[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 

Main Reasons For Bush Failure: Dr. Rice Détente With Taazi
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  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
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 8:28 pm    Post subject: Radical Iraqi cleric said to be in Iran Reply with quote

Radical Iraqi cleric said to be in Iran
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer

The United States knows for certain that radical Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is still living next door in Iran, a senior State Department official said Friday, disputing aides to the anti-American religious and political leader.

"We know he's out of the country, we don't (merely) think" so, said David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's top adviser for Iraq. "He's in Iran, which is where he has been since mid-January."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 3:35 pm    Post subject: blind looser Reply with quote

Breakthrough with Mullahs and Scorpions are just the illusion by blind looser for delay tactics....

US, Iran to hold breakthrough meeting on Iraq
by Jitendra Joshi
Sun May 13, 11:45 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States and Iran plan to hold landmark talks to thrash out security in war-torn Iraq, but will steer clear of the Islamic republic's nuclear ambitions, officials said Sunday.

The talks "in the next few weeks" are likely to involve Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Baghdad, and an Iranian delegation, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

President George W. Bush had authorized the dialogue "because we must take every step possible to stabilize Iraq and reduce the risk to our troops, even as our military continue to act against hostile Iranian-backed activity in Iraq," Johndroe said
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 3:24 pm    Post subject: Turkish Secularism on the Ropes Reply with quote

Turkish Secularism on the Ropes

By Robert Spencer
May 23, 2007


Turkish secularism is gravely threatened, and millions of Turks are deeply concerned that their country could become an Islamic state. The secularist Republican People’s Party (CHP) and Democratic Left Party (DSP) have combined forces to try to stop the ruling AK Party, amid widespread fears that the AKP intends to destroy the secular foundation of the Turkish state. Turkish citizens have demonstrated in three immense pro-secularist rallies: 500,000 people demonstrated in Ankara, almost a million in Istanbul, and a million and a half in Izmir.

For Complete Story Please Visit The Following URL:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 10:22 pm    Post subject: Pound Nails, Not the President Reply with quote

Dan Thomasson wrote:
Pound Nails, Not the President

May 27, 2007
Dan Thomasson

Of all the criticisms Jimmy Carter shouldn't be making, the allegation about President Bush's foreign policy shortcomings tops the list. He should not need to be reminded that it was his botching of the Iranian hostage situation that helped get us where we are today.

While few would disagree about the president's failures in Iraq and Afghanistan and his inability to bring key European allies into the mix, only a brief glance at history will tell us where this whole mess began.

But then Carter has been in denial about his role almost since the last vote was cast for his successor Ronald Reagan in 1980, leaving him to search for vindication by sticking his nose into every international crisis from Haiti to the Middle East in an ultimately successful campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize.

The former Navy officer turned politician turned peanut farmer turned politician can claim credit for winning a detente between Egypt and Israel that was no small achievement. He also is a nice man whose bitterness over what he felt was an unfair rejection by the voters finally spewed out in his ranking of Bush as the biggest Oval Office lunk head in history when it comes to overseas affairs and his slandering of British Prime Minister Tony Blair as a toady, breaking the rule about former presidents not speaking ill about the current holder of the job.

When Carter left office his ratings were as low or lower than Bush's, dipping into the 20s for job approval on a series of domestic and foreign policy blunders that left U.S. prestige abroad in a shambles and turned Iran into a theocratic state that fosters and finances terrorism and still does. His misguided stances included canceling U.S. participation in the Moscow Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, a silly protest that accomplished nothing and hurt only the American athletes who had trained for years.

But the capper, of course, came when he withdrew U.S. support for the ailing shah of Iran, a Western educated, pro-American monarch who had kept radical Muslims in line and provided stability throughout the area. This sometimes required what Carter saw as repressive measures by the shah's dreaded secret police. So, what does this born again Georgian do? He helps unleash one of the most regressive radicals in modern history, the Ayatollah Khomeini, on Iran and the world. The secret police were amateurs compared to the oppressiveness this creature brought with him from exile in Paris.

The cleric, whose religious ideology was right out of the 11th century, then warned his benefactor not to permit the dispossessed shah to get medical treatment in the United States. That was too much even for Carter who ignored the edict. The ayatollah then gave his young militants the go-ahead to storm the American embassy, holding 52 hostages and making the U.S. a laughingstock for more than 444 days while Carter dithered, afraid of the consequences of military action.

He finally OK'd an improbable plan for rescue but quickly abandoned it when a helicopter crashed killing nine of the team. The nation's wimp image, along with his, was certified.

Meanwhile, the new Persian dictators turn their attention to promoting anti-Americanism throughout the globe and establishing a rogue state about to reach critical mass with its nuclear development. At the same time they have tried, not unsuccessfully, to feed the insurgency in Iraq with financing and roadside bombs.

That Carter seemed to retreat a bit in normal political fashion after his remarks caused the White House to bite back, calling him "irrelevant,'' which under the circumstance seems mild albeit correct. He said he was speaking in a context that was misunderstood. Right. Actually, he has been openly critical of Bush in the past without eliciting a response from the White House.

Taken together, the mistakes in Middle East policy would fill volumes. But Carter, who cultivates an image of fairness and integrity, should understand better than anyone that our current problems have been a long time in the making, dating back to his own bad judgment. It probably is time for him to restrict himself to pounding nails in houses for the poor.

Dan Thomasson writes for Scripps Howard News Service

Pro Hezbollah Islamofascist Appeasers In Past 28 Years Who Helped Fascists
1) President Carter as Green Belt Islamofascist Strategist and founder of Khomeni Islamist maddness in the name of National Interest and Human Rights betrayed US Moral values and principles for Free Society and Secular Democracy by helping Islamic Fascism.
2) Brzezinski as Green Belt Islamofascist Strategist in the name of National Interest and Human Rights betrayed US Moral values and principles for Free Society and Secular Democracy by helping Islamic Fascism.
3) EU3, Russia, China and Japan
4) Kofi Annan (UN)
5) ............

All the above accused of betraying the cause of liberty and tried to appease tyranny, Islamist Terrorism (September 11 … ) and for not supporting Free Society, Secular Democracy and for Not Defending UN Human Rights Charter Aggressively .
How do they plead and with what guilt score mark (0 to 100) ?”

Possible appeasers crime examples: support of détente. Détente, a French word meaning “relaxation,” was used during the Cold War to describe a policy approach that was supposed to “ease tensions” between the superpowers. Its detractors—including Soviet dissidents—saw it as a euphemism for appeasement. In Iranian case the G8 Détente with Islamofascist regime in past 27 years for short term financial gains from Islamofascist regime corruptions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very Happy While there are 5 hostages in Tehran, Rice stop short of begging IR to
become friends.
Rice Says Iran Must 'Change its Tactics'

May 31, 2007
Thomson Financial

VIENNA -- Iran must change its nuclear tactics and agree to freeze uranium enrichment, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today. 'I think it's time for Iran to change its tactics' of defying UN resolutions to stop enriching uranium, Rice told reporters in Vienna.

She was speaking as Iran's top negotiator Ali Larijani and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana were set to meet in Madrid in an attempt to lay the groundwork for international talks on Iran's nuclear ambitions.

'The international community is united on what Iran should do and that is to suspend, to demonstrate that it is in fact not seeking a nuclear weapon under cover of civil nuclear power,' Rice said at a press conference at a women's meeting in Vienna on the Middle East.

Rice repeated the US position that if Iran stopped enriching uranium, which makes reactor fuel but also atom bomb material, the United States would be ready to join multiparty talks on trade, security and technology benefits for the Islamic Republic.

'If Iran is prepared to take that course, then we are prepared to change 27 years of American policy and sit with Iran to talk about whatever Iran would like to talk about,' Rice said.
(note how Human right abuses is all of the sudden disregarded!!!)

Iran is defying two rounds of UN sanctions imposed to get it to halt uranium enrichment. Iran claims it has a peaceful nuclear program and has the right to make nuclear fuel under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But Rice said talks could not start 'when Iran continues to pursue, to try to perfect technologies that are going to lead to a nuclear weapon.

'So as I said to you before, the question isn't why won't we talk to Tehran, the question is why does Tehran not want to talk to us,' Rice said.

Well, could someone please explain to the state secratary what has been going on for the past 28 years!!!!!
Marze Por Gohar Party
Iranians for a Secuar Republic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:56 pm    Post subject: THE SYMBOL OF HATE FOR ANYTHING HAS TO DO WITH MULLAH'S! Reply with quote


As long as this guy is roaming free in Iraq. The world must forget peace and stability in Iraq. Currently he has received his marching orders from Mullah's in Tehran.

His job is to start a major armed uprising in Iraq with his Iranian Mullah financed and armed Al- Mahdi Militia. The world will be a much safer place without this guy around.

Our repeated message to the Coalition;

How much more carnage, death and destruction the region has to endure in order to reach the same conclusion we have indicated for many years?

Talking to bunch of killer Mullah's is useless. The world has seen the result. Still wish to continue? At what avail?

It is time to empower the people of Iran for the regime change.

Remember when the entire Iranian opposition in exile was telling the world Mr. Al Baradei, is an apologist for the Mullah's? Finally, the G-8 has reached the same conclusion?

It was so obvious Mr. Baradei is retained by the Mullah's to buy time for them!

Still rather listen to paid Mullah apologists hiding in the ranks of academia and posing as "Iran Experts" and their bogus analysis?

These traitors are more than happy inform you, their bosses wish. Take off the regime change option from the table and submit to the will of Mullah's!


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

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:11 pm    Post subject: U.S. Policy: Back to the Future Reply with quote

U.S. Policy: Back to the Future
By Michael Rubin
Posted: Monday, June 4, 2007

Aspenia (June 2007)
Publication Date: June 4, 2007

Resident Scholar Michael Rubin
On January 20, 2005, after President George W. Bush took his second oath of office, he delivered an address in which he laid out his vision for his second term. In his speech, he reiterated his intention to tie U.S. policy to be the promotion of freedom and democracy abroad. "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 your liberty, we will stand with you," he declared.[1] Many European commentators were aghast. Robin Cook, the former British foreign secretary, wrote in The Guardian, London's left-wing flagship, that "On the very day when the president set forward his mission to bring liberty to the world, a poll revealed that a large majority of inhabitants believe that he will actually make it more dangerous."[2] The conservative Daily Telegraph questioned whether Bush's "ringing encomium of freedom" could survive Iraq.[3] Spain's El Pais, Germany's Die Tageszeitung, and Austria's Die Presse all expressed concern. Sueddeutsche Zeitung observed, "The whole world is seeking an answer . . . to the question of whether George Bush will really be a changed president in his second term."[4]

There were many policy remedies short of abandoning democracy to which a stronger leader in the White House might have directed diplomats.

They need not have worried. Rather than forward his agenda, Bush's foreign policy team reversed it. On June 20, 2005, speaking at the American University in Cairo, Secretary of State Condoleezza called for multiparty elections. "The Egyptian Government must put its faith in its own people. We are all concerned for the future pf Egypt's reforms when peaceful supporters of democracy--men and women--are not free from violence. The day must come when the rule of law replaces emergency decrees and when the independent judiciary replaces arbitrary justice."[5] But, less than a year later, the Bush administration remained silent as Egyptian police imprisoned Ayman Nour, President Hosni Mubarak's election challenger, on spurious charges. Then, as Egyptian security forces in May 2006 rounded up hundreds of demonstrators rallying in support of two judges who had alleged fraud in parliamentary elections, Rice did not express outrage. Washington remained silent as Mubarak cancelled municipal elections.[6] On October 3, 2006, Rice stood next to Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit at a press conference and, in her prepared remarks, neglected even to mention democracy.[7] Egypt is not the exception, but rather the rule. The Bush administration has abandoned reformers and dissidents across the region, from Iran and Saudi Arabia to Libya and Tunisia.

Election Shock

While the Bush administration does not acknowledge publicly its policy reversal--a lack of candor which undercuts its credibility at home and abroad--the White House and State Department reversed course on the democracy agenda following the combined shock at Muslim Brotherhood gains in the November and December 2005 Egyptian parliamentary elections and the Hamas landslide in the January 25, 2006, Palestinian poll. As Hamas celebrated its victory the following day, supporters rushed the parliament building and replaced the Palestinian flag with a green Islamist banner, symbolically subordinating institution to party. Ismail Haniya, who would soon assume the premiership, rededicated Hamas to violence. "Our fighting is only with the Zionist enemy," he said.[8]

Such events shocked Washington. Prior to their election, there was broad consensus not only among those supportive of Bush's democracy agenda, but also those opposed that the most radical Islamist fringe would not benefit from elections.[9] The logic that a foreign policy prioritizing stability contributed to the dynamics culminating in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks was and remains compelling.

After the Hamas victory, many in foreign policy establishment reversed course. Rather than examine faulty implementation and a rush to elections, they advocated abandoning Bush's democracy agenda altogether. This is unfortunate. Analysts long expected Muslim Brotherhood gains in Egyptian elections, if only as a response to Mubarak's corruption and dictatorship. Many Egyptians may have preferred a liberal opposition party to the Islamist alternative, but did no serious alternative existed. This in itself was in part a result of traditional U.S. stability policy. For years, the U.S. diplomats allowed the Mubarak regime to veto any aid projects which might benefit an independent political base.

There were many policy remedies short of abandoning democracy to which a stronger leader in the White House might have directed diplomats. Many policymakers had questioned the rush to elections, and the failure to uphold standards for participation.[10] In the Palestinian, Lebanese, and Iraqi elections, U.S. and United Nations officials did not object strenuously to participation of those political parties which maintained armed militias. It was a mistake. In each case, political leaders used their militias to intimidate voters or perpetuate fraud. Rather than abandon democracy, Rice might have corrected the standards used to legitimize election participation.

Flawed election design has also empowered extreme elements of society. For Iraq, U.S. officials had the choice of two election systems: A nationwide, proportional representation system based on party lists; or a constituency based systems in which Iraqis would elect officials for specific districts. Rice and Coalition Provisional Authority administrator L. Paul Bremer chose the former in order to simplify the process. Iraqi party leaders assembled their election list, from which one member would enter parliament for every 0.4 percent of the vote which the list received. Aspiring politicians, therefore, became more accountable to party leaders than constituents. Rather than debate practical issues such as restoration of basic services, education, or security, party leaders amplified populist sectarian and ethnic agendas.

Ideological Aversion

To abandon democracy as a goal was not a huge leap. While Bush had committed himself to democratization, even in his first term, the policy never took firm hold. The White House announced initiatives with great fanfare, but implemented relative few.

Many of those implementing Bush administration policies expressed indifference if not disdain for his policies. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for example, while mislabeled a neoconservative by many European commentators, was ambivalent to democratization. He directed his staff, for example, to replace the term democracy with representative government in every memo directed to his office. The difference is important, for the latter could include benevolent autocracies which co-opt factions, or states which pursue the Lebanese model of sectarian quotas.

Foreign policy specialists do not abandon opinions when they enter government service. Indeed, their debate is a critical part of the interagency process that shapes policy. Where the Bush administration differed from its predecessors, though, was in the weakness and disorganization of his National Security Council. Established by the National Security Act of 1947,[11] the National Security Council coordinates policy across agencies. Under Rice's stewardship, the Council neglected to resolve many open policy questions. Under both Rice and her successor Steven Hadley's stewardship, the Council failed to impose discipline to ensure that various agencies implemented those rare policy directives upon they or the President had ruled.

While most presidents populate their National Security Council with officials loyal to their agenda, White House chief-of-staff Andy Card decided early in Bush's first term to trim the National Security Council budget through reliance on secondement of career employees whose salaries other departments paid. With few exceptions, the Pentagon opted out of this scheme, because Rumsfeld frowned on the idea of paying anyone who did not directly serve his department. Accordingly, Rice staffed the Council with State Department and Central Intelligence Agency employees. Many made little secret of their disdain for the Bush administration. Prior to the 2004 elections, senior National Security Council officials resigned to work for Bush's election opponents.

Within the State Department, there was as much disdain for Bush's agenda. Just a year after Bush included Iran in the "Axis of Evil," Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called the Islamic Republic a democracy in an interview with The Los Angeles Times.[12] One senior diplomat serving in Baghdad told his British colleagues that he thought Bush and his polices to be stupid. Bush subsequently nominated the man to be ambassador to an Arab country important both as a subject of democratization and as an ally in the war on terror.

While Rice spoke often of democracy while national security advisor, it was not difficult for her to abandon the policy upon her move to the State Department. The traditional foreign policy establishment disliked the Bush emphasis on democracy. Outreach to dissidents makes tenure in diplomatic postings difficult. Many diplomats seek to avoid rather than instigate tension between their embassy and host government. At its root, their attitudes touch upon a philosophical divide among foreign policy professionals: Should embassies represent the U.S. government to entire countries or just their governments? Those who believe the latter focus attention on relations with ruling regimes rather than upon opposition groups and civil society.

Rice's staffing reflected antipathy toward democratization. Her Policy Planning Director Stephen Krasner placed Suzanne Maloney, an Exxon Mobil official who had deferred an earlier employment offer because she preferred to work in a Kerry administration, in charge of the Iran portfolio. Maloney used her position to veto expenditure of much of the $75 million which the Congress allocated to support democracy in Iran. In an April 2007 interview against the backdrop of the Islamic Republic's seizure of 15 British hostages, her husband told an Iranian paper, "America also has to forget the hopeless policy of regime change, as well as the $75 million budget for the opponents of the Tehran government."[13] Rice also appointed Nicholas Burns her undersecretary of state for Policy, the same position promised him by the Kerry administration. After Robert B. Zoellick stepped down as deputy secretary of state on July 7, 2006, Rice sought to promote Burns, but the White House personal office vetoed his nomination.

Future U.S. Direction

So where does U.S. Middle East policy stand? Iraq continues to consume U.S. attention. When ethnic and sectarian violence did not subside, opponents of democratization blamed the reform agenda. Regardless of whether democratization is to blame for exacerbating violence in Iraq, neither the White House nor the State Department can pursue a proactive democracy agenda so long as violence and instability continue there.

Events dictate policy. Violence in the West Bank and Gaza, and the threat of renewed instability in Lebanon also constrain U.S. diplomacy. Despite pledges to form a united front, Hamas and Fatah are today in a state of civil war. In Lebanon, too, Hezbollah holds stability hostage. Hezbollah's cross-border attack on Israel on July 12, 2006, sparked a month-long war which underlined both regional instability as well as Iran's growing regional influence.

Diplomats and many administration officials have suspended the push for reforms and re-embraced the short-term stability afforded by current leaders. Perhaps nothing symbolized this more in Washington than Vice President Dick Cheney's decision to receive Gamal Mubarak, the son of the Egyptian ruler and his anointed successor.[14]

The State Department will pressure for a breakthrough on outstanding issues in the Middle East. This is less a sign of an ideological reshuffle than conformity with the actions of second term administrations. It was during Ronald Reagan's second term that he and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev pursued rapprochement. Clinton had three goals as he neared the end of his presidency: To achieve a comprehensive Palestinian-Israeli settlement, to re-establish relations with Iran, and to normalize relations with Vietnam. That he succeeded only in the latter was not the result of lack of effort, but rather because reality intrudes upon the best of intentions.

The desire of Rice and some of Bush's handlers for a high profile success upon which to stake Bush's legacy is not enough to overcome the diplomatic problems which have hampered earlier solutions. Rice may want to revive the Palestinian-Israel peace process, but to do so mandates Palestinian abandonment of terror.

Nor will rapprochement with the Islamic Republic be easy. Many presidents have tried. Radical students seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran three days after U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met Mehdi Barzargan, the Islamic Republic's first prime minister to discuss resumption of full relations. While most Americans remember the Reagan-era Iran-Contra scandal for the illegalities of circumventing Congress to fund the Nicaraguan resistance, it was also an attempt to build trust and enable reconciliation with Tehran. The Iranian government embarrassed Madeleine Albright in 2000 when the Iranian Foreign Minister failed to show up for a private meeting arranged with the Secretary of State on the fringe of multilateral talks over Afghanistan.

While Rice may want to renew attempts at engagement, they have little chance of success. The Iranian leadership believes the Bush administration to be weak. Just four days after Rice expressed U.S. willingness to hold bilateral talks with Iran, Supreme Leader 'Ali Khamenei responded, "Why don't you just admit that you are weak and your razor is blunt?"[15] Nor is there any indication that the Iranian government will respond positively toward engagement on issues important to Washington such as Iran's nuclear program and its support for terrorism. Between 2000 and 2005, European Union trade with Iran nearly tripled while, at the same time, rising oil prices bolstered the Iranian treasury. Rather than moderating, however, the Iranian government spent up to 70 percent of the hard currency windfall on its nuclear and military programs. While some officials may hope for a Kissinger-to-China moment, sometimes reality intrudes.

Even if the Middle East stabilizes, the push for democracy will not return.

Nor is Bush necessarily willing to make the sacrifices which Kissinger did. In his 1975 attempt to win Iran-Iraq peace, Kissinger sacrificed the Iraqi Kurds. Undercutting his diplomacy with Beijing was a willingness to abandon Taipei. Neither Bush--nor the foreign policy establishment--is willing to abandon Israel for peace with the Palestinians, abandon Lebanon for peace with Syria, or abandon Iraq for peace with Iran. Diplomats may seize upon the Saudi initiative, but in both Washington and in Riyadh, the attempt has more to do with embracing the optic of engagement rather than in substantive diplomacy. The Saudis are more interested in repairing an image soiled by the Kingdom's past funding of al-Qaeda terrorism than in breaking new ground in the peace process. They know insistence upon the Palestinian right-of-return to Israel proper as a prerequisite will go nowhere. It would mean the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, a price unacceptable everywhere except, perhaps, in some West European capitals.

Even if the Middle East stabilizes, the push for democracy will not return. Rice lacks strong beliefs, and prefers celebrity to purpose. Many of the staunchest proponents of Bush's democracy agenda have either resigned or abdicated their positions. But declarations that the purge of neoconservatives equates with a long-term return to realism do not hold water. There is no sign that Bush has abandoned his desire to support democrats and dissidents. The president may still believe his own rhetoric, even if his trusted aides do not. The result is a muddle, not a strategy, one which Iran and its proxies will be happy to exploit.

Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at AEI.


1. "President Sworn-In to Second Term." Office of the Press Secretary. The White House. January 20, 2005. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/250120-1.html

2. Robin Cook. "Fireworks in Washington, despair around the world." The Guardian (London), January 21, 2005. Pg. 28.

3. "Bush must sort out Iraq if he is to keep his promises." The Daily Telegraph (London), January 21, 2005. Pg. 29.

4. "European press review for Friday 21 January." BBC Monitoring, Caversham, January 21, 2005.

5. Condoleezza Rice. "Remarks at the American University in Cairo." U.S. Department of State. June 20, 2005. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm2005/48328.htm

6. Jeffrey Azarva. "Reneging on Reform: Egypt and Tunisia." Middle Eastern Outlook, April 2007. http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25873/pub_detail.asp

7. Condoleezza Rice. "Remarks with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit after Their Meeting." U.S. Department of State. October 3, 2006. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/73525.htm

8. "Hamas calls for international pressure on Israel." Agence France Presse, January 26, 2006.

9. See, for example, discussion of Ray Takeyh and Nikolas K. Gvosdev, The Receding Shadow of the Prophet: The Rise and Fall of Radical Political Islam (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2004), in Daniel L. Byman, "How to Fight Terrorism." The National Interest, Spring 2005.

10. See, for example, "Debate: ‘Democracy is about more than Elections,'" Middle East Quarterly. Summer 2006. http://www.meforum.org/article/983

11. Public Law 235-61, Statute 496, U.S. Code 402; amended in 1949 by 63 Statute 579; 50 U.S. Code 401 et seq.

12. Robin Wright. "U.S. Now Views Iran in More Favorable Light," Los Angeles Times, February 14, 2003, pg. 5.

13. "Ray Takeyh: A time to be conciliatory with Iran." Hamshahri (Tehran), April 5, 2007.

14. Peter Baker. "Mubarak's Son Met with Cheney, Others." Washington Post, May 16, 2006. Pg. A4.

15. Speech at Behesht-e Zahra, Islamic Republic News Agency, June 4, 2006.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:23 pm    Post subject: Charlie Rose - An hour with General David Petraeus Reply with quote

Charlie Rose - An hour with General David Petraeus

56 min 40 sec - Apr 26, 2007
Average rating: (14 ratings)
Description: An hour about Iraq and the challenges we face in the country with the Commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq, General David Petraeus.

Want to see more cool videos?
Go to video.google.com/

Think you have an even cooler video?
Add it at video.google.com/videouploadform

If you're having trouble watching the video, try copying the following URL into your browser:


Gen. David Petraeus has a great potential to become successful because he has accepted the problems and this should become a lesson for President Bush Admin to accept mistakes and give up on non secular democracy.

Non secular Iraqi gov with some members are connected to Mullahs, is the biggest joke of our time and failure.
WASHINGTON Apr 26, 2007 (AP)— Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, depicted the situation there as "exceedingly complex and very tough" and stated that he has not seen anything as bad as Iraq ….

I Trust words of American Generals with high code of ethics more than some of elected officials who are connected to many interest groups that they are working against National Interest of American people....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:05 pm    Post subject: General: Iran aids Karzai, maybe Taliban Reply with quote

U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill commander of the NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan speaks during an interview with the Associated Press in Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, June 11, 2007. McNeill, the commander of 36,000 troops in NATO's International Security Assistance Force, said in the interview that the indications cut both ways. There is 'ample evidence' Iran is helping the Karzai government, particularly with road construction and electricity in western Afghanistan, he said, but he wouldn't doubt Iran may have also helped the Taliban and other political opponents of Karzai. (AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq)


General: Iran aids Karzai, maybe Taliban

1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_as/afghan_iran

KABUL, Afghanistan - Iran gives political and material support to President Hamid Karzai's Western-backed government, but it also may be aiding the Taliban as a way of hedging its bets in neighboring Afghanistan, NATO's top general here said Monday.

In an interview with The Associated Press, U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill said Taliban fighters are showing signs of better training, using combat techniques comparable to "an advanced Western military" in ambushes of U.S. Special Forces soldiers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:09 am    Post subject: THE KEYSTONE TO THE BUSH LEGACY: IRAN Reply with quote

Posted by George Mason on Thursday, 14 June 2007 at 09:52 wrote:
« Why Are We Letting Islam Exist?

Thursday, 14 June 2007


The Executive Branch of the United States of America government has an unenviable track record regarding Iran. It spans the administrations of Jimmy Carter and EVERY president through to George W. Bush. It is "uneviable" because it is a moral travesty. Every president from Carter on has acted with moral cowardice toward Iran, and that includes the mighty Ronald Reagan. However, none has done worse than George W. Bush.

Iran was more talk and less blood, although secretive and bloody since the Khomeini regime. Nothing could have emboldened it more than getting away with seizing the American Embassy and holding its personnel hostage for 444 days. Khomeini et al correctly read Jimmy Carter as a spineless weakling serving his own narcissistic needs at the expense of America. For a short while, Iran feared Reagan. After the Embassy bombings in Lebanon and the 12 October 1983 massive slaughter of U. S. Marines, followed by Reagan's tucking tail and running, they knew they were home free. Everything they suspected about the moral quality of American leadership was verified.

When George Herbert Walker Bush took the immoral position he did regarding the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, Iran knew that moral leadership at the top in America was a thing of the past. GHWBush gave up on principle. Clinton was, well, Clinton, and not worth talking about other than saying he was the poster child for American decadence in the eyes of the world. That Clinton was allowed to get away with it so chronically, so easily showed that the moral rot in the Executive Branch also ran through the entire Legislative Branch. To Iran, America was finished as a moral power, and that was their license to turn the evil up to full force.

Iran still knows that we have a mighty military, even if we have a mini-mouse leadership. We can take them back to days of Ali without much trouble. However, under George W. Bush, they have come to know that no one in power in America has the balls, if you will pardon the expression. The leader with the smoothest perineum is George W. Bush.

Bush's ineptness seems to know no bounds, and America benefit just by the act of his leaving office. He will leave an incredible mess behind, a mess in so many areas. His greatest mess will be his actualization of Iran.

It is worth citing again the jewels in his crown:

1. Following the events of 11 September 2001, he became an Islamic suckup who dared not go after perpetrators to seek justice and put an end to rising Islamic terrorism.

2. He fumbled the Afghanistan campaign thereby allowing bin Laden and entourage to escape into territory owned by his friend and ally, the Muslim dictator of nuclear Pakistan.

3. Instead of going to the source of most of the Islamic trouble, Iran, he went after Saddam, thereby tying up our military and assets so that we could not go after Iran and its client state of Syria.

4. His ineptness guaranteed failure in Iraq and assured no good way to get out.

5. He allowed Iran to go nuclear and to intimidate the USA, among other states, because he lacked the knowledge and principles to see the truth and act on it.

6. He became a sycophant for Saudi Arabia, the other major sponsor of Islamic terrorism.

7. At home, he defaulted on his presidential requirement to uphold the laws of the USA which included protecting us from an influx of terrorists and other illegals across our borders. His Homeland Security department became just another inept bureaucracy, and we know that Iran-sponsored terrorists are in place in America. They had only to walk across the unguarded border. Bush saw to that.

8. He expanded the size, the oppressive reach, and the colossal costs of government which will severely hamper Americans for the rest of the 21st century.

Iran elected a Hitler to join the religious Hitlers already running Iran. Iran has seen fit to go for broke to become a nuclear nation and to create as much trouble as possible to become the Middle Eastern Nazi Germany. Now, they are about to set up a terrorist state in Gaza, from which they can attack Israel and Egypt, among others. Iran has no hesitation about declaring its intentions to kill Israel, and Israel seems so cooperative with Iran by retaining the Israeli George W. Bush as their leader, Olmert.

Iraq will dissolve into a Gaza whether we stay or leave. Looking at the likely successors to George W. Bush, whether Democrat or Republican, whoever takes over will be another Bush-Olmert.

Bush's legacy includes being so totally hated abroad and at home. He is a loser, and that is the big reason he is hated so much at home. He truly has an anti-Midas touch that turns everything he tries into manure. He is hated abroad because he is such an inept weakling, who looks and acts dopey, and has no idea how to act as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. He neither commands respect, nor, more importantly, DEMANDS respect.

No, around the world, America will not be liked so long as mentalities like those who populate the nations of the United Nations exist, so being liked is not an option. Who cares anyway? The bastards should respect us, and Bush's behavior simply made the barbarians, semi-barbarians, and the Euro-weaklings see the clay feet and spinelessness.

When other countries watch us turn squishy before countries like Iran, and when leaders of Iran act like they have the moral high ground, we get what we earned. We, the citizens of America, hate it, but we have lost control of our government and have let it use us for door mats. We, then, must live with the crap our leaders dish out to us daily, unless we decide to get off our pathetic derriers as responsible citizens and take back our country, and put in good leadership.

When Bush leaves office in approximately one and one-half years, he will have ensured that Iran will be the tail wagging the American dog. He will have ensured that Iran will be so full of itself that it will attack more and more interests of the West and will make a raw power grab for Iraq. Then, Iran will have Iraq on the eastern side of Israel, Gaza on the western side, and Lebanon and Syria to the north, with a bunch of loud-mouthing, directionless Sunni states milling about chaotically and impotently in between. Expect capitulation from that dishrag that runs Jordan as well.

Bush will have made certain that China and Russia make sure that Iran becomes nuclear, with weapons, because they read Bush for what he is, and there is nothing they want more than to bring America to its knees and cut off its head.

Bush will have set the course for America, and the world, for the rest of this century. Its centerpiece will be Iran which has been calling the shots since 1979.

Clinton gave away missle guidance systems to Communist China, but was impeached for sexual peccadillos. Bush gave away America, and he will have walked out of the White House, possible giving himself a full pardon, or at least without so much as a scratch. He will be hated throughout history for just what he is, and his will be another uneviable legacy.

And to think that we are letting him get away with being the most anti-American president, and the most immoral, in history. Think about what that says about us, us Americans.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:55 pm    Post subject: Time for Change in Iran? An Interview with Key Iranian Reply with quote

cyrus wrote:

Source URL and Better Format: http://www.azadeganiran.com/PDF/Time_for-Change.pdf

Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 1 of 6

Defense & Foreign Affairs
Special Analysis
Founded in 1972. Formerly Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily.
Volume XXV, No. 49 Tuesday, June 19, 2007
© 2007 Global Information System. Contact: GRCopley@StrategicStudies.org
Special Report:
Time for Change in Iran? An Interview with Key Iranian
Opposition Leader, Dr Assad Homayoun

Time for Change in Iran? An Interview with Key Iranian
Opposition Leader, Dr Assad Homayoun
Interview. By Jason Fuchs, GIS UN Correspondent. Dr Assad Homayoun is one of the most
significant leaders of Iran’s exiled nationalist opposition, as head of the Azadegan Foundation
(http://azadeganiran.com/), an umbrella organization which supports democratic change in Iran.
Dr Homayoun, who appears regularly on Iranian radio and television — broadcast from abroad —
as well as in the US media, is a former senior Iranian diplomat currently residing in the United
States. He was in charge of political affairs at the Iranian Embassy in Washington DC for 12
years and, just before the 1979 revolution, was Minister and Chargé of the Embassy.
For the past 20-plus years, Dr Homayoun has provided advice and counsel to many opposition
groups in exile. He helped organize the Azadegan movement along with its founder, the late Gen.
Dr Bahram Aryana, who mounted a campaign to topple the clerical Administration in Tehran, but
died in exile. Dr Homayoun earned his PhD in International Relations at George Washington
University in Washington DC, and served as a professor there, as well. He is the author of many
articles on international, Middle Eastern and Iranian affairs including articles for this publication
among others. He is also a Senior Fellow at the International Strategic Studies Association
(ISSA) the parent organization of Defense & Foreign Affairs Publications.
What are the Bush Administration’s options for dealing with the Iranian Islamic Republic?
As far as I know, Washington is looking at several different options: diplomatic negotiations,
sanctions, and war (in the form of an airborne attack, or covert operations aimed at destabilizing
the Iranian Government). None of these will be successful.
The most important weapon at the disposal of the United States and the civilized world is the
people of Iran. The theocratic leaders in Iran is afraid of nothing but the Iranian people. In the US,
generally speaking, you have two groups with respect to Iran. There are the hardliners, who
reserve the military option, and include, most prominently, several Republican Senators, such as
Sen. John McCain (Republican, Arizona), and, most recently, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent,
Connecticut), and also the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney. And there are those in favor of
diplomatic engagement, such as the current Secretary of State, Dr Condoleezza Rice, and the
State Department at large. This group believes that if specific issues with the Iranian Government
can be resolved then perhaps some modus vivendi could be reached between Washington and
This second line of thought stems from the policy suggestions outlined by [former US Secretary
of State] James Baker and [former Congressman] Lee Hamilton in their Iraq Study Group (ISG)
report, which favored engagement with Iran and Syria.
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 2 of 6
Why do you think negotiations between Washington and Tehran would fail to achieve
substantive results?
I don’t think negotiation with Iran will take the US, or the Iranian people, anywhere because it [the
clerical Administration] is not a normal regime. It is an apocalyptic regime whose leadership is in
favor of the advance of radical Islam around the world; what the clerics officially refer to as the
“export of the Islamic revolution”. And so there are no reformists; there are no radicals — not in
the context in which the West understands those terms — in Iran: the “reformists” and the
“radicals” are two wings of the same monster. This monster has terrorized the Middle East since
the so-called Islamic revolution in 1979 that brought Khomeini to power.
The “grand bargain” with Tehran which the US State Department has in mind — a proposal which
David Samuels wrote about in his June 2007 Atlantic Monthly article — will, I suspect, turn out to
be the “grand illusion” because, ultimately, the differences between Washington and Tehran are
not over policy nuances or even the projection of US strategic power in the Middle East. Make no
mistake, Tehran has very serious foreign policy disagreements with the Middle East and is
gravely concerned with the US presence in the region.
The issue, though, is far bigger from the Tehran’s perspective: it is an existential issue; it is a
matter of a civilizational conflict between, as they see it, the secular West and its regional allies,
and “true Islam”, of which they envision themselves to be the vanguard forces. On such an issue,
Tehran will not be able to compromise and so, as I see it, the rift between the theocratic regime
and the US is as wide as the Khyber Pass and cannot be crossed.
Would you say that the US and Iran then are looking at this conflict through very different
prisms, then?
The US foreign policy establishment looks at this as an issue between two nation-states with
differing agendas, and so they look for common ground upon which a foundation for better future
relations can be built. Unfortunately, as far as the Iranian leadership is concerned, this is not a
national issue, per se. They may use nationalism to rally the population, but it is worth
remembering what the regime’s founder, “Ayatollah” Ruhollah Khomeini, told a French journalist
in February 1979. Khomeini was onboard the Air France flight which was returning him to Tehran
from exile in Paris and the reporter asked the “Ayatollah” what he felt upon returning to his
homeland after so many years away. Khomeini responded, “Nothing.”
For him and for the regime he birthed, the issue is not Iran: Iran means nothing to these people,
nation-states themselves are merely a means to an end to the Khomeinists. As they see it, Iran
was and is a springboard for the so-called “export of the Islamic Revolution”, but nothing more.
You mentioned three other options aside from diplomatic engagement and said they were
all likely doomed to fail. What about sanctions? Why do you feel they are not an effective
Sanctions have brought some economic change to Iran, but they will not be decisive because
Tehran will be able to work around them, as did Iraq’s Saddam Hussein during the 1990s. And,
again, as in [the case of] Iraq, the victim will not be the Iranian regime, but rather the people.
Moreover, I doubt that China and Russia will agree to truly comprehensive sanctions against Iran
because, at the end of the day, they do not want to see change in Tehran. Whatever form
sanctions might take, it is important to remember that the pace of Iranian nuclear weapons
development will be — and is — much faster than the pace at which sanctions would take effect.
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 3 of 6
Why will a war, presumably in the form of an air campaign, not prove effective?
There are no good war options. Presumably, the attack would come from US airborne and
seaborne forces, perhaps with US Special Forces coordinating on the ground. One can imagine
that Washington would take aim at Iranian nuclear research installations in Natanz and Arak and
Ishfahan and other places, against leadership targets, and certain select strategic military targets.
The problems with this option are many.
First of all, it is unlikely to achieve its primary aim of stopping the Iranian nuclear weapons
program. The Iranian nuclear weapons development program in 2007 is not like the Iraqi nuclear
weapons development program in 1981. The Iraqi program was, as you know, clustered around
one particular facility at Osirak, making it relatively easy for the Israelis to stop the Iraqi push for a
nuclear weapon in a strike at a single target. The Iranian program is quite different. It is
diversified, it is far flung, and it is redundant: designed specifically to prevent another Osirak.
Thus, even a massive air strike would not stand a good chance of stopping Iran’s nuclear
weapons program. The second problem is that some members of the Iranian leadership are
actually hoping for a US military strike against Iran. There is the belief in some regime circles,
particularly around Pres. Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad and his spiritual mentor, Ayatollah Mesbah
Yazdi, that the Iranian Islamic Republic’s domestic political situation is very similar now to what it
was in 1981. In 1981, it was already possible to see the cracks in Khomeini’s new Iran. Iranians
were beginning to see that this new Iran was not the one they had been promised, and so, only
two years after the 1979 revolution, you saw political unrest and all the indicators that Iranians
wanted change.
This political ferment, this burgeoning anti-regime sentiment, was quickly anesthetized when the
Iran-Iraq war began that year. For while Iranians were fast learning to detest their new masters,
they remained proud patriots, proud nationalists, and were not about to allow a foreign power to
defeat it on the battlefield. And so, Iranians rallied around the flag, as they say in America, and 26
years later they are still stuck with this regime.
Pres. Ahmadi-Nejad and his followers are hoping that a limited US military strike which leaves
them in power will have the same unifying effect and save them at a moment when Iranians are,
as they were in 1981, beginning to unify not for the regime, but against it. It would be a mistake to
force the people back into the hands of the mullahs just as they are again beginning to break ree
of their iron grip. In this respect, a military strike that leaves the regime in power will be laying
into the hands of the very regime Washington would be going to war against.
What if the military operation was conceived on a more massive scale, aimed at removing
the clerical Administration, not just the nuclear weapons program?
Well, assuming the US was willing to make the commitment in terms of blood and treasure to
enforce “regime change” on Tehran, the situation might not look much better. A massive strike
ight have the effect of fracturing the nation, contributing to the disintegration of Iran, which might
very well lead to the Balkanization of the strategically vital region that is the Middle East.
Washington must also be aware that a military strike that endangers the perpetuity of the Iranian
regime could result in serious military reprisals by Iran against Israel and the Persian Gulf states
allied with the US. Such a war could even lead to a tactical nuclear exchange. Big or small, the
military option is simply not a viable one. It isn’t in the American people’s interests; nor is it in the
interests of the Iranian people. It is as Sun-Tzu wrote in The Art of War: “The best victory is when
the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities. It is best to win
without fighting.” This is the sort of victory we should look for with regards to Iran.
You also mentioned covert operations. What might result from such a strategy?
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 4 of 6
To a certain extent, this strategy is already being implemented. Not in earnest, but piecemeal.
There is already emerging a strategy of support for various so-called “anti-regime elements” by
the US through the Saudis and the Pakistanis. The problem with this is the nature of these
ntiregime forces. We have seen covert support through Pakistan for the Baluchi jihadist group
JundAllah. We have seen similar support for Iranian Kurdish militants like Abdullah Mohtadi’s
Komala. We have seen US and also British backing for Arab militants in Iranian Khozestan. And,
yes, these are all virulently anti-regime elements and, yes, they are capable of putting this funding
to use in limited asymmetrical strikes against the regime’s forces as we saw when JundAllah blew
up a bus full of Pasdaran officers last year [2006], but the issue is the following: the only thing the
Iranian people are more afraid of then their own government is that Iran will become the next Iraq;
that Iran will disintegrate into ethnic or sectarian defined entities at war with one another.
The Iranian regime is overwhelmingly unpopular within Iran, but the notion of the proud Iranian
nation being dissolved is universally unpopular. And so, when Washington or anyone else
supports groups that define themselves by their ethnic or sectarian banners, the Iranian people
fear that this will only lead to the dissolution of their homeland, not its long-overdue liberation.
Thus, such steps are counterproductive. Iran is just like a Persian carpet with different colors,
different designs, but all a part of the same carpet: just like Iran, one nation, indivisible. Those
who fan the ominous tunes of separatism/federalism are underestimating the resolve of the
Iranian people.
You earlier noted that the most important weapon at the disposal of the US against the
Iranian Government is the Iranian people. What do you mean by that?
The Iranian internal situation is dire, at levels of hardship and suffering unseen in recent memory.
Young people are unemployed; there is 25 percent unemployment nationally, inflation is at 22
percent, drugs and prostitution and hunger continue to eat away at the nation from the inside out
and all of this is because of the mismanagement and corruption of the regime. It is as much a
kleptocracy as it is a theocracy.
A report leaked to ABC News recently revealed a “covert” CIA program to “increase economic
pressure” on Iran. As far as I’m concerned, the Iranian Government does not need the help of the
CIA to wreck the Iranian economy: the mullahs appear to be accomplishing this well enough by
themselves. As the historian E. H. Carr wrote in What Is History?: “Politics begin where the
masses are not thousands, but millions.” Nowhere, then, could politics be more serious than now
in Iran where the people opposed to this regime are, indeed, in the millions. There are close to
50-million young people, possibly more, under the age of 25.
The reality is that the regime is in worse shape than ever, and the people are ready to rise and
need only be galvanized.
What needs to be done to galvanize the people and why have they yet to be sufficiently
galvanized if, indeed, the domestic situation is as bad as it appears to be?
The Iranian people are ready but they need the financial means and the political leadership. Just
like gasoline for a car, without money you cannot move an organization. However, I do not
believe that money from the US Government will be very useful. The Iranian people, since 1953,
are very sensitive to the involvement of US funding in Iranian politics and so I have always been
against receiving money from Washington and, indeed, I have not and never will.
The Iranian expatriate community controls $600-billion to $800-billion outside of Iran, however,
and we need the expatriate community to be energized and active in building a better, stronger,
free and democratic Iran, and to this end some of this wealth could be put to excellent use. In
fairness to them, until now, their support for the Iranian opposition movement has been limited
because there has not been an Iranian opposition organization with the contacts and grassroots
support inside Iran, with the complimentary and necessary support structure outside Iran. And,
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 5 of 6
perhaps most important, an opposition leadership untainted by ties to either the ruling mullahs or
Western governments has not been visible to them.
Where does Azadegan come into this equation?
The Azadegan Foundation is an organization dedicated to change in Iran; change from the
tyranny of theocracy to the liberty of secular democracy. The organization has supporters within
many different social strata in the Iranian political and cultural scene, including members in the
student movement, intellectuals, the noble and proud Iranian Armed Forces and even within the
Pasdaran, which is home to a degree of anti-regime sentiment which might surprise many
observers of the Iranian political scene.
The [Azadegan] goal is removing the clergy from power and preparing the ground for free and fair
democratic elections to let the people of Iran decide their own future. Azadegan envisions a
strong Iran dedicated to peace and stability in the region. We envision an Iran at peace with its
neighbors, including Israel with whom we have no interest in being enemies. Why is Iran an
enemy of the Jewish state? We share no borders with Israel. We have no conflict over natural
resources with Israel. So, then, why is the regime preoccupied with Israel’s destruction while they
allow their own nation to selfdestruct?
How can the regime justify paying the killers of HAMAS and HizbAllah and the Jaish al- Mahdi in
Iraq and even now — as US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns noted last week [early June
2007] — the Afghan Taliban all the while Iranian children go hungry, while Iranians can’t find jobs
to support their families? Instead of paying for schools to be blown up in lands far from home,
should not a truly patriotic Iranian government instead pay for schools to be built up here in our
own home?
So Israel would not be an enemy of a free Iran in Azadegan’s vision?
Absolutely not. History, geography, and culture have always brought the Jewish and Iranian
communities together since the time of Cyrus the Great when he ended the Babylonian captivity
of the Jewish people and allowed them to return to their homeland, modern-day Israel. Israel
knows no greater friend, no truer ally, then the people of Iran.
There is a reluctance in Washington today to deal with exiles and opposition leaders such
of yourself because of what many call the “Chalabi Syndrome”. That is, that after the Bush
Administration’s experience with the Iraqi National Congress (INC) leader, Ahmad Chalabi,
the US Government will forever more be reluctant to work with dissident leaders. How do
you convince policymakers that you are not the Iranian Chalabi?
Ahmad Chalabi received money from the US Government, for one thing. I have never asked for
US Government money and I have never received US Government money. I will never ask for US
government money nor will I ever accept US Government money. Am I friend of the United
States? One hundred percent. And rest assured the US government is well aware of my
activities. However, it is important that I remain untainted. Chalabi could not make a similar claim
as he received money through the CIA and/or DOD throughout the 1990s, particularly after the
1998 Iraq Liberation Act passed by the US Congress. And, of course, Chalabi deceived the US at
the same time he was receiving money from them.
As importantly, I think that people need to understand that just because Washington had a
negative experience with Chalabi does not mean that all opposition leaders from here to eternity
are all bad men with ulterior motives antithetical to their publicly stated beliefs and objectives.
Does this mean that from now on, any leader in exile from their homeland who dares stand
against oppression and tyranny will be tarred as the “next Chalabi”?
Extract from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis
June 19, 2007 Confidential © 2007 Global Information System, ISSA1
Page 6 of 6
Perhaps we should now retroactively apply the same label to earlier dissidents, like Poland’s
Lech Walesa or the Czech Republic’s Vaclav Havel. In light of the Chalabi situation, do we now
need to reappraise them, as well? Of course not. Men like Walesa and Havel were men of
bravery and courage and vision the likes of which our region is in desperate need of today.
Should Washington be discerning in whom it chooses to work with? Absolutely. The American
people, like any people, deserve to have their tax dollars spent in a way that reflects the national
interest. At the same time, it is important not to allow the Chalabi debacle to prevent an
unequivocal American stance in favor of Islamic liberals and Islamic democrats who are
America’s truest allies in its war against Islamist-jihadism.
What is it, then, that you need from the US Government?
From Washington, we ask for clear-cut, unequivocal and vocal support. Washington must not
underestimate the power of words. Words matter. When the State Department meets with their
counterparts of the Iranian Foreign Ministry and speaks with them about Iraq, the message to
Iranians is that lofty rhetoric about freedom for Iran is just that—rhetoric. The message is that
Washington wishes Iranians the best, but that ultimately if Tehran is forthcoming with a deal they
find worthwhile, then the United States will leave the Iranian people to their captors.
The Iranian people must know that the US Government and the American people stand with them
in their quest for freedom. When the President of the United States, the leader of the Free World,
speaks to the Iranian people, on the other hand, and demands they be treated with respect and
dignity, when he demands that they be granted the freedom that only God can give and that
these false “men of God” have stolen, Iranians know that when they stand for their freedom, they
will not stand alone. We know the names of so many Iranians who now languish in Iranian jails
only for saying what they believed, but rest assured there are others who languish unknown. And
it is to that unknown prisoner, that unknown Iranian man or woman or child, who sits alone at
night in his pitch-black cell in Evin Prison, that America and the Free World must shout loud and
clear that even in the dark you are not alone and you are not forgotten and you never will be.

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

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:26 am    Post subject: Sound the Aarm Reply with quote

John Bolton wrote:
Sound the Aarm

June 27, 2007
The Jerusalem Post


'Diplomacy and sanctions have failed," says John Bolton, former top nonproliferation official at the State Department and ex-US ambassador to the UN. "We have to look at overthrowing the [Iranian] regime... or a last-resort use of force," he told The Jerusalem Post.

Bolton's explanation for this critical situation is as straightforward as his description of it. "We lost four years to feckless European diplomacy and our options are very limited... The State Department has adopted the European view and other voices have been sidelined."

Bolton reports that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is "overwhelmingly predominant on foreign policy."

While still inside the Bush administration, he felt "we were watching Europe fiddling while Rome burned." And, he adds, "It's still fiddling."

Bolton was hounded out of office by detractors in the US Congress, largely for his penchant for such frank talk. We do not know what President George W. Bush is thinking regarding what he might do about Iran during his remaining 19 months in office. But based on what anyone can see is happening, who can argue with Bolton's analysis?

Indeed, this is what is most disturbing about Bolton's warning cry; he is not just an observer, but someone who was deep inside the decision-making system for many years. Now he is saying the emperor has no clothes. There is no unseen American strategy that is separate from Europe's defeatist one. There is only America following Europe to failure, to a nuclear Iran.

Over the next few weeks, the US and the UK will be seeking a third sanctions resolution in the UN Security Council, this time with considerably more teeth than the first two. In a recent speech, Nick Burns, the State Department's point-man on the issue, hinted at a possible target: export credits.

"The Europeans had $22 billion in export credits made available to their own companies last year and the year before to stimulate trade with Iran," Burns said. "And we've said to the Europeans, isn't this a little bit contradictory?

"We don't support what the Iranians are doing on the nuclear side or the terrorism front, so there shouldn't be a business-as-usual, commercial attitude on the part of Europeans and the European Union with Iran. We'd like to see those export credits not just reduced, but completely eliminated."

But let's say the US goes for a ban on export credits to Iran and the Russians or Chinese, or the Germans, for that matter, say no. According to the pattern thus far, the US will quietly respond, oh well, never mind.

It is this sort of lowest-common-denominator approach that has led to Teheran's race to nuclearize and brazen support for terrorism in the first place. Iran pushes as far as it can go, and each time it meets with no significant resistance, it pushes harder. How can this cycle be broken?

The US State Department has been loathe to break the unanimity of the sanctions campaign. At all costs, it seems, it will avoid a situation where Iran can claim the West is divided. This approach has a certain logic, but it also has obvious limits. Those limits have been reached.

If effective sanctions are ever to be imposed, those countries that have most vociferously opposed military action - and who have also blocked serious sanctions - must be called to account.

Eventually, the US must be willing to say to Europe, "You cannot trade with Iran and hope to both stop its nuclear program and avoid military action."

The US, together with Europe, must say to Russia and China, you cannot oppose further sanctions and claim that Iran must not have nuclear weapons. You also cannot claim there is any doubt as to Teheran's intentions. And if you do, we will accuse you of aiding Iran's nuclear push, and this will have consequences for our bilateral relations.

In all this, Israel too has a role. Our government must sound the alarm that, in the race between sanctions and Iran's nuclear program, the sanctions campaign is losing. We must say that more incrementalism is not enough; we must skip, right now, to sanctions that can work, not just what is acceptable to Russia and China.

We must also speak of Europe's special responsibility to not stand by as the threat grows - first and foremost against Israel, but against all free nations. Finally, we must warn that the window during which military action can be avoided is closing quickly.

John Bolton should not be alone in sounding this alarm. Israel should be sounding it too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:58 pm    Post subject: Proclamation by the President: Captive Nations Week, 2007 Reply with quote

Proclamation by the President: Captive Nations Week, 2007
Captive Nations Week, 2007


By the President of the United States Of America

A Proclamation

Liberty is the path to lasting peace and the unalienable right of every man, woman, and child. During Captive Nations Week, we underscore our commitment to protecting human rights, advancing democracy and freedom, and ending tyranny across the globe.

Expanding freedom is a moral imperative, and today more people are free than ever before. Freedom is reaching around the world, and America is working side-by-side with new democracies in Liberia, Mauritania, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan. The people of Kuwait held elections in which women were able to vote and run for office for the first time, and the elected parliament is exercising real influence with the government. We continue to stand firmly behind the citizens of Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq as they defend their democratic gains against extremist enemies. Many are making great sacrifices for liberty, and they deserve our steadfast support.

While there is progress in freedom's advance, nations such as Belarus, Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Sudan, and Zimbabwe still oppress their citizens. My Administration recently created the Human Rights Defenders Fund to provide grants for the legal defense and medical expenses of democratic dissidents arrested or beaten by repressive governments. In addition, we have nearly doubled funding for democracy projects throughout the world. The American people believe that the flame for freedom burns in every human heart, and that light cannot be extinguished by governments, terrorists, or tyrants. During Captive Nations Week, we remember that human freedom is the key to achieving respect for all human rights.

The Congress, by Joint Resolution approved July 17, 1959 (73 Stat. 212), has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation designating the third week in July of each year as "Captive Nations Week."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim July 15 through 21, 2007, as Captive Nations Week. I call upon the people of the United States to reaffirm our commitment to all those seeking liberty, justice, and self-determination.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second.


Do you see any issue with this excellent Proclamation by the President for very good cause?
Secularism is missing in the above statement.

Last edited by cyrus on Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:25 pm    Post subject: Gorbachev blasts American 'imperialism' Reply with quote

Gorbachev blasts American 'imperialism'
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev points, while speaking at a news conference in Moscow on Friday, July 27, 2007. Gorbachev laid the blame for the current low in Russia's relations with the West squarely at Washington's door on Friday, saying that the U.S. was guilty of committing 'major strategic mistakes' that had thrown the world into a period of 'global disarray.' (AP Photo/ Sergey Ponomarev )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:02 pm    Post subject: Washington Leadership Bad Mistake Reply with quote

Selling Advanced Weapons to countries that have not been able to establish Free Society, Secular Democracy, Human Rights ... is very bad policy for United States long term national interest .... Washington leadership is making another very bad mistakes to please Arms Sales lobbyist .... Washington officials are forgetting the facts about the origin of 9-11 Terrorists and over 90% of Arabs are against USA .... This is called Milking Strategy without helping Iranian people to change the Islamist regime ....

Due to the facts that President Bush Admin has no commitments to Secularism and very low level of commitments to apply the 5 basic elements in every day decision making process, therefore we should expect more failures. The 5 basic elements: Have a secular democracy, Human Rights, Free Society, Stop Global Warming elements and Support to remove all Religious and ideological based Governments as a main source of creating fear society and Terror in past 28 years (for example no Iran Islamist regime change policy).

The connection Sakharov saw between the violation of human rights and international violence has become increasingly recognized. Scholars find that nations with broad and solid political rights (that is, democracies) have rarely if ever warred on one another. But repression at home often leads to conflict abroad. See this essay (S. Weart) and this Democratic Peace site (R.J. Rummel).

Source: http://www.aip.org/history/sakharov/

Andrei Sakharov (1921-1989) was a Soviet physicist who became, in the words of the Nobel Peace Committee, a spokesman for the conscience of mankind. He was fascinated by fundamental physics and cosmology, but he had to spent two decades designing nuclear weapons. The acknowledged father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, he contributed perhaps more than anyone else to the military might of the USSR. But it was his top secret experience as a leading nuclear expert that was instrumental in making Sakharov one of the most courageous critics of the Soviet regime, a human rights activist and the first Russian to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He helped bring down one of history’s most powerful dictatorships. This exhibit tells about Sakharov’s extraordinary life.

Rejecting Rice's New Cold War Model Plan and Arms Race Based on Simple Rules For Evaluating Policy and Strategy

Our future expectations from policy makers and leadership are defined with new set of test cases for foreign policy evaluation criteria to be able to measure success and failure results more easily. Our recommended test cases and criteria are based on Cyrus The Great Spirit, the American founding fathers vision, spirit of freedom, US constitution and defined as follows:

1- Have a secular democracy purpose
2- Have a Human Rights purpose
3- Have a Free Society purpose
4- Have a primary effect to increase freedom at global level.
5- Have the element of War Of Ideas to expand public awareness, education and expansion of truth.
6- Have an element of Freedom of Choice
7- Applying the U.S.A. Supreme Court accepted "Lemon test," to foreign policy decisions, strategy and conduct. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must: a) Have a secular purpose. b) Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. c) Not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
8- Move towards better unified global fair Justice System.
9- Separation Of Oil and State, Separation Of Blood Oil and Human Rights, Separation Of Blood Oil and Free Society, Separation Of Blood Oil and Secular Democracy and Stop Global Warming.

The Wall Street Journal wrote:

U.S. May Play Weapons Card In the Mideast

July 30, 2007
The Wall Street Journal
Jay Solomon

The Bush administration is intensifying efforts to increase military and diplomatic cooperation with Sunni Arab states as part of its strategy to contain Iran and strengthen the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

To support this policy, the White House is presenting to Congress plans for high-tech weapons sales of as much as $20 billion to Saudi Arabia, while also seeking to enhance the defense capabilities of allies such as Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, say senior U.S. officials. Foreign weapons sales require congressional approval.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates will travel to the Middle East today in an effort to forge consensus among the Sunni Arab and Persian Gulf states to support Washington's broader strategic initiative.

"Regional leaders [in the Middle East] are concerned about Iran. We can work together to contain and deter" the country, said a senior U.S. defense official involved in the program.

The administration's wider initiative won't be an easy sell at a time when many Arab leaders view the U.S.'s stated goals of both supporting Mr. Maliki and deterring Tehran as being at odds with one another.

Saudi Arabia, Jordan and many Gulf nations have expressed concern in recent months about Iran's regional activities and pursuit of nuclear technologies. But they also view Mr. Maliki and his predominantly Shiite government as acting as proxies for Tehran and actively suppressing Iraq's Sunni minority.

Middle East analysts say the Arab states may accept Washington's offer of additional American weaponry but withhold meaningful support for Iraq's Shiite-dominated government. Such a result risks fueling instability in the region, they say, and fanning the historical animosities held between Iran and its Sunni Arab neighbors. Already, some U.S. lawmakers and officials voice concerns about the weapons, finances and personnel flowing into Iraq from many Arab states in support of the Sunni insurgents.

"This dynamic illustrates the contradictions in U.S. attempts to both deal with Iran on the one hand and support Iraq on the other," said Emile El-Hokayem, a research scholar at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a Washington think tank.

The White House is fine-tuning a weapons package for Saudi Arabia that will likely include new air-to-air missiles, high-speed naval vessels and precision-guided bombs, according to U.S. officials. The White House has already begun briefing congressional committees on the proposed sales and is waiting for a formal request from Saudi Arabia's government defining the types of arms it requires. A more formal presentation to Congress is expected in the next few months.

Among the companies likely to bid for Saudi contracts would be Boeing Co., Raytheon Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., which manufacture the kinds of weapons in the Saudi package.

The U.S. is also continuing discussions with other Arab and Gulf states to enhance their capabilities in missile defense and maritime security and is reshaping decades-old military-assistance programs with Israel and Egypt. Under new agreements being discussed, said U.S. officials, Israel could receive $30 billion in military assistance over the next decade and Egypt between $12 billion and $15 billion.

In structuring its arms sales to the Arab states, the White House is seeking to ensure that Israel maintains a "qualitative military edge" over its historically hostile neighbors, a defense official says. U.S. efforts to sell fighter jets to Saudi Arabia have stoked protracted battles in Congress in the past as many legislators have argued the weapons could be turned on the Jewish state. U.S. officials acknowledged they could face a similar battle in Congress over the deal.

Yesterday, however, Israel indicated it would support the Saudi arms deal. "We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states and there is need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran," Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told his cabinet.

In Egypt and Saudi Arabia this week, Ms. Rice and Mr. Gates are also expected to focus on building support for Mr. Maliki.

--Yochi J. Dreazen contributed to this article.


US arms pacts to counter Iran, Syria: Rice by P. Parameswaran
37 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States Monday announced new military pacts worth 13 billion dollars for Egypt, 30 billion for Israel and billions more for Saudi Arabia and Gulf states, in a bid to counter Iran.


Details of the new Middle East military aid bonanza came as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates were poised for a rare joint trip to the region, seeking assurances of help in stabilizing Iraq.

"To support our continued diplomatic engagement in the region, we are forging new assistance agreements with the Gulf States, Israel, and Egypt," Rice said in a statement.

The move will "help bolster forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran," she said.

Rice said before leaving Washington that the United States had agreed a new 10-year, 13-billion pact to bolster Egypt's capacity to address shared strategic goals.

A new 30 billion dollar pact with Israel over 10 years, will soon be concluded, which hikes the value of US military assistance to the Jewish state by 600 million dollars a year on average.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states will also benefit, to help "support their ability to secure peace and stability in the Gulf region," Rice said.

Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns later told reporters in a conference call, the Saudi and Gulf states' component would be "in the billions" of dollars, but said a total figure had not yet been calculated.

Reports have cited potential arms deals with the Saudis and five other Gulf states -- the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman -- worth least 20 billion dollars.


America Refurbishes its Gulf-Red Sea Defenses against Iran Menace

July 28, 2007


Abdullah differs with Bush on Iraq, Palestinians and oil prices

The US Secretaries of State and Defense are traveling together – unusually - next week for a mission weighty enough for the Bush administration to deploy a double-barreled top team.

Built around a massive $20 bn arms deal with Saudi Arabia, it involves a broad boost for US defenses against Iran by means of a three-line deployment strategy across the Persian Gulf and Middle East devised by Secretary Gates.

The system, according to DEBKAfile’s sources, has three powerful components or levels:

The Iraq Level: US forces remaining in Iraq after the withdrawal would redeploy to giant extraterritorial land and air bases located mainly in the central and northern regions.

The Gulf Level: The US would double in size the armies and air forces of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman, and augment its military facilities in the Gulf region by expansion and new bases.

The Red Sea Level: Jordan and Israel military strength would form the backbone of this line supplemented by new American bases.

On April 27, DEBKA-Net-Weekly 298 divulged the plan when it was still on the drawing board:

American military planners are in the throes of an unprecedented modernization and expansion project for the Gulf emirates’ air, missiles and air defense forces, DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military and intelligence sources report.

Its linchpins are the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and sultanate of Oman. At the end of the project, the Saudi air force will be the biggest in the Middle East, nearly the size of Israel’s, and equipped with the last word in avionics, electronic warfare systems and missiles.

The function assigned Saudi air fighters in the integrated US defense program is to take on the Iranian air force in an emergency, and prevent its antiquated, low-performance air force from providing support for Iranian naval forces and Iranian marines and saboteurs, should they attempt to seize territory in the Arab emirates.

Iran is known to command 600 bomber-fighters in operating condition.

They include outdated F-4E Phantom II, F5-E and F-14A Tomcats, French Mirage F-1EQ/BQ, Russian MIG-29, Mig-27, MIG-31 and Sukhoi Su-20, 22 and 25. Iran has produced two homemade models: Saeqeh-80 Owj and Azarakhsh. Iran’s most advanced fighting craft will be the Sukhoi Su-27 when it enters service in late 2008.

The Saudi air force, with 350 warplanes organized in 17 squadrons, is much smaller than Iran’s and not much more advanced. Its backbone of 134 Tornado aircraft includes 48 Tornado IDS. Seventy-two F-15S were added in the second half of the 1990s, joining 41 F-15C/D aircraft which served the Saudi Air Fore from the early 1990s.

Washington plans to double the Saudi combat air fleet, by selling the kingdom front-line fighters, including F-16 C and D and F-15 E - or even possibly the F-22 Raptor stealth plane, to which Israel is strongly opposed, although most Saudi Arabian operational aircraft are piloted by Western aviators, some American.

Another key element in Gates’ Level 2 for the Persian Gulf is the conversion of Camp Justice, the US air facility on the Omani island of Masirah, into the biggest American air base in the Persian Gulf and Middle East. An Arabian Sea island, 65 km long by 18 km wide, Masirah lies close to the Strait of Hormuz and the western coast of Iran.

A western military source in the Gulf also reports that a large increment of Marine forces is to be deployed permanently in Kuwait, which lies 130 km west of the nuclear reactor town of Bushehr on the southern Iranian coast.

End of quote from DEBKA-Net-Weekly.

DEBKAfile adds: Since April 18, when deputy secretary of state David Satterfield met King Abdullah in Riyadh and they went through the list of hardware on sale - marking down the king’s comments against each item - things have changed in US-Arabian relations; so too has the nature of the Iranian military menace hanging over Saudi Arabia, the Gulf and the Middle East.

These changes are marked in four aspects:

1. Washington and Riyadh are at odds on Iraq. In the beginning, the Americans approved of Saudi financial assistance to Iraqi insurgent groups to give them an incentive to pull away from al Qaeda. In recent weeks, however, the Saudis are equally active in undermining the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, calling him an Iran’s agent. This has brought the oil kingdom in direct conflict with the Bush policy.

2. A similar conflict has developed on the Palestinian question. King Abdullah strongly disapproves of US-Israeli backing for the Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad and imposition of an economic boycott against Hamas to overturn its rule in Gaza. The Saudis strongly advocate Palestinian reconciliation, unification of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and acceptance of Hamas as a dominant factor in shaping Palestinian destiny.

3. As oil prices roar towards $80 - and the price of $100 not too far over the horizon - the Bush administration is increasingly critical of Abdullah’s refusal to raise sustained capacity production past its permanent 2.1 million barrels per day. If only Riyadh would relent, they say, world markets would be reassured and demand would cool.

4. Responding to the Bush administration’s Gulf plans for the Saudi air force and Bush’s plan to maintain a post-withdrawal military presence in Iraq, Russian president Vladimir Putin has stepped in with a move of his own: the sale of 250 long-range SU-30MKM fighter-bombers to Iran, as DEBKAfile revealed Friday, July 27.

As acrimony heats up between Washington and Riyadh over key issues, Rice and Gates will have their work cut out next week to talk Saudi leaders round to buying the US Gulf strategy.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly 298 Updated by DEBKAfile Analysts

economist wrote:

Arming its friends and talking peace
From The Economist print edition

In short, a new sort of cold war stalks the region


This week America's secretaries of state and defence kicked off an unusual joint tour of the region with a still more concrete show of commitment to American allies. Over the coming decade, officials announced, America would be supplying them with some $63 billion worth of arms. The package included a 25% increase in military aid to Israel, raising its value from $2.4 billion a year to $3 billion, and a ten-year pledge to continue bolstering Egypt's military with an annual $1.3 billion in aid. More controversially, at least in the American Congress, the deal also included a planned $20 billion in weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the five smaller monarchies that face Iran across the Persian Gulf.

The planned arms transfers, say analysts, are intended to signal that America expects to maintain its role as a guarantor of regional stability, even in the event of a withdrawal from Iraq. Yet, with the exception of the sharp rise in aid to Israel, the big numbers do not amount to much that is really new. America has maintained the same level of military aid to Egypt since 1979, when Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David peace accords with Israel. In fact, the new commitment marks the end of an unwritten rule that divided American military aid to the peace partners by a 2:3 ratio in Israel's favour. Egypt's share will now shrink to two-fifths of Israel's, leaving aside what the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, describes as a “detailed and explicit” promise to maintain the qualitative edge in military technology that Israel has traditionally held over Arab neighbours. And in any case, Congress has moved to condition a slice of aid to Egypt this year on improvements in the country's human-rights record.

As for the Gulf, the announcement of $20 billion in promised arms sales over ten years is plainly intended to scare, or deter, Iran. The sum falls far short of what the Gulf monarchies would likely have spent anyway. From 1990-2000, for instance, Saudi Arabia bought some $40 billion-worth of American military gear. Last year alone, the six Gulf Co-operation Council countries signed defence contracts worth more than $20 billion, half of them with American suppliers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

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