[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 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 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: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:08 pm    Post subject: Top spy: Iran training Iraqis to use explosives Reply with quote

Top spy: Iran training Iraqis to use explosives

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070227/ts_nm/security_usa_threats_dc_3
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:12 am    Post subject: Iranian Secrets on the Loose? Reply with quote

Iranian Secrets on the Loose?
March 07, 2007
Stratfor
Geopolitical Diary

http://www.stratfor.com/

Ali Reza Askari, a former aide to the Iranian defense minister and a retired general with long service in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has been missing since Feb. 7. He reportedly was last seen in Istanbul. After his disappearance, Arab newspapers quickly fingered Mossad and the CIA for his assassination or kidnapping. Iranian officials made similar claims. On Tuesday, the independent Saudi-owned newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat offered a different explanation: Askari had defected, turning himself over to U.S. agents in Turkey.

After visiting Damascus on official business, Askari reportedly flew to Istanbul on a personal trip. Menashe Amir, an Israeli analyst of Iranian affairs, has said that Askari's family left Iran ahead of him and met up with him in Istanbul. That his disappearance appears to have happened while he was traveling abroad with his family seems a remarkable coincidence. And Istanbul is a particularly convenient location for the U.S. intelligence community: Turkey's intelligence agencies are on good terms with their American counterparts, and U.S. military flights are quite common.

While Asharq Al-Awsat has occasionally been used by Riyadh for disinformation purposes -- and both the Saudis and the Israelis (and essentially everyone else discussing his disappearance) have cause to manipulate perceptions of Iran -- the fact remains that a covert war is raging, and has been. Mossad has likely taken out Ardeshir Hassanpour, a prominent Iranian nuclear scientist. In Iraq, the United States has raided an Iranian consulate and arrested Iranian citizens, including Mohsen Shirazi, a commander of the elite IRGC Quds Brigade.

One thing is clear: Askari is missing and Tehran is at least pretending to be worried. An Iranian delegation arrived in Istanbul last week to investigate, and has reportedly contacted Interpol. Some of the details of Askari's military career have been closely guarded by the Iranian government, but indications are that he has been heavily involved in strategic affairs as well as military purchases and production. Israeli sources claim that he was the commander of the IRGC in Lebanon in the late 1980s, where he served as a liaison with Hezbollah. He could even be privy to information on Tehran's nuclear program.

Iran appears to be operating on the assumption that Askari might have been compromised. While the true scope and pertinence of his knowledge is known only to Tehran (or was, prior to Feb. 7), the damage he could do to Iran is almost certainly significant. Reports that dozens of IRGC members working in cultural centers and embassies in the Arab world and Europe have been called back to Tehran, for fear that their identities will be disclosed, lend credence to the utility of the information Askari might offer. Some sources have characterized his possible defection as a "deathblow."

While a kidnapped Askari would be of deep concern, an Askari who defected willingly would be a nightmare for Tehran. And this situation could be even more dire than just Askari walking in out of the cold and asking for asylum. The U.S. intelligence community could already have been working him for months -- or years.

Brushing aside the loss of someone like Askari simply might not be possible for Tehran. A defense establishment that has gone out of its way to appear threatening and capable could be exposed as a fake. Or even if it truly is dangerous and capable, its best laid battle plans and contingencies might now be in the hands of the Pentagon. From Iranian lines of communication to Hezbollah, to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's evacuation plans in the event of a U.S. attack, the possible revelations are numerous and highly sensitive.

Of course, Askari could be a double agent and Iran's "concern" could be feigned. His high position would certainly suggest a strong loyalty to the clerical regime. But making a double agent out of someone with such a vast array of devastating information seems to place too much directly into the hands of the United States -- an awful gamble for Tehran.

Whatever the case, the stakes in the covert war have almost certainly been raised.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

United States Policy Towards Iran


R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Testimony Before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Washington, DC
March 6, 2007

INTRODUCTION

Thank you, Chairman Lantos, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, and distinguished
Members of the Committee for this opportunity to discuss our strategy to
address the profound challenges Iran poses to our national security interests.

We face a complex, interconnected set of four crises in the Middle East: the
need to achieve a stable and democratic Iraq, to strengthen the democratically
elected government of Lebanon, to block Iran’s nuclear and regional
ambitions, and to establish the foundation for a final peace between the
Israeli and the Palestinian people. This region is now the area of greatest
importance for the U.S. worldwide, and critical interests are engaged in all of
these areas. But beyond our responsibility to help stabilize Iraq, nothing is
more vital to the future of America’s role in the Middle East than
addressing the challenges posed by the radical regime in Iran, whose public
face is the vitriolic President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad.

For nearly three decades, dealing with Tehran’s confrontational ideology
and blatant anti-Americanism has been a persistent dilemma for every
administration since that of President Carter. But never have our concerns
regarding Iran’s intentions been more serious, nor the intricacies of
Iranian politics more significant and the policy imperatives more urgent than
they are today. Tehran has embarked on a dangerous course, repeatedly defying
its obligations under international law – to say nothing of the normative
standards of international behavior – and appalling the world with its
vitriol and the most abhorrent, irresponsible rhetoric of any global leader in
many years.

Ahmadi-Nejad has declared that Iran’s nuclear program has “no
brakes,” and the Iranian regime has brazenly disregarded demands from
both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security
Council for a suspension of its enrichment and related reprocessing activities.
We are joined by the great majority of countries around the world who are
concerned that Iran’s nuclear program is designed to produce a nuclear
weapon. In proceeding with its efforts, the Iranian regime has also ignored the
generous and historic incentives package offered by the P5 countries and
Germany, as well as the United States' offer to begin serious negotiations with
Tehran if it verifiably suspends enrichment at its Natanz facility.

During the past week, I have had three discussions with my P5+1 counterparts
from Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany about a second and
strengthened Chapter VII Security Council Resolution. In fact, formal
deliberations are now beginning at the Security Council. We are pleased by the
serious and very constructive talks we have had with our P5+1 partners. Iran
must know that we are united in our aim to deny it a nuclear weapon. We have
all agreed to try to pass such a resolution as quickly as possible to warn the
Iranian regime that it is isolated internationally and needs to negotiate with
us. Global leaders as diverse as India, Egypt, and Brazil have supported this
effort at the IAEA. The Iranian government finds itself in profound isolation
on the nuclear issue.

Beyond its drive for nuclear weapons, Iran has endeavored to sow violence and
instability throughout the region, particularly in the vulnerable democracies
of Lebanon and Iraq. And as Tehran has escalated its long-standing and violent
rejection of a Middle East peace settlement between the Israeli and the
Palestinian people, its human rights record at home has once again taken a
dismal turn.

We are responding to these challenges with a comprehensive strategy that relies
on American diplomatic leadership and a strong multilateral coalition. First
and foremost, we made clear to the Iranian regime that the provocative and
destabilizing policies pursued by Ahmadi-Nejad will entail painful costs for
Iran, including financial hardship, diplomatic isolation, and long-term
detriment to Iran’s prestige and fundamental national interests.
Secondly, and equally important, we have worked to alter the regime’s
behavior and convince it that a cooperative, more appealing course is available
to it.

Though the challenge is great and the road may be long, I believe that this
concerted diplomatic strategy is the best way forward for our country.

Just a few months ago, Iran appeared to be riding high. It was proceeding
unimpeded in its obvious campaign to develop a nuclear weapons capability. It
had funded Hizballah’s irresponsible provocations that led to war against
Israel last summer. In the closing months of 2006, the United States took
significant steps to contain Iran’s regional aims and to press forward to
isolate Tehran on the nuclear issue. We have coordinated a series of diplomatic
initiatives with friends from across the world to knock Iran off its stride.
This strategy appears to have sparked a divisive debate in Iranian ruling
circles about whether to continue a confrontational course or agree to
negotiations. Let me describe how we have applied this pressure to isolate and
contain Iran’s ambitions.

We have worked at the United Nations to shine a bright spotlight on Iran’
s nuclear program. In December, the United Nations Security Council unanimously
adopted Resolution 1737, imposing Chapter VII sanctions targeting Iran’s
nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The resolution was a significant
milestone following two years of patient diplomacy among the United States, our
European partners, Russia, and China, and represented a turning point in
international willingness to pressure the Iranian regime to comply with its
obligations.

Outside of the Security Council, we have worked cooperatively with major
governments to curtail business transactions with Iranian companies and
individuals tied to Iran’s nuclear activities and support for terrorism.
The Department of Treasury has used its authority under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to sanction Iranian Bank Sepah for
providing support and services to entities involved in Iran’s missile
programs. Additionally, the Department of the Treasury cut Iranian state-owned
Bank Saderat off from all access to the U.S. financial system because of its
support for terrorism. Banks worldwide have begun to recognize the serious risk
associated with Iranian business with some beginning to scale back their Iran
portfolios.

We have also acted to blunt Iran’s regional ambitions. In Iraq, Iran
continues to provide lethal support to select groups of Shia militants who
target and kill U.S. and British troops, as well as innocent Iraqis. We have
made clear to Tehran that this is unacceptable. As President Bush announced in
January, our troops on the ground in Iraq will act to disrupt networks in Iraq&
mdash;regardless of nationality—which provide deadly weapons to Iraqi
groups. These actions are consistent with the mandate granted to the
Multi-National Forces in Iraq by both the United Nations Security Council and
the Iraqi Government to take all necessary measures to contribute to the
maintenance of Iraq’s security and stability. We have an absolute and
indisputable obligation to defend our soldiers from such attacks.

We are also working with France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and others to
signal our strong support for Prime Minister Siniora’s democratically
elected government in Lebanon, to enforce the arms embargo imposed by Security
Council Resolution 1701, and to prevent Iran and Syria from rearming Hizballah.
We have stationed two carrier battle groups in the Gulf to reassure our friends
in the Arab world that it remains an area of vital importance to us. And at the
regional level, Secretary Rice last autumn launched a series of ongoing
discussions with our GCC partners, as well as Egypt and Jordan, regarding
issues of shared concern, including the threat posed by Iran.

Combined with our long-term efforts to promote peace and stability and reassure
allies, including Israel, these steps mark the natural evolution of our efforts
to demonstrate international resolve against Iran’s disregard for
international law and its aspirations to dominate the region. And they have all
had an impact. Iran is now off-balanced, more isolated, and under more intense
international scrutiny.

This U.S. policy of applying multiple points of pressure against the Iranian
regime is the right course for us to follow. Despite the fulminations of
President Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran is not impervious to financial and diplomatic
pressure. It is clear to us that concerted international pressure can help to
undercut the Iranian regime’s sense of ascendancy, and unnerve its overly
confident leadership while clarifying to it the costs of its irresponsible
behavior.

While we are acting vigorously to isolate the Iranian government, we are also
offering to it a diplomatic way forward. For this reason, Secretary Rice has
agreed to join her P5+1 colleagues in direct discussions with Iran regarding
the nuclear and other issues “at any place and at any time,”
provided Iran verifiably suspends its enrichment-related and reprocessing
activities. This avenue represents the best opportunity for Iran and the United
States to begin resolving our differences. To this end, we have also agreed to
participate this week in the “Neighbors Conference” sponsored by
the Iraqi Government, where we will sit with Iran, Syria, and other countries
and support strategies to end bloodshed in Iraq and divisive internal
struggles. We hope all governments will seize this opportunity to improve
relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region. And we
hope, as well, that Iran will commit itself to a more constructive and positive
role in Iraq as a result of those discussions

Diplomacy is our best course of action in blocking and containing the Iranian
regime. I do not believe a military confrontation with Iran is either desirable
or inevitable. If we continue our skillful diplomatic course and have the
patience to see it play out over the mid to long-term, I am confident we can
avoid conflict and see our strategy succeed. Our strong hope is that Iran will
accept the offer to negotiate with the U.S. and our P-5 partners so that we can
achieve a peaceful end to Tehran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

Any effective diplomatic strategy must provide one’s adversary with exit
doors when, as Iran has certainly done, it paints itself into a diplomatic
corner. While we are acting vigorously to contain Iran in the Middle East, we
are also offering it a chance to negotiate with us. When the UN Security
Council soon adopts a second sanctions resolution, the United States and our
partners will also reaffirm our wish to negotiate. We hope the Iranian regime
will reflect on its isolation and decide to meet us at the negotiating table.

Part of charting a new course for U.S.-Iranian relations is intensifying our
engagement with the Iranian people. While it is now not feasible for us to have
formal diplomatic relations with Iran, it is within our grasp to bridge the
divide between our peoples. So in addition to our diplomatic efforts to
persuade Tehran to alter its foreign policy, we have launched a program to
increase contacts between the American and Iranian peoples. We sent the U.S.
National Wresting Team to compete in Iran in January; we are also bringing
hundreds of Iranians on exchange programs to the United States. These efforts
have been helped tremendously by Congressional support for the Administration&
rsquo;s 2006 supplemental funding request. In the long-term, assuaging the
separation between our peoples is critical to overcoming the nearly 30-years
estrangement that currently divides the U.S. from Iran.

Our diplomatic success vis-à-vis Tehran, and the endurance and vitality of our
international coalition, are no small achievements. They reflect the leadership
of President Bush and the sustained efforts of Secretary Rice, the State
Department, and contributions from other government agencies. As the President
and Secretary Rice have reiterated—and I cannot emphasize this enough&
mdash;we seek a diplomatic solution to the challenges posed by Iran.

Today, I would like to provide some details on the steps we are pursuing at the
United Nations and bilaterally to increase pressure on Iran to abandon its
quest for a nuclear weapons capability. I will also touch briefly on our
continued efforts to discourage the Iranian regime’s support for
terrorism and extremism, while expanding engagement with the Iranian people.

IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

The greatest immediate threat posed by the Iranian regime is its pursuit of a
nuclear weapons capability. For more than 18 years, Iranian leaders pursued a
clandestine enrichment program and other undeclared nuclear activities in
violation of their international obligations. It is this continued abuse of the
world’s trust that is at the heart of the international community’s
impasse with Iran.

The United States and the entire permanent membership of the UN Security
Council recognize Iran’s right to peaceful, civil nuclear energy under
relevant articles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, that
right comes with responsibilities, paramount among them a legal obligation to
forgo the pursuit of nuclear weapons and to subject all nuclear activities to
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring. As IAEA Director General
ElBaradei’s most recent report to the Security Council makes clear, the
Iranian regime remains in noncompliance with its international obligations and
has been anything but transparent. Despite multiple requests over more than
three years, the regime has yet to clarify several outstanding issues with the
IAEA. As a result, the IAEA Director General says he is unable to verify that
Iran’s program is solely peaceful.

A review of Dr. ElBaradei’s report is instructive and alarming. Iran has
repeatedly failed not only to meet the IAEA’s requirements; it has also
failed to even have the courtesy of responding to many of the IAEA’s
direct questions on behalf of a concerned international community.

The regime has refused to enable the IAEA to clarify the past history of its P1
/P2 centrifuge work, plutonium separation experiments, and uranium
contamination. It has refused to agree to IAEA requests for access to Iranian
officials and documentation, including a 15-page document that describes the
procedures for casting and machining uranium into hemispheres, for which the
only plausible purpose is weapons. And it has refused to accept and implement
the safeguards measures that the IAEA believes are necessary to ensure
non-diversion of enriched uranium at the Natanz enrichment plant.

The Iranian regime has, of course, had sufficient time to clarify questions
regarding its nuclear activities. Since 2003, the IAEA Board of Governors has
called on Iran to meet its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty. On March 29, 2006, the UN Security Council adopted unanimously a
Presidential Statement calling on Iran to fully suspend all enrichment-related
and reprocessing activities and to cooperate with the IAEA’s ongoing
inspections. Iran ignored these requests, as well as UNSC Resolution 1696,
passed in July 2006, which made clear that if Iran did not comply by August 31,
2006, the Security Council would adopt appropriate measures under Article 41 of
Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for sanctions.

Faced with the Iranian regime’s blatant disregard for its international
nuclear obligations, the UN Security Council had no choice but to unanimously
adopt Resolution 1737, in December 2006, imposing sanctions under Chapter VII.
Specifically, Resolution 1737 required Iran to immediately suspend its uranium
enrichment, reprocessing, and heavy water-related activities and to cooperate
fully with the IAEA. It also inter alia imposed prohibitions on states’
ability to transfer proliferation-sensitive technology to Iran, sharply limited
technical or financial assistance to the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile
programs, and required states to freeze the assets of key individuals and
entities associated with both programs.

FINANCIAL PRESSURES

Beyond imposing an asset freeze on various Iranian entities and individuals
associated with Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program,
Resolution 1737 also provides leverage to increase bilateral economic pressure
outside of the United Nations. To this end, the Departments of State and the
Treasury have engaged with foreign governments and private firms, reminding
them of the financial and reputational risks of doing business with Iran.

Iran is one of the largest beneficiaries of official export credits and
guarantees, with $22.3 billion in exposure reported by OECD countries as of the
end of 2005. Noting that a number of major international banks have now reduced
their business with Iran, we are also encouraging governments in Europe and
Asia to reduce the official export credits they provide to Iran. Governments
should not take on the financial risk that private companies are facing in that
country. Many countries share our concerns and are starting to decrease their
official lending. Some countries have capped their exposure at current levels,
while others have begun scrutinizing Iranian credit applications to ensure they
comply with the strict, nonproliferation guidelines contained in Resolution
1737. France, Germany, and Japan have reduced export credits limits for Iran,
while others have committed privately to doing the same, and especially,
reducing the medium and long-term credits that Iran uses for capital goods and
project finance.

We worked last year with Congress on the reauthorization and amendment of the
Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) which, thanks to the success of our
diplomatic and economic efforts with respect to Libya, is now simply the Iran
Sanctions Act (ISA). ISA has been valuable in emphasizing to foreign
governments and firms our concerns about Iran and highlighting the risks and
potential consequences of investing there. Indeed, we attribute the continued
lack of investment in Iran’s oil and gas sectors, in part, to ISA.

In recent weeks, we have engaged relevant companies and countries about their
potential investment in Iran’s oil and gas sector. In making clear our
opposition to such deals, we have emphasized how they would undermine
international efforts to resolve the nuclear issue, as well as the potential
legal implications of future investment under our law. Most of these deals
remain in the negotiation stage. Our discussions are intended to diminish the
likelihood of seeing them finalized. More broadly, Iran continues to encounter
great difficulties in attracting foreign investment to its hydrocarbon sector
and few foreign companies have committed to developing Iranian oil and gas
fields. Iran’s own behavior and policies have contributed to this
situation, but ILSA/ISA has contributed to Iran’s poor investment
prospects.

We are also utilizing other domestic authorities to limit Iran’s nuclear
progress. Under Executive Order 13382, the United States designated 14
individuals and entities associated with Iran’s weapons of mass
destruction and missile programs. Designated entities are denied access to the
U.S. financial system and their assets in U.S. banks are frozen. Citing ties to
WMD proliferation activities, the Treasury Department used domestic authorities
to terminate Iran-based Bank Sepah and Bank Sepah International’s access
to the U.S. financial system. We are encouraging foreign governments to
scrutinize activities of Banks Saderat and Sepah, as well as other Iranian
financial institutions in their jurisdictions, and, whenever appropriate,
revoke their operating licenses.

These targeted financial pressures have denied suspect Iranian individuals and
entities access to the funds needed to sustain Iran’s nuclear program,
and made clear to Iran that activities in defiance of international law will
result in real economic consequences. Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey and
I will continue to engage with our foreign partners regarding such economic
pressures, as they are one of our most effective tools for making clear to the
Iranian regime the cost of its continued defiance.

NEXT STEPS AT THE UNSC

We also anticipate additional action from the Security Council, which expressed
its intent in Resolution 1737 to adopt additional sanctions under Article 41 of
Chapter VII of the UN Charter if the IAEA found Iran to be in noncompliance.

Last week, I met in London with my counterparts from China, France, Germany,
Russia and the United Kingdom to discuss next-steps at the Security Council.
Our discussions followed Secretary Rice’s meeting on February 22 with EU
Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, and German
Foreign Minister Steinmeier in Berlin. We have had a series of productive
discussions in the past week regarding a second sanctions resolution to be
adopted by the Security Council. Additionally, we have reiterated our common
determination to resolve the nuclear issue diplomatically and considered how to
best re-engage Iran. I am encouraged by the seriousness of these ongoing
discussions and I am confident that members of the Security Council will
continue to make clear to the Iranian regime the consequences of its actions.

Iran’s continued refusal to suspend enrichment – despite the
generous incentives package and offer of direct talks with the United States &
ndash; is a missed opportunity. As Secretary Rice has reiterated many times,
and I will reiterate here, that offer remains on the table. The Secretary will
meet with her Iranian counterpart anytime, anywhere. All the Iranian Government
must do is completely and verifiably suspend its enrichment and related
reprocessing activities as the UN Security Council has mandated.

CURBING IRAN’S DESTABILIZING ACTIONS ABROAD

Looking beyond its nuclear aspirations, the Iranian regime’s aggressive
foreign policy and hegemonic aspirations constitute an increasing threat to
regional security and U.S. interests.

I noted in my opening remarks our serious concerns regarding Iran’s
lethal support to Iraqi militants, and the steps we are taking to counter thee
destructive activities in Iraq. But Iranian interference is also evident in
Lebanon, where its efforts to rearm and financially bolster Hizballah threaten
to set back the democratic progress of the past two years. President
Ahmadi-Nejad’s repeated threats to “wipe Israel off of the map,&
rdquo; and the regime’s internationally condemned Holocaust denial
conference in December, highlight regime hostility toward a major U.S. partner&
mdash;as does continued Iranian financial and military support to Palestinian
terrorist groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

As Secretary Rice noted during her recent testimony, we are intensifying our
efforts to lay the foundation for a Palestinian state that can exist peacefully
alongside Israel. We have also enhanced our support to Lebanon’s
democratically elected government, and will sustain our efforts to enforce all
applicable UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to the rearmament of
Hizballah.

More broadly, we are enhancing our security cooperation with longstanding
partners throughout the region. The deployment of a second aircraft carrier
battle group to the Gulf reinforces these efforts, reassures our allies, and
underscores to Tehran our commitment to protect our vital interests.

BLOCKING IRAN’S SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM

No discussion of Iran would be complete without mentioning the regime’s
record of supporting terrorism.

Tehran has long been the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism; the
regime sponsored and was responsible for the deaths of scores of Americans in
the 1980s and 1990s. Through its efforts to rearm Hizballah, the Iranian regime
has violated its obligations under UNSCR 1701. And it has violated UNSCR 1267
and successor resolutions by failing to impose sanctions on al-Qaida and
continues to refuse to bring to justice or confirm the whereabouts of senior
al-Qaida members it detained in 2003.

Recognizing Iran’s role as the central banker of global terrorism, the
Departments of State and the Treasury have enlisted foreign support in efforts
to deny suspect Iranian individuals and entities access to the international
financial system. The termination of Iranian Bank Saderat’s “U-turn
” authorization effectively prohibits one of Iran’s largest banks
from conducting business in U.S. dollars.

Utilizing E.O. 13224, Treasury has also designated two entities that have
functioned as Hizballah’s unofficial treasury by holding and investing
the group’s assets and serving as intermediaries between the terrorist
organization and international banks. Additionally, we have disrupted Hizballah
’s financial support network by designating and blocking the assets of
individuals and two entities affiliated with Hizballah in the Tri-Border region
of South America.

EMPOWERING IRANIAN CIVIL SOCIETY AND ENGAGING THE IRANIAN PEOPLE

Before I conclude, I would like to discuss briefly the Iranian regime’s
repressive treatment of its own people. The regime recently celebrated the
achievements of the 1979 Revolution. But the regime’s conduct is not
equal to the aspirations of the Iranian people.

The regime’s record of human rights abuse remains among the worst in the
world. As the annual Human Rights Report outlines we are releasing today
emphasizes, the record has worsened over the past year. The regime regularly
abuses its own people, restricting basic freedoms of expression and assembly to
discourage political opposition. The regime has purged liberal university
professors; threatened, jailed and tortured journalists; and harassed student
organizations and other groups and just this week violently disrupted a women&
rsquo;s rally in Tehran only days before the International Women’s Day.
The regime denies its people freedom of expression by cracking down on
bloggers, closing independent newspapers, censoring internet use and blocking
satellite dish ownership—all in an effort to control their access to
information. These actions make one ask—What does the regime have to
hide? And why is it afraid of its own people?

For years, the regime has prevented transparent judicial proceedings and
persecuted women and minority ethnic and religious groups. The regime’s
decision to disqualify hundreds of candidates from participating in the
December 15, 2006 elections prevented the Iranian people from choosing
government officials representing a range of viewpoints.

The Iranian people deserve better from their leaders. They are a proud,
well-educated people with a rich history. To counter such abuses, we are
promoting greater freedom in Iran by funding a variety of civil society
programs.

Our efforts to foster Iran’s civil society have expanded. The Congress
apportioned $66.1 million in the FY 06 Supplemental to support our efforts in
Iran. $20 million of these funds are going to support civil society, human
rights, democratic reform and related outreach, while $5 million was given to
the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) for increased Persian
language electronic and speaker programming about American society,
institutions, policy and values. An additional $5 million was allocated to the
Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs (ECA) for new cultural and educational
exchange programs to increase mutual understanding between our two peoples. The
Congress allocated the remaining $36.1 million of FY 2006 supplemental Iran
funds directly to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) for media
programming into Iran, including our VOA Farsi television service and Radio
Farda.

These funds have allowed us to initiate a wide range of democracy, educational,
and cultural programs, as well as significantly expanded efforts to improve the
free flow of information to the Iranian people. We also allocated over $11
million of the FY 2006 base budget to support Iranian democracy programs, with
other funds allocated to BBG, public diplomacy, and exchange programs. This
builds on programming that we already had underway in FY 2004 and FY 2005.

The Congress allocated the remaining $36.1 million of FY 2006 supplemental Iran
funds directly to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), for media
programming into Iran, including our VOA Farsi television service and Radio
Farda.

Our programs are open to all who are committed to peaceful, democratic progress
in Iran. Their goal is to support different parts of Iranian society by
promoting basic human rights and religious freedoms; building civil society;
improving justice, accountability and the rule of law; providing access to
unbiased information; and promoting a deeper understanding of our culture,
values and ideas.

Given Iran’s restricted political climate, progress towards our goals has
been predictably difficult. We have accordingly employed all possible
safeguards to enable our partners on the ground to pursue their work. Projects
are moving forward, and many brave men and women are helping promote basic
civil rights and the necessity of political dialogue. In the long-term, we hope
that a more open environment that encourages, rather than represses, dialogue,
will stimulate a change in the behavior of the Iranian Government.

State Department officials are also reaching out to the Iranian people to
convey our policies. Secretary Rice and I have given interviews on Persian
language media highlighting the Iranian people’s aspirations for
increased respect for human rights and civil liberties, as well as a more
democratic, open government.

With the recently appropriated funds, the United States has resumed official
educational and cultural exchange programs between the United States and Iran,
which the U.S. Government suspended at the time of the Iranian Revolution in
1979. In late 2006, a group of medical professionals were the first Iranians to
visit the United States as part of this reinvigorated effort. Their
non-political visit brought them in contact with medical professionals from the
Centers for Disease Control, Harvard Medical School, and other major medical
institutions. Several professional, athletic, and cultural exchanges are
planned for 2007, with the goal of building greater understanding between the
people of the United States and of Iran. In January, the USA Wrestling Team
traveled to Bandar Abbas, Iran, at our request, where it was greeted warmly by
the Iranian people and loudly cheered during the competition. We have extended
an invitation to the Iranian National Wrestling Team to travel to the United
States, and are confident the American people will extend an equally warm
welcome. It is our hope that increased exchanges will provide the Iranian
people with a clearer and more accurate understanding of American society,
culture and democratic values.

For FY 2008, the President has requested over $100 million in Iran funding,
including roughly $20 million for VOA’s Persian service and $8.1 million
for Radio Farda, as well as $5.5 for consular affairs, and $75 million in
economic support funds to civil society and human rights projects in Iran. We
appreciate the Committee’s continued support of efforts in these areas
which are a vital component of our comprehensive Iran strategy.

The United States stands with the Iranian people in their struggle to advance
democracy, freedom, and the basic civil rights of all citizens. We believe the
Iranian people have made clear their desire to live in a modern, tolerant
society that is at peace with its neighbors and is a responsible member of the
international community. We are confident that if given the opportunity to
choose their leaders freely and fairly, the Iranian people would elect a
government that invests in developments at home rather than supporting
extremism abroad; a government that would choose dialogue and responsible
international behavior rather than seeking to produce nuclear weapons; a
government that would nurture a political system that respects all faiths,
empowers all citizens, and returns Iran to its historic place in the community
of nations.

CONCLUSION

The United States is committed to pursuing a diplomatic solution to the
challenges posed by Iran. This will require patience and persistence.

We are making every effort to improve U.S.-Iranian relations. But that cannot
happen without a change in the Iranian regime’s policies. Secretary Rice
offered the Iranian Government an extraordinary opportunity, in June 2006, when
she pledged to engage in direct talks alongside Russian, China, and our
European partners if Iran verifiably suspends enrichment and cooperates with
the IAEA. This offer remains on the table, and we will continue to make clear
to the Iranian regime that the best to way to ensure its security is by
complying with, not ignoring its international nuclear obligations.


Released on March 6, 2007

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov for Senior State Department
Official's statements and testimonies
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
espandyar



Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dorood Doostan

Seems like the only reason for the publishing "United States Policy Towards Iran" is to respond to IR wish!
US admin is dancing just the way IR want it too!!

FM Mottaki Calls on US to Formally Ask for Talks with Iran

March 05, 2007
Fars News Agency
english.farsnews.com



TEHRAN -- Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tehran would decide if it should attend talks with Washington once it is officially in receipt of a relevant request by the US.

Speaking during a joint press conference with his Chadian counterpart Ahmad Allam-mi here in Tehran on Monday, Mottaki pointed out that Iran has already received informal proposals through different channels for attending talks with the US, and said, "We are studying these proposals, but we will adopt a decision in this regard when the US administration raises such a demand formally."

He pointed to Baghdad Security Talks to be attended by deputy foreign ministers of Iraq's neighboring countries and the five UN Security Council member states, and said, "This meeting should not make decisions for Iraq."

"Meantime, the structure and framework of the meeting which is held under the title of Iraq's neighbors should not be impaired," he continued.

Mottaki said that Tehran is finalizing its view about the attendance of deputy Iranian foreign minister in the said conference.

Regarding his country's nuclear issue, he pointed to the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors today, and stressed, "We expect the IAEA to defend the view that the case should be studied there (at the Agency)."

Asked about the recent incidents in Zahedan, southeastern Iran, the top diplomat said that Tehran has a clear offer for the Pakistani government, adding, "The Pakistani government should eradicate the terrorists in that region through proper operations, or deal with the issue jointly with Iran, for which the Islamic Republic is fully prepared, or lay the required groundwork for Iran to arrest these terrorist agents in specific regions in accordance with the precise information that our country has in this regard."

Elsewhere, he spoke of the fate of the five Iranian mission staffers kidnapped during a raid by the US forces on Iran's consulate general in the northern Iraqi city of Erbil, and claimed the US responsible for their fate, while he also took the Iraqi government responsible for the release of the Iranian diplomats.

"These set a clear body of evidence that Americans do not possess the needed honesty for establishing security in Iraq and protecting the people of that country," the Iranian foreign minister underscored.




United States Policy Towards Iran


R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Testimony Before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Washington, DC
March 6, 2007


Quote:
CONCLUSION

The United States is committed to pursuing a diplomatic solution to the
challenges posed by Iran. This will require patience and persistence.

We are making every effort to improve U.S.-Iranian relations. But that cannot
happen without a change in the Iranian regime’s policies. Secretary Rice
offered the Iranian Government an extraordinary opportunity, in June 2006, when
she pledged to engage in direct talks alongside Russian, China, and our
European partners if Iran verifiably suspends enrichment and cooperates with
the IAEA. This offer remains on the table
, and we will continue to make clear
to the Iranian regime that the best to way to ensure its security is by
complying with, not ignoring its international nuclear obligations.


Released on March 6, 2007

_________________
Marze Por Gohar Party
Iranians for a Secuar Republic
ttp://www.marzeporgohar.org/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi there E,

Long time bro...hope you've been well.

Let me ask you this, what do you think the result would be if the regime actually did backflips, abandoned the rhetoric, withdrew all its agents from Iraq, froze its nuclear ambitions and met the basic conditions set out in UN resolutions for negotiations to resume ( as the quote from Burns' remarks illustrates.)???

1. the only reason they would would be pure survival instinct at work, but would they not loose the very power base at home that keeps them in power, as a result of dealing with the "Great Satan"???

2. A cornered enemy will fight to the death, even after it's own defeat has been manifest on the field of battle, and if you read Sun Tzu you'll understand why the diplomatic "exit option" has remained on the table for them to grasp.

3. This is about the sane vs. the insane. Why has the global community come together in UN resolutions, as I have long stated it would....flying in the face of all the doubts expressed by many on this forum?
Because the reasonable and rational diplomatic approach the US has taken has proven to all who is sane, while exposing the regime for its insanity manifest as hypocracy......so having a chat with them on the sidelines of the Iraq conference telling them in essence, "You don't get to do this, and if you persist, life will get exponentially harder for you." is neither "negotiation" nor appeasement, nor giving any sense of credibility or recognition to the regime. In fact, putting the mountain of evidence of their actions in Iraq on the table in front of the full international community attending that conference is exactly what is needed at this point in time, so there are very clear choices known to all as to who will be responsible for the future peace and security in the region, or a devestating war resulting in regime change if the regime miscalculates.

4. For all the talk about talking, ask yourself why the regime has found every reason in the book, and made up a few new ones to avoid having to talk with the major powers in a formal setting.
The answer is simple.....They will not survive as a government long if they do.

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

Conclusion: No one expects them to do backflips, the process is one of "exhausting diplomacy", and "putting the big squeeze on" their ambitions and capabilities to do mischief. Up to and including regime change as policy when the president has determined that diplomacy has failed to change the regime's policies and destabilization efforts in the region.

But at that point, US multilateral diplomacy has already assured that it will not be a case of the "US vs. Iran", but "Iran vs. the world". With no one able to say the US failed to do everything possible to maintain the peace.

Now the regime can continue to play games, but it can't escape the inevitability of making the choice between peace and all out war.

Regardless of which they chose, they've dug themselves such a deep political hole they will end up in total "occultation", and dissapear into a well of their own making eventually.....sooner rather than later is my guess.

Then well cap that puppy off with cement, and you'll be buying me dinner in Tehran.....(chuckle).....So have a little faith, and make resevations for us.

Best,

EJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
espandyar



Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Hi there E,

Long time bro...hope you've been well.

Let me ask you this, what do you think the result would be if the regime actually did backflips, abandoned the rhetoric, withdrew all its agents from Iraq, froze its nuclear ambitions and met the basic conditions set out in UN resolutions for negotiations to resume ( as the quote from Burns' remarks illustrates.)???

Quote:
1. the only reason they would would be pure survival instinct at work, but would they not loose the very power base at home that keeps them in power, as a result of dealing with the "Great Satan"???

2. A cornered enemy will fight to the death, even after it's own defeat has been manifest on the field of battle, and if you read Sun Tzu you'll understand why the diplomatic "exit option" has remained on the table for them to grasp.

3. This is about the sane vs. the insane. Why has the global community come together in UN resolutions, as I have long stated it would....flying in the face of all the doubts expressed by many on this forum?
Because the reasonable and rational diplomatic approach the US has taken has proven to all who is sane, while exposing the regime for its insanity manifest as hypocracy......so having a chat with them on the sidelines of the Iraq conference telling them in essence, "You don't get to do this, and if you persist, life will get exponentially harder for you." is neither "negotiation" nor appeasement, nor giving any sense of credibility or recognition to the regime. In fact, putting the mountain of evidence of their actions in Iraq on the table in front of the full international community attending that conference is exactly what is needed at this point in time, so there are very clear choices known to all as to who will be responsible for the future peace and security in the region, or a devestating war resulting in regime change if the regime miscalculates.

4. For all the talk about talking, ask yourself why the regime has found every reason in the book, and made up a few new ones to avoid having to talk with the major powers in a formal setting.
The answer is simple.....They will not survive as a government long if they do.

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

Conclusion: No one expects them to do backflips, the process is one of "exhausting diplomacy", and "putting the big squeeze on" their ambitions and capabilities to do mischief. Up to and including regime change as policy when the president has determined that diplomacy has failed to change the regime's policies and destabilization efforts in the region.

But at that point, US multilateral diplomacy has already assured that it will not be a case of the "US vs. Iran", but "Iran vs. the world". With no one able to say the US failed to do everything possible to maintain the peace.

Now the regime can continue to play games, but it can't escape the inevitability of making the choice between peace and all out war.

Regardless of which they chose, they've dug themselves such a deep political hole they will end up in total "occultation", and dissapear into a well of their own making eventually.....sooner rather than later is my guess.

Then well cap that puppy off with cement, and you'll be buying me dinner in Tehran.....(chuckle).....So have a little faith, and make resevations for us.

Best,

EJ




Quote:
Long time bro...hope you've been well.

Let me ask you this, what do you think the result would be if the regime actually did backflips, abandoned the rhetoric, withdrew all its agents from Iraq, froze its nuclear ambitions and met the basic conditions set out in UN resolutions for negotiations to resume ( as the quote from Burns' remarks illustrates.)???


Thank you oppie Jan good to see you and thank you for the reply!
Have you heard the phrase attack is the best defence??
This is how IR has experinced it as well. They will not stop but the question
has US the ablility to stop them? Our answers might not be the same here!

Quote:
1. the only reason they would would be pure survival instinct at work, but would they not loose the very power base at home that keeps them in power, as a result of dealing with the "Great Satan"???


They have no power base at home whatever! They have managed to
opress the people by the methods you are fimiliar with. What people think has no meaning.In fact Iranian people dont consider US as the grate Satan but the regime does.If they change their mind or not the people is not involved in that and the last think they are worried about is what people say or think!

Quote:
2. A cornered enemy will fight to the death, even after it's own defeat has been manifest on the field of battle, and if you read Sun Tzu you'll understand why the diplomatic "exit option" has remained on the table for them to grasp."


Funny you shoyld mention it Iam just about to read art of war.
The question is exit strategy for who?So far IR has palyed all its cars by the book it is the US admin that never stop to surprise people with its moves.

Quote:
3. This is about the sane vs. the insane. Why has the global community come together in UN resolutions, as I have long stated it would....flying in the face of all the doubts expressed by many on this forum?
Because the reasonable and rational diplomatic approach the US has taken has proven to all who is sane, while exposing the regime for its insanity manifest as hypocracy......so having a chat with them on the sidelines of the Iraq conference telling them in essence, "You don't get to do this, and if you persist, life will get exponentially harder for you." is neither "negotiation" nor appeasement, nor giving any sense of credibility or recognition to the regime. In fact, putting the mountain of evidence of their actions in Iraq on the table in front of the full international community attending that conference is exactly what is needed at this point in time, so there are very clear choices known to all as to who will be responsible for the future peace and security in the region, or a devestating war resulting in regime change if the regime miscalculates..


I wish I could share that with you. The whole concept of IR is insane but I did not see EU bother with that as long the money were flowing...
In fact EU is still doing heavy business with IR. The resolution which was in fact a very weak one need some work. Russia and China reaction need to be studies when a real resolution is being be produced.
IR need to be removed in order to achiev real peace and stability.
Some of the main architects of UN resolutions do not want to see IR removed.Hence the games we are witnessing...

Quote:
4. For all the talk about talking, ask yourself why the regime has found every reason in the book, and made up a few new ones to avoid having to talk with the major powers in a formal setting.
The answer is simple.....They will not survive as a government long if they do.


They had many formal meetings my friend...while the EU was on the wild goose chase IR continued according plan even as we "speak"!

Quote:
Conclusion: No one expects them to do backflips, the process is one of "exhausting diplomacy", and "putting the big squeeze on" their ambitions and capabilities to do mischief. Up to and including regime change as policy when the president has determined that diplomacy has failed to change the regime's policies and destabilization efforts in the region.

But at that point, US multilateral diplomacy has already assured that it will not be a case of the "US vs. Iran", but "Iran vs. the world". With no one able to say the US failed to do everything possible to maintain the peace.

Now the regime can continue to play games, but it can't escape the inevitability of making the choice between peace and all out war.

Regardless of which they chose, they've dug themselves such a deep political hole they will end up in total "occultation", and dissapear into a well of their own making eventually.....sooner rather than later is my guess.

Then well cap that puppy off with cement, and you'll be buying me dinner in Tehran.....(chuckle).....So have a little faith, and make resevations for us.


"exhausting diplomacy" can lead to limited military attack and note not a regime change!!! IF regime change were planned the prework would have started long time ago and that would include helpig the oppositions groups both moraly and financlially. The US approch to the mullahs has killed all the motivation among the Iranian people as they are now concidering it a "done deal"!Even if that is not the case it is how it has been intpreted thank to the US admins ignorant approch. The opposition movement is now much less active as their recomendations has not been concidered.

What seem to be happening is investment on "non persian" ( meaning minorities which US like to concider as seperatists) in order to weaken the regime. The funny thing is that the Iranians regime is not even Persian they are micture of diffrent etnicites and those groups who US is counting on is in fact minorities due to their seperatist agendas.
Such move will not weaken the regime in any way but increase suspisious agains US intentions. Havibg said that great majority of Iranian etnicites concider themselves as Iranians and they want to get rid of the regime.

My friend no matter of what US does it will be "US vs. Iran"at the end,European approch is "why do the dirty work when someone else HAS to do it?" Isnt that what diplomacy is all about??? Very Happy Very Happy

The regime have forseen this long before US and EU, my guess is that they have the upperhand in this game.
The only weak point that regime cannot resist is a popular revolution and that can only be done by Iranians with lots of resources. This should have been the US policy long 6 years ago. Now it might be too late!

Having said that I hope that Im wrong and that I soon can buy you dinner in tehran and then actually take you to shomal and caspian sea! Smile

Be good my friend
espandyar

Sorry for all the typos and misspells!!!
_________________
Marze Por Gohar Party
Iranians for a Secuar Republic
ttp://www.marzeporgohar.org/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear E,

I am afraid that my lack of specificity on certain points has resulted in your misunderstanding of the points I was making. I should add that in over a thousand posts I've placed on this forum, the consistancy of my thinking on these issues is self evident in the reading, along with a demonstrated curious ability to peer around blind corners, and accurately dicern intent and trends in policy and circumstance.

I think too, you are well aware of my succesful efforts to provide perspective to the global community, along with my solidarity with and assistance to the democratic Iranian opposition over a long period of time.

I say this: Now is not the time for freedom loving people to lose hope or faith in those that support your aspirations for liberty. Rather it is my hope that what I said previously regarding "piecemeal protests" has resulted in a more effective strategy of quiet consolodation of opposition strength and unity, in anticipation of siezing the opportune moment to effect change, as the global consensus of nations is established in support of those efforts.

This is presently becoming manifest in multiple aspects of pressure placed upon the regime, and has begun to result in tangible doubt and loss of confidence and division within the regime structure itself.

When I spoke of a "power base", I wasn't refering to the Iranian people, but of Iranian Hezbolai, basiig, Rev. Guard and the theocratic base that supports the sect of political Islam in positions of leadership in Iran.

Regime efforts to divide the international community have been in vain, and US policy and diplomacy has been the reason, or the glue if you will, not only in building the consensus of nations resulting in unanimous resolutions in the UN, but in building trust among our partners in this process in the direction and intent of US policy.

These are essential external factors that help create the conditions for the Iranian people to effect change.

"Oppie" has been busy. And effective. Mindsets are changing.


----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Jette
To: office@securityconference.de
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Of Nuclear Giants and Ethical Infants


To whom it may comcern:

It is my hope that the following will be relayed to the parties and principal speakers attending the Munich Conference. President Putin has offered an "invitation to think" . As an individual speaking only for myself in these matters, I wish to offer my personal perspective in the hopes it will provide food for thought.

Thank you for your consideration.


Of Nuclear Giants and Ethical Infants:

Times like this when doubt and pessimism run amok, perspective is essential.

Folks talk of public diplomacy, and the need to get the message out. Well, it's more than that.
It's about positive concrete results coming from changed mindsets.
Some may find this to be a rather unique perspective, and as to what effect it has had on others, I am not one to be fit to judge. It is written to elevate global understanding, as food for thought. A perspective based on years of research, personal contacts, and open and other source information not available to the public at large.
A personal perspective which incorporates essential questions to help define the world we wish to live in now, and for generations yet to come.
Thus I believe one must ask themselves whether Iran is already at war with us( the global community) or not, and who exactly has been doing the "escalating" of conflict in the Mideast.

Iranian Nuclear Weapons assessment:

I have been considering issues surrounding nuclear weapons all my adult life. On the flyleaf of my grandmother's book about Los Alamos that I gave to Bill Clinton the day he was first elected President, I wrote, "This is a slice of times past, to give perspective on the present, so that in the future we can eliminate the threat of nuclear war. The greatest threat we face today is that terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons." Not to be partisan, this is just fact.
I wonder if he had a chance to read it. "Inside Box 1663" may still be in the White house library for those interested. Some 16 years on now, I hope we aren't too late to make a difference.

As a citizen who knows the history involved, coming from a reliable source, if you will, when I consider the failure to contain the spread of nuclear weapons and associated technology, and the current situation, putting the genie back in the bottle requires a miracle, you cannot uninvent something.

It is now out of a sense of duty to my grandfather's memory, my duty to my country, and to Humanity itself that I hereby state this for the record, knowing that I am of sound mind, and good heart, and do my best to remain objective.
Objectivity can be hard to come by where it concerns family, or politics, as we are all human beings, and of a species prone to emotions, at the expense of logic.

I'm probably among a dozen or so people in the world still living who has held a piece of "trinitite" in my hands. This is the fused sand from the first atomic explosion, bubbled green glass, encased in leaded crystal, given to the department heads and leading scientists at Los Alamos at the end of WW2, including my granddad. The rest has been bulldozed underground at the Trinity test site in White Sands, New Mexico. It is the most concrete example I can show any one of the risk of nuclear war, or the results of it. Any leader holding this potential future in hand will have something to remember, and think about.

Everyone who worked on the first bomb, being as uncivilized a weapon as it is, believed it would cause mankind to forever choose peace instead of war after it ended WW2. Unfortunately, that direction was not taken, at the expense of the environment, and to the continued threat to all life on this planet.

I stress here the biggest "what if?" is what we might have accomplished as the Human species had we chosen to live in peace, instead of fear after WW2.

Anyone who has witnessed the birth of one's child can tell you that yes indeed you create your own reality, the question is what do we wish to create for ourselves as reality on this planet, now and for our children's, and their children's future? Not just in this country, but the world as a whole, as an international vision.
Inherently, change is viewed with suspicion, as a threat to culture and ways of tradition and ethical belief systems. As it applies to developing countries in this nuclear age, the post-cold war aftermath presents a vast paradox that present no easy solutions, and has culminated in the reality of the war on terrorism as it exists today.

It took America just about 27 months, from 1942-45 to build an industry from scratch, based on designs from scratch, building a city from scratch to build a bomb from scratch, with only theories to go on, in the middle of the largest and most costly war in history. Yet we did this and ended that war that had cost 50 million lives up to that point with the weapon that no one knew would even work at the time it was being produced.

Now the Islamic Republic of Iran has had at least 18 years, lots of help from other nations, black market smugglers, and their scientists have had proven designs to work with, and in all probability now has in its possession, a handful of nuclear devices smuggled in after being bought on the black market.
One must remember that the public estimates voiced regarding the time line concern simply an indigenous nuclear weapons program without regard for other methods of acquisition that the Iranian government has been involved in for some time.
These public estimates cannot incorporate full knowledge of the extent to which other nations like North Korea, Pakistan, former Soviet block nations, Russia, and China have been involved in the Iranian government's effort, including missile delivery capability.

Thus is the situation soon to be pressed regarding Iran, over multiple issues outstanding, both acute and systemic, with far reaching ramifications for non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, human rights, and the general stability of the Mideast.

Political Assessment:

That said, I am in full agreement with President Bush when he said,

"And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al Quaida 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."
(Excerpt from speech-President Discusses Global War on Terror
Capital Hilton Hotel ,Washington, D.C.)

We in America share a concept, united we stand, divided we fall, 9/11 has forced the world to grasp this concept. Ready or not, globalization is at hand, a global response to chaos in the form of potential nuclear terrorism.

If there is one thing about people that's a given, it's that they can only change themselves. You can try to understand them, change their circumstances, try to point the roads to peace, but in the end, they must want it for themselves, knowing what the alternatives are.

The IRI is fast pushing the free world to another alternative that could be far worse, if the IRI does produce a nuclear weapon before the people decide their own fate, and remove the threat both to them and the international community.

Now I hear a fair amount of talk that the US is just using this as an excuse to promote "regime change". But the reality is if the regime isn't changed soon; The leaders of Iran who are willing to martyr 10 million recruits (as also noted in IRI statements), and are on record of having an agenda of obliterating nations off the map, would certainly be willing to use such a weapon on their own people to make it look for all intents and purposes as if the Israeli's or the US had just attacked them. Thereby creating the needed justification for holy war (or un-holy war depending on one's mindset), to create the apocalyptic conditions of prophesy to hasten the mahdi's return. An ideological mindset driving the leadership of Iran ( not its people) that mutually assured destruction, or M.A.D. is unable to deter, for they incorporate it into their public diplomacy, as policy.

As long as the leading sponsor of terrorism exists as safe haven next door to the fledgling democracies we've helped establish over the last 5 years, no amount of troops, no amount of diplomacy, and no amount of money spent in nation building will change the dynamics of the instability created by those who want, and have been engaged in war by proxy with the US over several decades.

Given the Iranian government's intent and actions now and for decades gone by, it is apparent to many globally today that in order to maintain global peace and security, the current government of Iran must go. Either quietly into the night, voluntarily returning to their mosques never to participate in politics again. Or by removal at the hands of the people themselves and/or be removed by the will of nations and force of arms.

We (the global community) have failed to tap the greatest ally in the war on terrorism, which is the Iranian people and their thirst for freedom. Half measures and underfunded, lack of global moral support, and continued hand-wringing as to proper international measures; When it is self-evident that it would be criminally negligent to support the Islamic Republic of Iran one day longer via trade or diplomatic ties, our allies (those free nations that stand against terrorism) also face a clear choice. And the Iranian people will remember who supported their freedom after the inevitable fall of the regime in Tehran.

At present the US government has still a policy of "behavior change" in effect. The US has made a generous offer to resolve the "nuclear problem" diplomatically in concurrence with other nations and UN resolutions mandating compliance with international norms.

The regime has turned it down, and is apparently unwilling to even talk about becoming a functional member of the family of nations, let alone take the steps necessary to become one.

Therefore one cannot blame the US for the choices the regime makes, nor the results that the consequences will ultimately manifest.

We (the US) don't want to give them the war they want nor expect....on their terms. We ( the global community) must give them the war they are neither prepared for nor able to fight...on our terms.

Peace comes through strength, this is a given in today's world, how we employ it, ethically, diplomatically, and militarily, let the lessons of Afghanistan be the guide. There is a way. I have faith in this, as I do in my government's ability to correct past mistakes and to address the future with those lessons in hand.

My conclusion is this,... and I hope the Islamic Republic of Iran will consider very carefully what they wish for, because one of the basic flawed premise in modern political mythology is that having a nuclear weapons buys national security.

Regardless of flaws in US policy that one may perceive, the risk the Islamic Republic poses to the Iranian people far outweighs by orders of magnitude, the risk the US government poses to them.

Why is that?

Because for the last 60 years since my government dropped 2 atomic bombs to end a war that took over 50 million lives, The US has done everything in its power to make sure not another one gets dropped....by anyone, including us.

At the core, this issue and the global community's solution to it boils down to a basic issue of "Responsibility to Protect" as outlined and ratified by member states at the 2005 UN summit.

Noteworthy as well in this matter is that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been condemned some 50 times by that international forum for its abysmal human rights record.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 requires Iraq 's neighbors to respect the sovereignty of Iraq and also encourages its neighbors to do what they can to assist in the development and reconstruction of the country. And that those countries that are found to undertake actions that do not respect Iraq 's sovereignty or that contribute to undermining stability in Iraq risk reaction by the international community. A "mountain of evidence" exists in this regard.
In addition, the Islamic Republic of Iran remains in standing violation of multiple UN resolutions regarding terrorism, including the financing and support of, in material ways throughout the region and beyond via proxy groups, including providing safe haven to members of Al Quaida.

What I see from their words today (the mullahs and their supporters) is threats shrouded in niceties; The essential intellectual hypocrisy of arrogant righteousness in claiming to have any understanding of absolute truth as manifest by a political sect of Islam wholly incapable of having an open and honest dialogue within its belief structure, let alone a "dialogue among civilizations"; and a pattern of criminal and sociopathic behavior that has been elevated to an "art form" by the leadership of Iran since the '79 revolution. As noted in the following video archive which I hope all will choose to view:

http://www.iranfocus.com/uploads/video.jpg

My answer to Ahmadinejad's wrong thinking-ness is that raising a family, growing old and watching your kids thrive and prosper in peace, and knowing the joy of this over time, having contributed to its manifestation , having created one's reality , a new generation, ....is the ultimate artistic endeavor.

And so, in order to elevate the understanding of those with whom my government stands with, and beside in the global war on terror, I offered the following to my government, and the British, as I offer it to you...being the essential question that will determine the kind of future Mankind will create for itself, in regards to global peace and security.
My grandfather worked for peace, and so do I. One could rightly say I take this subject personally, and thereby offer my assistance to provide perspective, in the same spirit one far more eloquent than I offered at the peak of the cold war:

"Today there is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. I feel that we've got to look at this total thing anew and recognize that we must live together. That the whole world now it is one--not only geographically but it has to become one in terms of brotherly concern. Whether we live in America or Asia or Africa we are all tied in a single garment of destiny and whatever effects one directly, effects one in-directly.

"I'm concerned about living with my conscience and searching for that which is right and that which is true, and I cannot live with the idea of being just a conformist following a path that everybody else follows. And this has happened to us. As I've said in one of my books, so often we live by the philosophy 'Everybody's doing it, it must be alright.' We tend to determine what is right and wrong by taking a sort of Gallup poll of the majority opinion, and I don't think this is the way to get at what is right.

"Arnold Toynbee talks about the creative minority and I think more and more we must have in our world that creative minority that will take a stand for that which conscience tells them is right, even though it brings about criticism and misunderstanding and even abuse."

Excerpted from a 1967 interview of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by Arnold Michaelis.
----- Original Message -----
From: webmaster@fco.gov.uk
To: Ejette@msn.com
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 3:57 AM
Subject: RE: Comment from Eric Jette - Other

Dear Mr Jette,

Thank you for your e-mail. Your views have been noted.

Yours ever,

FCO Webmaster

www.fco.gov.uk
www.i-uk.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Ejette@msn.com [mailto:Ejette@msn.com]
Sent: 19 August 2006 15:28
To: nm9@psilink.co.uk
Subject: Comment from Eric Jette - Other

In wishing Madam Beckett godspeed in efforts of diplomacy:
It is my opinion that diplomacy without teeth is a toothless beggar, and that all the op-ed’s ever written don’t hold a candle to a single essential question asked at the right moment of the right people.
We the people must ask the hard questions and provide perspective to those with the burden of responsibility for the future of mankind, having a vested interest in the matter.
Mine is but one small voice in the global constituency trying to help others find their’s.
Although...(chuckle)..I have been known on occasion to thoughtfully mangle the English language in the process;

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/ask/69001.htm


Eric from Sante Fe, New Mexico writes:
Dear Under Secretary Joseph,

General Omar Bradley once said, "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants, we know more about war than we do about peace, more about killing than about living."

Mine is a philosophical question:

At what point does the international community determine that the ethical infant’s diapers need changing, as the smell of ill intent has become all too overwhelming and noxious to Humanity? Or will ethical infants like the leaders of Iran and North Korea be allowed to remain in power to "dump" on civilization at a time of their choosing?

I’ve noted that the diplomatic attempts at "behavior change" have only resulted in temper-tantrums, at the expense of global peace and security. But as my granddad worked with Oppenheimer on the Manhattan project, and these issues are thus quite personal to me, I’d like to personally thank everyone involved globally seeking solutions to these problems, as well as the building of consensus among nations to address these issues in concrete terms.

Under Secretary Joseph:

As in Omar Bradley’s time, the United States continues to offer the world ethical leadership, dedicated to partnerships that lead to lasting international peace and security, as well as to the development of democratic governments and the rule of law. The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism will build on Secretary Rice’s vision of transformational diplomacy by building consensus among partner nations regarding our most serious international security threat, and galvanize them to take concrete and sustained steps to defeat it.

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

Global media outlets also have a "Responsibility to protect" humanity. To do this by presenting the case for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. presenting the truth itself, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. With : Logic over emotionalism. Truth over viewpoint. Ethics over all.
For the truth shall set Mankind free of ethical infants.

This is the challenge I lay before you, to create a better world.

Best Regards,

Eric Jette

Ejette@msn.com

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

Here's the website to give you an idea who's ears were bent by this letter. You are welcome to email me E, as there are some things best not discussed in public fora and will further illustrate why I have confidence in saying that I have been effective.

http://www.securityconference.de
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

REMARKS by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad at the Regional Neighbors Conference in Baghdad
Baghdad,Iraq
March 10, 2007

http://iraq.usembassy.gov


Good afternoon.

On behalf of the United States, I would like to thank our hosts -- Prime Minister Maliki and Foreign Minister Zebari -- for inviting us to join this extended neighbors conference today.

As you know, Iraq is going through a difficult transition. There has been far too much violence, polarization, and deprivation, and Iraq’s leaders and the leaders of the coalition countries supporting Iraq have had to make difficult choices to deal with these issues.

We are gathered together to explore ways to improve support for the people and government of Iraq, who are working so hard to confront violence and to improve the quality of life for all of its citizens.

Iraq’s near neighbors and other friends can certainly do more to help in this transition toward stability and prosperity for Iraq.

Although this is the first such conference in Baghdad since 1990, it will not be the last. This conference is an Iraqi initiative. It highlights the fact that Iraq's security is of critical interest -- not just to Iraqis -- but also to the region and to the world.

The future of Iraq and the Middle East is the defining issue of our time, just as Europe was the defining issue of the early 20th century and then the Cold War was the focus of a generation. Support from Iraq's friends and neighbors is essential at this critical juncture in Iraq’s development. The United States is participating in this conference as a key strategic partner of Iraq -- and as a friend committed to helping strengthen Iraqi democracy. No country represented at the table would benefit from a disintegrated Iraq; indeed, all would suffer badly.

That we are all sitting together I believe is important and I hope that it means we are all ready to take concrete, constructive actions to support the government of Iraq in its efforts to promote democracy, stability, tolerance and prosperity.

It is my hope that we -- the participants -- will be able to move beyond words toward sincere and concerted actions to reduce violence and help the Iraqi government continue to move in a positive direction.

The United States military, as part of the Multi-National Force, is providing security for the Iraqi people at the request of the Iraqi government and under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council. The President of the United States has been clear that we seek an independent, democratic Iraq that can defend itself, sustain itself, and be an ally in the war against terrorism. The U.S. seeks an Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors; and neighbors that are at peace with Iraq.

The U.S. has expressed concerns in the past that some of Iraq's neighbors have facilitated violent actors operating in Iraq by allowing them to cross their borders into Iraq or by providing them with funding or other lethal support.

Prime Minister Maliki has made clear that his government is engaged in a momentous struggle to stop the violence in Iraq by confronting all who break the law, without exception or bias.

I urge all neighbors to categorically reject the principle that selective violence against certain categories of Iraqis or against Coalition and Iraqi security forces is acceptable. Iraq’s neighbors can only be counted as providing true and honest “support” to Iraq’s stability if they act decisively to halt the flow of fighters, weapons, and other lethal support to militias and other illegal armed groups, and cease sectarian rhetoric and other propaganda that could incite violence.

The United States military is part of Multi-National Force-Iraq that has been explicitly given the authority to “take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq” under UN Security Council Resolution 1723 (2006).

The multi-national forces target individuals based on their role in violence. We do not target individuals based on their country of origin.

The Coalition does not have anyone in detention who is a diplomat.

The U.S. and Coalition forces will continue to take appropriate steps under our mandate to protect Iraq’s citizens, and our soldiers, from foreign elements who are contributing to violence in Iraq. No one should doubt our resolve in this regard.

But the work of Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces will be far more effective and their goals reached more quickly if all of Iraq's neighbors provide constructive support to assist Iraq to stem the violence, support the Baghdad Security Plan, and promote reconciliation.

We are pleased to be part of this Iraqi initiative that seeks its neighbors' commitment to doing everything possible to help the government of Iraq restore order and create opportunity for its citizens.

In particular, the U.S. supports the Iraqi proposal to develop working groups that will identify concrete solutions to urgent problems facing Iraq. For example, in the area of security, the support and cooperation of the neighbors and others can help with border security and reconciliation efforts.

In the economic sphere, we can do more working together to improve the flow of fuel into Iraq and help with the electricity needs of the country. The urgent problem of refugees -- both those displaced internally and those who have sought shelter in neighboring countries -- deserves more coordinated attention.

Finally, we believe that we should work together for more consistent and constructive public political support for the efforts of the government and people of Iraq.

I have no doubt that a stable, independent and united Iraq is capable of being a good neighbor to all.

The work done here today is important and needs to be further developed and affirmed by our ministers.

The U.S. supports holding an expanded ministerial conference -- including the P-5 and the G-8 -- next month, where it can be practically held, and additional meetings that will consider the issues raised at today's meeting; review the recommendations of the working groups to address specific problems related to border security, refugees, and the fuel and electricity needs of Iraq, and consider additional steps to support the efforts of the Iraqi government to provide security to all Iraqis equally; to advance the level of public services to all citizens, and to achieve reconciliation among all Iraqis willing to participate in the political process.

We believe the broader international community can do more as well.

The U.S. will support the conclusion of a UN-Iraqi International Compact that ties Iraq to an important economic reform program and the international community to extended support for Iraqi economic recovery.

The U.S. also sees an advantage to expanding this forum even more -- to include the G-8 and also other friends of Iraq. There should be no exclusivity when it comes to harnessing regional and international support for Iraq. The U.S. will work with any party that is sincerely trying to help.


--------end--------

It's "show time" on the world stage. Iran and Syria just got put on notice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:35 pm    Post subject: PREMEDITATED SEIZURE? Reply with quote

YARI NATIONAL GROUP OF NATIONALISTS wrote:
PREMEDITATED SEIZURE?


The below "Dinghy" is what Royal Marines use to get on board Doha and ships in the region to check for counterband. They were captured once before. Have they modified their tactics and equipment's to prevent this incident again?

In the operation that lead to the arrest of 9 British Sailors and 8 Royal Marines, couple of dinghy's as below were used. Could anyone explain how an experienced Naval Operation would assign these boats without adequate backup (air & sea) or firepower?

H.M.S. Cornwall was miles away from the incident? Just in case. If these boats experience resistance or draw fire from the ships, trying to get on board, what would they do? Surrender?

By the time, air cover or H.M.S. Cornwal arrive, isn't too late?

We are not Military or Naval strategist. If we can predict outcome, don't you think the British Naval minds with over 400 years of Naval experience would have known all along?

The IRGC Corps. Use the Swedish Made turbo jet speed boats, bulletproof, equipped with 50 Caliber Machine Gun and Torpedo launchers!

Mullah's Motto: WHEN IN TROUBLE, TAKE HOSTAGES! Now we need to find out if this whole action was a premeditated seizure or not!

There is a saying; Fooled me once, shame on you. Fooled me twice, shame on me!

Let's see how they both will play their hands now.

All we know. Something is very fishy in Denmark!

Last Hostage crisis by the Mullha's cost Iranian's well over 25 Billion Dollars. Also Garantee from world powers not to change the regime!

YARI NATIONAL GROUP OF NATIONALISTS

UNITED WE STAND. DIVIDED WE FALL



Independent wrote:
US Troops 'Would Have Fought Iranian Captors'
March 26, 2007
Independent
Terri Judd in Bahrain
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2393337.ece


A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Republican Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage. In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.

Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."

The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: "The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"

His comments came as it was reported British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts. The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines - including one young mother - will undoubtedly renew accusations that Britain's determination to maintain a friendly face in the region has left its troops frequently under protected.

Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, the Royal Navy team from HMS Cornwall were seized on Friday after completing a UN-authorised inspection of a merchant dhow in what they insist were clearly Iraqi waters. The Iranian Republican Guard Corps Navy appeared in half a dozen attack speedboats mounted with machine guns..

Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

Three days after the team were taken hostage, Tony Blair publicly spoke about the diplomatic crisis for the first time. "I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," he said

"We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong," he added, speaking from Berlin.

In a telephone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki last night the Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett "expressed concern regarding the detention of the British soldiers". An Iranian official later confirmed that Iran may give consular access to the British sailors once an investigation into the incident is completed.

Yesterday, the armed forces spokesman General Ali Reza Afshar said the crew were in "sterling health" and were being interrogated in Tehran, where the Iranians claim they have "confessed" to straying into Iranian waters.

The Foreign Office minister, Lord Triesman, held "frank" discussions with the Iranian ambassador yesterday .


Mokhtar Barazesh wrote:

Mokhtar Barazesh

Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 12:50 AM
To:ططططط


Subject: Etraf




اعتراف و ارشاد برادران ملوان انگلیسی

ما جمعی از ملوانان انگليسی که روز گذشته در آبهای خليج فارس دستگير شديم از صميم قلب اظهار ندامت و پشيمانی ميکنيم. ما اعتراف میکنيم که خواسته یا نخواسته در خدمت قدرتهای استکباری و بخصوص روباه پير استعمار٬ بريتانيا٬ بوده ايم. اقرار میکنيم که فريب بلندگوهای بيگانه را خورديم و وارد گروهک ضد انقلابی نيروی دريايی انگليس شديم. ما نمیدانستيم کادر رهبری گروهک دريايی انگليس به امريکای جهانخوار وصل است و از آنجا دستور ميگيرد. ما فقط يک ملوان ساده بوديم و از جريانات سياسی خبر نداشتيم. يک روز بما گفتند برويد دريا و چند تا ماهی درشت بگيريد٬ آقای تونی بلر دلش ماهی خواسته. ما هم اين دستور را کورکورانه اطاعت کرديم در حالی که نمیدانستيم آقای تونی بلر جاسوس اينتليجنت سرويس است و از امريکا پول ميگيرد و هميشه يخچال- فريزر خانه اش پر است از انواع و اقسام ماهی کپور و قزل آلا. بعدا در جریان بازجوییها فهمیدیم که حتی زن این آقا بی حجاب است و در دوران دانشجویی چندتا کار بی ناموسی هم کرده که اسنادش نزد برادران بازجو موجود است.
ما اعتراف میکنيم که گول خورديم و پشيمانيم. همين جا از مقام معظم رهبری درخواست ميکنيم ما را مورد عفو قرار دهد . ایشان هی میگفتند دشمن دشمن. ما آن موقع نمی فهمیدیم دشمن یعنی چی؟ و به این فرمایشات مقام معظم میخندیدیم. خدا ما را بیامرزد. ما غفلت کردیم. نمیدانستیم که ما خودمان دشمن هستیم و در خدمت اجانب .
بدبختی٬ فارسی هم بلد نبودیم که بعضی از این وبلاگهای طرفدار جمهوری اسلامی را بخوانیم و ارشاد شویم. خلاصه خیلی شرمنده ایم . خدا ما را ذلیل کند!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:29 pm    Post subject: Blair to Iran: free captives in days Reply with quote


Condemn any form of hostage taking dirty games by Mullahs and Revolutionary Guards, demand releasing all 15 British Sailors and All Anti Mullahs Political Prisoners in Iran Immediately and expose Mullahs dirty terror game which is against Iranian people National Interest.


Quote:
Blair to Iran: free captives in days
Correspondents in London and New York
March 27, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21452351-601,00.html

BRITAIN'S crisis with Iran deepened yesterday as Tony Blair warned Tehran it has only a few days to release 15 captured British sailors and marines, as a US commander in the Gulf criticised the British for not opening fire on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who seized them.
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett spoke by telephone yesterday with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and repeated that the British sailors and marines were operating in Iraqi waters as they searched for smugglers at sea.
She asked that British diplomats be allowed to meet the captured sailors, and demanded their safe return. In Jerusalem, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also called for their release.

Mr Mottaki said Iran had already provided British officials with full details, including the GPS co-ordinates, of the servicemen's arrest. "The charge against them is their illegal entrance into Iranian territorial waters," Mr Mottaki told a press conference in New York.

The British sailors were seized at gunpoint on Friday as they searched for smugglers off the Iraqi coast, and Iran said they had illegally entered Iranian waters.

Israeli analysts said yesterday Iran chose to target British forces rather than Americans because of the harsh reaction that could be expected from Washington.

A US military commander in the Gulf said yesterday American naval personnel would have opened fire on the Iranians in similar circumstances.

Lieutenant Commander Erik Horner, second-in-command on the USS Underwood in the Gulf, said: "I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact, but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation.

"The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence.

"They had every right, in my mind, every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?"'

Asked whether the men under his command would have fired at the Iranians, Commander Horner said: "Agreed. Yes."

However, the British ambassador to Tehran was summoned to the Foreign Ministry to explain why the 15 service personnel in two inflatable boats had strayed into Iranian territorial waters.

"The Iranian authorities intercepted these sailors and marines in Iranian waters and detained them in Iranian waters," Mr Mottaki said. "This has happened in the past as well. In legal issues, it's under investigation."

His comments were seen as a direct rebuff to the British Prime Minister, who only hours earlier had described the seizure of the British service personnel as "unjustified and wrong" and demanded their speedy release.

"This is a very serious situation and there is no doubt at all that these people were taken from a boat in Iraqi waters," Mr Blair said. "It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters, and I hope the Iranian Government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us.

"We have certainly sent these messages back to them very clearly indeed. I hope this can be resolved over the next few days, but the quicker it is resolved the easier it'll be for all of us.

"The Iranians should not be in any doubt over how seriously we take this act, which was unjustified and wrong."

Mr Mottaki flew to New York for Saturday's unanimous UN vote to tighten sanctions on Tehran over its suspected nuclear weapons program, after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad abruptly cancelled his trip.

Britain's UN ambassador, Emyr Jones-Parry, unsuccessfully tried to raise the subject of the servicemen's fate with the Iranian Foreign Minister on the sidelines of the UN Security Council.

Behind the scenes, British diplomats worked furiously over the weekend to increase the pressure on Iran to back down by appealing to the Tehran Government through friendly third parties.

"We have been passing messages for the British and will be taking the matter up at a senior level with the Iranians," said one foreign diplomat who was involved in the negotiations.

The British ambassador to Tehran, Geoffrey Adams, asked the Iranian Foreign Ministry where the 15 British personnel were being held and demanded consular access to them.

So far, the Iranians have refused to give any details about their fate, other than to say they are being well treated.

The Iranian armed forces spokesman, General Ali Reza Afshar, said the Britons had been transferred to Tehran for questioning and had confessed to an "aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters".

Diplomats involved in the case believe the British service personnel were ambushed by a naval unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards with the intention of putting pressure on Britain ahead of the key UN Security Council vote to impose sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear program.

If that was the motive, it failed. On Saturday, the day after the abduction, the council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Iran, banning the export of weapons and freezing the assets of 28 individuals and companies involved in the country's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.


Last edited by cyrus on Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:44 pm; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ViaHHakimi



Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:52 pm    Post subject: Iranians blame UK for all that goes awry Reply with quote

Dears,

It seems that after all the Brits have gathered their courage to admit to some of their monkey business in our country.

Yet, you see how the write emphasizes the owner ship of Iranian Oil as "British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company" , as if the oil fields of southern Iran is a part of British Ills. If that is the case, then what IRANIAN word is doing after ANGLO!?? And when it comes to Arvand Rood, he puts the wedge again calling it "DISPUTED"!

No matter what they do, it seems that the Brits can not help being biased!?

Hashem


---------------------------------
The Observer wrote:

Iranians blame UK for all that goes awry
They hate Britain far more than they hate America or Israel and blame this country for all their ills.
Robert Tait reports from Tehran

Robert Tait in Tehran
Sunday March 25, 2007
The Observer


Theirs is the hidden hand blamed by Iranian public opinion for everything from bombs exploding in the south to the more mundane upsets of ordinary life. They are 'the cross-eyed British'.
It may be news in the UK, where most assume that top of Iran's most-hated list is the US or Israel, but in reality it is perfidious Albion that in the Iranian world view is regarded as the dark mover behind the scenes, arranging acts deeply inimical to the Islamic Republic.


Article continues
It is an unhappy relationship suddenly cast into sharp focus by the seizure of 15 British naval personnel by members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. To the average Briton, it was a bolt out of the blue.
Yesterday as Iranian officials announced that the seized naval personnel had 'confessed' to aggressively violating Iranian sovereignty, and the Foreign Ministry hinted at acts illustrative of suspicious' agendas, to Iranians it all made sense.

For on the Iranian street, the episode is simply the latest chapter in a long narrative of deep-rooted national enmity towards the 'old coloniser'.

The 15 men and at least one woman were intercepted by Iranian vessels on Friday at around 10.30am near the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway. Local fishermen watched as the Iranian vessels surrounded the two inflatable British boats and escorted them away at gunpoint.

The seizure comes at a time of heightened tensions over Iran's nuclear ambitions and allegations that Iran is arming Shia Muslims in Iraq - the UN is this weekend voting on further sanctions.

But even as Britain was treating it as a mistake rather than a provocation, Iranian hardliners were calling for the Britons to be held until Iran wins political concessions from the West.

The fevered lexicon of the 1979 Islamic revolution may have cast America as the 'Great Satan' after the name was coined by the revolution's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, but Iranians find it easier to fit the label to Britain, the imperial power that for decades meddled in their domestic politics and monopolised their oil industry.

They have a long list of historical grievances against the British. The key event was the 1953 coup which toppled the nationalist Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, and entrenched the repressive rule of the last Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The coup was spearheaded by the CIA but engineered by Winston Churchill's government after Mossadegh had nationalised the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, on whose revenues the exchequer was heavily dependent.

In the 19th century, Iran had been a pawn in the imperial game between Britain and Tsarist Russia, with the British using it as a buffer to defend the jewel of its colonial possessions, India.

The sources of resentment may belong to a bygone age but many Iranians still believe that a hidden British hand controls their destiny. The conviction has a superstitious quality but permeates political opinion. Members of the Basij volunteer militia loyal to the Islamic regime put British global influence on an equal footing with that of the US. Thus President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad routinely condemns the UN security council as a tool of American and British world domination while assailing its attempts to stop Iran's nuclear programme.

Equally, many Iranians with oppositionist leanings equate the British with secret support for the current regime. Britain is widely seen as pro-mullah and even as the hidden force behind the revolution. Iranians will commonly cite some long-forgotten BBC World Service report containing a complementary reference to Khomeini as evidence of official British complicity.

It was a belief shared by the shah, who suspected British intelligence of orchestrating the mass demonstrations that triggered his downfall. The shah's suspicions were fuelled by his lingering resentment against Britain for having deposed his father, Reza Shah, during the second world war because of his pro-Nazi sympathies.

So Britain is the common enemy and - potentially - the great unifier. Whenever national or patriotic unity is required, the spectre of British enmity can provide a convenient catalyst.

In last week's No Rouz (Iranian new year) message to the nation, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, hinted that Iran might act 'illegally' to pursue its nuclear programme. 'Until today, what we have done is in accordance with international regulations. But if they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so,' he said.

He did not elaborate. But a deliberately-engineered dispute with Britain could serve to silence domestic criticism of Ahmadinejad's abrasive handling of the nuclear issue, which Khamenei has felt obliged to support.

When the security council first agreed sanctions against Iran last December, it triggered a wave of condemnation of the president.

The outcry, widely reflected in the Iranian media, aided the political renaissance of a pragmatic former President, Aqbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who had been written off after being defeated by Ahmadinejad in the 2005 presidential election. Rafsanjani has been trying to re-assert himself since topping the poll in last December's elections to the expert's council - a powerful clerical body that supervises the performance of the supreme leader.

That represents a potential threat to Khamenei, who has long seen Rafsanjani as a rival and supported Ahmadinejad's presidential bid against him.

Add to this Ahmadinejad's mysterious cancellation of his address to the security council and a pattern begins to form. Such a high-profile event could only have deflected attention from the spat with Britain and given more ammunition to the president's domestic critics.

The supreme leader has set himself the goal of rallying national unity in the face of a common enemy. That objective would have been ill-served by his undiplomatic president causing ructions in the world's highest diplomatic forum.

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


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:33 pm    Post subject: The Next War? Reply with quote

The Next War?

March 30, 2007
FrontPageMagazine.com
Kenneth R. Timmerman

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27629

The capture by Iran of fifteen British sailors and marines while they were inspecting a trading dhow in international waters for smuggled goods could be the spark that ignites the next war. Whether that happens or not will not depend on us, or on the Brits. It will depend on President Ahmadinejad, his backers in Tehran, and Iran’s Supreme Leader.

Clearly, Ahmadinejad and his supporters have been planning this sort of thing for some time.

One week before the kidnapping of the British hostages, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards weekly newspaper, Sobh-e Sadeq, published these incendiary remarks from Reza Fakr, a writer said to have close links to Ahmadinejad:

“We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks. Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”

At the time, the Revolutionary Guards were seeking to ”retaliate” for moves by multinational forces in Iraq to crackdown on Iranian intelligence networks in Iraq, including the capture of five Iranian intelligence operatives in Irbil on the night of Jan. 10-11, 2007.

But they had already exacted tit-for-tat retribution in the attack on Karbala on January 20, when what now appears to have been an Iranian snatch team posing as American security guards kidnapped five U.S. soldiers inside an Iraqi army base.

That attack went awry, and the Iranians slaughtered all five Americans instead of taking them hostage.

My sources in Iran tell me that the IRGC leadership realized it was going to be too hard to go after U.S. forces, given stepped up protection measures the Americans instituted after the Karbala incident. So they sought British targets as a substitute.

This hostage-taking was no accident. It didn’t just “happen.” It was part of a centrally-planned and organized strategy to step up tension with the West.”

As we learned on Wednesday, the Iranians most likely sent their snatch teams into international waters where the Brits were conducting maritime inspections to catch smugglers. In fact, the initial GPS coordinates the Iranians themselves released showed that they captured the Brits 1.7 miles beyond their territorial waters. Then conveniently “altered” those GPS coordinates in subsequent communications with the British government.

So what can the Iranians possibly hope to gain? Are they miscalculating? Do they simply believe that Tony Blair is a “wimp” and won’t respond? That they can tweak the noses of the Brits, perhaps even compel them to withdraw their forces from Iraq

This is what I heard earlier this weak from an eminent, former CIA analyst of Iraq at a forum on Iranian policy sponsored by the Center for Naval Analysis.

Judith Yaphe believes the Iranians are “rational” and calculating, but may have “over-reached.” (She also believes that Iran is seeking a stable, unified, but weak Iraq, something that simply defies the facts).

Yaphe “advised” the Baker-Hamilton commission – no surprise there. She has been consistently wrong on everything involving her area of expertise for over twenty years. Her views tend to parrot those of the Saudis and the Jordanians, who have shown little insight into the psychology or eschatology of Iran’s current leaders.

A far better interpretation was offered by the CNA’s own Alireza Nader. He believes the Iranian hostage-taking was “Iran’s way of saying, don’t mess with us, because we can mess with you.” He also noted that it was timed just the day before the March 24 vote at the UN Security Council on the latest sanctions resolution on Iran.

But instead of convincing the Brits to walk away from the UN Security Council resolution, the Iranian regime’s actions only hardened Britain’s resolve.

So what’s happening here? How could the Iranians be so stupid as to miscalculate so totally the Western response?

The answer, of course, is that Ahmadinejad and his supporters don’t think as Westerners think. They aren’t making cost-benefit analyses. They aren’t looking at their “bottom line.”

The only bottom line that counts for them is the perpetuation of their regime. They believe that by attacking Britain and America they can rally their supporters, rally the faithful beyond Iran, and launch their worldwide jihad to “destroy America” and “wipe Israel of the face of the earth” – the two goals Ahmadinejad set for his presidency.

In the April issue of Newsmax magazine, which will be on newsstands next week, I run through a detailed, blow-by-blow scenario of what a six-day military confrontation with Iran could look like.

One thing is very clear: the spark that could ignite such a confrontation could come from any number of different sources.

It could be a kidnapping such as this one. It could be an attack on a U.S.warship by Iran, using its Russian and Chinese-supplied bottom-tethered sea mines. Or it could be something completely different.

But what’s clear is this: Ahmadinejad and his faction want war. They believe that war with the West is their ticket to victory.

Even if they lose large portions of their country, or if their nuclear sites are destroyed, they believe that they will emerge victorious. Because in their eyes, this type of war with the West will hasten the return of the Imam Mahdi, the savior figure of the radical hojjatieh sect of Shia Islam in which Ahmadinejad and his faction believe.

But don’t make the mistake some have made in placing all your bets on Ahmadinejad. If somehow the U.S were able to wave a magic wand and get rid of him overnight, we would still be facing a security and political establishment in Iran that is devoted to confrontation with the West, and to the destruction of Israel.

Don’t forget that it was Hashemi-Rafsanjani, the “moderate” former president of the Islamic Republic, who first evoked publicly the possibility of a nuclear weapons exchange with Israel. I quote him in my book, Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran.

“The use of an atomic bomb against Israel would destroy Israel completely, while [the same][against [Iran] would only cause damages. Such a scenario is not inconceivable,” Rafsanjani said in a sermon at Tehran University on Dec. 14, 2001 .

Decoded, the message is chilling. Iran has no fear of an Israeli nuclear attack, because Iran is a vast country, with deep underground bunkers for its leadership, and clandestine nuclear sites that most likely are not on anyone’s target list. If the Israelis were to attack, or to respond to an Iranian nuclear attack, Iran will suffer great losses. But Israel will cease to exist.

Such is the calculus of a “moderate” leader of Iran’s Islamic “Republic.”

But the Iranian regime does not believe it will fight for its survival in Iran alone. Over the past nine months, since Hezbollah’s infrastructure in Lebanon was devastated by Israeli air strikes last summer (after Hezbollah’s unprovoked attack on Israel), the Iranians have been shipping massive quantities of advanced weapons to Hezbollah in preparation for the coming war.

Iran’s clerical leaders and Ahmadinejad believe that they actually defeated Israel last summer during Iran’s first proxy war with Israel. And that they can do even greater damage in the next war, which could come next month, this summer, or next year.

Arieh Eldad, a leader of the opposition National Union Party in Israel’s Knesset, or Parliament, told me this week while on a trip to the United States that he is convinced there is “no way to avoid the next war” in Lebanon.

He sees the massive rearmament of Hezbollah by Iran, with Syrian assistance, as clear evidence of Iran’s strategy to launch another war against Israel. “Hezbollah is becoming stronger every day,” he said.

Eldad believes Israel must “neutralize Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria as a preliminary step, or we will not be able to engage Iran.”

By “engaging” Iran he does not mean economic or diplomatic “engagement,” as the State Department might use the term. He is talking about having Israel’s military take out Iranian nuclear and missile sites.

Now that’s engagement.

Dr. Eldad is a plastic surgeon who headed the burns at Hadassah hospital for twenty years. He has personally treated Palestinian suicide bombers, only to see them come back after their treatment with bombs strapped to their chests to blow themselves up in the very hospital that saved their lives.

The foes that oppose Israel and America do not reason as we do, he says. “When states have missions that are bigger than life, they are not obeying the basic rules of logic that Western civilization obeys.”

He believes the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a state, is following the same logic as a suicide bomber. “If the goal is to kill the Big Satan [America] or the Small Satan [Israel], then your own life is not to be considered under their logic,” he told me. “The Iranian regime is willing to sacrifice millions and millions of their own people to defeat the Big Satan and the Small Satan.”

Because of this, we need to understand that Tehran regime will not comply with sanctions, and does not care about sanctions. “It’s just not the same logic,” he said.

Dr. Eldad’s fear is that Israel will be “left alone” and have to confront a nuclear Iran. And if that day arrives, he warns, “the world should know that we will be ready to destroy the nuclear infrastructure of Iran at whatever the cost it takes.”

“That means we will be ready to use unconventional weapons, because conventional weapons will not be enough,” he added.

These are stakes.
A seemingly simple hostage-taking could be how this begins. A series of mushroom clouds could be how it ends.

In the meantime, the U.S.is conducting naval and air exercises in the Persian Gulf with two carrier battle groups. The message to Iran, one administration official told me yesterday, was clear: Don’t make any false moves.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Timmerman was nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize along with John Bolton for his work on Iran. He is Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, and author of Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran (Crown Forum: 2005).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ViaHHakimi



Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:53 pm    Post subject: Hostage Crisis Repeated Reply with quote

Ambassador Hakimi wrote:
Dears,

Please consider the article below.
Has very good points at the past & present situation of affairs of Mullahs.
Regards,
Hashem



March 30, 2007 at 07:20:53

Hostage Crisis Repeated
by jalil bahar Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/page.php?a=32763


The Mullahs in Iran are planning to do to Blair what they did to Jimmy Carter! The arrest of 15 British sailors was a very carefully orchestrated effort on the part of the Mullahs to extract the same concessions they received from the United States in 1980 - that kept their regime alive! Remember? In 1980, the Mullahs carefully stretched out the crisis right up to November, to the heart of the Presidential election season. One mediator after another approached them on behalf of Jimmy Carter, while they also secretly negotiated with Reagan’s camp. In the end, they managed to receive assurances from both Democrats and Republicans not to ‘interfere in Iran ’s domestic affairs’. They played one side against the other, brought Jimmy Carter to his knees and went so far as to meet George Bush Sr. (then Vice-President Elect) secretly in Paris to receive his personal security assurances that the U.S. ‘will not interfere with Iran’s domestic affairs’.Jimmy Carter in turn, tried to bring the Mullahs to their knees too, by getting Saddam Hussein to invade Iran. Carter’s nudge created an 8 year war that not only resulted in millions of casualties, but planted the seeds for Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and the current quagmire in Iraq .

The Mullah’s have however prevailed - for almost 30 years!!

They have emerged as the shrewdest political operators in the world today. They have played their hands beautifully having turned the “West’s” invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan into a ‘grandiose’ win for themselves. They have cleverly placed their own political allies in power in Iraq (the Shiites) and in Afghanistan ( Northern Alliance )! They have also caused enough chaos in Iraq to have humiliated ‘the invaders’… who now wish they had never gone there to begin with. They precipitated America and Britain ’s imminent troop reductions and stand ready to take all the spoils. This is after the United States expended more than $300 Billion dollars and over 3,000 war casualties. The Mullahs did all this without shedding a drop of blood or much money. Wow!!Maybe Bush and Blair have figured all this out! Understandably America and Britain are pissed. And the mullahs understand the situation and know that their security is not assured and that they are very vulnerable. In addition to Bush and Blair, virtually the whole world is hoping for regime change of some sort in Iran . So adding insult to injury, the Mullahs have cleverly continued down the path of acquiring nuclear technology. It is not a far leap to say that Iran ’s energy related nuclear activity was always designed to establish nuclear capacity that could be used for other purposes. Why did they retrofit unfinished European light water reactors that the Shah had originally contracted for into heavy water reactors? Why establish a parallel military program to assist the ‘peaceful’ nuclear energy effort? The Mullahs naturally fear an indirect U.S. inspired move for regime change in Iran . They see the Brits as proxy fighters for Bush… who can not (and will not) take on Iran directly given his father’s promises. And the Brits after all have been fomenting dissent in Southern Iran, and have partnered with both the U.S. and the Europeans in putting economic pressure on Iran .

So why not extract similar promises from the Brits that they were able to extract from the Americans, last time they took hostages. Why not nuetralize Blair? Make Britain sign the same documents that promise ‘no interference in Iran ’s internal affairs’. This way, without the threat of either American or British military actions, the Mullahs can continue with their Nuclear ambitions, and keep their stranglehold on the people …without any stoppage.

This will only leave Israel as a serious threat, but right now Iran can counter anything Israel throws at it. The Mullahs, after all, have long range missiles that can hit Israel too!

All the clues to the Mullah’s calculations are now out there for us.

First of all, they are under no rush to ‘wrap’ it up. Read the press reports. Iran is in the midst of its national “Persian New Year” holidays… so nothing can happen quickly (unless you are planning to abduct a bunch of British Sailors). Or, they seem to be “waiting for a response” from the British Government. This is all double talk for a plan to ‘stretch’ it out.Then, there is today’s news that Iran’s foreign minister told Ban Ki-moon (UN General Secretary) that “all Britain has to do is admit that their ship was in Iranian waters.” Remember there was a previous abduction of British soldiers at Iran ’s frontier with Iraq some months ago. Britain apparently provided a short apology and that did the job. The point is, the Foreign Minister’s statement is a code statement for “the Mullah’s not only want an apology, BUT, written promises of no more ‘excursions’ into Iran . Or in other words, a written commitment that Britain will NOT interfere inside Iran !There is also the statement by another Senior Iranian military commander that they might trade the hostages for the diplomats that the U.S. arrested for ‘fomenting’ terrorism in Iraq . This is another tactic for delaying the settlement. First of all this is NOT, the deal that the Foreign Minister was referring to. This is really a ploy to confuse the situation by making things more complicated and involving the US , and thus simply delaying any possible settlement (or release). Again another clue they want to stretch this out!

Then, the timing is very strange. Both Bush and Blair are lame ducks, waiting to be knocked over. Neither of them have any remaining political capital to take on the Mullahs. What a great time for the Mullahs to pick a fight?

If the Mullahs can stretch this one out into next year, this will also have a huge impact on elections both in the UK and the US . They have already started establishing backroom channels with the Democrats (in the US ) with meetings in Davos , Switzerland with Kerry and Biden… All the above has to be considered in light of Britain ’s traditional role as a double player. On the one hand, they have maintained close trade ties with Iran (and even assisted the Mullahs in toppling the Shah) and on the other they generally act as a proxy for US strategic objectives.

We must never lose sight of the fact that although the UK is a member of the EU, it is also the world’s No.2 oil trading nation, with the 2nd and 3rd largest oil companies, Shell and BP, (which by the way, have investments in Lukoil, now the world’s 6th largest oil company).

The US above all would like to maintain the petro-dollar as the world’s fiat currency and by doing so it can support its massive public sector debt and control the world’s economy while forcing the EU and its other competitors (notably China ) into line. The UK has carefully avoided joining the Euro currency club and has continued to support the petro-dollar as long as US institutions float funds through the British banking system. There clearly are benefits for the Brits to act as US proxies. In effect the Brits can leverage US assets and resources by acting as a US proxy. (Let’s not forget that the Brits put up 10,000 troops while the US put up 100,000 troops in Iraq … yet the Brits are ‘overseeing’ Southern Iraq where 50% of Iraq’s Oil reserves sit….what a heavy price US is paying for needing a friend? (Dumb Americans)!!Now that North Sea oil is dwindling, nothing would make the Brits happier than helping to destabilize the regime in Iran and possibly breaking up the country to grab a big chunk of Iran’s oil reserves (as in Iraq). The Mullahs have read Britain ’s hands and are doing everything they can do to survive. They are ready for another 444 days of hostage captivation. There will be countless ‘false intermediaries’ put up by the Iranians with ‘imminent’ promises of a release. There will be a great deal of ‘bravado’ and ‘rhetoric’ from both sides. Given their survival so far and their sheer political brilliance … maybe the Mullahs will come out with one over the Brits! They want a repeat of 1980! Then again, maybe not! Blair is no Jimmy Carter. He is not a fool. He has already hit the Mullah’s hard by asking Turkey to mediate. The Mullahs in turn rejected Turkey ’s participation. If relations between Turkey and Iran are impacted by this crisis, Iran ’s whole ‘ground supply route’ from Europe that runs through Turkey will be threatened … which could be disastrous for Iran . The saga will go on for sure. Put on your seatbelts and hang on tight for another ride.



Dr. Jalil Bahar – March 29th, 2007



www.faceofiran.com

Former Iranian Diplomat, now retired real estate investor in Delaware
Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Other Articles by Author
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:06 pm    Post subject: Do You Support Regime Change Or Terror Masters? Reply with quote



Please Watch Short Video Clip Called Bombe Atom (Atomic Bomb ) The Farsi Poem Is By Babak Esahaghei and Clip Producer Is Silver

Quote:

Bush to Iran: 'Give back the hostages'
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

CAMP DAVID, Md. - President Bush on Saturday said Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines was "inexcusable" and called for Iran to "give back the hostages" immediately and unconditionally.

Bush said Iran plucked the sailors out of Iraqi waters. Iran's president said Saturday they were in Iranian waters and called Britain and its allies "arrogant and selfish" for not apologizing for trespassing.

"It's inexcusable behavior," Bush said at the Camp David presidential retreat, where he was meeting with the president of Brazil. "Iran must give back the hostages. They're innocent. They did nothing wrong."


Washington Post Staff Writer wrote:
Former FBI Agent on Private Business in Iran Missing
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 2, 2007; 1:52 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200653.html?nav=rss_world

A former FBI agent has been missing in Iran since March 8, according to U.S. officials.

The unnamed former agent was on private business, but the United States is now sufficiently concerned about his welfare that the State Department today sent a formal message to Iran through Swiss intermediaries asking about his whereabouts and his situation. The Swiss Embassy represents U.S. interests in Iran.

The American was visiting Kish Island, an Iranian resort and "free trade zone" off the country's southwestern coast that does not require an Iranian visa to visit. He had traveled to Iran from the United Arab Emirates, U.S. officials said.

"We don't know where he is. We have no reliable information on him," a senior official said. "I would not characterize him as a hostage."

U.S. officials stress that the missing American was not working in any capacity for the U.S. government or any agency. His specialty at the FBI was not Iran, officials add.


Quote:

Bush Says 'No Quid Pro Quos' with Iran over British Hostages http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/04/03/afx3578347.html

April 03, 2007
AFX News
Forbes.com

WASHINGTON -- President George Bush said there should be 'no quid pro quos' with Iran in Britain's standoff with Iran over 15 captive sailors. Asked if five Iranians held in Iraq should be released to favor a possible release of the Britons, Bush said: 'I also strongly support the prime minister's (Tony Blair's) declaration that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages.'

Blair earlier said the standoff with Iran over the captive sailors was in a 'critical' phase, after a top Tehran official said new contacts could help end the crisis.

But Blair also warned that he may be forced to take 'tougher decisions' if the naval personnel are not freed, while Iran's vice-president reiterated that London must admit they were in Iranian territorial waters when seized.



The Daily Telegraph - Opinion cartoon


David Frum wrote:
How to Fight Tehran
April 02, 2007
Frontpagemag.com
David Frum

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27654

The Iranian seizure of 15 British naval personnel is an outrage--and an opportunity. Iran invaded Iraqi territorial waters, attacked British naval personnel enforcing resolutions of the UN Security Council and committed an act of piracy and kidnapping.

Iran then displayed its captives on national television and compelled them to read coerced political statements. It forced the captured female sailor to wear the Islamic hijab, a violation of her Geneva Convention right to practice her own religion.

These violent and lawless actions have shocked British and European public opinion. But they should not have surprised anyone.

Iran has routinely used kidnapping as a tool of state. It kidnapped eight British sailors in 2004, and 52 American diplomats in 1979-81. Iran's Hezbollah surrogates kidnapped Americans, Britons and others in Lebanon in the 1980s. They kidnapped Israeli soldiers in 2000 and again this past summer, triggering a war.

Iran has committed graver crimes too. Iranian agents have committed murder on the soil of the United States, France and Germany--and carried out mass-casualty terror attacks in Saudi Arabia and Argentina.

Today, Iran is racing to build a nuclear bomb, violating its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And too many in Europe shrug their shoulders.

This latest crisis, however, opens a chance to mobilize European opinion to action.

One of their own has been attacked and threatened with the prolonged abuse of its military personnel. The story will appear on television night after night after night. The longer it continues, the more British people and other Europeans will wonder: Is there anything we can do? And the good news is: Yes, there is.

The bullying, blustering bravado of the Iranians should not conceal the truth that Iran is massively vulnerable to international pressure. For example:



Iran's decrepit refineries cannot produce enough gasoline for Iranian drivers. So, although Iran is a major oil exporter, it must import 40 percent of its gasoline. An international embargo on gasoline sales to Iran would inflict severe distress. Earlier this month, Iran raised the (deeply subsidized) price of gasoline from 34 cents a gallon to 50 cents. Some in the regime are considering imposing rationing--a move that would badly damage what remains of the mullahs' popularity.

Iran's rusting industries, many of them state owned, depend heavily on parts and equipment imported from Germany. Two-thirds of these sales benefit from export credit guarantees from the German government. As of 2005, Germany had extended some US$6.2-billion worth of credit to Iran. That number has been cut in recent months. But if Germany were to follow Japan's lead and cut its credits to zero, Iranian companies would have to pay more for parts--and some would be forced out of business altogether. The Central Bank of Iran estimates unemployment at more than 12 percent. Many private economists think the real figure closer to 20 percent--and higher still for young Iranians.

The United States has maintained sanctions against Iranian oil and natural gas since 1979. The European Union, however, has continued to invest in Iran. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that foreign companies, mostly European, have invested US$30-billion in Iran since 1996. Without this investment, Iran's oil and gas output would have faltered long ago. It's time now for Europeans to join the American ban on investment in Iran's energy sector. Such a ban would deal a painful blow to Iran's economy, which has little to sell beside oil and gas. Iran suffers an inflation rate over 20 percent, suggesting that the Iranian government is already overspending its oil and gas revenues. Squeeze those revenues, and you squeeze the regime.

Not all firms investing in Iran are European. Malaysia's Petronas and Russia's Gazprom both play major roles. Till now, firms doing business in Iran have been allowed to do business not only in the EU but also in the United States. It's time now to impose a secondary boycott, and to force firms like Petronas to decide: Either you do business with Iran or you do business with the rest of the planet. You choose.


Since 9/11, Europeans have pleaded with the U.S. to rely on sanctions and diplomacy rather than force. Fine. Let's see some sanctions then--real sanctions, not the wrist-slaps imposed till now.

Iran has been waging war on the world; it's time the world organized in countervailing self-defense. And if anything is needed to stiffen our collective will, let's broadcast one more time that image of Faye Turney, cloaked against her will in that black headscarf of subordination and humiliation.


Ambassador Hakimi wrote:


From: Hashem Hakimi
Retired Imperial Iranian Ambassador


To: The Honorable George W. Bush President Of United States


As one of the remaining senior Iranian Imperial Ambassadors with many years of service in his majesty’s Foreign Office I unequivocally and unconditionally am in favor of regime change in Iran without classic Warfare, I further believe by adopting the correct strategy this could effectively be achieved by United States Government stepping up its support of the Iranian Opposition Groups within Iran and outside Iran, together with a complete blockade of Iranian ports and economic routes combined with total economic sanctions, and targeting the Islamic Republics’ heirarchy. I support and respect the aspiration of Iranian people for a free secular democracy and human rights.

I further declare that:

1. Over the past 28 years the Islamic fascist occupiers of Iran and regime’s apparatus, namely courts, judges and vigilantes have all committed acts of: International terrorism, mass execution of political prisoners, murder, stoning, torture, assault, theft, destruction of property, arson, perjury, falsification of testimonials and material evidence, illegal surveillance, kidnapping, rape, blackmail, fraud, obstruction of justice, creating fear society, conspiracy, cover-ups and every other form of butchery and depredation.

2. I declare Khamenei, Rafsanjani, Amadinejad, Khatami as Islamic Fascists leadership and occupiers of Iran and they are considered as guilty for crimes against Humanity according to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and established International Law. They have created a society of fear and terror taking 70 million Iranians as their hostages.

3. Human Rights violations by the Islamic "Republic" of Iran have reached an unprecedented colossal level of cruelty and barbarism.

4. I further recognize bombing Iran and its infrastructure is not necessary to free Iran because the Iranian people who are the most pro-American nation in the Middle East and possibly in the world should not be considered as enemies of the United States .

5. I have come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with this unelected and undemocratic regime is to deal with it strongly and with a comprehensive set of measures.

I strongly advocate the following measures:

· Please consider declaring the clerical regime as an illegitimate government

· Please consider completely blockading Iranian ports in the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and other major routes only allowing passage of food and medicine.

· Stop the flow of oil from and to Iran .

· Bring Iranian aviation to a complete halt.

· Indict all the regime’s leader and henchmen in the International Courts and obtain international arrest warrants.

· Further to above obtain orders to ease all their personal assets outside Iran including the regime’s support organizations such as Alavi Foundation in New York City .
Stop, with immediate effect, all international trading with the clerical regime .

· Publicly identify known Isalmic Republic agents, and aggressively pursue the prosecution of their agents abroad as promoters of international terrorism and abusers of human rights. Shut down all illegal unregistered agent organizations representing IRI interests, their lobbyist and apologists.

· Stop all IRI satellite TV and Radio programming to the outside world.

· Freeze IRI assets outside of Iran and impose prohibition on investment, a travel ban, and asset freezes for government leaders and nuclear scientists.

· Worldwide announcement to all nations that any deals and contracts made with IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) by any entity is null and void and the US Government will back all efforts for future legitimate Iranian Governments to seek compensation from all those helping the current regime transfer assets and monies abroad.

· Close or limit Islamic Republic’s embassies and its activities including travel limits on Iranian diplomats.

· I am requesting from United States as friend of freedom-loving Iranian people to freeze all the deposits of the criminal leaders of IRI, its officials and Mullahs in Dubai ’s financial institutions. These funds belong to ordinary Iranian people and must be frozen for future legitimate government of Iran to use for its finances and and not be penniless. Or for these Islamic thugs to use the billions of dollars of stolen and hidden Iranian assets to create terror and violence in order to overthrew future governments of Iran or to be used for supporting terror in the West or America .

· Please release part of the frozen assets of Iran to the IRI opposition or provide funding to be spent on funds supporting a General Strike in Iran and promotion of democracy.

· Please push to expel IRI representatives from UN since the IRI constitution is contrary to the UDHR (Universal Declarations of Human Rights).

Any regime change in Iran must adhere to the principles of democracy defined by Iranians themselves in 1906 and adhere to the vision sought by the fathers of the Constiutional movement in Iran who took the vision of the American Founding Fathers and other democratic movements as their guiding principles namely:

Secular democracy protecting all not just the rights of the majority;
universal Human Rights; and a free society .

After the liberation of Iran and the much desired overthrew of the unpopular Mullahs, the situation in Iran will be very different to Iraq :

1- There will not be another terrorist sponsoring regime to fund insurgency and terror neither to Iran itself nor in to Iraq .

2- Iranian society is very different to Iraq . The issues of Shia or Sunni will not be a problem the way it is being in Iraq .

3- With a totally different culture, the people of Iran are truly sick and tired of this regime and all they need is a positive signal from the USA . Iranians will do the job with non military invasion of their country .

I hope that the United States Government honours its historical commitements to respect territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Iran after regime change in Iran and reject any possible federalist ideas along NONEXISTENT racial lines in Iran .

Please remember; the key to salvation of Iraq is also in freedom of Iran . The freedom-loving countries of the world must unite and assist Iranian people to end this embarrassment to humanity and civility called Islamic Republic and allow Iran to come back to the arms of the civilized nations.

In helping Iranians, you have stopped the violence in Iraq and have made Iran reach democracy with minimum bloodshed and have preserved the peace and freedom worldwide.

Yours Sincerely,

Hashem Hakimi
Retired Imperial Iranian Ambassador
Oslo, Norway


cyrus wrote:
Quote:
THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR - THE WAR IS UNWINNABLE AS LONG AS THE MULLAHS ARE IN POWER - SUPPORT THE IRANIAN PEOPLE AND REAP THE REWARDS OF A FREE IRAN WITH 70 MILLION IRANIANS WHO WILL FIGHT ALONGSIDE THE FORCES OF FREEDOM AND AGAINST THE ISLAMIST FANATICS!!





PETITION 4 : TRUE SECURITY BEGINS WITH REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN

Sign this Petition Online
View Current Signatures Online

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Friday May 14th, 2004


To: President Of United States, U.S. Congress, Senator Brownback, President Of Israel, EU Heads of States, Heads of the world’s democratic states, General Secretary of the United Nations, The United Nation Commission for Humman Rights Special Rapporteur, U.S. Secretay of State, the European Parliament, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch

PETITION: TRUE SECURITY BEGINS WITH REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN

As House Resolution 398 (May 06, 2004) has rightly recognized, the illegitimate government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has engaged, and continues to engage, in efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Such weapons would pose an immediate threat not only to Iran's neigbors, but ultimately to the entire world.
The cruelty of the IRI regime is well known and abundantly documented. The regime has been implicated in assassinations throughout the Middle East, Europe, and the United States; the murder of more than 100,000 Iranians; continuing policies of rape, torture, and arbitrary imprisonment as political tools; and the kidnapping of thousands of women and girls for sale into prostitution and slavery.
According to the Department of State report released by the Department of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor on February 25, 2004: “The Government's poor human rights record worsened, and it continued to commit numerous, serious abuses. The right of citizens to change their government was restricted significantly. Continuing serious abuses included: summary executions; disappearances; torture and other degrading treatment, reportedly including severe punishments such as beheading and flogging; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; lack of habeas corpus or access to counsel and prolonged and incommunicado detention. Citizens often did not receive due process or fair trials. The Government infringed on citizens' privacy rights, and restricted freedom of speech, press, assembly, association and religion.” These and other abuses clearly indicate that the regime constitutes a grave threat to the people of Iran and to free people everywhere.
It has come to our attention that Israel and/or the United States may be contemplating a pre-emptive military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. If the United States follows a policy based exclusively on the nuclear issue, however, the results will be catastrophic both for the Iranian people and, ultimately, for the Middle East and the world. Merely striking at Iranian nuclear facilities would at best delay the regime's nuclear program, driving it deeper underground; would certainly provoke even harsher measures against the Iranian people; and would likely lure the West into a false sense of security with the mullahs of the IRI regime plotting their ultimate retribution against America, Israel, and all others who have stood in their way.
The Islamist regime continues to actively undermine American efforts to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq. Regime-backed agents and mercenaries are killing American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines every week. To wait until Iraq and Afghanistan are “secure” before confronting the Iranian mullahs is folly; rather, the United States must take the battle to the enemy in Tehran.
The vast majority of freedom-loving Iranian people support the right of Israel and all of Iran's Middle Eastern neighbors, as well as the United States, to live in peace and security. Therefore, it is in our common interest that:

1. President Bush must support clear and open policy calling for regime change in Iran.
2. The Administration must abandon its policy of “Afghanistan yesterday, Iraq today, Iran maybe tomorrow”, and confront the threat from the IRI regime immediately.
3. President Bush must deliver an ultimatum to the IRI's primary hidden supporters (Britain) and secondary supporters (France, Germany, EU, Japan, Canada, Russia, and China) to stop giving economic assistance, intelligence assistance, or other assistance to the regime. The EU, in particular, should not use resources stolen from the Iranian people to finance its own failed welfare state.
4. The United States must deliver an unequivocal ultimatum to the Iranian regime to step down peacefully and immediately, and transfer power to a team of Iranian and Iranian-American leaders; this team would set up a referendum under US and international supervision with military presence of US, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands in Iran as the peacekeeper. If the mullahs do not agree to step down peacefully, then the US should provide all necessary financial and military support for the freedom-loving Iranian opposition both inside and outside Iran to remove the regime in a short period of time.

The Bush Doctrine advocates America's active role in supporting freedom, democracy, and human rights throughout the world. We call on the Government to act in accord with this wise and noble policy, and help the Iranian people achieve their dream of a free and democratic Iran.

"Human beings are all members of one body.
They are created from the same essence.
When one member is in pain,
The others cannot rest.
If you do not care about the pain of others,
You do not deserve to be called a human being."
A Quote from Famous Persian Poet Saadi Shirazi
( 13th century Persian poet from Shiraz / Iran )

Sincerely Yours,



Iran Focus wrote:


Perspectives: Britain’s Iranian hostage crisis
Mon. 02 Apr 2007
Iran Focus
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10692

London, Apr. 02 – The following are snippets of what Britain’s dailies have been saying about the capture of 15 British sailors and marines by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards:

“Most importantly, Iran is weighing Britain's reaction to the crisis. The Teheran regime wants to see how far the Government is prepared to go to secure the hostages' freedom.

If London uses diplomatic channels - however fruitless they may turn out to be - Iran will conclude that it can afford to take hostages again and again”.

The Daily Telegraph, 31 March 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“And it is precisely the threat of increasing international isolation that Iranians fear, a threat that is emerging as one of the key fault lines in Iran under Ahmadinejad, who is already facing internal criticism for his confrontational leadership style.

… But whatever the outcome, Iran's remaining allies should remind it that the only result of this crisis is that - day by day - the country comes closer to being an international pariah”.

The Observer, 1 April 2007


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


“Iran should not underestimate the damage it is doing to its own cause on the much more fundamental issue of its refusal to abandon uranium enrichment, by behaving the way it has in this episode”.

The Guardian, 29 March 2007


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


“MARGARET Thatcher and Margaret Beckett share a first name but that’s all.

Twenty-five years ago, Lady T dispatched a Task Force to reclaim the Falklands. British citizens had been captured and our territory invaded — and she did not hesitate.

Compare that with the feeble response of her namesake, the Foreign Secretary, over Iran.

British troops are imprisoned after being kidnapped in Iraqi waters and sickeningly paraded for propaganda.

... As Teddy Roosevelt, the former U.S. President, once said: The key to diplomacy is to speak softly and carry a big stick.

We appear to have mislaid the stick”.

The Sun, 2 April 2007


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


“There is growing evidence that the kidnapping of 15 British sailors nine days ago was a premeditated act of aggression by Iran. It is almost certainly no coincidence that the hijacking in Iraqi waters occurred the day before the United Nations security council voted to tighten sanctions on Iran over its nuclear weapons’ programme. It furthermore coincided with condemnations by American and British commanders of Iranian assistance to terrorists fighting the democratically elected Iraqi government.

… Britain needs to step up the pressure and show that it will not tolerate this behaviour. It must go back to the UN and use whatever diplomatic influence it has to get tougher action. Iran is vulnerable to trade embargoes and its economy is far from robust. ... The best way of bringing Iran to its senses is to hit it in its pocket. It may well be the bottom line that will decide the outcome of this confrontation".

The Sunday Times, 1 April 2007


Last edited by cyrus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:53 pm; edited 21 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:44 pm    Post subject: The Daily Telegraph - Opinion cartoon Reply with quote

The Daily Telegraph - Opinion cartoon

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 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 16 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