[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 

Rejecting Any Kind of Talks with Islamofascist
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  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

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

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

I am aware of the history, and Katami's crimes....my point is simply that the opposition can't exactly "get in his face" about it when he's inside Iran....his speech is in a public forum if I read the announcement correct....well, then if he is granted visa, and I say IF...emphaticly....then you and the rest of the frredom loving Iranians in this free country can fill the pews, fill the streets outside, and create such a scene that it will be on the front page of every news-paper globally.

That's "takin' it to the streets" and the "opportunity" I was talking about.

So don't lump me in with appeasers, traitors, or accuse the US Admin of that either....as it's said, "As the Iranian people stand for their own Liberty, America stands with you."

Well, I hope you and others see the point I'm trying to make in all this....that:

1. I posted contact info that you can use to deliver official complaint to in regards to Katami's visa application because I'm trying to help you all voice your objections to it in an effective manner.

2. That there's more than one way to "skin a cat" as it were....if Katami's been "given a platform" via invitation to speak, then the opposition itself has been given an even bigger platform to get ITS message across to the global community at the same time via all the press coverage that that event will no doubt attract.

Now if my way of thinking pisses folks off, so be it. But remember I think strategicly...not emotionally....to help you and the Iranian people realize a future free Iranian society, whole, free and at peace. One step at a time.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:17 am    Post subject: The Center’s Invitation of Mr. Khatami Reply with quote

Azadegan Organization

August 24, 2006

Jean F. Duff, M.A., M.P.H.
Managing Director of the Center
The Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation
Subject: The Center’s Invitation of Mr. Khatami

Dear Ms. Duff:

First of all, I must commend the CGJR for its admirable and worthy goals. Global justice would alleviate some of the pains of the downtrodden and help reduce, if not eradicate, poverty. And interfaith dialogue would certainly be a positive step in the direction of reconciliation and, God willing, world peace. I am certain that in order to achieve these results, CGJR seeks and engages the cooperation of honest and dedicated partners who sincerely share its goals and ideals. This is precisely the reason why my colleagues and I were shocked to learn that CGJR had extended the hand of friendship to Mr. Khatami, under whose 8 years tenure as the President of the Islamic Republic, state sponsored atrocities were committed on national and international scale.

Mr. Khatami has a likable smile, and unlike most of his cohorts, is pleasant and seemingly rational. But the gentle demeanor is but a facade hiding a dedicated fundamentalist Islamist who has always been true to his mentor’s, i.e. Ayatollah Khomeini’s brand of uncompromising fundamentalism and enmity with the “Great Satan”. Mr. Khatami has been one of the stalwarts of the Islamic Republic from its inception.

It is universally known that the former President has declared himself a proponent of “dialogue between civilizations”. But it is not commonly known that in a number of speeches and pronouncements he has consistently characterized Israel as “a cancer on the body of nations”, and on numerous occasions when officiating at Friday prayers in Tehran, he has led the congregation with slogans of death to the Great Satan.

Mr. Khatami’s first high post was as the Minister of Culture and Guidance in 1984. His greatest achievement at the time was the creation of Hezballah in Lebanon. His lesser achievement was the brutal enforcement of Islamic attire and public behavior. Flogging of young girls and women for wearing lipstick or not covering their hair adequately became commonplace. And men were accosted for wearing short sleeved shirts.
As the President of the Islamic Republic, by all documented accounts, his tenure was rife with corruption, brutal suppression, illegal incarceration, torture and murder of students and other dissidents, murder of prominent members of the opposition both inside Iran and abroad, continued plunder of national wealth, rampant increase in drug use by the youth, and prostitution becoming a thriving export industry. But of course, there were some achievements as well: The secret development of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the development of short and medium range missile systems in Iran, and the financing of international terrorist organizations.

Without a doubt, CGJR believes fervently in basic human rights, and abhors atrocities. The question is how can CGJR explain its invitation to a person who has been an active part of the leadership of the murderous regime for almost 30 years? Of course we say yes to dialogue, but with whom and at what cost? People should be held accountable for their deeds. Of the atrocities committed on Mr. Khatami’s watch, the following actually made international headlines. Barely one year into his first term, a series of government sanctioned murders, that came to known as the “chain murders”, were carried out both within Iran and in Europe:
--The leader of the Iranian Nation’s Party, Dariush Forouhar, a prominent and well respected opposition leader, and his wife Parvaneh, a well known author, were butchered to death in their apartment. The government’s own investigation identified the assassins as members of the regime’s intelligence service. They were detained to quell the outcry, and released when things quieted down.
--A number of Kurdish-Iranian opposition leaders, among them Mr. Abdolrahman Ghasemlou, were assassinated in Germany. Investigation by German authorities linked the killings to agents of the Islamic Republic.
--Mr. Khatami talks of ‘openness’ and ‘dialogue’, but when the Tehran University students rose to demand openness, fairness and freedom, Mr. Khatami quashed their nascent aspirations with an iron fist. Mr. Batebi, one of the students arrested at the time is still languishing in jail, nearing death because of a hunger strike protesting the dire conditions of his incarceration.
--Another incident that caught the attention of the international press, albeit for a brief moment, was the murder of a Canadian-Iranian photo journalist in 2003. Zahra Kazemi was visiting her aged mother in Iran and at the same time researching women’s conditions there. She was apprehended, tortured, and beaten to death. Once again one of the regime’s ‘intelligence’ officers was arrested, tried and exonerated!

All cases recounted here are documented. In fact, a Google search will pull up most of these reports. Azadegan has always advocated peaceful change for Iran, but sincerely believes that dialogue should not translate to appeasement of a vile, murderous and corrupt regime. Mr. Khatami is not a private individual, but is still very much a part of the nomenclature and is an active member of the Expediency Council.

We respectfully recommend that in the spirit of supporting the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom, and affirmation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the CGJR withdraw its invitation to Mr. Khatami, the official public relations representatives of the Islamic Republic.

Assad Homayoun, Ph. D.
President, Azadegan Foundation
PO Box 40152, Washington, D.C. 20016
Email: Azadegan@aol.com
URL: www.AzadeganIran.com, Azadegan@Iran.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 7:09 pm    Post subject: US issues visa to former Iranian President Khatami Reply with quote

US issues visa to former Iranian President Khatami
By Sue Pleming


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States, which is at loggerheads with Tehran over Iranian nuclear plans, issued a visa on Tuesday to Iran's former President Mohammad Khatami to visit the United States next week, the State Department said.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the visa allowed Khatami to make a private visit that includes giving a speech at Washington's National Cathedral next week and attending a U.N. conference in New York on September 5 and 6.

The Shi'ite Muslim cleric would be the most high-profile Iranian to visit Washington since the United States cut diplomatic ties when 52 Americans were being held hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"The visa for former President Khatami was issued approximately an hour ago and that (issuance of visa) is in keeping with the functions that he had outlined," Casey told reporters.

Khatami's reformist government ceded power last year to current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Washington accuses Iran of being the chief "banker" of international terrorism and of attempting to build a nuclear bomb.

Casey said there were no restrictions on Khatami's travel while in the United States and that U.S. visas were also granted to several members of his entourage.

He said there were no plans for U.S. officials to meet with Khatami.

While the United States views Iran as a state sponsor of terror, Casey said, the United States did not see all of its citizens as "terrorists" themselves.

"This is an opportunity in part for former President Khatami to hear the concerns of the American people," Casey said. "He is going to get some tough questions."

But Republican Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania strongly criticized the decision to grant a visa to Khatami, whom he called a "so-called reformer" who had suppressed free speech.

"I believe that granting a visa to Khatami so that he can travel around the United States and mislead the American people is a mistake," said Santorum.

The U.N. Security Council has given Tehran until Thursday to freeze uranium enrichment or face possible sanctions, and Casey reiterated a U.S. appeal for Iran to give a positive answer to the U.N. demands.

"There is still time for them to do it," said Casey of the August 31 deadline.

The United States is pushing hard for tough U.N. action soon after Thursday's deadline if Iran fails to give up its enrichment program, but China and Russia are likely to balk at sanctions.

Casey declined to give details of possible sanctions.

"The game plan here and the goal here is not to impose sanctions but to change Iranian behavior," he added.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

A fine letter...

Here's some news:

My comments in bold:

Daily Press Briefing
Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman
Washington, DC
August 29, 2006

MR. CASEY: Good afternoon, Mr. Lambros, and thank you all for joining us today.
I don't have any opening statements or announcements, so let's go right to

QUESTION: Tom, I assume you saw the Iranian president's remarks challenging the
UN Security Council, critical of the U.S. and Britain. There's been no response
that I know of from the White House. Do you want to take it on and say

MR. CASEY: Well, look, I think the main thing here is to keep the focus where
it should be. And the focus should be on the fact that Iran has until August
31st to meet a deadline set by the UN Security Council in Resolution 1696 for
it to come into compliance with the demands of the international community, the
longstanding demands of the international community for Iran to cease all
uranium enrichment activity, to take the opportunity, the positive opportunity
given to it by the P-5+1 and the international community to move forward in a
way that would allow them to peacefully develop nuclear power, but that would
end the possible threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon.

There's still time for them to do it and it's unfortunate, I think, that what
we're seeing instead is continued statements of defiance and continued
rejection of what is not only the will of the international community, but is
in the interests of the Iranian people as well.


QUESTION: Oh, I can ask --

MR. CASEY: Do a follow-up, sure.

QUESTION: Again, this -- clearly, would be something in a statement at the
White House, but I don't think they've said anything. The Iranian president is
also challenging President Bush to a debate. Is that a good idea?

MR. CASEY: Well, Barry, again, I'll let the White House respond on behalf of
the President. Again, I think this is a distraction and I also think it's
somewhat odd for the president of a country that represses all debate within
its own society to be talking about free and open exchange of ideas. What I
think we'd very much like to see and what I think the people of Iran deserve
would be a chance for they themselves to have free and open discussions of
ideas, views, and opinions within their own society. And that would be
something, I think, that the Iranian Government might want to look to.

Yeah, James.

If that response didn't hit the nail on the head, then I haven't been involved in the construction buisiness most of my life...(chuckle). Nothin' like logic to expose hypocracy

QUESTION: Earlier this month, Under Secretary Burns said flat out that if the
Iranians fail to meet the Security Council condition of suspending their
uranium enrichment program, that we will have a resolution passed in the month
of September that imposes some kind of sanctions on the Iranians. He said that
flat out in a discussion with NPR, August 21st.

MR. CASEY: Not that you checked.


QUESTION: Yeah. I don't want you to tell me you're unfamiliar with the
statement. You've -- the State Department since then has put out its own
statement saying that the Iranian response falls far short of meeting that
condition. Therefore, I wonder if the State Department stands behind Under
Secretary Burns's prediction that we will see sanctions in a resolution passed
by the end of the month of September by the Security Council.

MR. CASEY: Well, James, certainly, the resolution specifies that if Iran fails
to meet the deadline of August 31st, that the next steps are sanctions under
Article 41 of Chapter 7. And that's fully what we expect to happen. I'm not
going to stand here and tell you I'm going to give you the precise date at
which that'll occur. I tend to agree with my friend John Bolton that anyone
making predictions on the specific timing of resolutions usually is doomed to
failure. But I do think it will be quick. I do think it will be something that
we will see action on in the near term and in that sense, I'd certainly stand
by what Under Secretary Burns has said.

QUESTION: Can you address whispers to the effect that there are -- that the
Administration -- there are two camps in the Administration: those who are
pushing for an aggressive first round of sanctions that would target dual-use
technologies and financial networks and some who are favoring a somewhat
gentler approach that would start out the first round of sanctions with
something like travel restrictions and so forth.

MR. CASEY: Well, James, look, I certainly am not going to talk about internal
discussions within the Administration. I think the one thing that is clear is
that we are united internally within this Administration and certainly in our
cooperative efforts with the P-5+1 to move forward under the terms of 1696. And
again, I think what's important for people to remember is that the Iranians
have an opportunity here not just to avoid sanctions, but to receive some
benefit to do what's in the interest of their people and their continued
defiance of the will of the international community puts them in the position
where frankly they will be subject to sanctions. And this certainly will have
an impact on the country. How fast and which ones and what timing and all that,
I'm going to leave that to the Security Council when and if we get to the 31st
deadline and don't see, as we don't expect at this point, a positive response.

QUESTION: Last one, if you will.

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Under Secretary Burns in that same interview said that the sanctions
will get progressively tougher on the Iranians if there isn't any compliance.
Is that what you expect a gradual game plan in the Security Council?

MR. CASEY: Well, I suspect that we're first of all going to have a serious
discussion in the Council after the deadline is passed and we'll move forward.
Obviously, you know, we'll take this step by step. We may take another shot at
a resolution that puts sanctions forward. The exact nature of that and whether
it will require additional steps or not, you know, we'll just have to wait and
see. Again, the most important thing here, the game plan here and the goal here
is not to impose sanctions. The goal here is to change Iranian behavior, and to
change Iranian behavior in a way that not only satisfies the concerns of the
international community about Iran's potential developments of a nuclear
weapon, but also ultimately advances the interest of the Iranian people
themselves. There is a definite possibility here that the P-5+1 put forward
that would be a win for the Iranian people and would be a win for the
international community. Unfortunately, the Iranian leadership at this point
appears to be more interested in continuing defiance and continuing rejection
of what should be in their country's own best interest.

Please note that "Iranian leadership" used specificly to define the context of the use of "Iranian" throughout the response.

Okay. Let's go over here. Samir.

QUESTION: Yeah. The Iranian former President Khatami said today if the U.S.
going to ask him to get fingerprints before his expected visit to Washington
that he will cancel the visit. Will you give him a special treatment since he
is a former President?

MR. CASEY: You know, I'm not familiar with what forms of protocol procedures
might or might not be used at the port of entry. That's frankly a call for
Department of Homeland Security, Samir.

It is standard procedure under new visa rules for all private citizens entering the US

Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MR. CASEY: Oh yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: Has the visa request been accelerated since yesterday?

MR. CASEY: The visa for former President Khatami, I understand, was issued
approximately an hour ago. And that, you know, again, is in keeping with the
functions that he had outlined. My understanding is that he has been invited
here for a meeting of the Alliance of Civilizations, the high-level panel that
Kofi Annan established a while ago, and that he'll also be doing some private

QUESTION: So let's run it through the basics, please.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Still no plans for U.S. officials to meet with him?

MR. CASEY: No plans, yeah.

QUESTION: Do you know about others in his group who also wanted visas?

MR. CASEY: My understanding is that there were several other people in his
contingent that were granted visas. I don't have any specifics on who they are
or names of the officials.

QUESTION: Do you know of any restrictions in the general sense of where he
could go or that sort of thing?

MR. CASEY: You know, Barry, as far as I know since he is here as a private
individual and not as a government official, there aren't restrictions that
apply to his visa in terms of where he might be able to travel.

QUESTION: Tom, do you know if he's asked to meet with U.S. officials?

MR. CASEY: Not that I'm aware of, but no.


QUESTION: Since you regard Iran as officially as a state sponsor of terrorism,
why aren't you planning to detain and interrogate this man?

MR. CASEY: First of all, I would -- I want to make sure that while we do
recognize that Iran is a state sponsor of terror, in fact Iran is the leading
banker of terror, it would certainly not be appropriate to claim that all
Iranians or all members of any country are terrorists themselves. Certainly,
again, we have obligations under the UN Headquarters Agreement among other
things with respect to travel of officials for UN events.

UN headquarters agreement can be accessed for review here: http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/

This is similar to why Antar was issued visa.....my mistake, I did not know he was speaking as invitee of the UN as well.

His function as invitee of the UN was if I infer correctly, the basis for the visa being issued.
Here he says " ...it would certainly not be appropriate to claim that all Iranians or all members of any country are terrorists themselves. " which is true, even in a specific case noted in context (Katami)....for it would be a matter of a UN world court inditement rather than via a statement by a state dept spokesman to claim, which would be from the US perspective.... made claim to by US Justice dept's determination, of specific acts of terror against Americans atributable to the individual as directly involved in the act. Cont...

I think, you know, this is an opportunity in part for former President Khatami
to hear the concerns of the American people, and I suspect not only in New York
but certainly in the other places he travels to he's going to get some tough
questions from the American people who he does meet with. And I think it's
important that we recognize that we are an open society, we are willing to have
a free exchange and a free debate over any and all ideas. I think it will be
refreshing to have an Iranian leader face some of those kinds of questions.

This includes Iranian Americans of course....and I would say this statement confirms my gut instinct that the US gov is providing the Iranian opposition a "platform" to address grievances directly. (see my prior posts).

Mr. Lambros --

QUESTION: Anything to say --

MR. CASEY: Wait. Wait a minute. I think we're still on this subject.

QUESTION: On the same subject.

MR. CASEY: Okay. But then we'll go to Turkey, I promise.

QUESTION: Yes, okay.

MR. CASEY: Michel.

QUESTION: Is there any meeting for the P-5+1 foreign ministers after August

MR. CASEY: I don't have anything scheduled at present. Obviously there will be
a discussion in the Security Council. Certainly I'm sure that'll take place at
ambassadorial level. What other meetings might or might not be arranged, I
don't have anything for you at this point.

See http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/ for all daily press briefings

---------------------end excerpt----------

Well, guess it's time for "plan B" ...."takin' it to the streets".....keep it peacefull....wish I could be there to give him a piece of my mind....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I believe that granting a visa to Khatami so that he can travel around the United States and mislead the American people is a mistake," said Santorum.

I'm inclined to think the American people are a lot more savy than the good Senator gives them credit for....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:02 pm    Post subject: Iran’s VEVAK: Disinformation, Inc. Professor Daniel M. Zucke Reply with quote

Home >> Middle East >> Iran

Iran’s VEVAK: Disinformation, Inc. Professor Daniel M. Zucker -


For the past twenty-seven years, we in the West, especially in the United States, have been on the receiving end of a very, very sophisticated campaign of disinformation dished out by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), or in Farsi ? Vezarat-e Ettela’at va Amniat-e Keshvar (VEVAK). VEVAK learned its methodology from the Soviet KGB and many of the Islamist revolutionaries who supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini actually studied at Moscow’s Patrice Lumumba Friendship University, the Oxford of terrorism. Documented Iranian alumni include the current Supreme Leader ?the faqih?Ayatollah Ali Khamene�span>, under whose Velayat-e Faqih (Rule of the Islamic Jurisprudent) apparatus it has traditionally operated. Its current head is Cabinet Minister Hojatoleslam Gholam-Hussein Mohseni-Ezhei, a graduate of Qom’s Haqqani School , noted for its extremist position advocating violence against enemies and strict clerical control of society and government. The Ministry is very well funded and its charge, like that of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps?the Pasdaran?is to guard the revolutionary Islamic Iranian regime at all costs and under all contingencies.

From the KGB playbook, VEVAK learned the art of disinformation. It’s not so difficult to learn: tell the truth 80% of the time and lie 20%. Depending on how well a VEVAK agent wants to cover his/her tracks, the ratio may go up to 90/10, but it never drops below the 80/20 mark as such would risk suspicion and possible detection. The regime in Teheran has gone to great lengths to place its agents in locations around the world. Many of these operatives have been educated in the West, including the U.K. and the United States . Iranian government agencies such as embassies, consulates, Islamic cultural centers, and airline offices regularly provide cover for the work of VEVAK agents who dress well and are clean shaven, and move comfortably within our society. In this country, because of the severance of diplomatic relations, the principal site of VEVAK activities begins at the offices of Iran’s Permanent Mission to the UN in New York .

Teheran has worked diligently to place its operatives in important think tanks and government agencies in the West. Some of its personnel have been recruited while in prison through torture or more often through bribery, or a combination of both. Others are Islamist revolutionaries that have been set up to look like dissidents?often having been arrested and imprisoned, but released for ?medical reasons?. The clue to detecting the fake ?dissident is to read carefully what he/she writes, and to ask why this vocal ?dissident? was released from prison when other real dissidents have not been released, indeed have been grievously tortured and executed. Other agents have been placed in this country for over twenty-five years to slowly go through the system and rise to positions of academic prominence due to their knowledge of Farsi and Shia Islam or Islamist fundamentalism.

One of the usual tactics of VEVAK is to co-opt academia to its purposes. Using various forms of bribery, academics are bought to defend the Islamic Republic or slander its enemies. Another method is to assign bright students to train for academic posts as specialists in Iranian or Middle East affairs. Once established, such individuals are often consulted by our government as it tries to get a better idea of how it should deal with Iran . These academics then are in a position to skew the information, suggesting the utility of extended dialogue and negotiation, or the danger and futility of confronting a strong Iran or its proxies such as Hizballah (Hezbollah). These academics serve to shield the regime from an aggressive American or Western policy, and thereby buy more time for the regime to attain its goals, especially in regards to its nuclear weaponry and missile programs.

MOIS likes to use the media, especially electronic media, to its advantage. One of VEVAK’s favorite tricks is setting up web sites that look like they are opposition sites but which are actually controlled by the regime. These sites often will be multilingual, including Farsi, German, Arabic French, and English. Some are crafted carefully and are very subtle in how they skew their information (e.g., Iran-Interlink, set up and run by Massoud Khodabandeh and his wife Ann Singleton from Leeds, England); others are less subtle, simply providing the regime’s point of view on facts and events in the news (e.g., www.mujahedeen.com or www.mojahedin.ws). This latter group is aimed at the more gullible in our open society and unfortunately such a market exists. However, if one begins to do one’s homework, asking careful questions, the material on these fake sites generally does not add up.

Let’s examine a few examples of VEVAK’s work in the United States . In late October, 2005, VEVAK sent three of its agents to Washington to stage a press event in which the principal Iranian resistance movement, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK), was to be slandered. Veteran VEVAK agent Karim Haqi flew from Amsterdam to Canada where he was joined by VEVAK’s Ottawa agents Amir - Hossein Kord Rostami and Mahin (Parvin-Mahrokh) Haji, and the three flew from Toronto to Washington . Fortunately the resistance had been tracking these three, informed the FBI of their presence in Washington, and when the three tried to hold a press conference, the resistance had people assigned to ask pointed questions of them so that they ended the interview prematurely and fled back to Canada.

Abolghasem Bayyenet is a member of the Iranian government. He serves as a trade expert for the Ministry of Commerce. But his background of study and service in the Foreign Ministry indicates that Bayyenet is more than just an economist or a suave and savvy businessman. In an article published in Global Politician on April 23, 2006, entitled ?Is Regime Change Possible in Iran??, Bayyenet leads his audience to think that he is a neutral observer, concerned lest the United States make an error in its assessment of Iran similar to the errors of intelligence and judgment that led to our 2003 invasion of Iraq, with its less than successful outcome. However, his carefully crafted bottom line is that the people of Iran are not going to support regime change and that hardliner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually has achieved greater popularity than his predecessors because of his concern for the problems of the poor and his fight for economic and social justice. To the naive, Bayyenet makes Ahmadinejad sound positively saintly. Conveniently overlooked is the occurrence of over four thousand acts of protest, strikes, anti-regime rallies, riots, and even political assassinations by the people of Iran against the government in the year since Ahmadinejad assumed office. So too, the following facts are ignored: the sizeable flight of capital, the increase in unemployment, and the rising two-figure rate of inflation, all within this last year. Bayyenet is a regime apologist, and when one is familiar with the facts, his arguments ring very hollow. However, his English skills are excellent, and so the naOspan>ve might be beguiled by his commentary.

Mohsen Sazegara is VEVAK’s ?reformed revolutionary?. A student supporter of Khomeini before the 1979 revolution, Sazegara joined the ?imam? on his return from exile and served in the government for a decade before supposedly growing disillusioned.

He formed several reformist newspapers but ran afoul of the hardliners in 2003 and was arrested and imprisoned by VEVAK. Following ?hunger strikes?, Sazegara was released for health reasons and permitted to seek treatment abroad. Although critical of the government and particularly of Ahmadinejad and Khamene�span>, Sazegara is yet more critical of opposition groups, leaving the impression that he favors internal regime change but sees no one to lead such a movement for the foreseeable future. His bottom line: no one is capable of doing what needs to be done, so we must bide our time. Very slick, but his shadow shows his likely remaining ties to the MOIS.

Trita Parsi is another individual that serves the purposes of VEVAK. Claiming to be an exiled dissident by way of years spent in Sweden , Dr. Parsi managed to serve as foreign affairs advisor to Ohio’s Congressman Bob Ney before going on to Johns Hopkins University for a PhD in International Relations. Formerly the director of the American-Iranian Council, and now the president of the National Iranian-American Council, Trita Parsi’s task is to convince the United States that it is a mistake to consider military options or even regime change as a means of dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat. Parsi criticizes the US support of Israel and consistently says that dialogue with Iran is the only way to solve the crisis. Parsi also bends the truth over Iranian acts of conciliation towards the US, attempting to make Teheran appear ?misunderstood? by the current administration. Trita Parsi serves the regime’s interests as a consistent advocate of a policy of appeasement. That seems to be a strange attitude for a dissident to hold.

Smooth as glass is Dr. Vali Nasr , aka Dr. Sayeed Vali Reza Nasr, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey , California , and the hottest commodity on the Iran commentators circuit today. Born in Iran, to the Iranian-American scholar Professor Sayeed Hossein Nasr with whom he has authored several classics on Shia doctrine and philosophy, Vali Nasr was reared in Scotland and the United States following the family’s departure from Iran in 1979. Nasr’s perpetual manta suggests that Iran and her Lebanese proxy Hizballah are too strong to oppose and so it is necessary for the United States and its allies to negotiate with both. In article after article, and repeated testimony before Congressional committees and the White House, Nasr beats the same drum: Iran is already too powerful for the U.S. to oppose because of its control of Iraq through the Shia militias and Lebanon through Hizballah; it would be better for this country to come to an accommodation with the current regime. It may be that Nasr has no connection to VEVAK, but it is curious as to why he never wavers from suggesting accommodation with a regime that caused his family’s emigration from its homeland.

Unfortunately our intelligence system has been in shambles ever since a massive CIA foul-up in 1989 resulted in the destruction of our espionage network in Iran . On the other hand, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been busy since day one of its existence in planting its agents in strategic locations here and around the world. It is hoped that this brief essay sheds enough light on the subject that those who are charged with protecting our nation’s security begin to take appropriate notice and action.

PS: Examination of the financial records, here and abroad, of the figures mentioned above, as well as telephone and internet logs might prove very interesting to the CIA, DIA, and FBI, as well as the Treasury Department, although most VEVAK operatives are very good at covering their tracks.

Professor Daniel M. Zucker is a Chairman of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East.

AmirN wrote:

from the August 09, 2006 edition

After Lebanon, there's Iran
By Vali Nasr

MONTEREY, CALIF. – When the war in Lebanon ends, the US will have to piece together a whole new strategy for dealing with Iran - especially its nuclear program. The Israeli- Hizbullah war has boldly ratcheted up Iran's regional stature at the same time it has depleted US influence and prestige.

From the outset, the Lebanese conflict was about more than just Hizbullah. Jerusalem and Washington were quick to point the finger of blame for the conflict at Iran, and it was with Iran in mind that Israel unleashed the full force of its air power in Lebanon. The US, too, saw shock and awe in Beirut as an opportunity to convince Tehran of the West's determination to bring it into compliance on the nuclear issue.

Tehran cleary received the message and viewed the US-backed Israeli war on Hizbullah as the first stage of a war on Iran. But Tehran also used the occasion to send a message of its own to Washington. While dutifully denying a direct role in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, Tehran nevertheless heaped praise on Hizbullah, hoping that its engagement with Israel might dampen enthusiasm for a military attack on Iran. To further drive this point home, Hizbullah surprised Israel and the US by successfully testing a number of Iranian-made advanced weapons systems.

Iran's ties to Hizbullah run deep. It was Iranian clerics and Revolutionary Guards commanders who first organized Hizbullah in the 1980s. Since then, Tehran has bankrolled and armed Hizbullah's war machine. Many among the current leadership of Iran's Revolutionary Guards have served tours of duty at Hizbullah's headquarters in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. Over the past two decades, Hizbullah has evolved into a Lebanese political force, but it continues to rely on Iranian support to sustain its military capabilities.

Average Iranians resent their government's generous support for Hizbullah when unemployment and poverty plague the Iranian economy, and many bristle at the risk that support for Hizbullah carries for Iran. But Iran's leaders see Hizbullah as an ally and an asset. Hizbullah is a fruit of the Iranian revolution - the only time its seed found fertile soil outside Iran. Tehran cannot back away from Hizbullah without acknowledging that the revolution is over. Iran's hard-line leaders, looking to rekindle revolutionary fervor at home, see their own values reflected in Hizbullah.

Nor will Tehran easily give up on a pro- Iranian force in the heart of the Arab world and an important instrument in confronting Israel and the US. Tehran has basked in Hizbullah's new-found glory, taking credit for a popular military adventure that has greatly weakened Iran's traditional regional rivals - Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

Iran had hoped that its cooperation with the US in rebuilding a post-Taliban Afghanistan would lead to an opening in the relations between the two countries. But Washington was not keen to build on that initiative. It refused to engage Iran over the future of Iraq and instead focused its energies on containing Iranian influence in the Persian Gulf and rolling back Iran's nuclear program.

In the Lebanese conflict, Iran has found an opportunity to underscore its regional importance. The Iran-Hizbullah axis has hijacked the Palestinian cause and redefined the Arab-Israeli conflict. Neither criticism by Arab governments nor fatwas (religious edicts) by radical Sunni clerics have slowed down Hizbullah's and Iran's rising stock.

As the US looks for a way out of the crisis, it is increasingly evident that it is Iran's and not Washington's traditional allies in the region that hold the key to solving the crisis, and Tehran hopes that Washington will come to realize that without Iranian cooperation it cannot ensure regional stability.

With a population of close to 70 million, more than 70 percent of which is literate, a vibrant culture, and a geographic spread from Central Asia and the Caucasus to the Persian Gulf, Iran is today a rising power in the Middle East. Its large market, economic output, industrial potential, and vast oil and natural gas reserves make it central to American geostrategic and energy interests. Over the past two decades, Tehran has nurtured cultural, economic, and political ties with various regional forces, most notably the Shiites of Iraq. These ties confirm Iran's regional status, just as they make it more difficult for the US to bring stability to the arc stretching from Afghanistan to Lebanon without Iran.

In the coming months, Washington will have to look for ways to deal with a bullish Iran. A policy of isolation and intimidation will no longer yield results and will serve to further destabilize the Middle East. Hizbullah's tenacious resistance has moreover devalued military power as a deterrent. The war has not only failed to subdue Hizbullah militarily, but has made it politically stronger. US objectives and interests would be better served by giving Iran a vested interest in stability. That means including Iran in a new regional security framework. The US should continue to demand that Iran curb its nuclear activities, abandon support of terrorism, and respect the democratic aspirations of Iranians. The difference would be that with regime change no longer a threat, Iran will be more likely to find reasons to change its course.

• Vali Nasr teaches at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey and is adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He recently authored "The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future."


Amir's Commentary:

I’ve noticed that the so-called Middle East “expert” Vali Nasr has gained a stronger voice among the media. As I strongly disagree with his proposed policy, I must also voice my opinion regarding the matter.

He cites relative victories in the Taazi camp in relation to Iraq and also Hezbollah’s strength in Lebanon to suggest that an approach of Taazi moderation must be attempted by the US. His recommendations, if followed, will have devastating consequences.

It is true that errors in world policy have allowed the strengthening of the Taazi Mullahs in the recent past. However, those errors were not due to the world’s lack of moderation and negotiation with the Ayatollahs. Those errors stem from the fact that the world did not take its role of isolation and opposition to the Mullahs seriously enough. Half-hearted containment policies were undermined by looking the other way when those containment policies were breached by companies, institutions, or nations looking to make a buck in the transaction. Such anemic policies have served as an enabler of the Mullahs.

What Mr. Nasr is proposing is to abandon any thoughts or hopes for containment of the Mullahs and regime change, simply because the methodology in carrying out such a goal has proven ineffective. This is madness. The goals are not to blame. The methods are to blame, and it is the methods that need to be revised. If a firefighter is losing ground because his hose is not pressurized, then he ought to check and fix the hose rather than accept the consumption of the dwelling by the flames and call it a day. Yet that is exactly what Nasr proposes: accept that the fire will engulf Iran and the Middle East, and grab a marshmallow on a stick. One cannot negotiate with the Taazis any more than one can negotiate with the flames of fire.

I am uncertain as to whether he truly has the best intentions but is simply incorrect, or whether his motives are in alignment with the IR Taazi Regime because he is supported or encouraged by them. If the latter is not the case, then the IR certainly owes a debt of gratitude to this expert, because he is blowing their horn for them and certainly deserves compensation by the Taazis.

In either case, if his advice is followed, it will mean further legitimization and enabling of this regime. It will mean that Iranians will lose their most powerful potential ally in their quest for freedom. It will also mean that the Taazi Mullahs will grow even stronger, all the while consolidating themselves before getting to the point at which their containment will be even more difficult by the world. At that time, it may be too late and the cost of resistance will be much greater than it is now. In either case, the Taazi Regime will not last indefinitely, and Iran will be freed. However, following Nasr’s scenario will mean that the date will be pushed back, and the cost will increase.

Mr. Nasr proposes that if the Taazi Mullahs are reassured that regime change will not be on the agenda and their survival is not threatened, they will behave like other members of the international community and will abandon their criminal pursuits. In a way Nasr is proposing that the way to deal with a criminal is to give him what he wants (money, power, etc) and then he will relinquish his criminal agenda. That doesn’t make sense whether a society is dealing with a criminal individual or whether a world community is dealing with a criminal government.

The current Taazi Regime is nothing less than a criminal government and is incapable of being reformed. As the criminal that it is, nothing less than its arrest and removal will do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:33 pm    Post subject: Bush Clears Task Force to Meet With Iranians Reply with quote

President Bush wrote:

Bush Clears Task Force to Meet With Iranians
September 19, 2006
Inter Press Service
Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON -- While his handlers worked assiduously Tuesday to ensure that U.S. President George W. Bush did not run into his Iranian nemesis, Mahmood Ahmedinejad, in the corridors of the U.N., a legendary fixer for the Bush family announced that the White House had cleared him to meet with a "high representative" of Tehran's government.

Former Secretary of State James Baker, who co-chairs a bipartisan, Congressionally appointed task force called the "Iraq Study Group" (ISG), said that the timing of the meeting with that representative, whom he declined to name, had yet to be arranged but that permission for such a meeting to take place has been granted.

"I'm fairly confident that we will meet with a high representative of the (Iranian) government," he said at a press conference at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), one of several think tanks, including the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, the Centre for the Study of the Presidency, and Baker's own Houston-based Institute for Public Policy, that are supporting the Study Group's work.

Such a meeting would no doubt feed speculation here that Baker, a consummate "realist" who reportedly has been privately critical of the administration's Middle East policies, could help tilt the balance of power within the administration in favour of fellow-realists, centred in the State Department. They generally support greater flexibility in dealing with perceived U.S. foes in the region, and against right-wing hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney who have steadfastly opposed engagement with both Iran and Syria.

Indeed, Baker also announced Tuesday that his task force will meet later this week with the foreign minister of Syria, against which the administration has mounted a diplomatic boycott for almost two years. The task force has already met with Damascus' ambassador here, as part of a series of meetings with Washington-based envoys from Iraq's Arab neighbours.

The ISG was launched by Congress and quietly endorsed by the White House last April at the suggestion of a senior Republican lawmaker, Rep. Frank Wolf, who expressed growing concern about both the increasingly obvious deterioration of the situation in Iraq -- and the threats it posed to the larger region -- and the increasingly rancorous and partisan tone of the domestic debate about the war here.

Baker, who served as Washington's chief diplomat under President George H. W. Bush, agreed to the appointment after gaining the personal approval of the younger Bush himself.

The ISG is co-chaired by former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who also serves as the head of the Wilson International Centre for Scholars here, and consists of eight other members divided equally among prominent Republicans and Democrats, including several former senior members of the Reagan, elder Bush, and Clinton administrations.

Aiding the task force, which spent four days in Iraq earlier this month, are some five dozen policy experts and Middle East specialists from think tanks, academic institutions, and the private sector. They range from neo-conservative hawks, such as Clifford May of the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, to outspoken foes of the original decision to invade Iraq, such as the president of the Middle East Policy Council, retired Amb. Charles Freeman. They in turn are divided into four working groups: economy and reconstruction; military and security; political development; and strategic environment.

All participants have been ordered repeatedly by Baker not to talk to the press or anyone else about the ISG's deliberations until its work was concluded, probably some time early next year, so as not to influence the mid-term Congressional elections in November. Hamilton said the group's final report and recommendations will be made public immediately after they are submitted to Congress and the president.

In their remarks Tuesday, the ISG's first public appearance since its formation, both Baker and Hamilton stressed that the group had not yet begun discussing those recommendations. Hamilton, however, also stressed the urgency and the Iraqi government's responsibility for reversing negative trends.

"No one can expect miracles, but the people of Iraq have the right to expect immediate action," he said, adding, "The next three months are critical."

Unlike the elder Bush's other top "realist" foreign policy aide, national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, with whom he remains close, Baker has been discreet about his criticism of the younger Bush's Middle East policies.

"He has never overtly criticised Bush," noted Steve Clemons, director of the American Strategy Project at the New America Foundation. Unlike Scowcroft, "he has essentially kept a foothold in the administration."

Indeed, Baker, who led lead a major diplomatic effort for Bush in 2004 to reduce Iraq's staggering foreign debt, has confined his public criticism to the way the Pentagon handled the Iraq invasion and its aftermath.

Nonetheless, Baker, whose law firm has long represented some of the U.S.'s biggest oil companies, is widely believed to agree with Scowcroft's criticisms of Bush's virtually unconditional alignment with Israel and his refusal to engage Iran and Syria, not only with respect to stabilising Iraq -- the ISG's focus -- but also on a variety of other regional issues.

"He's always been a proponent of dialogue," said Trita Parsi, an Iran expert and author of "Treacherous Triangle: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States", who suggested that the Baker talks may offer an opportunity for "informal talks" with Iran and, in any event, "should help reduce the negative trend and the loss of trust" between Tehran and Washington. "I think the fact that the talks will take place is quite significant in and of itself," he added.

Indeed, during last month's conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the director of the Baker Institute, Edward Djerejian, who also served as a former ambassador to Damascus and as Baker's top Middle East adviser in the State Department during the 1991 Gulf War, called explicitly for the administration to engage in direct talks with both Syria and Iran on a range of issues.

"Despite the tragedy we see unfolding in the region on all sides, this crisis does represent an opportunity to get on with the real core issues in the region, and this will require contacting and dealing with all the players. All the players," Djerejian, who has advised Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and mentored her public-diplomacy chief and long-time Bush adviser, Karen Hughes, told an interviewer on National Public Radio in early August.

Rice, who has tried with limited success to move U.S. policy in a more flexible direction, particularly with respect to Iran, has reportedly come to largely share that view, but has been thwarted by Cheney and other senior officials, including Elliot Abrams, the neo-conservative director of Middle East affairs in the National Security Council, in implementing it.

Whether Baker, in his work on the ISG or alongside, might help establish the kind of dialogue publicly advocated by Djerejian is speculative at this point. Many observers believe that, at the very least, a strong recommendation by him or the group as a whole that Washington directly engage Tehran would be difficult for the administration to resist, particularly if current trends are not reversed.

"It seems to me that Rice has gotten the latitude from Bush to pursue this sort of alternative course with Iran and the broader Middle East," Clemons said, adding "But it doesn't mean that the president has bought into the process."

Ten months ago, the administration in fact agreed to a suggestion by its ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, to initiate talks with Tehran about the stabilising Iraq, but Washington subsequently backed away from the idea.

Détente with Islamic Fascists is betraying the cause of liberty and appeasing tyranny. It is well known fact that TRUE SECURITY BEGINS WITH REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN, FREE Society, Secular Democracy and FREE Iran. After 27 years of mess in Iran by Islamic Fascists and EU appeasers what more do they (so called realists) want to know that they don't know ......
The bottom line if we believe in Free Society, Human Rights and Secular democracy for Iran, then we can not talk with Islamic Fascists.

This is one of the test cases which shows where Bush Admin is going ....

Due to the fact that the Islamic Fascists occupiers of Iran have less than 5% of votes therefore the US Think Tank is talking with the enemy of freedom-loving Iranian people. Is this what we want to do?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:59 pm    Post subject: Pentagon study claims U.S. broadcasts to Iran aren't tough e Reply with quote

Pentagon study claims U.S. broadcasts to Iran aren't tough enough
By Warren P. Strobel and William Douglas

McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - In another indication that some in the Bush administration are pushing for a more confrontational policy toward Iran, a Pentagon unit has drafted a report charging that U.S. international broadcasts into Iran aren't tough enough on the Islamic regime.

The report appears to be a gambit by some officials in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office and elsewhere to gain sway over television and radio broadcasts into Iran, one of the few direct tools the United States has to reach the Iranian people.

McClatchy Newspapers obtained a copy of the report this week, and it also has circulated on Capitol Hill. It accuses the Voice of America's Persian TV service and Radio Farda, a U.S. government Farsi-language broadcast, of taking a soft line toward Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime and not giving adequate time to government critics.

U.S. broadcasting officials and others who've read the report said it's riddled with errors.

They also see it as a thinly veiled attack on the independence of U.S. international broadcasting, which by law is supposed to represent a balanced view of the United States and provide objective news.

"The author of this report is as qualified to write a report on programming to Iran as I would be to write a report covering the operations of the 101st Airborne Division," Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, said in a statement on Tuesday.

Larry Hart, a spokesman for the board, which oversees U.S. non-military international broadcasting, said that the radio and TV operations have covered Iran's human rights abuses extensively and have featured appearances by dissidents - who sometimes telephoned from Iranian jails.

Surveys have shown that Radio Farda is the most-listened-to international radio broadcast into Iran, Hart said.

Three U.S. government officials identified the author of the report as Ladan Archin, a civilian Iran specialist who works for Rumsfeld.

Archin was out of town this week and unavailable for comment. She works in a recently established Pentagon unit known as the Iran directorate.

Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros, a Pentagon spokesman, said last week that the unit was established this spring as part of a government-wide reorganization aimed at better promoting democracy in Iran. He confirmed Tuesday night that Archin had been asked to prepare the report. "It was meant to be a look at how the program was working and to determine if it was an effective use of taxpayer dollars," Ballesteros said.

Critics charge that the unit resembles the pre-Iraq-war Office of Special Plans, which received intelligence reports directly from Iraqi exile groups, bypassing U.S. intelligence agencies, which distrusted the exiles. Many of the reports proved to be fabricated or exaggerated. Some of the directorate's staff members worked in the now-defunct Office of Special Plans, and some intelligence officials fear that directorate also is maintaining unofficial ties to questionable exiles and groups.

U.S. government radio and TV broadcasting to Iran has expanded significantly in recent years.

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the National Security Council staff recently requested a report on Persian-language broadcasting.

The report was prepared for an inter-agency committee on policy toward Iran called the Iran Steering Group, which is co-chaired by the National Security Council and the State Department.

Inter-agency discussions "consider every aspect of our policy with regard to Iran. . . . This includes Persian-language broadcasting, which is an important element of our efforts to reach out to the Iranian people," the official said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced in February a major initiative to promote democracy in Iran, including $50 million to increase Farsi-language television broadcasts.

That set off a furious bureaucratic battle for control of the funds and the initiative.

Archin and a State Department official, David Denehy, reportedly traveled to Los Angeles earlier this year to explore the idea of funding commercial satellite TV broadcasts into Iran that are run by members of California's large Iranian-American community, which is generally strongly opposed to Iran's clerical government.

That idea proved unfeasible. Instead, Congress appropriated $21.4 million to expand VOA's Persian TV programming to 12 hours per day, and $14.7 million more for Radio Farda.

Some conservatives, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, have called for ramped-up broadcasting aimed at overthrowing the clerics who run Iran.

Veterans of government broadcasting say that not even during the Cold War - with the exception of the 1956 uprising in Hungary - did such news organizations as the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty call for the overthrow of adversary governments. Rather, they said, they serve as sources of objective news and models of how democracies operate.

Archin's report states that while VOA's Persian TV service "often invites guests who defend the Islamic Republic (of Iran)'s version of issues, it consistently fails to maintain a balance by inviting informed guests who represent another perspective on the same issue."

Hart, the Broadcasting Board of Governors spokesman, disputed that and said Archin chose a handful of the 180 guests who appeared on the station's programs during her period of study. Various viewpoints were represented, he said. "Does that mean they're in full accord with U.S. foreign polices? No. Those are two different things," he said.

Archin also wrote that Radio Farda, which is managed separately from the TV service, recently hired journalists whose most recent experience was with Iran's state-run news agencies. That is incorrect, Hart said.

Also incorrect, he said, is the report's contention that "neither station is a primary source of news for Iranians."

A March 2006 telephone survey of 2,003 Iranian adults found that 13.5 percent of them had listened to Radio Farda in the previous week, compared with 5.6 percent for BBC Radio and 4.5 percent for VOA Radio.

Archin also criticized Joyce Davis, the radio's manager in Prague, and said she doesn't speak Farsi.

Davis, who worked in the Washington bureau of Knight Ridder, which has since been acquired by McClatchy, declined comment. But colleagues said the Arabic-speaking journalist is taking Farsi courses.


© 2006, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iranian Boy

Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 379

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Pentagon

The Iranian private broadcasters in L.A. definitely do a better job than radio Khatami and VOA. There will be a dramatic change in the Iranian streets once the L.A. based strong regime critical channels are funded.
Long live the memory of Shahanshah Aryamehr.
Long live Shahbanou Farah Pahlavi
Long live Reza Shah II
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:19 am    Post subject: New US sanctions bill targets Iran's partners Reply with quote

New US sanctions bill targets Iran's partners


The US Congress has given its final approval to a new set of sanctions targeting Iran -- as well as countries that cooperate with it in the nuclear field and sell advanced weaponry.

But mindful of the situation in Iraq, lawmakers warned that nothing in this document should be "construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran."

Although it does not name any countries by name, the measure is seen as a clear warning to Russia and China, two key members of the UN Security Council that have been resisting calls for new international sanctions against Tehran in response to its refusal to halt uranium enrichment.

Russia has been involved in a 800-million-dollar project to help Iran build a nuclear power plant in Bushehr and selling modern weaponry, while China has been accused of supplying the Islamic republic with advanced missile technology.

The bill that passed by the Senate in pre-dawn hours by voice vote and cleared the House of Representatives a day earlier came as Iran and the European Union are engaged in delicate negotiations designed to persuade Iran to halt its enrichment work and avoid a major international showdown.

The Iran Freedom Support Act states that it should be the policy of the United States "not to bring into force an agreement for cooperation with the government of any country that is assisting the nuclear program of Iran or transferring advanced conventional weapons or missiles."

The measure calls for this policy to remain in effect until Iran has suspended all enrichment-related activities, committed to verifiably and permanently refrain from such nuclear work in the future or the targeted country has severed ties with its Iranian partners.

The president has been granted the right to waive provisions of the bill, if he finds that US national security interests warrant it.

The bill also authorizes the president to provide financial and political assistance to foreign and Iranian individuals and organizations that promote democracy for Iran.

But to qualify for such aid they will have to commit to nuclear non-proliferation.

Under the measure, the US government may also award grants to pro-democracy radio and television stations that broadcast into Iran.

President George W. Bush is expected to sign the bill into law.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:19 am    Post subject: Bush signs US sanctions bill targeting Iran's partners Reply with quote

Bush signs US sanctions bill targeting Iran's partners

2 hours, 11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush has signed into law a set of sanctions targeting foreign countries that continue nuclear cooperation with Iran and sell it advanced weaponry.

The measure, passed by the Senate Saturday after clearing the House of Representatives a day earlier, came as Iran and the European Union are engaged in delicate negotiations designed to persuade Iran to halt its enrichment work and avoid a major international showdown.

"I applaud Congress for demonstrating its bipartisan commitment to confronting the Iranian regime's repressive and destabilizing activities by passing the Iran Freedom Support Act," Bush said in a statement.

"This legislation will codify US sanctions on Iran while providing my administration with flexibility to tailor those sanctions in appropriate circumstances and impose sanctions upon entities that aid the Iranian regime's development of nuclear weapons," he said.

Mindful of the situation in Iraq, lawmakers warned that nothing in this document should be "construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran."

"My administration is working on many fronts to address the challenges posed by the Iranian regime's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, support for terrorism, efforts to destabilize the Middle East and repression of the fundamental human rights of the citizens of Iran," Bush said.

"We are engaged in intense diplomacy alongside our allies, and have also undertaken financial measures to counter the actions of the Iranian regime," he said.

Although it does not name any countries, the measure is seen as a clear warning to Russia and China, two permanent members of the UN Security Council that have resisted calls for new international sanctions against Tehran in response to its refusal to halt uranium enrichment.

Russia is involved in an 800-million-dollar project to help Iran build a nuclear power plant in Bushehr and sells it modern weaponry. China has been accused of supplying the Islamic republic with advanced missile technology.

"This act also provides important new authority for the administration to block financial transactions related to Iran's weapons of mass destruction programs and encourages the administration to use all available leverage over Russia to gain Russian support for multilateral sanctions against Iran," said US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

Senator Norm Coleman said: "For the sake of our national security, the US must ensure that the sensitive nuclear technology that we share with partner countries does not fall into the hands of the Iranians.

"The Iranians have demonstrated that they are deceitful, obstructionist and bent on destroying Israel and all of Western civilization. We know where this path is going to lead. Aiding Iran to become a nuclear power, even inadvertently, is unacceptable," he said.

The Iran Freedom Support Act states that it should be the policy of the United States "not to bring into force an agreement for cooperation with the government of any country that is assisting the nuclear program of Iran or transferring advanced conventional weapons or missiles."

The measure calls for this policy to remain in effect until Iran has suspended all enrichment-related activities and committed to verifiably and permanently refrain from such nuclear work in the future, or until the targeted country has severed ties with its Iranian partners.

Under the measure, the US government may also award grants to pro-democracy radio and television stations that broadcast into Iran.

"We have to increase our capability to mine resources and intelligence about Iran," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told The Wall Street Journal in an interview published Saturday. "And one of the challenges is that we haven't been in the country for 26 years."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iranian Boy

Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 379

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear all

Do you believe the iranian television channels will finally get any financial aid from USA or not? I am not very optimistic although the "Iran freedom act" says they will.
What do you think?
Are you optimistic USA will work for regime change in Iran adn support iranian opposition?
Long live the memory of Shahanshah Aryamehr.
Long live Shahbanou Farah Pahlavi
Long live Reza Shah II
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iranian Boy

Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 379

PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tomorrow we will see what happens when the 5+1 meet. However sanctions alone are not enough, the USA must also have a very strong regime change policy on it´s own and agressively support Iranians for regime change, especially supporting Pars TV etc.

I fear that Condolezza Rice is looking for a solution like finding a khatami while the senate and Pentagon want a regime change by passing Mr Santorums legislation. The state department is making a terrible job, the latest wrong doing is to repair old Iranian aeroplanes.

Lets remember Clinton had sanctions on Iran from 1996 until 2000 and it didn´t help anything because it was not combined with a regime change policy with support to the opposition and the people.
Long live the memory of Shahanshah Aryamehr.
Long live Shahbanou Farah Pahlavi
Long live Reza Shah II
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iranian Boy

Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 379

PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rice arrives 1 hour too late at such an important meeting. What a joke... Now the sanctions will be delayed by several days.

USA must support L.A. based TV´s and not only their own ineffective VOA and Radio Farda
Long live the memory of Shahanshah Aryamehr.
Long live Shahbanou Farah Pahlavi
Long live Reza Shah II
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:31 pm    Post subject: Step 4: Replace the Iranian Dictatorship Reply with quote

Lessons from the First Five Years of the War

For Complete Test of Speech Please Visit the Following URL:

October 11, 2006
The American Enterprise Institute
Newt Gingrich

AEI senior fellow Newt Gingrich delivered a version of this essay as a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on September 11, 2006.

Step 4: Replace the Iranian Dictatorship

It should be clear that as long as the current dictatorship is in power, Iran will remain a mortal threat to the United States. Those who believe this is exaggerated need only consider the effect of two or three Iranian nuclear weapons on American cities. As Michael A. Ledeen pointed out as early as 1979 (before Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini even came into power), this is a dictatorship dedicated to Islamic fascism, and it is a mortal threat to our survival.

I oppose a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities because I think it is inadequate. I am for achieving more than a military strike, not less than one.

Our goal has to be to replace the current dictatorship. We should begin with a Reaganite strategy of helping organize every dissident group in Iran, dramatically expanding our information campaign into the country, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. But we cannot stop there. We certainly have to be prepared to use military force if necessary, but only if these earlier efforts fail.

Under no circumstance can we accept an Iranian dictatorship which openly states it wants to defeat us and which is clearly trying to get nuclear weapons.

This strategy means no more visas for Iranian leaders. They are managers of a regime of terror, torture, murder, and the destruction of the human rights of women, religious minorities, and gays. It is destructive to treat Iranian leaders as legitimate guests. They are our enemies.

This strategy means we should move to sanction Ahmadinejad in the United Nations for threatening to wipe Israel from the face of the earth as a profound violation of the UN charter and other international treaties. Article 2(4) of the UN charter states that “[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

It is a sign of the timidity of the democracies that we tolerate a dictator openly calling for the elimination of a country in total violation of the UN charter and then allow him to come to the UN to speak. If we do not stand up against a Holocaust-denying, genocide-proposing, publicly self-defined enemy of the United States, why should we expect anyone else to do so?

Victory Requires Real Change

This is far from a complete list of the changes we need, but it does begin to outline the scale and direction we need to take.

We are in an emerging third world war.

Our enemies are serious, dedicated, and tough.

They mean to kill us and destroy our civilization if they can.

They cooperate with each other in a serious effort to find ways to weaken us, exhaust us, and defeat us.

If the American people and their leaders come to understand these facts they will insist on victory.

As the most successful mobilizer of human creativity in history, there is no inherent reason the United States cannot win this war once we realize we are in it.

Four hundred years ago next May, the first people who spoke English and believed their rights came from God landed in Jamestown.

For four hundred years we have been extending their values and concepts across a continent and to people of every background speaking every language.

We are on the edge of an era of scientific change which will enable the most entrepreneurial country in the world to have an explosion of new productivity, new solutions, new health, and new freedom.

We owe it to those who worked and fought for freedom, safety, and prosperity in the past and to our parents and grandparents who did so much for our lives.

We owe it to our children and our grandchildren who deserve an even safer, freer, and more prosperous American future.

We owe it to our own self-respect.

We who love life and revere freedom will defeat those who love death and seek dictatorship.

We have done it before.

We will do it again.
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 5 of 10

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