Did an Iranian Spy Clear Tehran of Nuclear Ambitions?

The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran says that Iran did have a nuclear weapons research program until early 2003, but then dismantled it. See Farideh Farhi's excellent discussion of this development at our joint Global Affairs weblog.

There is now a high level of confidence that Iran is no longer seeking nuclear weapons.

This finding reverses numerous statements of George W. Bush to the effect that Iran is frantically trying to get a nuke.

So what convinced the US intelligence community that Iran's weapons program was long ago dismantled?

A prominent Iran specialist is suggesting on a private email list that very likely, it is explained by one name: Ali Reza Asghari.

Asghari had been head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon in the 1980s. He is someone who knows where all the bodies are buried with regard to Iranian covert operations, from involvement in the 1983 attack on the Marines in Beirut, to the training of the Badr Corps (now back in Iraq) and any Iran links to the Mahdi Army. Likewise he was allegedly privy to information on Iran's nuclear research. He rose to be deputy minister of defense. It is alleged that around 2003 he was recruited by a foreign intelligence agency (very likely that of Turkey) as a spy. The Iranian authorities may have gotten wise to him in late 2006, forcing him abruptly to flee to Istanbul in early 2007.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat said around the same time:

"According to anonymous officials who spoke to the Turkish newspaper, ‘Millet’, the Turkish intelligence and police had discovered that Asghari was opposed to the Iranian government and that he holds information regarding its nuclear plan."

Some press accounts say that Asghari was able to bring actual documents out with him about Iran's nuclear program.

So if the Iranians were doing some weapons experiments in 2002 (which itself is not proved), why did they stop?

1. The anti-government Mojahedin-e Khalq terrorist organization, which Saddam Hussein had given a base in Iraq, was able to discover the nuclear research facility at Natanz and to pass information about it not only to Saddam but also to the US. Anything weapons-related was then obviously open to being bombed, and the government may have decided that keeping such experiments covert was too difficult and the possibility of its enemies bombing them too likely, to continue.

2. Having seen what international economic sanctions did to Iraq, reducing it to a fourth world country, the Iranians were afraid of sanctions once Natanz became known. (Gareth Porter suggests that the decision to negotiate with the Europeans was the turning point.)

3. As the US rushed to war against Saddam, Iran's rulers saw an opportunity for a grand alliance with Washington, and they knew that one quid pro quo would be giving up any ambitions to become a nuclear state.

Thus, the Iranian government's decision to drop the experiments at Natanz were probably prompted by a combination of discouragement about the likelihood they could be kept secret and an ambition to do what Libya later did and reposition itself in a less adversarial posture toward Washington.

The Iranians must have been astonished when Dick Cheney shot down their overtures.

Some speculate that Asghari also had information about a secret Syrian missile site, leading to the Israeli strike on it in September.

If the decisive evidence for the lack of any nuclear weapons program in Iran was the documents Asghari spirited out when he defected last winter, then the US intelligence community has had this information for at least 6 months.

So why has the Bush administration continued to rattle sabers at Iran all this time.

Why was Cheney conspiring with Neoconservatives on his staff to convince Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to attack the Natanz facilities, in hopes Iran would over-react and give Bush and Cheney a pretext for doing regime change in Tehran?

Why did the Bushies keep leaking to prominent journalist Seymour Hersh the story that Cheney was planning an attack on Iran?

Why did Bush go so far as to say that World War III could only be prevented if Iran was denied the knowledge of how to enrich uranium?

Cheney and Bush have probably known since at least April that Iran has no weapons program.

I can only speculate, of course. But I believe that Bush and Cheney want regime change in Tehran. Being oil men, they are very well aware that petroleum switched over in the late 1990s to being a seller's market. There was a danger of China doing proprietary deals with Iran (and Iraq and others) that would ultimately deny the US access to the Gulf oil and gas bonanza.

If Iran learns how to close the fuel cycle, it could always make a bomb fairly quickly if it thought that the US was planning an invasion. (If you use centrifuges to enrich to 5% for fuel, you could theoretically keep feeding the uranium back through them to enrich to 80% for a bomb).

In short, regime change by force becomes impossible if Iran has the knowledge of how to make a bomb. And if you can't do regime change by force, you might well not be able to forestall a new Iran-China economic and military axis, in which the US increasingly risks being cut out of the petroleum not only in Iran but in the Oil Gulf more generally.

So from a hawkish Cheney point of view, it is irrelevant whether Iran has a weapons program. It cannot be allowed to develop enrichment capabilities even for civilian purposes.

If China found a way to monopolize Gulf petroleum, the US could be reduced to a third rate power during the next century. That's why Bushco invaded Iraq, and it is why they keep the pressure on Iran. They want to ability to maneuver and to use conventional force if necessary to secure US energy security.

So although the NIE makes it less likely that Cheney can get his way on attacking Iran in the next 12 months, as Fred Kaplan rightly argues, the new finding only postpones the crisis.

Ominously, whereas the Los Angeles Times leads this story with "Iran has no nuke program, U.S. intel says," the hawkish Washington Postleads with "Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb." The WaPo diction (for which poor Dafna Linzer is almost certainly not responsible) implies facts not in evidence. Iran cannot be 10 years away from a bomb if it has no weapons program. It would have to constitute a weapons program and then it would be X years from having a bomb. But the WaPo way of putting it is going to dominate the debate from here on in. Cheney may yet have his way, down the road, by inspiring younger hawks.

Elbaradei: An Attack on Iran would Guarantee that it Gets Nukes

The USG Open Source Center translates an interview in an Argentinian newspaper with International Atomic Energy Agency head, Mohamed Elbaradei, on how to deal with the Iranian nuclear research program. He cautions that a direct military attack would almost guarantee that Iran develops an atomic bomb.


'Argentina: IAEA Head Warns Against Using Force Against Iran
"Exclusive" interview with Mohamed ElBaradei, International Atomic Energy Agency head, by Nestor Restivo in Buenos Aires on 28 November: To use force against Iran could lead it to having atomic weapons. First paragraph is Clarin's introduction. Passages within slantlines are published in boldface
Clarin (Internet Version-WWW)
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Document Type: OSC Translated Text

"I hope that what was done in Iraq will not be repeated. We have all learned a lesson and /I hope with all my strength that the situation in Iran will be resolved diplomatically."/ Egypt's Mohamed ElBaradei, who is now in Buenos Aires and gave an exclusive interview to Clarin yesterday afternoon, is at the center of a storm and is working against the clock. ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is supervising the Iranian (nuclear development) plan, and he is also under pressure from the United States and its allies to harden his stance toward Tehran. Both the United States and Israel have sharply attacked the IAEA report on Iran.

(Nestor Restivo) /Washington was highly critical of you and of UN inspector Hans Blix when you both denied that Saddam Husayn had weapons of mass destruction. Then the United States invaded Iraq. Is this is a similar scenario?/

(Mohamed ElBaradei) In both cases it is our duty to work with objectivity. I hope that there is no parallel (between these two cases) and that we have all learned a lesson. Despite all of our differences, I do believe that everyone sees a single solution for Iran: diplomacy.

(Restivo) /But you know that the military option is on the table.../

(ElBaradei) That would not solve anything. On the contrary, it would delay the Iranian plan but in the end it would not produce a lasting solution and would generate more problems in a region that is already a huge mess, the Middle East. There is no 100 percent guarantee, but we also do not have data indicating to us that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. But we do need an additional protocol about its new facilities.

(Restivo) /Is it helpful for the United States or Israel to be talking about a military option? Why would Iran allow more inspections if they (the facilities inspected) might eventually become military targets?/

(ElBaradei) Diplomacy has more to do with pressures, sanctions, and incentives for good behavior than with force. It used to be said that diplomacy was war waged by other means, but that ended with the UN Charter, which only allows war for self-defense, in the case of an imminent threat, or if the Security Council approves it. The use of force would put pressure on Iran to manufacture nuclear weapons, while right now it does not have large industrial facilities in operation. What Iran has is a nascent and small nuclear enrichment plan. But when a country is threatened it generally ends up with a military system.

(Clarin) ElBaradei, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a man who is highly respected in international diplomacy, arrived in Argentina yesterday. Here he met with President Nestor Kirchner and Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana and praised Argentina's nuclear development program. In the morning he also spoke with three of the media, including Clarin.

(Restivo) /Will there be more in-depth inspections in Iran?/

(ElBaradei) Yes, of course. Iran is a very complex case. For 20 years it developed a secret program and that made the IAEA's work very difficult, as we said in our report. I have insisted that they act with the utmost transparency and cooperation as there has been a loss of confidence in the nature of the program. And that is the key: the crisis of confidence. The most sensitive issue is uranium enrichment, for with enriched uranium it is possible to produce nuclear materials.

(Restivo) /Is Mahmud Ahmadinezhad's government on that course?/

(ElBaradei) We have not found that to be so, but we do not have a 100 percent guarantee. The fact that Iran is working actively on enrichment shows that they do have a program, but they do not have an urgent need as they still do not have a nuclear product. Of course the Iranians say that they should be self-sufficient and independent, that this is a scientific and civilian issue, a matter of technological development, and that this is for exports that could benefit them in the future. But if the IAEA cannot conduct inspections of Iran and prove that all of this is intended for peaceful uses, the crisis of confidence will continue. Nobody is questioning Iran's right. The problem is the timing (previous word in English) for exercising that right.

(Restivo) /What role is the Security Council playing in this? Neither China nor Russia will agree to new sanctions against Iran.../

(ElBaradei) The Security Council has asked Iran to suspend its enrichment program until confidence has been restored. And I have done the same. The more they cooperate and allow us access to documentation and other things, the more we will be able to rebuild confidence. We need what is known as the Additional Protocol, which would give us additional information and access to new sites. This is essential so that we can not only look at the past but also say that "we are now in a position to provide guarantees about the current projects." The Security Council should ask and apply pressure on Iran in order to get it to agree to negotiate and to make it realize that a permanent solution will only come through negotiations.

(Restivo) /Do you have confidence that this will happen?/

(ElBaradei) Yes, tomorrow negotiators from Iran and the European Union are meeting and I am optimistic. The nuclear issue has been a troublesome matter between the West and Iran for 50 years, since the fall of the elected government in Iran in 1953 until now. And not only the West and Iran should be involved in this dialogue, but other countries as well, countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. The sooner some agreement is reached, the sooner we will see prospects for an ideal solution.

(Restivo) /Some US officials like Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice have taken a very tough stance toward you. How do you handle those pressures?/

(ElBaradei) The IAEA's function and its reports are highly technical. But we are also a multinational agency. And diplomacy and multilateralism are two sides of the same coin, so in addition to technical matters I also make use of diplomacy, I try to convince, argue, apply pressure, and use persuasion. Of course, my diplomacy is limited to dialogue, as there is no army behind it. I am indeed the target of pressures, but as long as you know that you have your feet on the ground and are sure of what you are doing, pressures are like Teflon; they do not stick. Moreover, I have gotten used to this, as we have been criticized by Saddam, by Korea, and now by Israel. We deal with extremely sensitive issues and we have to be very careful that we are not pushed in any direction. Everyone listens to us with great attention. This does seem rather schizophrenic, doesn't it? Governments hire us, but at times we make a judgment about them and it is difficult for them to accept the fact that, even though they are paying us, we can still judge them.

(In another report in Spanish on 29 November La Nacion's Paz Rodriguez Niell and Lucas Colonna add: "ElBaradei and Kirchner reviewed the Argentine nuclear plan for peaceful uses and agreed that the tense situation in the international community about Iran's nuclear development, which right now is drawing the world's attention, should be resolved in a peaceful manner.

"'All countries should cooperate to find a peaceful solution for Iran. I had a meeting with Kirchner, and we agreed that a solution based on negotiations must be found,' said ElBaradei.

(La Nacion) /"What is your assessment of Argentina's nuclear agenda?/

(ElBaradei) "Argentina is the only country in the region that has developed the complete nuclear fuel cycle and that is in a position to export nuclear technology, like the reactor that was sold to Australia, which is very pleased with it. Argentina may play a significant role as a possessor of this technology. It could be part of this possible rebirth of nuclear energy, and Argentina and Brazil may be in a position to cooperate by supplying nuclear fuel.

(La Nacion) /"How would you explain the case of Iran?/

(ElBaradei) "Iran is a complex case. For 20 years it developed an undeclared nuclear program underground. The IAEA has told Iran that it should behave with greater transparency about its project because people do not have confidence in the nature of its nuclear program. There has been progress, but we still need additional information. If a country has a nuclear enrichment capability, it is in a position to have the elements needed to produce nuclear weapons. Until the agency is in a position to say that everything in Iran is under its control and oversight, this lack of confidence will continue to exist.

(La Nacion) /"Venezuela has expressed its support for Iran's nuclear development program and is promoting that position in this region. Does that transform it into a country about which additional safeguards need to be applied in nuclear matters?/

(ElBaradei) "Many of the non-aligned nations say that Iran has the right to proceed with uranium enrichment. Nobody is questioning Iran's right; the problem is the moment it has chosen to exercise that right. It does not bother me if any country has a nuclear development project, provided that it is conducted under an IAEA inspection and verification program. It does draw our attention when a country has an enrichment program, for that could provide it with the technological capability to develop nuclear weapons. Venezuela has no reactors. It has a right to have them, provided that they are under this agency's supervision. I see no reason to worry about that.")

(In another report in Spanish on 29 November Clarin's Natasha Niebieskikwiat adds: "Official sources told /Clarin/ that in Buenos Aires ElBaradei discussed the characteristics of the report that he has just presented to the IAEA Board of Governors, which speaks of the existence of /progress in Iran's cooperation/ in shedding light on its nuclear program. Although the sources consulted stated that the government had merely noted this, it is known that a distinction is made here between Argentina's bilateral conflict with Tehran over the attack on the AMIA (Argentine-Jewish Mutual Association -- for which international arrest warrants have been issued for a handful of former Iranian officials -- and Iran's nuclear development program. Argentina is a country with a high level of nuclear development, so it is quite sensitive to any restrictions in this field.

"In speaking with the press yesterday, ElBaradei told /Clarin/ that he agreed with President Kirchner that a solution needs to be found for the entire Middle East situation, a solution based on /'negotiations, equity, and justice.'/

"The IAEA official also reported that he had offered Planning Minister Julio De Vido assistance from IAEA experts in monitoring the safety levels of Atucha II. CNEA (National Commission for Atomic Energy) technical personnel have reported that this plant, which is still under construction, uses a design and technology that are antiquated and even obsolete, and which are not in compliance with the international regulations that were put in place after the Chernobyl tragedy in 1986.")

(Description of Source: Buenos Aires Clarin (Internet Version-WWW) in Spanish -- nationalist, tabloid-format daily; highest-circulation newspaper.) '

US Sanctions on Iran

The Bush administration announced wideranging new sanctions on Iran on Thursday, which target three Iranian banks, nine companies associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, and several individuals, as well as the IRGC (roughly analogous to the National Guard in the US, i.e. a populist adjunct to the formal Iranian army).

These unilateral sanctions clearly reflect frustration on the part of Bush/Cheney that they have not been able to convince the UN Security Council to apply international sanctions. (Iran has not been demonstrated to be doing anything that is illegal in international law.)

The sanctions may work but may not. The Dutch Shell corporation is thinking seriously of bucking the US and helping develop Iranian oil and gas production. China is negotiating a big deal with Iran. The world is energy hungry. Iran has energy. The US is a debtor nation, and has gone even more deeply into debt under Bush. It may just not be able to stand in the way of the development of Iranians energy.

The hypocrisy of the Bush case is obvious when it complains about Iran supporting Hizbullah and Hamas. The Kurds based in American Iraq have done much worse things to Turkey in the past month than Hizbullah did to Israel in June of 2006. Yet when Israel launched a brutal and wideranging war on all of Lebanon, destroying precious infrastructure and dumping enormous amounts of oil into the Mediterranean, damaging Beirut airport, destroying essential bridges in Christian areas, and then releasing a million cluster bomblets on civilian areas in the last 3 days of the war-- when Israel did all that, Bush and Cheney applauded and argued against a 'premature' cease-fire! Yet they are trying to convince Turkey just to put up stoically with the PKK terrorists who have killed dozens of Turkish troops recently and kidnapped 8 (again, more than the number of Iraeli troops that were kidnapped). Bush's coddling of the PKK in Iraq is not different from Iran's support for Hizbullah, except that the PKK is a more dangerous and brutal organization than Hizbullah.

Not to mention the US-backed Kurdish front against Iran itself, as Farideh Farhi explains.

Among the more fantastic charges that Bush made against Iran was that its government was actively arming and helping the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. In fact, the Taliban are extremist Sunnis who hate, and have killed large numbers of Shiites. Shiite Iran is unlikely to support them. The neo-Taliban are a threat to the Karzai government, which represents the Northern Alliance (Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbeks) along with non-Taliban Pushtuns. The Hazara are Shiite clients of Iran, and both the Tajiks and the Uzbeks are close to Tehran. The neo-Taliban are being supported by Pakistan, which resents the Northern Alliance, not by Iran, which favors it.

That Iran is trying to destabilize the Shiite government in Baghdad is absurd. The Bush administration charge that Iran is the source of explosively formed projectiles is based on very little evidence and flies in the face of common sense; in fact these bombs are probably made in Iraq itself or perhaps come from Hizbullah in Lebanon.

The charges are frankly ridiculous, and certainly are so if proportionality is taken into account. That is, if one bomb was sold by an Iranian arms dealer to the Taliban for profit, a hundred bombs were given to the Taliban by Pakistan for tactical reasons. Likewise, the Shiite militias in Iraq have killed very few American troops when the US troops have left the Shiites alone; most attacks on the US come from Sunni Arabs.

The Senate Kyl-Lieberman resolution helped legitimize this new Bush policy, which is why the senators should not have voted for it. It took us one more step down the road to war with Iran.

Putin & Ahmadinejad Pledge Cooperation

Farideh Farhi weighs in on the significance of Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Iran, and the frustrations his olive branch to Tehran produced in Bush (who went a little crazy, talking about World War III if Iran gained the knowledge of how to produce a nuclear weapon.)

The USG Open Source Center translates from Russian the joint statement of President Putin and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Highlights include a joint call for a timetable to be set for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq; Russian investment in the Iranian energy sector (which the US opposes and says it would punish by boycotts); further consultations between Iran and the Shanghai Cooperation Council; and a peaceable resolution of the dispute over Iran's nuclear energy research program.

'Russian and Iranian presidents' joint statement
ITAR-TASS
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Document Type: OSC Translated Text

Russian and Iranian presidents' joint statement

Text of report by Russian state news agency ITAR-TASS

Tehran, 16 October: A joint statement has been signed following today's talks in Tehran between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad. Here is its full text.

On 16 October 2007, which corresponds to 24 Mehr 1386 in the Iranian calendar, Russian President Vladimir Putin, at the head of a high-ranking delegation, paid a working visit to the Islamic Republic of Iran on the invitation of President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mahmud Ahmadinezhad. This was the first visit to Iran by a Russian head of state in the whole history of relations between the two countries.

During his stay in Tehran, Russian President Vladimir Putin took part in the Second Caspian Summit, met and held talks with Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i and President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mahmud Ahmadinezhad.
During the talks, which were held in the atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding, the sides discussed key aspects of Russian-Iranian relations and cooperation in various areas, exchanged views on important regional and international issues and reached the following agreements.

1. The sides confirmed that mutually beneficial cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and other areas, as well as cooperation on the international stage, meet the national interests of the two sides and play an important role in supporting peace and stability in the region and beyond.

2. The sides expressed their determination to further contribute to the steady development of multifaceted Russian-Iranian relations, keeping with the spirit and the letter of the Treaty on the Fundamentals of Relations and Principles of Cooperation, which was signed in Moscow on 12 March 2001.

3. On issues of trade and economic cooperation between Russia and Iran, the sides spoke in favour of increasing efforts to further expand economic ties between the two countries, especially in areas like the oil and gas, nuclear power, electricity, processing and aircraft-building industries, banking and transport. Both sides are convinced that the Permanent Russian-Iranian Commission for Trade and Economic Cooperation will make a valuable contribution to this work.

4. Special attention was paid to cooperation in the extraction and transportation of energy resources. The sides agreed to develop direct contacts between the two countries' oil and gas companies in order to sign concrete, mutually beneficial commercial agreements on joint work in all segments of the oil and gas sectors.

5. The sides confirmed their interest in coordinating marketing policies in oil and gas exports, attracting Russian companies to the development of oil and gas fields in Iran, including the Southern Pars gas field, and creating in Iran industrial facilities to produce, store and export natural gas.

6. Both sides confirmed their interest in continuing cooperation in the energy sector, including the modernization of thermal and hydro-electric power plants built with Russia's help and the construction of new ones, including the Tabas coal thermal power plant in Iran.

7. The sides noted bilateral cooperation in the area of peaceful nuclear energy and confirmed that it will continue in full compliance with the requirements of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In this regard they also noted that the construction and launch of the Bushehr nuclear power plant will be carried out in accordance with the agreed timetable.

8. The sides noted with satisfaction the signing of a contract to supply Iran with five Tu-204-100 aircraft. In this regard they expressed interest in deepening cooperation in the area of aviation industry further. The sides support the on-going talks between the relevant organizations of the two countries on the supply to Iran and the production in this country of Tu-334 and Tu-214 commercial aircraft and Kamov civilian helicopters. They also expressed their support for a speedy preparation and signing of contracts on these projects.

9. During their meeting the presidents deemed it necessary to continue work on the creation of favourable legal, economic and financial conditions for joint investment in Russia and Iran. In this context the sides noted the need to sign as soon as possible a memorandum between the government of the Russian Federation and the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the development of long-term trade and economic, industrial and scientific and technical cooperation and an agreement on facilitating and protecting capital investment.

10. The sides agreed to continue work on the development of the north-south international transport corridor, including its automobile, rail and maritime components, in the interest of further strengthening trade and economic ties between Russia and Iran, as well as other countries of the region.
In this regard the sides agreed to speed up the consideration of the issue of resumption of road transport communication between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran through the territory of (Russia's) Republic of Dagestan.

11. The sides expressed their satisfaction with the steady development of regional cooperation between the Russian Federation's constituent parts and provinces of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this regard they expressed confidence that the resumption of operations in the city of Rasht by the Russian Consulate General and the opening of Iran's Consulate General in the city of Kazan, Russia, will facilitate further strengthening of interregional ties between the two countries.

12. The sides discussed pressing regional problems, expressed interest in bilateral and multilateral cooperation in Central Asia and the Transcaucasus with the aim of strengthening stability and security in these regions, including by way of closer cooperation between the countries of the region on the basis of mutual respect and interest.

13. Russia and Iran advocate the development of equal and constructive cooperation between member and observer states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization on matters of mutual interest.

14. The presidents of the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran confirmed the two sides' aspiration to solve all the issues arising on the Caspian Sea solely by peaceful means, through cooperation on equal footing between the five Caspian littoral states. They agree that the relevant norms of the agreements of 1921 and 1940 between Iran and the former Soviet Union remain in force until there is a convention on the legal status of the Caspian Sea.

Taking into account the vulnerability of the environment of the Caspian Sea, the sides call on everyone to refrain from taking steps that could harm the environment, to maintain a reasonable balance between the efforts to develop energy resources and protect the marine environment of the Caspian Sea.

The sides invite the other Caspian littoral states to start talks, as soon as possible, on issues of cooperation in maintaining peace and strengthening security and stability on the Caspian. They advocate the exclusion from the Caspian of military presence of non-Caspian littoral states.

The Second Caspian Summit, which took place in Tehran on 16 October 2007 (24 Mehr 1386), and its declaration - the first political document adopted by the five countries - were assessed as highly significant. Satisfaction was expressed with the Caspian littoral states' positions on key issues of status, security and cooperation on the sea drawing closer to each other.

15. The sides confirmed the understanding of special responsibility of the littoral states for ensuring security on the Caspian Sea, including as regards countering new challenges and threats. In this regard the sides think that the implementation of the idea to create on the Caspian a naval group for operational cooperation (Casfor) would facilitate the elimination of the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of WMD, the fight against illegal trafficking of arms and narcotics and human trafficking and facilitate the protection of the Caspian littoral states' economic interests, the strengthening of stability and security in the region and the development of cooperation and interaction in addressing common tasks. They call on all the littoral states to actively join in this project and start talks on the parameters of their cooperation for this purpose as soon as possible.

16. The Russian and Iranian presidents noted the closeness of Russia's and Iran's approaches to the tackling of key issues of world politics and confirmed their readiness to expand cooperation with the aim of building a fairer and more democratic world order which would ensure global and regional security and create favourable conditions for stable development.

It was stressed that such a world order should be based on collective principles and the supremacy of international law with the United Nations Organization playing a central coordinating role, while any international and regional conflict and crises should be settled in strict compliance with the UN Charter and norms of international law, taking into account the legitimate interests of all the sides involved.

The sides confirmed their refusal to use force or threat of force to resolve contentious issues, and their respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states.

17. The presidents stated that Russia and Iran resolutely condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, confirmed the inadmissibility of equating terrorism with any nation, culture or religion.

The sides spoke in favour of strengthening the United Nations Organization's central coordinating role in the fight against international terrorism and other new challenges and threats. They will closely cooperate in implementing the UN's global antiterrorist strategy, ensuring strict observation of norms of universal antiterrorist conventions, as well as in promoting the soonest possible completion of the process of coordinating the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism.

Being concerned by the ideological expansion of terrorism, Russia and Iran pay attention to the need for a consistent implementation of all the UN Security Council resolutions which condemn terrorism and call for every possible development of global dialogue.

The sides continue their cooperation in the fight against terrorism and other new challenges and threats at the regional level, above all on the basis of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, laying prime emphasis on curbing terrorist and drugs threats emanating from the territory of Afghanistan and creating anti-drugs and financial security belts around it.

The presidents noted the importance of increasing bilateral cooperation between Russia and Iran in the fight against terrorism and spoke in favour of continuing the practice of exchanging views between the ministries of foreign affairs of the two countries on the subject of countering new challenges and threats, making contacts between relevant bodies more active and giving them practical content.

18. When discussing the situation in Afghanistan, the sides expressed their concern over the continued worsening of the situation in that country, an increase in terrorist threats on the part of Taliban and other extremist forces. The presidents confirmed Russia's and Iran's intention to continue to take part in the post-war reconstruction of Afghanistan and are interested in strengthening its statehood and the process of that country becoming a peaceful, democratic, independent and flourishing state.

19. The sides expressed their concern over the difficult humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian Territories, especially in connection with the effective isolation of Gaza Strip.
The presidents noted that the restoration of Palestinian-wide consensus and unity through dialogue is a necessary precondition for the implementation of national aspirations of the Palestinian people, including the creation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state.
The Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran confirmed their adherence to reaching a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement of the Middle East conflict.

20. The sides noted the need to strengthen the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon and maintain national unity, stability, security and peace in that country. The sides support efforts to achieve accord between various Lebanese movements to enable them to make decisions vital for Lebanon, within the framework of the constitution, with the participation of all political forces of the country, without any interference from abroad. The sides believe that this is the only way to take the country out of the present crisis.

21. The Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran expressed vigorous support for Iraq's territorial integrity and sovereignty and for an end to foreign military presence in that country on the basis of the relevant schedule.

Supporting Iraq's government and parliament, which was elected on the basis of the constitution, the sides express hope that inter-faction strife, which negatively affects their work, will be soon overcome through a comprehensive pan-Iraqi dialogue.

22. Acknowledging the strategic importance and sensitivity of the Gulf region, as well as the importance of supporting security and stability there, the sides noted a need for collective cooperation of all littoral states in ensuring peace and security in the region and developing tools to ensure security within the framework of international law.

The sides noted the importance of reducing foreign military presence in the region and drawing up common measures of trust between regional and other states in order to ensure stability and security in the Gulf region.

23. The presidents of Russia and Iran noted the need to settle the issue of Iran's nuclear programme as soon as possible by political and diplomatic means through talks and dialogue and expressed hope that a long-term comprehensive solution will be found.

After the visit to Iran, Russian President Vladimir Putin thanked President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mahmud Ahmadinezhad for hospitality and warm welcome and invited him to visit Russia at his convenience. The invitation was received by the Iranian president with gratitude. The sides will agree on the date of the visit through diplomatic channels.

(Description of Source: Moscow ITAR-TASS in Russian -- main government information agency) '

Iran and Afghanistan

At the Global Affairs blog, Farideh Farhi weighs in on Iranian human rights activist Emadeddin Baghi. She suggests that "it also suggests a shift of approach by Ahmadinejad’s paranoid government from the harassment of well-known human rights activists to their arrest."

Barnett Rubin weighs in on reports of the Afghanistan government negotiating with the Taliban.

And check out David Morse on Sudan at Tomdispatch.com.

Also, Shahid Buttar on Musharraf and Pakistan.

See also Edwin Moise, Iraq Wars Bibliography-- a useful research tool.

Forewarned Is Forearmed: Bush On Iran

Courtesy R. J. Eidelson at YouTube.

Fadlallah: Arab States Should not Allow US to use them Against Iran

The USG Open Source Center summarizes the statements of Lebanese Shiite leader Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah concerning what he sees as an American push to set Arab countries against Iran.

Round-up of Middle East Friday Sermons 5 Oct
Middle East -- OSC Summary
Sunday, October 7, 2007

. . . At 0738 GMT, the news agency carries a report on the Friday sermon delivered by Scholar Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah at the Imams Al-Hasanayn Mosque in Beirut.

In this Friday sermon, Fadlallah says: "A British newspaper carried a news report on training . . . the United States conducts for some of its allies of the Arab states in preparation for a possible war against Iran. This newspaper quoted some Arab officials as justifying this plan by saying that Iran seeks to consolidate itself as a great regional power, something which necessitates cooperation with the United States on the political level, the exchange of information, and the conduction of joint training exercises."

Fadlallah adds: "In light of this, we wonder: Do these Arab states have any interest in participating in the declared US war against Iran at a time when everyone knows that the Arab region's stability and security will not be achieved by the foreign plans which only serve the US strategy of controlling the Islamic region and prevent this region from acquiring means of strength? This is in addition to the fact that if this war breaks out, it will destroy the region and burn all its security and economic resources."

He says: "We hope that these states will resort to logic and reason and not respond to the US plan in this regard, and search for the elements of the Arab-Iranian confidence, taking into consideration that Iran has continued to stress that it seeks good relations of friendship and neighborliness with the Arab states, that it wants to consolidate its economic interests with them, and that Iran's power will not be used against its neighbors, but it is a defense force against any aggression by the United States."

He adds: "The US Administration began to focus on the need to attack the positions of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard instead of the nuclear positions. This is because this administration has failed to convince the US public opinion that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat."

Fadlallah says: "The question is: Why the US, European, and some Arab statements are confined to the Iranian interference in Iraq? Why they do not raise the issue of occupation, which turned Iraq into a state of security and terrorist chaos and economic deterioration and forced a large number of Iraqis to leave their country, something whose danger could extend to the entire region, particularly in light of the US Congress's decision to partition Iraq and to later partition more than one Arab and Islamic state in implementation of the Israeli and arrogant powers' plan to dismember the entire region?"

Fadlallah criticizes the "enemy foreign minister's" statements on the peace conference the US President has called for. On the International Jerusalem Day, he calls on the Arabs to draw a plan "to liberate Jerusalem."

Turning to the Lebanese situation, Fadlallah speaks about "rumors on arming the parties." He says: "The problem in Lebanon is that the political reality, including its leaders and parties, does not pay attention to the fact that there are starving and deprived people who are destroyed in their feelings, concerns, and fears, especially since the people have become addicted to these human idols which they worship and obey blindly."

Ahmadinejad Calls for Saudi Cooperation

The USG Open Source Center has done a report on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's calls for Iran and Saudi Arabia to cooperate in filling the regional power vacuum. The Saudis do not seem eager for such cooperation and in fact have incisively criticized Iran's new role in the region.

Iran: Ahmadinezhad Calls for Saudi Support To Fill Regional 'Power Vacuum'
Iran -- OSC Report
Thursday, October 4, 2007

Over the last month, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has highlighted what he has said is the emergence of a "power vacuum" in the region, and indicated Iran's readiness to fill that vacuum, while encouraging cooperation between Iran and Saudi Arabia to achieve that goal. At the same time, the Iranian Intelligence Minister visited Saudi Arabia to discuss "security" issues, delivering a written message from Ahmadinezhad to Saudi King Abdallah, calling for more regional cooperation to reduce Iraq's "difficulties and bloody tensions." Limited Saudi comment on Ahmadinezhad's power vacuum remarks has been negative. Ahmadinezhad Points to Potential Regional 'Power Vacuum'

Ahmadinezhad first raised the issue of a regional power vacuum in remarks to a Tehran press conference on 28 August.

In his opening statement at the press conference, Ahmadinezhad said: "I announce clearly that the political power of the occupiers is being demolished fast and we shall soon witness a big power vacuum in the region. We are prepared, with the help of our regional friends and neighbors, Saudi Arabia and others, to fill this vacuum in the interests of the region" (IRINN).
Replying to a question by the centrist-daily Financial Times at the conference, Ahmadinezhad said: "Why can't the countries in the region cooperate? I have now announced readiness and let you know that the power vacuum is occurring" (IRINN, 28 August).
Although Iranian officials have stated previously that Iran and other regional countries can ensure regional security if US troops withdraw from Iraq, this was the first time Ahmadinezhad was observed to refer to an "occurring power vacuum" in the region.

A month later while visiting New York for the UN General Assembly, Ahmadinezhad again raised the issue of the need for regional cooperation to fulfill the emerging power vacuum.

In remarks to the National Press Club, the Iranian President addressed what he said were distortions of his remarks by "some media," noting that he had "stressed that the Americans must leave and soon the region would face a power vacuum but Iran, Iraq, (Saudi) Arabia, and other regional countries would fill this power vacuum" (Iribnews website, 24 September). Ahmadinezhad's Special Messenger Visits Saudi Arabia

Iran's Intelligence Minister Gholam-Hoseyn Mohseni-Eje'i also visited Saudi Arabia on 10 September, delivering written message from Ahmadinezhad to King Abdallah and meeting with Saudi Interior and Intelligence ministers.

According to Iranian media, Eje'i, Iran's Intelligence Minister and President's Special Messenger, in addition to delivering the message to the Saudi King, referred to the security situation in Iraq and called for "more effective cooperation between the countries' of the region" in order to reduce the "difficulties and bloody tensions in that country." Eje'i also requested the continuation of Iranian and Saudi officials' cooperation on important regional issues including Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine (IRNA 10 September).
On 11 September, the official Saudi press agency, SPA reported that Eje'i met with Saudi Interior Minister Nayif Bin-Abd-al-Aziz and discussed "security issues between the two countries." Limited Saudi Official, Media Commentary Critical of Ahmadinezhad

Over the past month there has been limited Saudi reaction to Ahmadinezhad's power vacuum remark, criticizing the Iranian President's comments.

The London-based Al-Sharq al-Awsat published a commentary entitled "Ahmadinezhad's Grave Mistake, the Theory of Vacuum Filling." The daily described Ahmadinezhad's announcement as a "new Iranian position" which contained a "dangerous colonialist tune, because it grows and feeds on the sickness of sectarianism" (2 September).

More recently, Saudi Foreign Minister Sa'ud al-Faysal, in remarks to the press in New York, stated: "...We heard the words of President Ahmadinezhad that if there is a void, if America leaves Iraq, they are willing to fill the void," and added: "Such talk is very dangerous and I think it's an unwise statement to make" (Reuters, 26 September).

Iran's Armed Forces

The USG Open Source Center translates an Iranian newspaper article on the combat capabilities of Iranian military forces.


'Article Examines Combat Capabilities of Iranian Military Forces
Article by Ali Ghafuri: "A Glance at the Combat Capabilities of the Iranian Army," page 15
Iran (Internet Version-WWW)
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Document Type: OSC Translated Text


A Powerful Army, Messenger of Peace and Lasting Security

Hazrat-e Ali (peace be upon him): If you want peace, always be prepared for war.

This article does not use classified subjects; it relies mostly on domestic and foreign analyses and military policies.

World atmosphere in the 21st Century is being formed by the logic of force and the military capabilities of countries much more than it was in the middle years of the 20th Century. Unfortunately under such conditions it is only a country's defensive and offensive power that can prevent the aggression of greedy enemies on its soil. Iran is not an exception to this rule. A country with such a political, geographic, and economic position as Iran is now more than ever the target of attention of the big powers, especially the US. There is no other way to deter the enemies from attacking us except to increase our defensive capabilities side by side with active diplomacy. The article that you will read below is written on the occasion of the week of sacred defense. It is written about Iran's military power, and the goal is to inform readers about parts of the country's defensive capabilities. The Biggest Military Power in the Region

Iran's military is one of the three main pillars of the country's defensive power that must, along with the Basij (paramilitary force) and the Guards Corps (Islamic Republic Revolutionary Guards Corps, IRGC), defend 1,648,000 square kilometers of the vast Iranian territory in a region that has not seen peace and quiet in the past 3,000 years. Military officials believe Iran's military, with the largest ground force in western Asia, largest armored units, strongest artillery, and largest number of motorized units, has the strongest fighting force in the Middle East.

This becomes even more important when this large military along with the Basij and the Guards is being run with a small military budget that is one-third of Saudi Arabia's and half of the Zionist regime's military budgets. The head of Iran's armed forces said last year that Iran's per capita defense spending was $106, while this number was $154 for Turkey, $280 for Syria, about $1,000 dollars for Saudi Arabia, and $726 for Oman. Right now Iran's military has all the characteristics of an ultra-regional power. According to all experts, right now Iran's military is much stronger than 1357 (1979) (the year that foreign military attaches left Iran and the Islamic revolution occurred) and at the end of the (Iran-Iraq) war in 1367 (1989).

Two long mountain ranges, Zagros from the northwest to the south and Alborz from the north to the northeast, along with two vast eastern deserts, numerous hills, and small and large rivers have made Iran's military geography such that Iran's ground forces and its special air units and helicopters are able to dispel any plans of ground aggression by the enemy. Iran's geography as compared to countries such as Iraq is like an unpaved road as compared to a six-lane highway.

For thousands of years up until the last failed aggression by Iraq (1981-1988), Iranians have consistently shown that they have stopped all attacks from the west and northwest easily, including 700 years of the Roman Empire defeats and 500 years of the Ottoman defeats. Iranian Military's Ground Forces

The backbone of Iran's military in past years has been its ground forces. As a professional unit, side by side with the Guards and Basij, Iran's ground forces have completed the country's defense circle since 1981. We should not forget that war is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. In the same way that war needs ships, airplanes, jets, and other weapons, it needs men who are the war's steadfast feet; men who will define a different life for themselves on the war front even if it takes years. This is exactly what happened with the men in the ground forces (during the Iran-Iraq war) where, in some cases, they were present at the war front for more than eight months at a time.

The Islamic Republic's ground forces are definitely more ready now than they were in 1981 when they defended against Iraq's 12 divisions with only two infantry divisions in the west and south. Iran's infantry now has tens of experienced divisions with strong commando units and special forces. Some of these units have had at least four decades of experience. Iran's army also uses advanced tanks (built by domestic industries) along with rebuilt Chieftain tanks. Even though the number of Iran's tanks has not been declared, foreign experts and the media have estimated them to number between 3,000 and 5,000. But this number is not definite considering that Iran makes its own tanks, and naturally the numbers stay secret. Of course there is no doubt that Iran has more tanks than any other power west of Asia, even Turkey and Israel. The characteristic of Iranian tanks is their extensive refurbishing after the eight-year war because most of the armies in the world suffer from the age of their armored vehicles. The other quality of Iran's infantry is its capacity for movement. At the Velayat and Zolfaqar maneuvers, domestic and foreign experts witnessed the quick deployment of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and thousands of tanks and personnel carriers over long distances. Infantry's Air Commando Force

Iran's special geographic condition requires a strong air commando force. The capabilities of Iran's helicopter fleet have improved since the decade of the (19) 40s (1960s), and in 1357 (1979) Iran had a large number of Cobra 212, 214, 206, and 205 helicopters. In the first weeks of the war when the Basij, the Guards, and the army's infantry divisions had not yet organized, this force, with its helicopters and of course the martyrdom of many of its personnel, was able to damage Iraq's armored forces and slow them down.

Today with the help of the technical support of defense industries and its own experts, Iran's air commando force has successfully rebuilt itself. Through reverse engineering, it has been able to build new helicopters and most of the missiles and rockets for its helicopters. In an interview that this writer had with the commander of the air force three years ago, he said the capability today of Iran's air commando force is much better than (13) 57 (1979) both in quality and quantity. Iran's Air Force

Even though many foreign experts and even domestic experts think with the US and Europe not helping Iran's air force since 1357 (1979) and the destruction of 70 percent of Iran's fighter jets in the war between 1359 and 1367 (1981-1988), Iran's air force has diminished as an effective force. But the reality is something else. Iran has not forgotten its air force since (13) 67 (1988) because it knows it was the air force that destroyed Iraq's air force (Iraq's air force was rebuilt at least three times during the war) and prevented the bloody attacks of Iraq's armored units. Up until Iranian pilots had jets to fly, they made the atmosphere insecure for the aggressors.

Today the air force, side by side with the Guards' air force, has created a significant attack power. Many experts outside Iran have studied the capabilities of Iran's air force in the past few years and have even considered it a threat to US naval forces in the region. They criticized the US government for scrapping their F-14s from their navy so that Lockheed can sell hundreds of F-18s to this force. They said Iran is the only country in the world that still has F-14s and can be a very serious threat for foreign naval powers. Some critics have even said scrapping the F-14s by the navy was treason to get the percentages from the sale of F-18s. They believe Iran in recent years has used its remaining F-14s from the war and, with the help of the Russians, has created the most powerful interceptors in the region. It can intercept all US jets, such as the F-16, F-18, and F-15, from a distance of 240 kilometers, and, when they cannot even see these powerful jets (the F-18 is able to intercept its target from a distance of 90 kilometers), they can destroy US fighter jets. With support from these jet bombers, attack boats and other Iranian forces can destroy US ships. It seems as if these critics are not exaggerating either because, when American military attaches left Iran in 1357 (1979), Iran was able to use its F-14s on its own and destroy 80 to 100 Iraqi planes with Phoenix missiles. Now Iran has been able to build Phoenix and Sparrow missiles through reverse engineering.

According to Western estimates at the present time, Iran's air force has a considerable number of jets mostly with the army's air force (exact numbers have to be announced by officials). Israeli intelligence and Western sources claim that Iran has the Mirage F, MIG 1, Sokhoy 23, and Toplov 22. Of course the air force in recent years has rebuilt and refurbished F-4s and F-14s and has purchased the MIG 29 ? Sokhoy 24 and thus considerably increased its power. It is able to use more than 10 bases in defending Iran's territorial boundaries.

The power of Iran's air force has increased in recent years to the extent that a while back two Western analysts named Dowlin and Cooper warned the US military about ignoring it. But what should not be forgotten is the value of men and air force pilots who have kept this force on its feet with empty hands and with a budget considerably less than the years of the Shah's rule. We should not forget that in the previous regime billions of dollars were spent on the air force annually and the Shah paid $25 billion to purchase 80 F-14s. In that year each Phoenix missile cost $2 million (the value of the US dollar today is at least one-third what it was in the beginning of the 1970s). Iran's Navy

In the North Sea (Caspian Sea), Persian Gulf, and Oman Sea, the biggest military ships are still from the Islamic Republic of Iran's navy. Some of these vessels are big and well equipped and are able to prove Iran's superiority in these waters. Presently, the army's naval force side by side with Sepah's (Revolutionary Guard) naval force have created a powerful defensive-offensive force using warships, heavy destroyers, small boats, and speed boats.

Iran's Tareq submarines and the smaller Qadir and Nahang submarines are able to target the enemy's big surface ships and prevent several-thousand-ton enemy ships from using their artillery or fighter jets. The Tareq submarine has special power; it can destroy an aggressor ship with its capacity to carry 18 torpedoes.

With its defense industries, Iran's navy can increase its submarines based on its defensive needs. Iran's navy also has tens of warships. Iran has planned in its naval doctrine to move a complete army division with its naval force. This becomes important when we see that our enemies have continuously aimed at aggression against the Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf.

Iran's navy also has well-trained naval commando units that can be deployed to the war front with hovercrafts (the fastest water-land transport). In its battle experience, the army's naval force eliminated Iraq's navy in the Persian Gulf in a matter of three months (Mehr to Azar 59) (September to November 1981). A Glance at the Capabilities of the Army in the Country's Recent Big Maneuvers The Zolfaqar Maneuver

With the great Zolfaqar maneuver last year, the military displayed its power in the air and on the sea and land. On the sea, it displayed its naval power in an area of 250,000 square kilometers from the most eastern point (Gwater Gulf in western Pakistan to Khorramshahr in the western part of the Persian Gulf) with its ships, helicopters, and submarines.

On land, the ground forces redeployed 120,000 people in one day. This means the redeployment of seven to eight army divisions in one day (90 percent of the armies in the region do not even have five army units). Sixteen provinces of the country were covered in these maneuvers, and, for the first time, Iranian soldiers used bullets that pierced bulletproof vests.

For the first time the air force used Saeqeh (thunderbolt) fighter jets made in Iran. This fighter jet, which is similar to the F-5 (a little larger with two vertical rudders similar to the F-18), along with hundreds of F-14s, MIG 29s, F-7s, F-4s, and F-5s, displayed Iran's fighting power. The Great Prophet Maneuver

The Great Prophet maneuver last year was another demonstration to the world of Iran's fighting power. At these operations, conducted with the joint cooperation of the army, the Sepah, and the Basij, Iran demonstrated its power on the sea and land and in the air. Observers believe none of the powers in the Middle East are able to operate so many forces in one maneuver. The Hoot, Misaq, Kowsar, and Fajr missiles in these operations worried the aggressors in the region, especially missiles that are able to destroy any ship with speeds of up to 100 meters per second. Demonstrating the naval capabilities of the army and the Sepah, this maneuver was conducted 40 kilometers from Iran's shores in an area of 100,000 sea miles.

Thousands of commandos and parachutists descended on designated bridges in a short time under heavy aerial and naval fire, while movements of Saeqeh fighter jets with their powerful engines and high maneuverability proved that Iran is able to build fighter jets. A Glance at Some Newly Built Weapons in Iran Toofan 1 and 2 Anti-Armor Missiles

: These missiles, which are used against tanks with heavy armor, can guarantee a 92-percent success rate in hitting their target. In two stages, they penetrate the tank and set it on fire. This missile is similar to the American TOW missile and can penetrate the tank up to 76 centimeters. Thus it is able to destroy an 80-ton American M-1 tank like an egg shell. Toofan 2s are presently used extensively on the military's combat carriers. Kowthar-2 Naval Missiles

: The Kowthar is a smart missile similar to the American cruise missile and can be launched from land or sea toward the target. The military has these missiles, and China has similar ones called the FL-8. Noor-3 Anti-Ship Missiles

: These missiles, which are more advanced than Chinese Silkworm missiles, have a destructive power similar to the Western Harpoon and Exhaust missiles. At the Zolfaqar maneuvers, this missile was launched from an Alvand ship (army's naval force). The range of this missile has been increased to 120 kilometers. Its special characteristic is its continuous change of altitude in such a way that, to escape the enemy's defensive net, it stays at 5 meters below water level at the last moment of impact and only explodes after it penetrates deep into the ship. The Sepah also uses this missile along with the military. Ra'd-4 Anti-Ship Missiles

: Westerners think these missiles are extremely dangerous because their high speed takes away any movement from enemy ships. These 8-meter missiles have a range of 200 kilometers, and the warhead weighs half a ton. Conclusion

Iran's military is a lot like Iran's people. Both are unassuming and do not want war, but, if it becomes necessary, they will put aside their peace loving spirit and defend their country's territory; something they have done for the past 26 centuries. Iran's military has only appeared in its maneuvers in recent years and has always tried to act within the framework of a strong defender of Iran. This power has shown its capabilities in the past 15 years in different maneuvers in both classical warfare and asymmetrical warfare. Undoubtedly its greatness can be the greatest assurance for the citizens of our dear country. It is a great army side by side with Sepah and Basij creating Iran's defensive power to the level that the thought of aggression, even by the number-one military power in the world, will remain only a wish. Maybe it is the existence of such a force that our enemy's threats are only attacks from afar with missiles or bombing from high altitudes. Western and Russian military experts have been warning the US for years that moving forces inside Iran's plateau means opening the gates of hell to US soldiers. '

(Description of Source: Tehran Iran (Internet Version-WWW) in Persian -- Pro-reform morning daily published by the Islamic Republic News Agency)

"There are no homosexuals in . . ." More Common a Sentiment than you Might think

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bigotted statement that there are no homosexuals in Iran derived from his rightwing religious commitments. What he said is very serious. He erased gays right out of existence. The ultimate in denying people their rights is to deny they even exist (the nonexistent obviously have no rights.) There could be a debate over whether the gay lifestyle exists in Muslim countries, as a matter of identity politics, of course, but Ahmadinejad is not that sophisticated. He was saying that all Iranians are straight. Of course, gays are punished very severely in Iran, in reality.

It would be nice for the US Right to have us forget that they pull the Ahmadinejad act with regard to gays every day. Denying gays the right to marry is a way of erasing them from civil society. It is a way of denying that they really love one another, as straights do. It is a way of asserting that they do not exist.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the US military (so unlike the one followed by many NATO allies) is also a way of erasing gays. They don't exist unless they themselves press the case that they exist. In order to remain in their jobs, they are forced to erase themselves by their silence. The 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is a way of pretending that there are no gays in the US military. For if it could be proven that anyone is gay, he is immediately expelled. It is just as silly as what Ahmadinejad said, and just as pernicious. That policy is supported by the entire American Right, which is no better than Ahmadinejad in this regard.

Here are a couple of Christian statements resembling the vile ones spewed by Ahmadinejad, just for comparison.

Catholic Ahmadinejads from Hannity and Colmes:

' COLMES: group that is where I am. Let me just show you another quote, and you'll be surprised at who's saying this.

"Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature."

The Conference of Catholic Bishops saying that, Congressman, Dornan.

DORNAN: Did you watch the -- did you watch the debate? I watched six hours of debate, and I had a face-to-face fight with Cardinal McCarrick, who told me to my face there are no homosexuals in our seminaries. This is a discredited bunch of once holy men.

----FOX: HANNITY & COLMES, November 15, 2002 '

For the full irony of Dornan's reported conversation, see this link.

Evangelical Ahmadinejads. Bishop John Shelby Spong observes:

[Conservative] 'commentators have not mentioned the blatant homophobia in both Africa and Southeast Asia. Christian leaders in Africa still maintain that there are no homosexuals in their countries, or if homosexuality is admitted, that it was "caught" from white Europeans. Christians throughout the Third World still assert that homosexuals are either evil people who can be changed if they are converted, or that they are mentally sick people who can be healed if properly treated. Such theories are dismissed as nonsense in Western medical circles today. Homosexual people in Africa have told me that they risk murder if they come out of their closets. They believe that if they were killed, the act would be endorsed by many Christian leaders of that continent, who quote scripture to justify it.'

So if some American Republicans, Catholics and evangelicals want to have the standing to laugh at Ahmadinejad for his prejudice, they have some work to do at home first.

----

PS: to get a sense of what Iran is really like these days, see this slide show.

Ahmadinejad lectures at Columbia University

Let Slip the Dogs of War and Demonize Ahmadinejad

My column at Salon.com is online: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1: Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial are all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war." Excerpt:

'Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly has become a media circus. But the controversy does not stem from the reasons usually cited.

The media has focused on debating whether he should be allowed to speak at Columbia University on Monday, or whether his request to visit Ground Zero, the site of the Sept. 11 attack in lower Manhattan, should have been honored. His request was rejected, even though Iran expressed sympathy with the United States in the aftermath of those attacks and Iranians held candlelight vigils for the victims. Iran felt that it and other Shiite populations had also suffered at the hands of al-Qaida, and that there might now be an opportunity for a new opening to the United States.

Instead, the U.S. State Department denounced Ahmadinejad as himself little more than a terrorist. Critics have also cited his statements about the Holocaust or his hopes that the Israeli state will collapse. He has been depicted as a Hitler figure intent on killing Israeli Jews, even though he is not commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces, has never invaded any other country, denies he is an anti-Semite, has never called for any Israeli civilians to be killed, and allows Iran's 20,000 Jews to have representation in Parliament. . .

The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state. '

Read the whole thing.

Developments in Iran and Pakistan

At the Global Affairs group blog:

Farideh Farhi discusses negotiations between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency over inspections of the latter's nuclear programs. She also tells us about the imminent release of Iranian-American intellectual Kian Tajbakhsh, from prison.

Barnett Rubin discusses the collapse of the legitimacy of the Pakistani government in the wake of the deportation of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. He also examines what it means for the Afghanistan crisis.

Rubin: How to Stop War with Iran

Barnett Rubin gives us a thoughtful call to arms on how to prevent war with Iran at the Global Affairs blog.

After analyzing the way the Bushies would probably go to war if they can, Rubin writes:

' The immediate goal for Democratic presidential candidates and the Democrats (and sensible Republicans) in Congress should be to use the power of the legislative branch to prevent the administration from launching a war. I can think of two possible ways to do this:

* Pass an Act of Congress stating that the 2001 AUMF does not authorize a preemptive strike against Iran (or a strike in response to an alleged provocation – recall Tonkin Gulf). In this case, Congress would claim that war with Iran requires new authorization.
* Cut off funding for any war with Iran not specifically authorized by Congress in accordance with the law after September 30, when spending starts out of next year’s budget. Presumably they won’t be able to start the war by then and rely on the “support the troops” argument.

In coordination with this immediate response, responsible leaders in both parties should articulate an alternative policy toward Iran starting with the same principle as the Helsinki Accords of 1975 – no regime change. '

Read the whole thing.

Iran, Victory Culture: Wednesday Reading

Tom Engelhardt's essay, "The Empire of Stupidity," discusses Iraq, Vietnam and 'victory culture.' Engelhardt is author of the recently reissued The End of Victory Culture", with a new preface and conclusion. I