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.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

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.) '

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

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.

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

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) '

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

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.

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Forewarned Is Forearmed: Bush On Iran

Courtesy R. J. Eidelson at YouTube.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

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."

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

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).

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

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)

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

"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.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Ahmadinejad lectures at Columbia University

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

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.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

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.

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

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.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

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. It is in some ways an answer to Frederick Jackson Turner's conundrum-- if the Frontier had been so central to American identity, what would happen now that (in the 1890s) the frontier was closing up? Engelhardt's work has two implications. First, the frontier has just been projected abroad, and other 'native' peoples substituted for the 'Injuns.' And, second, that frontier gets old fast, too. (Cole: There is a reason we don't watch shows like Gunsmoke in prime time any more, folks). So, the American Right takes refuge in myths like 'we could have won in Vietnam' and remembers its boyhood games when heroes and villains were so easy to tell apart. Engelhardt's book is a must read.

At the Global Affairs blog, a rich cornucopia of postings on Iran.

Farideh Farhi gives us A Change of Guard in Tehran on important alterations in the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards.

And she also weighs in on Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's election to head the Council of Guardians, which acts as Iran's senate and will select the successor to Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei.

(For background on this contest, see this earlier posting on the struggle for this position between mere conservatives and the radicals.)

Barney Rubin kindly shares a translated article on the release or prospective release of two other Iranian-American intellectuals imprisoned since last spring.

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Haleh is Free

As Barnett Rubin notes at the Global Affairs blog, Haleh Esfandiari has been allowed to leave Iran and has met her husband, Shaul Bakhash, in Vienna. I am so happy that my friend is free, though I regret the continued imprisonment of three other Iranian-American intellectuals (not to mention many, many prisoners of conscience.) And, my delight at Haleh's release is tempered with continued anger that she was imprisoned in the first place, on frankly paranoid and silly charges. AFP implies that she is technically just out on bail. Since she obviously is not going back to be tried, she may forfeit the over $300,000 bail money, which means that this episode functioned among other things as a shakedown.

The Iranian government is facing increasing isolation in the world, and there are lots of people who would like to do to Iran what was done to Fallujah. It is highly unwise of Tehran to retreat into North Korean-style isolation and to draw the ire of the global human rights community. The poor human rights record of the Saddam Hussein regime made it difficult for anti-war forces to mobilize in 2002 and early 2003.

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Bush and Ahmadinejad: Will they or Won't They?

More from Barnett Rubin on signs of a potential Bush administration attack on Iran at the Global Affairs blog.

He quotes Alex Debat from the Times of London: "the Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days."

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Cheney & Iran: Here We Go Again?

Barnett Rubin relays a message from a well-connected friend in Washington on the Cheney Administration's plans to roll out a military confrontation with Iran in September. He writes at the Global Affairs blog:

" My friend had spoken to someone in one of the leading neo-conservative institutions. He summarized what he was told this way:

They [the source's institution] have "instructions" (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this--they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is "plenty."

Of course I cannot verify this report. But besides all the other pieces of information about this circulating, I heard last week from a former U.S. government contractor. According to this friend, someone in the Department of Defense called, asking for cost estimates for a model for reconstruction in Asia. The former contractor finally concluded that the model was intended for Iran."

-----

Cole: there has been some recent similar reporting. For instance, just on Tuesday Raw Story covered a paper by two British academics arguing that the US has the capability and perhaps the intention of launching an aerial assault on Iran's enrichment facilities.

Earlier, McClatchy reported on Aug. 9 that Cheney has been urging bombing of Iranian trails to Iraq. This position struck me as eerily reminiscent of Nixon-Kissinger's treatment of Cambodia (which is what really caused the Khmer Rouge horrors, not, as Bush said the other day, US withdrawal from Vietnam; we dropped enormous amounts of ordnance on that country and severely disrupted it).

Also at Raw Story on Aug. 10.

And Gareth Porter on Aug. 16 responding to the McClatchy article.

So, maybe something is up.

If you want to see what I think of a war with Iran, see this golden oldie.

Read Rubin's whole piece.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Bush, Ahmadinejad Trade Barbs Iranian Delegates Arrested, Released by US

First Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Iran was read to step into the vacuum when the US was forced out of Iraq. He oddly said that Iran's friends, including Saudi Arabia, would help in this task. The hyper-Sunni Saudi government is actually not very friendly with Shiite Iran at all.

Then Bush rattled sabers against Iran putting the regime in Tehran on the same level as al-Qaeda as a threat to US interests. That seems a bit shrill.

Then US troops arrested 7 Iranians, mostly part of a delegation of the electricity ministry, but swiftly later released them.

The problem with the two leaders talking big against one another is that the provocations might suddenly get out of hand and suddenly there would be a war.

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Terrorism

At the Global Affairs group blog, Farideh Farhi tells us how Tehran is reacting to the Bush adminstration's threat to declare sections of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a 'terrorist organization.

She argues that through such threats, Bush is merely strengthening the Iranian Right.

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Fox does unto Iran as it Did unto Iraq

Rupert Murdoch wants to kill your 18 year-olds in a fruitless war with Iran. Robert Greenwald's video shows how Faux Cable News is running the same scam on Iran that it ran on Iraq, with side by side footage so you can see the Goebbels techniques at work. Liberals don't like anything that smacks of censorship, but I really think our body public won't be safe from this nefarious media conspiracy until we mount an effective campaign of advertiser boycott against the corporations who underwrite this fascist horse manure.

Originally posted at Fox Attacks.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Beeman to NYT: Hyping Iran Threat in Times of Diplomacy

William O. Beeman of the University of Minnesota shared with IC this letter to the editor of the New York Times:

"From: William O. Beeman
Sent: Wed 8/8/2007 3:22 PM
To: letters@nytimes.com
Subject: U.S. Says Bomb Suppled by Iran Kills Troops in Iraq

To the Editor:

Re: "U.S. Says Bomb Suppled by Iran Kills Troops in Iraq" by Michael R. Gordon, August 8, 2007

It is increasingly suspicious that every time the United States has begun a diplomatic initiative with Iran--the latest on August 6, some United States military official in Iraq comes forward to accuse Iran of supplying weapons to attack U.S. troops. Perhaps it is coincidence, but the reporter rendering these accusations for the public seems always to be Michael R. Gordon. These military reports and the Times reportage seem timed to undermine these diplomatic talks. Following the historic May 28 talks between Iran and the United States in Baghdad, the Iranian government called for a second round of talks. As negotiations for this second round were underway General Kevin Bergner provided a briefing on precisely the issue of the IED's covered in the August 8 article by Mr. Gordon. Mr. Gordon's last reportage of General Kevin J. Bergner's account of these Iranian attacks ("U.S. Ties Iran to Deadly Iraq Attack" July 2, 2007) was a textbook case in hype. Mr. Gordon significantly enhanced General Bergner's already specious and exaggerated statements to make the Iranian government appear even more culpable than the evidence in the press conference would warrant. Although Mr. Gordon's August 8 reporting on Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno's account of essentially the same phenomenon does acknowledge that critics of the Bush administration assert that there is no proof of Iranian state involvement in supplying the IED devices, the article is riddled with innuendo accusatory of Iran, such as identifying "Iranian-backed cells" as if they existed as verified definable entities, and they had been proved to have ties to Iran. Mr. Gordon's piece appears on page 1 of the Times above the fold (as did his July 2 piece) thus increasing the hype factor. The Times should save its partisanship for the editorial pages, and not [countenance] it in its reporting.

Sincerely,

William O. Beeman Professor and Chair Department of Anthropology University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455

President, Middle East Section, American Anthropological Association"
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Farhi on Afghanistan, Iraq and the Bush Administration’s Incoherent Iran Policy

At our Global Affairs group blog, Farideh Farhi explains "Afghanistan, Iraq and the Bush Administration’s Incoherent Iran Policy".

She points out that Bush said on Monday that Iran's leaders had announced their intention to acquire a nuclear weapon, which is of course the opposite of what all Iranian political figures have said.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Sick on the New Cold War with Iran

at our group blog, Columbia U. Political Scientist and former National Security Adviser Gary Sick lays out what he sees as a coherent Bush administration policy of pursuing a new Cold War in the Middle East, with Iran.

Sick's analysis explains everything from the new arms deal being offered Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel to the odd and consistent focus of US military spokesmen in Baghdad on the tiny part of the problems in Iraq that derive from Iran.

Iran replied to the arms deal proposal by observing that US policy in the Middle East was to create bogeymen, make everyone afraid, and then offer to sell them billions in shiny new weapons.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

NIE: Iraq Fueling al-Qaeda Threat to US

Fred Kaplan at Slate points out that it does not take much reading between the lines to conclude that the new National Intelligence Estimate indicates that Bush`s Iraq War has generated a new and deadly threat against the US. In other words, the US had al-Qaeda on the run and would be safer now if it hadn`t invaded Iraq.

By the way, I had this argument two years ago with a US counter-terrorism official. He was skeptical of prognostications that the Iraq War would generate anti-US terrorism. I told him, you can`t have a massive US military occupation of a major Arab Muslim country for years on end that does not come back to bite you on the ass.

"Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is of course just a bogeyman phrase to describe Salafi Jihadis there. But they obviously feel some kinship to the real al-Qaeda (you never want to see that) and they are threatening to get up an attack on the United States. There was no al-Qaeda in Saddam`s Iraq, so it is Bush who has created this current threat, which did not have to be there.

Of course, the US Right will conveniently use the small "al-Qaeda in Iraq" organization, which it more or less created by its militarism, to justify more militarism. But I don`t think the American public is that stupid.

Meanwhile, the Voice of America reports that the Bush administration will freeze the assets of persons or organizations that attempt to destabilize Iraq. VOA says:

"President Bush has signed an order that allows the U.S. government to block the assets of any person or group that threatens the stability of Iraq.

The order exempts the United States."

Either the VOA copy writer is a little clueless or this person has a wicked, dry sense of humor.

PS For excellent entries on Iran and Pakistan, see recent postings of Farideh Farhi and Manan Ahmed at our group blog on global affairs. Dr. Farhi weighs in on recent developments in the Iranian detention of Iranian-American scholar Haleh Esfandiari, as well as in the arrest of student activists ahead of Iranian elections. For those hungry for Iran analysis, this is a real treat.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Are we Already at War?
Have US-enabled Kurds killed 200 Iranian Troops?

I got the below by anonymous email regarding a German news program last month. Am passing it on not because I buy it or its details but because there is at the least an issue in the Kurdish terrorist groups that are operating from US-occupied Iraq against Iraq's neighbors. The US is not able to stop the PKK from operating against an ally, Turkey, so I don't think it could stop the Iranian Kurdish terrorists, PEJAK, from operating against Iran. But it is also probably true that there are elements in the US military, in the intelligence services, and in the Washington power elite that are connected to PEJAK and are either happy about its activities or subtly enabling them.

Since the US Senate has in its wisdom laid the groundwork for a war on Iran on the extremely thin grounds of an unbalanced and gullible NYT story, it is worth pondering the degree to which we are being spun once again by shadowy forces whose salaries we are paying!

"Transcript of TV program on German ARD television, "The Monitor, no. 564, June 21, 2007: Sertan (a PJAK terrorist): "Three months ago, by using radio-controlled mines (IEDs) we killed 13 to 14 Iranian soldiers". Kurdish terrorists hide in the U.S. protected areas of North-Eastern Iraq. From there, they send fighters over the border into Iran and attack Iranians. In the past two years, they have killed over 200 Iranians." See the transcript of the program in German. . . . [*Update: A perceptive reader kindly translated the transcript into English at the Comments; I am appending it to the main message below.]* *** NOTE: You can use Google to translate these German Web Pages into English. [Then there is this from other press sources]: Pejak enjoying western support (PressTv, Iran, July 11, 2007): Head of Pejak (PJAK) terrorist group says he has good relations with the U.S. and German governments and they know everything about the group. Abdul Rahman Haji-Ahmadi who lives in Cologne, Germany told German ARD television network that he directs Pejak from Germany. "Big powers help our military stations and American army generals completely overlook our activities", he added. Haji-Ahmadi pointed out that some U.S. generals even visit Pejak's military camps and have good ties with Pejak. He noted that the presence of Pejak in Iraq is even useful for the U.S. because "if Pejak does not rule, Islam will rule". Haji-Ahmadi in a similar interview with the Kurdish newspaper Media had acknowledged that some U.S. senators and generals had met with Pejak leaders in Iraq's Qandil region. . . [Journalist Reese Erlich has also reported on all this for "Democracy Now" and "Mother Jones":] * Report: U.S. sponsoring Kurdish guerilla attacks inside Iran * Kurdish & American sources say the U.S. has been supporting guerrilla raids against Iran, channeling the money through organizations in Iraqi Kurdistan."

---

A reader writes:

(ARD report on The Monitor translated as a public service to prevent other family tragedies) Terrorism: How the Turkish Workers Party attracts recruits under the noses of the BND and Interior Police (Rough and Ready Translation) Sonia Mikich: Recruiting for the war. How a young man from a nice family was led astray – and to the battle in far way Iran. Incidentally as a consequence , we asked ourselves who practices these terrorist attacks on Iran from the ostensibly peaceful Northern Iraq. There is a secret war there unnoticed by the world and tolerated by the Americans. The clues led to Germany, to Cologne as Stephan Buchen and John Goetz found out. They met extremists who proselytize young people under the noses of our secret services, completely in the shadows. Langenfeld North Rhine- Westphalia The K family has lived here for 34 years. The parents feel happy and safe in Germany. However the major conflicts in the Middle East have intruded into their everyday life. Their son Sertan has been missing for the last eight months. Photographs from happy times. His mobile [phone] doesn’t answer anymore. He was a student at the higher vocational school in Leverkusen-Opladen. Today Sertan is 21 years old. The parents haven’t heard from their son for 8 months. We found the son in north eastern Iraq, near the Iranian border, in one of the most dangerous crisis zones in the world. In this mountain zone he is learning the trade of the Guerrilla. Sertan: We call the weapon Karnas. It is a sniper rifle for assassinations. I was specially trained for assassinations of great generals. Sertan belongs to an organization called PJAK, the party of a New Life in Kurdistan. Unnoticed by the rest of the world a war is happening here. The young recruits push into Iran and carry out attacks. Sertan: Especially with explosives, with mines. The mines are prepared …. So that we can detonate them from a distance by radio. They are being developed. We have trained specialists Bomb Experts. Three months ago the friends attacked and killed 13-14 soldiers of the Iranian Army. Your son a Terrorist. Ready to die for the Kurdish cause? The family learns form us where Sertan is. They are speechless. Mother (translation) I feel very bad I want my son to come back. I am upset. Sister of Sertan: He promised mother that he would stay here. He hasn’t kept his promise. Ideological indoctrination: We observe how Sertan and other recruits are made enthusiastic for the battle. The Commander preaches about the bullets of the guerrilla which will light up the darkness. He demands from the young men and women self-sacrifice, praises the picture of martyrs. Sertan the boy from Langenfeld takes copious notes. This is how he is brought on line so quickly. The high ideals of PJAK can be reached: Overthrow of the Iranian Government, Installation of democracy, and freedom for the Kurds in Iran The Kurdish guerrillas control a small strip in the north of the US Occupied Iraq. They send fighters across the border from here. They are believed to have killed at least 200 people in the last two years in attacks. PJAK a pseudonym, as the organization owes allegiance to Abdulla Ocalan the boss of the Kurdish Workers party PKK. It is proscribed in Europe and the US as a terrorist organization. Food rations is all Sertan gets for his work. His rise to fighter started in NRW. He was recruited there by PKK members he told us. He spent three months in a PKK camp in Belgium. Eventually he landed here with two young Kurds of German nationality. Sertan: More and more are coming from Germany. From Germany, from Norway, from Sweden we already had two or three new members. But especially from Germany and France Formal Parade of the recruits in front of the Boss of PJAk Address of Haji Ahmadi Boss of PJAK: I am very happy that you are ready for this holy battle says Haji Ahmadi. The Kurds provide an example of what it means to fight to the last man. Haji Ahmadi sees great times coming for his organization. It receives protection from the highest levels. American generals in Iraq look not unfavorably on his activities. They have visited his camp and walked together with respect. We have positive effects for the Americans. We have the whole mountain chain from Armenia and Azerbaijan under our control. If we weren’t here then the Islamists would take over. Reporter: You mean to say that essentially you are supported by the Americans. Haji: 100% Is that is why the flow of new fighters from Europe works so smoothly? Haji: Many Kurdish youths and girls are joining the fight from Europe. Many go to Northern Kurdistan and also to turkey Haji Ahmadi is always temporarily visiting his people in North Iraq. His main residence is Cologne NRW. He has a German passport he says. He makes contact from here with western politicians and intelligence services. Even the BND have visited him. Haji Ahmadi: He was a young man and said he was from the BND. He asked the same questions you are asking. Reporter: But that means that the German authorities know what you are doing, who you are and what your objectives are. Haji: They know exactly what I am doing I have been in Europe for 43 years mostly in Germany …… BND and Interior Police confirmed that they know PJAK and are watching them. Are young people being recruited for the war against Iran in Germany? We asked Representative Hans Christian Stroeble a member of the parliamentary intelligence oversight committee. He suspects that severe consequences might befall the authorities. Stroeble: If the suspicion exists of illegal activities and especially such extremely illegal activities as terrorist links to overseas or the recruiting of for a foreign power then the German Justice authorities are obliged to report and investigate the matter and see if enough evidence exists for charges. So far no sign of action by the Federal authorities. Setan’s family want their son back, but they are afraid that the PKK will do something to their son Seltan’s father: The PKK told me shouldn’t call the police. Sertan is well. We haven’t called the police because we thought that could put our son’s life in danger. The German authorities offer no help. To get his son back they have to trust the PKK. So far without result.

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Lobe on Neocons and Public Diplomacy
Boston Review on Iran

Veteran journalist and neocon watcher, Jim Lobe points out that as the Neoconservatives have lost direct political power, they have emerged in key positions in public diplomacy-- especially Radio Farda ('Radio Marti' for Iran) and al-Hurra (the US-owned Arabic satellite tv channel that is struggling with viewership).

No one knows more about the Neconservative movement than Jim Lobe; he is worth bookmarking.

Also, check out The Boston Review's current issue, on Iran.

Robert Antonio on the US economic war against Iran.

Justin Raimondo also addresses this economic war.

Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was overthrown by the CIA in 1953, was described in the American press with precisely the same adjectives as is Ahmadinejad today.

A recent article on the reaction of Iran's neighbors to its nuclear program is available on the web. Click on "html" to view.

And, on Palestine, see Richard Augustus Norton's canny piece at The Boston Globe.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Ahmadinejad: "I am not anti-Semitic"
Palestinians should Decide on Two-State Solution

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul continue to show themselves among the few in Congress with any integrity and backbone. They declined to go along with a resolution charging Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide, given his alleged call for Israel to be 'wiped off the face of the map.'

As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for 'this occupation regime over Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time.' Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed. (Wampum has more; as does the American Street).

If Ahmadinejad is a genocidal maniac who just wants to kill Jews, then why are there 20,000 Jews in Iran with a member of parliament in Tehran? Couldn't he start at home if that was what he is really about?

I was talking to two otherwise well-informed Israeli historians a couple of weeks ago, and they expressed the conviction that Ahmadinejad had threatened to nuke Israel. I was taken aback. First of all, Iran doesn't have a nuke. Second, there is no proof that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. Third, Ahmadinejad has denied wanting a bomb. Fourth, Ahmadinejad has never threatened any sort of direct Iranian military action against Israel. In other words, that is a pretty dramatic fear for educated persons to feel, on the basis of . . . nothing.

I renew my call to readers to write protest letters to newspapers and other media every time they hear it alleged that Ahmadinejad (or "Iran"!) has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." There is no such idiom in Persian and it is not what he said, and the mistranslation gives entirely the wrong impression. Wars can start over bad translations.

It was apparently some Western wire service that mistranslated the phrase as 'wipe Israel off the map', which sounds rather more violent than calling for regime change. Since then, Iranian media working in English have themselves depended on that translation. One of the tricks of Right-Zionist propagandists is to substitute these English texts for Ahmadinejad's own Persian text. (Ethan Bronner at the New York Times tried to pull this, and more recently Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute.) But good scholarship requires that you go to the original Persian text in search of the meaning of a phrase. Bronner and Rubin are guilty disregarding philological scholarship in favor of mere propagandizing.

These propaganda efforts against Iran and Ahmadinejad also depend on declining to enter into evidence anything else he has ever said-- like that it would be wrong to kill Jews! They also ignore that Ahmadinejad is not even the commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces.

Anyone who reads this column knows that I deeply disagree with Ahmadinejad's policies and am not interested in defending him on most things. I profoundly disagree with his characterization of Israel, which is a legitimate United Nations member state, and find his Holocaust denial monstrous. But this quite false charge that he is genocidal is being promoted by Right-Zionists in and out of Congress as a preparatory step to getting up a US war against Iran on false pretences. I don't want to see my country destroyed by being further embroiled in the Middle East for the wrong reasons. If the Israeli hardliners and their American amen corner want a war with Iran, let them fight it themselves and leave young 18 year old Americans alone.

So here are some things Ahmadinezhad has said that make clear his intentions, and which are translated by the United States government Open Source Center. He is hostile to Israel. He'd like to see regime change (apparently via a referendum on the shape of the government ruling over geographical Palestine, in which all "original" residents of any religion would get a vote). Calling for a referendum on the dissolution of a government is not calling for genocide. Ahmadinejad also says he has no objection to a Jewish state in and of itself, he just thinks it should be located in, say, German territory set apart for the purpose, rather than displacing Palestinians from their homes. He may be saying unrealistic things; he is not advocating killing Jews qua Jews, or genocide.

Note that Ahmadinejad below denies being an anti-Semite (why deny it if he supposedly glories in it?); points out that he supports Jewish representation in the Iranian parliament; and compares his call for an end to the Zionist regime ruling over Jerusalem to the Western call for the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. Was Ronald Reagan inciting to genocide when he called for an end of the Soviet regime?

Iran's President Ahmadinezhad Holds New York News Conference 21 Sep News conference by Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad at UN headquarters in New York -- correspondents' questions in English simultaneously translated into Persian -- live Islamic Republic of Iran News Network Television (IRINN) Friday, September 22, 2006 Regarding the issue of the invasion of Lebanon, you saw that everyone - of all religions, of all faiths - condemned it. Because the nations have awakened. The nations hate aggression. . . Some people think that if they level accusations at Ahmadinezhad - saying: He is a terrorist, he is a murderer, he is anti-Semitic - the issue would be resolved. No. I am not anti-Semitic. Like all other human beings, Jews are respected. And, by the way, there are Muslims and Christians and Jews among the Palestinian people. We say the people of Palestine should choose. We do not say that it should be the Palestinian Muslims. For they lived in peace and harmony in the past. But then Britain came over and, with colonialist goals, took control and then handed it over to the Zionists. And the problem started. Let the people choose and see what will happen. Iranian Television Broadcasts President Ahmadinezhad's Interview With French TV "Exclusive interview" with Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad by David Pujadas of French TV's TF2 Channel on 22 March 2007 -- recorded Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1 Sunday, March 25, 2007 (David Pujadas) The fact that Iran's position is disconcerting, one of the reasons is that Your Excellency's statements are to a large extent threatening. For instance, your assertion that Israel should be wiped from the map of the world, all these things have created some concern which has been reflected in the nuclear case too. (Ahmadinezhad) . . . Let me ask you this question: where is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics now? Was it not wiped off (the map)? How was it wiped off? We have a totally humanitarian solution for Palestine. We have said that all the Palestinians should take part in a free referendum so as to end the 60 year old war. The outcome is clear from now. It is because of the same outcome that America and Britain are refusing to yield. (David Pujadas) Let us clarify everything. Do you really wish to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? Do you have a plan for this job or are you in fact making such a prediction? (Ahmadinezhad) Look, I told you the solution. I think the people of Palestine also have the right to determine their own fate. Let them choose for themselves, the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims. That is, all the Palestinians who belong to that land can participate in the referendum. I think the outcome of such a referendum is already clear. We saw what happened in last year's elections (when they voted for HAMAS). (David Pujadas) If the Palestinians themselves accept that two governments should enjoy peaceful coexistence next to each other, will you be ready to accept their decision? (Ahmadinezhad) Incidentally this is what we are saying. That is, we are saying let the nation of Palestine decide for itself without any imposition. They should be allowed to do so in a free atmosphere. This is the right of the Palestinian people. Let them decide for themselves. Let them decide the shape of their own government. (David Pujadas) Do you mean with Israel as their neighbor? (Ahmadinezhad) Look, let the nation of Palestine decide about its own state. This is the right of the Palestinian people. . . (David Pujadas) A lot is being said about the 60m people who have been killed during World War II, but why should we just discuss the 6m people who have been killed in the Nazi camps for being Jews? (Ahmadinezhad) You well know that we respect everyone. The Jews, Christians, Muslims. They are all free in our country and they have their own representatives in our Majles [Parliament]. You know that according to the Law in Iran, every 150,000 people have one representative in the Majles. But the number of the Jews is not even 20,000 people and they have a representative. We say that the life and belongings of all people should be respected. We condemn all crimes. . . Iran: Presidential Website Reports Ahmadinezhad's Remarks at Holocaust Conference Unattributed report: "The President: Truth-Seeking and Honest Groups Should Be Formed To Investigate the Holocaust" Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran WWW-Text Thursday, December 28, 2006 The president stated that due to God's wish and the vigilance of nations the days of the Zionist regime are numbered and added: We want prosperity for all humans and even like to guide our enemies, but some European and American politicians' one-sided and bigoted support for the Zionist regime no longer has a function in the world. Dr Ahmadinezhad stated that, with each day that passes of the Zionist regime's life, the interests and reputation of its supporting powers become more endangered. He added: The sensible and fair solution is to remove this regime the same way it was set up and imposed on the region's countries through planning and imperialistic objectives. This will bring peace to the world, and the region's countries will also forgive the atrocities of the last 60 years. The president also stated that God did not create human beings for war, hatred, and enmity. He said the key for establishment of peace and harmony is justice; justice is achievable through monotheism and believing in God. He emphasized: An international effort must be made to establish peace and to remove the roots of insecurity and injustice, as the international balance is changing rapidly and the future evolutions will certainly be for peace, brotherhood, justice, and worshiping God.

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Vigil for Detained Iranian Intellectuals

Amnesty International is hosting a vigil in New York next week for three detained intellectuals, including my friend Haleh Esfandiari. I urge everyone who can attend, to do so, and make a special plea to fellow bloggers to publicize this event. (The bigger it is, the more successful it will be; a small showing is dangerous). Details below.

For background see these IC columns:

Protest Letter from MESA on Haleh Esfandiari's Detention

and

Haleh in Prison.

As readers know, I cancelled my own participation in a conference in Tehran at the end of June because I could hardly sit in a nice hotel room in that city knowing that Haleh was in the notorious Evin Prison just a few blocks away.

Again, please link the hell out of this announcement and lets get up a blog mob for the vigil.

==================

Amnesty International

In May the government of Iran arrested four Iranian-Americans: prominent U.S. scholars Haleh Esfandiari and Kian Tajbakhsh, journalist Parnaz Azima and activist Ali Shakeri. Esfandiari, Tajbakhsh and Shakeri remain in detention without being able to see family, lawyers, or the ICRC. All four face serious charges stemming from their efforts to promote an Iranian-American dialogue and scholarly work and could be sentenced to long prison terms.

JOIN AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, THE AMERICAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AS WE CALL FOR JUSTICE AND FOR THE RELEASE OF THE DETAINED IRANIAN-AMERICANS Haleh Esfandiari

SPEAKERS TO INCLUDE SHAUL BAKHASH, HUSBAND OF HALEH ESFANDIARI, AND ZAINAB AL-SUWAIJ OF THE AMERICAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS

WHERE: Dag Hammarskjold Plaza at 1st Avenue and 47nd Street across from the United Nations Plaza

WHEN: Wednesday June 27, 12 noon to 1 pm

Feel free to bring signs calling for freedom for the detained Iranian-Americans. This is to be a non-political and non-partisan action advocating human rights

For more information contact Sharon McCarter 202-691-4016 or Amnesty International USA 202-675-8755
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Iranian Media on Iraq & the US

The USG Open Source Center translates or paraphrases reports in the Iranian press last week regarding Iran-Iraq relations and the US presence in Iraq.

Iran: Highlights: Iranian Media on Iraqi Developments - - 1- 7 June 2007 Iran -- OSC Summary Friday, June 8, 2007 The following are highlights of Iran-Iraq relations as reported in conservative, reformist, and opposition websites monitored by OSC. Turkish Army Attack Northern Iraq (7 June) -- Thousands of Turkish military personnel entered Iraq, Keyhan reported, citing the Associated Press. According to the report, Turkish security officials said that the goal of this military operation is to pursue an armed Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) group. According to the report, two unidentified high-ranking Turkish Security personnel said this operation is "limited" and not the "expanded" attack the Turkish leaders have been talking about in the last few weeks. The Turkish security officers noted that Turkey had earlier asked the local Kurdish government to confront the PKK group, which it holds responsible for several recent terrorist acts inside Turkey (Tehran Keyhan in Persian, conservative daily edited by Hoseyn Shari'atmadari, Leader Khamene'i's representative at the Keyhan Institute where it is published). Ahmadinezhad: Iran 'Prepared' To Help Iraqis (5 June) - - Speaking to foreign guests at a ceremony marking the 18 th anniversary of Imam Khomeyni's death, President Ahmadinezhad said: "The occupiers of Iraq have lost the way, they don't know what to do. They imagine that by accusing others, they can resolve problems, and now, they say 'help us.'" The President added: "We are prepared, for the sake of the Iraqi people, to help. We won't spare any efforts" (Tehran Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) in English -- politically moderate news agency, licensed to the government-created University Jihad). President Denies Iran Interfering in Iraq (5 June) - - In response to a question from a journalist at the ceremony marking the anniversary of Khomeyni's death, President Ahmadinezhad denied Western allegations that Iran is interfering in Iraq's internal affairs, labeling such charges "the most laughable mockery of the past several years." The president criticized the US invasion of Iraq and called for the "occupiers" to leave Iraq (Tehran IRNA in English -- official state-run news agency). Coalition Forces Arrest Four 'Terrorists' With Ties to Iran (5 June) - - Citing statements made by US military officials, Iran Focus reported that Multi-National Forces in Iraq on 5 June arrested four "suspected terrorists" believed to be transferring "weapons and explosively formed penetrators (EFPs)" from Iran to Iraq. Among those detained during the raids in northeast Baghdad was a "suspected terrorist cell leader" associated with the "operational and logistic elements of the secret cell terrorist network" (Internet Iran Focus in English -- an expatriate opposition website posting news, information and editorials). Group Linked With Iran May Be Behind Kidnapping of Brits in Iraq (5 June) - - Citing an unnamed senior US military official, AFP reported that commanders in Iraq suspect that an Iraqi militant cell with links to the [Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps or] IRGC was behind the 29 May abduction of five British contractors in east Baghdad. The official said that investigations pointed to the operation having been carried out by members of the "Khazali network," an Iraqi extremist cell with links to the IRGC's Qods Force (Iran Focus). Iraqi Official on Jaysh al-Mahdi's Influence (3 June) -- According to an Iraqi official, a lack of organization and discipline have helped Iranian military forces to penetrate the Jaysh al-Mahdi, Farda news reported, citing Akhbar al-Khalij. According to the source, British officials know that Jaysh al-Mahdi has different branches and some of them have good relations with the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps. British officials made these statements after the kidnapping of five British nationals from the Iraqi Ministry of Finance (Fardanews in Persian -- a conservative website generally supportive of the Islamic Regime and mildly critical of the government). Foreign Policy Council Director Urges Continued US-Iran Talks ( 3 June) - - During an interview with the Young Journalists' Club, Seyyed Kamal Kharrazi, Director of Iran's Foreign Policy Strategic Council said: "If America changes its policy, Iran will continue negotiations with (America) regarding Iraq." Kharrazi added: "Of course, the negotiations that were held were not the main talks because in this session the two sides . . . announced their stances about Iraq. But, if the Americans really want to solve Iraq's problems, these talks will continue" (Tehran Hemayat in Persian -- conservative daily close to the Judiciary). Mottaki Urges US to Withdraw From Iraq (3 June) - - In a meeting with Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki said that Iran and Algeria "regard Iraq's occupation the country's main problem. The new American tactic in Iraq has also failed. An increase in the death toll of the Iraqi people and the US military by three times in the period is a proof to the issue." The Iranian minister stated: "The US has no plan to withdraw from Iraq, an issue which would cause problems on threshold of the presidential polls" (IRNA). Al-Maliki Concerned About Coup d'Etat by Ba`th Officers (3 June) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki expressed concern about a possible coup d'etat by loyal Ba`thist officers, Keyhan reported, citing ISNA who cited Al-Maliki's exclusive interview with CNN. According to the Keyhan report, Al-Maliki said he has to carefully oversee the army's operations as those "faithful" to the former regime could plan a coup d'etat. Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi said "the purge of the paramilitary groups, corrupt and incompetent individuals are necessary." Aghamohammadi Cautiously Optimistic on Talks With US (2 June) - - In an interview with ISNA, the former spokesman of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Aghamohammadi, described Iran's talks with the US on Iraq as "talks with the enemy" which is "determined in its enmity either about Iran's nuclear issues or threats and espionage against Iran. Therefore initiating talks in such circumstances was very hard and spectacular." Aghamohammadi added: "While we must be diplomatically optimistic, we must also watch out for political plots. This doesn't mean that we will not follow any possibility that can restore stability to the region" (ISNA). Jannati Urges US Withdrawal from Iraq (1 June) - - During Friday Prayers, Ayatolah Jannati, addressing the US, said "If you claim that you are in Iraq to uphold democracy - which you are lying and speaking out of deception - you should know that the Iraqi people have elected a government; and this democratic government is attempting to administer the country. So, leave Iraq and allow the government, or in other words the people, to run the country. They (the people) need no overlords. Allow them to restore security. If you (Americans) leave, we, and all the others who are interested in Iraq's security, will help and in no time people will breathe in peace" (Tehran Radio-1 - - state-run radio). Shari`atmadari: Today US is 'Our Hostage' in Iraq (1 June) -- In a ceremony commemorating the Kowsar Martyrs Day, the managing director of Keyhan newspaper Hoseyn Shari`atmadari referring to what he said were more than 40 US requests for talks with Iran, said the US knows that Iraqi problems cannot get resolved without Iran and wants to be rescued from this "quagmire," Fars News Agency reported. Shari`atmadari added that the Iraqis, contrary to US wishes, elected a pro-Islamic government which will be a more suitable atmosphere for spreading Imam Khomeyni's ideas. Criticizing those who speak of concessions to and compromise with the US, Shari`atmadari said: "If we wanted to give concessions, we would not have gone through the revolution to start out with" (Tehran Fars News Agency -- conservative news agency sympathetic to traditional clerics).

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

First Formal US-Iran Talks since 1980

The US has dealt differently with Iran than with any other of its major enemies. Then President Ronald Reagan spoke directly with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev even though the USSR had thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at the US. The US talks to North Korea. It talks to Venezuela. It doesn't talk to Cuba, but then Cuba is a small weak country of 11 million. Iran is an oil state with a population of some 70 million.

Do the United States and Iran have things to talk about? Yes. They have several common interests, which could be stressed and developed fruitfully.

1. Shiite Iran is a deadly enemy of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, which the US is also fighting. Instead of making up silly charges against Iran, the US could explore avenues of cooperation against these enemies.

2. Shiite Iran is a deadly enemy of the Iraqi Baath Party and of the radical Salafi Jihadis who are responsible for most of the violence in Iraq and for most of the killings of US troops. There are ways in which the US and Iran could cooperate in defeating these forces, which are inimical to both Washington and Tehran.

3. Shiite Iran is happy with the Shiite led government of Iraq and wants to see Iraq's territorial integrity maintained. Supporting the al-Maliki government and keeping Iraq together are also goals of the United States.

It is not true, as Robert Kagan once alleged to me on the radio, that if something is in Iran's interest, it will do it anyway, so that talks are useless. It is often the case that countries, like individuals, cut off their noses to spite their faces. Effective diplomacy can often lead a country to see the advantages of cooperation on some issues, so that its leaders stop sulking and actually turn to accomplishing something.

The way in which fighting the Salafi Jihadis and al-Qaeda can unite otherwise contentious forces is visible in Lebanon, where Nasrallah's [Shiite] Hizbullah supported the Seniora government's fight against [the radical Sunni] Fatah al-Islam. The leader of the latter had been close to the notorious Shiite-killer, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Iran is not foredoomed to be a rejectionist state. It offered to initiate talks that could have led to a comprehensive peace with the US and Israel in early 2003. The US tossed away that opportunity, which won't come back as long as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is president (at least until 2009).

So let us hope it won't toss away more opportunities, and that Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani can reign in the hardliners around Ahmadinejad enough to reduce tensions.

Howard LaFranchi at the Christian Science Monitor reports on Monday's historic talks between the US and Iran in Baghdad.

I am quoted:

' "The talks would not be taking place unless Bush backed them and ... Khamenei backed them," says Juan Cole, an expert on Iraq and Shiite movements at the University of Michigan. "[President Bush] is to the point where he will try anything," he adds, but "it also points to the increased influence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" and the administration's new Iraq team: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and his man in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and Crocker, who recently arrived from Pakistan. '

and here:

' "The US-Iran talks are deeply unpopular among some elements in Washington and Tehran," says Mr. Cole. "The Cheney camp is reported to be opposed to them, and the arrests [in Iran] of Iranian-American academics in recent days may well be an attempt by some in the camp of [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad to sabotage these talks." '

I wasn't so much referring to the case of Haleh Esfandiari, which goes back to December, though she was only recently put in Evin Prison, but of sociologist Kian Tajbakhsh. Patrick Seale lays out all the reasons for pessimism about the progress these bilateral US/Iran talks on Iraqi security will make.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Cheney Conniving at Iran War
Says Bush Cannot be Trusted

Shorter Steve Clemons:

Cheney and his staff are colluding with the Neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute and with Israeli hawks to sideline Condi Rice's negotiations with Iran by getting up an Israeli cruise missile strike on Iranian civilian nuclear research facilities at Natanz, in hopes that this move will push the US into a war posture with Iran.

Clemons is very well connected in Washington and assures me he has multiple-sourced this story. It seems entirely plausible to me.

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Esfandiari charged with Serious Crime

The Iranian government has now charged detained Iranian-American academic Haleh Esfandiari with trying to overthrow the current regime, according to the Washington Post's Robin Wright. This AP article calls it a "soft revolution."

How was she going to do this? By academic interchanges and conferences!

I think I speak for all college teachers in saying that we are all just kicking ourselves. We had never realized that we could get rid of a whole government that way. I mean, having interchanges and holding conferences is practically all we do. We'd never even been aware of affecting, in that way, who the department chairs were in our own institutions! We all have a list of regimes we'd like to see gone, so I guess we should plan out that fall colloquium on Spencer's Faerie Queen right away!

She is also accused of taking money from George Soros's Open Society Institute. I thought only Fox Cable News minded a thing like that! We now discover that the Iranian "Ministry of Intelligence" is an oxymoron.

I hear that David Horowitz and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are planning jointly to propose an Academic Bill of Rights that makes sure those nasty academic conferences don't end up having any effect on the real world, the running of which should be left to . . . David Horowitz and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Gary Sick, a political scientist at Columbia University and head of Gulf2000, reacted this way to the bizarre Iranian claims:

' Needless to say, any institution that was conducting exchanges with Iranians would have "invited Iranians to attend conferences, offered them research projects, scholarships ... and tried to lure influential elements and link them to decision-making centers in America" (as alleged by the "charges" broadcast today).

That is exactly what the [Institue for Policy and International Studies] (IPIS, the "think tank" of the Iranian foreign ministry) does with Americans. It invites them to Iran to attend conferences, it solicits research and writing that it then publishes, and it tries to attract the most engaged and influential Americans, with the very clear purpose of getting them to know Iran better and to give Iranians a perspective into American thinking.

That is what exchanges are about. It does not in any way imply that IPIS is trying to overthrow the US government; and the suggestion that the Wilson Center, by organizing conferences and providing a forum where leading Iranian scholars and thinkers could be heard by a US audience, was trying to overthrow the government of Iran is simply absurd.

The effort by Iran's security services to transform serious and legitimate scholars into spies is so transparently ludicrous that one is forced to ask what their real motives are in persecuting innocent people, and why the senior leadership of Iran, who know these charges to be false, do not assert themselves in this matter.'

Amnesty International has a convenient form for sending protest emails to the Iranian government.

Haleh's former students in particular are invited to sign for her at this Wilson Center site.

Also on Monday, the American Association of University Professors issued a protest letter.

May 21, 2007

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Pasteur Ave
Tehran 13168-43311
Iran

Dear President Ahmadinejad:

The American Association of University Professors, which for more than ninety years has been the foremost organization in the United States defending principles of academic freedom, is alarmed by reports that Dr. Haleh Esfandiari, director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, was arrested in Tehran on May 8 on grounds that she is being investigated for “crimes against national security.” Dr. Esfandiari is a dual citizen of the United States and Iran and a frequent visitor to Iran. Her arrest was reportedly preceded by her being questioned at length over several months by Iranian intelligence officials about the activities and programs of the Wilson Center’s Middle East programs.

This Association cannot but view Dr. Esfandiari’s arrest as inimical to internationally accepted principles of the free pursuit of knowledge. We reject the premise that displeasure with what scholars write about government policies or with scholarly projects with which they are associated are appropriate bases for their being detained, questioned, and arrested by government authorities.

We urge that Dr. Esfandiari be released from prison immediately and that she be allowed to return to her academic work in the United States, consistent with the traditional freedom of the Iranian academic community and with principles of academic freedom that are essential to independent scholarly endeavors around the world.

Sincerely,



Ernst Benjamin
Executive Director


cc: Lee H. Hamilton, Director, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Professor Zachary Lockman, President, Middle East Studies Association

====

Here is another letter of protest signed by academics, many of them experts in Iranian or Middle East Studies, and many of whom have taken lumps for opposing the Neocon plan to destroy the country:

' Statement by Scholars of Iran and the Middle East Protesting the Detention of Dr. Haleh Esfandiari by the Iranian Government
(Released on May 21, 2007)

The arbitrary detention and confinement of Dr. Haleh Esfandiari, a prominent Iranian-American scholar and the director of the Middle East program at the nonpartisan Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., is the latest distressing episode in an ongoing crackdown by the Islamic Republic against those who, directly or indirectly, strive to bolster the foundations of civil society and promote human rights in Iran. Over the past year-and-a-half, this onslaught has targeted prominent women’s rights activists, leaders of non-governmental organizations, student and teacher associations, and labor unions. In recent weeks, scores of women’s rights activists have been harassed, physically attacked and detained for no greater a crime than peaceful demonstrations and circulating petitions calling for the elimination of discriminatory laws and practices. University students across the country have faced expulsion, arrest, and imprisonment for peacefully protesting the erosion of the administrative and academic independence of their universities.

It is in this context that the months-long harassment, extra judicial arrest and incarceration of Dr. Esfandiari—which was admitted belatedly by the Iranian Government on May 13, 2007 (New York Times, May 14, 2007)—exemplify the relentless campaign by the leaders of the Islamic Republic against the most basic principles of human rights. We find Dr. Esfandiari’s case particularly disturbing because it is tinged with invidious anti-Semitic rhetoric and conspiratorial worldviews. The egregious charges leveled against her by the semi-official daily Kayhan, make Dr. Esfandiari the latest victim in the Iranian government’s repeated and escalating attempts to intimidate and silence human rights activists and promoters of civil society, as well as those who advocate the path of dialogue and moderation in Iran’s foreign policy. In her capacity as the director of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center, Dr. Esfandiari has been a staunch advocate of peaceful dialogue between Tehran and Washington in resolving their disputes.

We believe that, despite certain internal disagreements among members of its ruling elite, the Islamic Republic of Iran—as any other member of the United Nations—should be held fully accountable for its actions. Only through a clear and united stand against the many breaches of human rights and civil liberties in Iran can one hope to encourage those elements within the Islamic Republic who recognize the importance of human rights for Iran’s standing within the international community.

We call upon all international organizations, academic and professional associations, and other groups and individuals devoted to the promotion and defense of human rights to strongly protest and condemn the arbitrary detention of Dr. Esfandiari, to call for her immediate and unconditional release, and to urge the officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran to respect, guarantee and implement the provisions and principles of human rights as specified in international conventions and treaties to which Iran has long been a signatory. '

List of Signatories of the Statement in Support of Dr. Haleh Esfandiari
(May 21, 2007)

Ervand Abrahamian, City University of New York
Janet Afary, Purdue University
Gholam Reza Afkhami, Foundation for Iranian Studies
Mahnaz Afkhami, Women’s Learning Partnership
Reza Afshari, Pace University
Shahrough Akhavi, University of South Carolina
Kazem Alamdari, California State University
Abbas Amanat, Yale University
Hooshang Amirahmadi, Rutgers University
Jahangir Amuzegar, Independent Scholar
Ahmad Ashraf, Columbia University
Muriel Atkin, George Washington University
Bahman Baktiari, University of Maine
Kathryn Babayan, University of Michigan
Ali Banuazizi, Boston College
Sohrab Behdad, Denison University
Nasser Behnegar, Boston College
Maziar Behrooz, San Francisco State University
Sheila Blair, Boston College and Virginia Commonwealth University
Jonathan Bloom, Boston College and Virginia Commonwealth University
Mehrzad Boroujerdi, Syracuse University
Laurie A. Brand, University of Southern California
L. Carl Brown, Princeton University
Nathan Brown, George Washington University
Charles E. Butterworth, University of Maryland
Houchang-Esfandiar Chehabi, Boston University
Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Shahram Chubin, Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Juan R. Cole, University of Michigan
Miriam Cooke, Duke University
Natalie Z. Davis, University of Toronto
Kamran Dadkhah, Northeastern University
John L. Esposito, Georgetown University
Farideh Farhi, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Ali Ferdowsi, Nortre Dame de Namur University
Willem Floor, Independent Scholar
Amir Hossein Gandjbakhche, National Institutes of Health
Mark Gasiorowski, Louisiana State University
M. R. Ghanoonparvar, The University of Texas at Austin
Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, Harvard University
Sondra Hale, University of California, Los Angeles
Hormoz Hekmat, Editor, Iran-Nameh
Kashi Javaherian, Harvard University
Suad Joseph, University of California, Davis
Mehran Kamrava, California State University, Northridge
Mehrangiz Kar, Harvard University
Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, University of Maryland
Farhad Kazemi, New York University
Nikki Keddie, University of California, Los Angeles
Laleh Khalili, SOAS, University of London
Mohammad Mehdi Khorrami, New York University
Dina Rizk Khoury, George Washington University
Azadeh Kian, University of Paris
Stephen N. Lambden, Ohio University
Zachary Lockman, New York University
Ali Akbar Mahdi, Ohio Wesleyan University
Lenore G. Martin, Emmanuel College and Harvard University
Rudi Matthee, University of Delaware
Ann Elizabeth Mayer, The Wharton School
Abbas Milani, Stanford University
Farzaneh Milani, University of Virginia
Ziba Mir-Hosseini, SOAS, University of London
Valentine Moghadam, Purdue University
Haideh Moghissi, York University
Azar Nafisi, Johns Hopkins University-SAIS
Rasool Nafisi, Strayer University
Vali Nasr, Naval Postgraduate School
Farhad Nomani, The American University of Paris
Augustus Richard Norton, Boston University
Saeed Paivandi, University of Paris (VI)
Misagh Parsa, Dartmouth College
Samantha Power, Harvard University
William B. Quandt, University of Virginia
Sholeh A. Quinn, Ohio University
Nasrin Rahimieh, University of California, Irvine
Ali Rahnema, The American University of Paris
Saeed Rahnema, York University
Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Elizabeth Rubin, The New York Times Magazine
Sharon Stanton Russell, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Robert M. Russell, Tufts University
Ahmad Sadri, Lake Forest College
Mahmoud Sadri, Texas Woman’s University
Tagi Sagafi-nejad, Texas A & M International University
Ali Schirazi, The Free University of Berlin
May Seikaly, Wayne State University
Sussan Siavoshi, Trinity University
Stephen Spector, Stony Brook University
Ray Takeyh, Council on Foreign Relations
Kamran Talattof, University of Arizona
Richard Tapper, SOAS, University of London
Mohamad Tavakoli-Targhi, University of Toronto
Majid Tehranian, Toda Institute for Global Peace
Mark Tessler, University of Michigan
Mary Ann Tetreault, Trinity University, San Antonio
Nathan Thrall, The Jerusalem Post
Chris Toensing, Editor, Middle East Report
Nayereh Tohidi, California State University, Northridge
A. L Udovitch, Princeton University
Farzin Vahdat, Vassar College
Lucette Valensi, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
Stephen M. Walt, Harvard University
John Waterbury, American University of Beirut
Lawrence Weschler, New York University
Jenny White, Boston University
Judith S. Yaphe, George Washington University
Said Yousef, The University of Chicago
Hossein Ziai, University of California, Los Angeles
Marvin Zonis, The University of Chicago

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Wright: Boycott Threat Puts Pressure on Iran

Robin Wright at the Washington Post has a piece online today on the growing pressure among US academics to boycott conferences and intellectual contact with Iran as long as Dr. Haleh Esfandiari is detained by Tehran.

Wright quotes a statement from Noam Chomsky on Haleh's imprisonment:

' "Now is a time for diplomacy, negotiations and relaxation of tensions, in accordance with the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans and Iranians, as recent polls reveal," he said. "The intolerable treatment of this highly respected scholar and human rights activist severely undermines the efforts of those who are seeking peace, justice and freedom in the region and the world." '

She also quotes my entry, "Haleh in Prison," from Friday's IC.

She notes that 16 women in Congress have spoken out jointly on this issue, including Hillary Clinton.

It is great to have this coverage in a major US newspaper. But I still haven't been contacted by any organizations with capacity to do a demonstration in front of, e.g., the Iranian Embassy in London. Make it Friday, June 1, and I could help lead it.

Paris, Madrid, Rome and Tokyo would also be good places for a demonstration, and it is good if some prominent academics can take the lead.

Links:

Moroccan-American author Leila Lalami has spoken out on the issue.

Also Karen Tumulty at Time's blog, where she notes that Sam Brownback has spoken out on Haleh's imprisonment.

Amnesty International has a convenient form for sending protest emails to the Iranian government.

The Lehrer News Hour discussion of the imprisonment.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Haleh in Prison

I copied here last Saturday our MESA letter of protest about the Iranian government's imprisonment of Iranian-American scholar Haleh Esfandiari [also spelled Esfandiary].

Everyone should be outraged about this story. Her arrest should be an issue for everyone who believes in human rights, in academic freedom, and in women's rights.

I know Haleh and have enormous respect for her, and cannot say how anguished I am at the thought of her in that horrible Evin Prison, Iran's Abu Ghraib. I include below some more links on her case. But I'm not satisfied with just online petitions. Can't we get up some (legal, calm) protests in front of Iranian embassies in Europe and elsewhere?

Everybody does some things well and some things poorly. I have been pretty successful in various kinds of writing. But I'm not an organization person and don't have the slightest clue how to get up a successful protest in front of the Iranian embassy in London and Paris and Tokyo. Iran does a lot of trade with Western Europe and Japan, and the case of Haleh should be brought up every time they seek a new contract. We have to get her out of there, folks. Can anyone help? Can we set up a wiki project page and try to coordinate?

I had been planning to go to a conference in Iran in July, hosted by some French scholars, but I have cancelled in protest against this detention of my friend. I don't see how normal intellectual life can go on when a scholar at the Wilson Center can't safely visit Iran.

Scholars at Risk.

Danny Postel has written about this case at the Guardian.

Her husband, Shaul Bakhash has refuted the frankly looney tunes accusations against Haleh.

Amnesty International has issued a special alert about the issue.

Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Laureate, has condemned the arbitrary imprisonment of Haleh.

Rasool Nafisi discusses the reasons for which the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have imprisoned Haleh Esfandiari in the notorious Evin Prison.

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

70 Killed in Iraq
Diplomacy of Iran May be Legacy of British Sailor Hostage Crisis

The killings of 18 Iraqi, British and American soldiers by Iraqi guerrillas and militiamen were announced on Thursday.

AFP estimates that 52 persons were killed or found dead on Thursday, with 20 bodies brought to the morgue at Baquba northeast of Baghdad.

Other violence, including roadside bombings and mortar attacks in Baghdad on Friday, are reported by Reuters.

Militiamen in the southern Shiite port city of Basra deployed a roadside bomb to kill four British soldiers and their interpreter when it penetrated their armored fighting vehicle. The incident occurred near the Hayaniya district, a slum where the Mahdi Army of the Sadr Movement is strong. (In general, in Basra, the Mahdi Army is a minority affair.) Tony Blair's implication that Iran was involved in this attack somehow is likely incorrect. Iran and the Mahdi Army mostly don't get along very well. Besides, an allegation like that should be accompanied by some proof.

In Mosul, 40 Sunni Arab guerrillas attacked an Iraqi army checkpoint. They set vehicles aflame and confiscated the soldiers' weapons, having found them asleep.

On Thursday, Sunni Arab guerrillas deployed roadside bombs in Baghdad to kill 4 US GIs.

Near Latifiya, guerrillas directed heavy fire at a US helicopter, apparently forcing it to make a hard landing in which 4 of the 9 service personnel aboard were injured.

Sunni Iraqi clerics meeting in Amman have agreed to form a new organization, the Council of Islamic Clerics. They issued a communique that said:

' The conference stresses the need for working with all means, including the legitimate resistance, to expel the invasion forces and ensure laying down a timetable for their pullout.'

Bernard Gwertzman's interview of me on the release of Iran's hostages and the Iranian role in Iraq is available at the Council on Foreign Relations web site.

Jim Lobe interviews Gary Sick, Trita Parsi and me on the Iranian capture and release of the British sailors, and what might be the aftermath.

Noam Chomsky on 'What if Iran had invaded Mexico?'

Shorter Washington Post: Feith and Cheney were just making it all up as they went, and lied us into a quagmire of a horrible war.

Cheney repeated on Thursday on Rush Limbaugh his ridiculous assertion that Saddam Hussein was running Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as an al-Qaeda agent in Baghdad.

Someone should please tell Cheney that his own government captured documents in Iraq that show that Saddam's security forces were a) afraid of al-Qaeda and Zarqawi and b) were trying to capture him once they heard he was in Iraq. The pdf link in my posting on this shows the APB Iraq put out for Zarqawi and the wanted poster.

I don't know why this information hasn't percolated up to Cheney or why the US press doesn't call him on his ridiculous assertions that are contradicted by clear documentary evidence in USG hands.

Zeinaub Chami on the propaganda effort by the Zionist Organization of America to bring so-called "ex-terrorist" Muslim speakers to the Detroit Metro area, and who say questionable things about the Muslim tradition.

Yes, whenever I want to know about Islam, I go to the Zionist Organization of America and to the retired terrorist dentists that they recommend.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Breaking News: British Sailors Freed

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced today that the 15 British sailors and Marines captured by Iran on March 23 would be released. Iran had alleged that the UK seafarers had been in Iranian waters, which Britain denies.

The decision to keep the British naval personnel for a couple of weeks and this decision to release them were made by Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, not by Ahmadinejad, who appears to have been relatively muzzled by his superiors during the crisis itself.

I argued in Salon that the episode was used by Khamenei to whip up nationalist fervor and more public support in Iran for his unpopular regime.

These sorts of incidents are always to some extent about face, and apparently the Iranians felt that when Britain agreed to enter into direct bilateral negotiations, Iran had gained enough face to be magnanimous. Ahmadinejad specifically condemned the earlier British multilateral approach of arranging for a UN Security Council condemnation of Iran (in which Tehran lost face).

The speed with which British diplomacy secured the release of these sailors and Marines proves for the thousandth time that the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, which called for military reprisals against Iran instead, is delusional in its warmongering. What is *wrong* with those people?

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Cole in Salon: Iran's New Hostage Crisis

My column, "Iran's new hostage crisis," is out at Salon.com.

Excerpt:

' The capture by Iranian Revolutionary Guards of 15 British sailors and marines on March 23 has set off a diplomatic crisis and mobilized the public in both Britain and Iran . . . Why would the Iranian leadership risk such a confrontation over a minor issue? . . .

With Iran facing huge challenges at home (an economy in tatters) and abroad (mounting pressure over its nuclear program), Ahmadinejad and his reluctant patron, the Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, desperately needed a diversion. . .

Ahmadinejad's alienation of potential Iranian supporters such as Russia and China with his regular undignified rants against Israel and the West has cost Iran dearly at the United Nations Security Council, which has voted for a series of potentially serious economic sanctions in response to Tehran's attempts to enrich uranium for nuclear energy. Iranians, who saw how oil-rich Iraq was reduced to a fourth-world country by U.N. sanctions in the 1990s, are anxious about their own fate.

Ahmadinejad's domestic and foreign policy failures have emboldened his enemies, especially Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president (1989-1997) who now heads the clerical "senate" called the Expediency Council. Rafsanjani has taken to openly denouncing Ahmadinejad's policies. Even the president's own right-wing supporters are threatening to vote down his budget, which contains another 20 percent increase in public spending.

A lot of Iranians could not care less about Khomeini's clerical ideology at this point, but most are still intensely nationalistic. Given all the student protests against hard-line policies in recent times, it must be sweet indeed for the ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad to see universities become the sites of anti-British denunciations. '

See also Gary Kamiya's Last Chance for Middle East Peace

and

Glenn Greenwald on persistent lies on the Right about US public opinion regarding withdrawing from Iraq.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Democrats Blink on Iran Restriction
Khatami Calls on Iran to Allay Western Fears

The Democrats are blinking and taking out of proposed legislation a provision that would have forbidden Bush to take military action against Iran without coming to the Congress first (i.e. without acting in accordance with the Constitution). I'm not sure why you need a statute, anyway, to ensure that the Constitution is followed . . . Except that it has been so long since presidents have paid much attention to the Constitution. The Imperial Presidency has overshadowed it, just as Emperor Augustus overshadowed the Roman Republic.

Those who said that such a provision would take the military option off the table with regard to Iran are simply wrong. It just required that the president make the case for a war to the legislature, which declares war. The option was still there if the legislature wanted it to be.

But after the Iraq fiasco it is amazing to me that Washington is still talking about going to war against Middle Eastern countries that pose no threat to the US mainland. The US got where it is after World War II by mostly avoiding direct military campaigns and occupations. The US does not have the resources to occupy two Middle Eastern oil states, and trying to do so will break it as surely as imperial overstretch broke its predecessors among the great powers. Those who think all this is good for Israel are being short-sighted. If the US spirals down into a non-entity over the next 30 years as a result of over-stretch, Israel will be left without a great power patron and might well not survive. The Europeans are fed up with its militarism and itchy trigger finger, and it hasn't made any friends in its own region.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called on the US to keept its troops in Iraq for the time being and only exit "responsibly." He also egged the US on to confront Iran.

Iran hasn't threatened to attack Israel militarily, and in fact has denounced the killing of innocent civilians. The Iranian regime doesn't like what it calls the Zionist occupation regime, and hopes it will dissolve the way the Soviet Union did. But Tehran hasn't threatened an attack. Olmert's insinuations to the contrary are typical of rightwing Zionist propaganda, in which aggressive and expansionist intentions are always dressed up as defensive in nature.

Olmert--that great military genius--isn't someone Americans should be listening to on the subject of war. And, he should be careful in seeming to try to influence the US government to stay in Iraq, since such a stance is extremely unpopular and getting moreso over here. Sooner or later the American public is going to rebel against the hold that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has over the US Congress, especially if they think it is getting their children blown up halfway around the world.

Oh, and of course Olmert offered the US $3 billion a year to help defray the costs of the Iraq War, which he says is benefitting Israel. After all, the Saudis gave the US billions for the Gulf War in 1990-1991. But no, not really. Olmert isn't offering any actual help to the US of any sort. In fact, we're each being taxed personally to help pay for Olmert's creeping colonization of the West Bank and his vast land theft from the poor displaced Palestinians, which in turn provokes hatred of Americans and puts us in danger. So too does the American attempt to occupy militarily an Arab country like Iraq. If we don't get out of there soon, it will bring a horrible retribution on us.

In Iran, former President Mohammad Khatami urged the Iranian government to find a way of allaying North Atlantic fears over Iran's civilian nuclear research program, which Khatami said is not aimed at producing a bomb. He said he recognized legitimate concerns about all this in the West, but believed that they could be allayed if handled properly. Many Iranians are worried about UN Security Council sanctions, since they saw how such measures turned Iraq into a fourth world country in the 1990s. Khatami was president for 8 years and tried to reach out to the US and Europe, but was consistently blown off, including by Cheney in 2003.

One journalist estimates that just health care for the returned wounded US veterans of the Iraq War will come to $2.5 trillion.

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that the Iraqi National List (secular nationalists) and the Iraqi Accord Front (Sunni fudnamentalists) have rejected the presentation of the draft oil bill to parliament. They insist that first the review and amendment of the constition must be accomplished, and then the oil law can be considered. I presume what is going on here is that these two lists reject the constitutional provisional for provinces to join together into provincial confederacies, and they want it taken out the of the constitution. And, they are holding up the oil law, which would benefit the Shiite government, as a form of blackmail. But if the Shiites and the Kurds together want to pass the oil bill into law, they don't need these two party lists, so the blackmail isn't actually likely to work.

Al-Zaman also reports on Vice Premier (Sunni) Salam al-Zawba'i's negotiations in Damascus over the status and treatment of the estimated 1.2 million Iraqi refugees in that country. Syria has recently been putting its foot down and demanding some international aid (i.e. what the political scientists call "rent") to help take care of them all. Ironically, negotiating the disposition of the Iraqi refugees in Syria has become the main avenue to direct US/Syria talks.

Al-Zaman says that Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani flew to Riyadh in hopes of getting the Saudis to talk to Turkey about improving relations with the Iraqi Kurds. Ankara is unhappy with Kurdistan's moves toward greater autonomy and its determination to annex the oil-rich Kirkuk province. Turkey is also upset that the Iraqi Kurds are harboring the PKK guerrillas that blow things up inside Turkey. I'm not sure why Barzani thinks that Saudi Arabia, a fundamentalist state, would have much sway with the militantly secular Kemalist officers in Ankara.

After the extensive slaughter of the pilgrims during the past week, the Iraqi guerrillas appear to have taken Monday off. Still, 20 bodies showed up in Baghdad's streets on Sunday, and there were scattered assassinations and mortar attacks throughout the country on Monday.

The USG Open Source Center paraphrases Iraqi news items for March 12:

"Dar al-Salam carries on the front page a 150-word on the large demonstration in Al-Ramadi demanding the immediate release of a woman detained by occupation forces. . .

Al-Zaman publishes on the front page a 240-word report entitled "Iraqi National Bloc Calls for Postponement of Discussion on Oil and Gas Bill. . ."

Al-Zaman publishes on page 4 a 200-word report on the statement issued by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani yesterday, 11 March, urging pilgrims not to believe people alleging that they are ambassadors of the Imam Al-Mahdi [the Muslim Promised One] . . .

Al-Sabah carries on page 4 a 130-word report citing Amirah al-Baldawi, parliament member from the [Iraqi Shiite] Unified Iraqi Coalition, criticizing the Egyptian Foreign Minister's declarations calling for the rehabilitation of army and police forces on non-sectarian grounds. . .

Al-Mu'tamar runs on the front page a 120-word report saying that Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr has appeared in Karbala after reports that he fled to Iran. . .

Al-Bayyinah al-Jadidah carries on the front page a 230-word report citing Sadr-al-Din al-Qubbanchi [of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq], during the Friday sermon in Al-Najaf, accusing Britain of leading a coup by foiling the political process. . .

Al-Istiqamah carries on the front page a 180-word report saying that Vice President Adil Abd-al-Mahdi met with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and other Shiite clerics to discuss the latest political and security developments. . .

Dar al-Salam publishes on page 2 a 170-word report accusing Shiite terrorist militias of attacking Al-A'zamiyah and other Sunni districts and abducting four Sunnis in Al-Hurriyah District of Baghdad. . .

Al-Zaman publishes on page 5 a 1,000-word report citing academics and political observers attributing their refusal to appear on satellite television channels to the deteriorating security situation. . .

Al-Bayyinah al-Jadidah carries on the front page a 270-word report saying that Al-Muqdadiyah's inhabitants are suffering from the shortage of food materials, unemployment, and the unpaid salaries due to the deteriorating security situation. . .

Al-Muwatin carries on page 2 a 1,000-word report citing a source at the religious authority in Al-Najaf informing Al-Nahrain Net saying that most Shiite clerics are concerned with the US measures against Al-Sadr City and some Shiite clerics. . .

Al-Zaman carries on page 3 a 900-word report entitled "Sabaeans Find Safe Shelter in Kurdistan; Barzani Meets With Hilu To Organize Arrival of Sabaean Families." . .

Al-Mada on 12 March runs on the front page a 100-word report citing Oil Minister, Hussein Al-Shahristani, announcing in Karbala that there are new negotiations to build a Karbala refinery, which would be the largest and the most modern refinery in the country. He added that the next months would witness the building of this refinery that will be achieved within four years. Its capacity will be 140,000 barrels per day, which is double the capacity of Al-Dura refinery. He asserted that the outcome of the negotiations with the International Monetary Fund resulted in the cancellation of some of Iraq's debts, depending on an increase in the price of oil products, which will be approximately 50 Iraqi Dinars per litter for kerosene. This price will be fixed until the 1 st of April. . . [Karbala is in a heavily Shiite area, so these projects will benefit Shiites.- JRIC]

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

More Shiite Pilgrims Hit;
Iran says it Wants Iraq Stability

Iraqi guerrillas killed two US GIs on Sunday.

Meanwhile, as some Americans were risking their lives, Bush campaign guru Karl Rove had it sweeter than ever. Not only was he betraying the United States of America by outing a covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame Wilson-- McClatchy reveals that he was also helping get federal attorneys fired for not being far rightwing Republicans. Why is this man still in the White House?

Iraq's sectarian civil war exploded into violence again on Sunday, leaving at least 75 dead and dozens wounded in a wave of bombings and attacks, many of them aimed at Shiite pilgrims coming back to Baghdad from the holy city of Karbala. Some 40 pilgrims were wounded and in serious condition late Sunday. The major incident was a bombing in Karrada of returning pilgrims, which killed over 30 persons, according to al-Hayat, writing in Arabic.

Another bomber hit a mini-bus near Mustansiriya University. Elsewhere, guerrillas bombed a bus in Baladruz. In the major northern city of Mosul, guerrillas attacked the HQ of the Islamic Accord Front, the Sunni fundamentalist coalition that has been willing to sit in parliament and cooperate (if often sullenly) with the Americans. Three guards were killed and one injured. Reuters gives details of the bombings.

The Sunni Arab guerrillas are targeting Shiite pilgrims in hopes that they will in turn attack Sunnis, and that the ensuing turmoil will force the US out of the country.

Damien Cave of the NYT reports that guerrillas are using house burnings in their quest to ethnically cleanse neighborhoods of members of the opposite branch of Islam.

Kudos to Solomon Moore of the LAT for this excellent piece on the need to hold early provincial elections in Iraq. The last provicial elections, in January, 2005, were boycotted by the Sunni Arabs. The article points to the problems of Shiite dominance in Diyala and Baghdad provinces in the absence of very many powerful Sunni Arab members of the provincial councils. But even in al-Anbar and Salahuddin Provinces, there are the problems of lack of representativeness in the provincial councils. If so many did not vote, the politicians on these bodies don't have much of a constituency.

The LAT reports that some in the military favor an El Salvador option, of getting most US troops out of Iraq and using a small force rapidly to train Iraqi troops.

A major Iranian bank, Bank Melli,, will open an Iraq branch.

The Kurdistan Regional Government stands accused of suppressing the language and customs of the Assyrian Christians.

The Sunni fundamentalist vice president of Iraq, Tariq al-Hashimi, praised Shiite Iran during his recent visit there for its help in getting Iraq back on its feet.

Tom Engelardt discusses 'surge creep' in Bush administration Iraq policy, while Michael Schwartz looks at the risks of alienating the Shiite Iraqis and their Iranian allies implicit in current Bush policy.

Presidential candidate Barak Obama says that if the Iraqi government does not implement key reforms, the US troops will simply have to be taken out the country.

Former British diplomat Jeremy Greenstock, blocked by the Blair government from publishing his critiques of the Iraq occupation authorities' policies, has written them as a history of WW I. He wrote an introduction to the memoir of a British officer who witnessed the disastrous British campaigns in Iraq of the teens of the last century.

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

Iran EFP Story a New "Yellowcake" Scandal?

An informed reader writes:

Your reference to the Drew Brown McClatchy wire service report carried by the Mercury News about possible Sunni involvement in the IEDs and EFPs that have allegedly killed upwards of 170 Americans could be the tendrils of the new "Yellowcake" scandal of the Administration's ramp up to attacking Iran. As we all know, several weeks ago, a military intelligence briefing occurred in Iraq where several officials, including Brigadier General Caldwell, the mouthpiece for the American Occupation Forces, and several intelligence analysts, claimed that not only was Iran responsible for the use and manufacture of EFPs, which they said had killed upwards of 170 Americans -- but that the orders for their use, manufacture, and supply to "insurgents" came from "the highest levels of the Iranian Government." The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quickly said that while there were aspects to the briefing he agreed with, he could not state, unequivocally, that the orders for the use and manufacture of these EFPs had come down from on high. This was when the American people, indeed, the people of the world, were told that the nefarious "Quds Brigade" were the operatives who had carried out these tasks for high Iranian officials. Checking through various books I've read about the Shia, I learned that the Quds Brigade, besides being a counter intelligence and intelligence unit for the Supreme Leader, ali Khamenai, has considerable expertise and probably HAD supplied training to insurgents in Iraq on how to build these massive and powerful weapons. Once I saw some of the photos of Abrams M1 tanks completely destroyed, or flipped, it became clear that yes, the insurgents had a new, more powerful weapon. Several things hadn't jelled with me, though, about this briefing. First, no one ever, even to this day, said that the briefing was blessed by General Odierno, General Petraeus's second in command. Nor have they ever indicated whether Petraeus had blessed the briefing. Having worked for the U.S. Air Force for 20 years, I would say that that constitutes poor reporting. To NOT have been given the blessing to conduct the briefing, by one or both of those officers, would constitute such gross negligence, that they ought to be recalled immediately. The civilian intelligence analyst who speculated that the highest type officials of the Iranian government had blessed the use of these devices probably is shoveling poop in Alaska now, if he even has a job. But General Caldwell, you can believe, reports to Odinero or Petraeus. If either of them had signed off on the briefing, then why no action for them? The charges, after all, led to a serious reversal by even the White House. The Mercury News article goes over the details in a way that more media reporters should have taken. They sorted out how many EFPs and IED attacks have occurred in 2005 and 2006. There isn't much difference ... about 40 killed from the former year to the latter. But the EFPs have clearly become an almost certain death sentence for our troops. But the details bear out what I thought from having read the casualty reports that come out daily from Globalsecurity.org. The greatest % of fatalities connected with those devices is in Sunni or Mixed areas. So, nix the so called solid intelligence the Administration has once again claimed to warrant severe scrutiny of the Iranians and Iranian leadership. Essentially, they can't prove it, or, if they can, they're not going to compromise their intelligence sources (most likely signals intelligence of some kind derived from NSA monitoring). Additionally, what about the eight choppers shot down or brought down due to the use of SA-7s, 14s, and 17s? All Soviet weapons. And, again, according to Globalsecurity.org's glossary of weapons information, at least two Sunni dominated nations -- Egypt and Pakistan -- had all of these weapons, plus the heavy machine guns that have also been used in downing these 8 choppers. Is it possible that rouge intelligence or military agents from those two nations, among other Sunni nations which might have some reason to see the Americans humiliated, have migrated to Iraq? And taught insurgents -- Sunni insurgents -- how to use those weapons in coordination with RPGs, heavy automatic weapons fire, as well as other diversions, to cause chopper problems for the Americans? That would be serious. It would embarrass perhaps Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or Pakistan. And speaking of Pakistan: today we were told by Brian Ross, on ABC Evening News, that the very day Cheney read the riot act to Musharraf, the Pakistanis found the #3 of the Taliban and arrested him. Or is it more likely that Cheney delivered, personally, intelligence that showed Musharraf exactly WHERE this man was. And that Cheney told him: either you get him or we will. Today. And then Cheney leaves, and goes to Baghram Airport. Where, oddly enough, he is forced to stay overnight, due to weather. And oddly enough, the Taliban blow up a suicider at the main gate. Surely, not to get Cheney, American officials proudly proclaim. There's no way to get Cheney! No, but the Taliban said they wanted Cheney to know we knew you were staying there. And perhaps that info came from a Pakistani ISI source? Was all of this a ruse to smoke out, for Musharraf, a very high placed spy for the Taliban and al-Qaeda? Or was the bombing at Bagram, more a signal to Cheney: WE got YOUR message! YOU told Musharraf where our #3 guy was, and YOU were sending US a message. Now, here is OUR message to YOU, Mr. Cheney! WE knew you were there. We KNEW your movements. Think about THAT! Maybe next time you come around our part of the world, we'll get YOU! I suspect Musharraf is walking a razor blade. I suspect that since the squandered opportunities in the War in Afghanistan, and especially since the U.S.- India nuclear deal, elements of the Pakistani Army and ISI have once again begun to assist the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Cheney and Bush are blowing all kinds of intelligence to let the Pakistanis know that we know what they're up to. But will it really do Musharraf much good? Will he suddenly be able to swoop down on rogues in his Army and ISI, and quell yet another possible coup? How long can he last, when he sucks up more and more to the Americans? And, of course, the Brits are very unhappy with Musharraf and Pakistan. The British Pakistanis are the ones causing Great Britain real concern, as they show up in plot after plot to kill British citizens. Finally, why in the world would Ahmadinejad make a trip to Saudi Arabia? What deals could he convey to the Saudis? Is a deal in the works to soft pedal any criticism the Iranians have made against the Saudis, in exchange for the same from the Saudis against the Iranians? Are the Iranians going pull a rabbit out of their hat at the upcoming diplomats conference in Iraq? Or, do the Iranians have intelligence which will seriously implicate Saudi rogues in the transition of EFP training to the insurgents? Are the Iranians about to expose that? And embarrass the Saudis AND, the Americans? Could it be that the rampant Bushista rant against Iran is the new "yellowcake" incident of this potential war? Because why in the world would the Americans NOT cite ANY Sunni nations as transferring not only IED and EFP technology and training to Sunni insurgents, but also, why would they not even mention the implications of Sunni experts from some Sunni nation, assisting insurgents in shooting down choppers? And possibly, the chlorine gas IEDs, as well. For there being 170 Americans killed and nearly 700 wounded by EFPs, it's remarkable that nothing's been said to Sunni nations when it is Sunni insurgents doing the killing. Rather, without naming Sunnis as the killers using these devices, the Bush Administration makes it appear that the deaths are caused by IRANIAN weapons and trainers. There are roughly 15 of the 30 outposts now located in Baghdad. There are only two ways to resupply them: over the road and by chopper. If the Americans suddenly see a chopper shot down every day, that will make chopper supply more tenuous for those isolated outposts. Supplying them by ground will be even more dangerous. Are we about to see a massive chain reaction ambush, using IEDs, snipers, EFPs, counter chopper equipment and techniques (Manpad shoulder fired missiles), heavy machine gun and automatic weapons fire, as well as chlorine gas releases near American outposts? And who will be behind such coordinated attacks? Quds Brigade or Sunnni dominated nations' rogue elements, assisting their brethren, in the fight on the ground. Vali Nasr makes it very clear that the Iraqi Shia will NOT allow themselves to be dominated ever again by Sunnis. Nor will Iran allow Iraqi Shias to be wiped out. Saudi Arabia recently said that they would never allow their Sunni brethren be slaughtered in Iraq. Have the Saudis, through so-called "rogues," already begun to fight the Shias on the ground, in Iraq? Is the Administration willing to ignore that, so that they can once again, build up a phony case for attacking not a Sunni nation, but colluding with the Sunnis, who are killing Americans right and left ... to squash the Shiites? Imagine the implications of THAT kind of secret game. In essence, claiming Shias are responsible for Americans being killed by EFPs, when, in fact, we KNOW it's Sunni inspired insurgents doing the killing. That would shake the very foundations of this country. It would be dejå vu all over again. I hope Brown and McClatchy can push this further, and I hope Informed Comment can scour the news, to see what the Pakistani press says about the arrest of the #3 Taliban leader. And what they say about the bombing in Baghram. And what they say about Ahmadinejad's trip to Saudi Arabia. The Bush Administration is definitely the darkest regime we have EVER seen in America. Frankly, I wouldn't doubt that if they could push American opinion to accept the Iranians are behind all the evil in Iraq, they'd be willing to sacrifice some Americans to perpetuate that myth. It is heinous to think that, but this regime is heinous. There is a golden award of some kind for the first reporter to bring this level of scrutiny to the national media's attention. They are lazy, asleep, and still gullible when it comes to trusting military or intelligence community briefings. Thank God there are a few real reporters left in the American media.

For "cont'd" postings, click here.

NYT Falls for Bogus Iran Weapons Charges
Completely Implausible Numbers are Thrown Around
Repeat of Judy Miller Scandal

This NYT article depends on unnamed USG sources who alleged that 25 percent of US military deaths and woundings in Iraq in October-December of 2006 were from explosively formed penetrator bombs fashioned in Iran and given to Shiite militias:

' In the last three months of 2006, attacks using the weapons accounted for a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total, military officials say.'

This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months. Day after day, the casualty reports specify al-Anbar Province or Diyala or Salahuddin or Babil, or Baghdad districts such as al-Dura, Ghaziliyah, Amiriyah, etc.--and the enemy fighting is clearly Sunni Arab guerrillas. And, Iran is not giving high tech weapons to Baathists and Salafi Shiite-killers. It is true that some casualties were in "East Baghdad" and that Baghdad is beginning to rival al-Anbar as a cemetery for US troops:

Robert Burns of AP observes,

"The increasingly urban nature of the war is reflected in the fact that a higher percentage of U.S. deaths have been in Baghdad lately. Over the course of the war through Feb. 6, at least 1,142 U.S. troops have died in Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency, according to an AP count. That compares with 713 in Baghdad. But since Dec. 28, 2006, there were more in Baghdad than in Anbar - 33 to 31."

Over all, only a fourth of US troops had been killed Baghdad (713 or 23.7 percent of about 3000) through the end of 2006. But US troops aren't fighting Shiites anyplace else-- Ninevah, Diyala, Salahuddin--these are all Sunni areas. For a fourth of US troops to be being killed or wounded by Shiite EFPs, all of the Baghdad deaths would have to be at the hands of Shiites!

The US military often does not announce exactly where in Baghdad a GI is killed and so I found it impossible to do a count of Sunni versus Shiite neighborhoods. But we know that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was running interference for the Mahdi Army last fall, and it seems unlikely to me that very many US troops died fighting Shiites in Baghdad. The math of Gordon's article does not add up at all if this were Shiite uses of Iran-provided EFPs.

So the unnamed sources at the Pentagon are reduced to implying that Iran is giving sophisticated bombs to its sworn enemies and the very groups that are killing its Shiite Iraqi allies every day. Get real!

Moreover, there is no evidence of Iranian intentions to kill US troops. If Iran was giving EFPs to anyone, it was to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its Badr Corps paramilitary, for future use. SCIRI is the main US ally in Iraq aside from the Kurds. I don't know of US troops killed by Badr, certainly not any time recently.

It is far more likely that corrupt arms merchants are selling and smuggling these things than that there is direct government- to- militia transfer. It is possible that small Badr Corps stockpiles were shared or sold. That wouldn't have been Iran's fault.

Some large proportion of US troops being killed in Iraq are being killed with bullets and weapons supplied by Washington to the Iraqi army, which are then sold by desperate or greedy Iraqi soldiers on the black market. This problem of US/Iraqi government arms getting into the hands of the Sunni Arab guerrillas is far more significant and pressing than whatever arms smugglers bring in from Iran.

We now know that Iran came to the US early in 2003 with a proposal to cooperate with Washington in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and that VP Richard Bruce Cheney rebuffed it. The US could have had Iran on its side in Iraq!

The attempt to blame these US deaths on Iran is in my view a black psy-ops operation. The claim is framed as though this was a matter of direct Iranian government transfer to the deadliest guerrillas. In fact, the most fractious Shiites are the ones who hate Iran the most. If 25 percent of US troops are being killed and wounded by explosively formed projectiles, then someone should look into who is giving those EFPs to Sunni Arab guerrillas. It isn't Iran.

Finally, it is obvious that if Iran did not exist, US troops would still be being blown up in large numbers. Sunni guerrillas in al-Anbar and West Baghdad are responsible for most of the deaths. The Bush administration's talent for blaming everyone but itself for its own screw-ups is on clear display here.

For more skepticism, see this column at Huffington;

and Glenn Greenwald

and

Think Progress .
For "cont'd" postings, click here.