IRANEAYANDE

UN urges Iran to halt enrichment

2006-03-30T09:42:00.000-08:00

The UN Security Council has unanimously approved a statement urging Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.

The vote was taken shortly after the text had been agreed by the five permanent members of the council.
It follows weeks of wrangling between the US, UK, Russia, China and France over the details of a text that sets out the UN's response to the issue.
Iran says its nuclear programme is being developed for peaceful purposes and has refused to stop its activities.
The agreement - which is not legally binding - comes ahead of Thursday's meeting of foreign ministers from the five members, as well as Germany, in Berlin to discuss a future strategy on Iran.
It was reached after France and the UK drew up a third version of a draft statement that made concessions to Russia and China.
Altered text
Moscow and Beijing, both allies of Iran, were concerned that Security Council involvement could lead to sanctions against Iran and wanted the IAEA to take the lead.
The latest statement repeats the call for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, but omits some of the detailed demands - referring instead to an IAEA resolution on the issue.
It again calls for the IAEA's director general to report back on Iran's compliance, but extends the deadline from 14 to 30 days.
And while it no longer says the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a threat to international peace and security, the draft statement does refer to the Security Council's responsibility to maintain peace.

Iran Defiantly Rejects New U.N. Demands

2006-03-30T09:25:00.000-08:00

AP
BERLIN

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran on Thursday the "international community is united" in the dispute over its nuclear program, but a Tehran envoy defiantly rejected a U.N. call to reimpose a freeze on uranium enrichment. Rice spoke after a meeting in Berlin among diplomats from the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany over ways to press Iran to stop enriching uranium, which can be used for weapons. Iran says its program is peaceful.

نوروز

2006-03-21T13:03:00.000-08:00

زايش ايران نوين و آغاز سال 6370 شاهنشاه? بر فرزندان آريابوم شاد باد

نوروز

2006-03-20T13:23:00.000-08:00

جشن نوروز ، جشن نو شدن راشادباش ميگويم

Rice: Iran 'terror's central bank'

2006-03-16T09:27:00.000-08:00

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday urged Iran to resume negotiations over its nuclear program, while also calling the country a central banker for terrorism.

Rice was speaking after meeting her Australian counterpart Alexander Downer for talks that covered topics including Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions, Indonesia's development and the recent nuclear deal between Washington and India.
Rice called Iran a "troublesome state" and the "central banker of terrorism," though she didn't elaborate on that, and said it was time for the country to "heed the international community's call" to resume negotiations on its nuclear program.
Rice said she was "quite certain the (U.N.) Security Council will find an appropriate vehicle for expressing again ... the desire of the international community ... that Iran return to negotiations."
Earlier this week, China and Russia objected to a tough U.N. Security Council statement backed by the United States, Britain and France calling for a report in two weeks on Iran's compliance with demands that it suspend uranium enrichment.
The five veto-wielding council members are united against Iran developing nuclear weapons, but they disagree on how to get Tehran to comply with demands by the U.N. nuclear watchdog to stop all enrichment and reprocessing and answer questions about its controversial nuclear program.
Uranium enrichment can be used either in the generation of electricity or to make nuclear weapons. Iran insists its program is to produce nuclear energy but the International Atomic Energy Agency has raised concerns that Tehran might be seeking nuclear arms.
At the same wide-ranging joint press conference with Downer, Rice also said she expects Iraq to have a secure and stable government within a couple of years, and called on China to be transparent about its military buildup.
"I think there is a very good chance that the Iraqi people, with the support of their coalition partners, will have built the foundation for a stable and secure Iraq over the next couple of years," she said, just days away from the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

INDEPTH: IRAN

2006-03-16T09:18:00.000-08:00

If Iran insists its nuclear program is purely peaceful, why are there concerns?Well, there shouldn't be any - if Iran can be believed.Iran insists all it wants to do is provide a stable supply of electricity to a country of 70 million. Iran's goal is to generate 7,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear power plants by 2020.Sounds good, so far. But it's the second part of Iran's goal that has some worried. Tehran also wants to be self-sufficient in making fuel for its reactors. The process that makes nuclear power fuel, though, is also used to make material that can be used in nuclear weapons.Still, under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a country has the right to make its own nuclear fuel - as long as the process is closely monitored. Most countries that generate nuclear power import the fuel they need.The International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN body responsible for monitoring the treaty - hasn't been convinced that Iran has been completely forthcoming about its nuclear intentions.Some western countries also argue that Iran does not need to generate power from nuclear plants because it is rich in oil and natural gas deposits.
Hasn't Iran opened its program to inspections?Yes, according to Iran. Not totally, according to the IAEA.In 2002, Washington became very concerned after intelligence reports pointed to the existence of two secret nuclear facilities. According to an Iranian opposition group, the plants had been funded by front companies. The IAEA said the construction of the plants may have violated Iran's obligations to the agency - especially if Iran introduced nuclear material into the facility to test it, without informing the IAEA.Through much of 2003, Iran allowed inspectors into the country.On June 19, 2003, the IAEA called on Tehran to stop plans to begin enriching uranium and to allow inspectors the access they would need to clarify questions over Iran's nuclear program. The agency did not declare Iran in violation of its treaty obligations, nor did it refer the matter to the UN Security Council, as some U.S. officials had urged. The IAEA's director general - Mohamed ElBaradei - said the country had failed to report certain nuclear materials and activities.In August 2003, UN inspectors reported they had found traces of weapons-grade, enriched uranium in an Iranian nuclear facility - but that it could take months to fully analyse the material.On Sept. 12, 2003, the IAEA board of governors expressed "grave concern that, more than one year after initial IAEA inquiries to Iran about undeclared activities, Iran has still not enabled the IAEA to provide the assurances that all nuclear material in Iran is declared and submitted to Agency safeguards and that there are no undeclared nuclear activities in Iran." The board called on Iran to fully co-operate with the IAEA and ensure there are no more failures to own up to its nuclear capabilities - or risk being declared in contravention of the non-proliferation treaty.A toughly worded United Nations resolution, which strongly deplored "Iran's 18-year cover-up of a nuclear program including uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing," prompted Iran to freeze nuclear inspections.In March 2006, the IAEA sent a dossier to the UN Security Council that accused Iran of withholding information. After looking into the "Iran file" for three years, the agency said it had serious doubts about the nature and direction of Iran's nuclear program.
Is Iran working on its own?In September 2003, the United States chastised Russia for helping Iran in its nuclear program. Russia said it was helping only with the technology to generate nuclear power.In February 2004, the man who developed Pakistan's nuclear program admitted he transferred nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Abdul Qadeer Khan reportedly sold centrifuge parts to Iran for about $3 million. Centrifuges are used in the process of making fuel for nuclear power plants - and material for nuclear weapons.Pakistan's president pardoned Khan.
What has been the European Union's involvement?The EU, fronted by Britain, France and Germany, has been quite active in trying to avert a crisis. Two of those three countries - France and Germany - have been at odds with the United States over its involvement in Iraq.There have been concerns that Washington has contemplated acting against Iran since President Bush's "axis of evil" speech identified Iran as a problem country, mainly because of its alleged nuclear aspirations.The EU wants Iran to get out of uranium enrichment and promise to co-operate fully with the IAEA. In exchange, Iran would get a light-water nuclear reactor, nuclear fuel and trade benefits. Spent nuclear fuel would be removed from the country.The U.S. has stayed away from the European initiative, neither endorsing nor condemning it.
Where do things stand now?In November 2004, the EU and Iran made an agreement that Iran would suspend its program to produce enriched uranium while the IAEA continues its investigation. The EU would not refer the issue to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. The U.S. reserved its right to press for sanctions.In August 2005, after the inauguration of a new president, Iran rejected the EU package of proposals aimed at curbing its nuclear activity. A few days later, Iran resumed its nuclear program, reopening its uranium conversion plant in Isfahan in the presence of IAEA inspectors. European diplomats had expressed concern that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be less co-operative than the previous government. The IAEA adopted a resolution presenting Tehran with a Sept. 3 deadline to stop its uranium enrichment activities or face possible referral to the Security Council. Tehran reacted with defiance, with the Iranian Foreign Ministry calling the resolution an "unacceptable" result of American pressure. So far, the IAEA has hesitated to refer the matter to the Security Council because of the risk that it will not approve sanctions. China has indicated in the past that it could use its veto power to block a resolution against Iran. In October 2005, the United States and France urged Iran to return to the negotiating table in an effort to curb its nuclear arms program. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she wants the talks to restore faith in the international community. She wants reassurances Iran is not trying to build a nuclear weapon. Rice met with British, French and Russian leaders, trying to gain support to report Iran to the UN Security Council. In January 2006, Iran escalated the confrontation by removing the UN seals at one its uranium-enrichment plants and resuming nuclear research. Iran denied it's producing nuclear fuel by enriching uranium. But the U.S. and its EU allies again warned Iran that it risks referral to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. In March 2006, the IAEA sent its report on Iran to the UN Security Council. That report, which was highly critical of Iran's non-compliance with the IAEA's nuclear inspection efforts, would be the basis for possible Security Council sanctions against Iran. But diplomats said it was unlikely that the U.S. would press for sanctions as a first step. They said it was more likely that the 15 members of the Security Council would issue a presidential statement that would demand that Iran comply with IAEA resolutions.

U.S. missed an opportunity with Iran

2006-03-02T12:19:00.000-08:00

Iran said to have notified State Department in ‘03 of willingness to negotiate over WMDs, but ex-officials say Bush team didn’t want to deal

BY GREGORY BEALSSPECIAL TO NEWSDAY
February 18, 2006, 10:38 PM EST

In May 2003, shortly after the U.S. military destroyed the army of Saddam Hussein, a fax arrived at the State Department with an Iranian offer to open talks that would include a discussion of weapons of mass destruction.The one-page document was written by Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's ambassador to France and nephew of Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi and passed on by the Swiss ambassador to Tehran, who represented U.S. interests in Iran, a former administration official said.

The official, who saw the document, said it indicated that Iran wanted to negotiate a grand political bargain with the United States that would include everything from Iran's nuclear program to its support for groups that Washington regards as terrorist."The Iranians acknowledged that WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and support for terror were serious causes of concern for us, and they were willing to negotiate," said Flynt Leverett, a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council who said he read the document. "The message had been approved by all the highest levels of authority. They wanted us to deal with sanctions, security guarantees, normalization of relations, and support for integration of Iran into the World Trade Organization."Influenced by IraqThe fax was one of a series of informal soundings that emanated from Tehran in the months after the United States invasion of Iraq. Iran's envoys to Sweden and Britain also began sending signals that the regime was ready to negotiate a deal, according to a former Western diplomat closely familiar with the messages. Iran was sending messages through other back-channels as well, according to Paul Pillar, who served as the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005."There were several other informed intellectuals who visited Iran at the time," he said. "They were being used to receive and deliver similar sorts of messages. There was an interest in Tehran in engaging and talking."But the Bush administration was in no mood for conversation or grand political bargains, the former officials said. According to Leverett, who left government in mid-2003, the administration rejected the Iranian probe and instead sent a complaint to Swiss Ambassador Tim Guldimann, saying he had overstepped his role as an intermediary by passing it on in the first place.Critics, including the two former Bush administration officials, European diplomats, and policy experts, say the United States may have squandered an opportunity to negotiate an end to Iran's nuclear program by not talking with Tehran. According to both Leverett and Pillar, the administration's priority was to avoid negotiations with the regime, out of concern it would imply acceptance of its continuation in office. Since then, Iran's government has become even more conservative, making the prospect of further negotiations more problematic."No one at a senior level was willing to push Iran on diplomacy," said Leverett. "Was there at least a chance that we could have gotten something going? Yes, there was a chance."Little faith in change in IranThe State Department disputes that there was ever a prospect for credible direct negotiations with Iran. "The presumption that the regime in Iran is going to change its stripes is specious," said a department spokesman who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Was there a credible approach from the Iranian government with an offer that made any kind of sense? Never at any time ... "A White House spokesman declined to address the issues surrounding Iran's overtures in 2003. He said, however, Iran had "for years been deceiving the international community and now must live up to their responsibilities under the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] and NPT [Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty)]."Since those overtures, U.S. relations with Iran have sharply deteriorated. Last June, Iranians elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad president, replacing the more moderate Mohammed Khatami, and the new government has resumed the enrichment of uranium. Next month, the confrontation moves to the UN Security Council, with the United States asserting that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons and Iran asserting that the program is for peaceful purposes.The administration's reluctance to enter into new talks with Iran was displayed by the president's State of the Union address in January 2002, where he labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea members of an "axis of evil." The administration set the goal of establishing a reformist democracy in Iran to replace the mullahs as well as to roll back Tehran's nuclear program.Bush has now stepped up his campaign for reformist democracy in Iran. During his last State of the Union address, he appealed to the people of Iran to "win their own freedom" and promised "one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran." Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced an $85 million program to promote political change in Iran by subsidizing dissident groups and outside radio broadcasts.Regime isn't leaving soonU.S. intelligence experts, however, believe that the administration has been mistaken in its belief that the current regime in Iran is short-lived."The consensus analytic view was that there was a lot of dissatisfaction but that it didn't translate into a pre-revolutionary situation," said Pillar. "Iran doesn't have the appetite for making another revolution. I think there has probably been more faith among the policy-makers in the prospects of true regime change than most of the analysts believe."Leverett and others say the administration refused to pursue a negotiated end to Iran's nuclear program because it meant acknowledging a regime they viewed as fundamentally illegitimate. "They [the administration] believed that just a little pushing from us and it would be over," said the former Western diplomat. "They were wrong."
The man in charge of nuclear proliferation policy when the offer came in from Iran was John Bolton, then undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

Arguing the nuclear threat

Bolton, a hardline conservative who is currently U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, would not comment for this story. Testifying to Congress on June 4, 2003, Bolton argued that Iran could build "over 80 nuclear weapons" if it had access to a secure supply of nuclear fuel. That same month, the White House refused to rule out a military option in dealing with Iran after Iran failed to report "certain nuclear materials and activities" to the IAEA. Later that year, Bolton urged that Iran be brought before the UN Security Council for violating its commitments not to pursue nuclear weapons program.After the United States refused to speak directly with Tehran, major European powers decided to begin negotiations on their own. In October of 2003, the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Britain visited Iran and won a promise from the regime to suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for comprehensive talks. When the three European states probed Washington's interest in the negotiations the answer was not encouraging. "They were very skeptical," said one European Union diplomat. "You have to remember they were in a very ideological position at the time. They were not interested."European officials and the head of the IAEA believed that Washington had to lend its support for the negotiations to succeed. In January 2004, Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the IAEA, met Secretary of State Colin Powell to appeal for U.S. support, but there was no response. "He said over and over that negotiations were the only way forward and that it won't work unless the United States puts its weight behind them," said one Western diplomat working in Vienna. "They listened but that's all."Some experts saw Iran's desire to reach an agreement as a sign of strategic weakness. "In the immediate aftermath of the war, the Iranians were desperately afraid that they were next on the list and desperately trying to find a way to be accommodating to the U.S.," said Gary Saymore, a non-proliferation expert at the MacArthur foundation, an independent grant-making institution. "The suspension on uranium enrichment that the Europeans got came because Iran was afraid of the U.S. colossus next door.""What we took was exactly the wrong approach," said one U.S. military official with extensive knowledge of U.S. relations with Iran. "Our military had made the point to everyone in the region. If Iran is ready to come to the table, then you come to the table. Do it with distrust but get them to the table and get them engaged. We wasted an opportunity."That view also had currency in the higher reaches of the State Department, where officials feared that a policy of confrontation with Iran would provoke the regime into ramping up its nuclear program. "The question kept coming up in meetings 'Let's just say you go to the Security Council get everything you want,' Iran will probably still follow through with their program. Then what do you do?'" said Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Powell's chief of staff during Bush's first term in office. "Bolton would always say 'That's not my territory.'"A source close to Bolton said Iran's recent acceleration of its nuclear program proved that negotiations could not succeed. "Allowing the Europeans to negotiate was a train wreck waiting to happen," the source said after Iran announced it would restart uranium enrichment. "In many ways it is almost better that the Europeans didn't come up with some half-assed compromise that we would have had to reject. They saved us from themselves."The administration shifted its stance slightly last year. At a meeting with European leaders in Brussels on Feb. 21, 2005 Bush listened as German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac each made a case for Washington to support the European negotiations with Iran. Administration officials eventually agreed to support the European effort in public, and a short time afterwards, the United States began to offer incentives to Iran in the form of participation in the World Trade Organization and much needed spare parts for aircraft. The administration also signed onto a Russian backed proposal that would allow Iran to produce nuclear energy so long as it did not enrich uranium.Now experts fear Washington and Tehran are locked in a spiral of confrontation. Iran last week backed out of the talks with Moscow -- but yesterday agreed to resume them. It has announced it will withdraw from a voluntary program allowing unscheduled intrusive inspections. And it is once again enriching uranium. "The problem remains that the Iranians are less worried about Washington than they were before," said Saymore.

Iran leader faces Holocaust case

2006-02-26T12:02:00.000-08:00

An Israeli lawyer, Ervin Shahar, says he has asked Germany to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with denying the Holocaust.
Mr Ahmadinejad was widely criticised when he said last year that the Holocaust was a "myth" and that Israel should be "wiped off the map".
Germany passed a law in 1993 forbidding Holocaust denial. It is punishable by up to five years in prison.
Six million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War II.
Mr Shahar said he wanted the German federal prosecutors' office to take the issue before the constitutional court in the hope that international arrest warrants would be issued against Mr Ahmadinejad.
Correspondents say prosecutors will have to consider whether Germany has jurisdiction and whether President Ahmadinejad enjoys immunity.
International case
"I'm awaiting a response about whether they will file charges but I don't know how long it will take," Mr Shahar told the Reuters news agency.
"It doesn't take days but several months."
On Monday, British historian David Irving was found guilty in Austria of denying the Holocaust and sentenced to three years in prison.
He had pleaded guilty to the charge, based on a speech and interview he gave in Austria in 1989.
Although Mr Ahmadinejad did not deny the Holocaust on German soil, another law passed in 2005 permits the filing of international cases in German courts.
Mr Shahar hopes the case might result in international warrants for Mr Ahmadinejad's arrest, thus preventing the president from entering the US or Europe.
The lawyer believes Germany is the best country in which to file the suit, because it is the "most influential European state" and because the country is directly linked to the case.
The prosecutors' office in Karlsruhe has not yet commented.

A Mullah’s-Eye View of the World

2006-02-18T10:54:00.000-08:00

A Mullah’s-Eye View of the World
Iran is acting on its assessment of the West’s strength and resolve.
Michael Ledeen

Sometime in late November or early December, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei gathered his top advisers for an overall strategic review. The atmosphere was highly charged, because Khamenei’s doctors have diagnosed a serious cancer, and do not expect the Supreme Leader to live much more than a year. A succession struggle is already under way, with the apparently unsinkable Hashemi Rafsanjani in the thick of it, even though Khamenei, and his increasingly powerful son Mushtaba, is opposed to the perennial candidate-for-whatever.
Despite this disquieting news, the overall tone of the conversation was upbeat, because the Iranians believe they see many positive developments, above all, the declaration that "it has been promised that by 8 April, we will be in a position to show the entire world that 'we are members of the club.'" This presumably refers to nuclear weapons. Against this cheery background, the assessment of the Iranian leaders continued:
The weakness of the Bush administration is notable. Recent public opinion polls show the country seriously divided, and the top Iranian experts on North America have concluded that the president is paralyzed, unable to make any tough decision (and hence unable to order an attack against Iran);
2006 is an election year, and even some Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush, weakening the White House even further;
Israel is facing the darkest moment in its history (remember that this conversation took place before Sharon’s stroke). Likud is divided, Netanyahu is openly against Sharon, and the Labor party has lost its old guard. No strong government is possible (and hence Israel is similarly unable to order an attack against Iran). Therefore this is a moment for Iran to take maximum advantage;
Iranian power and prestige is at an all-time high among the Palestinian terrorist groups, from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah, to secular, even Communist groups. Terrorists who in the past had rejected Iranian approaches now travel to Tehran for support;
The Syrians have given Iran final say over the activities of Sunni terrorist groups in their country;
Iran now exercises effective control over groups ranging from Hezbollah, Ansar al-Islam, al Qaeda, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Jaish-e-Mahdi, and Jaish-e-Huti (Yemen) to the Joint Shi’ite Army of Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, and part of Saudi Arabia, as well as Islamic movements in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia;
In the four and a half months since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become president, he has brought the extremist group led by Mezbah Yazdi under control, and, notably, he has forced Syria to resist all pressure from the United States;
The Europeans are no longer necessary for the Iranian strategy, and can now be "thrown out of our game." They are in no position to do any damage because they are too busy fighting with one another;
Khamenei called for two urgent missions. The first was to do everything possible to drive up oil prices by an additional 30 percent by the first week in April. The second was to intensify the propaganda war against the West in the same period. He stressed that it was important to compel the United States to face at least three crises by the April 8.
In short, the Iranians at the highest levels of the regime believe they have good reason for behaving quite feisty, and if you look at the events that have taken place since then, you will see that the mullahs are acting consistently with the analysis presented to (and in part by) Khamenei. The propaganda war — lately and dramatically in the form of the cartoon crusades — has indeed been intensified. The Europeans have been systematically dissed, and more: their embassies in Tehran have been stoned, Iranian diplomats have insulted them with regularity, and the regime slapped a trade embargo on all goods coming from the infidel Europeans. When the French announced that the Iranian nuclear program was undoubtedly designed to produce weapons, Tehran demanded an apology. Above all, there is no longer any pretense of cooperation with the Big Three negotiators on the nuclear program.
This suggests that the mullahs do indeed believe they have acquired nuclear weapons, and there is no longer any need to play stalling games with the Germans, French, and Brits. Nor is there any reason to feign humanity in the treatment of their own people. The repression of any and all groups which might conceivably organize an anti-mullah revolution looks to reach the historic levels of the immediate post-revolutionary period, when hanging judges routinely ordered the execution of thousands of citizens for often-fabricated crimes. Of late, the regime has beaten, tortured, and incarcerated thousands of Tehran bus drivers, Bahais, Sufis, and Ahwaz Arabs, and they have even threatened the families of political prisoners, saying that the whole lot of dissidents will be killed if the U.N. votes for sanctions.
This brutal and open use of the mailed fist bespeaks utter contempt for the West; Khamenei & Co. do not think we will respond, do not fear Western action, and believe this is a historic movement for the advance of their vision of clerical fascism. But it also bespeaks a chilling recognition of their nemesis: the Iranian people. President Ahmadinejad recently canceled most foreign travel by regime officials, for example, which is not the sign of a confident mullahcracy; quite the contrary, in their heart of hearts, they know that they are walking a fragile tightrope, and their incessant preventive actions against normal Iranians look very much like Mickey Mouse in , racing frantically to stop an army of bucket-carrying brooms from drowning him.
Moreover, the runaway optimism (which in many clerical minds goes hand in hand with the conviction that the Shiite Messiah, the 12th Imam, is about to reappear, thereby ushering in the End of Days) is not as solidly grounded as the mullahs might wish. For starters, oil prices are headed south, not toward the 30-percent increase ordered by the supreme leader. And the analysis of the perceived “paralysis” of the United States is nothing more than a replay of the usual blunder committed by our enemies, who look at us and see fractious politics, widespread self-indulgence, and an unwillingness or inability to face up to real war. In this, as in so many other ways, the mullahs of the Islamic Republic are emulating failed tyrants, from the German Kaiser and Führer to the Italian Duce, the Iraqi dictator, and the Soviet Communist first secretaries, all of whom learned, to their ruin, that free societies are quite capable of turning on a dime and defending their interests and values with unanticipated ferocity.
And indeed, after years of dithering, we now have the first encouraging signs that this administration is inclined to support revolution in Iran. Secretary of State Rice, after her laudable reform of the Foreign Service, has now asked Congress for an additional $75 million to advance the cause of freedom in Iran. This is good news indeed, especially since there were hints in her testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday that we have already begun supporting Iranian trade unions, and even training some of their leaders. To be sure, the bulk of the money — $50 million — will go to the bureaucratic, and thus far utterly uninspiring, group running radio and TV Farda for the State Department, and the profoundly disappointing and feckless National Endowment for Democracy and the Democratic and Republic Institutes, but at least some money is promised for independent Farsi language broadcasters. Even with these shortcomings, we should celebrate Rice’s embrace of the cause of Iranian freedom so concretely.
On the other hand, there is no reason for joy at the news that assistant secretary Steve Rademacher seems to have gratuitously and foolishly promised that we will not use military power against Iran’s nuclear facilities. There is every reason to leave such stratagems in the haze of uncertainty, even if — as I have long argued — you believe it would not be a good idea, at least at this moment. Such declarations will reinforce the mullahs’ conviction that they have nothing to fear from us, and encourage them to race ahead with their murderous actions.
Even the world at large is beginning to bestir itself. Wednesday was a day of support for the Iranian bus drivers all across the civilized world. The AFL-CIO, driven by Teamsters’ President James Hoffa, in tandem with Senator Rick Santorum, has been leading the charge, now joined by unions in France, Britain, Spain, Austria, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Canada, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, and Bermuda. The appeasers in the Italian trade unions, like their opportunistic bosses, sat it out. Still, it’s an impressive list.
It’s a small and long overdue step forward, to be sure, but great journeys sometimes begin slowly and uncertainly. The great thing is that, after years of empty rhetoric, stalled internal debates, and the paralysis so dear to Khamenei’s heart, we have finally gotten started. Will it succeed? Do the tens of millions of Iranians who rightly hate their rulers have the stomach, the imagination, and the discipline to organize the downfall of the regime?
Nobody knows, perhaps not even the revolutionaries themselves. But America has moved, and when America moves, even gingerly, there will be ripples throughout Iran and throughout the region. The key imperative is that, now that we are in, we must persist and prevail. So far, so good: in the State of the Union the president spoke eloquently of our respect for the Iranian people and our determination to help them if they show the will and the capacity to act effectively. That was exactly the right note. And the secretary of State was similarly and appropriately modest in her rhetoric, speaking of our desire to support freedom — not announcing a national crusade, and not threatening dramatic action. It is for the Iranians to liberate their country. If they are willing to fight for freedom, we should stand with them.
Now, finally, they know we will. And the cry of "faster, please" must quickly go out to them.

U.S. Aid Would Fund Iran Opposition

2006-02-17T12:59:00.000-08:00

By Paul Richter, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a move to broaden pressure on Tehran's theocratic regime, asked Congress on Wednesday to sharply increase spending to promote democracy in Iran, from $10 million to $85 million this year.The money would be used to support political opposition and civil society groups in Iran, increase U.S. broadcasting into the country and underwrite more student study in the United States, Rice said.
"No one wants to see a Middle East that is dominated by an Iranian hegemony, particularly one that has access to nuclear technology," Rice said, appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.The move reflects the Bush administration's recognition that diplomatic efforts to halt Tehran's nuclear program face long odds and attempts to reform the regime from the inside may offer one of the best chances for keeping it free of nuclear weapons.But Iranian officials, who are highly sensitive to signs of foreign influence, are likely to point to the effort as another example of U.S. meddling and try to use it to foster anti-Americanism and build support for the regime, analysts said. The United Nations Security Council is considering a report by the world body's nuclear watchdog agency that Iran is in breach of agreements intended to provide safeguards on the country's nuclear program, which Tehran insists is peaceful but which the U.S. and European nations believe is aimed at developing nuclear weapons.As outlined by Rice, $50 million of the new outlay would allow the United States to broadcast Farsi-language programs 24 hours a day. Another $15 million would be earmarked for increasing participation in the political process, including measures such as expanded Internet access. The administration hopes to spend $5 million to fund scholarships and fellowships for young Iranians, and the State Department said $5 million "would go to public diplomacy efforts aimed at Iran, including its Persian-language website."Jon Wolfsthal, a proliferation expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said spending more to transmit broadcasts into Iran would probably have limited impact, considering that many Iranians have satellite dishes and can watch foreign programming. He said that although promoting democracy was worthwhile, "there has to be a recognition that the Iranian regime has a stable hold…. This can't be a substitute for a broader policy" to restrain the country's nuclear ambitions.Wolfsthal said the initiative also reflected domestic pressure on the administration to do more about the perceived danger posed by Iran.One of the advocacy groups that has been most alarmed by Iran, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, praised the administration's move, calling it "decisive steps to promote freedom, human rights and democracy in Iran."Rice did not give details of how the money would be delivered, but she said federal prohibitions restricting aid and fund transfers to Iran would be eased.At the Senate hearing, members of both parties questioned whether the administration's strategy in the Middle East, built around promoting democracy, had improved the situation. Some noted that U.S.-backed elections had strengthened the influence of Iran, giving more power to militant groups Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and seating a Shiite-dominated Iraqi government with strong ties to Tehran.Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) praised the administration for recently focusing on multinational diplomacy, but he said he did not see how "things are getting better." "I think they're getting worse in Iraq. I think they're getting worse in Iran," Hagel said. He added that he hoped Hamas' rise to power would "start to develop in a different direction." Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said elections in the Middle East and Latin America had handed power to "negative candidates who run against America," and she questioned whether the administration had properly handled policy.Rice insisted that the elections had "made the world — in a transitional state — a better place.""There are going to be some outcomes that are not perfect from an American point of view," she said. "But I don't think our policy can be that you can only have elections if you plan to elect … candidates that are friendly to America."

The right to blaspheme

2006-02-17T12:52:00.000-08:00

The right to blaspheme
Eleven French writers demand the right to poke fun wherever and whenever they want.

At the time of "The Satanic Verses" when the fatwa was pronounced on a famous author, here and there on the radio and television, at dinners and between the lines of editorials, fine minds were asking whether it was a good book. Other, more blunt ones, were already talking about provocation.Today we are asked to consider whether the cartoons of a prophet published in a Danish paper five months ago are in fact any good. One is tempted to say the cartoons and the question of their artistic value are hardly worth considering at all. We are told they are stirring up hatred. Here too we would like to say that hatred is neither in our values nor in our hearts. And how can we be responsible for stirring up hatred in others, when hatred is a spontaneously combustible fuel?Those older than us will no doubt be feeling a strong sense of deja-vu. It seems that for the fine minds at the time of the Munich Agreement, the German people were not to be humiliated at any cost, to save the pride of this grand nation which had suffered ever since its defeat in 1918, etc. This was a strange way of showing our consideration for our German friends, by leaving them in the hands of a power that would oppress them, lead them into endless wars, make them stoop to ignoble acts and, adding insult to injury, demonise them and literally split their country in two, for the Devil divides.We are asked to make an aesthetic, moral and sentimental judgement on a matter that goes to the heart of the basic principles of our democracies. The right of men and women to live freely is not the credo of religions, and it will never be.What is at stake is not just being free to make mistakes. The truth is that we are free to commit blasphemy. There is something rather disconcerting about having to remind people in France in 2006 that we have the right to commit blasphemy, that picking on the parish priest has long been a national sport.Nowadays we hear the question "Have you seen them?", just like we used to hear "Have you read it?" about Rushdie's book. But regardless if we have seen them or not, nothing can justify the mix of outraged reactions by those sincerely hurt, by politicians only too happy with this windfall and by new prophets holding out the menace, and the promise, of war. When the president of the Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitié pour les peuples decides to press charges against the papers guilty of complicity with the blasphemers on the pretext that the cartoons are "anti-Muslim racism", we ask: what race are we talking about? Is Islam genetically transmittable? What do the hundreds of thousands of immigrant men and women think about this, those who once again are identified with a religion they very often do not even practice?We are not to be duped: on the one hand we have cartoons which went totally unnoticed almost six months ago, and on the other we have ultra-religious parties which win the elections in Palestine and the threat from Iran (how to judge the Iranian provocation? As useful? As useless?)We are writers. We come from different horizons and have different origins. We belong to different social groups and religious heritages. We have singular destinies, individual convictions and – yes – sexual preferences.It is difficult not to see that in the war now being waged by the Christian fanatics in America and the Muslim fanatics in the Middle East, the anger and the frustration will fall upon the moderate lay countries.Soon, in France like in Denmark, the liberty to publish will be denied us in the name of respect for this or that god. If we give in, the libraries will be burned that house Voltaire, Sade, Ovid, Omar Khayyam, Proust and all the rest. And there is no doubt that the popes, the grand rabbis and the grand muftis will all be there to dance at this grand auto-da-fé.*Salim Bachi, Jean-Yves Cendrey, Didier Daeninckx, Paula Jacques, Pierre Jourde, Jean-Marie Laclaventine, Gilles Leroy, Marie NDiaye, Daniel Pennac, Patrick Raynal, Boualem Sansal.The letter was originally published in French in Le Monde on February 13, 2006. It was published in German in Perlentaucher.

Pressmeddelande

2006-02-15T12:30:00.000-08:00

Yttrandefrihet och demokrati p? arbetsplatserna m?ste f?rsvaras ?verallt!

ICFTU (International Confederation of Free Trade unions) utlyst den 15 februari till en international dag f?r protester mot den iranska regimen i fr?gan om repression mot bussf?rarfacket i Teheran.
De senaste m?naderna en stor strid p?g?r mellan bussf?rare i Teheran i Iran ? ena sidan och den iranska regimen och bussbolaget ? andra sidan.
Kampen g?ller b?ttre villkor f?r bussf?rarna men ocks? r?tten att organisera sig, allts? vanliga demokratiska r?ttigheter.
Regimen har svarat med massarrestingar av alla n?stan alla de f?rtroendevalda och m?nga bussf?rare, uppskattningsvis ca 1000 personer samt misshandel, tortyr och mycket annat inte bara mot bussf?rare men ocks? mot deras sl?ktingar, speciellt barn!
L?rdagen den 18 februari kommer att ?ga rum en manifestation kl 15.00 p? Sergels Torg f?r yttrandefrihet och demokrati p? arbetsplatserna fr?n olika fackf?reningarna. D?r kommer vi att manifestera ocks? v?rt st?d till de iranska arbetarna.
P? m?ndag den 20 februari kl 14.00 kallar vi till en presskonferens till v?r facklokal, T-banestation Liljeholmen, s?dra sidan. Vi kommer att informera om l?get i Iran och mycket mer.

F?r mer information
Jannis Konstantis: 070-511 62 19

SEKO Klubb 119 - f?rare och kondukt?rer i Stockholms tunnelbana och de lokala banorna

liljeholmen@klubb119.org

US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites

2006-02-12T11:32:00.000-08:00

By Philip Sherwell in Washington
Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.
Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.
"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."
The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran's nuclear programme. But the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret nuclear operations and the virulent anti-Israeli threats of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices. They would fly from bases in Missouri with mid-air refuelling.
The Bush administration has recently announced plans to add conventional ballistic missiles to the armoury of its nuclear Trident submarines within the next two years. If ready in time, they would also form part of the plan of attack.
Teheran has dispersed its nuclear plants, burying some deep underground, and has recently increased its air defences, but Pentagon planners believe that the raids could seriously set back Iran's nuclear programme.
Iran was last weekend reported to the United Nations Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency for its banned nuclear activities. Teheran reacted by announcing that it would resume full-scale uranium enrichment - producing material that could arm nuclear devices.
The White House says that it wants a diplomatic solution to the stand-off, but President George W Bush has refused to rule out military action and reaffirmed last weekend that Iran's nuclear ambitions "will not be tolerated".
Sen John McCain, the Republican front-runner to succeed Mr Bush in 2008, has advocated military strikes as a last resort. He said recently: "There is only only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."
Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has made the same case and Mr Bush is expected to be faced by the decision within two years.
By then, Iran will be close to acquiring the knowledge to make an atomic bomb, although the construction will take longer. The President will not want to be seen as leaving the White House having allowed Iran's ayatollahs to go atomic.
In Teheran yesterday, crowds celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution chanted "Nuclear technology is our inalienable right" and cheered Mr Ahmadinejad when he said that Iran may reconsider membership of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
He was defiant over possible economic sanctions.

برادر آرش سيگارچي درگذشت

2006-02-12T11:28:00.000-08:00

برادر آرش سيگارچي، وبلاگ نويس زنداني، روز گذشته و پس از ملاقات با برادرش، هنگام بازگشت به تهران بر اثر سانحه اي در جاده رشت به تهران جان باخت
اشکان، برادر کوچک تر آرش که در حال سپري کردن دوره سربازي بود، براي ملاقات با برادرش و گرفتن امضاي وکالتنامه جهت اعتراض به پرونده آرش سيگارچي به رشت رفته بود. او پس از ملاقات در زندان لاکان، هنگامي که با در دست داشتن وکالتنامه راهي تهران بود، در جاده رشت به تهران دچار سانحه شد، و جان باخت
آرش سيگارچي، وبلاگ نويس زنداني، در سال 83 بازداشت شد. دادگاه بدوي سيگارچي را به 14 سال زندان محکوم کرد. او پس از آزادي با وثيقه 100 ميليون توماني براي کاهش حکم زندان خود تلاش کرد که نتيجه اش کاهش حکم زندان او به سه سال توسط دادگاه تجديد نظر بود. آرش سيگارچي سه هفته پيش، هنگام مراجعه به دادگستري گيلان براي دريافت حکم دادگاه تجديد نظر، بار ديگر بازداشت و به زندان رشت منتقل شد
به گفته منابع نزديک به خانواده آرش سيگارچي، پس از بازداشت آرش، خانواده و وکلاي او در صدد بودند تا با اعتراض نسبت به حکم صادره و اجراي همزمان آن در ديوان عالي کشور، مقدمات آزادي آرش را فراهم کنند. به همين منظور وکالتنامه و لايحه تنظيم شده از سوي وکلاي آرش توسط برادرش اشکان به رشت برده شد تا به امضاي آرش سيگارچي برسد
يک سال پيش و در جريان بازداشت گسترده وبلاگ نويسان، تعدادي از وبلاگ نويسان پس از آزادي ادعا کرده بودند که سعيد مرتضوي دادستان تهران و بازجويان پرونده، وبلاگ نويسان را تهديد کرده بودند که در صورت عمل نکردن به دستورات مورد نظر ممکن است خود آنها يا برخي از اعضاي خانواده شان در سوانحي مانند تصادف جانشان را از دست بدهند

AP Protests Use of Photo in Controversy

2006-02-10T14:17:00.000-08:00

COPENHAGEN, Denmark
The Associated Press protested Wednesday the misleading inclusion of an AP photograph in a pamphlet purporting to show images offensive to Islam.
The picture shows a bearded man wearing fake pig ears, a pig nose, and a pink embroidered cap on his head. He was wearing the costume while participating in a pig-squealing contest at an annual festival in a farm village in southern France last summer.
The AP sent out the photo describing the pig-squealing contest on Aug. 14, 2005. The photo had no connection with Islam or the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper in September.
A blurry, black-and-white copy of the picture was included in a brochure that a delegation of Danish Muslim leaders carried on a Mideast tour to Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey, in December and January.
"The photograph was taken at an agriculture fair last summer and is totally unrelated to the current controversy," said AP's Director of Photography Santiago Lyon.
Jack Stokes, an AP spokesman, said the picture was used "completely out of context and without permission.
"AP is attempting to contact the distributors of this unrelated photo to protest its misrepresentation and demand that they stop immediately," he said.
The brochure purported to show examples of anti-Muslim images from Europe, said Ahmed Akkari, a spokesman for the Danish Muslim delegation. Included were 12 controversial drawings of the Prophet Muhammad that were published in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, he said.
The group received copies of the AP picture in threatening anonymous letters last year, Akkari said.
"We did not find it ourselves," he told the AP, saying he had been unaware of the origin of the photograph and said he believed it was sent to the group as an example of a provocation.
When told about the background of the original AP photo, Akkari said: "I have no comments."
The group is a loose coalition of about 30 Danish Muslim organizations, according to group members. The coalition doesn't have a formal name but one of its larger members is Copenhagen's Islamic Faith Community. Newspapers and analysts say the coalition represents about 15 percent of the country's 200,000 Muslims.

خوزستان

2006-02-10T13:35:00.000-08:00

10 اگوست 2005- intelligence (C3I) targets
جزئيات بيشتري از طرح امريکا
پس از بمباران سنگين مراکز نظامي- اتمي
خوزستان ايران اولين
منطقه آزاد خواهد شد
امريکا براي اشغال استان نفت خيز جنوب شرقي وعرب نشين ايران "خوزستان" بعد از بمباران وسيع مراکز هسته اي ، شيميايي و مراکز فرماندهي و ارتباطات نظامي اين کشور آماده شده است
طبق اطلاعات منابع اطلاعاتي آلمان فدرال (BND) دولت بوش طرح بمباران مرکز هسته اي و بقيه مراکز سلاح کشتارجمعي و مراکز نظامي ايران را با بمباران وسيع و سنگين تدوين کرده است در اين بمباران از بمب و سلاح هسته اي تاکتيکي استفاده خواهد شد
حمله همراه خواهد بود با عمليات تخريبي توسط نيروهاي ويژه وزارت دفاع امريکا و همراهي نيروهاي تجزيه طلب. منابع اطلاعاتي آلمان اشاره کرده اند که عواملي در سازمان سيا نگران واکنش‌هاي زنجيره اي بعد از حمله هستند که مي‌تواند سبب گسترش جنگ شود. اطلاعات مربوط به حمله امريکا به ايران ازطريق عوامل سازمان سيا به اطلاع سازمان‌هاي اطلاعاتي فرانسه، انگستان، کانادا و استراليا نيز رسانده شده است
طرح بوش براي حمله به ايران همراه است با اشغال سريع استان خوزستان که بيشترين نفت ذخيره ايران را دارد. خوزستان اکثريتي عرب شيعه دارد و دارا? رابطه نزديک برادري با شيعيان عراق دارد
بوش همزمان با دستور آماده باش نيروهاي امريکايي درمرز عراق و همچنين نيروهاي دريايي امريکا درخليج فارس، به دوگروه " الاحواز پيشرو دموکراسي " و " ارگان آزاد سازي خوزستان" که از نيروهاي مخالف و تجزيه طلب خوزستان متشکل شده اند کمک خواهد کرد تا دراين منطقه دولت مستقل عرب به نام " جمهوري د موکراتيک احواز" را اعلام کنند و ازطريق سازمان ملل و توسط امريکا و چند دولت متحد و نزديک امريکا نيز به عنوان يک دولت جديد به رسميت شناخته و چتر حمايت هوائي از آن برقرار شود. (حالتي شبيه ممنوعيت پرواز هوائي برقراز کردستان عراق در زمان صدام حسين
بعد ازجنگ جهاني اول، خوزستان توسط ايران اشغال شد.(تحريف تاريخ و آماده سازي افکار عمومي جهان و منطقه و همچنين دامن زدن به جنگ رواني
امريکا درعين حال به تجزيه طلبي درميان گروههاي ديگر ايران، يعني آذري‌ها و ترکمن‌ها، و مناطق ديگري که درآنها ذخائرنفت و گاز قابل ملاحظه وجود دارد دامن خواهد زد. نئومحافظه کاران امريکا همچنين قصد همراه کردن کردهاي ايران با کردهاي عراق و ترکيه را دارند و بلوچها با بلوچهاي پاکستان را
در پيش بيني اين حمله، گروه جاسوسي " يواس اس جيمي کارتر" ازطريق زير دريائي‌هاي مستقر درخليج فارس تمامي ارتباطات تجاري و ديپلماتيک و نظامي ايران را زير نظر دارد و نيروي ويژه موازي ارتش امريکا بنام نيروي 121 تمامي اطلاعات لازم برا? شناسائي مراکز مهم نظامي و غيره را ازطريق عواملش که تحت عنوان ژورناليست به ايران سفر کرده اند جمع آوري کرده است

اشغال سفارتخانه ها

2006-02-09T23:16:00.000-08:00

تهران ، 13 آبان 1358
عده اي به نام دانشجويان خط امام از ديوار سفارت آمريکا بالا رفتند و ديپلماتهاي آمريکايي را 444 روز به گروگان گرفتند
تهران ، 17 بهمن 1384
عده اي بسيجي و حزب اللهي به بهانه چاپ کاريکاتورهاي محمد در يک روزنامه دانمارکي به سفارت دانمارک در تهران حمله کرده و آنجا را به آتش کشيدند
پيش از آن مسلمانان در کشورهاي سوريه و لبنان همين کار را کرده بودند
26 سال پيش هيچکس فکر نمي کرد که سفارت آمريکا در تهران بايد توسط مسلمانان افراطي و نه کمونيستهاي ضد امپرياليسم و غرب اشغال شود،تا در چنين روزهايي آمريکاييها از آن استفاده کنند
از در و د?وار سفارتها بالا رفتن،آتش زدن پرچمها،آتش زدن مدارک و اسناد سفارتخانه و د?گر کارها
مسئوليت همه اين کارها در آخر به گردن جمهوري اسلامي خواهد افتاد،اشغال سفارتخانه ها از ايران شروع شد

از مونيخ تا تورين

2006-02-09T23:14:00.000-08:00

در المپيک 1974 مونيخ در يک حمله تروريستي توسط فلسطينيان تعدادي از ورزشکاران اسراييلي کشته شدند
يک ماه پيش فيلمي به نام مونيخ ساخته استيون اسپيلبرگ به روي اکران رفت
امروز بازيهاي زمستاني در ايتاليا آغاز خواهد شد
آيا قرار است در ايتاليا اتفاقي بيافتد؟
آيا خواهند گفت ايران در آن ماجرا دست داشته؟
آيا انفجارهاي مترو لندن را به ايران نسبت خواهند داد؟
در ايران عده اي دارند به نفع آمريكا كار مي كنند
حمله به سفارتخانه ها ، بسته شدن آنها و خروج ديپلماتهاي ديگر كشورها از ايران ، آيا چراغ سبز نشان دادن به آمريكا براي حمله نظامي است؟
و هزاران پرسش بي پاسخ

Iran: How Dangerous is Ahmadinejad?

2006-02-09T11:13:00.000-08:00

Devoted and Defiant
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he doesn't want nuclear weapons. The world is suspicious. How dangerous is he?
By Babak Dehghanpisheh and Christopher Dickey

Feb. 13, 2006 issue
Born to a blacksmith, educated as a revolutionary, trained as a killer and derided by rivals as a mystical fanatic, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is easily cast as the personification of everything there is to fear about a nuclear Iran. But he may be worse than that—not because of how he looks to the outside world, but because of what he represents inside his country. Ahmadinejad plays to a nostalgia for war among parts of Iran's leadership, and even some of its young people: a longing for confrontation, a belief that a quarter century ago, when revolutionary Iran was ready to challenge the world, send countless youths to martyrdom in the fight against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, endure missile attacks on its cities, suffer poison-gas attacks against its troops—in those days the regime of the ayatollahs was purer, more noble, more popular and ultimately more secure.
Since he took office in August, Ahmadinejad has shown himself an expert at provoking outrage, calling for the destruction of Israel, denying the Holocaust, berating "false superpowers." Although he continues to swear that Iran's nuclear research is peaceful, much of the world's lack of faith in Iran's promises was clear last week when even Russia and China agreed to send its case before the Security Council. Iran's response: threats to cease voluntary cooperation with nuclear investigators from the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency.
How dangerous is the crisis that Ahmadinejad has helped to spawn? Unimpeded by inspections and vowing to launch commercial uranium enrichment, Iran could move ahead quickly with a program to build a bomb—if that is indeed what it wants to do. Iran can produce enriched uranium "by the ton," its ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, told NEWSWEEK shortly after Saturday's vote, even as he insisted Iran will not produce a bomb.
U.S. intelligence sources estimate that a workable Iranian weapon is four to 10 years away. Israeli intelligence suggests a year may be a closer bet, and the Israelis see Iranian nukes as an existential threat to be stopped at all costs. Not since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was alive in the 1980s has Iran provoked so many regional and global tensions—and that's just what Ahmadinejad, his religious superiors and his key supporters in the Street seem to want. "This is the war generation," says Massoud Denhmaki, a documentary filmmaker and former member of the religious militia Ansar-e Hizbullah. "During the war [against Saddam Hussein's Iraq from 1980-1988], we learned how to walk on mines so others could walk on our backs. This is the same approach this generation has toward politics. We accomplished a lot with very little during the war. We'll manage the country the same way."
Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy calls these veterans "a very dangerous group." Sophisticated Iranians have treated them as "hicks," he says. But the survivors of the savage battles of 20 years ago "feel that they have a moral right to govern that country because they are the ones that saved it." After years of corruption and failed reforms, they mix a yearning for change with nostalgia for prouder times.
Even many young people are caught up in this wave. On the campus of Tehran's elite Imam Sadegh University, students who weren't born in 1979 talk about "the purity of the revolution and the war." "An Islamic renaissance is starting from here," says Reza Tawana, a third-year law student who fingers his worry beads and avoids looking women in the eye. "We are witnessing the start of a fundamentalist uprising in the region from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to Hamas, Hizbullah in Lebanon and of course Mr. Ahmadinejad in our own country."

فراخوان کنفدراسيون بين المللي اتحاديه هاي آزاد کارگري براي تظاهرات ابراز حمايت از کارگران ايران در سراسر جهان

2006-02-09T10:55:00.000-08:00

كنفدراسيون بين المللي اتحاديه هاي آزاد كارگري

و كميته مشورتي اتحاديه هاي كارگري سازمان همكاري اقتصادي و توسعه

با انتشار فراخواني روز چهارشنبه هفته آينده را روز جهاني حمايت از كارگران ايران اعلام كردند و از همه تشكل ها و اتحاديه هاي كارگري خواستند در اين روز در مقابل سفارتخانه هاي جموري اسلامي در كشورهاي متبوع و يا در مقابل وزارت كشور خود تظاهرات اعتراض آميز برگزار كنند. آزادي منصور اصانلو رئيس هيات مديره و ديگر اعضاي زنداني سنديكا ي کارکنان شركت واحد اتوبوسراني تهران و حومه و بازگشت آنها به سر کار، درخواست هاي تظاهركنندگان در تظاهرات جهاني حمايت از كارگران ايران خواهد بود. اتحاديه بين المللي از همه گروهها و نهادهاي مدافع حقوق كارگران درخواست کرد به اين حركت بپيوندند

www.icftu.org

HELP THE DANES

2006-02-09T09:55:00.000-08:00

On the 30th of September 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed. Mohammedans raised a storm of protest and two artists went into hiding after receiving death threats. Islamic organisations demanded an apology from the Danish government and the incident turned into a world-wide diplomatic issue. The OIC (the Organisation of the Islamic Conference), the Council of Europe and the UN all criticised the government of Denmark for not taking measures against the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen defended the freedom of the press and free speech and stated that any measures, if appropriate, could not be taken by the government but only by a court of law. Meanwhile in Islamic countries Danish flags are burned and Danish products are taken off the shelves. Several countries have withdrawn their ambassadors from Denmark and armed men attacked the office of the EU in the Gaza strip.
Denmark needs our support. Show that you care and put this banner on your website.

Rice: Syria, Iran Inflamed Violence

2006-02-08T12:28:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran and Syria on Wednesday of instigating Muslim protests triggered by drawings of the Prophet Muhammad, and President Bush pleaded for an end to violence.
"I have no doubt that Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and have used this for their own purposes," Rice said. "The world ought to call them on it."
She did not offer specifics during a brief State Department news conference with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. The United States accuses Iran and Syria of funding terrorism and has tried to unite world opinion against both Middle Eastern nations.
"I call upon the governments around the world to stop the violence, to be respectful, to protect property, protect the lives of innocent diplomats who are serving their countries overseas," Bush had said earlier at the White House.
"We reject violence as a way to express discontent with what may be printed in a free press," he said.
"I call upon the governments around the world to stop the violence, to be respectful, to protect property, protect the lives of innocent diplomats who are serving their countries overseas," the president said.

Ex-U.N. Inspector: Decision Already Made To Attack Iran

2006-02-08T12:25:00.000-08:00

Ex-U.N. inspector: Iran's next: Ritter warns that another U.S. invasion in Mideast is imminent
By Brandon Garcia(Santa Fe New Mexican, The (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)

The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran."We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night.Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, "will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves.""How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's speechwriter," Ritter said.Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don't overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.The only way to prevent a war with Iran is to elect a Democratically controlled Congress in November, said Ritter, a lifelong Republican. He later said he wasn't worried his advice would be seen as partisan because, "It's a partisan issue." He said the problem is one party government and if Democrats controlled the presidency and Congress, he would advise people to elect Republicans.Most of Ritter's hour-long speech focused on Iraqi weapons programs from shortly before the Persian Gulf War in 1991 to 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq. He also discussed the weapons-inspections process during that time.Ritter was in charge of U.N. weapons inspections until he resigned in 1998. Before the Iraq invasion, Ritter said, he told Congress that inspections needed to continue.He also said he was a Marine in the Persian Gulf War and was part of an assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s.Throughout the 1990s, Ritter said, America's real policy for Iraq was regime change -- not forcing Iraq to disarm and destroy chemical-, biological- and nuclear-weapons programs. The U.S. insisted on regime change, he said, because it believes transforming the Middle East countries into democracies will help ensure American access to oil.The policy, he said, was borne from a political problem, not a threat to national security.Ritter said the CIA knew Iraq had no ballistic, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons by 1995. "We knew there were no WMDs in Iraq," he said.Ritter blamed Americans' apathy for allowing Bush to claim there was an intelligence failure. Presidents can lie to the public too easily about national security issues because Americans aren't paying attention, he said."It's a damn shame there's so many more people interested in the Seattle Seahawks and the Pittsburgh Steelers," he said in reference to the two teams that played in Sunday's Super Bowl.After his speech, Ritter took questions from the audience. The first questioner wondered whether the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were faked. Ritter, a fiery speaker, seemed irritated by the question and said the attacks were real.Someone else asked if he was interested in running for Congress. While the question drew applause, Ritter responded, "I hate politics."Ritter, 44, was promoting his book Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein. The speech was sponsored by Peace Action New Mexico.

Iran invites cartoons on Holocaust

2006-02-08T12:17:00.000-08:00

TEHRAN, Iran (AP)
A prominent Iranian newspaper says it is going to hold a competition for cartoons on the Holocaust to test whether the West will apply the principle of freedom of expression to the Nazi genocide against Jews as it did to the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.

Hamshahri, which is among the top five of Iran's mass circulation papers, made clear the contest is a reaction to European newspapers' publication of Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, which have led to demonstrations, boycotts and attacks on European embassies across the Islamic world.
Hundreds of Iranians hurled stones, and sometimes gasoline bombs, at the Danish and Austrian embassies in Tehran in protest against the cartoons on Monday. The Austrian mission was targeted as the country currently holds the EU presidency.
The newspaper said Tuesday the contest would be launched on February 13 and would be co-convened by itself and the House of Caricatures, a Tehran exhibition center for cartoons.
Both the paper and the cartoon center are owned by the Tehran Municipality, which is dominated by allies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is well known for his opposition to Israel.
Last year Ahmadinejad provoked outcries when he said on separate occasions that Israel should be "wiped out" and the Holocaust was a "myth."
Hamshahri invited foreign cartoonists to enter the competition and said it wanted to see how open the West was to caricatures of the Holocaust.
"Does the West extend freedom of expression to the crimes committed by the United States and Israel, or an event such as the Holocaust? Or is its freedom only for insulting religious sanctities?" Hamshahri wrote, referring to the Prophet Mohammed cartoons, in a short article on its back page.
The paper disclosed its plan to hold the competition in an inside page on Monday, saying it would announce details on Tuesday. But Tuesday's edition said the plans would be published next Monday.
Meanwhile, state television reported Tuesday that Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki had called his Danish counterpart, Per Stig Moeller, and urged Copenhagen and other European governments to "compensate for their mistake" in publishing the drawings.
The Foreign Ministry also summoned the Bulgarian ambassador to protest the publication of the prophet cartoons in Bulgarian newspapers, the television said.
The Prophet Mohammed cartoons were first commissioned and published by a Danish newspaper in September. As Muslim protests mounted, numerous European newspapers have reprinted them in recent days in the name of free expression, provoking wider and angrier protests.
The cartoons touched a raw nerve, partly because most Muslims forbid any illustration of the prophet for fear of idolatry and partly because several drawings portrayed Mohammed as a man of violence. One cartoon depicted the prophet as wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb with a burning fuse.
The West's publication of the Prophet Muhammad cartoons was an Israeli conspiracy motivated by anger over Hamas' win in the Palestinian elections, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Tuesday.
Speaking to Iranian air force personnel, Khamenei the cartoons were a scandal, particularly as they came "from those who champion civilization and free expression."
The caricatures amounted to a "conspiracy by Zionists who were angry because of the victory of Hamas," he said, referring to the Palestinian militant group that won a surprise landslide victory in last month's elections.
Khamenei, who has the final word on all matters in Iran's Islamic system, was speaking at a ceremony to mark the air force's decision to join the Islamic revolution in 1979. His speech was broadcast on state radio.

Global Poll: Iran Seen Playing Negative Role

2006-02-08T12:07:00.000-08:00

A major BBC World Service poll exploring how people in 33 countries view various countries found not a single country where a majority has a positive view of Iran’s role in the world (with the exception of Iranians themselves).
Views of Iran are lower than the US, although the US continues to get low marks, as does Russia. Views of China, France, and Russia are down sharply compared to a similar BBC World Service poll conducted at the end of 2004.
Japan is the country most widely viewed as having a positive influence, and Europe as a whole gets the most positive ratings of all.The poll of 39,435 people was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The 33-nation fieldwork was coordinated by GlobeScan and completed between October 2005 and January 2006.

GlobeScan President Doug Miller remarks, “In the court of public opinion, Iran is judged a mainly negative player in the world. Russia and the US continue to languish at the lower end of the league table. Europe on the other hand continues to be seen as a mainly positive player. It will be interesting to see what impact the next year of drama over the Iranian nuclear programme has on these ratings.”Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes comments: “It appears that world public opinion does not look kindly on governments engaging in suspicious nuclear activities as is the case of Iran, becoming more authoritarian as in the case of China and Russia, frustrating the needs of their immigrants as in the case of France, or occupying another country without international approval as in the case of the US. On the other hand countries and regions that engage the world primarily through soft forms of power such as the case of Japan and Europe tend to get good marks.”

Iran

In 24 of the 33 countries polled, majorities (in 14 countries) or pluralities (in 10) say that Iran is having a negative influence in the world. In five other countries a plurality says that Iran is having a positive influence, but in three of these the proportion who say this is less than a third. On average across the 33 countries just 18 percent say Iran is having a positive influence while 47 percent say Iran is having a negative influence.
Countries in Europe and North America have the largest majorities expressing a negative view of Iran. The most negative are Germany (84%), the US (81%), and Italy (77%); followed by Finland (74%), Great Britain (72%), Canada (73%), France (68%), Spain (66%) and Poland (60%).
Latin America is mostly negative. Majorities in Brazil (75%) and Argentina (53%) have a negative view of Iran’s influence, but Mexicans are divided (22% positive, 21% negative) with one in three not taking a position.
The only countries with a significant plurality expressing a positive view of Iran are Afghanistan (47%) and Indonesia (39%). Three other countries had small pluralities expressing a favorable view but with most not taking a position—Senegal (31%), Saudi Arabia (24%) and Sri Lanka (21%). Steven Kull, director of PIPA says, “Iran may imagine that there are many people out there rooting for it as it defies the big powers with its nuclear program. But this poll suggests that the number of people behind it is quite small and swamped by much larger numbers who are worried about the direction Iran is going.”

Iranian Paper Plans Holocaust Cartoons

2006-02-07T10:32:00.000-08:00

By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran

A prominent Iranian newspaper said Tuesday it would hold a competition for cartoons on the Holocaust to test whether the West extends the principle of freedom of expression to the Nazi genocide as it did to the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.
Hamshahri, one of Iran's largest papers, made clear the contest is a reaction to European newspapers' publication of Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, which have led to demonstrations, boycotts and attacks on European embassies across the Islamic world. Several people have been killed.
Hundreds of Iranians hurled stones, and sometimes gasoline bombs, at the Danish and Austrian embassies in Tehran in protest against the cartoons Monday. Austria currently holds the
European Union presidency.

The newspaper said the contest would be launched Monday and co-sponsored by the House of Caricatures, a Tehran exhibition center for cartoons. The paper and the cartoon center are owned by the Tehran Municipality, which is dominated by allies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, well-known for his opposition to Israel.

Ahmadinejad, who was Tehran's mayor until being elected president in June, provoked outcries last year when he said on separate occasions that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and the Holocaust was a "myth."
Iran said last month it would sponsor a conference to examine the scientific evidence supporting the Holocaust, an apparent attempt to give voice to Holocaust deniers.
Hamshahri invited foreign cartoonists to enter the competition.
"Does the West extend freedom of expression to the crimes committed by the United States and Israel, or an event such as the Holocaust? Or is its freedom only for insulting religious sanctities?" Hamshahri wrote, referring to the Prophet Muhammad cartoons.
The cartoons were first published by a Danish newspaper in September. As Muslim protests mounted, numerous European newspapers have reprinted them in recent days in the name of free expression, provoking wider and angrier protests.
The drawings — including one depicting the prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb — have touched a raw nerve in part because Islam is interpreted to forbid any illustrations of the Prophet Muhammad for fear they could lead to idolatry.

Iran Tells Nuke Agency to Remove Cameras

2006-02-06T12:47:00.000-08:00

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria

Iran told the International Atomic Energy Agency to remove surveillance cameras and agency seals from sites and nuclear equipment by the end of next week, the U.N. watchdog agency said Monday.
Iran's demands came two days after the IAEA reported Tehran to the Security Council over its disputed atomic program. The council has the power to impose economic and political sanctions.
In a confidential report to the IAEA's 35-member board, agency head Mohamed ElBaradei said Iran also announced a sharp reduction in the number and kind of inspections IAEA experts will be allowed, effective immediately.
The report was dated Monday and made available to The Associated Press.
The moves were expected. Iranian officials had repeatedly warned they would stop honoring the so-called "Additional Protocol" to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — an agreement giving IAEA inspectors greater inspecting authority — if the IAEA board referred their country to the Security Council.
A diplomat close to the Vienna-based IAEA told the AP that Iran had also made good on another threat — formally setting a date for resuming full-scale work on its uranium enrichment program, which can make either fuel or the nuclear core of warheads.
The diplomat, who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because the matter was confidential, refused to divulge the date set by Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, in a letter received Monday by ElBaradei.
In Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he was still hopeful that Iran will take confidence-building measures with the IAEA.
"It's not the end of the road," Annan said of the Security Council referral. "I hope that in between, Iran will take steps that will help create an environment and confidence-building measures that will bring the partners back to the negotiating table."
In his brief report, ElBaradei cited E. Khalilipour, vice president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as saying: "From the date of this letter, all voluntarily suspended non-legally binding measures including the provisions of the Additional Protocol and even beyond that will be suspended."
Calling on the agency to sharply reduce the number of inspectors in Iran, Khalilipour added: "All the Agency's containment and surveillance measures which were in place beyond the normal Agency safeguards measures should be removed by mid-February 2006."
Earlier, Russia's foreign minister warned against threatening Iran over its nuclear program after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reportedly agreed with a German interviewer that all options, including military response, remained on the table.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called for talks to continue with Tehran, adding: "I think that at the current stage, it is important not to make guesses about what will happen and even more important not to make threats."
Lavrov said the use of force would be possible only if the United Nations consented.
Rumsfeld, in an interview with the German daily newspaper Handelsblatt, was asked if all options, including the military one, were on the table with Iran.
"That's right," Rumsfeld responded, according to Handelsblatt's print edition Monday.
In Norway, China's foreign minister urged continued diplomatic efforts to resolve the standoff.
"A diplomatic solution serves the common interest," Li Zhaoxing said during an official visit. "We are still working on our Iranian colleagues to cherish negotiations."
However, Li warned that time was "already pressing" for efforts to resolve the dispute before it reaches the Security Council.
Li declined to stay whether China would support sanctions against Iran.

What Happens if Iran Gets the Bomb?

2006-02-06T11:18:00.000-08:00

Robert E. Hunter

What will happen if Iran gets “the bomb”? In contemplating this possibility, some analysts throw up their hands in horror, others are relatively calm about the results, and still others deny the possibility of such an outcome. Nevertheless, any realistic U.S. policy must consider such a scenario.One frequently expressed concern is that Iran would consider its nuclear weapons capability to be held in trust for the Islamic world or would give custody of a weapon to someone else, perhaps even a terrorist group. Such an outcome is theoretically possible, but not very probable. With one notable and quickly regretted exception—Soviet transfer of some U-235 to China in the 1950s—no country with bomb-making fissionable materials has knowingly transferred them to anyone else. More useful to consider is the role that nuclear weapons would play in shaping post-nuclear Iran’s relationships with its neighbors—friends and foes. When all is said and done, such weapons would have little military utility except for deterrence. This would operate at four levels: to deter a conventional attack from a non-nuclear regional power; to deter an openly nuclear regional state—today only including Pakistan and India; to deter Israel; or to deter a major external power, notably the United States but, in theory at least, also including Russia.The first case is obvious: no country with just conventional arms is likely to try the patience of a nuclear power. But in the other three cases, “proportional deterrence” would come into play. Originally developed by France, this doctrine holds that a relatively less-capable nuclear power such as Iran can deter a much stronger nuclear power (the United States, Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel) if it is viewed as able and willing to destroy “value targets” in the attacking nation even while it is being obliterated. This complex doctrine can be summarized as the “death throes” of a country under nuclear or even extreme conventional attack. Such a doctrine depends on the potential attacker such as the United States or Israel calculating that the targets in its own country that would be destroyed in retaliation would be more “valuable” to it than the benefit (military or political) of annihilating Iran. Of course, proportional deterrence can only succeed if the potential retaliation is credible, hence the need for a survivable second-strike capability. The threat of retaliation must not be so precise that the original attacking nation can calculate with precision whether the game is worth the candle (uncertainty principle). There should also be a margin for the leadership of the attacked nation to over-respond (irrationality principle). All these ideas were worked out in detail during the Cold War.By the same token, of course, Iran would also be subject to deterrence, as it is today by Israel, in particular. Indeed, recent commentary about Iranian advances in missile technology may not be related to a future nuclear arsenal. They are more likely to be an attempt to gain the ability to launch relatively accurate conventional warheads at Israel, counting on that capability to have some proportional deterrent effect on Israel if, for example, that country was inclined to launch an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities like that on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981.These calculations can be elaborated further. What they add up to is an Iran with one or more nuclear weapons that would not, per se, have a destabilizing effect on security in the region. That would be very much “scenario dependent.” Nevertheless, as with all issues involving nuclear weapons, psychology and politics are critical elements. Indeed, if they were not—if the world had not witnessed Hiroshima and Nagasaki—we would likely have seen much more proliferation over the past 60 years, as many analysts long predicted, or even the further use of nuclear weapons in war.As things now stand in the Middle East and are likely to stand for the foreseeable future, a nuclear-armed Iran would change the politics and the security of the region dramatically in terms of perceptions. The point need hardly be spelled out. Further, even if regional and outside countries could in time adjust to a nuclear-armed Iran, judged from today, it is highly unlikely that Iran would be permitted to gain such a capability. The United States, Israel, or perhaps some third-party would likely use whatever means necessary to prevent Iran from ever getting into that position.
------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Hunter, a senior advisor at the Rand Corp., has held many senior government appointments, including serving as U.S. Ambassador to NATO from 1993 to 1998 and Director of Middle East Affairs at the National Security Council from 1979 to 1981.

The Iran Case: Addressing Why Countries Want Nuclear Weapons

2006-02-06T11:17:00.000-08:00

Robert E. Hunter

Iran’s possible development of nuclear weapons has now come front and center in U.S. foreign policy, as well as in consideration overall of preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It has assumed particular importance because of its potential to reshape the security and politics of an already turbulent and critical region. In the middle of the Middle East, such a capability would at the very least lead to a basic reassessment by countries near and far of a full range of security, political, and other issues.As the saga of a widely presumed but not admitted Iranian nuclear weapons program unfolds, with its on-again, off-again character, something else is happening: the need for a reassessment of nonproliferation—both how to prevent proliferation and what to do if prevention fails. There is dwindling confidence that a country bent on developing nuclear weapons can forever be prevented from doing so by the now-traditional technological safeguards. In particular, it appears less possible to block the indigenous development of either plutonium or highly enriched uranium, the essential materials for nuclear weapons. Talent and knowledge are not a constraint, and access to fissionable materials may be an ever decreasing one to a country’s nuclear ambitions.Of course, monitored agreements regarding the point, purpose, and conduct of an Iranian civil nuclear power development program, coupled with intrusive inspections, can have a significant impact. Can this approach be relied on? This is one of the questions now under review and the focus of intense political debate regarding negotiations between the Iranian government and a Western troika of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Perhaps the outcome of these negotiations will be sufficient, but perhaps not. For some observers, if Iran were truly determined to get nuclear weapons, it would find a means either to conduct a covert program or at some point to renounce the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), expel inspectors, and work to break out of any restrictive regime.If there is decreasing confidence that technical means can suffice to prevent a determined and scientifically advanced society from getting “the bomb” and if questions remain about the efficacy of agreements, limitations, and inspection regimes, then other considerations come into play, and other questions must be posed. Most importantly, we need to ask why Iran or any other country would want to acquire nuclear weapons in the first place. Then we must see whether and, within appropriate limits, how the country in question can be dissuaded from developing those weapons. The recent Iranian pause in its enrichment activities allows the West, particularly the United States, the opportunity to explore this possibility before either resorting to military force or merely fretting that Iran is on the path to the destabilizing development of nuclear weapons.
Addressing the DemandAddressing the demand side of proliferation is not a trivial or secondary approach. Indeed, it should be at the heart of nonproliferation analysis and strategy. Unfortunately, it is often downplayed, especially in the United States, where for many years the emphasis has been either on technical means of limiting the spread of nuclear weapons or, in cases where that appears likely to fail, considering military means to destroy a weapons capability or bringing about a change in regime. Yet, this technical/military approach, which has largely ignored the political and security context within which weapons decisions are taken, has often blinded both analysts and policymakers to other possibilities. After all, a wide range of countries capable of building nuclear weapons, including many living in actual or potential security “conflict zones,” have elected not to pursue this option, including Japan and South Korea. Countries such as South Africa and Ukraine have also dismantled existing arsenals.A good case in point is Libya. It clearly had made steps in the basic groundwork and engineering needed to produce a nuclear weapon although some doubts remain about progress made toward obtaining fissionable materials. Yet, Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi has now abandoned his program. From his perspective, this makes good political and strategic sense. After all, a Libyan bomb would offer little deterrent benefit against countries that did not intend to attack Libya in the first place. A nuclear weapon would also have cemented rather than ended Libya’s status as a pariah state and would have done little to influence or intimidate its neighbors. By contrast, renouncing the program brought an end to all economic sanctions and readmission to the Western community of nations. Gaddafi made his move and has been richly rewarded at no palpable cost to Libyan security or prestige. He sold his white elephant at the right price at the right time.
Iran’s Security MotivationsIran, of course, is in a different neighborhood. To be sure, the United States and its allies have reasons to be bothered about Iran’s behavior, such as its support for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. But Iran also has reason to be concerned about its security. Its principal antagonist, the United States, for many years not only practiced its dual containment policy against Iran (and Iraq) but also supported expatriate groups bent on overthrowing the regime in Tehran, including through violent means. Regime change in Tehran has been a recurrent theme in U.S. policy as it has been consistently in the policy of Israel, which also strongly supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Iran was accorded a place in the U.S. “axis of evil” and is now even more vulnerable than only a few years ago to nearby U.S. military power. However legitimate these U.S. policies and actions may be, along with the animosity toward Iran of some key regional countries, they do provide an objective basis for Iranian security concerns.This conclusion does not mean that these concerns should be indulged to the point of accepting Iranian threats to others’ security or even the heightened sense of regional and global insecurity that would result from its possession of nuclear weapons, even if these threats proved to be more psychological and political than strategic and military. It does mean that the United States and its allies need to take stock of the objective threats to Iranian security and consider mitigating them.Since the end of the 1970s, when the complexion of Iranian politics and its position in the region changed radically, U.S. policy has called for denying Iran the right to defend itself. This was marked by what is now widely recognized as the folly of supporting Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. That stand likely led Saddam to conclude (accurately) that the United States would mount only a mild protest to his use of chemical weapons against Iran. It clearly emboldened the Iraqi dictator to invade Kuwait in the belief that his U.S. supporter would acquiesce in further aggression. There is, of course, almost certainly more involved in Iranian thinking about a nuclear weapons program than its own palpable sense of insecurity. The perceived prestige of having nuclear weapons, another “Islamic bomb,” is no doubt one element. Such thinking is misguided because an Iran with nuclear weapons would become even more of a pariah state, especially to many of its Arab neighbors, given religious, political, economic, and other traditional rivalries. Likewise, Iranian policymakers certainly must believe that a nuclear weapon would provide them with enhanced deterrence against a U.S. attack, but the same goal could also be accomplished by the removal of U.S. and similar outside threats to Iran.More important to Iran is the matter of power and presence in the Persian Gulf. With the defeat of Iraq—a country now many years away from being in a position to compete for power in the region—and with rising risks of turmoil in Saudi Arabia, Iran is in a better position to compete for pride of place in the Gulf. Arguably, Iranian nuclear weapons could be a card to play in a contest for influence. That assumes that such a competition might be limited to the region and that Iran or any other regional actor could aspire to the role of the most influential country in the Gulf. Such an assumption makes little sense given the almost certain deep engagement of the United States and its allies in the Middle East militarily, economically, and politically for the foreseeable future.
A New Approach to IranTaken together, these points argue for an approach by the West that includes two factors: reassurances to Iran that its own security will not be put at risk by Western actions, provided, of course, that Iran does not provoke such threats; and the development of a regional security and political structure that could include Iran and all other countries, as well as external powers including the United States.Many commentators argue that Iran has been provided such assurances in the past, as well as clear road maps for rejoining the international community of nations, but has rejected them. Others, however, question whether such approaches to Tehran have been seriously or consistently pursued. Indeed, the case can be made that every time possibilities of breaking the diplomatic logjam have arisen, various U.S. administrations have raised the bar—making desired results of negotiations conditions for starting them and refusing all formal direct contacts with Iran. A notable missed chance came in May 2003 when a credible offer to negotiate by the Iranian leadership was conveyed to Washington by the Swiss representative of U.S. interests in Tehran. Perhaps it was real, perhaps bogus, but it was never tested. This Iranian offer was even largely ignored in the American media.In normal diplomatic practice, the course should be obvious: to seek direct negotiations with the government in Tehran. The talks should be based on two propositions: U.S. and Western sensitivity to legitimate Iranian security concerns including an offer to readmit Iran to the outside world, full relations with the West, and an end to economic sanctions; and the need for Iran to take the necessary steps to give reassurance to others of its peaceful intentions and behavior, including on its nuclear programs, terrorism, the Arab-Israeli peace process, and its role in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.Furthermore, as part of any comprehensive effort to deal with Iran, both in general and regarding nuclear weapons specifically, the West needs to work toward a wide-ranging security system for the region that would embrace Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Gulf Emirates, Jordan, and post-settlement Israel and Palestine. The alternative is for the United States and other Western states to remain pinned to the region as sole providers of security for the indefinite future—an option that is likely to prove militarily costly and politically unpopular. The twin process suggested here, simple in construction but complex in resolution, has now become an essential element not just in the effort to deal with an Iranian nuclear weapons program and to thwart its coming to completion, but also an essential element of worldwide nonproliferation strategy. In the case of Iran, a combination of reassurances on security, implied threats to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons, an offer of direct U.S.-Iranian negotiations, U.S. support for European diplomacy, and reasonable conditions for removing all economic sanctions on Iran and reengaging it in the international community possibly may not work. These steps should at least be pursued before either contemplating the use of military force or reluctantly accepting as inevitable an Iranian bomb.More broadly, the Western nonproliferation strategy needs to incorporate on a comprehensive and systematic basis the range of considerations that relate to the motivations of countries to acquire nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction and the possibilities of dealing successfully with such motivations.This is an area that to date has not been well explored, but this approach must be elevated to the front rank given the long-term weaknesses of purely technical approaches and because acquiring weapons of mass destruction is a political act designed to achieve political purposes. The case of Iran must be the first test case, and this parallel political approach must be pursued seriously, assiduously, and sincerely as an effort to deal with real security problems rather than to pursue other, less important agendas, open or hidden. Too much is at stake for it to be otherwise.

در نامه‌اي به وزارت بازرگاني پيشنهاد شد

2006-02-06T11:07:00.000-08:00

در نامه‌اي به وزارت بازرگاني پيشنهاد شد كه نام شيريني دانماركي به شيريني «گل‌محمدي» تغيير نام يابد
به گزارش خبرگزاري دانشجويان ايران (ايسنا) يكي از آزادگان هشت سال دفاع مقدس در نامه‌اي به وزارت بازرگاني پيشنهاد كرده است كه براي مقابله با اهانت‌هاي مطبوعات برخي كشورهاي غربي به‌ويژه دانمارك به پيامبر اسلام و به منظور ترويج نام و فرهنگ ناب محمدي، طي ابلاغيه‌اي به اتحاديه قنادان، نام شيريني دانماركي را به نام شيريني «گل‌محمدي» تغيير دهند
بر اساس اين گزارش اين نامه از سوي مسوولان وزارت بازرگاني امروز در حاشيه‌ نشست مطبوعاتي وزير بازرگاني كه در خصوص همين موضوع برگزار شده بود در بين خبرنگاران توزيع شد

خروج پولها از ايران

2006-02-03T08:18:00.000-08:00

سوئيس با ايران وخروج 200000000000 دلار از ايران و انتقال آن به دبي اينك به اين تصاوير نگاه کنيدUSB بعد از قطع رابطه بانک

Iran: Referral Would Kill Russian Offer

2006-02-03T08:03:00.000-08:00

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria -
Iran warned Friday it no longer would consider a proposal to move its uranium enrichment program to Russia if it is referred to the
U.N. Security Council for allegedly violating a nuclear arms control treaty.
If Iran's nuclear file goes to the Security Council, "there will be no way we can continue with the Russian proposal," said Javad Vaeidi, deputy head of the powerful National Security Council and a top nuclear negotiator.
He was referring to attempts to persuade Iran to move its uranium enrichment program to Russia to prevent its misuse for nuclear arms. The 35-nation board of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, the world body's nuclear watchdog, is considering whether to refer Iran to the Security Council over the disputed program.
China's foreign minister said his country was committed to working with the international community to defuse the standoff over Iran's suspect nuclear program.
"China is very concerned about the Iranian nuclear issue," Li Zhaoxing told reporters after meeting with top
European Union officials in Vienna.
He did not explicitly say China would vote to report Iran to the Security Council, but EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he had assurances that China would support the referral.
Officials in Tehran have previously suggested referral could endanger the proposal. But Vaeidi's comments were the first to state outright that Iran would stop considering the plan, which has broad international backing from nations concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Referral by the 35-nation IAEA board appeared to be a certainty, but its Friday meeting was adjourned, allowing U.S. and European diplomats to engage in informal negotiations in their bid to seek broad backing for reporting Tehran to the council.
Vaeidi acknowledged that referral seemed unavoidable, telling reporters: "This is an adopted draft.
"It means that the U.S. and the EU-3 are intending to kill two issues, first to stop diplomacy and second to kill the Russian proposal," he said, alluding to France, Britain and Germany, the countries proposing referral in a resolution before the board.
He reiterated earlier threats that Iran will resume full-scale work on uranium enrichment and stop honoring an agreement giving IAEA inspectors broad powers to conduct short-notice inspections of his country's nuclear program.
"I advise them not to make a historical mistake," he said, alluding to nations actively backing referral.
Backing for Iran at the Vienna meeting appeared to be limited Friday. Cuba, Venezuela,
Syria and a few other countries remained opposed, while India was said to be leaning toward supporting referral.
Egypt, one senior diplomat said, was insisting on a mention of a nuclear-free Middle East zone — an allusion to demands that
Israel disarm.
Another new draft made available to The Associated Press showed only minimal changes to the one submitted Wednesday and the key demand — referral of Iran to the council — remained.
Diplomats said backing for Iran had shrunk since Russia and China swung their support behind referral at an overnight meeting with the United States, France and Britain — the other three permanent council members.
U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the number of nations expected to vote against referral was in the "low to single digits." Chief U.S. IAEA delegate Gregory L. Schulte said there was a "solid majority in support of a resolution that reports Iran to the Security Council — and that majority is growing."
In Tehran, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, now leader of the powerful Expediency Council, said taking Iran before the Security Council would be a "black page" in history.
"There can't be cruelty clearer than this," he told tens of thousands of worshippers gathered for Friday prayers at Tehran University.
IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei said there was a "window of opportunity" to defuse the tensions, stressing that even if the issue is referred, the Security Council would not take up the issue before next month — a condition attached by Russia and China in exchange for their support.
"We are reaching a critical phase, but it is not a crisis," he said.
Iran, which claims its program is peaceful and aimed only at generating electricity, has repeatedly warned that such action would provoke it into doing exactly what the world wants it to renounce — starting full-scale uranium enrichment — as well as curtailing IAEA inspections.
Washington has waited years for international suspicions over Iran's nuclear ambitions to translate into support among IAEA board members.
Only a simple majority is needed to approve the text, but the United States and its backers have held off pushing for earlier referral in hopes of building support for the measure. Support has grown since Jan. 10, when Iran stripped IAEA seals from enrichment equipment and announced it would restart the program.

Muhammad cartoon row intensifies

2006-02-02T14:10:00.000-08:00

Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for a Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked Muslim outrage.
Seven publications in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain all carried some of the drawings.
Their publication in Denmark led Arab nations to protest. Islamic tradition bans depictions of the Prophet.
The owner of one of the papers to reprint - France Soir - has now sacked its managing editor over the matter.
The cartoons have sparked diplomatic sanctions and death threats in some Arab nations, while media watchdogs have defended publication of the images in the name of press freedom.
Reporters Without Borders said the reaction in the Arab world "betrays a lack of understanding" of press freedom as "an essential accomplishment of democracy."
'Spiting Muslims'
France Soir and Germany's Die Welt were among the leading papers to reprint the cartoons, which first appeared in Denmark last September.
The caricatures include drawings of Muhammad wearing a headdress shaped like a bomb, while another shows him saying that paradise was running short of virgins for suicide bombers.
France Soir originally said it had published the images in full to show "religious dogma" had no place in a secular society.
But late on Wednesday its owner, Raymond Lakah, said he had removed managing editor Jacques Lefranc "as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual".
Mr Lakah said: "We express our regrets to the Muslim community and all people who were shocked by the publication."
The president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, had described France Soir's publication as an act of "real provocation towards the millions of Muslims living in France".
Other papers stood by their publication. In Berlin, Die Welt argued there was a right to blaspheme in the West, and asked whether Islam was capable of coping with satire.
"The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical," it wrote in an editorial.
La Stampa in Italy, El Periodico in Spain and Dutch paper Volkskrant also carried some of the drawings.
European Muslims spoke out against the pictures.
In Germany, the vice-chairman of the central council of Muslims said Muslims would be deeply offended.
"It was done not to defend freedom of the press, but to spite the Muslims," Mohammad Aman Hobohm said.
Sanctions
Correspondents say the European papers' actions have widened a dispute which has grown very serious for Denmark.
The publication last September in Jyllands-Posten has provoked diplomatic sanctions and threats from Islamic militants across the Muslim world.
Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller has postponed a trip to Africa because of the dispute.
Thousands of Palestinians protested against Denmark this week, and Arab ministers called on it to punish Jyllands-Posten.
Syria and Saudi Arabia have recalled their ambassadors to Denmark, while Libya said it was closing its embassy in Copenhagen and Iraq summoned the Danish envoy to condemn the cartoons.
The Danish-Swedish dairy giant Arla Foods says its sales in the Middle East have plummeted to zero as a result of the row, which sparked a boycott of Danish products across the region.
The offices of Jyllands-Posten had to be evacuated on Tuesday because of a bomb threat.
The paper had apologised a day earlier for causing offence to Muslims, although it maintained it was legal under Danish law to print them.
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen welcomed the paper's apology, but defended the freedom of the press.

جاسبي رفتني شد

2006-01-31T11:44:00.000-08:00

جاسبي به سختي حاضر به رفتن مي شد. او با استفاده از حامياني كه در همه جناحها و خطوط سياسي دارد، همواره كوشيده تا موقعيت خود را حفظ كند. جاسبي هنگامي كه اصلاح طلبان بر اريكه قدرت تكيه زدند، بخش عمده پستهاي اداري و عضويت علمي دانشگاه را در اختيار آنان گذاشت. اصلاح طلبان كه شمشير را از رو بسته بودند كه با چند تظاهرات و اعتصاب دانشجويي، پرونده جاسبي را لوله كنند، در قبال آن همه امتياز، نمك گير شدند و در پشت پرده، همه گونه حمايت از او را به عمل آوردند

جاسبي خود يكي از اعضاي فعال هيئت مؤتلفه است اما هيچ گاه مشخص نشد كه به واقع طرفدار كدام جناح هست؟ يا به واژه ديگر، طرفدار كدام جناح نيست!! يك اشكال حقوقي كه اين اواخر كار را براي جاسبي سخت كرده بود مصوبه هيئت امنا در مورد رياست خودش بود. ظاهراً مصوبه قبلي، مدت دار بوده و پس از آن هم هيچ گاه تمديد نشده است. بنابراين حضور جاسبي فاقد شأن حقوقي بوده و تمديد آن نيز در اين شرايط غير عملي مي نمود. اكنون گزارشهاي متعددي كه از محافل مي رسد حاكي از آن است كه چراغ عمر مديريت جاسبي در دانشگاه آزاد در حال فرو خفتن است. از دو گزينه به عنوان جانشين او ياد مي شود؛ يكي نوبخت و ديگري ولايتي. و از هم اكنون رقابت سنگيني بين اطرافيان هاشمي در مورد انتخاب فرد جايگزين آغاز شده است. دوستان نزديك جاسبي بيشتر ولايتي را مي پسندند، در حالي كه ديگران، نوبخت را ترجيح مي دهند

Muhammed Cartoons

2006-01-31T11:27:00.000-08:00

Muhammed Cartoons

http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html

'پيروز? حيرت انگيز حماس' و استعفا? قريع

2006-01-26T13:14:00.000-08:00

'پيروز? حيرت انگيز حماس' و استعفا? قريع
با اعلام نتايج اوليه شمارش آرا در انتخابات پارلمان فلسطين?، نخست وزير تشکيلات خودگردان استعفا? دولت خود را تسليم رهبر فلسطينيان کرده و خواستار تشکيل دولت توسط سازمان حماس شده است
روز پنجشنبه، 26 ژانويه، و با مشخص شدن نتايج اوليه را? گير? در انتخابات شورا? قانونگذار? - پارلمان - فلسطين? که نشان م? دهد گروه اسلامگرا? حماس احتمالا به اکثريت کرس? ها? پارلمان دست م? يابد، احمد قريع، نخست وزير تشکيلات خودگردان از گروه فتح، استعفا? دولت خود را به محمود عباس، رهبر فلسطينيان، تسليم کرد
جنبش فتح، به رهبر? محمود عباس، که در دوره قبل? پارلمان اکثريت مطلق کرس? ها و در نتيجه، دولت را در اختيار داشت، ادعا? حماس در پيروز? در انتخابات را رد نکرده و به نظر م? رسد که شکست در انتخابات را پذيرفته باشد
صائب عريقات، مذاکره کننده ارشد فلسطين? و از مقامات تشکيلات خودگردان، اظهار داشته که نشانه ها? اوليه حاک? از شکست فتح در انتخابات است و به کسان? که به پيروز? دست يافته اند تبريک گفته است
و? افزود که فتح در تشکيل دولت شرکت نخواهد کرد و محمود عباس از حماس خواهد خواست دولت جديد را تشکيل دهند. به گفته او، فتح اقدام به بازساز? خود خواهد کرد و به "اپوزيسيون? وفادار" تبديل خواهد شد
اين در حال? است که سخنگو? حماس م? گويد که ا?ن جنبش ساير گروه ها? فلسطين? را به مشارکت سياس? دعوت م? کند
آقا? قريع گفته است که با توجه به اکثريت پارلمان? حماس، لازم است دولت آينده توسط اين گروه تشکيل شود
پارلمان فلسطين? 132 نماينده دارد و حماس گفته است که براساس نتايج اوليه انتخابات، انتظار دارد دست کم 77 کرس? را به خود اختصاص دهد
در دوره قبل? پارلمان، جنبش فتح 47 کرس? از 88 کرس? پارلمان را در دست داشت و 21 نماينده مستقل نيز به طور غير مستقيم به اين جناح وابسته بودند
با انتشار خبر موفقيت احتمال? حماس، ايالات متحده اعلام داشت که به شرط? که گروه حماس رسما کاربرد خشونت را نف? کرده و هدف اعلام شده خود برا? نابود? کشور اسرائيل را کنار بگذارد حاضر به برقرار? تماس و همکار? با آن خواهد بود
اتحاديه اروپا نيز گفته است که اين اتحاديه حاضر است با هر دولت? که به راه ها? صلح آميز متعهد باشد همکار? کند
در بيانيه ا?ن اتحاديه آمده است: "مردم فلسطين مردم سالارانه و مسالمت آميز را? داده اند. موضع اتحاديه اروپا در حمايت از به رسميت شناختن اسراييل و يافتن راه حل? مسالمت آميز برا? ايجاد دو کشور، بر کس? پوشيده نيست

Hamas Wins Landslide 76 Seats

2006-01-26T10:54:00.000-08:00

RAMALLAH, West Bank - The Islamic militant Hamas won a landslide victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections, winning 76 seats in the 132-member legislature, election officials said Thursday. The rival Fatah Party, which controlled Palestinian politics for four decades, won 43 seats. Hamas supporters raised their flag over the Palestinian parliament and rushed into the building amid clashes with Fatah loyalists a day after winning parliamentary elections.

رحمان رضايى، مدافع ملى پوش ايران، رسما تابعيت ايتاليا را دريافت نمود.

2006-01-26T10:08:00.000-08:00

لندن، 6 بهمن 1384 (خبرگزارى ملى ايران) به گزارش روزنامه گاتزتا دلواسپورت ايتاليا رحمان رضايى، مدافع ملى پوش ايران كه در اين فصل در تيم مسينا بازى مى كند، تبعه ايتاليا شد.روزناتمه گاتزتا نوشت:«از اين پس رحمان رضايى يك ايتاليايى محسوب مى شود.» اين روزنامه توضيح مى دهد:«او روز گذشته پس از حضور در اين اداره توانست اقامت دايمى خود را دريافت كند. رضايى به لطف ازدواج با هليا هاشميان كه دختر يك پدر ايرانى است و از هفت سالگى در ايتاليا اقامت دارد، هويت ايتاليايى گرفت.» روزنامه ايتاليايى نوشت:«رحمان و هليا در سال ???? با يكديگر ازدواج كرده اند و ظاهراً رضايى از همان زمان براى دريافت اقامت دايمى ايتاليا فعاليت هاى خود را شروع كرده.» خبرگزارى رسمى ايتاليا«آنسا» نيز در اين رابطه مى نويسد كه «هدف اصلى رحمان رضايى از اين كار زندگى راحت در ايتالياست.»رحمان رضايى از سه سال پيش تلاش هاى خود را در اين زمينه آغاز كرده است. هيچ كس به رضايى پيشنهاد نداده سيتى زن ايتاليا شود بلكه او به تنهايى تصميم گرفته دست به چنين كارى بزند. ايران ورزشى - خبر بسيار غافلگير كننده بود.«رحمان رضايى تابعيت ايتاليايى گرفت» و تا حدودى توى ذوق مى زد:«حالا او يك ايتاليايى است». پس ادامه خبر اصلاً غيرمنتظره به نظر نمى رسيد:«او بعد از حضور در اداره اتباع بيگانگان پروجا سيتى زن ايتاليا شد» پس خبر ديگر، خبر غيرمنتظره اى نبود:«خب، من از مدت ها پيش دنبالش بودم، يعنى زمانى كه در پروجا بازى مى كردم.» خود رحمان رضايى در اين رابطه مى گويد: « الان من يك بازيكن اروپايى هستم. محدوديتى وجود ندارد، نه براى من و نه براى باشگاهى كه قرار است جذبم كند. وقتى پاس اروپايى داشته باشى، راحت تر تو را مى گيرند. مشكلى پيش نمى آيد.» رضايى اضافه مى كند: « فكر مى كنم اين يكى از بهترين اقدامات زندگى ام بود.»اين اولين بار در تاريخ فوتبال ايران است كه يك ملى پوش فوتبال ايران همزمان با بازى براى تيم ملى ايران براى دريافت تابعيت خارجى اقدام كرده و تابعيت خود را عوض مى كند. با اين تصميم، ادامه حضور رضايى در تركيب تيم ملى ايران در هاله اى از ابهام فرو مى رود.آنچه مايه تاسف است اين است كه چرا بايد وضعيت يك كشور به صورتى باشد كه يكى از بهترين بازيكنان آن عطاى تابعيت ايرانى خود را به لقايش ببخشد و با رضايت تمام تابعيت كشور ديگرى را بپذيرد. بى شك تنها كسانى كه خود را موظف به پاسخ به چرايى اين وضعيت نمى دانند، حاكمان جمهورى اسلامى ايران و دست پرورده هاى فاسدشان بر بالاى دستگاه ورزش مملكت مى باشد

Rice Says U.S. Position on Hamas Unchanged

2006-01-26T09:55:00.000-08:00

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that the U.S. position on Hamas as a terrorist organization has not changed with the group's stunning victory in Palestinian elections, and Palestinian leaders must renounce violence and terror if they want world support. "You cannot have one foot in politics and another in terror," Rice told the World Economic Conference in Davos, Switzerland via a telephone hookup to the State Department. "Our position on Hamas has therefore not changed." Rice spoke shortly after Palestinian voters rejected the longtime rule of the Fatah Party, throwing the future of Mideast peacemaking into question. "Palestinian people have apparently voted for change, but we believe their aspirations for peace and a peaceful life remain unchanged," she said. Rice said those goals will require renunciation of violence and terrorism and acceptance of Israel's right to exist side-by-side with a Palestinian state. "Anyone who wants to govern the Palestinian people and do so with the support of the international community has got to be committed to a two-state solution," Rice said. "You can't have a peace process if you're not committed to the right of your partner to exist." She predicted that the world will "speak clearly" on those points over the next day or so, but did not outline just how the United States plans to proceed. Hamas has taken responsibility for dozens of suicide attacks on Israel over the past five years, but has largely observed a cease-fire since the election of Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian president last year. The initial speculation Wednesday - as Hamas ran neck-and-neck with Abbas' Fatah Party - was that Hamas would steer clear of a post involving peacemaking efforts and would be consigned to domestic ministries such as education. But Hamas' defeat of Fatah could change that calculation in a way that might put pressure on Washington to find a way to both uphold aversion to the militant group and also promote peacemaking. For years, even though he was the unquestioned leader of the Palestinians, the United States declined to deal with - or even have contact with - Yasser Arafat. Under U.S. pressure in the Reagan administration, Arafat made a statement renouncing terrorism, and the United States went on to deal with him in Mideast peace efforts. But Bush, deciding that Arafat was corrupt and linked to persistent violence against Israel, cut him off, and did not invite him to the White House. Rice is due to meet in London on Monday with U.N., Russian and European leaders as the so-called "Quartet" evaluates the results and tries to decide how to proceed with peacemaking efforts.

Limits of the velvet glove, by Amitai Etzioni

2006-01-24T13:06:00.000-08:00

Lunilateral rupture by Iran of the seals has on its installations of uranium enrichment carries a serious blow to Europeans. Those endeavoured to show in the world that the multilateral negotiation and a subtle diplomacy not having recourse neither to the force nor even with the threats could solve major conflicts. Since the invasion of Iraq, a great number of intellectuals and politicians in Europe do not spare their criticisms towards the unilateral and brutal approach of the Bush administration. The use of the concept of "software power" (gravitational capacity) made fury. It indicates a foreign politics founded on legitimate actions, according to the definition of Joseph Nye. The countries concerned must be convinced or encouraged to yield to the established international standards, rather than to be constrained there.
OAS_AD('Middle');

Iran played the game, during a time: this country continued the negotiations, launched new proposals and saved time to develop its nuclear program (which perhaps comprises a clandestine aspect) while wavering vis-a-vis Europeans. In January however, Teheran seems to have been wearied and has advanced its pawns with the manifest contempt of its former international engagements. One could think that this attitude mainly aims at making assemble the biddings before the final payment. However, nothing indicates that the Iranians intend to limit their nuclear program, would be this only by using fuel provided by an international consortium. Within the framework of this project, Iran would receive uranium enriched from abroad instead of manufacturing it itself, which would enable him to produce all the energy which it wishes -- what Teheran affirms being its single objective --, whole while preventing it from diverting the substance with fine soldiers. The international suppliers would make sure that enriched uranium is used only for peaceful purposes and would repatriate the nuclear waste which could be used for manufacture of a bomb.
With the obviousness the policy of the velvet glove has its limits. Europeans, who are in charge of the relations with Iran in this file, cannot any more but make to regulate the problem. The economic sanctions are of punitive nature and thus leave the framework of this famous "gravitational capacity". Moreover, they are difficult to decide and apply.
The council of the trente-cinq members of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) renâcle to seize UNO, whereas it is a passage obliged to set up this type of sanction. Even if this stage is reached, China could still put its veto at the Council Resolutions of safety or attenuate them. And if those finished by being implemented, the experiment shows that the sanctions have especially as a result to enrich the traffickers instead of making pressure on the governments concerned. It is the population which makes the expenses of them more than the leading elites. Iran, which abounds in petrodollars, could not only resist it, but also impose some in its turn with the rest of the world. For example, by decreasing its oil exports.
Consequently, it will be necessary to make use of the force. And if that appears impracticable, Iran will become indeed a nuclear power with whole share. In a case as in the other, the gravitational capacity will have shown its very low effectiveness in the international relations. That proves that, if the "coercive capacity" ( hardware power ) functions better since it is preceded and accompanied by the gravitational capacity, the reverse is also true: the gravitational capacity is much more effective when it is known that, if nothing made there, the coercive capacity could take over.
Admittedly one can be less being wary that is not to it the Bush government towards the legitimate international organizations, alliances and the diplomacy. But on another side, the need coercive capacity in the event of dead end is much larger than Europeans do not want to admit it well.
Iran is far from being the first case of this type. On the hundreds of judgments pronounced by UNO, much were superbly ignored, almost without any consequence, because of the lack of coercive capacity of the United Nations. Thus, one needed the intervention of the Australian troops for Timor-Eastern, that of the British troops in Sierra Leone, that of the American troops in Liberia, so that the massacres cease.
All things considered, the way in which Iran abuses Europeans shows that the gravitational capacity only is not enough: it must be supported by the force. The hour came for Europeans to put their feeling of superiority on the key and to recognize that they must collaborate with the United States if one wants to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
The Initiative of safety against proliferation (ISP), that few people know, could be used as model. Impetus and carried out by the United States, it profits from the participation of the secret service and the navy of sixty countries which works to prevent the traffic of weapons and nuclear substances in open sea. Supported by UNO (by the means of the resolution 1540), it thus joins together coercive capacity and gravitational capacity, which makes an excellent example of it of what should be practised in the future. Place at the era of the mixed capacity, iron hand and velvet glove.

Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly

2006-01-24T12:33:00.000-08:00

By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t Perspective
Monday 09 January 2006

The wires have been humming since before the New Year with reports that the Bush administration is planning an attack on Iran. "The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year, according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier suggestions in the Turkish media," reported UPI on December 30th.
"The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week," continued UPI, "quoted 'NATO intelligence sources' who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. This 'all options are open' line has been President George W Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months."
An examination of the ramifications of such an attack is desperately in order.
1. Blowback in Iraq
The recent elections in Iraq were dominated by an amalgam of religiously fundamentalist Shi'ite organizations, principally the Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Both Dawa and SCIRI have umbilical connections to the fundamentalist Shi'ite leadership in Iran that go back decades. In essence, Iran now owns a significant portion of the Iraqi government.
Should the United States undertake military action against Iran, the ramifications in Iraq would be immediate and extreme.
In the first eight days of January, eighteen US troops have been killed in Iraq, compounded by another twelve deaths from a Black Hawk helicopter crash on Saturday. Much of the violence aimed at American forces is coming from disgruntled Sunni factions that have their own militias, believe the last elections were a sham, and hold little political power in the government.
If the US attacks Iran, it is probable that American forces - already taxed by attacks from Sunni factions - will also face reprisal attacks in Iraq from Shi'ite factions loyal to Iran. The result will be a dramatic escalation in US and civilian casualties, US forces will be required to bunker themselves further into their bases, and US forces will find themselves required to fight the very government they just finished helping into power. Iraq, already a seething cauldron, will sink further into chaos.
2. Iran's Armaments
Unlike Iraq, Iran has not spent the last fifteen years having its conventional forces worn down by grueling sanctions, repeated attacks, and two American-led wars. While Iran's conventional army is not what it was during the heyday of the Iran-Iraq war - their armaments have deteriorated and the veterans of that last war have retired - the nation enjoys substantial military strength nonetheless.
According to a report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in December of 2004, Iran "has some 540,000 men under arms and over 350,000 reserves. They include 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained for land and naval asymmetrical warfare. Iran's military also includes holdings of 1,613 main battle tanks, 21,600 other armored fighting vehicles, 3,200 artillery weapons, 306 combat aircraft, 60 attack helicopters, 3 submarines, 59 surface combatants, and 10 amphibious ships."
"Iran is now the only regional military power that poses a significant conventional military threat to Gulf stability," continued the CSIS report. "Iran has significant capabilities for asymmetric warfare, and poses the additional threat of proliferation. There is considerable evidence that it is developing both a long-range missile force and a range of weapons of mass destruction. It has never properly declared its holdings of chemical weapons, and the status of its biological weapons programs is unknown."
A MILNET brief issued in February 2005 reports, "Due to its position astride the Persian Gulf, Iran has constantly been a threat to the Gulf. The so called 'Tanker' wars in the late 1980s put Iran squarely in the bullseye of all nations seeking to transport oil out of the region. Even the small navy that Iran puts to sea is capable enough to harass shipping, and several cases of small boat operations against oil well heads in the Gulf during that period made it clear small asymmetrical tactics of the Iranian Navy could be quite effective."
"More concerning," continued the MILNET brief, "is the priority placed on expanding and modernizing its Navy. The CSIS report cites numerous areas where Iran has funded modernization including the most troublesome aspect, anti-shipping cruise missiles: 'Iran has obtained new anti-ship missiles and missile patrol craft from China, midget submarines from North Korea, submarines from Russia, and modern mines.'"
It is Iran's missile armaments that pose the greatest concern for American forces in the Gulf, especially for the US Navy. Iran's coast facing the Persian Gulf is a looming wall of mountains that look down upon any naval forces arrayed in those waters. The Gulf itself only has one exit, the Strait of Hormuz, which is also dominated by the mountainous Iranian coastline. In essence, Iran holds the high ground in the Gulf. Missile batteries arrayed in those mountains could raise bloody havoc with any fleet deployed below.
Of all the missiles in Iran's armament, the most dangerous is the Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn. These missiles are, simply, the fastest anti-ship weapons on the planet. The Sunburn can reach Mach 3 at high altitude. Its maximum low-altitude speed is Mach 2.2, some three times faster than the American-made Harpoon. The Sunburn takes two short minutes to cover its full range. The missile's manufacturers state that one or two missiles could cripple a destroyer, and five missiles could sink a 20,000 ton ship. The Sunburn is also superior to the Exocet missile. Recall that it was two Exocets that ripped the USS Stark to shreds in 1987, killing 37 sailors. The Stark could not see them to stop them.
The US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf, with some 7,000 souls aboard. Sailing with the Roosevelt is the Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Force, which includes the USS Tarawa, the USS Austin, and the USS Pearl Harbor. The USS Austin is likewise deployed in the Gulf. The Sunburn missile, with its incredible speed and ability to avoid radar detection, would do terrible damage these ships if Iran chooses to retaliate in the Gulf after an American attack within its borders.
Beyond the naval threat is the possibility of Iran throwing its military muscle into the ongoing struggle in Iraq. Currently, the US is facing an asymmetrical attack from groups wielding small arms, shoulder-fired grenades and roadside bombs. The vaunted American military has suffered 2,210 deaths and tens of thousands of wounded from this form of warfare. The occupation of Iraq has become a guerrilla war, a siege that has lasted more than a thousand days. If Iran decides to throw any or all of its 23,000 armored fighting vehicles, along with any or all of its nearly million-strong army, into the Iraq fray, the situation in the Middle East could become unspeakably dire.
3. The Syrian Connection
In February of 2005, Iran and Syria agreed upon a mutual protection pact to combat "challenges and threats" in the region. This was a specific reaction to the American invasion of Iraq, and a reaction to America's condemnation of Syria after the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which was widely seen as an assassination ordered from Damascus. An attack on Iran would trigger this mutual defense pact, and could conceivably bring Syria into direct conflict with American forces.
Like Iran, Syria's military is nothing to scoff at. Virtually every credible analysis has Syria standing as the strongest military force in the Middle East after Israel. Damascus has been intent for years upon establishing significant military strength to serve as a counterweight to Israel's overwhelming capabilities. As of 2002, Syria had some 215,000 soldiers under arms, 4,700 tanks, and a massive artillery capability. The Syrian Air Force is comprised of ten to eleven fighter/attack squadrons and sixteen fighter squadrons, totaling somewhere near 650 aircraft.
Syria also possesses one of the largest arsenals of ballistic missiles in the region, comprised primarily of SCUD-derived systems. Iran, North Korea and China have been willing providers of state-of-the-art technologies. Compounding this is the well-based suspicion that Syria has perhaps the most advanced chemical weapons capability in the Persian Gulf.
4. China and the US Economy
While the ominous possibilities of heightened Iraqi chaos, missiles in the Gulf, and Syrian involvement loom large if the US attacks Iran, all pale in comparison to the involvement of China in any US/Iran engagement.
China's economy is exploding, hampered only by their great thirst for petroleum and natural gas to fuel their industry. In the last several months, China has inked deals with Iran for $70 billion dollars worth of Iranian oil and natural gas. China will purchase 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas from Iran over the next 30 years, will develop the massive Yadavaran oil field in Iran, and will receive 150,000 barrels of oil per day from that field. China is seeking the construction of a pipeline from Iran to the Caspian Sea, where it would link with another planned pipeline running from Kazakhstan to China.
Any US attack on Iran could be perceived by China as a direct threat to its economic health. Further, any fighting in the Persian Gulf would imperil the tankers running China's liquefied natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz. Should China decide to retaliate against the US to defend its oil and natural gas deal with Iran, the US would be faced with a significant threat. This threat exists not merely on a military level, though China could force a confrontation in the Pacific by way of Taiwan. More significantly, China holds a large portion of the American economy in the palm of its hand.
Paul Craig Roberts, writing for The American Conservative, said in July of 2005 that "As a result of many years of persistent trade surpluses with the United States, the Japanese government holds dollar reserves of approximately $1 trillion. China's accumulation of dollars is approximately $600 billion. South Korea holds about $200 billion. These sums give these countries enormous leverage over the United States. By dumping some portion of their reserves, these countries could put the dollar under intense pressure and send U.S. interest rates skyrocketing. Washington would really have to anger Japan and Korea to provoke such action, but in a showdown with China - over Taiwan, for example - China holds the cards. China and Japan, and the world at large, have more dollar reserves than they require. They would have no problem teaching a hegemonic superpower a lesson if the need arose."
"The hardest blow on Americans," concluded Roberts, "will fall when China does revalue its currency. When China's currency ceases to be undervalued, American shoppers in Wal-Mart, where 70 percent of the goods on the shelves are made in China, will think they are in Neiman Marcus. Price increases will cause a dramatic reduction in American real incomes. If this coincides with rising interest rates and a setback in the housing market, American consumers will experience the hardest times since the Great Depression."
In short, China has the American economy by the throat. Should they decide to squeeze, we will all feel it. China's strong hand in this even extends to the diplomatic realm; China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and could veto any actions against Iran proposed by the United States.
5. American Preparedness
American citizens have for decades taken it as a given that our military can overwhelm and overcome any foe on the battlefield. The rapid victory during the first Gulf War cemented this perception. The last three years of the Iraq occupation, however, have sapped this confidence. Worse, the occupation has done great damage to the strength of the American military, justifying the decrease in confidence. Thanks to repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, recruiting is at an all-time low. Soldiers with vital training and know-how are refusing to re-enlist. Across the board, the American military is stretched to the breaking point.
Two vaunted economists - one a Nobel Prize winner and the other a nationally renowned budget expert - have analyzed the data at hand and put a price tag on the Iraq occupation. According to Linda Bilmes of Harvard and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University, the final cost of the Iraq occupation will run between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, surpassing by orders of magnitude the estimates put forth by the Bush administration. If an engagement with Iran envelops our forces in Iraq, and comes to involve Syria, our economy will likely shatter under the strain of fighting so many countries simultaneously. Add to this the economic threat posed by China, and the economic threat implicit in any substantial disruption of the distribution of Mideast petroleum to the globe.
If Iran and Syria - with their significant armaments, missile technologies and suspected chemical weapons capabilities - decide to engage with the relatively undersized US force in Iraq, our troops there will be fish in a barrel. Iran's position over the Gulf would make resupply by ship and air support from carriers a dangerous affair. In the worst-case scenario, the newly-minted American order of battle requiring the use of nuclear weapons to rescue a surrounded and imperiled force could come into play, hurling the entire planet into military and diplomatic bedlam.
Conclusion: Is Any of This Possible?
The question must be put as directly as possible: what manner of maniac would undertake a path so fraught with peril and potential economic catastrophe? It is difficult to imagine a justification for any action that could envelop the United States in a military and economic conflict with Iraq, Iran, Syria and China simultaneously.
Iran is suspected by many nations of working towards the development of nuclear weapons, but even this justification has been tossed into a cocked hat. Recently, Russian president Vladimir Putin bluntly stated that Iran is not developing its nuclear capability for any reasons beyond peaceful energy creation, and pledged to continue assisting Iran in this endeavor. Therefore, any attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities will bring Russia into the mess. Iran also stands accused of aiding terrorism across the globe. The dangers implicit in any attack upon that nation, however, seem to significantly offset whatever gains could be made in the so-called "War on Terror."
Unfortunately, all the dangers in the world are no match for the self-assurance of a bubble-encased zealot. What manner of maniac would undertake such a dangerous course? Look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
George W. Bush and his administration have consistently undertaken incredibly dangerous courses of action in order to garner political power on the home front. Recall the multiple terror threats lobbed out by the administration whenever damaging political news appeared in the media. More significantly, recall Iraq. Karl Rove, Bush's most senior advisor, notoriously told Republicans on the ballot during the 2002 midterms to "run on the war." The invasion of Iraq provided marvelous political cover for the GOP not only during those midterms, but during the 2004 Presidential election.
What kind of political cover would be gained from an attack on Iran, and from the diversion of attention to that attack? The answer lies in one now-familiar name: Jack Abramoff. The Abramoff scandal threatens to subsume all the hard-fought GOP gains in Congress, and the 2006 midterms are less than a year away.
Is any of this a probability? Logic says no, but logic seldom plays any part in modern American politics. All arguments that the Bush administration would be insane to attack Iran and risk a global conflagration for the sake of political cover run into one unavoidable truth.
They did it once already in Iraq.

German spies see Iran 3-4 yrs from A-bomb--source

2006-01-19T13:39:00.000-08:00

Source:
ReutersBy Louis Charbonneau

BERLIN, Jan 19 (Reuters) - Germany's foreign intelligence agency believes that Iran is at least three or four years away from getting a nuclear weapon if it wants one, a source familiar with the agency's estimate said on Thursday.
"Our guys believe the minimum scenario is three to four years. Our allies in Tel Aviv and the U.S also believe it would take quite a few years," a source familiar with the views of the BND intelligence agency told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
Iran says it only wants nuclear technology for an atomic energy programme to meet booming demand for electricity in the Islamic republic. The United States, the European Union and many other countries believe Tehran is covertly developing the bomb.
The BND was not immediately available for comment.
Israel, which Iran's president has said should be "wiped off the map", believes the earliest Iran could get an atomic weapon is 2008. The United States believes Iran could get the bomb in the next decade.
The director general of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, said Iran could have a weapon within months once it gets the nuclear fuel for it.
"If they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponisation program along the way, they are really not very far -- a few months -- from a weapon," he told Newsweek.
But it is getting the highly enriched nuclear material that the BND and other experts believe is Iran's biggest obstacle.
The BND's estimate is consistent with one released last week by David Albright and Corey Hinderstein of the Institute for Science and International Security, a U.S. think-tank.
Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector, and Hinderstein said Iran could not get a weapon before 2009, because it has not mastered the art of uranium enrichment.
Tehran has announced plans to resume "research and development" on uranium enrichment, a process of purifying uranium for use as fuel for power plants or weapons. In response, the EU and United States have called for Iran to be hauled before the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
Albright and Hinderstein said that if Iran wanted an atom bomb, predicting when it could have one would depend on the number of working enrichment centrifuges in Iran. Centrifuges enrich uranium by spinning at supersonic speeds.
They said Iran could have 1,300-1,600 centrifuges by late 2006, which would be enough to begin producing bomb fuel. Tehran would then need another year to install and test them.
"Given another year to make enough HEU (highly enriched uranium) for a nuclear weapon and a few more months to convert the uranium into weapons components, Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009.
"By this time Iran is assessed to have had sufficient time to prepare the other components of a nuclear weapon, although the weapon may not be deliverable by a ballistic missile."

Report: Iran lifts ban on CNN

2006-01-17T10:07:00.000-08:00

Translation error had led to reports of journalists' ouster

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- CNN was allowed to "resume its activities" in Iran Tuesday, the country's official news agency reported, after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked that a ban on CNN journalists be lifted and the network be allowed to continue its work there.

CNN was not directly informed by the Iranian government of the ban when it was reported to be imposed Monday, and has not been formally informed that the ban has been lifted.
The official Iranian news agency IRNA said the president's chief of staff asked that the ban be lifted in a letter to the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance sent Monday night.
Government television station IRINN also reported the president's office called for the ministry to annul its prior decision banning CNN from working in Iran.
IRNA reported Monday that the Iranian government banned CNN journalists from working in the country after a translation error broadcast by CNN mistakenly quoted Iran's president as saying his nation has the right to build nuclear weapons.
The dispute arises from a moment of simultaneous translation Saturday.
As Ahmadinejad was speaking, an interpreter working for a translation company hired by CNN misquoted him as having said Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons. In fact, he said Iran has the right to nuclear energy, and that "a nation that has civilization does not need nuclear weapons." He added, "our nation does not need them."
The incorrect translation was re-broadcast on CNN later Saturday.
As soon as it was alerted to the error Sunday, CNN corrected the translation and clarified Ahmadinejad's remarks, and the network apologized.
In a written statement, CNN said it "apologized on all its platforms which included the translation error, including CNN International, CNN/USA and CNN.com, and also expressed its regrets to the Iranian government and the Iranian ambassador to the U.N."
But the Iranian government, in the IRNA report, said it took a punitive measure against CNN, invalidating press cards of CNN journalists in Tehran.
CNN, in its statement, said, "CNN is very disappointed that this action has been taken."
The translation company, Lesley Howard Languages, apologized to CNN.
"Obviously, we're taking it very, very seriously. We will never use him again," owner Lesley Howard said, referring to the interpreter.
She said the same interpreter, who like other interpreters is contracted for individual projects, has done good work in the past, including for CNN.
She added that there is no reason to believe the interpreter purposely gave the wrong translation.
"We pride ourselves on having incredibly high standards," Howard said.

تيم مل? فوتبال اوكراين با ت?م ا?ران ديدار نخواهد كرد

2006-01-17T09:42:00.000-08:00

تيم ملي فوتبال اوكراين از برگزار? باز? دوستانه برابر تيم ايران كه قرار بود در ماه مارس برگزار شود، منصرف شده است. روزنامه اسپرتس اكسپرس در شماره امروز خود به نقل از اولگ بلوخين، سرمربي تيم ملي اوكراين نوشت به ايران پرواز نمي‌ كنيم. اين كشور هم بسيار دور است و هم در اين روزها، آرام ‌ترين نقطه جهان نيست
پيش از اين در هفته گذشته گزارش شده بود كه دو طرف توافق كرده‌اند اول مارس در ايران ديدار دوستانه‌اي را برگزار كنند

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: The nuclear prophet

2006-01-17T09:37:00.000-08:00

Beyond the outrageous rhetoric, what is the real threat from the Iranian president?
By Raymond Whitaker
Published: 15 January 2006
If anyone embodies the reason why the nuclear showdown with Iran sends shivers through Western capitals, let alone the country's Arab neighbours, it is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The bearded 49-year-old's election as Iran's president last summer took millions of Iranians, as well as the rest of the world, by surprise. Since then he has caused outrage by demanding that Israel be "wiped off the map", questioning the historical authenticity of the Holocaust, and saying that if Europe and America wanted to atone by giving the Jews a homeland, it should be on their territory: "Why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"
Chilling words from the leader of a country which seems to be bent on confrontation with the international community over its nuclear programme. He adheres to the official line that this is for peaceful purposes - although Iran, a major oil producer with natural gas reserves second only to Russia's, has never explained why it needs nuclear power - and dismisses foreign criticism as "noise". The major powers, Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech last week, were "a group of bullies" trying to deprive Iran and other nations of their "legal and natural rights".
The alarm caused by the president's intemperate rhetoric is increased precisely because so little is known about him. Some of the Americans held hostage in the US embassy in Tehran for 444 days between late 1979 and early 1981 have claimed that he was among their captors. He has also been accused of involvement in the assassinations of exiled Kurdish politicians in Austria, and executions of political prisoners in Tehran's notorious Evin prison.
President George Bush has ordered an investigation into the hostage-taking claim, although acknowledged leaders of the embassy siege have denied that he had anything to do with the crisis. He and the Iranian government have dismissed all the allegations against him as a smear campaign by the US and "Zionist media".
More worrying for some is that Ahmadinejad is closely identified with the cult of the "hidden imam", the 12th and last of the line of imams revered by Shia Muslims. In a clear parallel with Jewish and Christian visions of Armageddon, Shias believe the imam zaman will return at a time of great turmoil to defeat the forces of evil; recently the president urged Iranians to work hard for this moment. As one commentator pointed out, this was like Tony Blair telling Britons to prepare for the Second Coming.
The most extreme zealots, a group called the Hojjatieh, say total chaos should be created to hasten the coming of the Mahdi, and there have been claims that Ahmadinejad, if not a member, sympathises with them. This explains his reckless attitude, say his critics. If the final triumph of Islam can be brought closer by provoking a nuclear war with Israel or America, why hold back?
It might be possible to dismiss this as scaremongering if it were not for a DVD circulating in Iran which shows the president in conversation with a conservative ayatollah. Ahmadinejad is speaking about his defiant address to the UN General Assembly last autumn, in which he refused to back down on Iran's nuclear programme.
"One of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad', he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura," he says. "I felt it myself. I felt the atmosphere change, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there."
So who is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and how did he manage to win the presidency? He was unknown when he was elected mayor of Tehran in 2003, with all but 12 per cent of voters staying away from the polls. The son of a blacksmith from Aradan, south of Tehran, he performed well enough in his studies to gain a PhD in engineering and urban management at the Iran University of Science and Technology, but his speech and appearance remain working-class. His only declared assets are said to be a 30-year-old Paykan car, the Iranian version of the old Hillman Hunter, and a small house.
The president's ascetic image is reinforced by his rumpled suit and open-necked shirt, the uniform of the generation which overthrew the Shah and brought the late Ayatollah Khomeini to power (it is a mark of Iran's difference that hip young men in Tehran seek to annoy their elders by wearing ties).
When he was mayor, he tried to bring back strict Islamic standards of behaviour, with little success. The sophisticates of north Tehran mocked his accent, and dismissed his decision to run for president, while the religious establishment backed another conservative.
Everybody, including diplomats and the foreign press, expected the former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a worldly cleric, to win, and he duly took first place among the seven candidates in the first round. But Ahmadinejad came second, and won the run-off. What neither the Tehran elite nor the mullahs realised was how unpopular they were: most of the victor's votes came not from religious zealots, but from the struggling masses who responded to his uncorrupt image, and his promise to "put Iran's oil wealth on people's tables".
The realities of office have been another matter. Alongside the formal trappings of the presidency, cabinet and parliament is the theocratic power structure, presided over by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who took over on Khomeini's death. The decisions on most matters, including nuclear development, are with him.
Powerful economic interests are also ranged against the president - his plan to redistribute oil revenues has hit trouble, because it is seen as inflationary. He sacked the entire cabinet on taking over, but parliament rejected four nominees for the crucial job of oil minister, and the man eventually appointed was previously the deputy minister.
"Ahmadinejad promised a lot, but he can't deliver," said Dr Ali Granmayeh, a former Iranian diplomat now with the School of Oriental and African Studies at London University. "Some people think he is striking attitudes on the Holocaust and the nuclear question precisely because he has so little control over domestic policy."
There are even predictions that parliament could use its constitutional powers to dismiss Ahmadinejad before he has served a year. But the president's opponents will have to tread carefully: he has a popular mandate; they do not. However much the the world might want Iranians to get rid of their turbulent figurehead, we might have to put up with his tirades for some time.

تصو?ر هوا?? جد?د از مرکز غن? ساز? اوران?وم در نطنز

2006-01-16T10:53:00.000-08:00

نظرسنج? سا?ت CNN برا? حذف ت?م فوتبال ا?ران از جام جهان?

2006-01-16T10:39:00.000-08:00

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/13/iran.nuclear/

سولانا: شايد كنار زدن ايران از جام جهاني فوتبال راه حلي باشد

2006-01-13T11:49:00.000-08:00

خبرگزاري دانشجويان ايران - تهران سرويس: ورزشي - فوتبال
بار ديگر پيشنهاد غير منطقي كنار زدن تيم ملي ايران از رقابت‌هاي جام جهاني 2006 اين بار در نشست وزيران امور خارجه انگلستان، فرانسه و آلمان تكرار شد
به گزارش خبرگزاري دانشجويان ايران (ايسنا)، پنجشنبه وزيران سه كشور اروپايي به همراه خاوير سولانو، مسوول سياست خارجي اتحاديه اروپا درباره‌ي پرونده‌ي هسته‌اي ايران با يكديگر مذاكره كردند
سولانو در پايان اين نشست به شبكه N24 آلمان گفت:« شايد كنار زدن ايران از رقابت‌هاي جام جهاني راه حلي باشد كه ما بايد آن را در نظر بگيريم و بسيار جدي به اين راه حل نگاه كنيم. البته تا كنون درباره نوع تحريم‌ها مذاكره نداشتيم، امكان دارد اين تصميم، مردم ايران را برانگيزد
اما، در همين حال كاخ سفيد كه خواهان ارجاع پرونده ايران به شوراي امنيت سازمان ملل است اعلام كرد؛ هر تحريمي درباره‌ي برنامه‌هاي هسته‌اي ايران متوجه مردم اين كشور نخواهد شد
كاندوليزا رايس، وزير امورخارجه آمريكا به دانشجويان، هنرمندان و ورزشكاران از جمله تيم ملي ايران كه در رقابت‌هاي جام جهاني به ميدان خواهد رفت اطمينان داد كه تحريم و جريمه به آنها تحميل نخواهد شد
پيشتر فيفا، مركز فرماندهي فوتبال جهان به طور جدي پيشنهاد كنار زدن ايران از جام جهاني از سوي بعضي از سران سياسي و ورزشي آلمان مانند حزب سبز و رييس باشگاه كلن را رد كرده بود

Iran and Israel will be kings of the Middle East jungle

2006-01-13T11:11:00.000-08:00

The US occupation of Iraq has turned its neighbour into a new regional power. But the contagion is likely to spread far wider

David HirstFriday January 13, 2006The Guardian

In March 2003, before US troops reached Baghdad, Middle East scholar Volker Perthes wrote that while the risks of this "illegitimate" war were enormous, those of "a US failure to stabilise postwar Iraq would be even higher". With those words looking increasingly prophetic, no one, in picturing the implications of such failure, is now more lurid than the Bush administration. The direness of the prospect has become its strongest argument for "staying the course", but for others it is already a given, amounting to "the greatest strategic disaster in US history", in the words of the retired US general William Odom.
If so, what will this disaster look like? In scale, it will surely be at least commensurate with the vast ambitions that came with the invasion in the first place, Iraq being cast as the platform for reshaping the entire Middle East.
A general US retreat from the region, with troop withdrawal at its core, is no doubt a prerequisite for, and yardstick of, the emergence of a healthy, self-reliant new Middle Eastern order. But, with the kind of ignominious scuttle from Iraq that failure would presumably entail, the region won't just revert to the status quo ante. Instead of Iraq becoming a beacon of all good things it will become the single most noxious wellspring of all the bad ones the invasion was supposed to extinguish - and new ones to boot.
If the Middle East was a jungle before, it will be a wilder one afterwards, with most elements of the decadent existing order, in their increased insecurity, driven to even cruder methods - increased internal repression or external adventurism - to preserve themselves. And it will become even more anti-American. For while a "good" retreat would decrease such sentiments, a "bad" Iraqi one will only spur and spread the active, often violent expression of them. That is because, for the Arabs, Iraq was only the latest drastic episode in a long history of western interference in their affairs. Until the wider, pre-Iraqi consequences of that interference are remedied, the example of successful anti-American resistance in Iraq will only encourage it elsewhere, especially in Palestine.
Saddam's Iraq was the very model of Arab tyranny - with sectarianism, in the shape of Sunni minority rule, as its main component. With American failure it will become the model of Arab anarchy, embodying the two most disruptive forces in the Middle East today. One is a sectarianism (chiefly Sunni versus Shia) or ethnic antagonism (chiefly Kurd versus Arab, Turk and Iranian) as malevolent in its new pluralist form as it was in its more familiar despotic one. The other is universalist, ideologically driven Islamism. Elections show that this is the dominant or rising force on both sides of Iraq's widening sectarian divide. Islamism will spawn its inevitable fanatical progeny and Iraq, till now mainly a magnet for pan-Islamic jihadists, will become, Afghan-style, a main exporter of them too; it already is, in fact, as the Jordanian suicide bombings illustrated.
The Arab states will be sucked into this Iraqi maelstrom. With the world's only superpower on its way out, who but they - along with Turkey and Iran - are left to replace it there? But they will fail disastrously in their turn. In the past the regimes more or less controlled the business of interference in each other's other affairs, as they exerted such control over their domestic arenas. Now they will be competing with those non-state forces, primarily the ethnic/sectarian and Islamist ones, by which they also are increasingly challenged. In fact almost all these countries are latent Iraqs, especially Ba'athist Syria. Far from mastering Iraq, it is Iraq - in its death throes as a unified state - that is more likely to master them. Nor will Turkey and Iran, Iraq's strongest neighbours, be immune from the contagion, with Iraqi Kurdish emancipation already contributing to a resurgence of Kurdish resistance in both.
If all this portends an unfathomable mess, one thing at least is already clear: Iran will be the main beneficiary of US failure and the long-overdue accession of the Shia majority, its coreligionists, to political ascendancy in Iraq. The increase in regional clout it derives from this will be used at America's expense. The mullahs have long been readying themselves for a great reckoning. With their new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, readiness seems to be mutating into active desire. He and those around him believe that only the US stands in the way of Iranian regional dominance and that the US, seen as defeated in Iraq, is now a "sunset power".
For Iran, the sectarian/ethnic and Islamist factors are now potent assets. Its Kurdish vulnerabilities are more than offset by improved Shia influence throughout the region. This is a reality which, within the Sunni-dominated Arab establishment, Jordan has been most publicly alarmed about. King Abdullah warns of a "Shia crescent" stretching from Iraq, via Syria (so long as its pro-Iranian Alawite regime survives), to south Lebanon. Jordanian politicians even talk of building a "Sunni wall" through Iraq to keep the peril at bay.
In addition, non-Arab Iran is now the main state patron of radical Islamism in the Arab world, and Palestine is its most profitable arena. Long an advocate of Islamicising the Palestinian struggle, nothing could better serve its ambition than the effect that US failure in Iraq will have on Hamas, which is now close to supplanting the secular-nationalist Fatah as the dominant political force in the occupied territories.
But the thing that will really make it and Israel the most dangerous animals in the post-Iraqi Middle East jungle is Iran's apparent quest for nuclear weapons. On the one hand, this commands grassroots popularity among the Arabs. They see it as a self-assertion that no Arab leader would dare offer against colonial-style western bullying and the hypocrisy of the west's acceptance of Israel's nuclear monopoly.
On the other hand, no one invested greater expectations in the Iraqi adventure than Israel. US success, it thought, would transform its strategic position. But with US failure, Israel will grow more repressive against the Palestinians, and more ready for military action against Iran. Should the US itself deal with Iran in the same violent and partisan fashion as it did Iraq, the adverse consequences of that new adventure will outstrip those of the earlier one. For there is no reason to doubt that Iran's response, from both itself and its strengthened Shia and Islamist allies in the region, will be the devastating one it constantly promises.
David Hirst reported from the Middle East for the Guardian from 1963 to 2001

Iran's top nuclear negotiator says Tehran wants to talk with Europeans: Annan

2006-01-13T11:09:00.000-08:00

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said Iran's top nuclear negotiator told him Thursday that Tehran was interested in "serious and constructive negotiations" with Britain, France and Germany over its atomic program.
During a 40-minute telephone conversation, he said, Ali Larijani said Iran wanted to resume negotiations with the Europeans, but this time favoured a deadline.
"He affirmed to me that they are interested in serious and constructive negotiations but within a timeframe, indicating that the last time they did it for 2 1/2 years and no result," Annan told reporters.
The statement came after the British, French and German foreign ministers said negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program had reached a "dead end" and the Islamic republic should be referred to the UN Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

Straw: Iran Referral 'Highly Probable'

2006-01-12T14:06:00.000-08:00

BERLIN - The British, French and German foreign ministers meet Thursday to discuss
Iran's resumption of nuclear activities, with the British foreign minister saying a defiant Tehran likely would be referred to the U.N. Security Council
International impatience with Iran has grown since the country broke U.N. seals on its uranium enrichment plant Tuesday and said it was resuming nuclear research after a two-year freeze.
The decision increased worries in the United States and other Western countries that Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons, while Russia, a longtime Iran ally, indicated it could reverse its opposition to bringing Tehran before the Security Council, which could impose sanctions.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters before leaving for Berlin it was "highly probable" Iran would be referred to the Security Council.
He said the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty put Iran "under very clear obligations not to do anything which leads to suspicions that they are developing a nuclear weapons capability."
"I regret to say that in September of last year, because of Iran's failures, the board of governors of the (International) Atomic Energy Agency declared Iran noncompliant with its obligations," he added. "Ever since then, we have been trying to bring Iran back into the fold."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said U.S., Russian, European Union

and Chinese officials would meet in London next week to discuss Iran's decision to break the U.N. seals. Moscow was not excluding the possibility of referring Iran to the council, Lavrov told Ekho Moskvy radio Thursday, according to the Interfax news agency.
At stake as the foreign ministers gather in Berlin is their countries' two-year diplomatic effort to persuade Iran to halt its uranium conversion and enrichment activities.
Enriched uranium can be used as a fuel for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is only for fuel.
Straw said the ministers, joined by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, would discuss whether to call an emergency board meeting of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency to decide on a referral to the council.
A senior EU official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue, said the four would speak by telephone with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vowed to press ahead with the nuclear program.
"Unfortunately, a group of bullies allows itself to deprive nations of their legal and natural rights," he said Wednesday. "I tell those superpowers that, with strength and prudence, Iran will pave the way to achieving peaceful nuclear energy.
"The Iranian nation is not frightened by the powers and their noise."
A last-ditch round of European-Iranian talks had been scheduled for Jan. 18, but German Deputy Foreign Minister Gernot Erler said Wednesday the Europeans cannot continue negotiating with Iran unless it pledges not to enrich uranium.
On Wednesday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair told Parliament that Iran's latest move, coupled with a string of anti- Israel remarks by the country's new president, "cause real and serious alarm right across the world.

"I think the first thing to do is to secure agreement for a reference to the Security Council, if that is indeed what the allies jointly decide, as I think seems likely," Blair said.
The three countries have been negotiating with the backing of the United States, which supports council referral.
"I think the next step will be probably to go before the U.N. Security Council," Vice President
Dick Cheney told Fox News radio Wednesday. If that happens, Cheney said, sanctions "would be probably the No. 1 item on the agenda."
Russia and China, both members of the IAEA board, have previously opposed the idea.
However, Russia's Foreign Ministry said Wednesday that Moscow and Washington share "a deep disappointment over Tehran's decision to leave behind the moratorium on all activities tied with uranium enrichment."
China on Thursday urged more talks, without saying whether it would support council referral.
China "hopes that all parties concerned can exercise restraint and resolve this within the IAEA framework and through peaceful negotiations," Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said in Beijing. "We firmly believe this serves the interests of all parties concerned."

Germany, U.K., France Call for IAEA Meeting on Iran

2006-01-12T14:02:00.000-08:00

Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Germany, Britain and France called for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, paving the way for Iran to be referred to the United Nations Security Council for escalating its nuclear program.
Relations with Iran have reached an ``impasse,'' German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told a press conference today in Berlin after meeting with European Union Foreign-Policy Chief Javier Solana, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste- Blazy and U.K. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
Iran's decision to resume research on the nuclear fuel cycle Jan. 10 followed two years of voluntary suspension designed to underline Tehran's contention that its nuclear program is peaceful. A majority vote in the 35-member board of the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog, is required for a referral to the Security Council for possible sanctions.
``We had made a proposal to Iran to open a new chapter in relations with Europe on a very wide basis,'' Steinmeier said. ``These proposals have been completely rejected by Iran.''
Steinmeier said talks with Iran are in ``deadlock,'' adding the three European governments will hold talks with their partners and members of the IAEA board of governors in an effort to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
``This constitutes a new phase but not the end of our diplomatic efforts in trying to achieve a solution,'' he said.
Straw said it is a `` matter of very great regret'' that Iran has turned its back on negotiations and that the EU has ``no alternative'' but to appeal to the IAEA.
Holocaust `Myth'
Concerns about Iran developing nuclear capabilities intensified following comments by the country's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in which he called for the eradication of Israel and denied the existence of the Nazi Holocaust that killed 6 million Jews.
Ahmadinejad, whose election in June gave backers of the Islamic revolution full power over state institutions, on Dec. 14 called the Holocaust a ``myth'' and said Europe, the U.S. and Canada should use their own land for a Jewish state.
In October, he said Israel ``must be wiped off the map,'' leading United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to cancel a trip to Iran. On Dec. 8, he prompted another outcry when he said Germany and Austria should host Israel on their soil.
Permanent Security Council members China and Russia, previously opposed to a referral, will join EU and U.S. officials for talks in London next week, the U.K. Foreign Office said today.
`Very Serious'
Yesterday, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair said Iran's decision to restart its research on uranium reprocessing is ``very serious indeed'' and likely to lead to its referral to the Security Council.
``In view of the defiance of the repeated calls by the board of governors of the IAEA and Iran's inadequate cooperation with the IAEA to clarify open questions, the time has come in our view to engage the Security Council,'' Steinmeier said.
Iran won't yield to pressure or sanctions, Iran's state-run news agency Irna cited Farhad Assadi, the country's charge d'affaires to Beijing, as saying. Iran has the right to benefit from nuclear technology for peaceful purpose under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Assadi was quoted as saying.
Today's decision is not ``a dispute about Iran's right under the NPT. It's about Iran's failure to build the necessary confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of this nuclear program,'' the EU foreign ministers said in a joint statement.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Rainer Buergin in Berlin at rbuergin1@bloomberg.net

Les membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité mettent en garde Téhéran

2006-01-11T11:58:00.000-08:00

es cinq membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies (Etats-Unis, Russie, Chine, France et Grande-Bretagne) ont adressé une mise en garde identique à l'Iran, samedi 7 janvier, pour l'inciter à renoncer à des activités de recherche dans le domaine du nucléaire militaire, dont Téhéran a annoncé la reprise pour lundi 9 janvier.
OAS_AD('Middle');

"L'Iran va reprendre aujourd'hui, comme prévu, ses recherches sur les combustibles nucléaires", a déclaré, lundi, le porte-parole du gouvernement, Gholamhossein Elham. La Chine et la Russie ne souhaitant pas que cette démarche soit commune, chaque pays a rencontré, à Vienne, les représentants de l'Iran à l'Agence internationale de l'énergie atomique (AIEA), à qui ont été remis des "notes verbales".
Les capitales s'étaient mises d'accord sur le contenu de ce message, qui demande en outre à l'Iran de prendre les initiatives nécessaires pour une reprise des négociations. Dans les faits, cela signifie que l'Iran doit non seulement renoncer à reprendre des "activités de recherche" soupçonnées d'être un faux-semblant pour dissimuler des activités d'enrichissement de l'uranium, mais aussi manifester une volonté d'ouverture vis-à-vis de la solution de compromis proposée par Moscou, consistant à mettre sur pied en Russie (et non en Iran) une filière d'enrichissement de l'uranium.
Des négociations irano-russes à ce sujet ont eu lieu samedi et dimanche à Téhéran, et doivent reprendre le 16 février à Moscou. Tout en affirmant que ce processus de négociations bilatérales "est positif", le porte-parole du ministère iranien des affaires étrangères, Hamid Reza Assefi, a rappelé que Téhéran n'est pas hostile au compromis russe, à condition que cela n'empêche pas son pays de conserver une capacité d'enrichissement (non précisée), ce que les pays de la troïka européenne (Allemagne, France et Grande-Bretagne), ainsi que les Etats-Unis, refusent. Parallèlement, les autorités iraniennes ont confirmé qu'elles briseront lundi les scellés posés par l'ONU sur les sites de recherche nucléaire, et qu'elles attendent des inspecteurs de l'AIEA qu'ils supervisent cette opération. Si Téhéran passe effectivement à l'acte, il est probable qu'un point de non-retour aura été franchi.
Dans un premier temps, la réunion de pourparlers entre l'Iran et la troïka européenne, qui devait avoir lieu le 18 janvier, sera vraisemblablement annulée. L'étape suivante devrait être la convocation extraordinaire du conseil des gouverneurs de l'AIEA, qui se réunit normalement en mars. Une telle décision est cependant potentiellement lourde de conséquences : compte tenu de la tonalité de sa résolution adoptée le 24 septembre (qui prévoyait implicitement le transfert du dossier iranien au Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU), le conseil des gouverneurs n'aura d'autre choix que d'exécuter cette menace.
Laurent Zecchini

جنگ كثيف عليه ايران

2006-01-10T12:21:00.001-08:00

ا?ن نوشته را حتما بخوان?د و نظر بده?د

http://www.peiknet.com/1384/03dey/191084/pag/34hamleh.htm

خطاب به رسانه‌ها

2006-01-10T10:49:00.000-08:00

http://www.peiknet.com/1384/03dey/201084/pag/34etelayeh.htm
نخستين اطلاعيه رسم? فرماندار? سپاه? ج. اسلام

اسامي کشته شدگان حادثه سقوط هواپيماي فالكن سپاه پاسداران

2006-01-09T14:02:00.000-08:00

معاون روابط عمومي سپاه پاسداران اسامي کشته شدگان حادثه سقوط هواپيماي فالكن سپاه پاسداران را اعلام کرد

سردار سرلشكر پاسدار احمد كاظمي فرمانده‌ي نيروي زميني سپاه
سردار سرتيپ پاسدار سعيد مهتدي جعفري فرمانده‌ي لشكر 27 محمد رسول‌الله
سردار سرتيپ پاسدار سعيد سليماني معاون عمليات نيروي زميني سپاه
سردار سرتيپ پاسدار نبي‌الله شاه‌مرادي معاون اطلاعات نيروي زميني سپاه
سردار سرتيپ پاسدار خلبان عباس كربندي مجرد فرمانده‌ي پايگاه هوايي قدر نيروي هوايي سپاه و خلبان يكم پرواز
سردار سرتيپ پاسدار غلامرضا يزداني فرمانده‌ي توپخانه‌ي نيروي زميني سپاه
سردار سرتيپ پاسدار صفدر رشادي معاون طرح و برنامه‌ي نيروي زميني سپاه
سردار سرتيپ پاسدار خلبان احمد الهامي‌نژاد فرمانده‌ي دانشكده‌ي پروازي نيروي هوايي سپاه و كمك خلبان
سردار سرتيپ دوم پاسدار حميد آذين‌پور رييس دفتر فرماندهي نيروي زميني سپاه
سرهنگ پاسدار مرتضي بصيري مهندس پرواز
پاسدار محسن اسدي افسر همراه فرمانده‌ي شهيد نيروي زميني سپاه

Merlin operation: the atomic gift of the CIA in Iran

2006-01-08T11:46:00.000-08:00

An American journalist reveals that the Agency wanted to trap Teheran by transmitting an erroneous technology to him, which perhaps helped the Iranians.

DAILY NEWSPAPER: Saturday January 07, 2006

L ' one of the priorities of Washington east today to prevent Iran, country number 1 of the axis of the evil, to obtain the nuclear weapon. However, according to a new enamelled book of revelations, the CIA perhaps worsened the problem, six years ago, while providing in Teheran, at the time of an incredible operation of intoxication, crucial information to build the bomb. The book, State of War (1), is an investigation into the role of the agency of espionage during these last years. It is signed by James Risen, 50 years, new the star of the New York Times . Risen became instantaneously famous while revealing, last month, the existence of phone-tappings ordered by George Bush without grant of representation.
"Frightened". The Iranian business that it reports passes in February 2000, at the end of the Clinton years. That begins like a novel of John the Square: "a frightened Russian scientist walked in the winter cold of the streets of Vienna." This pedestrian has good reasons not to be quiet: he transfers onto him the plans of a fusing of a nuclear bomb, one of the secrecies best kept in the world. The Russian works for the CIA This one provided him the plans, while asking him to be made pass for a Russian scientist to unemployment and to sell them to the Iranian representatives at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world organization charged to fight against the proliferation of such weapons. Why was such an operation (code name "Merlin"), a priori with the antipodes of the American interests, decided?
Before it leaves for Vienna, the CIA explained to the Russian why the operation aimed at knowing some a little more about the degree of advance of the Iranian nuclear program. According to the officer, that the Russian met in a hotel in San Francisco, there was no risk, the Iranians having already in their possession such a technology. The ultimate objective of the Merlin operation is to put the Iranian program on bad rails, by providing to the Iranian experts truffées information of errors. The Russian threw a glance in the plans and, with surprised agents of the CIA, located itself, and quickly, one of the errors. The agency nevertheless maintained its plan.
In Vienna, the Russian is not very quiet. Of its employers it does not like the plan and it decides not to follow it to the letter. According to him, the error which it found is so obvious that it is likely to wake up the suspicions of the Iranians. It thus opens the sealed envelope and slips there, in a note, a corrective measure of its vintage. When it arrives at the office of the Iranians, in a building on Heinstrasse, it decides not to be shown. It slips the envelope into the mail and décampe. According to James Risen, the Merlin operation, "one of the more breakage-neck of the modern history of the CIA", were then continued by the Bush administration. Several old agents of the CIA declared to him that this kind of operations of intoxication, traditional during the cold war, become extremely unreasonable when they are applied to systems of nuclear armament. They can indeed, if distort them information are located, help the adversaries to accelerate their program. "It is perhaps what arrived with Merlin", Risen suspects, without showing it.
"Stopped". State of War also tells how, following an enormous pellet, the whole network of the CIA in Iran was roasted, in 2004. With the seat of the agency with Langley (Virginia), a agente has one day sent by error, by crypté electronic mail, a ultraconfidentielles data to an Iranian working for the CIA in Teheran. A never not arriving misfortune only, this Iranian was a double agent... "sources with the CIA affirm that several agents were stopped and put in prison, whereas the fate of others is still unknown", written Risen. Its network being pulverized, adds it, the CIA found "virtually blind man" in Iran, at one period when it has a critical need for information. The CIA did not comment on these two episodes, being restricted to denounce the "serious inaccuracies" which " each chapter" of the book contains.
(1) State of War: Secret The History of the the CIA and the Bush Administration , of James Risen, éd. Free Press, January 2006.

Secret services say Iran is trying to assemble a nuclear missile

2006-01-05T13:31:00.000-08:00

Document seen by Guardian details web of front companies and middlemen

Ian Cobain and Ian TraynorWednesday January 4, 2006

The Iranian government has been successfully scouring Europe for the sophisticated equipment needed to develop a nuclear bomb, according to the latest western intelligence assessment of the country's weapons programmes.
Scientists in Tehran are also shopping for parts for a ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe, with "import requests and acquisitions ... registered almost daily", the report seen by the Guardian concludes.
The warning came as Iran raised the stakes in its dispute with the United States and the European Union yesterday by notifying the International Atomic Energy Authority that it intended to resume nuclear fuel research next week. Tehran has refused to rule out a return to attempts at uranium enrichment, the key to the development of a nuclear weapon.

The 55-page intelligence assessment, dated July 1 2005, draws upon material gathered by British, French, German and Belgian agencies, and has been used to brief European government ministers and to warn leading industrialists of the need for vigilance when exporting equipment or expertise to so-called rogue states.
It concludes that Syria and Pakistan have also been buying technology and chemicals needed to develop rocket programmes and to enrich uranium. It outlines the role played by Russia in the escalating Middle East arms build-up, and examines the part that dozens of Chinese front companies have played in North Korea's nuclear weapons programme.
But it is the detailed assessment of Iran's nuclear purchasing programme that will most most alarm western leaders, who have long refused to believe Tehran's insistence that it is not interested in developing nuclear weapons and is trying only to develop nuclear power for electricity. Governments in the west and elsewhere have also been dismayed by recent pronouncements from the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has said that Holocaust denial is a "scientific debate" and that Israel should be "wiped off the map".
The leak of the intelligence report may signal a growing frustration at Iran's refusal to bow to western demands that it abandon its programme to produce fuel for a Russian-built nuclear reactor due to come on stream this year.
The assessment declares that Iran has developed an extensive web of front companies, official bodies, academic institutes and middlemen dedicated to obtaining - in western Europe and in the former Soviet Union - the expertise, training, and equipment for nuclear programmes, missile development, and biological and chemical weapons arsenals.
"In addition to sensitive goods, Iran continues intensively to seek the technology and know-how for military applications of all kinds," it says.
The document lists scores of Iranian companies and institutions involved in the arms race. It also details Tehran's growing determination to perfect a ballistic missile capable of delivering warheads far beyond its borders.
It notes that Iran harbours ambitions of developing a space programme, but is currently concentrating on upgrading and extending the range of its Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 750 miles - capable of reaching Israel.
Iranian scientists are said to be building wind tunnels to assist in missile design, developing navigation technology, and acquiring metering and calibration technology, motion simulators and x-ray machines designed to examine rocket parts. The next generation of the Shahab ("shooting star" in Persian) should be capable of reaching Austria and Italy.

Raiding the Icebox

2006-01-05T13:22:00.000-08:00

Behind Its Warm Front, the United States Made Cold Calculations to Subdue Canada

By Peter CarlsonWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, December 30, 2005; C01

Invading Canada won't be like invading Iraq: When we invade Canada, nobody will be able to grumble that we didn't have a plan.
The United States government does have a plan to invade Canada. It's a 94-page document called "Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan -- Red," with the word SECRET stamped on the cover. It's a bold plan, a bodacious plan, a step-by-step plan to invade, seize and annex our neighbor to the north. It goes like this:
First, we send a joint Army-Navy overseas force to capture the port city of Halifax, cutting the Canadians off from their British allies.
Then we seize Canadian power plants near Niagara Falls, so they freeze in the dark.
Then the U.S. Army invades on three fronts -- marching from Vermont to take Montreal and Quebec, charging out of North Dakota to grab the railroad center at Winnipeg, and storming out of the Midwest to capture the strategic nickel mines of Ontario.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy seizes the Great Lakes and blockades Canada's Atlantic and Pacific ports.
At that point, it's only a matter of time before we bring these Molson-swigging, maple-mongering Zamboni drivers to their knees! Or, as the official planners wrote, stating their objective in bold capital letters: "ULTIMATELY TO GAIN COMPLETE CONTROL."
* * *
It sounds like a joke but it's not. War Plan Red is real. It was drawn up and approved by the War Department in 1930, then updated in 1934 and 1935. It was declassified in 1974 and the word "SECRET" crossed out with a heavy pencil. Now it sits in a little gray box in the National Archives in College Park, available to anybody, even Canadian spies. They can photocopy it for 15 cents a page.
War Plan Red was actually designed for a war with England. In the late 1920s, American military strategists developed plans for a war with Japan (code name Orange), Germany (Black), Mexico (Green) and England (Red). The Americans imagined a conflict between the United States (Blue) and England over international trade: "The war aim of RED in a war with BLUE is conceived to be the definite elimination of BLUE as an important economic and commercial rival."
In the event of war, the American planners figured that England would use Canada (Crimson) -- then a quasi-pseudo-semi-independent British dominion -- as a launching pad for "a direct invasion of BLUE territory." That invasion might come overland, with British and Canadian troops attacking Buffalo, Detroit and Albany. Or it might come by sea, with amphibious landings on various American beaches -- including Rehoboth and Ocean City, both of which were identified by the planners as "excellent" sites for a Brit beachhead.
The planners anticipated a war "of long duration" because "the RED race" is "more or less phlegmatic" but "noted for its ability to fight to a finish." Also, the Brits could be reinforced by "colored" troops from their colonies: "Some of the colored races however come of good fighting stock, and, under white leadership, can be made into very efficient troops."
The stakes were high: If the British and Canadians won the war, the planners predicted, "CRIMSON will demand that Alaska be awarded to her."
Imagine that! Canada demanding a huge chunk of U.S. territory! Them's fightin' words! And so the American strategists planned to fight England by seizing Canada. (Also Jamaica, Barbados and Bermuda.) And they didn't plan to give them back.
"Blue intentions are to hold in perpetuity all CRIMSON and RED territory gained," Army planners wrote in an appendix to the war plan. "The policy will be to prepare the provinces and territories of CRIMSON and RED to become states and territories of the BLUE union upon the declaration of peace."The Sudbury Offensive
None of this information is new. After the plan was declassified in 1974, several historians and journalists wrote about War Plan Red. But still it remains virtually unknown on both sides of the world's largest undefended border.
"I've never heard of it," said David Biette, director of the Canada Institute in Washington, which thinks about Canada.
"I remember sort of hearing about this," said Bernard Etzinger, spokesman for the Canadian Embassy in Washington.
"It's the first I've heard of it," said David Courtemanche, mayor of Sudbury, Ontario, whose nickel mines were targeted in the war plan.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he'd never heard of the plan. He also said he wouldn't admit to knowing about such a plan if he did.
"We don't talk about any of our contingency plans," he said.
Has the Pentagon updated War Plan Red since the '30s?
"The Defense Department never talks about its contingency plans for any countries," Whitman said. "We don't acknowledge which countries we have contingency plans for."
Out in Winnipeg -- the Manitoba capital, whose rail yards were slated to be seized in the plan -- Brad Salyn, the city's director of communications, said he didn't think Winnipeg Mayor Sam Katz knew anything about War Plan Red: "You know he would have no clue about what you're talking about, eh?"
"I'm sure Winnipeggers will stand up tall in defense of our country," Mayor Katz said later. "We have many, many weapons."
What kind of weapons?
"We have peashooters, slingshots and snowballs," he said, laughing.
But the Canadians' best weapon, Katz added, is their weather. "It gets to about minus-50 Celsius with a wind chill," he said. "It will be like Napoleon's invasion of Russia. I'm quite convinced that you'll meet your Waterloo on the banks of the Assiniboine River."Gas Station Strategy
As it turns out, Katz isn't the first Canadian to speculate on how to fight the U.S.A. In fact, Canadian military strategists developed a plan to invade the United States in 1921 -- nine years before their American counterparts created War Plan Red.
The Canadian plan was developed by the country's director of military operations and intelligence, a World War I hero named James Sutherland "Buster" Brown. Apparently Buster believed that the best defense was a good offense: His "Defence Scheme No. 1" called for Canadian soldiers to invade the United States, charging toward Albany, Minneapolis, Seattle and Great Falls, Mont., at the first signs of a possible U.S. invasion.
"His plan was to start sending people south quickly because surprise would be more important than preparation," said Floyd Rudmin, a Canadian psychology professor and author of "Bordering on Aggression: Evidence of U.S. Military Preparations Against Canada," a 1993 book about both nations' war plans. "At a certain point, he figured they'd be stopped and then retreat, blowing up bridges and tearing up railroad tracks to slow the Americans down."
Brown's idea was to buy time for the British to come to Canada's rescue. Buster even entered the United States in civilian clothing to do some reconnaissance.
"He had a total annual budget of $1,200," said Rudmin, "so he himself would drive to the areas where they were going to invade and take pictures and pick up free maps at gas stations."
Rudmin got interested in these war plans in the 1980s when he was living in Kingston, Ontario, just across the St. Lawrence River from Fort Drum, the huge Army base in Upstate New York. Why would the Americans put an Army base in such a wretched, frigid wilderness? he wondered. Could it be there to . . . fight Canada?
He did some digging. He found "War Plan Red" and "Defence Scheme No. 1." At the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., he found a 1935 update of War Plan Red, which specified which roads to use in the invasion ("The best practicable route to Vancouver is via Route 99").
Rudmin also learned about an American plan from 1935 to build three military airfields near the Canadian border and disguise them as civilian airports. The secret scheme was revealed after the testimony of two generals in a closed-door session of the House Military Affairs Committee was published by mistake. When the Canadian government protested the plan, President Franklin Roosevelt reassured it that he wasn't contemplating war. The whole brouhaha made the front page of the New York Times on May 1, 1935.
That summer, however, the Army held what were the biggest war games in American history on the site of what is now Fort Drum, Rudmin said.
Is he worried that the Yanks will invade his country from Fort Drum?
"Not now ," he said. "Now the U.S. is kind of busy in Iraq. But I wouldn't put it past them."
He's not paranoid, he hastened to add, and he doesn't think the States will simply invade Canada the way Hitler invaded Russia.
But if some kind of crisis -- perhaps something involving the perennially grumpy French Canadians -- destabilized Canada, then . . . well, Fort Drum is just across the river.
"We most certainly are not preparing to invade Canada," said Ben Abel, the official spokesman for Fort Drum.
The fort, he added, is home to the legendary 10th Mountain Division, which is training for its third deployment in Afghanistan. There are also 1,200 Canadian troops in Afghanistan.
"I find it very hard to believe that we'd be planning to invade Canada," Abel said. "We have a lot of Canadian soldiers training here. I bumped into a Canadian officer in the bathroom the other day."Going North, Heading South
Invading Canada is an old American tradition. Invading Canada successfully is not.
During the American Revolution, Benedict Arnold -- then in his pre-traitor days -- led an invasion of Canada from Maine. It failed.
During the War of 1812, American troops invaded Canada several times. They were driven back.
In 1839, Americans from Maine confronted Canadians in a border dispute known as the Aroostook War.
"There were never any shots fired," said Etzinger, the Canadian Embassy spokesman, "but I think an American cow was injured -- and a Canadian pig."
In 1866, about 800 Irish Americans in the Fenian Brotherhood decided to strike a blow for Irish independence by invading Canada. They crossed the Niagara River into Ontario, where they defeated a Canadian militia. But when British troops approached, the Fenians fled back to the United States, where many were arrested.
After that, Americans stopped invading Canada and took up other hobbies, such as invading Mexico, Haiti, Nicaragua, Grenada and, of course, Iraq.
But the dream of invading Canada lives on in the American psyche, occasionally manifesting itself in bizarre ways. Movies, for instance.
In the 1995 movie "Canadian Bacon," the U.S. president, played by Alan Alda, decides to jump-start the economy by picking a fight with Canada. His battle cry: "Surrender pronto or we'll level Toronto."
In the 1999 movie "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut," Americans, angered that their kids have been corrupted by a pair of foulmouthed, flatulent Canadian comedians, go to war. Canada responds by sending its air force to bomb the Hollywood home of the Baldwin brothers -- a far more popular defensive strategy than anything Buster Brown devised. Moviegoers left theaters humming the film's theme:
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
With all their hockey hullabaloo
And that bitch Anne Murray too!
Blame Canada! Shame on Canada!
But it's not just movies. The urge to invade Canada comes in myriad forms.
In 2002, the conservative magazine National Review published an essay called "Bomb Canada: The Case for War." The author, Jonah Goldberg, suggested that the United States "launch a quick raid into Canada" and blow something up -- "perhaps an empty hockey stadium." That would cause Canada to stop wasting its money on universal health insurance and instead fund a military worthy of the name, so that "Canada's neurotic anti-Americanism would be transformed into manly resolve."
And let's not forget the Web site http://invadecanada.us/ , which lists many compelling reasons for doing do: "let's make Alaska actually connected to the U.S. again!" and "they're just a little too proud" and "the surrender will come quickly, they're French after all."
The site also sells T-shirts, buttons, teddy bears and thong underwear, all of them decorated with the classic picture of Uncle Sam atop the slogan "I WANT YOU to Invade Canada."
What's going on here? Why do Americans love to joke about invading Canada?
Because Americans see Canadians as goody-goodies, said Biette, the Canada Institute director. Canadians didn't rebel against the British, remaining loyal colonial subjects. They didn't have a Wild West, settling their land without the kind of theatrical gunfights that make for good movies. And they like to hector us about our misbehavior.
"We're 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' and they're 'peace, order and good government,' " Biette said. "So if you're a wild American, you look at them and say, 'They're just a bunch of Boy Scouts.' "The C-Bomb
Canadians are well aware of our invasion talk. Not surprisingly, they take it a bit more seriously than we do.
When "The West Wing" had a subplot last winter about a U.S.-Canada border incident, Canadian newspapers took note.
When Jon Stewart joked about invading Canada on "The Daily Show" last March, Canadian newspapers covered the story.
When the Toronto Star interviewed comedian Jimmy Kimmel last year, the reporter asked him: "Is it only a matter of time before America invades Canada?"
"I'm not sure," Kimmel replied.
In 2003, the Canadian army set up an Internet chat room where soldiers and civilians could discuss defense issues. "One of the hottest topics on the site discusses whether the U.S. will invade Canada to seize its natural resources," the Ottawa Citizen reported. "If the attack did come, Canada could rely on a scorched-earth policy similar to what Russia did when invaded by Nazi Germany, one participant recommends. 'With such emmense [sic] land, and with our cold climates, we may be able to hold them off, even though we have the much weaker military,' the individual concludes."
Etzinger, the Canadian Embassy spokesman, isn't worried about an American invasion because Canada has a secret weapon -- actually thousands of secret weapons.
"We've got thousands of Canadians in the U.S. right now, in place secretly," he said. "They could be on your street. We've sent people like Celine Dion and Mike Myers to secretly infiltrate American society."
Pretty funny, Mr. Etzinger. But the strategists who wrote War Plan Red were prepared for that problem. They noted that "it would be necessary to deal internally" with the "large number" of Brits and Canadians living in the United States -- and also with "a small number of professional pacifists and communists."
The planners did not specify exactly what would be done with those undesirables. But it would be kinda fun to see Celine Dion and Mike Myers wearing orange jumpsuits down in Guantanamo.
Eh?

Iran bans newspaper over photos

2006-01-03T13:13:00.000-08:00

The Iranian government has ordered the closure of a daily newspaper for the first time since hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office.
The paper's editor, Iraj Jamshidi, told the BBC the Asia was banned because it had published photos deemed to have contravened Islamic values.
More than 100 publications have been closed in the past five years, although many have since reopened.
Asia was banned in 2003 after printing the picture of a rebel leader.
The latest closure was ordered by the culture ministry rather than the judiciary, which has usually been responsible for such moves in the past.
"The ban by the board indicates a new round of pressure on the press," reformist journalist Isa Saharkhiz told Reuters news agency.
Reuters reports that a planned publication aimed at women, Nour-e Banovan, was also banned.

US warns Iran against resuming nuclear research

2006-01-03T12:59:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Tuesday warned
Iran against resuming atomic fuel research and development which it said would further Tehran's efforts to build nuclear bombs.
"If Iran takes any further enrichment-related steps, the international community will have to consider additional measures to restrain Iran's nuclear ambitions," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
The United States suspects research and development work that Tehran said would restart on January 9 could help what Washington believes is its pursuit of a nuclear bomb, he told reporters.
Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons.
The United States has been pressing for months for Iran to be referred to the
United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions because it says Iran has failed to dispel suspicions it is building a nuclear bomb.
International resistance to such a move has gradually been eroding as Iran has taken an increasingly hard line insisting on its right to develop peaceful nuclear programs to generate power.
Earlier on Tuesday, Iran said it would resume nuclear research and development which it suspended two years ago to defuse international pressure over its atomic ambitions.
Such work may include the manufacture and assembly of centrifuges used for uranium enrichment, the most sensitive part of the nuclear fuel cycle. It could also include some small-scale enrichment tests.
Diplomats said Tuesday's move, which follows Iran's resumption of uranium conversion in August, was a serious blow to diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute.

تخريب تدريجى تخت جمشيد و نابودى هزاران سال تاريخ و تمدن ايران

2005-08-30T10:42:00.000-07:00

درود هم ميهنان

نامه اعتراض به ساخت سد سيوند و از بين رفتن آثار باستانى هزاران ساله ايران را امضاء كنيد

پاينده ايران

نابود باد دشمن ايران و ايرانى

http://www.persianpetition.com/sign.aspx?id=12814f60-21c2-4c60-b4de-e7eb0910f1ce

بازى انتصابات

2005-06-25T14:42:00.000-07:00

با درود به همه همراهان

نوشته اى در سايت گويا خوندم كه به نظرم جالب اومد ،بد نديدم كه اون نوشته رو در وبلاگ خودم بزارم تا شما هم نظرتون رو بگيد

بزرگترين اپوزيسيون جمهورى اسلامى خودش است، حميد کاشانى
حضور شخصيتى اهل معامله و چانه زنى در راس نظام جمهورى اسلامى بر خلاف سالهاى رياست جمهورى رونالد ريگان و حتى بيل کلينتون به هيچ عنوان مورد نظر آن بخش از هيات حاکمه آمريکا که خواستار اقدامات سريع براى رسيدن به اهداف بزرگ در خاور ميانه است نيست
هاشمى رفسنجانى روند فروپاشى را حتمى اما کشدار مى کرد و اين درست بر خلاف نظر تئوريسينهاى پنتاگون است. آنان نه فروپاشى که سقوط و نه کشدار که سريع را ميپسندند
رئيس جمهورى که قدرت بالاى چانه زنى چه در داخل و چه در سطح بين المللى دارد پنتاگون را خوشحال نميسازد. هاشمى رفسنجانى در هفته هاى اخير به صراحت از مذاکره با آمريکا سخن گفته است که اين نيز موجب خشنودى کاخ سفيد نگشت و استقبال چندانى نيز از اين سخنان نشد. آنان در شرايط حاضر رئيس جمهورى سرکش و منفور را ميپسندند تا با تحريکش شرايط اجماع بين المللى را براى بر اندازى به آسانى به دست آورند
از سوى ديگر هر دو وزارتخانه خارجه و دفاع در ايالات متحده فروپاشى جمهورى اسلامى را حتمى اما هر کدام روند تسريع آن را متفاوت ميدانند. از نظر وزارت خارجه کشاندن جمهورى اسلامى به پاى ميز مذاکره، آغاز مرحله نهايى است، اما پنتاگون اينگونه نميبيند، هر چند صحيح تر آن است که بگوييم نميخواهد ببيند
گذار از دوران محاصره اقتصادى ايران و ورود به فاز نظامى گرچه مدتهاست آغاز شده اما همراهسازيهاى بين المللى نيازمند فاکتورهاييست که حضور يک شخصيت تندرو و بى وجهه در راس حاکميت اين روند را آسان تر و سريع تر مى سازد. شعارهاى نسنجيده محمود احمدى نژاد به خصوص در عرصه سياست خارجى پيشاپيش منافع پنتاگون نشينان را تضمين نموده و پيام جرج بوش و عدم اشاره اش به اجماع آراى نخبگان ايرانى داخل کشور حول هاشمى رفسنجانى گواه اين مدعا نيز مى باشد که نئو محافظه کاران، ميلشان عدم اقبال عمومى به انتخابات و مشخصا هاشمى رفسنجانى است. امرى که نه تنها وجهه جمهورى اسلامى را در سطح جهانى با مشکل جدى مواجه ساخت که در نهايت به انتخاب محمود احمدى نژاد انجاميد
پالسهاى پنتاگونى براى بسيارى از آشنايان به شيوه هاى فضا سازى و بهره ورى کلان وزارت دفاع ايالات متحده از آن، نشان مى دهد که محمود احمدى نژاد نامزد مشترک پنتاگون و بيت رهبرى بوده است
"گرى سيک" صاحب نظر به نام آمريکايى سالها پيش گفته بود: بزرگترين اپوزيسيون جمهورى اسلامى خودش است

انتصابات

2005-06-23T14:36:00.000-07:00

قلب اصلاح طلبان ايران به عشق عاليجناب سرخپوش مى تپد

تاريك فكران ايران براى سقوط به دره كارگزاران، سوار اتوبوس هاشمى شويد
تئوريسين هاى اين نظام خوب بلدن چه طور ايرانى جماعت رو سر كار بزارن
هميشه كارى ميكنن كه بين بد و بدتر يكى رو انتخاب كنيد كه البته بد رو انتخاب ميكنيد
تنها راه، تحريم انتصابات

نه به جمهورى اسلامى
نه به استبداد ولايت مطلقه فقيه

بيانيه انجمن پادشاهى ايران

2005-06-15T13:32:00.000-07:00

با درود به همه هم ميهنان

امروز بيانيه انجمن پادشاهى ايران را برايتان ميگذارم

فرزندان آزاده و آزاديخواه آريا بوم
سرآمد فرزندان آريا بوم، فردوسى آزادمنش مى گويد
اگر سر به سر تن به كشتن دهيم
از آن به كه كشور به دشمن دهيم

و بيانيه راستين و استوار انجمن پادشاهى ايران نيز اينچنين است

به بالاى اين ساليان دراز

به ايران نيامد بجز سوز و ساز

ز دشمن بجز آتش و خون نبود

بجزغرش ديو مجنون نبود

بسوزاند دشمن کتاب مرا

همه رامش و خُر و خواب مرا

کنون، گاه پيکار آزادى است

سرآغاز عمران و آبادى است

اگر او کتابم به آتش کشيد

سرآپايم آرام و شادى نديد

بسوزيم گر بوم فرخنده را

برانيم اين ديو شرمنده را

بسازيمش از نو به جوش و خروش

به فر اهورا و مهر سروش

به خاک ار کشيم آسمان و زمين

بسوزيم بنياد، ناپاک دين

به آتش دهيم، اهرمن کيش را

رهانيم اين قوم درويش را

سزد گر جهانى شود زير و رو

که باز آوريم، آب رفته به جوى

فرزندان آريا بوم اين سروده،بيانيه رسمى انجمن پادشاهى ايران براى زدودن تروريست بين المللى و رژيم تروريست پرور ملايان از ميهن گرامى ما به شمار ميرود

پاينده ايران
كوبنده تندر
انجمن پادشاهى ايران

جام جهانى

2005-06-08T09:30:00.000-07:00

راهيابى تيم فوتبال ايران براى سومين بار به جام جهانى به همه ايران دوستان شادباش

جزاير هميشه ايرانى

2005-05-03T09:36:00.000-07:00

پتيشن محکوم کردن حکم اتحاديه اروپا درباره تعلق نداشتن جزاير سه گانه به ايران را امضا كنيد واز ديگران نيز براى امضا كردن اين نامه يارى بخواهيد

http://www.petitiononline.com/EU_UAE/petition.html

پاينده ايران

سخنانى براى انديشيدن

2005-05-01T12:25:00.000-07:00

>>برتولت برشت<<
كسى كه توان درك حقيقت را ندارد نادان، ولى كسى كه از وجود حقيقت آگاه بوده و آن را انكار مى كند،جنايتكار است
<>
امانيست(انسانگراى)سده 16 هلند
مغز انسان تا زمانيكه در حالت ناآگاهى قرار داشته باشد،استعدادش براى پذيرش نادرستيها بيش از حقايق مى باشد
>>برتراند راسل<<
جامعه گوسفندى لايق حكومت گرگان است
>>آلبرت انيشتن<<
از لباس كهنه ات خجالت نكش،از افكار كهنه ات شرمنده باش
>>جورج وار<<
درجات ترقى يك ملت در حيات اجتماعى،مربوط به ميزان احترام به زنان مى باشد
>>ويليام هنرليت<<
تعصب فرزند نادانى است
>>ولتر<<
دينها و مذهبها به عقل و شعور و مقام انسان بشدت توهين كرده اند

سه ابرمرد ايران زمين

2005-04-26T05:21:00.000-07:00

بر ستيغ افتخارات وطن
مى درخشد نام فرمند سه تن

نام زرتشت اولين يكتاپرست
افسرى بر تارك اين قله است

راستى و مهر و نيكى دين اوست
صلح و انسان باورى آيين اوست

مردمان در چشم او يكسان بُدند
چونكه آنان جملگى انسان بُدند

با سه اصل جاودان و سرمدى
شد نمادى از فروغ ايزدى

بعد از او هم كورش روشن روان
آن ابرمرد جهان باستان

پرچم آزادگى را برفراشت
او حقوق هر كسى را پاس داشت

مهرورزى كرد با هر كس كه بود
پارسى و ماد و قارون و يهود

لوحه اش بنيان آزادى بود
بذر آزادى برش شادى بود

زان سپس فردوسى آزادمرد
خفتگان را در وطن بيدار كرد

شعرهايش جان ز نو در تن دميد
شور ملى در تن ميهن دميد

برد پى بر ريشه ها و بيخ ما
روشنى بخشيد بر تاريخ ما

داد با شهنامه ايران را توان
آن توان شد،آرمانى جاودان

گرچه بس ايرانى فرزانه نيز
بهرما هستند پر ارج و عزيز

ليك بى تابند درهرروزگار
آن سه انسان باور ايران تبار

نشريه امرداد،شماره 109

مجاهدين

2005-04-15T07:44:00.000-07:00

قبل از انقلاب اسلامى، سازمان مجاهدين خلق اقدام به ترور چند تن از شخصيت هاى آمريكايى در ايران كرد و تبديل به بازوى نظامى روحانيون و انقلاب اسلامى شد و تنها راه رهايى ايران را از دست حكومت پادشاهى جنگ مسلحانه مى پنداشت.بعد از انقلاب مسعود رجوى كانديد رياست جمهورى شد ولى اين پست به بنى صدر رسيد در سالهاى 60 و 61 مبارزات مسلحانه و جنگهاى خيابانى كه از طرف مجاهدين خلق و چريكهاى فدايى حمايت مى شد به راه افتاد.در سال 60بنى صدر از رياست جمهورى بركنار شد و موسى خيابانى از سران مجاهدين كشته شد.بعد ازمهاجرت سران مجاهدين به فرانسه و جنگ ايران وعراق سران اين سازمان تصميم به ادامه حيات سياسى خود در عراق، كشور طرف جنگ با ايران نمودند ، مسعود رجوى به ديدار صدام حسين رفت وتبديل به يكى از نزديكترين افراد به صدام شد در عمليات فروغ جاويدان با كمك لجستيكى عراق به ايران حمله كرد ولى چون صدام از حمايت آنها در اين نبرد دست كشيد اين عمليات موفقيت آميز نبود،اما امروزشرايط فرق ميكند و مجاهدين در حال نزديكى با مقامات آمريكا هستند
يكى از فرماندهان نظامى آمريكا هنگامى كه از طرف دولت اين كشور مامور شد تا افراد اين گروه را در اردوگاه اشرف بازداشت كند وقتى ديد آنها بدون مقاومت سلاح هايشان را به زمين گذاشتند و تسليم شدند در گزارشى به مقامات بالاتر اينطور عنوان كرد كه:اينها هر چه ما بخواهيم انجام خواهند داد
يك زمان اين سازمان پرچم شيروخورشيد و سرود اى ايران را طاغوتى ميدانستند ولى الان نه
سوالات بسيارى مطرح است از جمله
چرا مسعود رجوى توسط جمهورى اسلامى ترور نشد؟چرا رهبران احزاب كرد مثل;قاسملو و شرفكندى ترور شدند؟چرا و چگونه دكتر بختيار با وجود محافظان فرانسوى كشته شد؟آيا مسعود رجوى جاسوسى صدام را براى آمريكا ميكرد؟مجاهدين چگونه از جنگ مسلحانه به راه حل سوم رسيدند؟مسعود رجوى الان كجاست؟آيا كسانى كه گول مجاهدين را خوردند و دو،سه دهه از عمر خود را فداى اين فرقه مذهبى كردند اكنون تبديل به بازوى نظامى آمريكا عليه جمهورى اسلامى شدند؟چرا مريم رجوى چند روز در فرانسه بازداشت شد و بعد با پوشش گسترده خبرى آزاد شد؟آيا مى خواهند مريم رجوى را سمبل زنان مبارز ايران به دنيا نشان دهند؟
سوالاتى از اين دست بسيار است كه اميدوارم با همفكرى با هم بتوانيم اين نكات مبهم تاريخ ميهنمان را آشكار كنيم

احكام زن ستيز

2005-04-12T12:26:00.000-07:00

اطلاعيه‌اى كه در زير مى‌خوانيد را مدير كل بهزيستى استان مركزى‌« دكتر حسن طاهر احمدى» صادر كرده است. اين اطلاعيه موجب اعتراض جمعى از پزشكان و پرسنلى بهزيستى اراك شده و مى‌رود تا به تحصن و اعتصاب بيانجامد. از اعتراض مهم تر، متن خود اطلاعيه است. چنان كه گوئى مديركل عينكى به چشم دارد كه همه زن‌ها را لخت مى‌بيند و در عذاب بهشتى است! اطلاعيه را بخوانيد كه خود گوياتر از توضيحات ماست و رد پاى اين همه جنايت و زن كشى و خواهر كشى و دختر كشى را در همين نوع افكار حكومتى جستجو كنيد

اطلاعـــــــــــــــــــــــــيه

امام صادق مى‌فرمايد

نگاه بعد از نگاه بذر شهوت را در قلب مى‌افشاند و همين براى در فتنه افتادن بيننده كافى است
اين همه آفت كه تن مى‌رسد
ازنظر توبه شكن مى‌رسد
ديده خود پوش چون دُر در صدف
تانشوى تير بلا را هدف

بدينوسيله نظر همكاران گرامى را به تذكرات زير بمنظور رعايت شئونات اسلامى جلب مى‌نمايم

يك زن مسلمان در عين حالى كه در جامعه و ميان قشر مردان در رفت و آمد عادى و روزانه است بايد در كلام خود حجاب را حفظ كرده با صلابت و سنگين سخن بگويد و از حداقل كلام ضرورى در گفتگو با مردان استفاده كند و از واژه‌هايى كه رنگ محبت و انس دارد در برخورد با آنان پرهيز نمايد از خنده بيجا و مزاح گويى اجتناب كند و آنگونه كه با زنان سخن مى‌گويد با مردان سخن نگويد

زن مسلمان در رابطه با مرد نامحرم بايد چون كوه با صلابت باشد و ارزش خود را حفظ كند. از ديگر جلوه‌هاى حجاب رفتار سنگين و با متانت براى زنان است، طرز راه رفتن، نشستن و برخاستن و ديگر حركات زن نبايد هوس انگيز و محرك باشد و نظر مرد بيگانه را به خود جلب كند. اگر زنى با حجاب اسلامى اما با حركات جلف و سبك و با كرشمه و ناز در محل كار و انظار عمومى در مقابل نامحرمى رفت و آمد كند حجاب او هيچ ارزشى نخواهد داشت

حجاب اسلامى يعنى:حجاب در لباس ، در نگاه، در گفتار و در رفتار مجموع اينها حجاب اسلاميست

و نيز يك نكته ديگرى كه لازم است تذكر داده شود اين است كه مردان مسلمان هم بايد اين جنبه‌هاى حجاب را رعايت كنند و با ايجاد محيط‌هاى امن زنان را از انجام فعاليت و تلاش در خارج از خانه خشنود و مطمئن سازند و بر همه پدران و شوهران لازم است كه نسبت به دختران و زنان خود توجه و غيرت داشته باشند. غيرتى دور از تعصب و بدبينى، بلكه حفظ ناموس و عفت زنان و دختران بر عهده آن مى‌باشد. و در پايان با كلامى از امام صادق (ع) براى همه عزيزان توفيق عزت و سلامتى از درگاه خداوند منان مسئلت مى نمايم

امام صادق مى فرمايد

خدا غيرتمند است و غيرتمندى را دوست دارد و از روى غيرت اعمال زشت را چه پنهان و چه آشكار حرام ساخته است
دكتر حسن طاهر احمدى
رئيس اقامه نماز بهزيستى استان مركزى

اين هم احكام اسلامى براى زنان در اسارت ايرانى

جانشين پاپ

2005-04-12T12:03:00.000-07:00

پايان يک ماموريت 20 ساله
چهره واقعى پاپ
پاپ جان پل دوم، سرانجام پس از چند بار انتقال به بيمارستان و بازگشت به واتيکان درگذشت. با آنکه بموجب همه شواهد او جمعه شب و يا صبح شنبه درگذشته بود، واتيکان براى بهره گيرى مذهبى و بازى با احساسات مردم، اين خبر را براى روز يکشنبه ذخيره کرد. يعنى اولين يکشنبه پس از رستاخير مسيح
مراسم آرام و بى جنجالى که به مناسبت مرگ وى در ميدان يکشنبه هاى واتيکان برپا شد، تفاوتى بنيادين با نمايش هاى توام با سينه زنى و قمه زنى بمناسبت هاى مشابه در کشورهاى مسلمان و بويژه شيعه داشت، اما در عوام فريبى مذهبى و بازى با احساسات مردم شيوه ها ى کسان بود. با تاريخ درگذشت آيت الله خمينى نيز در جمهورى اسلامى همينگونه بازى شد و با آنکه او روز 12 خرداد درگذشته بود، خبر را 14 خرداد اعلام کردند تا مقارن شود با 15 خرداد و يا درجريان انفجار مقر حزب جمهورى اسلامى با آنکه رقم واقعى قربانيان اين انفجار درابتدا 78 تن و بعدا به 84 تن رسيد، براى تداعى شمار شهداى واقعه کربلا، شمار قربانيان اين انفجار را 72 تن اعلام کردند
انتخاب پاپ جان پل دوم شايد سياسى ترين انتخاب در تاريخ واتيکان بود. او از دوستان "رونالد ريگان" رئيس جمهور اسبق امريکا بود و در آغاز کشاکش هاى لهستان که زمينه هاى فروپاشى اردوگاه سوسياليسم را مى توانست و توانست فراهم کند به اين سمت انتخاب شد. به گفته "ياروزلسکى" آخرين رئيس دولت سوسياليستى لهستان و از قهرمانان جنگ دوم اين کشور، گماردن يک لهستانى در راس واتيکان بزرگترين اقدام تقويت کننده "لخ والسا" رهبر اپوزيسيون ضد دولتى لهستان بود. او دراين نقش با تمام نيرو ايفاى نقش کرد، چنان که بعدها خود را در مسکو به گرباچف رساند و کليساهاى ارتدکس و کاتوليک روسيه را ترغيب به ايفاى نقش اپوزيسيون دولتى کرد. گرباچف، در نخستين ديدار و مذاکره اش با وى گفت: او سياسى ترين کشيش بود و اگر او نبود ديوار برلين به اين آسانى و زودى فرونمى ريخت
آن چهره به ظاهرا مهربان و مردم دوستى که پاپ در سالهاى پس از فروپاشى اتحاد شوروى به خود گرفت، مربوط به دوران پايان ماموريتى بود که بخوبى از عهده آن برآمد. او حتى در اوج پيرى و ناتوانى جسمى، پس از گشتى در امريکاى لاتين خود را به کوبا رساند بلکه درآنجا نيز بتواند زمينه هاى سقوط کاسترو را فراهم سازد، که ناموفق و نا اميد به واتيکان بازگشت
خبر درگذشت پاپ را با همين صراحت بايد نوشت و انتشار داد، تا نسبت به انتخاب جانشين او هوشيار بود و نقش پاپ جديد را همسو با سياست هاى امريکا دريافت. حضور برلسکونى، متحد جورج بوش در راس دولت ايتاليا قطعا جاده را براى تامين نظر امريکا براى انتخاب جانشين پاپ هموارترخواهد کرد
گردش به چپ در امريکا لاتين که اکنون در هر انتخاباتى در اين منطقه جهان خود را نشان ميدهد، مى تواند انگيزه اى جدى براى يافتن کشيش ديگرى براى ايفاى نقشى مشابه پاپ جان پل دوم در دوران فروپاشى اردوگاه سوسياليسم، در امريکاى لاتين باشد

آيا جانشين پاپ از آمريكاى لاتين خواهد بود؟ نظر شما چيست

جشن فروردينگان

2005-04-09T01:08:00.000-07:00

با درود به همه ايران دوستان گرامى

ديروز جشن باستانى فروردينگان بود.اين جشن در روز فروردين از ماه فروردين(نوزدهمين روز از ماه فروردين)برگزار مى شده است.اين جشن ويژه فروهرها يا روان درگذشتگان مى باشد

در اين روز خانه ها را مى رُفتند و همه جا را تميز و آراسته كرده و گل و گياه و نقل و نبات و آتش و چراغ روشن در سفره مى نهادند و بدين ترتيب روان درگذشتگان را خشنود مى كردند

درايران باستان، ايرانيان از هر فرصتى براى جشن وشادمانى و پاكيزگى بهره مى بردند

به اميد روزى كه ايرانيان دوباره به اصل خود بازگشت كنند

خاتمى و كاتساو

2005-04-09T00:33:00.000-07:00

برخورد دوستانه رئيسان جمهور ايران و اسرائيل

گزارشهاى منابع اسرائيلى حاکى از اين است که محمد خاتمى، رئيس جمهور ايران در جريان مراسم خاکسپارى پاپ ژان پل دوم، رهبر فقيد مسيحيان کاتوليک جهان با موشه کاتساو، رئيس جمهور اسرائيل دست داده و با او به زبان فارسى صحبت کوتاهى کرده است

سايت اينترنتى روزنامه اسرائيلى معاريو از قول آقاى کاتساو نقل کرده که وى طى مراسم خاکسپارى پاپ بنابر سنت مسيحيان با شرکت کنندگانى که در اطراف وى ايستاده بودند دست داده و هنگامى که در حال ترک مراسم بوده، آقاى خاتمى براى دست دادن دست خود را بسوى او دست دراز کرده است و وى علاوه در دست دادن با رئيس جمهور ايران به زبان فارسى با وى سلام و احوالپرسى کرده است

بنابر گزارشها گفتگوى رئيسان جمهور ايران و اسرائيل درباره يزد در مرکز ايران بوده که زادگاه هر دوى آنهاست
رويارويى دوستانه رئيس جمهور ايران با رئيس جمهور اسرائيل در شرايطى صورت مى گيرد که حکومت ايران رسماً موجوديت اسرائيل را قبول ندارد
آيت الله خمينى، بنيانگذار حکومت جمهورى اسلامى در ايران، اسرائيل را "غده سرطانى" ناميده و خواهان حذف اين کشور از صحنه جهان بود
رئيس جمهور اسرائيل همچنين گفته است که طى مراسم خاکسپارى پاپ، بشار اسد، رئيس جمهور سوريه که متحد نزديک ايران در خاورميانه به شمار مى رود نيز دو بار دست خود را براى دست دادن بسوى او دراز کرده و با وى دست داده است
بنابر گزارشها، آقاى کاتساو همچنين در حاشيه مراسم، عبدالعزيز بوتفليقه، رئيس جمهور الجزاير را در آغوش گرفته و اين در حالى است که اسرائيل و الجزاير با يکديگر رابطه ديپلماتيک ندارند
هاگيت کهن، سخنگوى رئيس جمهور اسرائيل دست دادن او با آقاى خاتمى را "واقعه اى تاريخى و فرصتى منحصر به فرد" دانسته اما در عين حال خاطر نشان ساخته که هنوز خيلى زود است که انتظار داشته باشيم اين واقعه به تحولى در روابط طرفين بينجامد
وى تأکيد کرده که دست دادن دو رئيس جمهور با يکديگر تصادفى بوده است
طى مراسم خاکسپارى پاپ تعداد زيادى از رهبران جهان شرکت داشتند که ترتيب قرارگرفتن آنان در کنار يکديگر بر اساس حرف اول نام خانوادگى آن در الفباى لاتين بوده است

از آنجا که نام خانوادگى رئيسان جمهور ايران و اسرائيل با حرف ک (k) لاتين آغاز مى شود، ميان اين دو بيش از دو صندلى فاصله نبوده است

آيا اين رويداد واقعاً تصادفى بود؟؟؟

تشيع جنازه پاپ

2005-04-08T13:28:00.000-07:00

درووووووووود به همه بازديدكنندگان گرامى
اين چند روز سرم شلوغ بود از يه طرفم كامپيوترم ايراد پيدا كرده بود نمى تونستم چيزى بنويسم
اين چند روز بيشتر خبرها مربوط به مرگ پاپ بود.چند ساعت پيش داشتم مراسم تشيع جنازه پاپ رو نگاه ميكردم و اين مراسم رو با مراسم تشيع جنازه مسلمانان شيعه مقايسه ميكردم،به هيچ وجه قابل مقايسه نبود.با وجود همچين جمعيتى كه از سراسر دنيا به واتيكان رفته بودند هيچ تاخيرو بى نظمى در مراسم شاهد نبودم،مراسم از ابتدا تا انتها با نظم و آرامش كامل برگزار شد،تمام كشيشها و كاردينالها با لباسهاى رنگى و بدون اينكه به سر و كلشون بزنن و شيون سر بدن تشريفات مذهبى خاكسپارى و مراسم خواندن دعا رو انجام دادن.جمعيت به جاى اينكه به تابوت پاپ براى تبرك حمله بكنن(اون كارى كه ايرانيان در زمان مرگ خمينى انجام دادن)شروع به كف زدن كردن
شما اين مراسم رو با مراسم تشيع جنازه،خاكسپارى و سوگوارى شيعيان مقايسه كنيد:در مراسم سوگوارى مذهبى شاهد كثيف ترين نوع و خرافاتى ترين نوع عزادارى هستيم،اون وقت ادعا ميكنند كه به زندگى پس از مرگ اعتقاد دارند و همه، روزى خواهند مرد و مرگ را پلكانى براى نزديكى به الله ميدانند،اگر واقعاً به اين موضوع ايمان دارند نبايد از مرگ اطرافيان و رهبران مذهبى ناراحت شوند و خود را بخاطر مرگ آنها شكنجه دهند.شيعيان مدعيند كه امامان آنها در راه اسلام شهيد شدند و اين را نيز قبول دارند كه جايگاه شهدا در بهشت است،پس به چه دليل در مراسم مذهبى خود،اعمالى انجام ميدهند كه باعث حيرت جهانيان مى شوند؟آيا اين چيزى جز خرافات نيست؟؟؟اميدوارم روزى همه از بند مذهب و خرافاتش رها شوند

سيزده بدر

2005-04-02T11:07:00.000-08:00

با درود به همه همراهان گرامى

تعطيلات نوروز هم به پايان رسيد و از فردا دوباره زندگى به روال عادى برمى گرده.اميدوارم تعطيلات را به خوبى به پايان برده باشيد و سيزده بدر هم خوش گذشته باشه.به من كه خيلى خوش نگذشت،تعطيلات امسال يه جورى بود!!!اونطور كه بايد و شايد حال نداد

در هر حال اميدوارم سال خوبى براى همه ايرانيان در سراسر جهان باشه و همه به آرزوهاشون برسن

سال جديد، سال بازگشت آزادى و برابرى به كهن بوم آريايى خواهد بود

پاينده ايران

فرهنگ تازيها

2005-03-29T12:02:00.000-08:00

چند نمونه از فرهنگ تازيان

در كتاب (كنزالامم)نوشته المتقى به نقل از محمد بن عبدالله آمده:خداوند،دو ملت خارجى را لعنت كند،يكى ايرانيها و ديگرى روميها.زمانيكه پسران ايرانيها رشد كنند،نابودى اعراب آغاز خواهد شد

تاريخ تمدن اسلام نوشته جرجى زيدان:تازيها سالهاى بيشمار از فرهنگ و تمدن چيزى نميدانستند و به شكل بدوى زندگى ميكردند تا اينكه يهوديان از زمان موسى و سپس به سبب ستمگريهاى روميها،بويژه پس از ويرانى اورشليم به حجاز مهاجرت كردند و به تازيها شهريگرى آموزش دادند.همچنين مراسم حج،قربانى،نكاح،طلاق،برگزارى رسوم عيد،انتخاب كاهن و غيره را نيز يهوديان به تازيها آموزش دادند

صحيح البخارى جلد 4:جبير بن حبّه روايت ميكند،هنگامى كه عمربن الخطاب خليفه دوم،مسلمانان را براى جنگ با مشركين به كشورهاى بزرگ گسيل داشت،ملتهايى كه به وسيله مسلمانان محاصره شدند،از آنها پرسش كردند:شما به چه ملت و چه كشورى وابسته هستيد؟مغيره از ميان آنها پاسخ داد:ما از نژاد عرب هستيم،ما داراى زندگى بسيار طاقت فرسا و نكبت بارى بوديم و از شدت گرسنگى پوست حيوانات و هسته خرما مى مكيديم و از پوست شتر و موهاى بز لباس تهيه ميكرديم و درختها و سنگها را مى پرستيديم،ولى خداوند زمينها و آسمانها براى ما پيامبرى فرستاد و به ما فرمان داد با شما تا آن اندازه جنگ كنيم تا يا به پرستش الله تن در دهيد و يا جزيه بپردازيد

مقدمه نوشته ابن خلدون:تازيها ملتى وحشى بوده و در نهاد،داراى تمايل به غارت و چپاولگرى هستند

مسافرت در عربستان،نوشته

:Daughty

زنان تازى،كودكان خود را با ادرار شتر ميشويند،زيرا باور دارند كه ادرار شتر،حشرات را از بدن آنها ميزدايد.مردان و زنان تازى

نيز موهاى خود را با كمك ادرار شتر،شانه ميزنند

The Bedouins & the Desert

نوشته جبرييل جبار

دختران و زنان باديه نشين،موهاى خود را با ادرار شتر ميشويند،زيرا اينكار سبب ميشود كه هم موهاى آنها از وجود حشراتى مانند شپش و كك پاك شود و هم اينكه به موهاى آنها ته رنگ قرمزى ارزانى مى دارد.چادر نشين هاى عرب،برخى اوقات براى درمان بيمارى خود،ادرار شتر مى آشامند

اسلام و خرافات

2005-03-28T01:37:00.000-08:00

مستنداتى از عملكرد اسلام در ايرنزمين و خرافات اسلام و تشيع

فتوح البلدان،البلاذرى،برگ 86:در زمان خلافت على مردم آذربايجان شوريدند و اشعث بن قيس كندى فرمانده سپاه تازيان و فرستاده على به منطقه با كمك سپاهى عظيم از كوفه اين شورش را خاموش كرد

فتوح البلدان،البلاذرى،برگ150:مردم رى هم در برابر على قيام كردند و از خراج دادن سر باز زدند بطوريكه در خراج آن ديار كسرى پديد آمد،على،ابوموسى را با لشكرى فراوان به رى فرستاد بقول البلاذرى:پيش از اين نيز ابوموسى بدستور على به جنگ با مردم رى شتافته بود و امور آنجا را بحال نخستين بازآورده بود

سفينةالبحار و مدينةالاحكام والاثار،حاج شيخ عباس قمى،برگ164:ما از تبار قريش هستيم و هواخواهان ما عرب و

دشمنان ما ايرانيها هستند.روشن است كه هر عربى از هر ايرانى بهتر و بالاتر و هر ايرانى از دشمنان ما هم بدتر است.ايرانيها را بايد دستگير كرد و به مدينه آورد،زنانشان را بفروش رسانيد و مردانشان را به بردگى و غلامى اعراب گماشت.سخنى از حسين بن على

اصول كافى جلد 3 ص 556: نگاه کردن به آلت تناسلي زن باعث کورى ميشود! - النظر الي فروج
النساء يورث العمي-من لا يحضره الفقيه

اصول كافى ج يك ص 319:امام ده علامت دارد از جمله آنها ختنه شده بدنيا مي آيد! با پا و براحتى متولد ميشود!جنب نميشود!اگر بخوابد قلبش بيدار است ..چشمش ميخوابد ولى قلبش بيدار است ! همانطور که از جلو ميبيند از عقب هم ميبيند! يولد مطهرا مختونا و لا يجنب و تنام عينه و لا ينام قلبه و يري من خلفه کما يري من امامه

اصول كافى ج يك ص 184:روايت از علي (ع) ..اولين حيوانى که پس از رسول خدا(ص) از دنيا رفت عفير خر رسول خدا بود! اين خر با رسول خدا صحبت کرده بود ! و گفته بود پدر و مادرم فداى تو! پدرم از قول پدرش و از قول جدش و جد جدش و ..نقل کرد که او خرى بود که نوح (ع) در کشتى گذاشت! و آنزمان نوح به جد من گفت اى مردم از نسل اين خر خرى متولد ميشود که رسول خدا بر او سوار ميشود! و من خوشحالم که آن خر هستعن امير المومنين علي قال ان اول شيي من ادواب توفي هو عفير حمار رسول الله ذالک الحمار کلم رسول الله فقال بابيي انت و امي

الكافى ج2 ص265:خوردن خاک نفاق مى اورد -اکل الطين يورث النفاق
اصول كافى ج3 ص387:خوردن خاک حرام است مثل خون و مردار و گوشت خوک اما خوردن خاک قبر امام حسين باعث شفاء از بيماريها ميشود!اکل الطين حرام مثل الميته و الدم و لحم اخنزير الا طين قبر الحسين فيه شفاء من کل داء

باقيات الصالحات ضميمه مفاتيح الجنان -شيخ عباس قمى ص 745:تو سل به امام موسى کاظم باعث جلاى چشم ميشود! التوسل بالامام موسي الکاظم ينفع لوجع العين

اصول کافى کتاب الحجه - باب مولد حسين ابن علي:امام حسين(ع) از سينه حضرت زهرا شير نخورد بلکه پيامبر انگشتش را در دهان او ميگذاشت و او مى مکيد و براى سه روزش کافى بود!لم يرضع الحسين من فاطمه (س) و لا من انثي کان يوتي به النبي (ص) فيضع ابهامه في فمه فيمص منها ما يکفيه اليو مين و الثلاث

اصول کافى - کتاب الحجه - باب مولد الزهراء - جلد يک صفحه382:فاطمه زهرا (س) حيض نميشده است! عن ابي الحسن قال ان بنات الانبياء لا يطمثن

اصول کافى - جلد يک ص348:هنگاميکه امام حسين به شهادت رسيد بين امم سجاد و محمد ابن حنفيه فرزند على(ع) بر سر امامت اختلاف افتاد ...محمد ابن حنفيه به امام سجاد گفت تو خودت بهتر ميدانى که من تو لايق تر هستم و امام سجاد در جواب گفت پاسخ تو را حجر الاسود ميدهد ! و دعوت کرد که به آنجا بروند ..آنگاه محمد ابن حنفيه حجر الاسود را صدا زد و هيچ جوابى نشنيد اما تا امام سجاد حجر الاسود را صدا زد حجر به صدا در آمد و گفت امامت مال على ابن الحسين است و نزديک بود حجر الاسود از جا کنده شود!لما قتل الحسين (ع) ارسل محمد ابن الحنفيه اليعلي ابن الحسين

با اميد به بيدارى فكرى ايرانيان و بازگشت به ايرانيتمان

زرتشت

2005-03-26T10:34:00.000-08:00

با درود

زادروز آموزگار راستى آشوزرتشت را به همه نيك انديشان شادباش مى گويم

انديشه نيك

گفتار نيك

كردار نيك

راه در جهان يكى است و آن راه،راستى است

پاينده ايران

انقلابهاى مخملى

2005-03-25T10:19:00.000-08:00

با درود
اين روزها شاهد حوادث زيادى در جهان به خصوص خاورميانه و آسياى ميانه هستيم كه اين حوادث بر كشور ما بى تاثير نخواهند بود
در ادامه سريال انقلابهاى مخملين اين بار شاهد انقلاب صورتى در قرقيزستان بوديم،مردمى كه رهبرى مشخصى نداشتن انتخابات اين كشور را بهانه خوبى براى اعتراض يافتند و با برگزارى تظاهرات و اعتراضات گسترده و مستمر و با اراده قوى توانستند به مراكز دولتى وزندانها و راديو تلويزيون هجوم برند و اين مراكز را به تصرف خود در بيارن و عسگرآقايف را مجبور به ترك قدرت و فرار نمايند
به انتخابات ايران نيز فرصتى نمانده.آيا در ايران هم انقلاب مخملين صورت خواهد گرفت؟انقلاب سفيد؟نبايد بزاريم كه كشورهاى ديگر براى ما حكومت تعيين كنند. ما مى توانيم با كمك گرفتن از فرهنگ پر بار خود به پيشرفت و ترقى برسيم و اين با شكل گرفتن يك انقلاب بزرگ فرهنگى ميسر خواهد شد
بازگشت به ايرانيت و دور ريختن افكار پوسيده
به اميد آزادى ايرانزمين

نامهاى باستانى هر روز يك ماه

2005-03-24T01:57:00.000-08:00

با درود
همونطور كه ميدونيد در ايران باستان هر كدوم از روزهاى ماه براى خودش نام جداگانه داشته،امروز ميخوام اين نامها رو براتون بنويسم

اورمزد
بهمن يا وهومن
اردى بهشت
شهريور
سپندارمذ:فروتنى
خورداد
امرداد
دي به آذر
آذر
آبان

خور يا خورشيد
ماه
تير
گوش يا گئوش: هستى،جهان
دى به مهر
مهر
سروش
رَشن:دادگرى
فروردين
وَرهرام:پيروزى

رام:شادمانى
باد
دى به دين
دين
اَرد
اَشتاد:راستى
آسمان
زامياد:زمين
مانتره سپند:گفتار نيك
اَنارام

بايد در نظر داشت كه در ايران باستان هر ماه سى روز بوده است
هميشه پيروز و سربلند باشيد

خيام

2005-03-23T08:58:00.000-08:00

با درود و شادباش به مناسبت نوروز
اين دو سه روز رو مشغول ديد و بازديد نوروزى بودم الان سرم خلوت شد و حوصله براى نوشتن پيدا كردم.فكر نكنم امسال بتونيم براى مسافرت جايى بريم،اينطور كه معلومه و هواشناسى گفته اين چند روزه حسابى بارندگى خواهد بود ولى هنوز تصميم قطعى براى رفتن به مسافرت نگرفتيم
امروز داشتم"رباعيات خيام"رو مى خوندم عجب اعجوبه هايى تو شعر و ادب و فرهنگ داريم ولى متاسفانه به هيچ كدوم اهميت نميديم
خيام تنها شاعرى هست كه اشعارش به تمام زبانهاى دنيا ترجمه شده،قبل از تعطيلات زياد وقت مطالعه نداشتم و بايد از تعطيلات استفاده كنم و مطالعاتم رو بيشتر كنم،اين دو،سه روزه هر موقع بيكار بودم خيام خوندم خيلى از شعراش خوشم مياد
چند تا از شعراشو مى نويسم خيلى جالبه

تا چند زنم به روى درياها خشت
بيزار شدم ز بت پرستان كنشت
خيام كه گفت دوزخى خواهد بود
كه رفت به دوزخ و كه آمد ز بهشت

درياب كه از روح جدا خواهى رفت
در پرده اسرار فنا خواهى رفت
مى نوش ندانى از كجا آمده اى
خوش باش ندانى به كجا خواهى رفت

گويند كسان،بهشت با حور خوش است
من ميگويم كه آب انگور خوش است
اين نقد بگير و دست از آن نسيه بدار
كاواز دهل شنيدن از دور خوش است

گويند مرا كه دوزخى باشد مست
قوليست خلاف، دل در آن نتوان بست
گر عاشق و ميخواره بدوزخ باشند
فردا بينى بهشت همچون كف دست

من هيچ ندانم كه مرا آنكه سرشت
از اهل بهشت كرد يا دوزخ و زشت
جامى و بتى و بربطى بر لب كشت
اين هر سه مرا نقد و ترا نسيه بهشت

تا بعد بدرود

نوروزتان شاد باد

2005-03-19T21:06:00.000-08:00

سر سال نو هرمز و فرودين
بر آسوده از رنج تن دل ز كين
به جمشيد بر گوهر افشاندند
مر آن روز را روز نو خواندند
چنين جشن فرخ از آن روزگار
بمانده از آن خسروان يادگار

با درود به همه مهربان ياران
بار ديگر عمو نوروز بهار را برايمان عيدى آورد و همه را به تكاپو انداخت.اكثر مردم،خونه تكونى كردن و شيرينى و آجيل و لباس نو خريدن
مراكز خريد و خيابونا از جمعيت موج مى زنه،بساط فروش ماهى قرمز و سبزه و سمنو همه جا ديده ميشه
يه عده يكى دو روز قبل از سال تحويل به مسافرت رفتن و يه عده هم بعد از سال تحويل به مسافرت خواهند رفت
در همين حال عده زيادى از هم ميهنانمون نوروز هم براشون مثل روزاى ديگه مى مونه،حتى پول خريد يك كيلو شيرينى رو هم ندارن و يا مثل عزيزان بمى و زرندى حتى يه سرپناه براى نشستن زير سقفش ندارن
وضعيت ميوه هم كه امسال خيلى خرابه،قيمتها خيلى بالاس
بياييد در سال جديد تصميم بگيريم از اين به بعد نسبت به مشكلات هموطنانمون بى خيال نباشيم و تا جاييكه از دستمون بر مياد در سختيها يار و ياورشون باشيم
اميدوارم سال جديد،سال مهر و دوستى،بهروزى و شادكامى براى همه ايرانيان در سراسر جهان باشه

بهين جشن نوروز مهين يادگار نياكان بر ايرانيان فرخنده باد

چهارشنبه سورى

2005-03-14T20:18:00.000-08:00

با درود
ديروز 24 اسفند 2563 شاهنشاهى سالروز تولد بزرگ مرد ايران زمين و بنيانگزار ايران نوين،شاهنشاه فقيد رضا شاه بزرگ مى باشد
اين روز بزرگ را به پيشگاه ملت ايران و عاشقان تاريخ و فرهنگ راستين كهن بوم آريايى تبريك مى گويم
و اما امروز
از همه آريايى تباران در سراسر جهان مى خواهم كه جشن باستانى چهارشنبه سورى را با شكوه هر چه بيشتر بر گزار كنند
چهارشنبه سورى امسال را به بزرگترين جشن چهارشنبه سورى در تاريخ ايران تبديل كنيم
هميشه شاد و پيروز باشيد
پاينده ايران

حمايت از جنبش آذرخش

2005-03-11T00:08:00.000-08:00

از جنبش آذرخش حمايت كنيم

متحصنين و معترضين ايرانى در بروكسل دستگير شدند

از همه ايرانيان در سراسر جهان مي خواهيم براى آزادى و حمايت از آنها با رسانه ها و سازمانهاى بين المللى تماس

بگيرند

جنبش آذرخش ، جنبش آزادى ايران زمين را در هر كجاى دنيا كه هستيد حمايت كنيد

پاينده ايران

جنبش آذرخش

2005-03-10T08:06:00.000-08:00

با درود
سربازان و فرزندان ايران زمين و انجمن پادشاهى ايران هم اكنون در هواپيمايى در فرودگاه بروكسل دست به تحصن زده اند. اين افراد از هواپيما خارج نخواهند شد تا با تمام سفيران و مقامات بلند پايه بين المللى ديدار كنند و خواسته خود را مبنى بر سرنگونى جمهورى اسلامى و بيرون راندن اسلام از ايران به گوش جهانيان برسانند
جنبش آذرخش،جنبش رهايى ايران و جهان از دست تروريسم اسلامى و ارتجاع مذهبى را حمايت كنيد
پاينده ايران

مشكلات فرهنگى 2

2005-03-05T12:48:00.000-08:00

با درود به همه دوستان گرامى
در مطلب پيشين درباره مشكلات فرهنگى ما ايرانيان نوشتم ، در اينجا ادامه برداشت خودم را درباره برخى ديگر از مشكلات فرهنگى جامعه مى نويسم
3

قهرمان پرورى
اين خصيصه را مى توان بيشتر از داستانها و اسطوره هايى كه بعد از ورود اسلام به ايران وارد فرهنگ ايران شد و جنبه خرافى داشت پيدا كرد.اعتقاد به آمدن امام زمان،ديدن عكس امام در ماه،شمشير زدن ابوالفضل با دهان،كندن در خيبر توسط على و موارد بيشمار ديگر كه وارد فرهنگ ايرانيان شد
ما مردم هيچگاه به نيروى اراده خود اتكا نكرده ايم هميشه سعى كرده ايم تمام مسيوليت را به گردن ديگرى بياندازيم و تنها آن يك نفر را پيشبرنده كارهاى مملكت بدانيم.ما ايرانيان براى مبارزه با ظلم حاكم بر ميهنمان چشم انتظار كشورهاى بيگانه نشسته ايم
4

فرد گرايى
در ميان ايرانيان به ندرت مى توان كارى را با مشاركت چند نفر شروع كرد و آنرا تا آخر به پيش برد.بيشتر شراكتها در هر كارى از جمله:كارهاى ورزشى،اقتصادى،سياسى و... به بن بست مى رسد
نگاهى به ورزش ايران بياندازيد،ورزشهاى گروهى در مسابقات بين المللى كمترين موفقيت را به دست مياورند، و در داخل هم هيچ تيم باشگاهى در هر رشته اى ثبات لازم را ندارد
در سياست وضع از اين هم بدتر است.در تاريخ احزاب ايران دقت كنيد كدام حزب را مى توان پيدا كرد كه توانسته باشد يك گام اصولى و ريشه اى در جذب و هدايت مردم و جامعه بسوى پيشرفت و ترقى بردارد.افراد تشكيل دهنده يك حزب مدتى بعد از تشكل بر اثر وجود اختلاف سليقه دست به انشعاب از حزب مى زنند و بعد شروع به متهم كردن همكاران سابق خود مى كنند
بعد از 26 سال از مهاجرت اجبارى بسيارى از ايرانيان هنوز يك كنگره و يا تشكل سراسرى ايرانيان برون مرز براى حمايت از ايرانيان مهاجر و براى رفع نيازهاى آنها تشكيل نشده. به اتحاد چينى هاى مقيم آمريكا نگاه كنيد آنها سالها زودتر از ايرانيان به آمريكا رفتند ولى هيچگاه مليت خود را فراموش نكردند در كنار تطبيق خود با محيط و شرايط جديد جهانى به آداب و رسوم خود پايبند هستند و در بيشتر اوقات هواى ديگر هموطنان خود را دارند
اين مطلب ادامه خواهد داشت
به اميد ايران آزاد فردا
پيروز باشيد

مشكلات فرهنگي

2005-02-27T12:34:00.000-08:00

با درود

امروز مي خواهم راجع به مشكلات فرهنگي ايرانيان بنويسم

سالهاست فعالان سياسي اپوزيسيون و نظريه پردازان تنها انگشت خود را بر روي مشكلات سياسي جامعه گذاشته اند

و فكر مي كنند تنها با تغيير رژيم در ايران مى توانند ايران را به جاده پيشرفت و دمكراسى بياندازند در حاليكه براى

رساندن ايران به جايگاه اصليش در جهان بايد مشكلات فرهنگي و اقتصادى جامعه را بطور ريشه اى حل كرد

و اين زمانى اتفاق خواهد افتاد كه مردم ابتدا رفتار اجتماعيشان را تغيير دهند

و اما نمونه هايى از رفتارهاى غلط اجتماعى ما ايرانيان

تحمل نكردن يكديگر

ما ايرانيان تحمل شنيدن عيبهاى خود را نداريم , در برخورد با ديگران خود را دمكرات و طرفدار آزادى بيان نشان

مىدهيم ولي وقتى كوچكترين انتقادى از اعمال و گفتارمان مى شود سريع برآشفته مى شويم و زمين و زمان را به

هم مى بافيم تا نشان دهيم كار اشتباهى نكرده ايم و يا حرف نا مربوطي نزده ايم

جدي نبودن در انجام كارها

ما ايرانيان مردم تنبلي شده ايم ,از زير كار كردن در مى رويم و اين كار را نشانه زرنگي مي دانيم جالب اينجاست

اگر فرد ديگرى را ببينيم كه همان كار ما را انجام مى دهد به خاطر كم كارى سرزنشش مى كنيم و اگر كار خود را

درست و بدون هدر دادن وقت انجام دهد آن فرد را متهم مى كنيم كه مى خواهد خود را برتر از ديگران نشان دهد و

كار ديگران را خراب كند و در اغلب اوقات سعى در سوءاستفاده از صداقت آن فرد بر مى آئيم

چون نمى خواهم نوشته ام طولانى شود ادامه مطالب را در روزهاى آينده خواهم نوشت

مرا از نظرات خود بى نصيب نگذاريد

با سپاس

زلزله

2005-02-22T11:57:00.000-08:00

همه عالم تن است و ايران دل
نيست گوينده زين قياس خجل
چونكه ايران دل زمين باشد
دل ز تن به بود يقين باشد
درودي دگر بار به همه دوستان
بعد از چند روز دوباره فرصت نوشتن پيدا كردم, اين روزا

خيلي كم حوصله شدم.خسته و كوفته ميام خونه حالي براي
خوندن مطالبي كه ازاينترنت گرفتم رو ندارم
مهمترين خبر امروز مربوط به زلزله زرند كرمان هست كه

دوباره جان عده ديگري از هموطنانمون رو گرفت و
خبرهاي ضد و نقيض دوباره نقل محافل خبري شد
رسانه هاي داخل از كشته شدن حدود 700 نفر و مجروح شدن

چند صد نفر خبر دادند ولي وقتي بيشتر تامل مىكنيم
پى به عمق فاجعه مى بريم
تخريب چندين روستا به ميزان 100% تعداد كشته شدگان را بيشتر به نظر ميرساند
در ضمن اونطور كه من شنيدم مركز لرزه نگاري استراسبورگ قدرت زمين لرزه زرند را7.5ريشتر ثبت كرده
سعى مي كنم روزاى بعد بيشتر بنويسم
لطفـا نظرات خودتون رو راجع به نوشته هام بنويسيد
با سپاس

http://web.peykeiran.com/net_iran/irnewsbody.aspx?ID=22178

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

دريک جلسه عزاداري در کرمان دو نفر از مداحان براي زود تر شروع کردن مجلس به يکديگر پرخاش مي کنند ودر اين بين مردم نيز وارد اين دعوا مي گردند که در اين ميان 2 نفر کشته مي شوند .اين غائله با حضور پليس خاتمه مييابد و عوامل اصلي اغتتشاش دستگير مي شوند
سايت کرمان آنلاين http://kol.blogfa.com
ا------------------------------------------
اخبار زلزله
زلزله اي به بزرگي 4/6 دهم ريشتر در ساعت 5 و 55 دقيقه و 24 ثانيه صبح امروز بخش جنوب شرقي شهرستان زرند را لرزاند
6 روستاي زرند بيش از 90 درصد خسارت ديده‌اند
درحالي كه آخرين آمار رسمي كشته‌شدگان زلزله صبح امروز كرمان تا لحظه مخابره

اين خبر 700 تن اعلام شده است آمار رسمي ديگري از صدور 650مجوز دفن براي فوت‌شدگان خبر مي‌دهد
شمار قربانيان اين حادثه در روستاها هر لحظه افزايش مي‌يابد
خبرگزاري انگليسي رويترز دقايقي پيش اعلام كرد: زلزله صبح امروز زرند كرمان

، تا اين لحظه بيش از 400 تن كشته و پنج هزار تن زخمي برجاي گذاشته است
دو روستاي داغوئيه و حتكم در حوالي شهر زرند تقريبا به طور كامل تخريب شده اند

تا كنون تعدادي از مدارس تخريب و به درخواست مسئولان مدارس ساير مدارس

نواحي 1 و 2 آموزش و پرورش كرمان تعطيل شده‌ است
شبكه‌هاي لرزه نگاري موسسه ژئوفيزيك دانشگاه تهران نيز به دنبال وقوع حادثه از

ثبت 17 پس لرزه تا حدود ساعت 16 در گستره شهرستان زرند خبر داد

م

آتش سوزي

2005-02-15T12:30:00.000-08:00

با درود به همه دوستان

.ديروز بار ديگر بر اثر بي مسئوليتي و كوته فكري عده اي دها نفر در اتش سوزي مسجد ارك تهران سوختند

آقاياني كه سونامي و زلزله بم را نشان فساد زياد در آن مناطق ميدانستند و آنرا غضب

الهي نام نهادند و ادعا كردند كه در عكسهاي گرفته شده از سونامي كلمه الله را ديده اند

چه پاسخي براي آتش سوزي مسجد ارك دارند؟؟؟

آيا در شعله هاي آتش نداي الله را نشنيدند؟

آيا مسجد ارك هم محل فساد شده بود؟استغفرالله

آيا فردا نخواهند گفت كه اين حادثه امتحان الهي بود؟

به نظر شما كدام آدم عاقلي برزنت را آغشته به پارافين ميكند و

از داخل آن لوله بخاري را رد مي كند؟

خانه كدام مسئول مملكت را اينگونه گرم مي كنند؟

.حتما بعد از مدتي مقصر حادثه ,بخاري و بعد هم برزنت معرفي خواهند شد

آتش سوزي بعدي كي و كجا خواهد بود؟

سينما ركس

انفجار در قطار نيشابور

غرق شدن دانش آموزان در استخر پارك شهر

برخورد تعدادي اتوبوس و كاميون حامل مواد قابل اشتعال

آتش سوزي در كلاس درس

آتش سوزي در اتوبوس

آتش سوزي در مسجد

.....

در تمام حوادث بالا هم نظام مسئول است هم مردم

خلايق هر چه لايق

پروژه انقلاب

2005-02-11T08:59:00.000-08:00

با درود

ديروز 26 سال از پروژه انقلاب اسلامي ايران گذشت, پروژه اي كه پژوهشگران و مغزآبيهاي آمريكا و اروپايي براي مقابله با نفوذ

كمونيسم و شوروي در خاورميانه و تكميل خط سبز اسلامي در مقابلش طرح كردند و مردم و روشنفكران ايراني(كه تاريك انديش

مطلق بوده و هستند) را بازي دادند

مردم در ابتدا مي گقتند: اين ما بوديم كه براي برقراري حكومت عدل اسلامي انقلاب كرديم ولي امروز همه مي گويند: اين آمريكا و

!!!انگلستان بودند كه در ايران انقلاب راه انداختند

من منكر دخالت خارجي در تغيير رژيم سال 57 نيستم ولي بايد توجه داشت كه غربيها براي تامين منافع كشورشان دست به مطالعه

و تحقيق مي زنند و برنامه ها و پروژه هاي بسياري را براي رسيدن به هدفشان امتحان مي كنند , ولي ما هميشه منتظريم ببينيم انها

براي ما چه تصميمي مي گيرند تا به ساز آنها برقصيم و يا معتقديم سرنوشت ما از ازل اينطور نوشته شده و ما هيچ دخالتي در تغيير

.سرنوشت خود نداريم و بالاخره مصلح جهاني خواهد آمد و جهان را عدل و داد فرا خواهد گرفت

بياييد با همفكري راههاي رسيدن به ايراني آزاد و عاري از هرگونه خرافات و كج انديشي را بررسي كنيم و ايران را به دوران

پرشكوه گذشته اش بازگشت دهيم

بيا تا طرحي نو در اندازيم

22 بهمن

2005-02-10T01:28:00.000-08:00

با درود

بار ديگر بهمن اين ماه سياه ميهن از راه رسيد 26 سال پيش گذشتگان ما خواستند سرنوشتشان را ناآگاهانه خودشان بدست بگيرند خواستند آب و برقشان مجاني باشد امروز بعد از 26 سال جريمه استفاده رايگان از امكانات عمومي

را ما نسل جوان مي پردازيم

امشب قرار بود بانگ الله اكبر گوشهاي شيطان بزرگ را كر كند ولي انگار با مساوي تيم ملي فوتبال با روستاي بحرين(تكه جدا شده از كهن بوم آريايي)براي كسي رمق فرياد كشيدن نمانده بود,صدا از برفها در ميومد اما صداي

مردم رو نميشد شنيد

فردا هم راه پيمايي 22 بهمن هست بازم مثل هر سال براي كشيدن مردم تو خيابانها از هر وسيله اي استفاده مي كنن

حتي از عمو پورنگ

اميدوارم مردم به تواناييشون ايمان داشته باشن و بدونن تصميم نهايي با خودشونه

يا ذلت و بدبختي و يا عزت و سرفرازي

ايران سزاوار ان است كه آزاد باشد

وطن دوستي

2005-02-08T13:24:00.000-08:00

با درود به هم ميهنان گرامي

چند وقت سرم خيلي شلوغ بود اصلا" فرصت نداشتم تا چيزي بنويسم تا امشب كه بالاخره فرصت كوچكي پيدا

.كردم تا شعري رو كه خوندم و خوشم اومد براي شما هم بنويسم. البته, شايد قبلا" خونده باشيدش

اين شعر از ايرج ميرزا هست

وطن دوستي

ما كه اطفال اين دبستانيم

همه از خاك پاك ايرانيم

همه با هم برادر وطنيم

مهربان همچو جسم با جانيم

اشرف و انجب تمام ملل

يادگار قديم دورانيم

وطن ما به جاي مادر ماست

ما گروه وطن پرستانيم

شكر داريم كز طفوليت

درس حب الوطن همي خوانيم

چون كه حب وطن زايمانست

ما يقينا" زاهل ايمانيم

گر رسد دشمني براي وطن

جان و دل رايگان بيفشانيم

به اميد ايراني ازاد و سربلند و پرشكوه همچون زمان ايران باستان

سر اغاز

2005-01-03T23:43:00.000-08:00

درود بر همه بازديد کنند گان اين وبلاگ
اين وبلاگ براي در اشتراک گذاردن عقايد مختلف در رابطه با مشکلات فرهنگي, اجتماعي ,تاريخي و سياسي ايرانيان راه اندازي شده است; بياييد با همفکري ,ايراني نو بسازيم.
ايرانيان مي توانند به دوران خوش هزاران ساله خود بازگشت نمايند, به شرطي که بتوانند دريک محيط دوستانه و به دور از کينه و ترس از برخوردهاي نظام حاکم عقايد و نظريات خود را به اطلاع يکديگر برسانند و تحمل انتقاد را داشته باشند, همچنين خرافات را از زندگي خود کنار بگذارند.
هدف ما رساندن ايران به دوران طلائي گذ شته است زمانيکه علم و دانش از ايران به سراسر دنيا از چين تا روم گرفته تا قاره امريکا انتشاريافت.
...اگر به رويدادهاي جهاني بادقت بنگريد خواهيد ديد که ان روز خيلي نزديک است اگر