[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 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 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: Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:09 am    Post subject: Zarqawi Killing Directly Linked to Iranian-Provided Intellig Reply with quote

Zarqawi Killing Directly Linked to Iranian-Provided Intelligence

June 09, 2006
GIS UN Correspondent
Jason Fuchs

link to original article
http://128.121.186.46/gis/online/Daily/Archives/DailyJun0906.htm

While Washington and Baghdad claimed a joint triumph in Iraq with the June 8, 2006, killing of al-Qaida in Iraq’s leader Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi, GIS sources revealed details of the events leading to Zarqawi’s discovery and killing that could affect not only Iraq, but the entire region. GIS sources have confirmed that the intelligence which led to the exact targeting of Zarqawi — commander of the al-Qaida Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers — had been provided to Coalition Forces by one of the jihadist commander’s chief sponsors: Iran.

GIS sources added that the information provided by Tehran had not been given to the Coalition directly. Instead, the critical intelligence was filtered through Palestinian intermediaries (specifically HAMAS) and from them passed on to the highest levels of the Jordanian Government. Amman then forwarded this intelligence to Washington and, GIS sources noted, then played a “hands-on rôle” in the military operation itself with strong indications that Jordanian Special Forces had been present on the ground for the attack itself, although it remained unclear in precisely what capacity.

A Jordanian Government official later on June 8, 2006, confirmed that Jordan had played a rôle in the operation.

What GIS sources could not determine based on hard intelligence — and what remained most critical to the regional equation — was what had triggered Zarqawi’s fatal split with Tehran. Whatever the cause, it had already been clear by late May 2006 that something had fundamentally changed in Zarqawi’s relationship with Iran. The most public result of the dispute had been the release of an audiotape by the Jordanian militant on June 2, 2006, in which Zarqawi lambasted the Iranian Pres. Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad for “screaming and calling for wiping Israel from the map” while doing nothing material to realize those aims. Of the Iranian-sponsored HizbAllah, with whom Zarqawi also had a long-standing operational relationship, Zarqawi charged that the militant group acted as a “shield protecting the Zionist enemy against the strikes of the mujahedin in Lebanon … HizbAllah is an independent state inside Lebanon. It puts forth lying slogans about Palestinian liberation when in fact it serves as a security wall [for Israel] and prevents Sunnis from crossing its borders.”

The tape had been released with a disclaimer that it had been recorded two months before its early June 2006 release, but had had its release delayed because of “circumstances” which were not described.

Iranian sponsorship of the Iraqi intifada remained a key component of Tehran’s national security policy regardless of Tehran’s involvement in Zarqawi’s removal from the scene. Doubtless, Tehran would quietly seek to portray its “help” in resolving the Zarqawi matter as a part of a newly-oriented, more cooperative policy vis-à-vis Washington in the “war on terror”, but it appeared certain that the Iranian decision to remove Zarqawi had been first and foremost about securing Iranian strategic priorities. Most significant of these priorities was the removal of the threat of US military attack against Iranian nuclear and command and control facilities.

The fact that Washington would interpret such a move as a reciprocal gesture to the most recent package of incentives offered by the US and EU would be a welcome additional benefit, most especially if it bought the Iranian Government further time to pursue its indigenous nuclear weapons program.

HAMAS, for its part, appeared to have leapt at the opportunity to soothe recent tensions with the Jordanian Government. April and May 2006 had seen a series of arrests in the Kingdom of HAMAS operatives captured with weapons and explosives which were alleged to have been used against Jordanian Government targets throughout the country. According to the Jordanian Government, the HAMAS weapons caches included automatic weapons, submachineguns, ammunition, hand-grenades, mines, different types of explosives, GRAD missiles, LAW anti-tank missiles, and Katyusha rockets (some of which were reportedly Iranian made).

Jordanian TV aired footage on May 11, 2006, of captured HAMAS operatives who confessed that their orders had come from the HAMAS high command in Damascus. One operative, Ayman Naji Saleh Hamdallah Daraghmeh, 34, from Al-Hashimiya in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s hometown of al-Zarqaa, detailed:

I got involved with HAMAS through a friend of mine, Tawfiq Al-‘Abushi. He told me he worked for HAMAS and … told me I had to go to Syria. I went with him to Syria and we stayed at a hotel. In Syria, we met a HAMAS official called Abu Al-‘Abd … I began a course in security, which included interrogation, not breaking down under interrogation, safety in communication and in travel, personal security and many such things. I also underwent a military course. Then I went back to Jordan.1

Such provocative operations into Jordan from HAMAS bases in Syria would not have occurred without approval from Damascus. Equally, Damascus would not have undertaken such levels of attempted strikes — the second of their kind attempted and foiled in the Kingdom in as many years from Syrian bases — without serious consultation with their most important strategic partner, Tehran.

Certainly, HAMAS’s rôle in the killing of Zarqawi — and by extension the rôles of Iran and Syria — would be received in Amman as a goodwill gesture on behalf of the Damascus-based HAMAS leadership, the Syrian Government itself, and the Iranian leadership. HAMAS, in particular, as it fought for international legitimacy and aid, had to hope that this affair would soften the West’s stance on its nascent Palestinian Authority Government.

Tehran’s ability to “reach out and touch” as elusive a figure as Zarqawi at the whim of strategic necessity spoke to the depth of Iranian involvement in Iraq and its centrality to the global jihadist movement in general.

The Iranian Government deliberately selling out one of its former assets — even though Zarqawi was nominally an al-Qaida leader — has direct parallels to the deliberate selling out of the al-Qaida leader in Saudi Arabia, Saleh al-Oufi, in August 2005. When Saleh al-Oufi disobeyed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and persisted with attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure instead of supporting the major effort of the time, to escalate the Iraq conflict, the bin Laden leadership leaked al-Oufi’s whereabouts to the Saudi security forces. Saleh al-Oufi and several of his colleagues were killed in firefights with Saudi security forces on August 18, 2005. The direct parallels between the al-Oufi and Zarqawi incidents raise the question once again of the depth of Osama bin Laden’s links with Iran, and whether bin Laden himself is still in Iran and coordinating his actions with those of Iran.

As well, the impact must be assessed of Zarqawi’s death on the two other major al-Qaida sectors he had come to dominate: “The al-Qaida Organization in the Land of the Berbers” (North Africa), and the operations in Europe, centered around Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Serbian province of Kosovo. Moreover, there is little question but that Tehran (and for that matter, the Osama bin Laden movement) would not have betrayed Zarqawi unless it had alternative plans for the leadership and operations of their terrorist and militant networks in Iraq, North Africa, and Europe.

This entry was posted on Friday, June 9th, 2006 at 8:04 am and is filed under Radio. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Footnotes:

1- MEMRI.org

IRAN GAVE UP ZARGHAWI to the WEST


http://www.antimullah.com/



Zarghawi's Last Words
"Prepare My Virgins"





IRAN TOLD HAMAS, HAMAS TOLD THE JORDANIANS, THE JORDANIANS TOLD THE AMERICANS (Washington D.C.) - and the Americans invited the Iraqis to join in to bolster the new government's ministerial positions.

Nobody really knows exactly why "anything" but speculation can be reasonably accurate. Might the cash-strapped Hamas have been angling for the $25 million bounty on which to operate?

Or was this a gift from Hamas to the West aimed to potentially reinstate Jordan as the land of the Palestinians as was originally intended long ago and now so feared a possibility - with 60% of Jordanians of Palestinian descent - that Jordan has requested a halt or slow down to American efforts to form a Palestinian State.

Did Iran offer Zarghawi as a precursor to their dubious offer to help the USA in Iraq if the nuclear matter of sanctions were dropped?

Iraqi Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie offered this English translation of a document captured from Zarghawi, which contains multiple reasons Iran decided the liability of using Zarghawi over shadowed his usefulness after becoming a double edged sword cutting both ways:

"The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, specially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces.

This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi'a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.

As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.

2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.

3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

4. By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.

5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults.

6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.

7. By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.
Based on the above points, it became necessary that these matters should be treated one by one:

1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.

2. To assist some of the people of the resistance to infiltrate the ranks of the National Guard in order to spy on them for the purpose of weakening the ranks of the National Guard when necessary, and to be able to use their modern weapons.

3. To reorganize for recruiting new elements for the resistance.

4. To establish centers and factories to produce and manufacture and improve on weapons and to produce new ones.

5. To unify the ranks of the resistance, to prevent controversies and prejudice and to adhere to piety and follow the leadership.

6. To create division and strife between American and other countries and among the elements disagreeing with it.

7. To avoid mistakes that will blemish the image of the resistance and show it as the enemy of the nation.

In general and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces into another war against another country or with another of our enemy force, that is to try and inflame the situation between America and Iran or between America and the Shi'a in general.

Specifically the Sistani Shi'a, since most of the support that the Americans are getting is from the Sistani Shi'a, then, there is a possibility to instill differences between them and to weaken the support line between them; in addition to the losses we can inflict on both parties. Consequently, to embroil America in another war against another enemy is the answer that we find to be the most appropriate, and to have a war through a delegate has the following benefits:

1. To occupy the Americans by another front will allow the resistance freedom of movement and alleviate the pressure imposed on it.

2. To dissolve the cohesion between the Americans and the Shi'a will weaken and close this front.

3. To have a loss of trust between the Americans and the Shi'a will cause the Americans to lose many of their spies.

4. To involve both parties, the Americans and the Shi'a, in a war that will result in both parties being losers.

5. Thus, the Americans will be forced to ask the Sunni for help.

6. To take advantage of some of the Shia elements that will allow the resistance to move among them.

7. To weaken the media's side which is presenting a tarnished image of the resistance, mainly conveyed by the Shi'a.

8. To enlarge the geographical area of the resistance movement.

9. To provide popular support and cooperation by the people.

The resistance fighters have learned from the result and the great benefits they reaped, when a struggle ensued between the Americans and the Army of Al-Mahdi. However, we have to notice that this trouble or this delegated war that must be ignited can be accomplished through:

1. A war between the Shi'a and the Americans.

2. A war between the Shi'a and the secular population (such as Ayad 'Alawi and al-Jalabi.)

3. A war between the Shi'a and the Kurds.

4. A war between Ahmad al-Halabi and his people and Ayad 'Alawi and his people.
5. A war between the group of al-Hakim and the group of al-Sadr.

6. A war between the Shi'a of Iraq and the Sunni of the Arab countries in the gulf.

7. A war between the Americans and Iran. We have noticed that the best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance, such as:

1. Freeing the Sunni people in Iraq, who are (30 percent) of the population and under the Shi'a Rule.

2. Drowning the Americans in another war that will engage many of their forces.

3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either after the fall of Iran or during the battles.

4. To entice Iran towards helping the resistance because of its need for its help.

5. Weakening the Shi'a supply line.

The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran?

It is not known whether America is serious in its animosity towards Iran, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:

1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shi'a Iranian side.

2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shi'a Iranian side.

3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.

4. By executing "exploding operations" in the West and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shi'a fingerprints and evidence.

5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).

6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against Western interests."

Speculation also abounds on multiple aspects pinpointing this terrorist's location and his last moments, ranging to opposite ends of the spectrum. This includes Coalition Forces beating him to death instead of acknowledging their medic tried to keep him alive (much more useful to us than dead) and 'he rolled off the stretcher to escape', was replaced, then died mumbling something nobody could decipher.

Was it "Prepare my Virgins"? As good a phrase as any to indicate he addressed Allah, though as the half-witted thug born and raised in a Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan, he may well have simply cursed his captors unprintably with his last breath.

One vengefully satisfying fact is certain. Before he died, he had full defeated knowledge of capture by his enemy. His mind must have raced asking who had betrayed him, never thinking his own murderous viciousness had delivered him to his foes. Or that the $25 million reward dangled by the USA had cemented his final betrayal by a colleague. Iran was the conduit for his betrayal but his savage slaughter of Shiites tipped the scales for them to consider giving up a useful tool.

Again, speculation abounds that the Sunnis made a deal with Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki to deliver Abu Musab Al-Zarghawi to him in return for appointing a Sunni Minister of Defense. Though this may have possibly played a role, it was the terrorist's savage brutality and his ruthless, gleeful killing, which contributed to his ousting from under an established insurgent veil of secrecy. Nobody liked him.

Others posit that Al Qaeda may have tired of his thirst for blood and been instrumental in passing the word to their senior man in Iraq, Waliya Arbili to either rein in Zarghawi or remove him to prevent further erosion of support for insurgents in Iraq. Specially of the non-Iraqi ilk. Zarghawi screaming abuse at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad in a tape released June 6th, 2006, criticizing the empty words of "destroying Israel off the map" but in fact doing nothing to achieve this.

Remember, Zarghawi was a Palestinian. He came from a refugee camp in a town called al-Zarghaa in Jordan but was not a Jtrue ordanian. His prime objective as a Palestinian was always and remained the destruction of Israel.

Human error in white also contributed to Zarghawi's capture - his white truck. Jordanian security forces amazingly provided a location for him from his gun-jamming video in the middle of nowhere.

How could anyone recognize the desert area from the little view provided? Probably nobody, but a white truck shown in the video and seen by Jordanian spies operating in and around a certain area, could have been the end of the ball of string, which later unraveled. Jordanian Special Forces were involved though their exact role has not been clarified.

HAMAS, for its part, appeared to have leapt at the opportunity to soothe recent tensions with the Jordanian Government. April and May 2006 had seen a series of arrests in the Kingdom of HAMAS operatives captured with weapons and explosives which were alleged to have been used against Jordanian Government targets throughout the country.

According to the Jordanian Government, the HAMAS weapons caches included automatic weapons, submachineguns, ammunition, hand-grenades, mines, different types of explosives, GRAD missiles, LAW anti-tank missiles, and Katyusha rockets (some of which were reportedly Iranian made).

With his spiritual mentor and advisor Sheikh Abd al-Rahman fingered and then cross-linked with various sightings of the white truck, the end became almost inevitable. Here comes the human error. Not repainting the truck, even with cans of spray paint, every so often to change its appearance. Factory white looked good, so white it remained. Nobody in the town where Zarghawi grew up considered him any brighter than a half-wit, so little wonder.

Interestingly enough in the first Gulf war, we knew where Saddam Hussein was at any given time after we discovered he was using a bus to move around and transmit his public messages. Luckily for him our policy at the time did not include terminating him.

Additionally, Zarghawi's rising star inside Iraq, his growing operational control and involvement in European terrorist actions and nascent activities in Canada and potential strikes in the USA itself, using East European/Balkan Moslems, Hispanic, specially Puerto Rican gangs, African-American Moslems and eventually rising to prominence above Ossama Bin Laden himself, may have been dominos in his downfall. Dominos which Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Ossama's second in command in Al Qaeda might well have been happy to set up, as he too, was being overshadowed.

Two days before he was killed Al-Jazeera televison lauded Zarghawi as a prominent leader, as a key and highly important person in the struggle against the Coalition and the West and the Al Qaeda prince of the region. An hour after news of his death reached them they did a 180 and began saying that Zarghawi getting killed was no big deal since he was an unpopular, low level maverick and not truly important to Al Qaeda's cause in Iraq.

Though Shia Iran continued to train and fund Zarghawi, having had a track record together through the pro-Iran Ansar Al-Sunna, located mostly in the North Eastern Iraq, on both sides of the Kurdish border, his indiscriminate killing of both Sunnis and Shias, specially Shias like the school children he took off a minibus and executed, made his usefulness a double edged sword. And finally pushed Iran to deep six him when negatives outpaced his positives.

True, he was fomenting major trouble for the Coalition Forces and a possible sectarian if not civil war, but he had also crossed that invisible line that separates even terrorists from a sheer evil very few can stomach. And, he was having major disagreements with Al Qaeda's second most senior representative in Iraq, Waliya Arbili to the point Bin Laden had to appoint a local resident, Abdulhadi al-Iraqi, over both their heads to maintain some semblance of order.

Abdulhadi's difficult task of preventing a bloody power struggle among Al Qaeda factions, foreign insurgents and Iraqi born ones, inside Iraq, may have become much more difficult with the demise of not only Zarghawi, concurrently with several of his top aides and two female intelligence personnel, but also because of the intelligence garnered and operatives arrested in 17 immediate raids by combined Coalition and Iraqi forces - between the attack on Zarghawi and the announcement of his death.

Some 39 related raids the next day and over 400 after that, further poked large holes in the torn fabric of the terrorist insurgency, leaving the field open for leaderless younger "militants" wanting to follow Zarghawi's ideals to struggle for positions of recognition in Iraq's terror organizations. Thereby, triggering a surge in intelligence from Iraqis with little, less or no respect for the newer, young Ansar al-Islam operatives appearing on the scene.

Abdulhadi may need all the help he can get from Bin Laden's reported choice of replacement of Zarghawi, a little known operative named Abdullah bin Rashid Al-Baghdadi. However, other reports state the Egyptian, Al-Mesri, claims to have been selected to fill the void. This in itself creates a potential conflict while they vie for position in the new hierarchy, offering leaks and intelligence coups. Al-Jazeera reports of an unknown person with a pseudonym of al Muhajer (the Immigrant) as the new boss of the Ansar al-Islam show part of the turmoil Al Qaeda faces.

Positively speaking, the rips in the Iraqi organizations and the intelligence feasts from the 56 locations may force Al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden to reveal themselves as their need to communicate faster to repair the gaps, clashes with their need for secure concealment. Over 150 later raids and a massive 40,000 person campaign by the new Iraqi government with some 7,000 US military personnel backing them up, may deal an insurmountable blow to Iraq's insurgency.

With so many missing from the old structure, Iran appears t have decided to move more forcefully into the game. With much bigger fish to fry than just Iraq and with a wealth of senior Al Qaeda members as guests inside Iran, including Bin Laden's son, Iran may upgrade its efforts from acting by proxy to more definitive, direct intervention. They are already more deeply involved in Al Qaeda activity in North Africa than is generally known.

Inside Iraq, Iran has an estimated 40,000 specially trained agents, Iranian nationals or Iranian-Iraqi citizens, scattered among the major cities, infiltrated into Shia mosques and blended into Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia in Southern Iraq.

Though, with Zarghawi gone, much of the incentive to join the Mehdi militia may disappear as sectarian violence fomented by Zarghawi will diminish and the need to protect Shias from his slaughter will no longer be a recruiting call that everyone will heed.

Taking a leaf from Khomeini's revolution inside Iran, where mosques became hubs for his take over plans, Iranian intelligence agents have additionally set up Islamic libraries in many major cities in Iraq, through which they recruit, fund, organize and control anti-Coalition and anti-Iraqi government activity. This set up, while technically secular, provides cover for Islamic jihadist meetings, indoctrination, safe houses and similar clandestine needs.

Generally considered an unintelligent child and later a mindless, minor thug as he was growing up in Jordan, Zarghawi operated on his cultural background and upbringing as a Palestinian refugee camp denizen. Like Arafat, who was thrown out of every Arab country for fomenting trouble against his host government, Zarghawi had no allegiance to Jordan and probably never formally received Jordanian citizenship.

His indiscriminate killing of Iraqis, specially of the Shia persuasion, reviled as they are by Sunnis, was in keeping with his feeling no allegiance to anyone in Iraq either. Anymore than he did toward Jordanians when he blew up a wedding party in a hotel or tried to use a dirty bomb to attack Jordanian Security.

After all, he was not killing his fellow Palestinians, who were the only ones for whom he might feel any affinity. Like the paramilitary Basiji in Iran, mostly mercenary Arabs, Palestinians or Taliban Afghans, having no hesitation or compunction in killing Shia Iranians to suppress street or student demonstrations, Zarghawi took pleasure in killing Iraqis, Jordanians and Westerners. With no other claim to fame, since he used others for strategic or tactical brainpower, ruthless spilling of blood gave him the notoriety he sought to recruit a following. He was death personified, which in the terrorist world provides a loathsome charisma.

Various other matters continue to roil in Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Iran.

The new government's confrontation with the insurgency while Al Qaeda has been disrupted extends to also warning Syria to stop permitting insurgents to enter or flee Iraq by way of that country, including a warning that Iraqi military will not hesitate to make incursions into Syrian territory in pursuit of insurgents or to suppress their operations near the border regions on the Syrian side.

With Iraq also concerned by Iran and Iran's Palestinian allies in Hamas and Syrian support of them, Iraq and Jordan have established a new alliance to face the Palestinian threat – mostly to Jordan – and to co-operate on capturing and killing foreign insurgents using Jordanian territory as border crossing points.

Provocative operations into Jordan from HAMAS bases in Syria would not have occurred without approval from Damascus. Equally, Damascus would not have undertaken such levels of attempted strikes — the second of their kind attempted and foiled in the Kingdom in as many years from Syrian bases — without serious consultation with their most important strategic partner, Tehran.

The Iranian Government deliberately selling out one of its former assets — even though Zarqawi was nominally an al-Qaida leader — has direct parallels to the deliberate selling out of the al-Qaida leader in Saudi Arabia, Saleh al-Oufi, in August 2005.

When Saleh al-Oufi disobeyed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and persisted with attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure instead of supporting the major effort of the time, to escalate the Iraq conflict, the bin Laden leadership leaked al-Oufi’s whereabouts to the Saudi security forces. Saleh al-Oufi and several of his colleagues were killed in firefights with Saudi security forces on August 18, 2005.

The direct parallels between the al-Oufi and Zarqawi incidents raise the question once again of the depth of Osama bin Laden’s links with Iran, and whether bin Laden himself is still in Iran and coordinating his actions with those of Iran.

Meanwhile, intelligence indicates major, still unspecified terrorist plans are being put into place against Western targets but despite the nearly 500 targetted raids inside Iraq and capture of a treasure trove of information, pinpointing where the now looming clouds will drop their rain, continues to a mystery intelligence forces of many nations pursue with great diligence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know, being the rational , show-me kind of fellow I am, I'm inclined to wonder at how apparently convienient to Iran this supposed al quaida generated document actually is, and without pre-supposition on how Mr. Z was traced, I'd like to know the details on how the document was actually recovered, because I'd like to know if there was opportunity on site after the raid for it to be planted, and then "found" by US forces.

Looks to me like the work of MOIS to make sure that any evidence gathered on IRI WMD's is now "planted" by al quida, and any and all terrorism in Iraq can now be soley blamed on al quaida.

If I was a terrorist Mullah, that would be just the ticket, now don't you think?

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


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:17 am    Post subject: Khobar Towers Reply with quote

Khobar Towers

June 23, 2006
The Wall Street Journal
Louis J. Freeh
http://online.wsj.com/public/us

Ten years ago this Sunday, acting under direct orders from senior Iranian government leaders, the Saudi Hezbollah detonated a 25,000-pound TNT bomb that killed 19 U.S. airmen in their dormitory at Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The blast wave destroyed Building 131 and grievously wounded hundreds of additional Air Force personnel. It also killed an unknown number of Saudi civilians in a nearby park.

The 19 Americans murdered were members of the 4404th Wing, who were risking their lives to enforce the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. This was a U.N.-mandated mission after the 1991 Gulf War to stop Saddam Hussein from killing his Shiite people. The Khobar victims, along with the courageous families and friends who will mourn them this weekend in Washington, deserve our respect and honor. More importantly, they must be remembered, because American justice has still been denied.

Although a federal grand jury handed down indictments in June 2001 -- days before I left as FBI director and a week before some of the charges against 14 of the terrorists would have lapsed because of the statute of limitations -- two of the primary leaders of the attack, Ahmed Ibrahim al-Mughassil and Abdel Hussein Mohamed al-Nasser, are living comfortably in Iran with about as much to fear from America as Osama bin Laden had prior to Sept. 11 (to wit, U.S. marshals showing up to serve warrants for their arrests).


Solemn and Personal

The aftermath of the Khobar bombing is just one example of how successive U.S. governments have mishandled Iran. On June 25, 1996, President Clinton declared that "no stone would be left unturned" to find the bombers and bring them to "justice." Within hours, teams of FBI agents, and forensic and technical personnel, were en route to Khobar. The president told the Saudis and the 19 victims' families that I was responsible for the case. This assignment became very personal and solemn for me, as it meant that I was the one who dealt directly with the victims' survivors. These disciplined military families asked only one thing of me and their country: "Please find out who did this to our sons, husbands, brothers and fathers and bring them to justice."

It soon became clear that Mr. Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, had no interest in confronting the fact that Iran had blown up the Towers. This is astounding, considering that the Saudi Security Service had arrested six of the bombers after the attack. As FBI agents sifted through the remains of Building 131 in 115-degree heat, the bombers admitted they had been trained by the Iranian external security service (IRGC) in the Beka Valley, and received their passports at the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, along with $250,000 cash for the operation from IRGC Gen. Ahmad Sharifi.

We later learned that senior members of the Iranian government, including Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), and the Spiritual Leader's office had selected Khobar as their target and commissioned the Saudi Hezbollah to carry out the operation. The Saudi police told us that FBI agents had to interview the bombers in custody in order to make our case. To make this happen, however, the U.S. president would need to personally make a request to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

So for 30 months, I wrote and rewrote the same set of simple talking points for the president, Mr. Berger, and others to press the FBI's request to go inside a Saudi prison and interview the Khobar bombers. And for 30 months nothing happened. The Saudis reported back to us that the president and Mr. Berger would either fail to raise the matter with the crown prince or raise it without making any request. On one such occasion, our commander in chief instead hit up Prince Abdullah for a contribution to his library. Mr. Berger never once, in the course of the five-year investigation which coincided with his tenure, even asked how the investigation was going.

In their only bungled attempt to support the FBI, a letter from the president intended for Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, asking for "help" on the Khobar case, was sent to the Omanis, who had direct access to Mr. Khatami. This was done without advising either the FBI or the Saudis who were exposed in the letter as providing help to the Americans. We only found out about the letter because it was misdelivered to the Spiritual Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who then publicly denounced the U.S. This was an embarrassment for the Saudis who had been fully cooperating with the FBI by providing direct evidence of Iranian involvement. Both Saudi Prince Bandar and Interior Minister Prince Nayef, who had put themselves and their government at great risk to help the FBI, were now undermined by America's president.

The Clinton administration was set on "improving" relations with what it mistakenly perceived to be a moderate Iranian president. But it also wanted to accrue the political mileage of proclaiming to the world, and to the 19 survivor families, that America was aggressively pursuing the bombers. When I would tell Mr. Berger that we could close the investigation if it compromised the president's foreign policy, the answer was always: "Leave no stone unturned."

* * *

Meanwhile, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Mr. Clinton ordered the FBI to stop photographing and fingerprinting Iranian wrestlers and cultural delegations entering the U.S. because the Iranians were complaining about the identification procedure. Of course they were complaining. It made it more difficult for their MOIS agents and terrorist coordinators to infiltrate into America. I was overruled by an "angry" president and Mr. Berger who said the FBI was interfering with their rapprochement with Iran.

Finally, frustrated in my attempts to execute Mr. Clinton's "leave no stone unturned" order, I called former President George H.W. Bush. I had learned that he was about to meet Prince Abdullah on another matter. After fully briefing Mr. Bush on the impasse and faxing him the talking points that I had now been working on for over two years, he personally asked the crown prince to allow FBI agents to interview the detained bombers.

After his Saturday meeting with now-King Abdullah, Mr. Bush called me to say that he made the request, and that the Saudis would be calling me. A few hours later, Prince Bandar asked me to come out to McLean, Va. on Monday to see Prince Abdullah. When I met him with Wyche Fowler, our Saudi ambassador, and FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson, the crown prince was holding my talking points. He told me Mr. Bush had made the request for the FBI, which he granted, and told Prince Bandar to instruct Nayef to arrange for FBI agents to interview the prisoners.

Several weeks later, agents interviewed the co-conspirators. For the first time since the 1996 attack, we obtained direct evidence of Iran's complicity. What Mr. Clinton failed to do for three years was accomplished in minutes by his predecessor. This was the breakthrough we had been waiting for, and the attorney general and I immediately went to Mr. Berger with news of the Saudi prison interviews.

Upon being advised that our investigation now had proof that Iran blew up Khobar Towers, Mr. Berger's astounding response was: "Who knows about this?" His next, and wrong, comment was: "That's just hearsay." When I explained that under the Rules of Federal Evidence the detainees' comments were indeed more than "hearsay," for the first time ever he became interested -- and alarmed -- about the case. But this interest translated into nothing more than Washington "damage control" meetings held out of the fear that Congress, and ordinary Americans, would find out that Iran murdered our soldiers. After those meetings, neither the president, nor anyone else in the administration, was heard from again about Khobar.

Wrong Message

Sadly, this fits into a larger pattern of U.S. governments sending the wrong message to Tehran. Almost 13 years before Iran committed its terrorist act of war against America at Khobar, it used its surrogates, the Lebanese Hezbollah, to murder 241 Marines in their Beirut barracks. The U.S. response to that 1983 outrage was to pull our military forces out of the region. Such timidity was not lost upon Tehran. As with Beirut, Tehran once again received loud and clear from the U.S. its consistent message that there would be no price to pay for its acts of war against America. As for the 19 dead warriors and their families, their commander in chief had deserted them, leaving only the FBI to carry on the fight.

The Khobar bombing case was eventually indicted in 2001, thanks to the personal leadership of President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But justice has been a long time coming. Only so much can be done, after all, with arrest warrants and judicial process. Bin Laden and his two separate pre-9/11 arrest warrants are a case in point.

Still, many stones remain unturned. It remains to be seen whether the Khobar case and its fugitives will make it onto the list of America's demands in "talks" with the Iranians. Or will we ultimately ignore justice and buy a separate peace with our enemy?

Mr. Freeh was FBI director from 1993-2001.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:33 am    Post subject: General Reports Spike in Iranian Activity in Iraq Reply with quote

General Reports Spike in Taazi (Islamofascist Occupying Force In Iran) Activity in Iraq

June 23, 2006
The Washington Post
Thomas E. Ricks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201369.html?nav=rss_nation


Iranian support for extremists inside Iraq has shown a "noticeable increase" this year, with Tehran's special forces providing weapons and bomb training to anti-U.S. groups, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said yesterday.

Other U.S. officials have complained about Iranian meddling in Iraq, but the criticism of Tehran by Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. was the most direct and explicit so far. Speaking at a Pentagon news conference before an array of reporters and television cameras, the general listed Iranian influence as one of the four major problems he faces in Iraq.

"We are quite confident that the Iranians, through their covert special operations forces, are providing weapons, IED technology and training to Shia extremist groups in Iraq, the training being conducted in Iran and in some cases probably in Lebanon through their surrogates," Casey said, using the military abbreviation for "improvised explosive devices," or roadside bombs. The Iranians are "using surrogates to conduct terrorist operations in Iraq, both against us and against the Iraqi people."

Iran's actions are a major concern not only because of attacks on U.S. forces, but also because the durability of the new Iraqi government depends in part on the willingness of Iraqi's Sunni minority to accept the government. The Sunnis will be unlikely to do so if the Iranian government is perceived as playing a major role in supporting and even arming violent Shiite factions.

"Since January, we have seen an upsurge in their support, particularly to the Shia extremist groups," Casey said. "They are providing weapons, training and equipment to Shia insurgents, and that equipment is being used against us and Iraqis."

In the wide-ranging news conference, Casey also touched on several other aspects of the three-year-old U.S. war in Iraq. He said that insurgent attacks are up but insisted that "the insurgency hasn't expanded." About 90 percent of its attacks are launched within 30 miles of Baghdad, he said.

Discussing the state of al-Qaeda in Iraq since the killing earlier this month of its leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Casey said, "They're hurt, but they're not finished. . . . They're feeling the pain right now."

Casey expressed confidence in the growing strength of the Iraqi army but voiced concern about the state of the Iraqi police, especially in the Baghdad area, where, he said, their operations are influenced by militias. Sunnis often accuse the police, who are controlled by the Ministry of the Interior, of working closely with Shiite death squads.

"There are challenges with the police that I think you know, and the performance of the police varies widely around the country," he said. "Probably the greatest challenge for the new minister of interior is to restore the confidence of the Iraqi people in general and the Sunni population in particular in the Ministry of Interior forces."

Casey also appeared to stand by, but soften, his previous assertion that the number of U.S. troops would be reduced this year. "I'm confident that we'll be able to continue to take reductions over the course of this year," he said.

There are about 127,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. That is down from a peak of about 160,000 in winter 2005-06, but close to the typical level over the past three years of about 135,000. The widespread expectation inside the U.S. Army is that by the end of this year, the U.S. presence will be cut to about 100,000.

Since the fall of 2003, top commanders have wanted to reduce the U.S. troop commitment but have been unable to turn that hope into reality.

Casey appeared to stop a bit short of his statement 11 months ago that held out the prospect of "fairly substantial" cuts in troop levels. In July 2005, he said: "If the political process continues to go positively, and if the development of the security forces continues to go as it is going, I do believe we'll still be able to take some fairly substantial reductions" after the Iraqi elections in 2006.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who uncharacteristically played a supporting role during the news conference, added that the size of U.S. forces "very likely will go down and up and down and up depending on the circumstances and depending on the need."

Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:28 am    Post subject: Sharansky on Iran: 'The Opposition Are Our Real Allies' Reply with quote

Sharansky on Iran: 'The Opposition Are Our Real Allies'

June 20, 2006
New York Sun
Eli Lake

http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2006&m=06&d=20&a=7

The recent departure of the Bush administration's foreign policy from the unapologetic promotion of democracy expressed in the president's second inaugural address has led one of Mr. Bush's staunchest intellectual supporters to express his concern.

Yesterday, Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident who became deputy prime minister of Israel, met with Vice President Cheney to discuss his worries about the failings of America's pro-democratic strategy.

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Sharansky would not get into details about his parley with Mr. Cheney other than to say, "Mainly this was about democracy and about American policy in Iran. We are now trying to engage Russia and Iran on the one hand and weakening the opposition there on the other. We need to understand the opposition are our real allies and not repeat the mistakes of the Clinton administration."

Mr. Sharansky's 2004 book, "The Case for Democracy," prompted Mr. Bush in December 2004 to request a meeting with its author. It is widely seen as one of the main intellectual influences on the president's second in augural address in 2005.

In that speech, Mr. Bush declared that "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Last week, the author of those words, former speechwriter and policy adviser, Michael Gerson, resigned to write a book.

In recent months the emphasis on supporting the "growth of democratic movements and institutions" has waned for the White House. On Thursday, for example, Secretary of State Rice worked closely with Senator Biden, a Democrat of Delaware, to defeat a Senate amendment that would have authorized $100 million for the Iranian democracy movement and tightened sanctions against Iran, in part because of fears such a measure would scuttle negotiations with Iran over abandoning its uranium enrichment.

Last night, Mr. Sharansky appeared with the author of the amendment, Senator Santorum,a Republican of Pennsylvania, at an event in Philadelphia sponsored by the Middle East Forum.

Other instances have also caused alarm. In May, Vice President Cheney met in Washington with the son of Egypt's president, Gamal Mubarak, just as his father's riot police were cordoning off Cairo and warning Egyptians they may not demonstrate in solidarity with two judges who tried to investigate irregularities in last November's parliamentary elections.

At Foggy Bottom, Mr. Cheney's daughter, Elizabeth, recently took an unspecified leave of absence from her post at the State Department, leaving in doubt the future of an aid program for Middle Eastern democrats she helped create.

Yesterday, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick announced his retirement, strengthening the position of an undersecretary of state, Nicholas Burns, the architect of the recent entente with Iran.

Mr. Sharansky yesterday said he was not yet ready to offer a judgment of the administration's apparent change of mind. However, he did say he thought the opening with Iran was "dangerous" and could possibly give the mullahs there enough cover to make a serious move against their opposition.

"I don't think I should make judgments about this administration. My role is to bring this case to people's attention. It is so easy to go from engagement and talks and the atmosphere to make it easier for Iran to make nuclear weapons and take tough measures against dissidents," he said.

Mr. Cheney yesterday spoke at the National Press Club in Washington and seemed to be unwavering - at least on Iraq. When asked if he still thought the insurgency was in its last throes, as he said 13 months ago, he answered in the affirmative.

"I think the key turning point when we get back 10 years from now, say, and look back on this period of time and with respect to the campaign in Iraq, will be that series of events when the Iraqis increasingly took over responsibility for their own affairs," he said. "And there I point to the election in January of '05 when we set up the interim government, the drafting of the constitution in the summer of '05, the national referendum in the fall of '05 when the Iraqis overwhelmingly approved that constitution, and then the vote last December when some 12 million Iraqis in defiance of the car bombers and the terrorists went to the polls and voted in overwhelming numbers to set up a new government under that constitution."

Mr. Cheney added that these events "will have been from a historical turning point, the period that we'll be able to look at and say, 'That's when we turned the corner, that's when we began to get a handle on the long-term future of Iraq.'"

The vice president heard from another Middle East democracy advocate recently. The president of the Reform Party of Syria, Farid Ghadry, met with Mr. Cheney on June 17 at an American Enterprise Institute conference in Beaver Creek, Colo. "Mr. Ghadry urged the United States to increase its support for democracy and human rights in Syria, and stressed in particular the importance of vigorously defending these activists inside Syria who have recently been the target of a systematic and brutal crackdown by the Assad regime," according to a statement issued by the Syrian opposition group.

Meetings at the Beaver Creek conference between Mr. Cheney and Mr. Sharansky and a Palestinian Arab democracy activist, Omar Karsou, helped influence a Rose Garden speech that President Bush gave on June 24, 2002, that called for democracy for the Palestinian Arabs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

With respect to the bill that was defeated, about the only thing that would have made any difference is the money appropriated. As it stands, the Bush Admin requested and got a $ 75 million supplemental for democracy efforts in Iran.

If I were to become a mind-reader for a minute, and reason out the admin's rational for opposing this particular piece of legistlation, it would be because the bill does not go far enough, number one, to be truly effective, and secondly, because when all diplomacy is exhausted they'll be legistlation proposed by the Admin that would make this bill look like a joke in comparision to the indightment and decisions Congress will ultimately serve on the mullahs.

In the meantime, folks wondering whether Bush is just paying "lip-service" to democracy in Iran should perhaps read on, and ask themselves why at this particular moment does George W. Bush give this following speech a few days after reflecting upon the legacy of Cyrus the Great in a message to the Iranian people.

Then ask...who's ears was this message intended to be delivered to?

President's Remarks to the People of Hungary
Gellert Hill
Budapest, Hungary


In Focus: Global Diplomacy


4:38 P.M. (Local)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Jó napot kívánok. (Applause.) Thank you for your warm welcome. I first want to thank the President for his gracious hospitality and the chance to visit Sándor Palace. It's a beautiful site, and I know you're proud of it. I also want to thank your Prime Minister for his hospitality and the chance to go to the Parliament Building. Laura and I particularly liked to see the Holy Crown of St. Stephen. It was beautiful. It's a grand reminder of the great history of Hungary.

I thank the Hungarian people for their gracious reception. Laura and I are honored to visit your great nation. Hungary sits at the heart of Europe. Hungary represents the triumph of liberty over tyranny, and America is proud to call Hungary a friend.

I appreciate the opportunity to stand here on Gellért Hill, which offers a striking view of your beautiful city. Fifty years ago, you could watch history being written from this hill. In 1956, the Hungarian people suffered under a communist dictatorship and domination by a foreign power. That fall, the Hungarian people had decided they had had enough and demanded change. From this spot you could see tens of thousands of students and workers and other Hungarians marching through the streets. They called for an end to dictatorship, to censorship, and to the secret police. They called for free elections, a free press, and the release of political prisoners. These Hungarian patriots tore down the statue of Joseph Stalin, and defied an empire to proclaim their liberty.

Twelve days after the Hungarian people stood up for their liberty, the communists in Moscow responded with great brutality. Soon the streets of Budapest were filled with Soviet tanks. The Red Army killed many who resisted, including women and children. The Soviets threw many more into prison. They crushed the Hungarian uprising, but not the Hungarian people's thirst for freedom.

Some 200,000 Hungarians fled into exile in search of liberty. Many found refuge in the United States. These immigrants have contributed to my country in countless ways, and America will always be glad that we opened our doors to Hungarians that were seeking freedom. Fifty years later, the sacrifice of the Hungarian people inspires all who love liberty. Some of those who faced those tanks are here today. I had the honor of meeting three such gentlemen at lunch. I was proud to be in their presence. America honors your courage. We've learned from your example, and we resolve that when people stand up for their freedom, America will stand with them.

In 1989, a new generation of Hungarians returned to the streets to demand their liberty, and boldly helped others secure their freedom, as well. By giving shelter to those fleeing tyranny and opening your border to the West, you helped bring down the Iron Curtain, and gave the hope of freedom to millions in Central and Eastern Europe. Because you had the courage to lead, Hungary became the first communist nation in Europe to make the transition to democracy.

Hungary has continued to move forward. You regained your independence, held free elections, and established a free economy. Hungary is now a valued member of NATO and the European Union. You know that the democratic journey is not easy, but you continue to make the tough decisions that are necessary to succeed. America admires your perseverance, we welcome your progress, and America values our alliance with the free people of Hungary.

You believe that free nations have an obligation to help others realize the benefits of freedom. So last year, you launched the International Center for Democratic Transition here in Budapest. You set that center up to help others learn from your country's experiences. Hungary was also an early contributor to the United Nations Democracy Fund, which supports emerging democracies with legal and technical and financial assistance. And together, America and Hungary helped launch the Foundation for the Future, which supports democratic reformers, independent journalists, women's groups, and human rights advocates throughout the Middle East. Hungary is making a difference in our world, and I thank you for your leadership in freedom's cause.

Hungary is also showing courage in freedom's cause. In Kosovo, Hungarian soldiers are helping to secure the peace. Your work is aiding the rise of democracy in a region that has endured violence and tyranny for many decades. By your efforts, you're helping the people of the Balkans establish free and democratic societies, and you're paving the way for their membership in the institutions of a united Europe.

Hungarian troops are also defending freedom's cause in the war on terror. In Afghanistan, your soldiers have rebuilt schools and a medical center. They've helped train Afghan police to enforce the rule of law, and to protect the Afghan people. In Iraq, Hungarian troops played a vital role in Operation Iraqi Freedom by providing security and delivering food and medical supplies to coalition forces. Today, Hungarian soldiers are helping to train Iraqi security forces. This is important work. By supporting these two young democracies, you are strengthening two new allies in the war on terror, and you're bringing hope to millions of people in a vital region of the world.

Last week, I traveled to Baghdad. I was impressed by what I saw. Americans and Hungarians, and other coalition partners can be proud of what we have achieved in partnership with the Iraqi people. I met with Iraq's new Prime Minister, and was able to see firsthand his strong character, his commitment to freedom, and his determination to succeed. Hungarians will recognize this spirit: Prime Minister Maliki is committed to the democratic ideals that also inspired Hungarian patriots in 1956 and 1989. He has a sound plan to improve security, to unify his people, and to deliver a better life for the citizens of Iraq. The success of the new Iraqi government is vital to the security of all nations, and so it deserves the support of the international community. We will continue to help the Iraqi government establish free institutions, to achieve its goals, and we will continue to help Iraq take its rightful place alongside America and Hungary as beacons of liberty in our world.

Iraq's young democracy still faces determined enemies, people who will use violence and brutality to stop the march of freedom. Defeating these enemies will require sacrifice and continued patience -- the kind of patience the good people of Hungary displayed after 1956. We will help them rebuild a country destroyed by a tyrant. We'll help the Iraqis defeat the enemies of freedom. Our commitment is certain, our objective is clear. The new Iraqi government will show the world the promise of a thriving democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

The Hungarian people know well the promise of freedom. Many of you lived through the nightmare of fascism, or communism, or both. Yet you never lost hope. You kept faith in freedom. And 50 years after you watched Soviet tanks invade your beloved city, you now watch your grandchildren play in the streets of a free Hungary.

The lesson of the Hungarian experience is clear: Liberty can be delayed, but it cannot be denied. The desire for liberty is universal, because it is written by our Creator into the hearts of every man, woman, and child on this Earth. And as people across the world step forward to claim their own freedom, they will take inspiration from your example, and draw hope from your success.

Earlier today Laura and I laid a bouquet of flowers at the 1956 Memorial Monument across the river. It was our privilege to do so. It was a moving moment for us. Kossuth Square is named for the father of Hungarian democracy, and honors more than a century-and-a-half of Hungarian sacrifice in freedom's cause.

A bust of this great leader stands in the U.S. Capitol. It affirms that those who fight for liberty are heroes not only in their own land, but of all free nations. All who love liberty are linked together across the generations, and across the world.

Your great poet Petofi said this:

"Here is the time, now or never!
Shall we be slaves or free?
This is the question, answer!
By the God of the Hungarians we swear,
We swear to be slaves no more!"
These words were addressed to the Hungarian people, yet they speak to all people, in all times. This is the spirit that we honor today. I appreciate the opportunity to come to this great country and to celebrate the Hungarian example -- the courage, the sacrifice, the perseverance that has led to this democracy.

On behalf of all Americans: Köszönöm. May God bless you all. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END 4:50 P.M. (Local)

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

Now , in my opinion, if this be "lip-service" , it sure has rattled a few cages within the IRI.
Given the fact that the IRI will no doubt consider any Congressional legislation toward "regime change" , mandating policy as law , including measures that in my opinion don't go the distance anyway and failed to pass, it would be taken by the IRI as a "hostile act".

Simply adding fuel to their propaganda efforts like the example below:




http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7694

Iran rejects US 'pressure' on nuclear issue
Thu. 22 Jun 2006
The Guardian

Simon Tisdall, Ewen MacAskill, Robert Tait in Tehran

The US is determined to topple Iran's Islamic government whether or not the crisis over the country's nuclear activities is resolved, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said today.

US enmity towards Iran was entrenched, Mr Larijani told the Guardian. "The nuclear issue is just a pretext. If it was not the nuclear matter, they would have come up with something else."

The compromise package offered by the west on Iran's nuclear activities amounted to a "sermon", he said, rejecting outright President George Bush's demands this week that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment.

"If they want to put this prerequisite, why are we negotiating at all? Mr Bush is like a mathematician. When the equation becomes very difficult to work out, he likes to wipe it out altogether ... the pressure they are putting on us is reason enough for us to be suspicious."

Mr Larijani's remarks represented his most negative assessment since the west's package was presented on June 6, suggesting a quick resolution was unlikely. Diplomats say Iran has been given a de facto deadline of the G8 summit in St Petersburg in mid-July for a formal response.

But Mr Larijani said Iran would present extensive and detailed counter-proposals only when it was ready to do so, although committees of experts were "working round the clock". A debate is underway inside the government with hardline ayatollahs calling for outright rejection of the west's ideas and some officials stressing their positive aspects.

Mr Larijani, former deputy head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, is the most influential political figure in the country after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and answers directly to the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. As chairman of the Supreme National Security Council, he oversees security and defence strategy.

Mr Larijani said American policies in the Middle East, from Iraq to Palestine, were deeply destabilising and had complicated efforts to cut a deal. "If they continue on the same path, the price of oil will skyrocket and it will strengthen our resolve. They want to set fire to the region. The American strategy is to use force to secure their interests."

He also blamed Israel for many of the region's problems. "I think those people advising the CIA are the Zionists. They are pushing [the Americans] into this quagmire of war."

He denied reports that Iran was planning to block oil export routes through the Strait of Hormuz, at the mouth of the Gulf, if it was attacked or if UN sanctions were imposed. But he warned that if hostile action was taken through the UN security council, Iran would "reconsider its relationship" with the International Atomic Energy Agency. That could spell an end to already limited UN inspections of the nuclear plants at Natanz and Isfahan.

Mr Larijani said he was in constant contact by telephone with the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, contrasting Iran's dialogue with the Europeans with a lack of contact with the Bush administration.

But he offered to talk to the White House if US policies changed. "We should put aside the [US] sanctions and give up all this talk about regime change. This is what we are looking for ... if the Americans change their behaviour in the region and change their strategy, I assure you that talking over the phone will not be a serious problem."

He was critical of US attempts to promote democracy inside Iran. "They said they wanted to turn Iraq into a beacon of democracy. And out of that whole venture came Abu Ghraib and atrocities that were committed there on a daily basis ... the Palestinians chose a Hamas government. Why are they so hostile towards them?"

The $70m earmarked by the Bush administration to aid propaganda efforts inside Iran was an insult, he said. "I think that money is very little, to be honest," he said with a wry smile. "The minimum acceptable amount should be $70bn so the citizens of this country would at least get something out of it."

Mr Larijani declined to discuss the specifics of Iran's coming counter-proposals. "But suffice it to say [the west's package] has a lot of ambiguous points. These ambiguities persist from the beginning to the end of the package. On many of the points, we do not know how they intend to go about them. The package is more like a statement. If we are going to get agreement, we do not need a sermon."

Mr Larijani said there was no doubt that security guarantees were badly needed as part of any deal - "but not what they have talked about. They should not try to repackage their needs as incentives and offer that to us as a concession".

But he reiterated Iran's insistence that, despite western suspicions to the contrary, it has no wish to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. "We are not trying to construct the bomb. We don't want the bomb. The Americans know this. And Mr [John] Negroponte [the US intelligence tsar] announced some time ago that that Iranians don't have the bomb and wouldn't be able to make the bomb, even if they wanted to, for more than 10 years."

He strongly objected to the west's perceived double standards in objecting to limited nuclear-related "research and development" by Iran while acquiescing in Israel's and India's nuclear weapons programmes.


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


I've always said that attitude is everything, and one should be very careful what they ask for....Mr. L may just see a $75 BILLION supplemental request made in the second session of Congress, and "regime change" as public policy IN ACTION.

Actually, the unfreezing of Iranian assets in the US, would cover the cost of a regime change supplemental, financially. The total cost will depend a lot on the regime, as I don't think they'll go quietly into the night.

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


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Dear Cyrus,

With respect to the bill that was defeated, about the only thing that would have made any difference is the money appropriated. As it stands, the Bush Admin requested and got a $ 75 million supplemental for democracy efforts in Iran.

If I were to become a mind-reader for a minute, and reason out the admin's rational for opposing this particular piece of legistlation, it would be because the bill does not go far enough, number one, to be truly effective, and secondly, because when all diplomacy is exhausted they'll be legistlation proposed by the Admin that would make this bill look like a joke in comparision to the indightment and decisions Congress will ultimately serve on the mullahs.

In the meantime, folks wondering whether Bush is just paying "lip-service" to democracy in Iran should perhaps read on, and ask themselves why at this particular moment does George W. Bush give this following speech a few days after reflecting upon the legacy of Cyrus the Great in a message to the Iranian people.

Then ask...who's ears was this message intended to be delivered to?

President's Remarks to the People of Hungary
Gellert Hill
Budapest, Hungary


In Focus: Global Diplomacy


4:38 P.M. (Local)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Jó napot kívánok. (Applause.) Thank you for your warm welcome. I first want to thank the President for his gracious hospitality and the chance to visit Sándor Palace. It's a beautiful site, and I know you're proud of it. I also want to thank your Prime Minister for his hospitality and the chance to go to the Parliament Building. Laura and I particularly liked to see the Holy Crown of St. Stephen. It was beautiful. It's a grand reminder of the great history of Hungary.

I thank the Hungarian people for their gracious reception. Laura and I are honored to visit your great nation. Hungary sits at the heart of Europe. Hungary represents the triumph of liberty over tyranny, and America is proud to call Hungary a friend.

I appreciate the opportunity to stand here on Gellért Hill, which offers a striking view of your beautiful city. Fifty years ago, you could watch history being written from this hill. In 1956, the Hungarian people suffered under a communist dictatorship and domination by a foreign power. That fall, the Hungarian people had decided they had had enough and demanded change. From this spot you could see tens of thousands of students and workers and other Hungarians marching through the streets. They called for an end to dictatorship, to censorship, and to the secret police. They called for free elections, a free press, and the release of political prisoners. These Hungarian patriots tore down the statue of Joseph Stalin, and defied an empire to proclaim their liberty.

Twelve days after the Hungarian people stood up for their liberty, the communists in Moscow responded with great brutality. Soon the streets of Budapest were filled with Soviet tanks. The Red Army killed many who resisted, including women and children. The Soviets threw many more into prison. They crushed the Hungarian uprising, but not the Hungarian people's thirst for freedom.

Some 200,000 Hungarians fled into exile in search of liberty. Many found refuge in the United States. These immigrants have contributed to my country in countless ways, and America will always be glad that we opened our doors to Hungarians that were seeking freedom. Fifty years later, the sacrifice of the Hungarian people inspires all who love liberty. Some of those who faced those tanks are here today. I had the honor of meeting three such gentlemen at lunch. I was proud to be in their presence. America honors your courage. We've learned from your example, and we resolve that when people stand up for their freedom, America will stand with them.

In 1989, a new generation of Hungarians returned to the streets to demand their liberty, and boldly helped others secure their freedom, as well. By giving shelter to those fleeing tyranny and opening your border to the West, you helped bring down the Iron Curtain, and gave the hope of freedom to millions in Central and Eastern Europe. Because you had the courage to lead, Hungary became the first communist nation in Europe to make the transition to democracy.

Hungary has continued to move forward. You regained your independence, held free elections, and established a free economy. Hungary is now a valued member of NATO and the European Union. You know that the democratic journey is not easy, but you continue to make the tough decisions that are necessary to succeed. America admires your perseverance, we welcome your progress, and America values our alliance with the free people of Hungary.

You believe that free nations have an obligation to help others realize the benefits of freedom. So last year, you launched the International Center for Democratic Transition here in Budapest. You set that center up to help others learn from your country's experiences. Hungary was also an early contributor to the United Nations Democracy Fund, which supports emerging democracies with legal and technical and financial assistance. And together, America and Hungary helped launch the Foundation for the Future, which supports democratic reformers, independent journalists, women's groups, and human rights advocates throughout the Middle East. Hungary is making a difference in our world, and I thank you for your leadership in freedom's cause.

Hungary is also showing courage in freedom's cause. In Kosovo, Hungarian soldiers are helping to secure the peace. Your work is aiding the rise of democracy in a region that has endured violence and tyranny for many decades. By your efforts, you're helping the people of the Balkans establish free and democratic societies, and you're paving the way for their membership in the institutions of a united Europe.

Hungarian troops are also defending freedom's cause in the war on terror. In Afghanistan, your soldiers have rebuilt schools and a medical center. They've helped train Afghan police to enforce the rule of law, and to protect the Afghan people. In Iraq, Hungarian troops played a vital role in Operation Iraqi Freedom by providing security and delivering food and medical supplies to coalition forces. Today, Hungarian soldiers are helping to train Iraqi security forces. This is important work. By supporting these two young democracies, you are strengthening two new allies in the war on terror, and you're bringing hope to millions of people in a vital region of the world.

Last week, I traveled to Baghdad. I was impressed by what I saw. Americans and Hungarians, and other coalition partners can be proud of what we have achieved in partnership with the Iraqi people. I met with Iraq's new Prime Minister, and was able to see firsthand his strong character, his commitment to freedom, and his determination to succeed. Hungarians will recognize this spirit: Prime Minister Maliki is committed to the democratic ideals that also inspired Hungarian patriots in 1956 and 1989. He has a sound plan to improve security, to unify his people, and to deliver a better life for the citizens of Iraq. The success of the new Iraqi government is vital to the security of all nations, and so it deserves the support of the international community. We will continue to help the Iraqi government establish free institutions, to achieve its goals, and we will continue to help Iraq take its rightful place alongside America and Hungary as beacons of liberty in our world.

Iraq's young democracy still faces determined enemies, people who will use violence and brutality to stop the march of freedom. Defeating these enemies will require sacrifice and continued patience -- the kind of patience the good people of Hungary displayed after 1956. We will help them rebuild a country destroyed by a tyrant. We'll help the Iraqis defeat the enemies of freedom. Our commitment is certain, our objective is clear. The new Iraqi government will show the world the promise of a thriving democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

The Hungarian people know well the promise of freedom. Many of you lived through the nightmare of fascism, or communism, or both. Yet you never lost hope. You kept faith in freedom. And 50 years after you watched Soviet tanks invade your beloved city, you now watch your grandchildren play in the streets of a free Hungary.

The lesson of the Hungarian experience is clear: Liberty can be delayed, but it cannot be denied. The desire for liberty is universal, because it is written by our Creator into the hearts of every man, woman, and child on this Earth. And as people across the world step forward to claim their own freedom, they will take inspiration from your example, and draw hope from your success.

Earlier today Laura and I laid a bouquet of flowers at the 1956 Memorial Monument across the river. It was our privilege to do so. It was a moving moment for us. Kossuth Square is named for the father of Hungarian democracy, and honors more than a century-and-a-half of Hungarian sacrifice in freedom's cause.

A bust of this great leader stands in the U.S. Capitol. It affirms that those who fight for liberty are heroes not only in their own land, but of all free nations. All who love liberty are linked together across the generations, and across the world.

Your great poet Petofi said this:

"Here is the time, now or never!
Shall we be slaves or free?
This is the question, answer!
By the God of the Hungarians we swear,
We swear to be slaves no more!"
These words were addressed to the Hungarian people, yet they speak to all people, in all times. This is the spirit that we honor today. I appreciate the opportunity to come to this great country and to celebrate the Hungarian example -- the courage, the sacrifice, the perseverance that has led to this democracy.

On behalf of all Americans: Köszönöm. May God bless you all. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END 4:50 P.M. (Local)

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

Now , in my opinion, if this be "lip-service" , it sure has rattled a few cages within the IRI.
Given the fact that the IRI will no doubt consider any Congressional legislation toward "regime change" , mandating policy as law , including measures that in my opinion don't go the distance anyway and failed to pass, it would be taken by the IRI as a "hostile act".

Simply adding fuel to their propaganda efforts like the example below:




http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7694

Iran rejects US 'pressure' on nuclear issue
Thu. 22 Jun 2006
The Guardian

Simon Tisdall, Ewen MacAskill, Robert Tait in Tehran

The US is determined to topple Iran's Islamic government whether or not the crisis over the country's nuclear activities is resolved, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said today.

US enmity towards Iran was entrenched, Mr Larijani told the Guardian. "The nuclear issue is just a pretext. If it was not the nuclear matter, they would have come up with something else."

The compromise package offered by the west on Iran's nuclear activities amounted to a "sermon", he said, rejecting outright President George Bush's demands this week that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment.

"If they want to put this prerequisite, why are we negotiating at all? Mr Bush is like a mathematician. When the equation becomes very difficult to work out, he likes to wipe it out altogether ... the pressure they are putting on us is reason enough for us to be suspicious."

Mr Larijani's remarks represented his most negative assessment since the west's package was presented on June 6, suggesting a quick resolution was unlikely. Diplomats say Iran has been given a de facto deadline of the G8 summit in St Petersburg in mid-July for a formal response.

But Mr Larijani said Iran would present extensive and detailed counter-proposals only when it was ready to do so, although committees of experts were "working round the clock". A debate is underway inside the government with hardline ayatollahs calling for outright rejection of the west's ideas and some officials stressing their positive aspects.

Mr Larijani, former deputy head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, is the most influential political figure in the country after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and answers directly to the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. As chairman of the Supreme National Security Council, he oversees security and defence strategy.

Mr Larijani said American policies in the Middle East, from Iraq to Palestine, were deeply destabilising and had complicated efforts to cut a deal. "If they continue on the same path, the price of oil will skyrocket and it will strengthen our resolve. They want to set fire to the region. The American strategy is to use force to secure their interests."

He also blamed Israel for many of the region's problems. "I think those people advising the CIA are the Zionists. They are pushing [the Americans] into this quagmire of war."

He denied reports that Iran was planning to block oil export routes through the Strait of Hormuz, at the mouth of the Gulf, if it was attacked or if UN sanctions were imposed. But he warned that if hostile action was taken through the UN security council, Iran would "reconsider its relationship" with the International Atomic Energy Agency. That could spell an end to already limited UN inspections of the nuclear plants at Natanz and Isfahan.

Mr Larijani said he was in constant contact by telephone with the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, contrasting Iran's dialogue with the Europeans with a lack of contact with the Bush administration.

But he offered to talk to the White House if US policies changed. "We should put aside the [US] sanctions and give up all this talk about regime change. This is what we are looking for ... if the Americans change their behaviour in the region and change their strategy, I assure you that talking over the phone will not be a serious problem."

He was critical of US attempts to promote democracy inside Iran. "They said they wanted to turn Iraq into a beacon of democracy. And out of that whole venture came Abu Ghraib and atrocities that were committed there on a daily basis ... the Palestinians chose a Hamas government. Why are they so hostile towards them?"

The $70m earmarked by the Bush administration to aid propaganda efforts inside Iran was an insult, he said. "I think that money is very little, to be honest," he said with a wry smile. "The minimum acceptable amount should be $70bn so the citizens of this country would at least get something out of it."

Mr Larijani declined to discuss the specifics of Iran's coming counter-proposals. "But suffice it to say [the west's package] has a lot of ambiguous points. These ambiguities persist from the beginning to the end of the package. On many of the points, we do not know how they intend to go about them. The package is more like a statement. If we are going to get agreement, we do not need a sermon."

Mr Larijani said there was no doubt that security guarantees were badly needed as part of any deal - "but not what they have talked about. They should not try to repackage their needs as incentives and offer that to us as a concession".

But he reiterated Iran's insistence that, despite western suspicions to the contrary, it has no wish to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. "We are not trying to construct the bomb. We don't want the bomb. The Americans know this. And Mr [John] Negroponte [the US intelligence tsar] announced some time ago that that Iranians don't have the bomb and wouldn't be able to make the bomb, even if they wanted to, for more than 10 years."

He strongly objected to the west's perceived double standards in objecting to limited nuclear-related "research and development" by Iran while acquiescing in Israel's and India's nuclear weapons programmes.


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


I've always said that attitude is everything, and one should be very careful what they ask for....Mr. L may just see a $75 BILLION supplemental request made in the second session of Congress, and "regime change" as public policy IN ACTION.

Actually, the unfreezing of Iranian assets in the US, would cover the cost of a regime change supplemental, financially. The total cost will depend a lot on the regime, as I don't think they'll go quietly into the night.

-Oppie

Dear Oppie,

Due to the fact that I have no trust on EU3 Appeasers, China, Russia and all these countries are considered as friends of US therefore it is very difficult to predict what is the outcome of anything .....

If president Bush follow the EU3 appeasers policy, the War on Terror is considered as lost .....

I am very concerned when US government officials compare Islamofascist with Communism era and they wish to justify their own appeasing policy towards Mullahs ...

US will win if we give up on UN, appeasers and rely on people of world fighting for their liberity and freedom.....

Please clarify your prediction regarding possible future US strategy and direction ...



Regards,
Cyrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:56 pm    Post subject: Why Did Bush Blink on Iran? (Ask Condi) Reply with quote

Why Did Bush Blink on Iran? (Ask Condi)

June 24, 2006
The Washington Post
Richard Perle
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/23/AR2006062301375.html

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran knows what he wants: nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them; suppression of freedom at home and the spread of terrorism abroad; and the "shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems."

President Bush, too, knows what he wants: an irreversible end to Iran's nuclear weapons program, the "expansion of freedom in all the world" and victory in the war on terrorism.

The State Department and its European counterparts know what they want: negotiations.

For more than five years, the administration has dithered. Bush gave soaring speeches, the Iranians issued extravagant threats and, in 2003, the State Department handed the keys to the impasse to the British, French and Germans (the "E.U.-3"), who offered diplomatic valet parking to an administration befuddled by contradiction and indecision. And now, on May 31, the administration offered to join talks with Iran on its nuclear program.

How is it that Bush, who vowed that on his watch "the worst weapons will not fall into the worst hands," has chosen to beat such an ignominious retreat?

Proximity is critical in politics and policy. And the geography of this administration has changed. Condoleezza Rice has moved from the White House to Foggy Bottom, a mere mile or so away. What matters is not that she is further removed from the Oval Office; Rice's influence on the president is undiminished. It is, rather, that she is now in the midst of -- and increasingly represents -- a diplomatic establishment that is driven to accommodate its allies even when (or, it seems, especially when) such allies counsel the appeasement of our adversaries.

The president knows that the Iranians are undermining us in Iraq. He knows that the mullahs are working to sink any prospect of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, backing Hamas and its goal of wiping Israel off the map. He knows that for years Iran has concealed and lied about its nuclear weapons program. He knows that Iran leads the world in support for terrorism. And he knows that freedom and liberty in Iran are brutally suppressed.

The president knew all this in 2003 when he learned of Natanz, Arak and other concealed Iranian nuclear facilities. After the International Atomic Energy Agency became aware of Iran's hidden infrastructure in June of that year, we could have referred the matter to the U.N. Security Council and demanded immediate action. But neither our allies nor our diplomats nor the State Department experts assigned to the White House desired confrontation. It would be better, they argued (as always) to buy time, even though diplomatic time for them was weapons-building time for Iran.

So, after declaring that a nuclear Iran was "unacceptable," Bush blinked and authorized the E.U.-3 to approach Tehran with proposals to reward the mullahs if they promised to end their nuclear weapons program.

During these three years, the Iranians have advanced steadily toward acquiring nuclear weapons, defiantly announcing milestones along the way. At the end of May, with Ahmadinejad stridently reiterating Iran's "right" to enrich the uranium necessary for nuclear weapons, the administration blinked again.

The mullahs don't blink -- they glare. Two weeks ago, the secretary of Iran's Expediency Council, dismissing the United States as a paper tiger, said: "Something very important is happening. . . . The Americans are no longer saying that Iran must be deprived of its nuclear rights forever. Iran has accomplished a great thing."

The "great thing" Mohsen Rezai sees is a weakened U.S. position, with Washington backing away from the brave words of the past, and Rice offering to substitute the United States for the E.U.-3. Just last week, Ahmadinejad said that Iran will need nearly three months to respond to our latest offer. (How time flies when you're having fun.)

Twenty years ago, I watched U.S. diplomats conspire with their diffident European counterparts to discourage President Ronald Reagan from a political, economic and moral assault on the Soviet Union aimed at, well, regime change. Well-meaning diplomats pleaded for flexibility at the negotiating table, hoping to steer U.S. policy back toward d?tente. But Reagan knew a slippery slope when he saw one. At the defining moments, he refused the advice of the State Department and intelligence community and earned his place in history.

It is not clear whether Bush recognizes the perils of the course he has been persuaded to take. What has been presented to Ahmadinejad as a simple take-it-or-leave-it deal -- stop the activities that could enable you to acquire nuclear weapons and we will reward you, or continue them and we will punish you -- is nothing of the sort. Neither the activities nor the carrots and sticks are clearly defined or settled with our allies, much less with Russia and China. If the punishments require approval by the U.N. Security Council, the United States would need an unlikely combination of approvals and abstentions from council members. The new policy, undoubtedly pitched to the president as a means of enticing the E.U.-3 to support ending Iran's program, is likely to diminish pressure on Iran and allow the mullahs more time to develop the weapons they have paid dearly to pursue.

No U.S. administration since 1979 has had a serious political strategy regarding Iran. That has been especially evident in the past decade, when the bloom was off the rose of the Islamic revolution, the Revolutionary Guard joined the baby boomers in middle age and the Islamic republic sank into political, economic and social decline. Opponents of the regime have been calling for a referendum on whether to continue as an Islamic theocracy or join the world of modern, secular democracies. They are sure of the outcome.

The failure of successive U.S. administrations, including this one, to give moral and political support to the regime's opponents is a tragedy. Iran is a country of young people, most of whom wish to live in freedom and admire the liberal democracies that Ahmadinejad loathes and fears. The brave men and women among them need, want and deserve our support. They reject the jaundiced view of tired bureaucrats who believe that their cause is hopeless or that U.S. support will worsen their situation.

In his second inaugural address, Bush said, "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for liberty, we will stand with you."

Iranians were heartened by those words, much as the dissidents of the Soviet Union were heartened by Reagan's "evil empire" speech in 1983. A few days ago, I spoke with Amir Abbas Fakhravar, an Iranian dissident student leader who escaped first from Tehran's notorious Evin prison, then, after months in hiding, from Iran.

Fakhravar heard this president's words, and he took them to heart. But now, as he pleads for help for his fellow citizens, he is apprehensive. He wonders whether the administration's new approach to the mullahs will silence the president's voice, whether the proponents of accommodation with Tehran will regard the struggle for freedom in Iran as an obstacle to their new diplomacy.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) tried two weeks ago to pass the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would have increased the administration's too-little-too-late support for democracy and human rights in Iran. But the State Department opposed it, arguing that it "runs counter to our efforts . . . it would limit our diplomatic flexibility."

I hope it is not too late for Fakhravar and his friends. I know it is not too late for us, not too late to give substance to Bush's words, not too late to redeem our honor.

rperle@aei.org

Richard Perle, former chairman of the Defense Policy Board and assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, is an American Enterprise Institute fellow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ViaHHakimi



Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:31 pm    Post subject: Thanks to Carter ... ! Reply with quote

Thanks to Carter ... !
26 June 2006
Patriot Post No. 06-26

OPINION IN BRIEF
[b]


"If you're looking for someone to point the finger at, look no further than James Earl Carter...[the] self-anointed evangelist for world peace, understanding, goodwill, and promoter of universal love-ins with dictators who hate us. Let's begin with Iran, a boiling cauldron of hatred for everything associated with Western civilization. Recall that when Jimmah took office Iran was ruled by a strong ally of the United States, the Shah. Like most Middle Eastern potentates, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, ruled with an iron hand. Under him, Iran was not the kind of democracy we're now promoting for the Middle East. The Shah, however, was also the staunch friend and ally of the United States... But the Shah somehow offended Brother Carter's exalted view of the inherent goodness of a mankind freed from the strictures imposed by dictatorial rules. With a wink and a nod, he arranged to have Pahlavi replaced by an exiled mullah---the

Ayatollah Khomeini---who in Carter's view would be a moderate leader who would democratize Iran. What Carter got for us was a Muslim fanatic seething with hatred for everything Western, who without blinking an eye spat on our national sovereignty when he took over the United States embassy in Tehran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, until the U.S. came to its senses and elected my dad Ronald Reagan to replace the hapless Jimmy Carter. Thanks to Carter, Iran today constitutes a grave
threat to the United States and to world peace." ---

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


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:56 am    Post subject: Re: Khobar Towers Reply with quote

cyrus wrote:
Khobar Towers

June 23, 2006
The Wall Street Journal
Louis J. Freeh
http://online.wsj.com/public/us

Ten years ago this Sunday, acting under direct orders from senior Iranian government leaders, the Saudi Hezbollah detonated a 25,000-pound TNT bomb that killed 19 U.S. airmen in their dormitory at Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The blast wave destroyed Building 131 and grievously wounded hundreds of additional Air Force personnel. It also killed an unknown number of Saudi civilians in a nearby park.

The 19 Americans murdered were members of the 4404th Wing, who were risking their lives to enforce the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. This was a U.N.-mandated mission after the 1991 Gulf War to stop Saddam Hussein from killing his Shiite people. The Khobar victims, along with the courageous families and friends who will mourn them this weekend in Washington, deserve our respect and honor. More importantly, they must be remembered, because American justice has still been denied.

Although a federal grand jury handed down indictments in June 2001 -- days before I left as FBI director and a week before some of the charges against 14 of the terrorists would have lapsed because of the statute of limitations -- two of the primary leaders of the attack, Ahmed Ibrahim al-Mughassil and Abdel Hussein Mohamed al-Nasser, are living comfortably in Iran with about as much to fear from America as Osama bin Laden had prior to Sept. 11 (to wit, U.S. marshals showing up to serve warrants for their arrests).


Solemn and Personal

The aftermath of the Khobar bombing is just one example of how successive U.S. governments have mishandled Iran. On June 25, 1996, President Clinton declared that "no stone would be left unturned" to find the bombers and bring them to "justice." Within hours, teams of FBI agents, and forensic and technical personnel, were en route to Khobar. The president told the Saudis and the 19 victims' families that I was responsible for the case. This assignment became very personal and solemn for me, as it meant that I was the one who dealt directly with the victims' survivors. These disciplined military families asked only one thing of me and their country: "Please find out who did this to our sons, husbands, brothers and fathers and bring them to justice."

It soon became clear that Mr. Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, had no interest in confronting the fact that Iran had blown up the Towers. This is astounding, considering that the Saudi Security Service had arrested six of the bombers after the attack. As FBI agents sifted through the remains of Building 131 in 115-degree heat, the bombers admitted they had been trained by the Iranian external security service (IRGC) in the Beka Valley, and received their passports at the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, along with $250,000 cash for the operation from IRGC Gen. Ahmad Sharifi.

We later learned that senior members of the Iranian government, including Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), and the Spiritual Leader's office had selected Khobar as their target and commissioned the Saudi Hezbollah to carry out the operation. The Saudi police told us that FBI agents had to interview the bombers in custody in order to make our case. To make this happen, however, the U.S. president would need to personally make a request to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

So for 30 months, I wrote and rewrote the same set of simple talking points for the president, Mr. Berger, and others to press the FBI's request to go inside a Saudi prison and interview the Khobar bombers. And for 30 months nothing happened. The Saudis reported back to us that the president and Mr. Berger would either fail to raise the matter with the crown prince or raise it without making any request. On one such occasion, our commander in chief instead hit up Prince Abdullah for a contribution to his library. Mr. Berger never once, in the course of the five-year investigation which coincided with his tenure, even asked how the investigation was going.

In their only bungled attempt to support the FBI, a letter from the president intended for Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, asking for "help" on the Khobar case, was sent to the Omanis, who had direct access to Mr. Khatami. This was done without advising either the FBI or the Saudis who were exposed in the letter as providing help to the Americans. We only found out about the letter because it was misdelivered to the Spiritual Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who then publicly denounced the U.S. This was an embarrassment for the Saudis who had been fully cooperating with the FBI by providing direct evidence of Iranian involvement. Both Saudi Prince Bandar and Interior Minister Prince Nayef, who had put themselves and their government at great risk to help the FBI, were now undermined by America's president.

The Clinton administration was set on "improving" relations with what it mistakenly perceived to be a moderate Iranian president. But it also wanted to accrue the political mileage of proclaiming to the world, and to the 19 survivor families, that America was aggressively pursuing the bombers. When I would tell Mr. Berger that we could close the investigation if it compromised the president's foreign policy, the answer was always: "Leave no stone unturned."

* * *

Meanwhile, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Mr. Clinton ordered the FBI to stop photographing and fingerprinting Iranian wrestlers and cultural delegations entering the U.S. because the Iranians were complaining about the identification procedure. Of course they were complaining. It made it more difficult for their MOIS agents and terrorist coordinators to infiltrate into America. I was overruled by an "angry" president and Mr. Berger who said the FBI was interfering with their rapprochement with Iran.

Finally, frustrated in my attempts to execute Mr. Clinton's "leave no stone unturned" order, I called former President George H.W. Bush. I had learned that he was about to meet Prince Abdullah on another matter. After fully briefing Mr. Bush on the impasse and faxing him the talking points that I had now been working on for over two years, he personally asked the crown prince to allow FBI agents to interview the detained bombers.

After his Saturday meeting with now-King Abdullah, Mr. Bush called me to say that he made the request, and that the Saudis would be calling me. A few hours later, Prince Bandar asked me to come out to McLean, Va. on Monday to see Prince Abdullah. When I met him with Wyche Fowler, our Saudi ambassador, and FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson, the crown prince was holding my talking points. He told me Mr. Bush had made the request for the FBI, which he granted, and told Prince Bandar to instruct Nayef to arrange for FBI agents to interview the prisoners.

Several weeks later, agents interviewed the co-conspirators. For the first time since the 1996 attack, we obtained direct evidence of Iran's complicity. What Mr. Clinton failed to do for three years was accomplished in minutes by his predecessor. This was the breakthrough we had been waiting for, and the attorney general and I immediately went to Mr. Berger with news of the Saudi prison interviews.

Upon being advised that our investigation now had proof that Iran blew up Khobar Towers, Mr. Berger's astounding response was: "Who knows about this?" His next, and wrong, comment was: "That's just hearsay." When I explained that under the Rules of Federal Evidence the detainees' comments were indeed more than "hearsay," for the first time ever he became interested -- and alarmed -- about the case. But this interest translated into nothing more than Washington "damage control" meetings held out of the fear that Congress, and ordinary Americans, would find out that Iran murdered our soldiers. After those meetings, neither the president, nor anyone else in the administration, was heard from again about Khobar.

Wrong Message

Sadly, this fits into a larger pattern of U.S. governments sending the wrong message to Tehran. Almost 13 years before Iran committed its terrorist act of war against America at Khobar, it used its surrogates, the Lebanese Hezbollah, to murder 241 Marines in their Beirut barracks. The U.S. response to that 1983 outrage was to pull our military forces out of the region. Such timidity was not lost upon Tehran. As with Beirut, Tehran once again received loud and clear from the U.S. its consistent message that there would be no price to pay for its acts of war against America. As for the 19 dead warriors and their families, their commander in chief had deserted them, leaving only the FBI to carry on the fight.

The Khobar bombing case was eventually indicted in 2001, thanks to the personal leadership of President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But justice has been a long time coming. Only so much can be done, after all, with arrest warrants and judicial process. Bin Laden and his two separate pre-9/11 arrest warrants are a case in point.

Still, many stones remain unturned. It remains to be seen whether the Khobar case and its fugitives will make it onto the list of America's demands in "talks" with the Iranians. Or will we ultimately ignore justice and buy a separate peace with our enemy?

Mr. Freeh was FBI director from 1993-2001.


For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 26, 2006

Statement by the President Marking Ten Years After Attack on Khobar Towers

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060626-10.html

Ten years ago yesterday, in an attack on the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 19 members of our Armed Forces were killed, and hundreds of other Americans were injured, by terrorists who we believe were working with Iranian officials. We honor the courage of those who paid the ultimate price in defending our country. America will carry on the legacy of these fallen heroes by continuing the mission for which they gave their lives: defeating tyranny, defending freedom, and protecting their fellow citizens.

Laura and I offer our prayers and the gratitude of this great Nation to the families who lost loved ones in that brutal attack. These families can know that their loved ones will always be remembered and that we will remain determined in our efforts to bring to justice those responsible for this attack.

In remembrance of those who lost their lives ten years ago, I ask Americans to keep their families in your hearts and your prayers.

###
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Talks with US 'of no use to Iran'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5121046.stm

Ayatollah Khamenei restated Iran's right to nuclear technology
Iran's supreme leader has said talking to the US about his country's nuclear activities would hold no benefits, according to Iranian state television.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran was ready to ease concerns over its uranium enrichment but would not suspend it.

"Negotiations with the United States are of no use for us. We have no use for such negotiations." he said.

Washington has said it will join EU states in talks with Iran if Tehran agrees to halt uranium enrichment.

"We will not negotiate with anyone over the undeniable right of nuclear technology and using it," said Ayatollah Khamenei.

"If they recognise this right, we are ready to negotiate over supervision controls," he added.

Waiting for response

The suspension of uranium enrichment is the key demand in a proposal aimed at resolving the nuclear row, backed by six world powers.

The UN has offered Iran a package of incentives, but Iran has so far not responded.

Last week Iran's president said a reply would come on 22 August.

The US believes Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons, but Tehran says it is enriching uranium for energy purposes, as it is entitled to under the terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory.

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


Dear Cyrus,

You asked me "what is my prediction?" Well, I think you'll find very clear assessments included in my posts already placed on the board on various topics...as to where things stand, and where the're headed.

I don't do "predictions" per se, those are in the hands of those using Tarot cards, Ouiji boards, and Astrology, and it's dangerous to make predictions, especially about the future.

Lots of factors in play at the moment, but if what I've said in my posts by way of assesment strikes you as the truth, then you'll know what to expect.

Best,

-Oppie

P.S. How did the conference in DC go?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:04 pm    Post subject: Praise Canada Reply with quote

Praise Canada
June 27, 2006
New York Sun
Eli Lake

http://www.nysun.com/article/35113

Here is a sentence I thought I would never write. America could learn a thing or two from Canada on how to deal with Iran.

Canada? A country the Hollywood left toyed with as a refuge from President Bush's America during the 2004 election; a nation whose foreign policy until recently has elevated the tactic of multilateralism to a first principle; the northern neighbor that got bullied a few years back by French speaking separatists into reducing the font size of English words on signs in Quebec's storefronts.

Well, last week, Canada's leaders showed the kind of spine now missing from a Bush administration content with its predecessor's approach to pending threats. When word reached Ottawa that Iran's delegation to the Human Rights Council in Geneva included a man who complied in the murder of a Canadian citizen, Canada's foreign minister tried to have him arrested. Peter MacKay began ringing up his European counterparts to find out if Saeed Mortazavi might be detained in the Frankfurt, Germany, airport and extradited to Canada where he might explain in a court of law how in 2003 he imprisoned photojournalist, Zahra Kazemi, where soon after she was beaten to death.

He did not succeed, but last Friday, Mr. MacKay made it clear that the Iranian Torqemada should plan his travel to the civilized world carefully. "Mark my words, this individual is on notice," he said. "If there is any way that Canada can bring this person to justice, we'll do it."

Mr. Mortazavi deserves incarceration. As prosecutor general, he has enthusiastically carried out the criminal work of the mullahs. He not only sent a Canadian photographer and journalist, Zahra Kazemi, to the prison where she was raped and murdered, but he also cleared the thugs that two independent commissions found to be responsible. The prosecutor is believed to have closed 100 independent newspapers in Tehran and has prosecuted numerous dissidents and political reformers, including Akbar Ganji and, more recently, the philosopher Ramin Jahanbegloo.

Mr. Mortazavi's dossier is petty compared with his bosses. Canada's example could inspire the Germans to reopen the investigation into the 1992 gangland-style assassination of Kurdish dissidents in Berlin's Mykonos restaurant. In 1997, a German court found that this killing was ordered at the highest levels of the Iranian government by a committee that included supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the man then serving as president, Hashemi Rafsanjani. Last year, an Austrian legislator began an investigation into whether President Ahmadinejad delivered the weapons used, in 1989, by Iranian hit men to kill the Iranian Kurdish leader Abdul-Rahman Ghassemlou.

A few months ago, when it appeared the Bush administration was more serious about Iran, some of our diplomats really were drawing up the kinds of targeted sanctions that could include the extradition of some of Iran's leadership. Ideas discussed included the seizure of assets of senior regime leaders, limiting their travel, and other measures meant to isolate the leaders of Iran from their people.

It turns out that such tactics are out of fashion in Washington today. Diplomats aspire to talk things out with a gallery of Iran's rogues. There is a dance to get the mullahs to come discuss the future of their nuclear program in exchange for enhanced trade and possible security guarantees.

A deadline is in place this week for Tehran to decide whether it will return to negotiations over the nuclear program it kept hidden from the world until 2003. Don't bet on the deadline being enforced. The recent history of the back and forth with Iran is fraught with false deadlines that disappear at the last minute as our European allies try again to ease the access for inspectors or entice Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. Typically, Mr. Ahmadinejad now says he needs until August to come up with a response to the latest deadline.

David Ignatius of the Washington Post recently suggested that the entente with Iran is as important as Henry Kissinger's secret talks that led to the normalization of ties between President Nixon's America and Chairman Mao's China. "What's needed is a broad discussion of whether the security interests of Iran and those of the United States and its allies can be linked," Mr. Ignatius wrote.

Mr. Ignatius is well-connected enough that his suggestion either reflects current thinking in the administration or will soon be reflected in it.

But is a broad discussion really in order? America is fighting a war against violent Islamic nihilism. Iran has cornered the export market on the Shiite variety. If the Bush administration can't figure out that a regime which sends Saeed Mortazavi to a U.N. Human Rights parley will not link up with our long-term security interests, then something's wrong. It's time for Mr. Bush to have a chat with his counterpart in Ottawa.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

Seems to me when the US takes action, it's blamed for not exhausting diplomacy, and when it exhausts diplomacy, it's blamed for not taking action.

I've long held the view that you can point to the roads to peace, you can change people's circumstances, you can endeavor to understand them, but in the end, they must want peace for themselves, knowing what the alternatives are.

-Oppie

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


U.S. Policy Toward Iran


R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Michael Stein Address on U.S. Middle East Policy at The Washington Institute's
Annual Soref Symposium
Washington, DC
May 11, 2006

I want to present to you some thoughts about the way we should look at modern
Iran, the threat it poses to the United States, what we can do as Americans to
confront that threat, and what your government is doing and should be doing
along those lines. And I want to leave plenty of time for a discussion, because
I always find, and I am sure you find, that the best part of an evening like
this is the interplay of discussion, and I welcome that very much.

First a point about the administration of President Bush and Vice President
Cheney and the work of Secretary Rice as we confront the world. I served with
Ambassador Dennis Ross for many, many years. Both of us served in the Reagan
administration. When I was serving in Jerusalem as the American consulate
general, I had a lot to do with Dennis, who used to come to visit. And we
served together in the administration of President George H. W. Bush, and also
in President Clinton's administration.

And it is striking to me to reflect back on those days and what concerned
American policymakers and where issues ranked on the agenda versus today. I
spent the last eight years—before coming back a year ago to take this job—in
Europe as ambassador to NATO, and before then, ambassador to Greece. And I
thought the world after those eight years was all about Europe. And I came back
to Washington. And I saw an administration, and I think a city, and a Congress,
focused in a very different direction as we looked around the world.

Europe is important and is always going to be important, indeed vital to the
United States, because that is where so many of our allies are, in NATO and in
the European Union. But if you think about it this way, if you ten years ago
today would have asked Warren Christopher, then our secretary of state, his day
would have been filled with appointments with Europeans. And his agenda was
focused on the end of the Cold War, of course, and the wars in the Balkans, our
successful intervention in Bosnia a few months before that time, and, looking
ahead, the incipient crisis in Kosovo.

And if you fast forward from ten years ago to today, you look at Secretary
Condoleezza Rice's schedule, it is filled with appointments and issues and
individuals that are all about the greater Middle East. Because American
national interests now are focused on that region, because that is where our
interests are at stake. And that is where the truly vital and forbidding
challenges are to American security.

You think about the agenda we have in the greater Middle East that President
Bush has articulated over the last five years. We have the war in Iraq and the
aftermath of that war, and our attempt, and our mission, which is to support
the Iraqi government, particularly this new Iraqi government, that is just now
taking office, to help it stand up, to help it represent itself in the world,
to deal with the security challenges at home, to ask our friends in the Arab
world to support this government financially and politically, and to [tell] our
friends all around the world—and I see a fair number of diplomats from European
countries and South Asian countries here—it is now time to stand up and support
that Iraqi government. And as the president has made abundantly clear, we are
going to stay in Iraq, and we are going to complete the job that he has asked
us to do, and that we all know we have to do to defend American interests in
that part of the world.

Add to that the fact that we have a major obligation to continue to be the best
possible friend we can be to the state of Israel, and to help Israel negotiate
now with a very difficult partner in the Palestinian Authority, and to help to
make sure that the United States is doing what it has to do to support the
Palestinian people through the provision of humanitarian and economic aid but
not through Hamas, and not to do it in such a way that in any way, shape, or
form could build up Hamas. And that is an important obligation that Secretary
Rice was working on just this week in New York when she met with her Quartet
partners at the Security Council.

And if you think about our broader objectives, we have a generational
challenge, and that is to help plant the seeds of democracy and of reform and
of human rights throughout the Arab world and throughout the Middle East. None
of us are filled with illusions that that job is easy. In fact, it is quite
difficult. But all of us understand that as Americans, we have to represent our
core beliefs in our foreign policy, and one must do that not just in select
parts of the world, like Europe, but in parts of the world where those beliefs
are often under challenge. But because we know they are right and correct, we
have that obligation and we have that historic opportunity to try to represent
democracy and freedom and human rights on a regional basis. And that is what
President Bush said in his second inaugural address, and that is what he has
given us a charge to do.

I also just wanted to say because we have the deputy chief of mission,
Ambassador Jassal of India here, we have new strategic opportunities in the
world looking a little bit further east. And I think one of the largest and
most important strategic objectives of the president's foreign policy is to
seek this new strategic partnership with India. The president was there six
weeks ago. He has articulated a vision of a global partnership between our two
countries. We have put in a very important civil nuclear agreement before the
Congress, and Ambassador Jassal and I have spent a lot of our personal time in
the last six weeks looking at that issue and urging the Congress to approve
this. But we have a major opportunity for the United States to reinforce our
strategic position in South Asia through our new partnership with India, and of
course through our continuing friendship and support for Pakistan as it wages
its very difficult war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

I could go on and talk about all that we are doing in East Asia, which of
course is fundamentally vital to our interests—the newfound American interest
as a national security concern in looking at Africa, the problems of Darfur,
for example. But I just wanted to say at the beginning of this, we look at the
problem of Iran and the challenge of Iran through a different prism in American
foreign policy, a focus that is very much centered on the part of the world
where our ally and friend, Israel, and our friends and partners, Egypt and
Saudi Arabia and other countries, live. And it's important I think to draw this
larger framework around that regional policy. Right now there is no greater
challenge to the United States than to confront this unique threat from the
Iranian government, and particularly from the new and radical regime of
President Ahmadinejad.

We think of it in three ways. There is the challenge that Iran is developing,
without any question, a nuclear weapons capability that if it succeeds in that
venture will be a direct challenge to all of what we are talking about that we
need to accomplish in the Middle East, to our security and the security of our
friends and allies in the greater Middle East region.

There is the challenge of terrorism, and a lot of us who have served in the
U.S. government since the late '70s and early '80s remember that it was Iran
that unleashed this wave of terrorism against the United States beginning in
the early 1980s in Lebanon. And it has not ceased since; Iran continues to be
the central banker of many of the major terrorist groups that are directly
confronting our country, our soldiers, our diplomats, and our citizens, as well
as Israel, Lebanon, and other countries that want to live in peace in the
Middle East.

And finally, there is the challenge of democracy or the lack of democracy and
freedom in Iran itself, and the need for the United States and our European
allies and other countries to be engaged as best we can in a very difficult
environment to help support those in Iran who believe that the future of Iran
should be a democratic future.

This is a quite daunting agenda [for] a country with which we have the most
unusual relationship in the world. It is the only country with which we
effectively have no communications. We haven't had an embassy in Iran. We
haven't had any military officials in Iran since 1979, 1980. And you all know
why. There are very few American citizens living or working in Iran. It is a
country with which we have been out of touch for twenty-five years, for a
quarter of a century. And so imagine trying to craft, as the Reagan
administration did and every administration since, a policy toward this country
with which we have this unique relationship—no effective communication.

We start with the nuclear issue. And we start with the proposition that it is
absolutely contrary to American interests to see Iran acquire a nuclear weapons
capability. And we are determined, as the vice president has said, and as the
president has said, to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons
capability. And what we have decided to do, what we've tried to do over the
last year, is to construct a major international coalition that would unite
around that objective, and that would send a unified and clear message to the
Iranian government that it has got to suspend its current enrichment programs
at Natanz. It has to return to negotiations with the European Union 3
countries, and it has to abide by the obligations that it itself has asserted
it should abide by but does not: of the IAEA and of the United Nations Security
Council.

Until fourteen months ago, the United States had been very far removed from the
international diplomacy concerning Iran. After President Bush's trip to NATO
and to Germany in February of 2005, after his discussions with the French and
German and British leadership, he became convinced that we had to put our
diplomatic weight behind these negotiations—not that we would be directly
involved, not that we would be at the table, but that we would try to help, as
best we could, Germany and the United Kingdom and France to negotiate
effectively with the Iranian government. And from March 11, 2005, until August
of 2005, we did so. I was given the opportunity by Secretary Rice to be the
liaison with the European 3. I made eleven trips to Europe in a six-month time
span to try to help them invigorate their negotiating position and to support
what they were trying to do with the Iranian government.

But then a fundamental event occurred: the elections in Iran, the inauguration
on August 4 of last summer of President Ahmadinejad, and the fact that he and
his government then unilaterally walked out of those negotiations and left the
European 3 after two-and-a-half years with an inclusive set of discussions. And
so in the autumn of last year, we decided that we could not stop our efforts to
try to achieve a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear problem. We began
to talk to the Russian government, the Chinese government, the Indian
government, and others about forming a major coalition that would have two
objectives: to isolate the Iranians diplomatically on this issue, and to begin
to use much more effectively the institutions of the International Atomic
Energy Agency and of the United Nations Security Council to place that kind of
direct pressure on the Iranian government. And that is what we did.

The Russian government stood up in October of last year and offered Iran an
exit strategy, a large exit door. They said that the international community
could not abide the maintenance or expansion of nuclear fuel cycle activities
in the territory of Iran, enrichment and reprocessing, because that might lead
to the production and the scientific and technological capacity of Iran to
produce fissile material and nuclear warheads. But Russia said, "We'll supply
fuel for civil nuclear reactors. And so we'll give the Iranians what they say
they want—what is the stated objective of Iranian policy on the nuclear issue,
a peaceful nuclear power—but will deny [them] the sensitive aspects of the fuel
cycle, which we believe we should not give to that country."

We thought that was a generous proposal, one that made sense. And President
Bush on a trip to Asia in November of last [year] said he supported the Russian
initiative. It was a way out for the Iranian government. It was a way to climb
down from this impossible position that [Ahmadinejad] had taken, that [Iran]
would drive straight through and over the international redlines established by
the IAEA and the UN and achieve an enrichment capability. But Iran did not take
it.

And then that started this latest phase of the diplomatic process: the
concentration of Russian, Chinese, European, and American influence to band
together to take Iran to the IAEA, where it was twice rebuked for having
overridden all of its obligations. I should say that India joined us in both of
those votes. And it was a very courageous step by Prime Minister Singh. He was
the first leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, the G-77, to step outside that
movement and to directly criticize and put the weight of his country behind the
work of the United States and Europe and Russia and China. And in the IAEA in
February, and in the United Nations Security Council on March 29, Iran has
twice been specifically rebuked for having violated its international
understandings.

But what has happened? Iran has not responded to the votes in Vienna or the
votes in New York. Iran appears not to be listening to what the international
community is saying. And so we have determined that of course you have to raise
the level of diplomacy and raise the costs to Iran of this kind of behavior.
And so our European allies last week introduced a Chapter 7 resolution at the
United Nations Security Council. Secretary Rice was in New York earlier this
week for talks with her Russian, Chinese, and European counterparts. And
unfortunately, we were not able to secure the agreement of Russia and China to
support that Chapter 7 resolution.

Now this is a very ordinary resolution. This is not a radical resolution. It
does not provide for sanctions against Iran. And it does not provide for the
use of force against Iran. In fact, it simply asks the members of the Security
Council to restate in the Security Council under Chapter 7 what they have
already agreed to and voted upon in the IAEA: Iran should suspend what it is
doing, return to negotiations, and play by the rules. And so our position is we
are not going to give up on that effort to effectively rebuke Iran through a
Chapter 7 resolution. And you will see Ambassador Bolton, who has been very
effective on this issue in New York, continue his efforts to get this Chapter 7
resolution passed, we hope in the next few weeks.

At the same time, we have agreed with the Chinese and Russian and European
governments that we will develop a package of negative incentives and positive
incentives that will be offered by the Europeans to the Iranian government as
another exit door, as another way out of this crisis. And we expect that
package to be assembled in the next week to ten days. And I think it will
encompass the following initiatives. You will likely see a repeat or a
variation of the offer that Russia made: that Iran of course, as President Bush
has said, has the right to civil nuclear power, but not to the fuel cycle. So
the international community will step forward once again to say to the
Iranians, "If it's civil nuclear power you want, we can all provide that for
you, but under international supervision, and not give you the possibility of
access to enrichment and reprocessing technologies."

And there may be other economic and technological incentives for the Iranian
people in that package. Secretary Rice insisted in the meeting on Monday night,
and we will continue to insist, that there will be a second part of that
package. And the package cannot be whole until both halves are joined together.
And that is a section that will involve penalties and sanctions against the
Iranian government if it does not choose the exit door of the positive
incentive package.

In other words, if we can all agree on this in the next two weeks, the
Permanent Five of the United Nations Security Council, Iran will be offered a
way forward, but it will be asked to choose: "Are you going to cease and desist
from your enrichment activities? If you do, there is a way forward. And if you
do not, there will be a sanctions regime imposed by the UN Security Council."
That is the package we would like to agree to. It has not yet been fully
agreed. It needs to be assembled, and there will be a final discussion of the
current five countries to agree that this is the way forward.

But our view in Washington is that both are important. And while you offer the
hand of peace to Iran, you also have to let the Iranians know that the costs
are going to rise for the fact that they have not responded to either the IAEA
or the UN Security Council. Our president and our vice president and our
secretary of state and our secretary of defense have been completely united in
what we say to the Iranians. We say that as we try to negotiate a termination
of its nuclear weapons program that all options are on the table. And all
options are on the table. And we also say that we are trying very hard to
follow a diplomatic path and to use diplomacy as a tactic to achieve that end.
And you will not see us quit the diplomatic path easily.

I have been surprised—maybe I shouldn't be surprised—by some of the public
reaction and press reaction over the last couple of days. There are a lot of
people saying the real problem is that the United States won't sit down with
Iran and talk to Iran directly. We say to that, we didn't create this nuclear
problem and crisis with Iran. We weren't the country that chose to override the
combined will of the international community. And the problem is not the
absence of regular diplomatic contact between the United States and Iran. The
problem is, directly, the behavior of the government of Iran.

Other people say that diplomacy is too hard and that it cannot work, and that
the Security Council is taking too long. Anybody who knows multilateral
diplomacy—and I spent four years at NATO practicing multilateral diplomacy—
knows that it does take time. It is often frustrating. And you often have to
jump through lots of hoops to get to the place where you want to be. We have
not given up on diplomacy. We have not given up on the proposition that the
combined weight of the international community [could] convince the Iranians to
reassess the cost-benefit of what they are doing in the nuclear field. And we
are determined to use every ounce of our energy and vitality to see that
diplomatic play through to the end.

But the Iranians have to know, and other members of the Security Council have
to know, that we cannot be captive to endless discussions in the Security
Council, and we will not allow ourselves to be captive to endless discussions
there. If at the end of the day we feel that there is no chance of using the
Security Council, multilateral diplomacy, to achieve this purpose, there will
be the opportunity for the United States to associate itself with like-minded
countries to create a sanctions regime, targeted sanctions against Iran, and to
raise the costs on our own. And we are determined to keep both of those
opportunities alive. As you can see, we have been working nonstop for fourteen
months to try to get the attention of the Iranian government and use diplomacy
as a tool, and we have not given up on that prospect.

I would also like to say that we as a country cannot forget one of the other
major grievances that we have with Iran, and that is the terrorism issue. We do
not forget what happened in Beirut to our embassy and to our Marine barracks in
1983, or to Colonel Higgins, who was serving with the UN forces in southern
Lebanon in 1985. And we certainly do not forget, and I believe Dennis and I
were together that day, what happened at Khobar Towers outside of Dhahran,
because we were there just several hours after the blast with Secretary
Christopher and saw what happened to over 30 Americans who were killed and to
300 American military officers who ended up in the hospital.

We know that Iran and the Iranian intelligence services continue to be the one
central organization in the Middle East that funds and directs several of the
major Middle East terrorist groups, including Hizballah and Palestinian Islamic
Jihad. And we ask our European friends and our friends all around the world not
just to focus on the nuclear issue, but to focus on this central issue of
direct Iranian support for terrorism, which is a threat to our ally, Israel,
and a threat to Americans as well.

Finally, some people say that, given the nature of this radical, dictatorial
regime in Tehran, there is not much one can do, or a country can do, or the
world can do, to promote democracy and freedom and justice inside Iran. And,
fortunately, our president does not agree with that. And he has asked the
Congress to help underwrite a major program to make sure that we are supporting
as best we can those people in Iran and nongovernmental organizations and those
people outside Iran who want to see democracy be part of the future of Iran.

We want to see an expansion in the ability of Iranians to travel to the United
States and to study in our country. There may be less than 2,000 Iranians
studying here, versus 200,000 thirty-five years ago. And there is no question
that as we focus on the short and medium term in our policy, we have also got
to have our vision on the long term and care about what Iranians think about us
and what our relationship will be like twenty to twenty-five years from now.
And one of the ways you can do that is to increase societal contacts through
student exchanges. So the president and Secretary Rice have asked Congress for
a supplemental appropriation of $75 million—it is really seed money; it is not
a great sum of money—to help begin to underwrite those programs and also to
expand our ability as a government to broadcast twenty-four hours a day, seven
days a week, our Persian-language, Farsi-language TV and radio stations into
Iran itself. Because there is no question that those without access to the
internet in Iran are not getting a fair and balanced view of what is happening
in the world, to coin a phrase.

The last thing I wanted to mention is this: if you think about the estrangement
between our two countries over the last quarter of a century, you will
understand [that] we have skipped an entire generation of American diplomats
and American military officers who have not been asked to serve there, to learn
Farsi, to become experts in Iranian history and culture and politics. And when
Secretary Rice arrived at the State Department a little over a year ago, she
was focused on the question of Iran, and she looked around and said, "Well,
where are my troops? What's my apparatus in this department?" And it turned out
that there were exactly two people focusing on Iran full time a year ago today
in the Department of State. Secretary Rice said, "We've got to do something
about that." And so we have now [created] an Iran desk that is a desk to its
own, that is fundamentally and solely responsible for following events in that
country and being intelligent and sophisticated in interpreting events in that
country.

And we decided that since it is not possible for us to establish a diplomatic
mission in Tehran for obvious reasons, we would do the next best thing: we are
establishing an American diplomatic presence in Dubai inside our consulate, and
we call it "Dubai Station." For those of us who began our careers focusing on
the Soviet Union, our inspiration was Riga Station. During the time between
1919 and 1933 when we did not have diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union,
we established a station in Riga, which was a window into the Soviet Union. We
sent in 1928 a young diplomat named George Kennan to Riga Station, where he
helped to perfect his Russian language and his understanding of the Soviet
Union.

And we do not have the possibility to be inside Iran these days, but we have
the possibility to devote a considerable number of people to serve in Dubai and
to focus on Iran and to make sure that we know everything we can from that
perch. And in addition to that, we have told the Congress that we are going to
set up a number of positions in consulates and embassies all around that region
that will be solely responsible for following events in Iran, talking to
Iranian exiles, and increasing our ability to understand that country.

I would say the Department of Defense has made probably even greater efforts
over the last five or six years in training its officer corps to understand
this country. Dov Zakheim knows that because he was part of this. And the
Department of State now is stepping up to match what our other sister agencies
in the U.S. government have done to increase the ability of our government to
be intelligent in discerning the internal affairs and foreign policy of the
Iranian government.

This is clearly a generational challenge for us. Iran is a strong state. If you
look at the speeches of President Ahmadinejad or of Ali Larijani, the secretary
of the Iranian national security council, this particular Iranian government
aspires to be the most powerful state in the Middle East, the most influential,
and it is certainly trying to expand its influence as we speak throughout the
Middle East. And we talked to our good friends in the Gulf, and neighbors
beyond, and there is a great deal of concern about this latest trend in Iranian
foreign policy. And we are as determined to resist an expansion of Iranian
influence on a regional basis as we are absolutely determined to prevent it
from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, and determined to confront it as
it poses this terrorist threat to the United States.

I wanted to give you just those simple and admittedly quite general views of
about how we view the Iranian challenge, and assure you that we are focused on
it quite intently. And I would say that I hope that you have some confidence
that we have designed a strategy to cope with this threat, but we are going to
need your support and your understanding as we proceed.

I will say to this audience, because I know we have some distinguished Israelis
in attendance, we have had over the last several months two occasions to have
very thorough discussions with the Israeli government, including just yesterday
at the State Department, concerning all aspects of this Iranian challenge. And
we are heartened that the Israeli government sees things pretty much as we do
in terms of the serious nature of this threat. And you all know what President
Bush said about the defense of Israel when Ahmadinejad three or four times made
the outrageous remark that Israel should be wiped off the map of the world. It
is an extraordinary thing that in this day and age any leader—given the way
that politicians and diplomats talk these days—would make such an absurd and
blatant threat against a member state of the United Nations and a friend of the
United States.

We take what the Iranian government says seriously. We listen to what it says,
and we will certainly hold that government accountable for its actions as well
as its words


Released on June 26, 2006

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


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Dear Cyrus,

Seems to me when the US takes action, it's blamed for not exhausting diplomacy, and when it exhausts diplomacy, it's blamed for not taking action.

I've long held the view that you can point to the roads to peace, you can change people's circumstances, you can endeavor to understand them, but in the end, they must want peace for themselves, knowing what the alternatives are.

-Oppie



Dear Oppie,

The answer can be found by US Officials being truthful to liberity without any compromise to Neo colonialist demands ... and also in the conclusion of my 1993 essay:

Cyrus The Great 1993 short Essay wrote:

URL:
http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=169

"Even if we compare Cyrus the Great with political leaders of our time he still achieves highest rank. One of the key attributes of Cyrus the Great was his fight against cruel rulers while not becoming a blind expansionist.

We would admire Cyrus the Great more when we see domination of Machiaavelli philosophy in our time around this globe. The Italian political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) is notorious for his blunt advice that a ruler interested in maintaining and increasing his power should make use of deceitfulness, cunning, and lies, combined with a ruthless use of force. Machiavelli principal fame rests upon his book "The Prince"(a handbook for dictators). The Prince may be considered a primer of practical advice for a head of state. The basic point of view of the book is that in order to succeed; a prince should ignore moral considerations entirely and depend upon strength and cunning. Machiavelli discussed history and politics in purely human terms, and simply ignored moral consideration. Unfortunately Machiavelli is considered to be one of the principal founders of modern political thought. In chapter 17 of The Prince, Machiavelli discusses whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared: "The reply is that one ought to be both feared and loved, but...it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting ...for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purposes, but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails." Often, the most denunciation came from those who practiced what Machiavelli preached- a hypocrisy of which Machiavelli might approve, in principle! Therefore we should not judge politicians by their words but by their hard and difficult choices, actions, and great sacrifices.

Because of all the above reasons and high moral and ethical values Cyrus the Great scored the highest rank among all the greatest world's leaders both in ancient and modern times. Therefore Cyrus the Great may be said to be among the greatest political leaders of all time throughout human history.

The study of Cyrus the Great and establishment of his ethical Persian empire some 2500 years ago is a good indication that in our time the concept of world order based on ethics, ethical state, peace and harmony among nations are not an impossible goal and illusion. In this century the most fundamental and essential ingredients of an evolution towards these goals are democracy, freedom of _expression, freedom of choice, freedom of religion, cultural toleration, human rights, political feedback mechanism, open trade policy, and open communications among people in this globe. The ethics of life are the pursuit of awareness for ourselves and others. The ultimate goal is total awareness. Ethical Government is a means of achieving that goal by raising man to a higher state of total awareness. Ethical leaders can lead men toward Ethical Government and Society, which can lead man to total awareness. To increase man's power is always ethical. However, only men who use power to expand awareness are ethical. Men who use power to diminish awareness are unethical.


The following new Book that I have read the abstract shares my conclusion in 1993:
Quote:

Xenophon's Cyrus the Great : The Arts of Leadership and War (Hardcover)


Lessons in Ethical Leadership from an Epic Tale of Success, May 22, 2006
Reviewer: Larry Hedrick "author and editor" (Seattle, WA USA) - See all my reviews

As the editor of "Xenophon's Cyrus the Great," I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you a little more about my version of this amazing ancient classic. The foremost management guru of recent times, Peter F. Drucker, read my manuscript before it was published, and he wrote this endorsement for use on its dust jacket: "'Xenophon's Cyrus,' the first book on the subject, is still the best book on leadership." Here's just a touch of background: Cyrus, the founder of the Persian empire, was an enlightened monarch who flourished 2,500 years ago. A century later, Xenophon of Athens so admired Cyrus' methods that he preserved them in history's first full-fledged treatment of wise and heroic leadership. This book presents its leadership lessons in the context of an epic story--the story of a vast power struggle. In narrating the events of Cyrus' life, Xenophon shows you, the reader, how to conduct meetings, become an expert negotiator, deal efficiently with allies, communicate by appealing to the self-interest of your followers, encourage the highest standards of performance, insure that your organization has the benefit of specialists, and prove that your words will be backed by your deeds. In recounting the achievements of Cyrus the Great, Xenophon wanted above all to provide lessons in ethical leadership, for he was convinced that honest, moral leaders succeed far more often than corrupt and evasive types. The result was a captivating leadership classic with unique qualities--a classic that's distinguished both by its suspenseful story line and the priceless advice that it offers to today's business professionals and leaders in all walks of life.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312355319/102-8905245-2751308?colid=&coliid=&n=283155
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice essay Cyrus,

I think I once said at one point that I thought Cyrus The Great was a man centuries ahead of his time. I think I need to revise that a bit and make the observation that he seems more like a man, "out of time" to the era he lived in.

It is as if one might imagine a 21st century man (with all his awareness of this age) were to have been deposited back in time 2500 years.

Given the tools he had to work with in his era, it is most amazing to review all the man accomplished in a single lifetime. It would be daunting for any leader in any age, let alone in the bronze age.

As to accomplishing these things, not just socially, but things like digging the first Suez canal (completed after his death I believe) , which required the sustained mobilization of people with their willing support. And for that matter, the very conceptualization of it as a means to create greater economic strength through trade via a more efficiant rout for shipping is totally within the vision of modern ( let's say from the industrial era forward as such) nation building.

I tend to agree that as far as creative genius goes, he's definately at the top of the list in recognising and capitalizing on the social potential of "individual rights". And the implementation was the act of creating form from chaos in the times that he instituted the Persian Empire, as it is now commonly refered to as history.

As to the guiding moral compass of leadership, I think you'll find in many instances in various cultures, leadership of comparable moral character over the ages.

What in all of this I find most striking, and troubling example is the fact that many of the institutions he created in Persia didn't "take" , or weren't sustained, if you will, much beyond his lifetime.
This is not so suprising really because for institutions of democracy to become "tradition" requires generations to properly mature.
This was what I meant in my letter to Condi Rice in saying that "Democracy is not a finite destination, it evolves."

The legacy of Cyrus the Great teaches a lesson that is essential to today's transformational world, and that is while it is indeed possible to stand up a democracy, (including by changing people's circumstance-as in Iraq and Afghanistan-the colored revolutions...) It is altogether a different animal to create sustainability and social integration of new structural elements governing society to the point where democratic ideals become the new "status quo".

(especially where it involves changes in current cultural traditions to accomodate a democratic structure)

It teaches also the fragility of democracy in its inception, until it becomes solid enough to withstand the ebb and flow of dissent and opinion and heated debate, yet not resorting to the law of the gun to resolve dispute.
Then it finds its strength in diversity and inclusiveness, reconciliation and justice by rule of law and arbitration, freedom of expression as a means of public checks and balances on exceesses of government, as well as the debate of ideas as the basis of law as ratified by the people in constitutional referendum.

Cyrus went far to achieve these things, yet centuries later, the people of Persia have only the memories of a civilization long past to draw pride from, as IRANIAN, and that is a true tragedy for all, not just the people of Iran.

I think it shows too that freedom is never free, and must be vigourously observed, and defended.
Tommorrow being my nation's independence day, I wish for all those in Iran seeking liberty from tyrany Godpeed in celebrating your own AZADI NOROOS.

This struggle may incorperate the joint struggle of nations to confront and remove the source of your troubles, as they themselves act in their own collective self interest to restore global peace and security.

This is far away a different mindset than that of the colonial era, and my only request of people is that one not go forward into the future burdened by old cold-war ideas of global hegemony as being the intent of nations today as it regards either the people of Iran, or its current government...as separate and non-compatible entities.

I don't know if most Iranians appreciate the game of poker, or the fact that the US has said "put up or shut up." by calling Iran to lay its cards on the table.

(since the wager of global peace has a full pot on the table)

We'll see who has a "winning" hand.

Cyrus the Great didn't achieve what he did without taking risks, or pissing a few folks off in the process, and that will be the case in seeing a free Iran become manifest, but then this begs the question, " where's Cyrus today when we need him, and who'll stand up in his stead?"

Batabi?, RP?, someone not even Iranian to lead the charge to freedom?

I don't know, but I tell you one thing to take heart in, and that's the statistical fact that in the last 5 years that Bush has been US president, 110 million people world-wide have joined the ranks of the free, under something called democracy.

"Democracy is the worst form of government ever invented by man, save all other forms."
-Winston Churchill


Aye well, Shakespere should have noted that all the world's an audience as well the stage, and all the people, critics as well as players.


.....chuckle...


I think you'll note I illustrated in my letter to Ms. Rice the "hump" if you will, that the US/EU must get over with the Iranian diaspora, in my reference to a great deal of mistrust given the results of past policy of various nations ( the "under every mullah's beard...." reference....)

Let me just put it this way...I think that realization of old-school thinking no longer being viable has been factored into the multilateral approach taken by nations today.

Now having stated that, I base it on observational analysis over time.
It is far easier for a non-democratic, non-transparent rougue regime to have a "consistant" global policy than it is for a group of nations , bound by democratic principals and transparent global policy (as being accountable to its actions) who must dialogue with each other to arrive at consensus to make a collective decision on any given issue.

It can be described in it's most dysfunctional state as diplomatic cluster-f^*k.

But somehow by simple recognition of the possibility of it becoming that, folks have striven to achive something almost unheard of in modern times (and certainly impossible in the cold-war era) of the consensus of the US, Russia, and China on a single issue of global concern.

In the last five years you have the "Quartet" (UN< US<EU<Russia)
The 6- party talks with the DPRK (North Korea) including China, the US, Russia, South Korea, Japan.
Russia/ NATO dialogue
US/Russia Nunn/Lugar expantion to secure fissile material in former Soviet Union states , as well as Russia (program initiated in early 90's)

Now one may rightly ask, "How's all this this get me a free Iran?"

Well, a pattern of working together has been established, if it hadn't, you wouldn't be seeing the EU stand firm in its demands of the IRI, you wouldn't see Russia and China demanding in chorus with the US for a swift answer to the offer proposed, nor the unity of purpose in putting the IRI to the test in the first place.

Again I say you don't have long to wait for things to manifest, the regime will either choose a path of peace, or one leading to another possibility which has its own permutations of probability for how a free Iran is to become manifest.

Folks in the media have compared this with Iraq, and I beg to differ on some fundemental points, namely that there won't be a foreign state sponsor of terrorism trying its best to destabilize a post-regime IRAN, as the IRI is doing today in Iraq.
Al Quaida and affiliates, perhaps. Iranian Hezbollah, most certainly, as the die-hards of terrorism will do exactly that.....die a hard death.

IRI has reportedly equipped two to three brigades of Bassiij with heavy weapons to quell unrest.

No, I don't believe the regime will go quietly into the night, nor come to the table having agreed to take up where it left off prior to their unilateral resumption of enrichment and reprocessing last summer ( as if they ever did stop....for one second).

The fact is the IRI can't go to a full unrestricted IAEA inspection regime. It can't suspend its activities, or halt its "nuclear progress" or by doing so become the laughing stock of nations...in its own mind.

Antar would be eating every word uttered in the last six months over the nuclear issue, lose credibility....as would the other principal entities controling the IRI machine.

How are they going to deal with the 50,000 terrorist wannabe martyrs they recruited who've now suddenly been shocked by the grim reality that the regime itself is making deals with the "Great Satan".

MMMMmmmmm, what comes around may come back around.

Diplomaticly , the regime is a cornered rat, and it knows it.

And go figure if in the end force is deemed necessary, how long does one suppose the regime would last against the combined capability of the US/ NATO/ Russia/ China armed forces, acting in coordination?

Aye Cyrus, indeed it would be a short lived thing.

In the meantime, there's a whole set of coersive methods ( including those suggested from various quarters of the Iranian opposition) that may be implemented prior.

And unless I start to see one heck of a circus act performed in the Guiness Book of World's Records diplomatic backflip required of the Iranian government, you'll be witness to something you probably will need to pinch yourself to believe is happening....

Hopefully it will work out for the best, but there are no guarantees in uncertain times.

Hope you are well,

Oppie
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 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 7 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