[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

RAFI-JAANI takes over!!!
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Liberty Now !

Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:19 am    Post subject: RAFI-JAANI takes over!!! Reply with quote

Rafsan-jaani Takes over Exclamation

english news:
Iran's Rafsanjani given more powers

TEHRAN (AFP) - Senior Iranian cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, recently defeated in an attempted comeback as president, has been given more powers by the country's supreme leader.

The secretary of the Expediency Council, the top political arbitration body headed by Rafsanjani, told Iranian newspapers that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had given Rafsanjani "control over the application of the wider policies of the regime".

The official, Mohsen Rezai, said the role involved overseeing the government, parliament and judiciary in their application of a 20-year development plan drawn up by the Expediency Council.

The Expediency Council's role is to arbitrate in disputes between the parliament and Guardians Council, an unelected senate-like constitutional watchdog. However that role has been diminished since both parliament and the Guardians are controlled by hardliners.

Rafsanjani, a moderate conservative who served as president from 1989 to 1997, had been seen as the regime's de facto number-two behind Khamenei. But he was dealt a major political blow when he was defeated in the June presidential election by hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The former president had campaigned on a platform of reforming the Islamic republic's clerical regime and also improving ties with the West, including the United States.


شرايط اضطراری
رفسنجانی نظارت و كنترل
دولت و مجلس را در اختيارگرفت

[url] http://www.peiknet.com/1384/06mehr/page/388zeterar.htm[/url]

مهم ترين خبر داخلی روز گذشته ايران، آشكار شدن تصميمی بود كه در روزهای گذشته، طی ديدارها و مذاكراتی كه از جزئيات آن اطلاعی در دست نيست برای نظارت بر دولت و مجلس گرفته شد. با آنكه كسی درباره مذاكرات پشت صحنه خبری ندارد، اما اعلام نظارت مجمع تشخيص مصلحت نظام بر سه قوه و بدنبال آن، رفتن احمدی نژاد به نزد‌هاشمی رفسنجانی و همآهنگی با وی، نشان داد دولت جديد در سه ماه گذشته مملكت را با بحران اقتصادی و سياسی تكاندهنده‌ای روبرو ساخته و اگر سريعا برای نظارت بر آن فكری نشود وقوع حوادث بنيانكن اجتناب ناپذير است.

also see:


اختياران و مسئوليت‌های جديد
مجمع تشخيص مصلحت نظام

محسن رضايى دبير مجمع تشخيص خبر داد كه رهبر جمهوری اسلامى آئين نامه را تصويب كرد كه بموجب آن نظارت بر نحوه اجراى سياست‌هاى كلى نظام برعهده مجمع تشخيص مصلحت واگذار شده و بخشى از اختيارات وی به مجمع تشخيص تفويض شده است. بر اين اساس از اين پس، مجمع بر نحوه اجراى سياست‌هاى كلى نظام توسط قواى سه گانه نظارت خواهد كرد و سپس گزارش نظارتى خود را به اعضاى مجمع و سپس رهبرارائه مى كند.‌هاشمى رفسنجانى نيز به نوشته روزنامه شرق، در حاشيه جلسه اخير مجلس خبرگان گفته بود: مجمع تشخيص به نيابت از رهبرى بر سياست‌هاى كلى نظام ناظر است. در هر كجا و هر نهادى كه سياست‌هاى كلى آن تصويب شده باشد، مجمع تشخيص مصلحت نظام بايد بر آن نظارت كند.

اگر به هر دليلى يكى از سران قوا نظر مجمع را نپذيرد، ، نظر مجمع تشخيص، نظر آخر است و بايد آن را بپذيرند

Mohsen Rezai ( the x-commander also in Expediency council) basically explains that:

Expediency Council will take over the grand policies and will have the final say! meaning the government and parliament have to follow, no questions asked!

(guess holding a democratic front is no more possible for them. this also means khamenei just transfered part of his powers to Rafi-jaani. but he's probably lost it all, just doesn't know it yet.)
Paayande Iran

Last edited by Liberty Now ! on Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:25 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:44 am    Post subject: The Brits project of Akbar Shah is being completed Reply with quote

The Brits project of Akbar Shah is being completed

Dear Bxxxxx,

As a Daee Jan Napoleon that I am, I very well understand the Jumbo Mumbo wordings of the Brits. That is their habit & their manner, of entering premises from back door!

Forget about that Jumbo Mumbo, look at the substance. They are hiding their intentions behind the nonsensical words, intentionally to hide their real meaning from the masses. But at the same time they can point out “We told you soâ€‌!

The bottom line is that Rafsane-Jani became the Shah of Iran?! Exactly what the Brits had in mind, since long time ago.

According to the heading of this news, now Rafsane-Jani is sitting at the head of the so-called three powers, namely Judiciary, executive & legislation. Exactly as the traditional SHAHs!

That means that the supreme leader of the country is no more Ali Geda but Rafsane-Jani.

The opera comic of bringing Ahmaidinejad & defeating Refsane-Jani in the recent sham election (selection) was to make a victim out of Rafsane-Jani to pave the ground for making him Akbar Shah, as they did.

Other wise, what is the meaning of having Ali Geda as the Supreme Leader & Rafsa-eJani as the ultra boss of all the three supposedly independent powers?

Now Rafsane Jani is the only person who decides about any thing & every thing in Iran, foreign policy included!?

When there came just few days a go, the change of all the Army, Pasdaran & Basiji commanders, I knew that some thing big is cooking! Changing one or two commanders may look legitimate but when all of them in one single day are changed it means some thing is happening or going to happen. As it did!?

The resignation of Shahroudy few days ago & its non acceptance by Ali Geda is a good indication that this decision was in offing long time ago & the Iraqi Sharoudi came to know about it. Since he despise to work under the supervision of Rafsane-Jani, he resigned, but with no avail.

Now the only way opened to him is to go back to his own country (Iraq) under the pretext of pilgrimage to Karbela & Najaf & sit put over there, or most probably be physically eliminated there which is daily exercise of the Iraqi insurgents?!

This is a short story of the new situation in our country.

What this appointment means, no matter how it came through, is that, the future is open for all kinds of changes including our stand for Nuclear Energy, relation with U.S.A. & so many other hurdles blocking the comfort of the Mullah!?

Rafsane-Jani is a ruthless power house who does not observe any restrictions. He is there to do some cosmetic job to the ugly face of the IRI to make it more acceptable to the west & above all to IRI Masters, the Brits!

The Brits & IRI are doing their best to prolong the retched life of Mullahs, but I think that at the end of the day they are doomed!

It is also most probable that the Brits have managed to arrange some kind of compromise with the Yanks concerning IRI.

The sudden change of Yanks policy towards IRI & leaving every decision making to EU is indicating of backing off from G.W.Bush Doctorin of Axis of Evil!

The Iranian opposition being so disunited, we unfortunately, can not do any thing save to wait & see.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !

Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:19 pm    Post subject: brits' thugs they are. Reply with quote

according to one of the british thugs masoud behnoud's article, this had been signed and sealed for two months now. yet only announced now. I thing rafi-jani was going to give ahmadinejad & the gang enough time to walk all over him, as they did. imagine their surprise now.

behnoud the british agent in BBC persian, was extatic to hear his master Rafi-jaani is back.

can't find his article. it was published yesterday in rooz online and its' gone less than 12 hours.

another interesting point is that Manouk khodabakhshian had mentioned in his program that something's cooking as well. in an interview they've mentioned that all the mullahs are gathered in Mashad, for extra sensitive decision makings. but then they've guessed that it's to nominate someone to replace khamenei when he dies. and they also thought it would be ayatollah tabasi. next week manouk jan will probably change his mind and say, I've told ya! rafsanjani was the one picked! lol

anyhow, it's not a secret that the so called reformists were made in britain, and brits will manage to bring them back, perhaps this time as a phony opposition, just as they've managed to bring back rafi-jani the Islamo fascist God Father of lucrative oil deals for brits, assasination and terror for Iranians.
Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hell if I can ever figure out why folks think the entire universe centers around the Brits...seems a bit obsessive...but there may be a real simple explanation why the repugnant one got a pay raise....Antar's out of his league....damaged IRI relations by his UN speech, and is ill equipped to handle domestic policy at a national level....so the Ayatollah throws the old dog a bone, hoping he'll salvage the tattered failing economic and diplomatic situation. Could be Allah's gift to idiots is on his way out of this plane of existance...but this meeting may be for other reasons illustrated in this article.....

Israel is not given to going public when it has a serious problem to discuss with the US....that they have chosen to do so at this point in time, empasizes the seriousness of their intent.

This is not a bluff...they are dead serious, and have put the US and everyone else on notice.

My guess is there will be no Russian nuclear shipment delivered to start Bhushir , either the Russians freeze the program, or there will be no reactor to deliver it to.



Israelis urge U.S. to stop Iran's nuke goalsBy David R. Sands
September 30, 2005
The United States and its allies must act to stop Iran's nuclear programs -- by force if necessary -- because conventional diplomacy will not work, three senior Israeli lawmakers from across the political spectrum warned yesterday.
As a last resort, they said, Israel itself would act unilaterally to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.
Iran will not be deterred "by anything short of a threat of force," said Arieh Eldad, a member of Israel's right-wing National Union Party, part of a delegation of Knesset members visiting Washington this week.
"They won't be stopped unless they are convinced their programs will be destroyed if they continue," he said.
Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said the best hope was for the United States and other major powers to make it clear to Iranian leaders now there was "no chance they will ever see the fruits of a nuclear program."
"Threats of sanctions and isolation alone will not do it," said Mr. Steinitz.
Yosef Lapid, head of the centrist opposition Shinui Party in the Knesset, added that Israel "will not live under the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb."
"We feel we are obliged to warn our friends that Israel should not be pushed into a situation where we see no other solution but to act unilaterally" against Iran, he said.
Mr. Steinitz, a member of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's ruling Likud Party, stopped just short of a direct threat to bomb suspect Iranian nuclear sites.
Mr. Steinitz said Israeli officials estimate that Tehran is only two to three years away from developing a nuclear bomb and that time was running out for the world to act.
"We see an Iranian bomb as a devastating, existential threat to Israel, to the entire Middle East, to all Western interests in the region," he said.
"Despite all the different circumstances, we see similarities to what happened in the 1930s, when people underestimated the real problem or focused on other dangers. For us, either the world will tackle Iran in advance or all of us will face the consequences."
The Bush administration has led the diplomatic campaign to pressure Iran, claiming the Islamic regime for two decades has secretly pursued a nuclear arsenal. The board of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency in Vienna over the weekend concluded Iran had violated international pledges on its nuclear programs and said the matter could be referred to the U.N. Security Council.
Iranian officials harshly condemned the resolution and insist the country has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program to meet its energy needs.
Israel has acted unilaterally before to halt a nuclear program by a hostile neighbor, bombing Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. Widely condemned at the time, the surprise raid is now credited with dealing a major setback to Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.
Mr. Eldad said Israelis across the political spectrum see Iran as the country's most serious threat and one that cannot be ignored.
But he added that unilateral action by Israel was the "worst possible scenario," likely to inflame opinion throughout the Muslim world.
"If we have to do it, we'll do it," he said with a shrug. "If the United States and the world community do it, there is a chance the issue can be contained. If Israel has to do it alone, there is no chance the conflict can be contained."
Mr. Lapid said he was sensitive to criticism that Israel was trying to push Washington into a potentially armed conflict with Iran that many Americans now oppose.
"Our mission is to point out the dangers we see, to ourselves and to our friends," he said. "Avoiding speaking the truth does not mean you can then avoid facing the consequences of those facts," he said.
The lawmakers met with their U.S. counterparts, as well as with senior administration officials, saying they highlighted the Iranian danger in all their meetings.
Asked if he thought the message got through, Mr. Steinitz said, "I did not get the feeling we were talking to the walls."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Statement by Stephen Rademaker, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, on Confronting Today’s Threats, in the First Committee of the General Assembly, October 3, 2005

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin by saying how pleased I am to see the representative of a close friend and ally, Ambassador Choi from the Republic of Korea, chairing this body. Mr. Chairman, the United States Delegation looks forward to working with you and the other members of the Bureau to make this session a constructive one that demonstrates the value of our revitalized First Committee.

In this regard, our Delegation wishes to make special note of your distinguished predecessor, Ambassador De Alba of Mexico, another close friend, whose skilled chairmanship guided this Committee last year to its adoption by consensus of Resolution 59/95 and other measures to improve our collective effectiveness.

Mr. Chairman, this year’s meeting of the First Committee is especially significant, as it follows the recent Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and the High-Level Event. Both of those gatherings were unable to produce consensus statements of arms control and nonproliferation priorities. The United States does not, however, share the oft-expressed view that those meetings were failures because they did not produce consensus statements. We consider more significant the fact that these meetings demonstrated overwhelming consensus on certain common goals, which I intend to spell out here, and which our Delegation will emphasize over the next five weeks.

One point on which we all agree, Mr. Chairman, is the importance of UN reform. The High-Level Event made a start in that direction, but did not go nearly far enough. Delegations in the First Committee can take justified pride in having taken the lead in revitalizing the General Assembly. Now it is up to delegations to take advantage of our decisions last year to focus this Committee’s work on the challenges that we face today and will face in the future.

Naturally, most of the responsibility for refocusing the Committee’s activities falls on the member states. No single resolution or rule or procedure will ensure that States refrain from introducing outdated resolutions, or that delegations participate actively in sessions set aside for thematic debate, or otherwise consult in a transparent manner. Delegations may rest assured, however, that the United States Delegation will bear its fair share of this burden.

Mr. Chairman, the challenges that we confront today differ profoundly from those of the Cold War. During the Cold War, we worried about nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union, and we relied on deterrence and a web of bilateral strategic arms control treaties to contain that risk. The preoccupations of the 21st Century are different, however, as are the policies required to address today’s threats. Today, our foremost fear is the acquisition and possible use of weapons of mass destruction by rogue states, by terrorists, or, perhaps most worrisome of all, by terrorists armed by rogue states. Deterrence is a weak reed on which to lean in confronting these kinds of actors, who fundamentally will not be deterred. Moreover, traditional arms control treaties alone cannot protect against these risks, particularly in a world where certain countries do not honor their commitments, as enshrined in those treaties. We need to elaborate more appropriate strategies to address the threats we face today.

I am pleased to report that the United States, joined by many other members of the international community, is making progress in developing new strategies for confronting today’s threats.

A prime example is the Proliferation Security Initiative, which President Bush launched two years ago in Krakow, in order to strengthen our collective capacity to stop shipments of WMD, their delivery systems, or related materials to or from states or non-state actors of proliferation concern.

Since then, like-minded countries, including many represented here, have put their diplomatic, military, law enforcement, and intelligence assets to work in a multinational, yet flexible, fashion. We have begun applying existing laws and legal principles in innovative ways, cooperating as never before to interdict shipments, disrupt proliferation networks, and hold accountable the front companies that support them. These efforts have yielded concrete results. PSI cooperation, for example, in a number of instances has stopped the transshipment of material and equipment bound for ballistic missile programs in countries of concern, including Iran.

PSI is not a treaty-based initiative. There is no formal organization with a budget or with a headquarters. Rather, it is a set of activities among participating nations, which act in a manner consistent with their respective national legal authorities and international law to deter, disrupt, and prevent WMD proliferation.

We also have established new mechanisms through the UN to address the WMD proliferation threat. In April 2004, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1540, establishing legally binding obligations on all UN member states to enact and enforce legal and regulatory measures to prevent proliferation of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and their delivery systems by state or non-state actors.

Governments also have been working to impede the ability of proliferators to access banking systems, and to form partnerships with legitimate companies. As one of the requirements in Resolution 1540, States must put in place laws designed to prevent the provision of any form of assistance, including financial, to non-state actors that attempt to develop, acquire, or transfer WMD and their means of delivery. G-8 leaders at the Gleneagles Summit emphasized the need for further cooperation to “identify, track and freeze relevant financial transactions and assets.” To this end, President Bush has issued Executive Order 13382, which authorizes the United States Government to freeze assets and block transactions of entities and persons engaged in proliferation activities. We urge other states to consider how they might implement similar authorities, consistent with UNSCR 1540.

The United States also has proposed measures to prevent nuclear proliferation by strengthening controls on enrichment and reprocessing technology. We will continue to work for agreement on these controls in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, while also working to ensure that States renouncing enrichment and reprocessing have reliable access to fuel for civil nuclear power reactors. We are working with major suppliers and the International Atomic Energy Agency on an assured supply mechanism to provide a backup for states that forgo investment in an indigenous enrichment or reprocessing capabilities.

Beyond this list of initiatives, Mr. Chairman, I wish to stress our continued commitment to addressing today’s threats through traditional diplomacy. We are working diplomatically and energetically to address two of the most serious proliferation threats facing the world today: North Korea and Iran. As all delegations are aware, North Korea and Iran exemplify the alarming breakdown of compliance with the core non-proliferation undertakings contained in Articles II and III of the NPT that we confront today from a small number of countries.

In the case of North Korea, our goal is to preserve the NPT by insisting on the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of both the plutonium and the uranium nuclear weapons programs in that country, as well as the dismantlement of all nuclear weapons. We are pleased that, just two weeks ago today, we and our partners in the six-party process were able to agree on a joint statement that, we hope, will provide a path to the realization of these objectives.

In the case of Iran, IAEA investigations have exposed almost two decades of clandestine nuclear work, as well as a pattern of evasion and deception, that can only be explained as part of an illegal nuclear weapons program. Earlier this year, the United States lent its strong support to the efforts of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany to negotiate objective guarantees that would assure the international community that Iran has given up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. In August, however, Iran spurned these negotiations by violating the 2004 Paris Agreement on which the negotiations were founded. This, in turn, led to the adoption by the IAEA Board of Governors, just one week ago, of a resolution finding Iran in noncompliance with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations, and committing the Board to report Iran’s noncompliance to the United Nations Security Council and to the General Assembly, as required under the IAEA Statute.

We applaud this exercise in effective multilateralism, and hope that it will persuade the Iranian government to return to the negotiating table on the basis of the 2004 Paris Agreement. Should Iran decline to do so, however, the Board of Governors will have no alternative but to fulfill its obligation under the IAEA Statute and the recently adopted Board Resolution to report the matter to the United Nations. In the meantime, we hope that all governments will take note of the Board’s finding of noncompliance and adjust their national policies accordingly. We think it self-evident, for example, that, in the face of such a finding, no government should permit new nuclear transfers to Iran, and all ongoing nuclear projects should be frozen.

Mr. Chairman, the United States continues to support the immediate start of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty in the Conference on Disarmament. FMCT is an issue ripe for negotiation, and we are convinced that an agreement negotiated quickly would contribute to international security.

As delegations know well, the United States has concluded that effective verification of an FMCT is not realistically achievable, and that to include ineffective verification provisions would create an appearance of assurance that does not comport with reality. For this reason, we oppose including verification measures in an FMCT. Consequently, the United States supports a negotiating mandate that does not refer to verification measures. We advocate the adoption of a clean negotiating mandate on FMCT, unencumbered by linkages to unrelated proposals. We hope that the CD -- I repeat, the CD -- can get to work on this matter soon after it reconvenes in January. In the interim, the United States renews its call on all States that have not done so to implement moratoria on fissile material production for nuclear weapons purposes. We are gratified that all but one of the NPT nuclear weapon states have done so already, consistent with their Article VI obligations and as an example to others.

Along with an FMCT, the United States also has proposed that the CD negotiate a ban on the sale or export of all persistent landmines. We believe that this measure would help alleviate the serious problem created by the widespread use of landmines that last long after battles are over, and that maim and kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians every year. This approach complements other international restrictions on landmines, and we urge the members of the CD to give it prompt and favorable consideration.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide the Committee with an update on the latest developments in nuclear disarmament. On the 19th of last month, the United States completed the deactivation of its entire force of Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs. Just three years ago, this missile force comprised 50 ICBMs, each capable of carrying ten nuclear warheads. All now have been taken out of service, consistent with our obligations under the Moscow Treaty of 2002. The empty Peacekeeper silos will remain accountable under the START Treaty, and will be subject to inspection. This latest step implementing President Bush’s policy of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons provides fresh evidence of the fulfillment by the United States of its obligations under Article VI of the NPT.

Mr. Chairman, new challenges call for new solutions. I have outlined for the Committee some of the new approaches that the United States is taking to combat today’s threats. In the effort to contain these threats, perhaps even more than during the Cold War, the cooperation of all responsible governments is essential. Our Delegation urges the Committee and the States represented here to do their part, and reaffirms its commitment to work with all willing delegations in pursuit of an effective multilateralism.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

antarinejad is just a puppet. He doesn't act on his own, these IRI thugz all answer to someone. His UN speech must have been OKed by Khamenei, so Rafsanjani stepping back in must be in response to an emergency of some kind, cuz if Khamenei wanted him, he would have won the election. So the emergency could be Khamenei's health. The other Mullah$ have realized that Antar can't carry the IRI House of Cards if Khamenei croaks, so they're bring on Rafanjani who does business with everyone, while maneuvering for replacements all around.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Spenta,

Take a look at these articles, at the end I have a few comments in assesment I think you'll find interesting.


Tuesday, October 04, 2005

The Iranian Government's Balancing Act

October 04, 2005
Radio Free Europe
Bill Samii

The formal decision-making apparatus in the Iranian government has undergone a significant change in the last few days. This change, which gives the unelected Expediency Council supervisory powers over the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, has been met with criticism from members of parliament. This development reduces the power of elected officials, but it could also reflect an attempt to restore balance to a system heavily dominated by younger hard-liners.

Enhanced Council Powers

Mohsen Rezai, secretary of the Expediency Council, was quoted on 2 October by "Sharq" -- as well as "Aftab-i Yazd," "Etemad," "Farhang-i Ashti," and "Hemayat" -- as saying that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently approved the council's oversight of the system's policies. In other words, he said, the council will supervise the three branches of government and report on their performance to the supreme leader.

Rezai said Khamenei wanted the council to perform this function some eight years earlier, but the necessary laws did not exist. About one year ago the council began work on the required statute, under which the heads of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches must comply with whatever the Expediency Council says. Khamenei signed off on this about two months ago, according to Rezai.

"Sharq" cited Expediency Council Chairman Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani as saying previously that the Supreme Leader can delegate some of his responsibilities to others (per Article 110 of the constitution), and Rezai said this is what is taking place. Rezai referred specifically to oversight of the system's general policies, the fourth economic-development plan, and the 20-year plan.

This appears to be a significant enhancement of the Expediency Council's powers. When the council was created in February 1988, its primary purpose was to adjudicate in disputes over legislation between the Guardians Council and the parliament. Soon after its creation, it began to frame legislation -- something that ended only after 100 parliamentarians complained to the supreme leader. According to Article 112 of the Iranian Constitution, the council advises the supreme leader, and he consults with it when he wants to revise the constitution.

Fourth Branch?

Some members of parliament were quick to criticize the granting of new powers to the Expediency Council. Tabriz parliamentary representative Akbar Alami warned against making the council a fourth branch of government, "Etemad" and "Farhang-i Ashti" reported on 3 October. Alami said the legislature has the lead in national affairs. He cited Articles 6, 56, and 62, which say, respectively, that national affairs must be administered on the basis of elections; the people exercise sovereignty based on the separation of powers; and the people's representatives are elected directly by secret ballot. Alami also cited Articles 71 and 76, which say the legislature can establish laws and the legislature has the right to examine and investigate national affairs. Alami referred to Article 90, which states that an individual can forward a complaint about one of the branches of government to the legislature, and the legislature must investigate this complaint.

On the basis of the constitution, therefore, only the legislature can supervise the legislature, Alami said. "If this process continues, the principle of national sovereignty and its representation through the parliament will be exposed to serious danger," he said.

Another legislator, Reza Talai-Nik of Bahar and Kabudarahang, said that Article 110 only applies to supervision over the system's macro-policies, "Etemad" reported. "It is the responsibility of the Expediency Council to decide to what extent the country is moving within the context of the macro-policies of the system and evaluating those policies," he explained. "However, this does not mean supervision over executive affairs. Supervising the executive affairs is part of the responsibilities of the legislative power."

Vehicle For Influence

The Expediency Council, which Hashemi-Rafsanjani has chaired for approximately 15 years, is a vehicle for his political influence and power. But some observers believe that Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Khamenei are political competitors, and that Khamenei threw his weight behind Hashemi-Rafsanjani's adversary in the June 2005 presidential race. This most recent development argues against this interpretation of power relationships in Iran. Nor is this the first time Khamenei has granted significant power to the Expediency Council. In August 2001, for example, Khamenei had the Expediency Council determine the circumstances under which President Mohammad Khatami could be inaugurated.

Perhaps the greater significance of the Expediency Council's new powers is that it is another case in which an unelected institution has been given power over elected ones. Moreover, it could reflect an effort to restore some sort of balance to the country's politics, in which hard-liners have come to dominate the executive and legislative branches.


Rafsanjani says Iran’s nuclear crisis is a “minefield” for West Fri. 30 Sep 2005

Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Sep. 30 – Iran’s former President Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani angrily warned the West on Friday not to try to stop Iran in its tracks as the Islamic Republic forges ahead with its nuclear program.

Addressing Western governments in his Friday prayers sermon in Tehran, Ayatollah Rafsanjani, who chairs the State Expediency Council, warned, “This field is one which will not be easy for you to cross”, in an apparent reference to European threats to refer Tehran to the United Nations Security Council for its refusal to suspend sensitive nuclear activities.

“This field is riddled with mines and perils in such a way that if you don’t move in a correct manner, it will cost you, the region, and the world dearly”, Rafsanjani said.

“Iran is not [a country that would] surrender whenever you brandish weapons and daggers."

In comments directed at the United States and the EU, Rafsanjani said, “If your goal is to intimidate, then you should know that Iranians are not afraid”.

“We must use our leverages with patience and serenity without provocation or creating tension”.

Rafsanjani also had some tough words for the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “We are facing new and dangerous circumstances. The issue is very serious”, the senior cleric said. “Our nation must not be misguided with incorrect statements”.

Rafsanjani has had a tense relationship with Ahmadinejad after being beaten in the June presidential elections by the former Revolutionary Guards commander. Rafsanjani later charged that the election was rigged.

He told worshippers that Iran was up against countries seeking to impose “nuclear apartheid”.

“All the people and the officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran are resolute in defending their right”.

“Facing us is a resolution that says that we must not have the nuclear fuel cycle. We insist on having the fuel cycle and this issue is not safe for anyone”.


Iranian Hardliner Says Iran will Produce Atomic Bomb

February 14, 2005

LONDON -- A leading member of Iran’s Hezbollah, Hojjat-ol-Islam Baqer Kharrazi after years of silence delivered a harsh speech against the reformists and the administration in Iran, Iran Emrooz reported.

“I kept silent over the past 14 years, because Hezbollah needed to be restructured and I was busy with training the forces. Although no Iranian media reflected Hezbollah leaders’ recent meeting with head of Iran’s State Expediency Council, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, I should say we elaborated on Hezbollah’s activities for Rafsanjani in detail and the former president was amazed with our progress.” Kharrazi claimed.

“We don’t need any guardian. And if necessary we will select our own president, ministers and parliament members. For without the Hezbollah forces the Islamic Revolution will collapse from within.” the hardliner added.

Referring to the Sunni population in Iran’s western, eastern and southern borders, Kharrazi said: “Presently the country’s borders are controlled by Sunnis. We have to counter their growth in the country.”

On Iran’s nuclear issue, Kharrazi noted: “We have oil, gas and all other natural resources and thus we don’t need interaction with other countries. We are able to produce atomic bombs and we will do that. We shouldn’t be afraid of anyone. The US is no more than a barking dog”

Pointing to Iranian Peace Prize Laureate and human rights advocate the Hezbollah member noted: “Shirin Ebadi should not think that she can act as Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan. Hezbollah just needs a wrong gesture from her to shoot her. It was the leader’s blessing that has kept her alive to this day.”


Comments and analysis:

1. It has been my opinion for a long time that Khamenei was on life support, and the machine keeping him alive was the Rev. Guard. We have witnessed a complete military coup de etat , in a soft-sell sham "election"; total replacement of commanders of various forces; the "officilization" of the Basiji as a military command; the replacement of local officials nationwide in Iran with Rev. Guard personel; virtually all but a couple of the cabinet members being Rev Guard, as well as Antar; and this proves to me beyond a doubt that Khamenei is now the "puppet on a string".

2. While the above is de-facto reality...it is not publicly stated for reasons of "political stability" as it would (and does) represent a radical shift in power structure in the IRI.

3. Antar, not being a mullah, cannot replace Khamenei, plus to quiet any Majis "objection" to the military takover, the "puppet" throws the repugnant one a bone of greater power...knowing full well, as the above Hizballah statement illustrates a cooperation and working relation with the expediancy council leadership, that to do otherwise would be to bring on that elimination of the guardian council, and the ayatollah.

4. Antar and Ras the repugnant are on the same page, in total alignment of purpose....any statement of so-called "criticism" of one another is simply trickery to get the west to percieve a nich to drive a wedge into....and an opening for possible negotiated settlement.

Iranian "good cop, Bad cop".....monkey see monkey do in action.

5. The old geezer-former "puppet master" turned "puppet" is frail, weak, and without recourse, as his power is stripped as his life fades out.
Been thinking he may really be dead or in a coma, and Rasker's posted regime press report is just to buy time...probably used an old file photo...

Enter ayatollah Rasfanjani.....hand picked by hisbollah and the Rev Guard.

This isn't any Brit conspiracy, this is Iranian politics at it's "best".

Under the IRI that is......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More evidence:

Army takes control of Iran nukesBy David R. Sands
October 5, 2005
Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has placed the military firmly in control of his nation's nuclear program, undercutting his government's claim that the program is intended for civilian use, according to a leading opposition group.
Leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the force created specifically to defend the 1979 Islamic revolution, now dominate Iran's Supreme National Security Council, the country's top foreign policy-making body under the constitution.
Mr. Ahmadinejad, a little-known former mayor of Tehran before his surprise election in July, is a former IRGC commander, as is new council Secretary-General Ali Larijani, who has taken the lead in negotiations about Iran's nuclear programs.
Revolutionary Guard commanders also have taken charge of the council's internal security, strategy and political posts, according to a report issued by the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran. A Revolutionary Guard veteran even serves as the council's press spokesman.
"The military under the new president is firmly in control of the nuclear program and the nuclear negotiations with the United Nations and the West," said Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the NCRI's foreign affairs committee, in a telephone interview yesterday.
The personnel changes "make it less and less credible that Iran is pursuing nuclear programs for peaceful uses," he said.
The report, which also tracks Iran's extensive nuclear infrastructure and technical programs, charges that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei has turned to IRGC personnel in order to "eliminate all bureaucratic and political obstacles to obtaining nuclear weapons."
Iran, which claims the right to pursue a civilian nuclear program to meet its domestic energy needs, is in intense negotiations with European Union powers France, Britain and Germany over the fate of its nuclear programs.
The Bush administration is deeply skeptical of Tehran's ambitions. The board of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency last month threatened to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions if it does not allow tight international oversight of its programs.
The NCRI is the political arm of the People's Mujahadeen, a secular Iranian bloc that broke violently with the Islamic leaders of the revolution shortly after the ouster of the U.S.-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The opposition group has had a checkered and at times contradictory role. Branded a terrorist group by U.S. and European governments, it also has proven to be the single best intelligence source on Iran's clandestine nuclear programs, exposing in recent years massive research and testing sites inside Iran unknown to U.N. and Western monitors.
But other analysts also have reported a wave of senior appointments for Iran's military, especially from within the more ideological forces under the direct control of the ruling Islamic clerics.
Houchang Hassan-Yari, a political scientist at the Royal Military College of Canada, noted in a recent analysis that current and former members of the IRGC now can be found throughout Iran's political and administrative bureaucracy, from lawmakers in parliament to mayors, university officials and even managers of some of Iran's biggest business concerns.
The corps is "on the verge of being transformed from a junior player in the country's military defense to a key factor in the country's military and security doctrine -- a rise that could come at the [traditional] army's expense," he noted.
Bill Samii, an Iranian analyst for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, said a key factor in Mr. Ahmadinejad's surprise presidential election was the support of the Basij Resistance Force, a paramilitary force with extensive links to the Revolutionary Guards Corps.
The new president, with virtually no experience in foreign affairs when he was elected, named a senior Basij leader as a top adviser just after assuming office in August.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daily Press Briefing (Corrected)
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
October 5, 2005


QUESTION: Yes, Sylvie.

Do you have any sense from your European counterparts that they are preparing
to restart talks with Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have any update for you on that. We've encouraged the
Iranians to return to talks with the EU-3, but I don't have any particular
update for you on that.

QUESTION: Have you seen reports that this is in the works? Not even that? No?


QUESTION: Have you seen reports that one of the main negotiators, one of the
most moderate negotiators from Tehran, resigned today?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I hadn't seen those reports.

QUESTION: In fact, that's the main negotiator, Ali Larijani, went to Syria and
met with President Assad. Did you see that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I had heard that that had occurred. Look, Iran has to decide
what course it's going to take here. Is it going to continue on the course of
further isolation from the international community, further defiance of the
international community, or is it going to take the opportunity presented to it
by the EU-3?

And we'll see. We'll see what the coming days and weeks bring. The IAEA Board
of Governors voted at their most recent meeting that Iran was not in compliance
with its international obligations and it had a series of questions to resolve
concerning its nuclear activities.

And as part of that resolution there will be another report from -- there will
be a report from the IAEA to the Security Council. Now, what is contained in
that report in terms of Iran's cooperation, its compliance with its
international obligations, will be up to Iran. So we'll decide -- we'll see,
based on their actions and the decisions that they take, what pathway they're
going to choose to go down.

QUESTION: What are your opportunities if Iran radicalizes completely its
position and isolates itself from the rest of the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, let's take this one step at a time. What I think Iran has
seen as a result of its actions -- you know, Iran has gotten itself to this
position by itself, through its actions and its failure to cooperate and its
defiance of the international community and, most recently, the speech by the
Iranian President at the UN. I think that was shocking to a lot of countries
but I think that they started to see the real face of this regime.

So we'll take this one step at a time, and right now we'll see what Iran does
in terms of its reaction to the very clear statement of the international
community, as manifested in the vote by the IAEA Board of Governors.

QUESTION: One more.


QUESTION: There's a report out that the Iranian President is looking to
completely turn over nuclear program to the military. Does this give you added
-- do you know anything about this and would this give you added concern about
Iran's nuclear program?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, one note about -- I saw this news report, and one
note about the source of the report that I have to make. And that is that the
National Council for Resistance in Iran --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Right -- is a designated alias of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, the
MEK, which is -- which the U.S. has designated as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization, and the U.S. Government has no contact with the MEK or NCRI
regarding Iran's nuclear programs. So just that note about the source of this

But in general, about the general issue of Iranian military control over Iran's
and its role in Iran's nuclear program, we note that one of the outstanding
concerns of the IAEA is, that the IAEA is continuing to investigate, is the
extent of the Iranian military's role in Iran's nuclear program. The IAEA has
already confirmed that Iran's military oversees many of the centrifuge
workshops in Iran and that an Iranian military organization had conducted
nuclear-related work at a facility in Lavizan that Iran demolished before the
IAEA accessed the site. And also I would note that Iran continues to refuse the
IAEA the full access it is requesting to visit an Iranian high-explosive
facility at Parchin.

So there are -- this report aside, there were pre-existing concerns and
outstanding questions regarding the Iranian military role in their nuclear

QUESTION: I understand what you say about the NCRI and MEK but they have been
on the list for a while and they've provided information to the international
community that it's used in claims before. So what's changed in terms of the
kind of reliability of their information?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't vouch for the veracity of this claim. But one thing that
we have done in the past and continue to do so is to encourage the IAEA to look
into any potentially credible claim.

QUESTION: One last one. Is the U.S. considering this South African proposal as
a viable solution for the standoff between the EU and Iran? Have you looked at
that? I think this came up while we were at UNGA over the --

MR. MCCORMACK: The Secretary met with the South African Foreign Minister and
I'm not aware of any change in the South African position on this. Where it
stood at the time of that meeting was that the South Africans were interested
in looking at what was happening with the EU-3 negotiations, what the objective
-- the objectives of those negotiations were and exactly what was on the table,
so they were in sort of information-gathering mode at that point. I haven't
heard anything further about any formal proposal or formal offer from the South
Africans. But so, at this point what I would say is that we would encourage
Iran to get back to the table with the EU-3 in terms of their negotiating

QUESTION: You hinted at it, yes, but could you say it outright that the signs
of an increasing role of the Iranian military in the nuclear program is further
evidence that it's a weapons program?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the fact that there are those outstanding questions, and
it's not only the United States but it's the IAEA that has these concerns, I
think it stands to reason that the -- one logical conclusion of a military
involvement in a nuclear program is that they're trying to build a nuclear
weapon and that has been our concern for some time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppenheimer

I read your analysis, and I agree. I think Khamenei's health is deteriorating, and that leaves Rafsanajani as the most powerful Mullah. Why? Because of his vast business empire which touches every Mullah and every Mullah Member$' family, plus Rafsanjani's longstanding tradition of elimianting any threat to his power which has kept him as the Godfather all these years.

So Antar scares the living daylights out of the west as the hardliner bad guy', then Rafsanajani will come along as the Moderate, Reformist/pragmatist 'good guy' to calm things down, and then the west feels like O.K. we can go back to trading with Iran and have talks and trade and everything since they are being reasonable.

So all this tough talk is a prelude to Rafsanjani re-establishing ties with the US

If the IRI was to come to the US now and say we want trade etc, it wouldn't happen. But if the IRI drags the world to the brink of war, and then turns on the charm, the greatful nations will go for anything, or atleast thats their sterategy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Spenta,

The IRI has flat run out of time to play games....trust me on this...or look up my last dozen posts on this site, I can't be repeating all of them on every thread....too hard to keep track as it is...(chuckle).

But this one's worth repeating here....




President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
Washington, D.C.

10:07 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. (Applause.) Thank you all. Please be seated. (Applause.) Thank you for the warm welcome. I'm honored once again to be with the supporters of the National Endowment for Democracy. Since the day President Ronald Reagan set out the vision for this Endowment, the world has seen the swiftest advance of democratic institutions in history. And Americans are proud to have played our role in this great story.

Our nation stood guard on tense borders; we spoke for the rights of dissidents and the hopes of exile; we aided the rise of new democracies on the ruins of tyranny. And all the cost and sacrifice of that struggle has been worth it, because, from Latin America to Europe to Asia, we've gained the peace that freedom brings.

In this new century, freedom is once again assaulted by enemies determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. Once again, we're responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom. And once again, we will see freedom's victory. (Applause.)

Vin, I want to thank you for inviting me back. And thank you for the short introduction. (Laughter.) I appreciate Carl Gershman. I want to welcome former Congressman Dick Gephardt, who is a board member of the National Endowment for Democracy. It's good to see you, Dick. And I appreciate Chris Cox, who is the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and a board member for the National Endowment of Democracy, for being here, as well. I want to thank all the other board members.

I appreciate the Secretary of State, Condi Rice, who has joined us -- alongside her, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld. Thank you all for being here. I'm proud, as well, that the newly sworn-in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the first Marine ever to hold that position, is with us today -- General Peter Pace. (Applause.) I thank the members of the Diplomatic Corps who are here, as well.

Recently our country observed the fourth anniversary of a great evil, and looked back on a great turning point in our history. We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoiced in every death, and Americans in uniform rising to duty. And we remember the calling that came to us on that day, and continues to this hour: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won. (Applause.)

The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places -- in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.

Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world.

We know the vision of the radicals because they've openly stated it -- in videos, and audiotapes, and letters, and declarations, and websites. First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, quote, their "resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of their lands." Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they've set their sights on Iraq. Bin Laden has stated: "The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.

Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation.

Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. Well, they are fanatical and extreme -- and they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously -- and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.

Defeating the militant network is difficult, because it thrives, like a parasite, on the suffering and frustration of others. The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization, in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution. They exploit resentful and disillusioned young men and women, recruiting them through radical mosques as the pawns of terror. And they exploit modern technology to multiply their destructive power. Instead of attending faraway training camps, recruits can now access online training libraries to learn how to build a roadside bomb, or fire a rocket-propelled grenade -- and this further spreads the threat of violence, even within peaceful democratic societies.

The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They have been sheltered by authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews. These radicals depend on front operations, such as corrupted charities, which direct money to terrorist activity. They're strengthened by those who aggressively fund the spread of radical, intolerant versions of Islam in unstable parts of the world. The militants are aided, as well, by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American "war on Islam" -- with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq.

Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.

Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.

On the contrary: They target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)

The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his -- that this is the road to paradise -- though he never offers to go along for the ride.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life. We've seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, and Margaret Hassan, and many others. In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo Van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I do not feel your pain -- because I believe you are an infidel." And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.

When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple -- the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion. These militants are not just the enemies of America, or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and the enemies of humanity. (Applause.) We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags, and the Cultural Revolution, and the killing fields.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves. Under their rule, they have banned books, and desecrated historical monuments, and brutalized women. They seek to end dissent in every form, and to control every aspect of life, and to rule the soul, itself. While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent. Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, "the most cowardly of God's creatures." But let's be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs, and cuts the throat of a bound captive, and targets worshipers leaving a mosque. It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage in the cause of freedom that once again will destroy the enemies of freedom. (Applause.)

And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom -- by distrusting human creativity, and punishing change, and limiting the contributions of half the population -- this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible, and human societies successful. The only thing modern about the militants' vision is the weapons they want to use against us. The rest of their grim vision is defined by a warped image of the past -- a declaration of war on the idea of progress, itself. And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt: Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse. Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future. (Applause.)

We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence, and a comprehensive strategy. Defeating a broad and adaptive network requires patience, constant pressure, and strong partners in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia and beyond. Working with these partners, we're disrupting militant conspiracies, destroying their ability to make war, and working to give millions in a troubled region of the world a hopeful alternative to resentment and violence.

First, we're determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur. We're reorganizing our government to give this nation a broad and coordinated homeland defense. We're reforming our intelligence agencies for the incredibly difficult task of tracking enemy activity, based on information that often comes in small fragments from widely scattered sources, here and abroad. We're acting, along with the governments from many countries, to destroy the terrorist networks and incapacitate their leaders. Together, we've killed or captured nearly all of those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks; as well as some of bin Laden's most senior deputies; al Qaeda managers and operatives in more than 24 countries; the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, who was chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf; the mastermind of the Jakarta and the first Bali bombings; a senior Zarqawi terrorist planner, who was planning attacks in Turkey; and many of al Qaeda's senior leaders in Saudi Arabia.

Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country. Because of this steady progress, the enemy is wounded -- but the enemy is still capable of global operations. Our commitment is clear: We will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken, and their leaders held to account for their acts of murder.

Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation. The United States, working with Great Britain, Pakistan, and other nations, has exposed and disrupted a major black-market operation in nuclear technology led by A.Q. Khan. Libya has abandoned its chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as long-range ballistic missiles. And in the last year, America and our partners in the Proliferation Security Initiative have stopped more than a dozen shipments of suspected weapons technology, including equipment for Iran's ballistic missile program.

This progress has reduced the danger to free nations, but has not removed it. Evil men who want to use horrendous weapons against us are working in deadly earnest to gain them. And we're working urgently to keep weapons of mass destruction out of their hands.

Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder. (Applause.) Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.

Fourth, we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror. For this reason, we're fighting beside our Afghan partners against remnants of the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies. For this reason, we're working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan. And for this reason, we're fighting the regime remnants and terrorists in Iraq. The terrorist goal is to overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East, and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power -- and so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq.

Our coalition, along with our Iraqi allies, is moving forward with a comprehensive, specific military plan. Area by area, city by city, we're conducting offensive operations to clear out enemy forces, and leaving behind Iraqi units to prevent the enemy from returning. Within these areas, we're working for tangible improvements in the lives of Iraqi citizens. And we're aiding the rise of an elected government that unites the Iraqi people against extremism and violence. This work involves great risk for Iraqis, and for Americans and coalition forces. Wars are not won without sacrifice -- and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve.

The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we've ever faced. They're unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity, or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight.

Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters -- they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people, themselves.

In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress -- from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, in the space of two-and-a-half years. With our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations 11 months ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces. Progress isn't easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.

Some observers question the durability of democracy in Iraq. They underestimate the power and appeal of freedom. We've heard it suggested that Iraq's democracy must be on shaky ground because Iraqis are arguing with each other. But that's the essence of democracy: making your case, debating with those who you disagree -- who disagree, building consensus by persuasion, and answering to the will of the people. We've heard it said that the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq are too divided to form a lasting democracy. In fact, democratic federalism is the best hope for unifying a diverse population, because a federal constitutional system respects the rights and religious traditions of all citizens, while giving all minorities, including the Sunnis, a stake and a voice in the future of their country. It is true that the seeds of freedom have only recently been planted in Iraq -- but democracy, when it grows, is not a fragile flower; it is a healthy, sturdy tree. (Applause.)

As Americans, we believe that people everywhere -- everywhere -- prefer freedom to slavery, and that liberty, once chosen, improves the lives of all. And so we're confident, as our coalition and the Iraqi people each do their part, Iraqi democracy will succeed.

Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources? Having removed a dictator who hated free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers, dedicated to the destruction of our own country, seizes control of Iraq by violence.

There's always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. This would be a pleasant world, but it's not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory. (Applause.)

The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. This is a difficult and long-term project, yet there's no alternative to it. Our future and the future of that region are linked. If the broader Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery, while radicals stir the resentments of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger, and for our generation and the next. If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow, and eventually end. By standing for the hope and freedom of others, we make our own freedom more secure.

America is making this stand in practical ways. We're encouraging our friends in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terror by respecting the rights and choices of their own people. We're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow. We're making our case through public diplomacy, stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination, and the rule of law, and religious freedom, and equal rights for women, beliefs that are right and true in every land, and in every culture. (Applause.)

As we do our part to confront radicalism, we know that the most vital work will be done within the Islamic world, itself. And this work has begun. Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity. After the attacks in London on July the 7th, an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith.

Many people of the Muslim faith are proving their commitment at great personal risk. Everywhere we have engaged the fight against extremism, Muslim allies have stood up and joined the fight, becoming partners in a vital cause. Afghan troops are in combat against Taliban remnants. Iraqi soldiers are sacrificing to defeat al Qaeda in their own country. These brave citizens know the stakes -- the survival of their own liberty, the future of their own region, the justice and humanity of their own tradition -- and that United States of America is proud to stand beside them. (Applause.)

With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers. And yet the fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle, between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people. Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent -- until the day that free men and women defeat them.

We don't know the course of our own struggle -- the course our own struggle will take -- or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. And we do know the cause of freedom will once again prevail.

May God bless you. (Applause.)

END 10:47 A.M. EDT
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !

Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the mullahs read the article, and here's their response:

what doesn't kill us, only makes us stronger terrorists and dictators!

Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Adventure That Can Backfire

October 08, 2005
Arab News
Amir Taheri

Having secured most key positions in the past few months, the new generation of Iran's Islamic revolutionaries is now invited to prepare for playing "chicken" with the United States.

"The Satanic powers want to play chicken with us," says Gen. Muhammad Hijazi, the man in charge of the Islamic army's office of war preparation. "We must show that we are eagles."

The idea that the Islamic Republic faces a game of "chicken" against the West was publicized last month by Ali Larijani, the new "security czar" in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration. But the man who first came up with the analysis is Hassan Abbasi who has emerged as Ahmadinejad's chief strategic guru.

Abbasi heads the Center for Security Doctrines Research of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (RGC). His friends call him "The Kissinger of Islam", after Henry Kissinger who served as US secretary of state in the 1970s.

"To Iran's new ruling elite, Abbasi is the big strategic brain," says a European diplomat in Tehran. "More and more officials quote him in meetings with foreign diplomats."

According to Tehran sources, Abbasi is the architect of the so-called "war preparation plan" currently under way in Iran.

Last month Abbasi presented an outline of his analysis in a lecture at the Teachers Training Faculty in Karaj, west of Tehran.

The lecture merits attention because it offers an insight into the way the new leadership in Tehran approaches issues of international politics.

According to Abbasi, the global balance of power is in a state of flux and every nation should fight for a place in a future equilibrium. The Western powers, especially the United States, still wield immense military and economic power that "looks formidable on paper." But they are unable to use that power because their populations have become "risk-averse."

"The Western man today has no stomach for a fight," Abbasi says. "This phenomenon is not new: All empires produce this type of man, the self-centered, materialist, and risk-averse man."

Abbasi believes that the US intervention in Iraq, which involved "slightly higher risks" than the invasion of Afghanistan, was the very last of its kind. And even then, the US went into Iraq because of President George W Bush's "readiness to do what no other American leader would dare contemplate."

According to Abbasi, the US knows that the only power capable of and willing to challenge it across the globe is the Islamic Republic. The reason is that the Islamic Republic not only enjoys "strong backing from its people", but also has the support of millions who are prepared to kill and die for it across the globe.

Abbasi claims that the US and its allies have played three games against Iran.

The first was a "carrots and sticks" exercise designed to tempt a section of the Tehran leadership away from radical politics while frightening another section into submission. The next game was "good cop, bad cop" and had the more sinister objective of confusing and dividing the Islamic leadership. Finally, and starting just over a year ago, the "satanic powers" played a new game which Abbasi has dubbed "trigger-at-the-ready." In this game they put the metaphoric gun at the Islamic Republic's temple with their finger on the trigger.

Abbasi believes that the trigger was pulled, firing only a blank, when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed an anodyne resolution on the Islamic Republic's pursuit of nuclear power last month.

"Now that the satanic powers have failed to achieve their goal with all those games they are preparing for a new game," Abbasi says. " This new game is known as the Chicken Strategy in which the two sides move toward each other with speed until one side quits."

It is not clear whether Abbasi or other mullas have seen Nicholas Ray's "Rebel Without A Cause". But it was in that film, starring James Dean, that "playing chicken" was introduced to broader audiences. According to Webster dictionary, the phrase refers to "any of various contests in which the participants risk personal safety in order to see which one will give up first." The quitter is designated as "chicken livered."

Abbasi and his disciples in the new Islamic elite believe that this is the best time to engage the US in a "game of chicken."

"The Western regimes lack popular legitimacy," Abbasi told his audience. "The Western economy is based on shaky foundations that depend on oil. Divisions within the Western camp, the West's economic fragility, and the distrust of the people (in Western countries) toward their governments render their side vulnerable."

Abbasi believes that when President Bush says that no option is off the table, implying that force could be used against the Islamic Republic, he is only playing chicken.

"The Americans are not ready to send a million men (to defeat the Islamic Republic)," Abbasi said. "Even economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic will fail thanks to opposition from the Western public opinion and the refusal of most countries to implement (them)."

Abbasi claims that in a game plan presented to Ahmadinejad, he has concluded that the idea of a major US military attack against Iran is "a bluff."

"Our game plan shows that any attempt at imposing an embargo on Iran would push the price of oil to $110 per barrel," Abbasi said. "And if we were to be subjected to military attack the price could top the $400 mark."

A brief military clash with the US at this time could do wonders for the Islamic Republic. The regime would be able to crush growing internal opposition in the name of national solidarity. It would also revive the regime's revolutionary credentials. The raid on the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979 gave the new Islamic regime an aura of radicalism that it lacked because a revolution led by the mullas was hard to sell as a progressive, anti-imperialist movement. Abbasi also recalls that Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 was "a blessing from God" because it gave the revolutionary regime another chance to prove its resilience."

In true Nietzschean form he believes that since a limited war with the US will not kill the Islamic Republic; it is bound to make it stronger.

But it is not only the US that Abbasi wants to take on and humiliate. He has described Britain as "the mother of all evils". In his lecture he claimed that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and the Gulf states were all "children of the same mother: the British Empire." As for France and Germany, they are "countries in terminal decline", according to Abbasi.

"Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover," he told his audience.

Abbasi's strategy may be in tune with the current macho mood in Tehran. But the new Tehran leadership should think twice before it embarks on a potentially deadly, and totally unnecessary, adventure on the basis of childish assumptions about Iran's power and the West's weakness.


Comment: The IRI's military strategy assumes that the US will put boots on the ground.
Fact is we don't need to invade to castrate the regime, if it comes to war.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iran Stocks Market Continue to Fall

October 10, 2005
New York Times
Bahrain Tribune

TEHRAN -- Iran’s government and parliament held emergency meetings this week on the country’s plummeting stock market, where prices have declined nearly 30 per cent since September 24. The decline began after the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution referring Iran to the UN Security Council for violating its nuclear obligations.

Meraj Naderi, a stock analyst in Tehran, said: “The line to sell shares was really long and there was no one to buy. There had been ups and downs in the stock market but I had never seen such a thing.”

A Tehran economist, Saeed Leylaz, said, “We can call it the black September in Iran’s stock market.”

Iranian investors appeared to be moving millions into Dubai’s market, which opened to foreign investors last month.

Since the Iranian revolution, Iranian investors have put billions into real estate and other fixed investments in Dubai.

The drop in stock prices was widely seen as a reaction to the nuclear agency vote, and the international tensions raised by Iran’s return to processing uranium and threat to ban nuclear inspectors, as well as a highly confrontational speech by the new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at the UN General Assembly, in which he inveighed against the United States and its allies for what he called nuclear apartheid.

Iran insists its programme is for peaceful purposes, though it has admitted hiding parts of its capacity for years.

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former Iranian president, made a strong speech on Friday at Tehran University, saying the nuclear standoff was “a very serious and crucial situation.”

He called on officials to put aside confrontational rhetoric, even as he emphasised Iran’s right to nuclear technology.

“Managers at this sector should know that we need diplomacy and not slogans,” he said.

“This is the place for wisdom, the place for seeking windows that will lead you to the goal,” he said.

“This is where we should use all our leverages with patience and wisdom, without provocation and slogans that can give pretexts to the enemies.”
Rafsanjani is now running the Expediency Council, which helps mediate disputes between the elected government and the cleric-controlled Guardian Council.
That group has final say over all government actions. Last week, the country’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, empowered the Expediency Council to supervise parliament, the judiciary and the government.

Most newspapers have avoided publishing editorials about the nuclear debates, fearing that the government would see them as endangering national security and close them.

But recently, dozens of editorials and commentaries have appeared urging moves to stop the nuclear agency, at its next meeting in November, from voting to send Iran’s case to the Security Council.

The resolution last month gave no time frame.

The daily Shargh advised the government to recruit its best diplomats for a “nuclear crisis group” to try to ease international tensions through diplomatic channels.

“Iran’s policy of relying on the east turned out to be impractical,” wrote Nabiollah Ibrahimi, referring to several surprising votes by its allies.

India voted in favour of referring Iran to the Security Council, while China and Russia abstained rather than voting no.

“Our foreign policy should have a good understanding of international powers and try to distance the country from being referred to the Security Council.”
The IRNA news agency reported Wednesday that Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Javad Zarif, had resigned from the nuclear negotiating team, but Zarif’s staff, reached by telephone, denied that.

Zarif has worked to improve relations with the West.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !

Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:52 am    Post subject: STOP! proceed with caution! Reply with quote

proceed with caution!

Leader Cautions the President and his Cabinet
Hamid Ahadi

In a speech to the new hard-line president and his cabinet, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei asked that they avoid breaking their promises with the nation, not to exaggerate their deeds, not take hasty measures in their decision making. He also spoke highly of them and praised their power. His remarks were an immediate scorn of the Parliament (Majlis) speaker that had implicitly withdrawn his criticism of the Expediency Council's new mission that was approved by leader's decree.

President Ahmadinejad, whose cabinet is yet to form a functional team, had also criticized some of the authorities of the regime accusing them of having their eyes on foreign interests and also for applying pressure on his selection of cabinet Ministers. Two days after his speech in Qom that stunned political observers, the Expediency Council's new mission to oversee the three branches of government was announced through which the leader ceded some of his absolute powers to the Council, currently chaired by Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Although this controversial decision created a motion in the Majlis, whose Speaker Haddad Adel, initially criticized the new role of the Council, Adel later retracted his words by explaining the responsibilities and authority of the leader, and his rights to supervise the grand policies of the Islamic system, thus accepting the new realities.

In his meeting with Ahmadinejad's cabinet, the leader asked them to constantly be aware of the threats of betrayal, and asked them not to be intimidated by the criticism which sometimes comes in good faith. An informed source says that the recent tensions among Iran's political factions, and the accusations and high strung words that have been exchanged between some of the leading politicians, has had a worrying effect on the country’s leading executives prompting the leader to intervene in the situation. It is predicted that the political atmosphere that was created right after Ahmadinejad mounted the executive saddle would soon fade away and the four remaining ministers of the cabinet who are expected to be selected from amongst more experienced and moderate figures, would receive the approval of the Majlis. A source close to the politicians involved in the talks over the issues, anticipates that the pressures on the former government's officials will also diminish in the coming days as the temperatures cool off even among the hardlines.
Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group