[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 

U.S. is studying military strike options on Iran
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 25, 26, 27  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
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:11 pm    Post subject: America will not bow down to tyrants Reply with quote

America will not bow down to tyrants.

President Bush wrote:

As we continue to fight al Qaeda and these Sunni extremists inspired by their radical ideology, we also face the threat posed by Shia extremists, who are learning from al Qaeda, increasing their assertiveness, and stepping up their threats. Like the vast majority of Sunnis, the vast majority of Shia across the world reject the vision of extremists -- and in Iraq, millions of Shia have defied terrorist threats to vote in free elections, and have shown their desire to live in freedom. The Shia extremists want to deny them this right. This Shia strain of Islamic radicalism is just as dangerous, and just as hostile to America, and just as determined to establish its brand of hegemony across the broader Middle East. And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al Qaeda has so far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny, and using that nation's resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda.
Like al Qaeda and the Sunni extremists, the Iranian regime has clear aims: They want to drive America out of the region, to destroy Israel, and to dominate the broader Middle East. To achieve these aims, they are funding and arming terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which allow them to attack Israel and America by proxy. Hezbollah, the source of the current instability in Lebanon, has killed more Americans than any terrorist organization except al Qaeda. Unlike al Qaeda, they've not yet attacked the American homeland. Yet they're directly responsible for the murder of hundreds of Americans abroad. It was Hezbollah that was behind the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans. And Saudi Hezbollah was behind the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 Americans, an attack conducted by terrorists who we believe were working with Iranian officials.
Just as we must take the words of the Sunni extremists seriously, we must take the words of the Shia extremists seriously. Listen to the words of Hezbollah's leader, the terrorist Nasrallah, who has declared his hatred of America. He says, "Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan [America] is absolute. Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, 'Death to America' will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America."

Iran's leaders, who back Hezbollah, have also declared their absolute hostility to America. Last October, Iran's President declared in a speech that some people ask -- in his words -- "whether a world without the United States and Zionism can be achieved. I say that this goal is achievable." Less than three months ago, Iran's President declared to America and other Western powers: "open your eyes and see the fate of pharaoh. If you do not abandon the path of falsehood, your doomed destiny will be annihilation." Less than two months ago, he warned: "The anger of Muslims may reach an explosion point soon. If such a day comes, America and the West should know that the waves of the blast will not remain within the boundaries of our region." He also delivered this message to the American people:
[b]
"If you would like to have good relations with the Iranian nation in the future, bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept to do this, the Iranian nation will force you to surrender and bow down."



America will not bow down to tyrants.

(Applause.)


Iranian-American Activist Dr. Iman Foroutan Response to CNN Question
Regarding "to surrender and bow down"?




________________________________________________________________________


Who Is Ahmadinejad ?
Islamic Fascist Pasdar Ahmadinejad == Taazinejad Has No Rights to Speak on Behalf Of Iranian Nation


Crime Against Humanity by TAAZI Islamofascist Pasdar Ahmadinejad:
Based on Taazi definition Ahmadinejad is a Tazzi, and we refer to him as TaaziNejad.


1- Taazinejad plotted many dissident's murder and was directly involved in the 1989 assassination of Iranian exile Kurdish opposition leader Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou and two other Kurdish politicians in Vienna, Austria. A murderer and Terrorist is not a representative of freedom-loving Iranian Nation.
2- According to Taazinejad himself, he has executed at least 1000 freedom-loving Iranian people in the prison and he was known as “Tir Khalas Zan” literally meaning the who fires coup de grace. Many female former political prisoners raped by Taazinejad Such a dirty person and virus is not president of Iran.
3- Taazinejad is responsible for “Lovers of Martyrdom Garrison” in Iran that would recruit individuals willing to carry out suicide operations against Western targets. Do not allow this Terrorist to put his foot on US soil and enter UN.
4- Taazinejad played a central role in the seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran in November 1979 and he was key American hostage-taker for the 444-day.
5. .....
6. .....
________________________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

US Treasury blacklists Iran's Bank Saderat
Fri. 08 Sep 2006

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8555

WASHINGTON, Sept 8, 2006 (AFP) - The US Treasury Department announced Friday that it had blacklisted one of Iran's largest banks, Bank Saderat, from having any links with US-owned banks.

The move effectively cuts Iran's state-owned Bank Saderat off from conducting any business linked to the US financial system.

The Treasury Department said it blacklisted Saderat because of its "support for terrorism."

"Bank Saderat facilitates Iran's transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars to Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations each year," said Stuart Levey, undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.

"We will no longer allow a bank like Saderat to do business in the American financial system, even indirectly," Levey said.

According to the US Treasury, the bank is one of Iran's largest with some 3,400 branch offices.

The Treasury also said the bank had transferred funds to other "terrorist organizations" including Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:02 am    Post subject: France Cool to U.S. Pressure to Cut Bank Ties to Iran Reply with quote



Oppenheimer wrote:
US Treasury blacklists Iran's Bank Saderat
Fri. 08 Sep 2006

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8555

WASHINGTON, Sept 8, 2006 (AFP) - The US Treasury Department announced Friday that it had blacklisted one of Iran's largest banks, Bank Saderat, from having any links with US-owned banks.


France Cool to U.S. Pressure to Cut Bank Ties to Iran
September 13, 2006
Bloomberg
Celestine Bohlen

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aJhPsk62oCBE&refer=politics

France, whose lenders account for 24 percent of bank loans to Iran, may reject a U.S. campaign to sever financial ties with the Middle Eastern nation. ``We generally prefer measures that are decided in the framework of the United Nations, or the European Union,'' said Jean Baptiste Mattei, a spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry. ``We have never liked unilateral sanctions.''

Stuart Levey, the U.S. Treasury's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, is touring Europe this week to persuade government and business leaders in France, U.K., Switzerland and Italy to help crack down on funds used by Iran and other countries to support terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

His trip comes as European and Iranian diplomats meet to head off a potentially divisive debate at the UN Security Council over U.S.-sought sanctions against Iran if it doesn't suspend its nuclear program.

The U.S. has had unilateral sanctions against Iran since 1995. Since last year, Levey has spearheaded a wider campaign to make foreign companies and banks with operations in the U.S. comply with U.S. rules against doing business with institutions and countries that support terrorism, or engage in illegal activities such as money laundering.

Iran, North Korea

The campaign has targeted North Korea and Iran, two of the three countries listed by President George W. Bush as members of the so-called ``axis of evil.'' Last week, Levey announced that Bank Saderat, one of Iran's biggest state-owned lenders, would be blocked from doing business with the American institutions.

``There is a responsibility for financial officials, be they governmental or private sector, to take steps to protect themselves from the risks posed by Iran's behavior, the risk of WMD proliferation and terrorism,'' Levey said in an interview in London on Sept. 11.

Earlier this year, several European banks, including Zurich-based UBS AG and Credit Suisse Group, and Standard Chartered of the U.K., restricted activities in Iran -- cutting off ties to clients or not accepting new customers.

``It was a pure business decision,'' said Serge Steiner, a spokesman for UBS, citing the cost of compliance with international banking regulations that require banks to ``know your customer.''

London-based Standard Chartered Bank decided not to sign up new clients in Iran ``in view of U.S. and other regulations regarding Iran,'' said Matthew Chan, a spokesman at the bank.

French Connection

No French bank has publicly disclosed restrictions on business in Iran. French banks in 2005 accounted for $5.9 billion of the $25.4 billion in loans made to Iran by lenders reporting to the Bank for International Settlements based in Berne, Switzerland.

``France has a very robust and strong relationship with Iran, which serves as one of the pillars of the Iranian regime,'' said Adam Pener, chief operation officer of the Washington-based Conflict Securities Advisory Group Inc., which tracks companies' connections to state-funded terrorist groups.

BNP Paribas SA and Frankfurt Commerzbank AG in 2002 managed the Iranian government's first foreign bond sale since the 1979 Islamic revolution, raising 875 million euros ($1.1 billion), according to Commerzbank's Web site.

BNP Paribas officials met with Levey this morning in Paris and will have a statement later today, Jonathan Mullen, a spokesman said.

Total's Business

French business leaders like Thierry Desmarest, chief executive officer of Total SA, Europe's third biggest oil company, have echoed the French government's line, saying they would honor international, not U.S. sanctions.

Total has a 30 percent stake in a $2 billion project to ship gas from Iran. The company is now in final negotiations with the Iranian government on the project.

``In the first half of next year, we'll have to check what the relationship is between the international community and Iran,'' Desmarest said at a presentation in London on Sept. 6. ``If there is no decision made at the French level, the EU level or UN level which would prevent us, we'd expect to launch the project sometime in the first half of next year.''

Levey is meeting officials at the French Finance Ministry and Foreign Ministry to discuss Iran and the broader issue of international cooperation to block funding of illegal traffic in nuclear weapons.

``It is a very complicated issue,'' said Mattei. `We do want to hear the American ideas, to get more precise information.''

U.S. Stand

The U.S. has said it is ready to impose sanctions against Iran, starting with minor restrictions like blocking travel by Iranian officials to Western countries.

It is trying to persuade other countries to join its efforts to make Iran pay a price for not complying with an Aug. 31 UN deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

In the absence of UN sanctions, the Bush administration has shown a preference for targeted financial isolation, a technique which it has also applied against North Korea.

``It is clearly something that the Bush administration sees as one of their successes in non-proliferation,'' said George Perkovich, vice president for studies in global security at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, based in Washington D.C. ``They like doing stuff that gets the bad guys, by stopping the supply of money.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Celestine Bohlen in Paris at cbohlen1@bloomberg.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:56 pm    Post subject: Iran Pays Off China , Russia , France and Germany Reply with quote

By the NewsMax.com Staff wrote:


Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2006

Iran Pays Off China , Russia , France and Germany
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/20/155944.shtml?s=al&promo_code=25FB-1
There’s a strong economic incentive behind the U.N. Security Council and Germany’s opposition to American calls for sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program — billions of dollars in trade.

The United States has little to lose if sanctions are imposed. America imports only about $100 million of goods from Iran , mostly rugs, nuts and juice, while exporting about $55 million in cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, and wood pulp.

But total trade between Iran and permanent Security Council members Russia , China , and France, plus Germany , is expected to top $22 billion this year, up from $18 billion last year, The Wall Street Journal reports.

China’s exports to Iran are up 25 percent this year. Chinese companies sold nearly $400 million worth of air conditioners and other machinery in the first six months of 2006, plus $300 million in trucks and other vehicles.

In addition, China gets around 18 percent of its crude oil from Iran — $15 billion worth — and dozens of Chinese companies are engaged in construction work in Iran .

Germany is Iran’s largest supplier of foreign goods, with $5.4 billion in exports last year. Iran buys German steel, and automaker DaimlerChrysler is planning a Mercedes-Benz plant in Iran .

Germany’s chamber of commerce claims that severe economic sanctions on Iran could cost Germany 10,000 jobs.

France exported $2.33 billion in goods last year. This month a Tehran vehicle manufacturer announced that it will begin selling to Russia cars that it builds in Iran in cooperation with France ’s PSA Peugeot-Citroen, according to the Journal.

Russia is building Iran ’s first nuclear power plant, a $1 billion project, and has agreed to a $700 million deal to sell air-defense missile systems to Iran .

The Journal reports that these commercial ties, along with Iran ’s position as holder of the second-largest oil reserves, "put a built-in limit on how far industrial powers will go.”

And a senior U.S. official concedes: "Anything that really restricts trade will be hard, if not impossible, to get.”

But Nicholas Burns, the State Department’s undersecretary for political affairs, maintains that American allies "understand that sanctions may very well be necessary to counter Iran ’s drive for a nuclear weapons capability.”



By Kenneth R. Timmerman wrote:
No "Grand Bargain" for Iran
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24529

September 21, 2006

The Council on Foreign Relations is at it again.

In yet another effort to second-guess Bush administration foreign policy, the Brahmins of Stability have invited Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a pow-wow in New York this week, aimed at promoting a "grand bargain" between the U.S. and Iran .

The CFR invite to the man who has said publicly he wants to wipe Israel off the map and destroy America drew a quick response from Senator Rick Santorum, R-PA.

"President Ahmadinejad does not afford his own people the freedom of speech," Santorum wrote on Monday to CFR president Richard Haas, a former State Department official and prot駩 of Brent Scowcroft. "By allowing him the opportunity to address a public forum in the United States , you would be sending the wrong message to the people of Iran ."

The CFR has consistently promoted a "grand bargain" with the regime in Tehran , a policy it laid out in detail in a 2004 white paper written by CFR staffer Ray Takeyh and his wife, Susan Maloney. As an official at the State Department office of Policy Planning, Ms. Maloney-Takeyh has been instrumental in blocking U.S. government funding to pro-democracy groups in Iran , which she has called "too confrontational."

The 2004 CFR report, which I describe in more detail in my book, Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, was issued under the imprimatur of CFR heavy-hitters Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft.

Funny how all this fits together.

The interests of the Council on Foreign Relations and of many large American corporations in forging commercial and diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran run directly counter to the U.S. national interest, the interests of the Iranian people, and to the president’s freedom agenda.

The CFR and certain large U.S. corporations (CONOCO and Boeing among others) can’t see any good reason why they should abandon a potentially good market in Iran to competitors in France , Germany , or Japan .

What’s refreshing about this argument is the fact that we haven’t heard it made with such forcefulness and such wantonness since the Clinton years. And that is also what is disturbing about it. It’s back.

In the final months of his presidency, Clinton appointed a "special ambassador" to negotiate a "grand bargain" with Iran , and came very close to making a deal that would have put an end to the aspirations to freedom of the Iranian people for a generation. Until now, however, the Bush administration has rejected such an approach.

Last week, at a conference in Washington, D.C., a number of CFR "experts" and protoges tried to paint a pretty face on negotiations with Iran , including left-wing financier George Soros.

They described a recent "private" dinner in Boston with mullah Mohammad Khatami, Iran ’s former president, who said that Iran wanted talks with the United States , but was not willing to give up uranium enrichment as the price.

That’s okay, said CFR expert Charles Kupchan. "The key is to get to a point where the United States and Iran can build a relationship built on trust," he said. "We need to buy time for Iran to come around and make a deal."

But as Ahmadinejad told the United Nations on Tuesday, the only deal Iran wants is one that allows it to develop nuclear capabilities that will give it the technology and know-how to build nuclear weapons at a time of its choosing.

Apparently seduced by the CFR siren song, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and her top advisor, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, have revived the failed policy of seeking to negotiate with Tehran ’s leaders.

There can be no doubt as to the outcome. Why? Because the Europeans have been "negotiating" with Iran over a variety of issues since the early 1990s, and have absolutely zero to show for it.

In the 1990s, the Euro-appeasers called it "constructive engagement." The idea was to talk to Iran about specific human rights violations – such as Iranian intelligence agents traveling to Berlin and assassinating Iranian Kurdish dissidents, as they did in 1992 – and hope they wouldn’t repeat the offense, so Europe would actually have to do something about it.

After a laborious, four-year legal proceeding, a German court issued arrest warrants for then President Hashem i-Rafsanjani (touted by the CFR as a "moderate"), Supreme leader Ali Khamenei, intelligence minister Ali Fallahian, and Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati. Wringing their hands, the Europeans temporarily withdrew their ambassadors from Tehran …and continued commercial relations without skipping a beat.

Since 2003, the Europeans have been "negotiating" with Tehran ’s mullahs over their previously undeclared (and thus, illegal) nuclear program. Here we are, more than three years later, and Iran continues to enrich uranium, in utter defiance of the Europeans, the IAEA, and now the UN Security Council. And Condi and the CFR actually believe we are going to achieve something through yet more negotiations?

Bang! Bang! The Witch is Dead – or at least, she should be.

To the credit of the CFR’s Charles Kupchan, he rightly concluded at last week’s conference at the New America Foundation that the current U.S. policy is leading directly to one of two thoroughly unacceptable results: U.S. acceptance of a nuclear-armed Iran , or war.

But the CFR prescription of a "grand bargain" also leads to war, because it empowers the current clerical leadership in Iran , and that leadership is hell-bent on war. Even worse: over the past two years, seeing the U.S. falter in Iraq , they have come to the conclusion that they even can beat us.

If I were a cynical Washington Beltway rat, I would conclude that the State Department and the CIA (which favors this failed policy, because they are incapable of recruiting spies in Iran ), knows that negotiating with Iran will fail, and will only allow the Iranian regime to buy time to perfect its nuclear technology.

They will say – indeed, they say so today – that no one has proposed a better alternative.

But that is patently false. Congress has passed any number of bills, which have been signed into law, that call on the administration to fund bonafide Iranian opposition groups and opposition radio and television radio broadcasts. Instead, the State Department (perhaps, instructed by the CIA) has chosen to fund charlatans and fakes.

For example:

$2 million has gone to a pseudo think tank at Yale University to document human rights abuses that others have been documenting for years with little or no U.S. government support;
$50 million has been pledged to expand Voice of America television broadcasts that give equal time to Hezbollah representatives (that’s the VOA’s old "fairness" doctrine at work), while VOA’s more effective (but less expensive) short-wave radio broadcasts have been given the axe; and
Close to $1 million has gone to "reformers" who have recently left Iran and have been making U.S. government-sponsored tours around America , to drum up support for an internal "reformation" of the Islamic regime in Tehran .
In the meantime, folks like ex-CFR staffer Susan Maloney at the State Department have vetoed funding of Iranian opposition radio and TV broadcasts, and training for opposition groups inside Iran , on the grounds that it might offend the Tehran regime.

There can be no doubt: The State Department and the CIA want the United States to fail in stopping Iran from going nuclear, because they fear confronting the mullahs running the show.

But the temerity of the CIA and the State Department today is going to cost the lives of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen tomorrow. And when the going gets rough, those advocates of "caution" and "negotiation" will happily whistle past the graveyard as the bombs and missiles fly, and whisper to the press that it is "Rumsfeld’s war."

Because war is what we’re going to get if we continue the present course.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

--
Kenneth R. Timmerman
President, Middle East Data Project, Inc.
Author: Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran
Contributing editor: Newsmax.com
Tel: 301-946-2918
Reply to: timmerman.road@verizon.net
Website: www.KenTimmerman.com


Based on above 2 articles, the failures and facts that are not surprising the only real choice for freedom-loving Iranian people to avoid possible war in near future is to change the Islamic Fascist regime by any means they can. As everyone knows the War is not going to be pretty and the outcome is unpredictable.

cyrus wrote:


ActivistChat 2006 Guideline Framework



3. The "War on Terror" which is a subset of "War on Taazi" UNWINNABLE and the world peace can not be achieved as long as the Unelected Taazi Islamists Terror and Torture Masters are in power in Iran. The TAAZI terror state and fear society can not create peace and stability.
To avoid War or Nuclear war or another disaster like Chernobyl nuclear disaster 20 years ago , ( Animation of Nuclear Bunker Buster: Destructive impact on civilian population in Iran and beyond )
our message to Iranian people inside Iran: General Strike Now, our message to Security Forces (Police, Pasdaran and Military) must act now for regime change and replacing it with Free society and Secular Democracy. The Iranian people have already spoken by boycotting Elections. The Armed forces must choose between defending and serving the people or serving Mullahs. This is up to armed and security forces to choose between SHAME and HONOR, serving Mullahs or their Sisters, Brothers, Fathers & Mothers who pay their salary.
To avoid war Iranian people of all ages do not have any choice other than be prepared to fight to free their homeland from Viruses of Iranian society whether the armed forces serve them or serve the enemy of freedom and free society. Iranian people should be prepared for final battle for freeing their homeland from TAAZI and must not forget that their FOREVER leader Cyrus the Great died in battlefield in 530 BC at the age of 60 and not in bed.
.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iranian Boy



Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 379

PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Congress has passed any number of bills, which have been signed into law, that call on the administration to fund bonafide Iranian opposition groups and opposition radio and television radio broadcasts. Instead, the State Department (perhaps, instructed by the CIA) has chosen to fund charlatans and fakes.

For example:

$2 million has gone to a pseudo think tank at Yale University to document human rights abuses that others have been documenting for years with little or no U.S. government support;
$50 million has been pledged to expand Voice of America television broadcasts that give equal time to Hezbollah representatives (that’s the VOA’s old "fairness" doctrine at work), while VOA’s more effective (but less expensive) short-wave radio broadcasts have been given the axe; and
Close to $1 million has gone to "reformers" who have recently left Iran and have been making U.S. government-sponsored tours around America , to drum up support for an internal "reformation" of the Islamic regime in Tehran .
In the meantime, folks like ex-CFR staffer Susan Maloney at the State Department have vetoed funding of Iranian opposition radio and TV broadcasts, and training for opposition groups inside Iran , on the grounds that it might offend the Tehran regime.


I was just going to post this article that I saw you had already posted.
Obviously, Rice and Nicholas Burns doesn´t do a better job than Armitage.

As I said before, I think a meeting between George W Bush and HM Reza Pahlavi is really necessary. I don´t know why such a meeting hasn´t taken place during the 5 years Bush been at power. Mr Pahlavi is the highest representative of the Iranian opposition and possesses lots of information and contacts that Bush doesn´t have a clue about. And they both live in Washington. So I don´t know why they don´t meet each other. A meeting between Pahlavi and Nicholas Burns or secretary Rice means nothing as these 2 people are powerless and only symbolic. Pahlavi needs to meet with Mr Bush personally who is the boss of the cabinet. Or else, we will still face a US policy without any direction as it comes to Iran.
_________________
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
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

*
Interview With the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board


Secretary Condoleezza Rice
New York City
September 25, 2006

SECRETARY RICE: Well, thanks. Let me just say two or three words and then we'll
just open up. I'm always quite aware that academics can go on in 50-minute
slots about things that nobody actually wanted to hear, so I tried to avoid
doing so. But I do think I'd like to just make a couple of points that this is
a very challenging time in international politics and I see it as a time when
we're going through a big historic transformation. And so I am probably less
concerned on a day-to-day basis by the turbulence that we see and I think
there's a tendency – present company excepted of course – in reporting to
report the turbulence on a daily if not hourly basis. And when you're in the
midst of a big historic transformation you're going to have a lot of
turbulence. And so I think the important thing is to try to understand the
underlying trends that are emerging and to be concerned about whether or not
those trends are moving in the right direction, not what is happening on any
given day.

In the Middle East, I think those trends are moving in the right direction but
I think that we got a very big wakeup call in the summer with the war in
Lebanon because in a way that it had not really been clarified before the
Middle East with all of its historic animosities and so forth, I think had to
confront its modern – its current environment, which is one in which extremism
on one side and moderation on the other came into pretty sharp relief. And that
has been very clearly recognized now, I believe, by the moderate Arab states –
the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians – by moderates in the kind of
fledgling democracies that are there, whether it be Iraq or Lebanon or even the
Palestinian territories, and the supporter, the financier, the inspiration for
those extremist forces like Hezbollah and Hamas, I think is now clearly in
everybody's mind Tehran, and that has given a kind of clarity to what the
challenge is from Iran, not just on the nuclear side, not just on the internal
politics side, but literally on Iran's ambitions for the region as a whole.

So that means that I think the next several months, leading probably into
several years, will be trying to find a way to rally moderate forces on behalf
of emerging democratic moderate forces in the region to withstand what I think
is a now quite substantial push against them by extremists and by Iranian-led
extremism.

That will take some time. That will take some thought to what kinds of
institutional responses there need to be. It will take understanding almost
everything that we're looking at with Iran in that context. But most
importantly, it's going to take some real effort at strengthening those
moderate democratizing forces in Iraq, in Lebanon, in the Palestinian
territories.

I cite the time factor here because I don't think that this is a battle, if you
will, or a struggle that's going to be won on George W. Bush's watch. I think
the framework can be laid, but I think the struggle is not going to be won on
his watch. Now, that is not to by any means diminish the central struggle in
the war on terror against al-Qaida and their progeny, but it is another more
geostrategic element that for the first time I think puts a state sponsor of
terror in a very key position geostrategically. Terrorist groups without state
sponsors are obviously extremely dangerous and can do great damage, as we saw
with al-Qaida. Terrorists who are the arms and legs and kind of tentacles of a
state with considerable assets at its disposal has the potential to – have the
potential to change the kind of geostrategic picture. And I think we're dealing
with both simultaneously.

So with that opening, let me just ask what's on your mind. I just want to say
this personally. When I was in government the last time, I was here for the end
of a great transformation, the end of the Cold War and all the work that had
been done for almost 50 years to solidify democracy and resist communism and it
ultimately weakened communism to a point that it collapsed of its own weight in
Europe with a lot of pressure from the outside but ultimately just collapsed
from within. So I guess for having been around to enjoy that, I get to be
around at the beginning of another great historic transformation and it's
considerably harder, the beginning than the end.

QUESTION: Can I pick up on that exact point, because some of us were here
through that period and remember Albert Wohlstetter saying he didn't think he'd
live to see the Berlin Wall come down. Iran and its nuclear capability – are we
possibly heading towards another deterrence model with them, which seems to me
would effectively put us back in the Cold War living in a state of mutual
assured destruction? And you know, as you say, for those of us who went through
the last one, that would be pretty disturbing.

SECRETARY RICE: I don't think we're necessarily headed to – no, I don't think
we're headed to a deterrence model because I don't think that Iran currently
has that level of capability but we have to accept that level of capability. I
mean, remember that what happened in 1949 the Soviet Union exploded a nuclear
weapon five years ahead of schedule, the Soviet Union was occupying half of
Europe. At that point, your options are pretty limited as to how to confront
that and you slide fairly easily into a deterrence model because there really
isn't a way to arrest the Soviet nuclear – Soviet nuclear program.

I think we still have a chance to arrest the Iranian nuclear program in its
relative infancy and we also have a chance because I think Iranian power in the
region is also not as advanced as Soviet power was as a result of World War II.
And remember again, the Soviet Union was deep into the heart of Europe as a
result of World War II. So expelling the Soviet Union at that point was a very,
very tall order which I think rightly they decided instead to try to contain,
as Kennan put it, until the Soviet Union had to turn to deal with its own
internal contradictions.

This time I think we've got a chance to resist Iranian push into the region,
but we better get about it. I mean, it's not the sort of thing that you can
just let continue in its current form. It's why you have to resist Hezbollah.
It's why you have to try to strengthen the moderate Lebanese forces, which is
not an easy matter. It's why you have to resist the Damascus Hamas, creating a
situation in the Palestinian territories where moderates can emerge. It is why
in the final analysis a stable Shia-led but not dominated government in Iraq is
at the core of all of this. There is no surprise that the Iranians in many ways
I think fear most a successful Iraqi nontheocratic government where Shia are
afforded one man, one vote and therefore have a kind of rightful political
place but manage to incorporate with the Kurds and Sunnis into a national unity
government, again that's nontheocratic. That's got to be Iran's worst nightmare
and that's what you've really got to work for. So I think we've got time to not
get into a mutually assured destruction model.

QUESTION: On that point, the diplomacy that you've been leading on Iran has
been focused mainly on the IAEA and UN and it looks kind of Sisyphean from our
point of view, not least because countries like China, France and Russia don't
seem particularly eager to take the sorts of steps that would plausibly deter
Iran or make it think twice about its nuclear ambitions. Instead, Iran is just
flouting deadlines with impunity and Europe seems to will to the French or the
Russians and Chinese seem to be happy to go along with it. Are you considering
as you take the UN route alternative measures to make the Iranians reassess
their nuclear program and not just the threat of a UN Security Council
resolution or another pseudo-deadline?

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah. Well, first of all, I wouldn't draw too much of a
conclusion just yet as to what the Chinese and the Russians will do. We've
actually had very good discussions at the political directors level this last
week or so about what a resolution, a sanctions resolution under Article 41,
Chapter 7 would look like if in fact the Iranians don't finally decide to
suspend their enrichment program.

Now, to be absolutely fair, any such resolution will not look like a resolution
that was written unilaterally by the United States. You can understand that.
But it is also the case that a Security Council resolution which puts Iran
under Article 41, Chapter 7 has collateral effects on the willingness of
private companies, private banks, to do business with Iran. Because if you are
making decisions which have a reputational component for instance and you're
facing making those decisions when a state is under Security Council
resolutions, particularly Article 7 resolutions, that's a different
environment. And so I wouldn't also underestimate the collateral effects of
whatever resolution there is in the Security Council.

You saw that Hank Paulson was out to inform, and it really was just an
informational session – central bankers, finance ministers, some private
entities – about how we think the Iranians shield their illicit financial
activities. And it's his responsibility after all as U.S. Secretary of Treasury
to protect the integrity of the financial system from people using it for
financing of weapons of mass destruction or terrorist financing. This is a
tack, a track I guess I should call it, that we began working when John Snow
was here and we've been working all along, and we think it will have an effect.

Iran is not North Korea. It's not isolated and it is pretty integrated into the
international financial system. And that actually makes its potential isolation
more damaging to Iran than for instance North Korea which, as you notice, has
not been too thrilled with even the rather modest financial measures that we've
taken against North Korea. So yes, there are other things that are going on.

QUESTION: Do you think that there is – there are differences – well, how do you
read the Iranian – what's going on in the Iranian Government? Do you think that
there are differences that can be exploited in how to approach the nuclear
program or the United States – it's the President's decision to lay in to
Khatami? Someone suggested that the President -- that this was his attempt to
listen to alternative voices. For those of us who can recall though going back
20 years, other attempts to find Iranian moderates never ends happily. So what
do you see going on in Tehran now?

SECRETARY RICE: I do not believe we're going to find Iranian moderates. The
question is are we going to find Iranian reasonables. (Laughter.) And that's an
important distinction because if you're looking for people who are, you know,
prepared to lead the revolution toward a more favorable relationship with the
United States and all of those things that has led to some 25 years of looking
for those people, usually ending up in some major failure in American foreign
policy. I don't think you're going to find them.

But are there possible people in that government that do not want to endure the
kind of isolation that they're headed toward, where I think they will find it
very difficult to maintain the integration that they have? You know, we forget
that with the exception of the United States most countries have diplomatic
relations with Iran, most countries trade. Their two big trading parties –
Japan, Italy – and they're facing, if they continue down the road that they're
on, isolation. The question is are there people who wish to avoid that
isolation.

QUESTION: What would Iran's response to the sanctions be, do you think? The
financial sanctions.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don't know. I mean, there are limitations on the oil
card because ultimately you have to sell it in order to be able to use its
proceeds. There are limitations that are because Iran imports 40 percent of its
refined products so there are limitations there. There are those who think that
it might be to get nastier in the region, and that's always a possibility.

QUESTION: It was notable in the President's speech at the United Nations that
he didn't issue a challenge to the United Nations. He sort of spoke over the
heads of the leaders to the Iranian people but he didn't say anything about
sort of the credibility of the international system and the importance of –
should anything be read into that?

SECRETARY RICE: No, no, because we've been saying that, you know, the
international system has to – I think if you read an interview he just
recently, he talks about, you know, you have to be credible and so forth. No,
it was just that he wanted to be very concise in speaking to the Iranian people
and not muddy the message.

QUESTION: What do you think about a gasoline embargo on Iran?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I just – I don't think that it was anything that you have
to look at it in the near term and I'm not sure that it would have the desired
effect. One of the problems that we have is if indeed you would like not to
have a situation in which you reinforce the leadership's desire to make their
people feel that America is anti-Iranian people, then you want to stay away
from things that have a bad effect on the Iranian people to the degree that you
can. You know, we've talked – people have talked for instance about barring
Iranian students or barring Iranian – there was at one point the World Cup, you
know, bar them from the World Cup or something like that.

The Iranian regime has been pretty insistent on a line of reasoning that this
is not between the United States and the Iranian regime; this is between the
United States and Iran, the culture, the people, its great national pride. And
that's something we really do have to fight against and some believe a gasoline
embargo might play into that.

QUESTION: Are you optimistic that the international system is going to work
here, that the Security Council for example will be able to agree on a level of
pressure that will be sufficiently great to force the Iranians to change tack?

SECRETARY RICE: I do believe that the international system will agree on a
level of pressure. I think it will evolve over time. I don't think you're going
to see an all-in Security Council resolution at the beginning. But as I was
noting, you get both direct and collateral effects from Security Council
resolutions and I think that the Iranians frankly have to worry more about the
collateral effect than they do about anything the Security Council might
actually sanction because, again, Iran is a pretty integrated entity and if you
start making it – start adding to the environment of uncertainty about whether
Iran is a good place to be engaged, and I think it's going to be very difficult
for them. You're already seeing major banks pull out of Iran. You've already
seen companies thinking again about their investments. You know this business
better than most. If you sit on the board of a company or a bank and there are
– there is the potential for some kind of action against an Iranian client with
whom you're dealing, that's not a very comfortable position. And so I think
that the Iranians have a collateral problem.

QUESTION: You noted at the beginning that the Soviets tested a nuclear weapon
five years ahead of schedule. How confident are you that we have time to allow
pressure to build up and for the international community to come around to the
nature*, you know, the level of the threat?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the problem is of course you never know what you don't
know, particularly in a fairly opaque place like Iran. I don't think it is
quite as opaque frankly as Joseph Stalin's Russia was and you have to remember
that the way that we found out about Natanz was through reporting of dissidents
who had been told things by people inside Iran.

So one of the things that we have to do is we have to increase our capability
to mine resources and intelligence about Iran. And one of the challenges that
we have is we haven't been in the country for 26 years. And you would be
surprised what it does to both your diplomatic and intelligence capability to
not be in the country. One of the things that we've done – you will not believe
this. The Department of State did not have an Iran desk, did not have an Iran
desk. Why? Because we didn't have relations with Iran. So why would you have an
Iran desk if you didn't have relations with it? Well, the first thing we did is
we created an Iran desk. The second thing is that we've actually --

QUESTION: So is there no North Korea desk either?

SECRETARY RICE: No, there's a North Korea officer but there's no desk. Now, so
it just sort of shows, you know, the thinking that foreign relations is those
with whom you do relations rather than kind of foreign policy.

QUESTION: And why --

SECRETARY RICE: And could I just – so one thing we've done is we are going to
in Dubai create a dedicated Iran section that sort of mirrors the work that
they did in the 1930s in – when we didn't have relations with the Soviet Union,
so we had Riga station which is where George Kennan worked initially.

So I'm not – I can't tell you I'm absolutely confident. I can tell you I think
we have better insights into Iran. And we have to work quickly, obviously, but
we also have to work smart and that means probably trying to cut off some of
their access to foreign help because that is for many people the long pole in
the tent on how fast we can move.

QUESTION: Why does Europe, Russia, China see less concern about Iran's nuclear
ambitions than we do? You mentioned how integrated Iran is and the trading
partnership they have. Is this just a case of them putting economic interests
ahead of their security concerns?

SECRETARY RICE: I don't think so. I think there's great concern about Iran and
I actually think the Europeans have been very strong on this. It's why for
instance they have never permitted negotiations to go forward without
suspension. I mean, they're the ones who initially set this condition. And with
the Europeans there hasn't been much daylight because us and the Europeans
about what you do if the Iranians don't go along. I think with the Russians and
the Chinese you've got a couple of things going and they're a little bit
different. The Russians actually believe that – and I think I actually believe
them – they believe that there are downsides to sanctions, including the
possibility that the Iranians may leave the NPT and kick out all inspectors and
at that point you have no eyes and ears.

Now, I happen to think that the worst situation is that they, you know,
continue their program and then they kick out the inspectors and they've made
progress. But you can see that it's not an unreasonable concern.

Secondly, I think that the Russians, who live very close to the Iranians, do
worry about the response that I was just saying to Melanie, which is they get
tougher in the region.

So I wouldn't be so quick to say that people are just putting their economic
interests ahead. I do think there's a genuine debate about how best to handle
the situation. The good news is though that debate ended with Resolution 1696
because we all agreed that if the Iranians don't suspend, we'll seek Security
Council sanctions.


QUESTION: Could I take you to the other side of the continent and talk a little
bit about North Korea? It's a very different challenge that we face there and
both China and South Korea have not been very helpful, at least from our
perspective.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, South Korea has been more helpful than you might think. I
mean, it was quite a remarkable thing for Roh Moon-hyun to sit in the Oval
Office – and by the way, it was almost completely missed – and say we don't
call them sanctions but the measures that we've taken are actually tantamount
to sanctions, he said. This is the South Korean President when asked about the
North Korean 1695. He also said when asked about our financial measures, well,
that's a U.S. legal matter and we're not going to get involved in it.

Now, how this got missed after all the stuff about we and the South Koreans had
similar – had dissimilar views about how to handle this, I don't know. But just
go back and look at the transcripts in the Oval when the President talks to Roh
Moon-hyun. And that was a pretty important signal on the part of the South
Koreans.

When I just met in this odd configuration, admittedly, with the South Koreans,
the Japanese, the Canadians, the New Zealanders, the Australians, the
Indonesians and the Philippines, it was the South Korean who took the lead in
talking about the things that they were doing to put pressure on the North. And
the South Koreans have been very clear; if the North were somehow to test a
nuclear – have a nuclear test, to have a missile test, that would put a lot at
risk in their relationship. So I think they've been pretty solid.

QUESTION: What are those things that they're doing?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, for instance, they have cut fertilizer supply to the
North. They have cut, actually, food assistance. They've pulled back some of
their basic assistance to the North. They continue their economic relations,
but I think the implication is pretty clear that if the North were to go
further, maybe even that's at risk. But again, let me not put words in the
South Koreans' mouth. Go and read again what Roh Moon-hyun said on that day. It
was pretty remarkable.

QUESTION: And China?

SECRETARY RICE: China, I think, is very frustrated with the North. Very
frustrated. You have to realize that when the North Koreans are challenged even
by the Chinese, they just get meaner. The things they say are really quite
remarkable. I think the Chinese are trying to figure out how they can press the
North without doing things that they believe will destabilize the Korean
Peninsula. I think that's really their dilemma.

QUESTION: By which they mean topple the regime?

SECRETARY RICE: We're going to have to go back at it. This current situation
isn't really acceptable. I think Resolution 1695 was pretty remarkable in that
you did get a 15-0 vote, including China. That sent some shockwaves through the
North. I do think we're going to have to – we are in discussions now with South
Korea, Japan, and I suspect I'll go to Asia sometime in the next month to six
weeks, probably next six weeks or so, to take stock and see whether or not one
last push to get the six-party talks back on can be made.

We are going to continue the financial measures because they do relate to
illicit North Korean activities. The North Koreans keep saying they want to
talk. They can talk in the six-party talks anytime they'll show up. And in
fact, you know, we've had situations where the night before the six-party
talks, a couple nights before, Chris Hill sat with his North Korean counterpart
and talked. They talked on the margin, so they're – when I keep reading this,
"You should talk to the North Koreans," there's no absence of an opportunity to
talk; it's that the North Koreans haven't been willing to show up at the forum
in which to talk. So I think we'll need to make another push to see what we can
do.

QUESTION: Can you tell us how the count looks for the seat? And also our
friends, the Brazilians and the Argentines, I guess, have wound up on the side
of Chavez for that seat, publicly anyway.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, if I knew the count, I wouldn't really trust it. You
know, I think that the problem is that lots of people say they're going to do
certain things and so I tend not to focus so much on the count. But we are
focused on making the case to people that the Security Council is the most
serious body that the international community has, that it has dealt this
summer with the North Korean nuclear program, the Iranian nuclear program,
ending a war in Lebanon. It just had a very serious and actually very good
session on the future of the Middle East. This is not about regional politics.
This is about the most important body in the world and you want responsible
states on that body.

I've been saying to people, look, we don't – it's not a matter of policy
disagreements. We sit on the Council all the time with people with whom we have
policy disagreements. We sat there for two years with Syria. But this is about
whether or not a state is responsible or simply wishes to have a constant
struggle with the United States every day on every issue, thereby making the
Security Council unworkable. And the Argentine – I think it was the Argentine
Ambassador to the UN said, "Well, you know, it might be fun to have them on the
Council; it would be lively." But it would --

QUESTION: To tango. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY RICE: It would mean the end of consensus on the Security Council.
Now, that's a serious matter. So what I've been talking to people about is
whether or not that's a circumstance we wish to create. I will tell you that I
think Hugo Chavez did himself no good with that speech. And whatever press
attention it got, it also got the attention of a lot of people who worry about
the responsibilities of the Security Council.

And so I've had a lot of conversations this week with states that are either
undecided or that may have been decided about what this would really mean. And
again, this is not about policy disagreements. It's not even about people that
we have tough words with. That's not the issue. The issue is whether the intent
here would be to simply use the Security Council to, in a very high-profile
way, push the struggle with the United States at the expense of solving or
contributing to the solution in the North Korean nuclear program, contributing
to a solution in the Iranian nuclear program, contributing to stability in the
Middle East, serious debate about Darfur and getting UN peacekeeping troops
into Darfur, dealing with places like Burma.

We're always told the Security Council is the most important international
body. I accept that. So if it's the most important international body, then we
need to act and when we elect as if we think it's the most important body.

QUESTION: Could I ask you to broaden out your discussion of Latin America a
little bit? I mean, a few years ago, if one assumed that Fidel Castro was
mortal – I know he doesn't assume that – but one could look forward to – you
know, sort of an end of an era in Latin America. You had Latin America
embracing capitalism. Now it looks like Castro may be about to walk off the
stage, but instead you're going to have somebody with oil money and who's on
the continent kind of performing a similar role. And he's – while I don't think
his neighbors particularly like him, you know, he's getting in Argentina and
Bolivia, to a modest extent, in Brazil, a certain amount of traction.

And then you have in Mexico, which is, I think, a much more important country
to us than a lot of people realize, you had a very close election where the
loser – you know, admittedly, the good guy won in a sense, but the loser wanted
to take it to the streets and he got – it looks like he's gotten encircled and
contained. But it looks like things which had been going in a very good
direction in places very close to us are now going in a negative direction.
Besides containing Chavez himself, are there any things – is there anything
that we've got going on that can try to help reverse that trend?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think Latin America – you can overstate the degree to
which there's been kind of (inaudible). It is absolutely the case that the
Summit of the Americas doesn't feel like the Summit of the Americas that we
were in in Quebec, where people talked about free market principles and the
free trade and it looked like the free trade association of America was going
to get off and where, you know, the sense that the Washington consensus was, in
fact, the way to go. You know, that's true. But I think it broke down or that
particular direction was challenged by the sense that for all the growth that
was going on and all the free trade, that there wasn't – that benefits were
not, if you will, trickling down or spreading to the populations more broadly
and there was a kind of expectation that goes with democratization that things
were going to go better for people. People's lives weren't getting better.

And so as is the case in democracies, people started reacting to that and you
got both a reaction from governments that moved somewhat to the left from the
right, but center left, and then you also created a stage, if you will, for
populism, old-fashioned Latin American populism. But I think if you look
underneath, you see that with the exception of Bolivia, and even in Bolivia
where some of the trends or some of the policies that Morales tried to adopt
got him very quickly into hot water with his big friends in Brazil, I think you
may see that there will be a moderating of that because, you know, Bolivia
doesn't exist in isolation.

And I will tell you that as much as the Bolivians stand up and say horrible
things about the United States, they also are constantly pulsing to see if they
can keep our relationship on track, because they really can't afford to have
the United States pull out of Bolivia. So this is a mixed bag. And then if you
look at Peru, where Chavez literally tried to intervene in the election and it
backfired; it backfired in a major way.

Mexico has come through this crisis and I think it's been a real vote of
confidence in the Mexican democratic system, which after all, is relatively –
you know, it's just now maturing in a kind of two-party system. And I think
that that has come out in a way that, while Chavez continues to say he'll
support Lopez Obrador and all of that, the question is will Mexicans. And it
doesn't appear that they will. It appears that the Mexicans wish to get back to
reality here, to a stable political environment.

And then if you add to that what I think has been very effective trade
diplomacy by the United States in the Central American Free Trade Agreement,
the free trade agreements with a number of the Andean countries, you know,
Colombia, Peru, we've – the Ecuador has been on hold, but I suspect that
eventually, that will get back on track. You have growing – you have the
Chilean Free Trade Agreement. I think you're seeing that the free trade
agreements are continuing despite the fact that the Free Trade Area of the
Americas has not proceeded.

The final point I'll make is that I do think we had a problem in our rhetoric
that needed to be addressed. The United States obviously cares about economic
growth and cares about free trade, but we also do happen to care about the
improvement in health and improvement in education and improvement in the lives
of people. And our – some of our best allies in the region came to us and said,
"But you never talk about that. It's always free trade and economic growth, as
if it has no relationship to but should have no relationship to the lives of
the people." And we've been trying to make very clear, after Monterrey a few
years ago, that this is also about improving the lives of people.

And so the Millennium Challenge compacts that we've signed with Honduras and
Nicaragua – there will soon be one with El Salvador -- I think, speak to that
part of it because you shouldn't cede that ground to the populists and you
shouldn't cede the ground either of marginalized people being involved in
politics. One of the reasons that Morales got traction was that there is this
huge indigenous population that has been completely cut out of politics in
Bolivia and that needs to be addressed.

And so we've tried to have a much more well-rounded, I will say, approach to
Latin America that still starts with the importance of open economies and open
trade but recognizes the need to make those work for people, even for the most
marginalized people. And we've tried to be disciplined about having a positive
agenda for the region rather than constantly answering the Venezuelans. And
that's how we --

QUESTION: Those indigenous people that Morales tapped into are also coca
growers.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: Is there a plan there to deal with that?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, you know, you can't give up on the drug war and coca
eradication. But as we've done in Colombia, we have had some conversations
about whether or not alternative livelihoods programs might have some impact
and some appeal. But no, you're right, it's a very big problem.

QUESTION: Can I yank you back to the Middle East. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY RICE: It feels good to talk about Latin America.

QUESTION: Two issues specifically. About a year ago, you were in Cairo, you
spoke about democracy. Egypt had an election and then they didn't have
elections. And yet in May, you worked fairly sedulously to stop David Obey, the
Democratic Congressman, from cutting off some portion of funds to – foreign
funds to Egypt, even though Ayman Nour is in jail on trumped-up charges and
repression has really kicked in. So I wanted to ask you first about
democratization in Egypt.

And this – another issue that comes up. A year ago, Assad looked very – Bashar
Assad looked like he was on the ropes. You had an active investigation into the
Hariri murder. Now he looks – Assad looks very confident. Syrian influence in
Lebanon is in the ascendant and the investigation into Hariri's murder seems to
have just kind of vanished. And I'm wondering if you can speak about those
countries.

SECRETARY RICE: On Syria, I think that the Syrians look as if they've made
their choice and their choice is to associate with extremist forces in Iran,
not with their traditional – calling it allies is not quite right – the
traditional partners like the Arab states. But I think that that will cost
Syria and I'm not certain how ultimately stable that configuration is to Syria.
And so this is one of those twists and turns that when I started speaking to at
the beginning. I don't think you can kind of know today the effect of Syria's
isolation from the Arab world, but I think not a terribly comfortable place for
Syria to be.

And it is isolated. The speech that Assad made accusing the Egyptians and the
Saudis and the Jordanians of all kinds of things has just been – has not helped
them – helped him with his normal partners.

Syrian influence growing in Lebanon? I'd say Iranian influence from Hezbollah
has been a problem. The Syrians, I think, found it uncomfortable that the
Lebanese deal was done without them, and it was done without them.

Now in '96, when Warren Christopher negotiated a ceasefire, he negotiated it
between Syria and Hezbollah and Israel. This time it was the Lebanese
Government, albeit a government that has a lot of weaknesses, but – and there's
a lot of pressure on them from the Syrians, but I think, you know, they've made
a pretty big step forward in being able to speak for themselves and act for
themselves.

As to the Hariri assassination investigation, I don't think it is stalled. I
think it is moving forward. Brammertz is a very careful prosecutor, but he is
continuing to question people, he's continuing to move forward. There is
considerable pressure in the Security Council to start to get the results of
that.

QUESTION: Do you have any idea what the timeline is?

SECRETARY RICE: Many would like to see some movement forward by the end of the
year, but obviously it's an independent investigation and so you can't
interfere in that. But that it would be good if it moved forward in that
direction. So I don't think – you know, the Syrians are perhaps not as
uncomfortable as when it looked like the inquiry was about to come down
immediately, but I don't think life is really quite comfortable yet for the
Syrian regime.

As to the Egyptians, these things also have – go in waves. I don't think that
Egypt is ever going to be the same place after the competitive presidential
election, where many of the taboos about what you can and cannot say, the
criticism of the president, the criticism of the president's family, is going
to be easily put back in a box. I think you're going to see that they will
start to make some legislative reforms that will move things forward, not at
the pace that we would want, and certainly the success of the Islamist forces
unnerved a lot of people; in the parliamentary elections, not in the
presidential.

QUESTION: Did it unnerve you?

SECRETARY RICE: You know what? I believe that this is the normal course of
democratization, that you're going to have a period of time in which there – in
which the competitive environment is going to lead to some outcomes that we
don't like. But you're better off with a competitive environment. You're better
off making people compete in the open than cover their faces and run the
streets with guns.

Because the truth of the matter is, there was politics in the Middle East. It
was just taking place in the radical mosques, not in the political squares. And
I think it's one reason that these forces emerged stronger and more organized,
because they were organized and they were doing politics and they were doing
social services. And what was absent was any moderate, legitimate political
forces to counter them. And now you have to have the time to build them up.

But there are also some important lessons. Hamas has learned a pretty tough
lesson. They have not been able to govern. They've flat-out not been able to
govern. You know, all of the talk about, you know, there would be all this
Iranian money coming in and they would be – they were going to be supported, it
hasn't happened. People are on strike, they can't make their peace with the
international community, and it's been really tough. And in fact, it's been
especially tough if you are Hania in the territories, as opposed to Khaled
Mashal in Damascus.

So I think the competitive – going ahead and creating a competitive environment
is appropriate, but the answer to the emergence of Islamist forces is to create
or is to support moderate forces that can contest on the political
battleground. And as to cutting off, I just – we just don't – we don't think
it's going to be helpful. We need to help these people.

QUESTION: A little bit about Iraq and – you know, what's Jim Baker up to there?
Is he – what job is he doing?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think he is taking, along with a number of people, a
kind of fresh look, if you will. You know, people who haven't been in it every
day, all the time, talking to people, interviewing people, and I think they're
going to give us a sense of where they think things are going right, where they
think things may be going wrong. The strategic direction is set. The strategic
direction is set. But if there are adjustments that you can make, if there are
things that are not being pressed hard enough, if there are some alternative
ideas, by all means, I think we'd be delighted to have them. And who better
than Jim Baker and, you know, we have, in him a very sound person and I suspect
we're going to get good work out of that and good help out of that. I'm looking
forward to it.

QUESTION: Speaking of such efforts, the National Intelligence Estimate, which
the New York Times claims 12 officials talked to them about --

QUESTION: Current and former, I think it was.

QUESTION: Yeah, all of whom have seen it and so they're all having this
conversation and Congress claims we don't see this stuff. Why not declassify it
at this point? If Negroponte says we're seeing it through a false prism, let's
get a better look.

SECRETARY RICE: Maybe. The problem is the leaks of classified information have
just gotten to a level that it's absolutely outrageous. I mean, (inaudible)
every time somebody leaked something classified, we wouldn't have any
classified information anymore. It's really gotten quite, quite bad. And the
problem that it's selective so that the entire picture isn't there, and unless
you wish to engage yourself in leaking the other side, then you are somewhat
tied.

But I'd make the following comments without going into the specifics of the
document. First of all, do we know that Zarqawi and his group, which by the
way, was in Iraq a long time ago, well before the war, decided that they would
try and make Iraq a battleground in the war on terror and that they would try
to use it as a recruiting tool? Yes, and that they would try to al-Qaidaize or
Islamize the Iraq conflict? Yes, we know that.

Did they, to a certain extent, have some successes in feeding on the sense of
insecurity to press their own agenda? Yes. Is it also true that in the last
year, there has been a backlash against that policy, particularly among Sunni
and Sunni tribesmen who consistently now talk about foreigners not playing this
role in Iraq. You know, without going into too much detail, there's a reason we
got Zarqawi. It wasn't because we suddenly got smart, right? It's because
people gave him up. So the --

QUESTION: The 12 heads were kind of pro – (laughter).

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, but the counterargument that – they had a strategy to do
two things. The first was to make Iraq a battleground in the war on terrorism
for their radical ideas and, secondly, to try to sow sectarian conflict between
Sunnis and Shia. It was there in stuff on his computers that we actually did
put out.

So we know what the strategy was and, to a certain extent, it was having some
successes. I think it has really also had a huge backlash effect and you – it
was one of the things that helped get the Sunnis into the political process,
because this idea of foreigners coming in and doing this, it's one of the
things that's helped us drive him out of places like Fallujah. So that's the
part that doesn't get accounted for.

The other point is this argument that – you know, "Well, because of Iraq, now
they're just getting a worldwide recruitment effort," first of all, this
recruitment and capacity and worldwide al-Qaida, jihad, whatever you want to
call it, began a long time ago. And it was '93 and '98 and 2000 and finally it
exploded in '01. And so now, yes, we're finally really, really going after it
and countering it. Are they going to fight back? You bet they're going to fight
back and they're going to fight back in larger numbers.

But unless you confront them, the alternative is, "Well, we just won't – we
won't go after this and maybe they'll go back into the woodwork." They're not
going back into the woodwork. They have to be defeated. And just because they
are recruiting on the basis of Iraq – and by the way, they recruit also on the
basis of Afghanistan and they're trying to recruit on the basis of Sudan and
they recruited on the basis of military – U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia.
They've always had a reason to recruit.

So to my mind, Tony Blair had the right response to this, which is, you know,
when are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the existence of a terrorist
organization and recognize that there simply is terrorism in the world; it is
big and it's organized and it's networked.

The final thing I would say is that it is true that one of the trends has been
that as al-Qaida has been less able to work centrally, largely because of
successes at going after their hierarchy, particularly these field generals who
are now in Guantanamo, you have spawned a lot of kind of smaller, less
connected, more local groups. But I think that was just a natural outcome of
the central organization being weakened and decentralized in that way.

So it's a long way of saying that this is the kind of thing that gets very big,
big headlines, of course. But it doesn't change the essential logic of war on
terror. You have to bring down the al-Qaida organization, continue going after
it the way that we are. You have to try and protect the homeland to the degree
that you can, but that means information, information, information. That means
the ability to interrogate and that means the ability to surveil. And third,
you have to begin to create alternatives in the Middle East to this particular
ideology and that means the strengthening of moderates and giving – taking
space for moderates to develop in places like Iraq, in places like Afghanistan
and places --

QUESTION: But just so that I understand you, are you saying that the NIE has
been misrepresented or that you disagree with its conclusion?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think that it is – the representation is not -- does
not fully represent the NIE. This is one element of a much larger argument in
the NIE.

QUESTION: We had – Talabani was here last week and he was very emphatic in
saying that both Syria and Iran are not – are really working against what
they're trying to accomplish. And they're going to try some things
diplomatically to make that -- to help with that effort. But do you have a
strategy for – and you talked earlier about Syria paying a price for what it's
doing. But at least from our vantage point, it doesn't look to us as if either
Syria or Iran are paying much of a price for harming American lives in Iraq. Is
there a strategy for reducing their damage to what's going on in Iraq?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, with Syria, we went in pretty directly, which was that
the operations of – back in the spring – this was in the Euphrates Valley --
were largely to deal with infiltration from that Syrian border. And I think
that, you know, we had a lot of affect in that regard.

Iran is more difficult because it's stealthy. It's, you know, the stirring up
of militias. It's allowing technologies to be used or maybe even transferred
that are really quite damaging to us.

QUESTION: Like IEDs?

SECRETARY RICE: Like IEDs, advanced forms of IEDs. We've tried and I think we
will continue to try to make clear that we will use whatever means we can. If
we find that there are – you know, if we find this kind of thing going on. The
problem is it's a little hard to find and we know it's there – specifically, we
know it's there. It's a little hard to have a point of contact there or a point
of origin to know exactly where to go.

I think the other thing that we are – we have to be with this, is we just have
to fight tooth and nail for the victory of the Iraqis who do not want to
Iranian influence in their daily lives. I mean, they're going to have -- you
know, they're going to be neighbors and that's all fine, but the thing we could
do best is if we can get some of these militias under control so that we don't
have the kind of daily sectarian problems, I think it would do a lot to strip
away the environment in which Iran is able to do these things. In many ways,
you have to go at it in a more indirect fashion. You have to remove the
troubled waters in which they're fishing or they're always going to be able to
fish.


QUESTION: What price has Syria paid for its meddling in Iraq?

SECRETARY RICE: I think the story's not out – the story's not done yet. They
have – we have sanctioned Syria and I think that has made it harder. It --

QUESTION: The President picked the two weakest sanctions out of the eight that
were offered.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, because what we'd really like to do is we'd like to get
some others to join us in other kinds of sanctions. And I think as Syria
continues to show its stripes and isolate itself from its Arab friends, that
may be somewhat easier to do. But the combination of the Brammertz
investigation and I think we're going to have to start looking at further
sanctions on Syria. You know, the Syrians for instance have not been able to
have an accession agreement with – not accession – association agreement with
the – with Europe, something that they were at one point negotiating which just
got stopped.

I think if you add it up, there are costs. But I think yeah, I think you're
right, we're going to have to look at tougher measures if Syria continues to be
on the path that it's on.

QUESTION: The Thai coup. A week ago if we'd been having this conversation and
had looked at the democracies of Southeast Asia, we'd probably put Thailand
near the top of the list of stability and then Tuesday there was a coup. How do
you think the coup and the political turmoil in Thailand is going to affect its
neighbors – Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines – all of which are democracies
that, you know, aren't as firmly planted as they might be?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the biggest problem is that in a Southeast Asia that was
pretty stable it's a bit of a – it's a u-turn and that's the biggest problem.
But I don't actually see much problem of contagion. (Inaudible) to this
circumstance. But you know, it's not a good thing and we are terribly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:08 am    Post subject: Explosion on natural gas pipeline near Turkey-Iran border Reply with quote

Reports: Explosion on natural gas pipeline near Turkey-Iran border
The Associated Press

Published: September 29, 2006
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/29/europe/EU_GEN_Turkey_Iran_Pipeline_Explosion.php

ISTANBUL, Turkey An explosion ignited a fire on a natural gas pipeline near the Turkey-Iran border, Turkish news reports said Friday.

The state-run Anatolia news agency cited district head Rauf Ulusoy as saying the explosion occurred late Thursday night in the Iranian city of Bazargan, about 1 kilometer (half a mile) east of the Gurbulak border gate.

The private Dogan news agency cited Turkish truckers as saying they could hear ambulances and fire engines going to the blast site.

Last month, Kurdish guerrillas belonging to the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, blew up part of the same pipeline in the Turkish city of Agri, shutting down the flow of gas for four days.

The rebels are active on both sides of the border and have sabotaged pipelines in the past as part of their struggle for an autonomous homeland. More than 37,000 people have been killed in Turkey since the rebels took up arms in 1984.

Turkey has been importing natural gas from Iran through the 2,577-kilometer (1,598-mile) pipeline since 2001. Turkish and Iranian officials are reportedly discussing expanding the pipeline for exports to Europe.

ISTANBUL, Turkey An explosion ignited a fire on a natural gas pipeline near the Turkey-Iran border, Turkish news reports said Friday.

The state-run Anatolia news agency cited district head Rauf Ulusoy as saying the explosion occurred late Thursday night in the Iranian city of Bazargan, about 1 kilometer (half a mile) east of the Gurbulak border gate.

The private Dogan news agency cited Turkish truckers as saying they could hear ambulances and fire engines going to the blast site.

Last month, Kurdish guerrillas belonging to the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, blew up part of the same pipeline in the Turkish city of Agri, shutting down the flow of gas for four days.

The rebels are active on both sides of the border and have sabotaged pipelines in the past as part of their struggle for an autonomous homeland. More than 37,000 people have been killed in Turkey since the rebels took up arms in 1984.

Turkey has been importing natural gas from Iran through the 2,577-kilometer (1,598-mile) pipeline since 2001. Turkish and Iranian officials are reportedly discussing expanding the pipeline for exports to Europe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:45 pm    Post subject: Iran, Syria Continue To Help Insurgents Reply with quote

Iran, Syria Continue To Help Insurgents

October 15, 2006
Middle East Newsline
MENL

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2006/october/10_15_2.html

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military has determined that Iran and Syria continue to help insurgents in Iraq. Officials said Sunni insurgents have been training in Syria for operations in Iraq. They said Sunni insurgents recruited throughout the Middle East and Europe were entering Iraq from Syria.

Gen. George Casey, the commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, said Syria continues to harbor the leadership of the former Saddam Hussein regime. Casey said Syria also remains the primary route for foreign fighters coming into Iraq.

In an interview with the the American Armed Forces Press Service, Casey said Iran has also been helping Shi'ite insurgents in Iraq. He said the Iranian aid has been used by Shi'ite militias to kill Sunni civilians.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:01 pm    Post subject: Message of Regime Change from Iranian People to President Bu Reply with quote

Menashe Amir Passes Message of Regime Change from Iranian People to President Bush

Julie Stahl
Jerusalem Bureau Chief
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1438427.html

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - The time for imposing sanctions on Iran is over. The only way to deal with Iran now is through regime change, an Iranian expert said here on Thursday.

The issue of Iran topped the agenda when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Russian President Vladimir Putin met this week. Olmert's three-day visit to Moscow ended on Thursday.

Israel is eager to convince Russia, which is helping Iran complete its nuclear reactor in Bushehr, to support international sanctions against Tehran. Russia, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has been dragging its feet on the issue.



Israel, the U.S. and Europe believe that Iran is secretly developing a nuclear bomb under cover of its civilian nuclear program. Tehran denies it and Russia backs Iran's right to have nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

Before his trip, Olmert said that Iran represents an "existential threat" to Israel and the world. Israel "cannot countenance" a country like Iran possessing non-conventional capabilities, he said following his meeting with Putin.

"I made it clear that the State of Israel has no margin of error, has no privilege to err. There is no way to prevent nuclear arms, if Iran is not afraid," he said.

The Iranians "need to fear" the consequences if they continue in their nuclear pursuits, Olmert said, adding that he did not discuss specifics of what Israel would or would not do.

Olmert's Cabinet Secretary Israel Maimon said on Thursday that Putin was just as worried as Israel about the prospects of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, the radio reported. But Olmert admitted that there are "still differences in approach between Israel and Russia."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was quoted by the RIA news agency on Wednesday as saying that "reports from Iran do not indicate a real threat to peace and security."

For more than a year, the U.S. has been trying to get the issue of Iran's nuclear development referred to the U.N. Security Council. That finally happened after Iran ignored an August 31 deadline to halt its uranium enrichment program - a process that can be used to make nuclear fuel or an element necessary for an atomic bomb.

Since then, there has been no agreement on sanctions.

But Iranian affairs expert Menashe Amir said it's already too late for sanctions.

"The only solution is to topple the regime," said Amir, an Iranian who has lived in Israel for decades. There needs to be a breakthrough in the European and American behavior, he said, where they realize the great danger of Iran.

The problem with sanctions, said Amir, is that first of all there aren't any. After the U.N. decides on sanctions, they will be too "weak and feeble" to influence the regime. Even if there is an escalation in the sanctions, it will take years, he said. "It doesn't help. It will not really endanger the regime."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated many times recently that Iran would not halt its uranium enrichment program. And in a speech last week, Ahmadinejad said he did not believe that the West would do anything to confront Iran.

"The enemies are completely paralyzed, and cannot in any way confront the Iranian people. If our people maintain unity and solidarity, they [the enemies] must expect a great [Iranian] victory, because we have [only] one step remaining before we attain the summit of nuclear technology," he was quoted as saying by the Iranian Fars News Agency.

But Amir, who hosts a Farsi language radio program, which is broadcast into Iran, said the people are waiting for change. Amir has contact with Iranians through the weekly phone-in program broadcast by Israel's government-run Kol Israel (the Voice of Israel) as part of its Farsi (Persian) language broadcast.

Amir said he attended a special reception in the U.S. last week with President Bush. "I told him I have a message [for him]. The message is: 'The Iranian people are waiting for you to come and rescue them.'"

Israel's Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter said on Thursday that Israel was not responsible for leading the international campaign against Iran's nuclear pursuits. It is up to the U.S., Europe and Russia, he said.

Difference between Iran, North Korea
Even though North Korea recently conducted a nuclear test, Amir said a bomb in Ahmadinejad's hands is much more dangerous.

"Iran is a very sensitive place," said Amir.

In North Korea, the leaders want an atomic bomb so that they can extort money from the West. But the reason Iran wants a nuclear bomb is for the purpose of exporting their revolution and converting all human beings into Shiites. "There is a big difference between Iran and North Korea," he said.

"When you have a lunatic president that claims a direction connection with God and is waiting for the Shiite messiah [who is] dangerous, adventurous, and an [un]stable person, having a [nuclear] bomb is the biggest danger," Amir said.

Iran News reported this week that Ahmadinejad said he was assured of victory.

"I have a connection with God, since God said that the infidels will have no way to harm the believers. Well, [but] only if we are believers, because God said: You [will be] the victors...If we are [really] believers, God will show us victory, and this [a] miracle," Ahmadinejad said. (A translation was provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute.)

Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:25 pm    Post subject: Rice: Bush ‘axis of evil’ reference was accurate Reply with quote

Rice: Bush ‘axis of evil’ reference was accurate
Top U.S. diplomat says history proves 2002 reference was ‘good analysis’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15406560/
WASHINGTON - Recent events in Iran and North Korea support President Bush’s 2002 claim that those nations were part of an “axis of evil,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday.

After discussions of the North Korean nuclear test and the anti-Semitic remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, radio host Sean Hannity asked Rice about the axis remark.

“You think of some of the world reaction to the president’s use of the word ‘axis of evil,’ and then you see how events have been unfolding,” Hannity remarked.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

Hope you are well, been tied up with work w/ no time to write much, but you'll love this....it's all over all the major wire services and Int news.

Best,

Oppie

-----------------------------------------


Iran charged over Argentina bomb

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6085768.stm

The blast was the worst terror attack in Argentina's history
The Iranian government and Lebanese militia group Hezbollah have been formally charged over the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires.
Argentine prosecutors are calling for the arrest of former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani and seven others.

Chief prosecutor Alberto Nisman accused the Iranian authorities of directing Hezbollah to carry out the attack.

Hezbollah and Iran both deny that they were involved in the blast, which killed 85 and wounded 300.

The blast, on 18 July 1994, reduced the seven-storey Jewish-Argentine Mutual Association (AMIA) community centre in Buenos Aires to rubble.

Nobody has ever been convicted of the attack, but the current government has said it is determined to secure justice.

'Hallmarks'

Over the years, the case has been marked by rumours of cover-ups and accusations of incompetence, but little in the way of hard evidence.

Minor figures, including a policeman who sold the van used in the attack, have been named, but no-one has been convicted.

Local Jewish groups have long said the bombing bore the hallmarks of Iranian-backed Islamic militants.

Iran has repeatedly and vehemently denied any involvement in the attack.

Last November, an Argentine prosecutor said a member of Hezbollah was behind the attack and had been identified in a joint operation by Argentine intelligence and the FBI.

But Hezbollah said that the man, Ibrahim Hussein Berro, had died in southern Lebanon while fighting Israel.

The 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29 people, also remains unsolved.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Dear Cyrus,

Hope you are well, been tied up with work w/ no time to write much, but you'll love this....it's all over all the major wire services and Int news.

Best,

Oppie

-----------------------------------------


Iran charged over Argentina bomb

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6085768.stm

The blast was the worst terror attack in Argentina's history
The Iranian government and Lebanese militia group Hezbollah have been formally charged over the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires.
Argentine prosecutors are calling for the arrest of former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani and seven others.

Chief prosecutor Alberto Nisman accused the Iranian authorities of directing Hezbollah to carry out the attack.

Hezbollah and Iran both deny that they were involved in the blast, which killed 85 and wounded 300.

The blast, on 18 July 1994, reduced the seven-storey Jewish-Argentine Mutual Association (AMIA) community centre in Buenos Aires to rubble.

Nobody has ever been convicted of the attack, but the current government has said it is determined to secure justice.

'Hallmarks'

Over the years, the case has been marked by rumours of cover-ups and accusations of incompetence, but little in the way of hard evidence.

Minor figures, including a policeman who sold the van used in the attack, have been named, but no-one has been convicted.

Local Jewish groups have long said the bombing bore the hallmarks of Iranian-backed Islamic militants.

Iran has repeatedly and vehemently denied any involvement in the attack.

Last November, an Argentine prosecutor said a member of Hezbollah was behind the attack and had been identified in a joint operation by Argentine intelligence and the FBI.

But Hezbollah said that the man, Ibrahim Hussein Berro, had died in southern Lebanon while fighting Israel.

The 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29 people, also remains unsolved.


Dear Oppie,
Thank you for your post. I have no comments regarding most of these kind of News untill we see real actions by Free World international community...
The real action is the Regime Change ..... Anything less than regime change is just a game for getting some kind of bribes by xyz ....
Regards,
Cyrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
James McAllister



Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 9
Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:02 pm    Post subject: more bloodshed? Reply with quote

I have loved the Iranian people all my life and I strongly believe that military force will condition the mentality of the Mullah...I strongly disagree!! An act of might against the Republic of Iran will in many ways strenthen thier resolve and futher what they claim to be "just" in their actions and solidify the brainwashing that has already consumed the minds of too many young men in Iran! I fear the loss of life will be all too great for an assault!
Pressure must be put square on the head of the Russian and North Koren governments that are the key sources of supply for the nuclear supplies that the corrupt government of Iran are paying vast sums of money for!!
The Russian government sits atop A mighty throne of evil and has never ceased the evils that they want the world to believe has been put assunder...lies and deciet are the work of these men and I firmly believe that cutting off the supplies to Iran that are the criticle componants to their nuclear program is the most viable solution!
Too many innocent Iranians have died already and die all too often...there must be A way to force the corruption out and allow the people of Iran to legitimately rule themselves again...should all options fail then it must be left to the Persian peoples to bring the coup to over throw this evil power...as the corrupt governments around the world lie and deceive those that want honor and truth must face them head on as an enemy and deal out the appropriate justice...
The Iranian people are my brothers and sisters and I have all the confidence that they will overcome this horrible time and if war is what must come then I have no doubt that my Persian brothers know exactly how to measure it out...history proves this!!!
Hail King Reza Shah!!!!
_________________
Men that believe women are property to be handled as they see fit are ignorant, small minded fools!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear James,

Remember, where it concerns the question of war or peace, the regime too, has a vote on that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

With any luck, we should see the int. community decide to take real action within weeks at the UN, as the draft resolution on sanctions is being debated among parties at this time.

In case of temper tantrums, there's three US Carrier groups in the Persian Gulf vicinity as I write.
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 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 13 of 27

 
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