with political aide Karl Rove to see who reads the most books. ("I'm losing," Mr. Bush says.) So I ask him if any current Democrat could play the role that Republican Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan played in helping Harry Truman establish new policies in the 1940s at the dawn of the Cold War.

Notably, he talks about Truman first. "I doubt Truman would have been able to predict how long the Cold War would last, but I applaud Truman for beginning to wage the Cold War" -- pregnant pause -- "for which he was very unpopular, for which the country was viewed as polarized." He never does mention a contemporary Vandenberg, and in truth the only one I can think of is Joe Lieberman, of late and by necessity not a Democrat but an "independent."
* * *

The Truman reference is nonetheless revealing, because it suggests that perhaps Mr. Bush has begun to realize he will get little credit for his Middle East policies during his own presidency. His critics on the left in particular want to portray him as another LBJ, forlorn over a misbegotten war, and destined for historical disdain because of it. But Mr. Bush hardly resembles the LBJ who more or less came to agree with his Vietnam critics. He seems far more like Truman, both in his personal combativeness and also in his conviction that his vindication will come down the road.

One of his main goals now, also like Truman, is to institutionalize some of his antiterror policies by putting them on firmer legal and political ground so future presidents can use them. That's what his speech this week on military tribunals was mainly about, and the same goes for warrantless wiretaps and CIA interrogations of al Qaeda suspects. For all of the controversy they've caused, Mr. Bush is convinced that the next president will be grateful to have these tools. And despite all the partisan rancor surrounding them, Mr. Bush's legacy in defending them is likely to be lasting.

When I put to him the criticism made by Newt Gingrich, among others, that the U.S. security bureaucracy is too slow and unwieldy, he couldn't rebut it fast enough. "I disagree strongly," he says. "We were stove-piped in the past. We had an FBI whose primary responsibility was white-collar crime or criminality. We had a CIA that couldn't talk to criminal investigators. And we've changed all that."

Mr. Bush adds that the intelligence he receives is "quantifiably better" than it was before 9/11. One reason is the warrantless al Qaeda wiretaps, which gather intelligence from what he calls "the battlefield" in this conflict. "And so the data points are becoming richer, and the analysis is more complete, because now the reports I get on analysis have input from different parts of the intelligence community that John Negroponte is overseeing." Mr. Bush isn't likely to call legislation he signed a failure, but this is still the most reassuring thing I've heard about the CIA in years.

This is the fourth time I've interviewed Mr. Bush at length in the last eight years, going back to his time as Texas governor. One of the notable things about him is how similar he seems. He has always been supremely confident in his decisions and focused above all else on pushing forward, not looking back. If he is tortured by doubt, he doesn't show it to journalists. Some see this as obstinance, but he sees it as firmness of conviction.

Whether or not he's right about the elections this fall, you have to respect his willingness to put that conviction on the line. "I said in my Inaugural Address, we should end tyranny in the 21st century," he says. "And I meant that."

Mr. Gigot is the editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

Khatami in the Cathedral

The Weekly Standard:

"Interfaith dialogue" is all the rage these days: understanding our commonality by celebrating our differences. Or something like that. It's infected venerable pillars of establishment religion, such as the National Cathedral in Washington. There, they've found a way to take the edge off all the God 'n' Jesus talk by featuring speakers like Larry Dossey, a mind-body expert who "celebrates the healing power of music, touch and mystery." Which is not to say they don't boldly espouse the most hallowed tenets of the Episcopal tradition, such as offering a "Five Pillars of Islam" course through their Cathedral College.

The National Cathedral, then, was the perfect setting to welcome former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, the senior most Iranian to visit our country in nearly three decades. With his need-for-understanding patter, his undeserved reputation among world leaders as a "reformer" and a beacon of tolerance (disputed by the 200 or so Iranian exiles who lined the Cathedral sidewalks accusing Khatami of everything from journalistic repression to coddling terrorists to murder), and with his tendency to throw not-so-subtle elbows at American leaders (he's compared George W. Bush's rhetoric to that of Osama bin Laden), Khatami is shaping up as the Persian Jimmy Carter. READ MORE

Nitpicky, over-analytical pedants might ask, "How can we have a dialogue when your successor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, keeps threatening to wipe Israel off the map?" Details . . . Starting a dialogue can be a messy business. Sometimes, you have to scream before you can whisper, just so you have everyone's attention.

Khatami, for his part, isn't a screamer. Aside from the occasional jaw-dropper--like calling Hezbollah "a shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world"--he mainly speaks the language of reconciliation, giving addresses like his famed "Dialogue Among Civilizations." The U.N. thought the concept such a swell idea that Kofi Annan declared 2001 the "Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations." The dialogue sort of got off track around September of that year, after wayward members of our shared Abrahamic tradition blew up the World Trade Center.

At the Cathedral the evening of September 7, Khatami's "interfaith dialogue" turned out to be more of an intrafaith monologue, since he did most of the talking, and in Farsi no less. Journalists were given full translations of the speech beforehand. "The bad news," said one, "is it's boring. The good news is it's short--we'll be home in time for football." Speaking in the flowery, abstract verbiage of a political philosopher, which he was until he signed on to the Iranian revolution, Khatami spoke of "the contradictions between individualistic liberalism and collectivist socialism," of the West's need to "take a step forward and view itself from another angle," and of how "democratic systems" oughtn't be "limited to liberal democracies."

Earlier, Khatami told reporters that Iran is just making nuclear energy, not weapons, even though he was saying so just a week after Ahmadinejad passed out awards to his nuclear scientists on Iranian national television, for such meritorious accomplishments as "notable management of the building of centrifuge taps, and other sensitive and complex components."

The crowd--a radical chic mélange of gray D.C. eminences and powdered and polished Iranians--gave him a standing ovation, unintimidated by the protesters outside, who tried to shame them with photos of Iranians back home getting hung from cranes and buried up to their waist before being stoned. Maybe, as our hosts suggested, he really is building a bridge between civilizations. A suspension bridge. As in, you'd have to suspend lots of disbelief to think his pretty rhetoric leads anywhere.

Iran Freedom Concert

Iran Freedom Concert:

Former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami is coming to Harvard on Sunday, September 10, to lecture on "The Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence."

Yet President Khatami himself presided over a brutal crackdown against Iranian students, with security forces murdering dozens of students, maiming hundreds, and imprisoning hundreds more. Under Khatami's rule newspapers were shut down, dissidents were silenced, and students like you were imprisoned for exercising their basic right to protest.

We will exercise our rights to do what our counterparts in Iran have been imprisoned for: Real dialogue means holding Khatami accountable for the horrendous treatment of students that occurred under his rule. We will stand up for Civil Rights in Iran by demanding the release from imprisoned student activist Ahmed Batebi and all prisoners of conscience in Iran.

Stand in solidarity with fellow students in Iran and hold Khatami accountable for his human rights abuses:

WHO: Leading Iranain activists Ala Khaki and Lily Mazahery, representatives from the Harvard College Democrats and Republicans, and members of the Iran Freedom Concert Coalition.

WHAT: Non-violent student rally outside of the hall where Khatami is speaking.

WHERE: John F. Kennedy Park (next to the Kennedy School of
Government, 79 John F. Kennedy Rd., Cambridge, MA, 02138)

WHEN: This Sunday, September 10, at 3:00 p.m

WHY: Students in America, and around the world, have an obligation to stand up for their Iranian counterparts who have been arrested and tortured on Mr. Khatami's orders.

BRING: Signs (both English and Farsi encouraged). Examples include:

• "Promote 'dialogue' at home before you lecture us at Harvard"
• "Release Ahmed Batebi"
• "Civil Rights for All in Iran!"

Bring friends, too!

Ahmadinejad's Anti-Holocaust Cartoon Gallery

IranCartoon.com.ir: The cartoon below is one of the many finalists in Ahmadinejad's anti-Holocaust cartoon competition. Click on the cartoon to see the other finalist cartoons.