[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

ACTION ALERT: Foreign Policy of 1979 - PART 2 (Dr. Z.)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stefania



Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 4250
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



I feel sorrow when i see 2 young boys like those above..

The executions in Iran have increased,not decreased and the Euros should be informed of this ..
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
stefania



Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 4250
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lack of Engagement with Iran Threatens U.S. National Interests in Critical Region of the World, Concludes Council-Sponsored Task Force

Policy Based on Regime Change Not Likely to Succeed; New U.S. Approach Needed

http://www.cfr.org/pub7195/press_release/lack_of_engagement_with_iran_threatens_us_national_interests_in_critical_region_of_the_world_concludes_councilsponsored_task_force.php

Or http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Iran_TF.pdf

July 19, 2004 - The lack of sustained engagement with Iran harms American interests, and direct dialogue with Tehran on specific areas of mutual concern should be pursued, concludes a Council-sponsored Independent Task Force, Iran: Time for a New Approach. "The Islamic Republic appears to be solidly entrenched and the country is not on the brink of revolutionary upheaval," says the Task Force. "Those forces that are committed to preserving Iran's current system remain firmly in control and represent the country's only authoritative interlocutors. The urgency of the concerns surrounding [Iran's] policies mandates the United States to deal with the current regime rather than wait for it to fall."

Co-chaired by former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former Director of Central Intelligence Robert M. Gates, and directed by Suzanne Maloney, the Task Force includes experts with a wide range of views and backgrounds.

The Task Force acknowledges that past efforts to engage Iran's Islamic regime have failed, and that even a discerning policy may still be rebuffed by the regime's obstinacy. However, two recent developments highlight the most urgent priorities for U.S. policy toward Iran. The ongoing investigation of the International Atomic Energy Agency into Iran's nuclear program and the evolving situations in Iraq and Afghanistan underscore the vital relevance of Iran for U.S. policy.

The Task Force concludes Iran is experiencing a gradual process of internal change. It argues this process will eventually produce a government more responsive toward its citizenry's wishes and more responsible in its international approach. In the meantime, the urgency of U.S. concerns about Iran and the region mandate that the United States deal with the current regime rather than waiting it out.

The Task Force advocates a "compartmentalized" process of dialogue, confidence building, and incremental engagement. Specifically the Task Force concludes that it "is in the interests of the United States to engage selectively with Iran to promote regional stability, dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, preserve reliable energy supplies, reduce the threat of terror, and address the "democracy deficit" that pervades the Middle East as a whole."

The Task Force highlights the following different approaches to Iran:

Selective political engagement. The United States should not defer a political dialogue with Iran until deep differences over its nuclear ambitions and involvement in regional conflicts have been resolved. "Just as the United States has a constructive relationship with China (and earlier did so with the Soviet Union) while strongly opposing certain aspects of its internal and international policies, Washington should approach Iran with a readiness to explore areas of common interests while continuing to contest objectionable policy."
Incremental progress vs. 'grand bargain.' "A 'grand bargain' that would settle comprehensively the outstanding conflicts between Iran and the United States is not a realistic goal, and pursuing such an outcome would be unlikely to produce near-term progress on Washington's central interests." Instead, the Task Force recommends "selectively engaging Iran on issues where U.S. and Iranian interests converge."
Fewer sticks, more carrots. "U.S. reliance on comprehensive unilateral sanctions has not succeeded in its stated objective to alter Iranian conduct and has deprived Washington of greater leverage vis-à-vis the Iranian government apart from the threat of force." Given the increasingly important role of economic interests in shaping Iran's policies at home and abroad, "the prospect of commercial relations with the United States could be a powerful tool in Washington's arsenal."
Promote democracy, not regime change. "The United States should advocate democracy in Iran without relying on the rhetoric of regime change, as that would be likely to rouse nationalist sentiments in defense of the current regime even among those who currently oppose it." The United States should focus instead on promoting political evolution that would lead to stronger democratic institutions internally and enhanced diplomatic and economic relations abroad.
Among the Task Force's recommendations for U.S. policy toward Iran:

Offer Iran a direct dialogue on specific issues of regional stabilization to "encourage constructive Iranian involvement in the process of consolidating authority within the central governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan and in rebuilding their economies." A basic statement of principles along the lines of the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué signed by the United States and China could be developed to outline the parameters for U.S.-Iranian engagement.
Press Iran to clarify the status of al-Qaeda operatives detained by Tehran and "make clear that a security dialogue will be conditional on assurances that [Iran] is not facilitating violence against the new Iraqi and Afghan governments or the coalition forces that are assisting them." At the same time, Washington should work with the interim government of Iraq to conclusively disband the Iraq-based Mojahideen-e-Khalq, the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Together with its European allies and Russia, implement a more focused strategy to deal with Iran's nuclear program. "Iran should be pressed to fulfill its October 2003 commitment to maintain a complete and verified suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities," while the United States and other members of the international community pursue a framework for a more durable solution to the nuclear issue. "Tehran must clearly understand that unless it demonstrates real, uninterrupted cooperation with the IAEA process, it will face the prospect of multilateral sanctions by the United Nations Security Council."
Resume a genuinely active involvement in the Middle East peace process and press Arab states to do the same. "A serious effort on the part of Washington toward achieving Arab-Israeli peace is central to eventually stemming the tide of extremism in the region."
Adopt measures to broaden the political, cultural, and economic linkages between the Iranian population and the wider world, including authorizing nongovernmental organizations to operate in Iran and consenting to Iran's application to begin talks with the World Trade Oraganization. "Iran's isolation only impedes its people's ongoing struggle for a more democratic government and strengthens the hand of hard-liners who preach confrontation with the rest of the world."
Task Force Co-chairs:

Zbigniew Brzezinski is former National Security Advisor to the President, and author, most recently, of The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership.

Robert M. Gates is the 22nd President of Texas A&M University, one of the nation's largest universities and an institution recognized internationally for its teaching, research and public service. He assumed the presidency of the land-grant, sea-grant and space-grant university on August 1, 2002. Dr. Gates served as Director of Central Intelligence from November 6, 1991 until January 20, 1993. In this position, he headed all foreign intelligence agencies of the United States and directed the Central Intelligence Agency. Dr. Gates has been awarded the National Security Medal, the Presidential Citizens Medal, has twice received the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, and has three times received CIA's highest award, the Distinguished Intelligence Medal.
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)


Last edited by stefania on Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
stefania



Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 4250
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forget the Iranians..appease the mullahs...


Lack of Engagement with Iran Threatens U.S. National Interests in Critical Region of the World, Concludes Council-Sponsored Task Force

Policy Based on Regime Change Not Likely to Succeed; New U.S. Approach Needed



_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
stefania



Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 4250
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Islam and Human Rights

Speaker: Shirin Ebadi, Iranian human rights activist and Nobel peace prize laureate of 2003
Moderator: Juju Chang, correspondent, ABC News "20/20"

Council on Foreign Relations
New York, New York
June 7, 2004
http://www.cfr.org/pub7093/juju_chang_shirin_ebadi/islam_and_human_rights.php

SHIRIN EBADI: [Applause.] I greet my friends, my Iranian friends and my American friends who are fond of Iranian affairs. In the beginning of my talk I have to say that I am a defense attorney who has spent her lifetime in the protection of human rights, defending human rights. Having this in mind, I am not a career politician and I am not a professor of political sciences. What I say is in the framework of human rights and has always been like that.

Human rights, unfortunately, in Iran, and also in the Middle East, is a subject that is relatively new, new from the point of view that the fundamental culture in the civic society in Europe and the civic society in the United States does not exist in that form in Iran, and it's much weaker.

The first NGO [nongovernmental organization] of human rights in Iran was in the year 1355 [according to the Islamic calendar], which was approximately 1976, two years before the Iranian revolution. Therefore, you see that the history of the beginning of activities concerning human rights in Iraq is about 27 years old, which, compared with Europe and compared with your country, is much younger. This NGO was started by a few people, founded by a few people who believed in human rights. Two years before the revolution, they had a lot of very good activities and cooperated with international organizations such as Amnesty International. Also, after the revolution, this institution performed a lot--had a lot of very useful activities. But unfortunately, at the beginning of the revolution, the situation was such that the possibility for any activity on human rights didn't exist in Iran. For this reason, the first human rights NGO that was established in Iran could not achieve anything in reality. A couple of its members were sent to jail, some were forced to exile outside of Iran, and the rest were forced to silence.

One of the founders of this NGO, who is also a professor of law, and in spreading the theory of human rights in Iran the Iranian lawyers are indebted to him. Fortunately, that person is in this gathering among you, and he is Dr. [Abdul Karim] Lahiji, who was the first founder of the human rights NGO in Iran [Iranian Association for the Defense of Human Rights]. [Applause.]

At the beginning of the revolution, whenever right-wing newspapers wished to curse me, they used to call me a feminist. They called me a defender of human rights. And at that time, words like liberal was a pejorative word. But fortunately, because of the fights of people, gradually human rights in Iran established itself in our country to the point that now defending human rights, protecting human rights, has gained a social respect and value. And many people consider themselves protectors of human rights, although maybe they deeply do not believe in human rights.

But for me, when I look back for the past, it is a positive step; in other words, the situation of human rights in Iran of today compared with 24 or 25 years ago is much better.

But this does not mean that we in Iran from the point of view of human rights have no problems. Yes, we do have problems. Iran in the year 1354--that would be 1975--joined the international civil rights and international socioeconomic rights and guaranteed to respect and observe them. The government of Iraq joined the [United Nations] Convention of Children's Rights. But in spite of these undertakings, these international undertakings, we have certain laws which break human rights in a very evident way.

Sexism is one example. In our laws, the testimony of two women is equal to the testimony of one man in courts. Having several wives--polygamy--is accepted by law. A man without any valid, justifiable excuse can divorce his wife, but to get a divorce for a woman is very difficult and very limited in scope--and many similar laws.

We also have these differences in religion. Freedom of speech is not complete, because according to law, when you want to publish a book, first you have to receive permission from the ministry of culture and Islamic information and then you can print the book. And many times there are books that simply don't receive such permission, or the author is forced to change some portions of the book. Even more painful is that sometimes the courts don't pay attention to the permission that has already been given and a book that has been published with the permission and authorization of the government--then the author, the publisher are being prosecuted.

According to an amendment in the press law, criticizing the Constitution is forbidden. And I, as a professor of law, I ask myself this question: "If I'm supposed to teach the Constitution, what should I do with this law?"

The important issue is the relationship between law and culture in a society. The laws have to be set and developed, established in accordance with cultures. Iran is--has a nation, civilization. Sixty-three percent of the students in our universities are female. The people of Iran deeply believe in democracy, and these laws are not suitable for the society in Iran. For this reason, the feminist movement in Iran has gathered a lot of depth and breadth. And again for this reason, defending human rights in Iran of today has increased.

After the first true human rights NGO was established in Iran--I'm sorry, was stopped from operation in Iran and was taken outside of the country, fortunately, we were able to establish the first true human rights NGO in Iran after the revolution. The name of this NGO is the Society for the Defenders of Human Rights. It was established because, in Iran, defending political prisoners and ideological prisoners was a very difficult task, and the government looked with suspicion at attorneys who accepted such cases and defended such cases, and there would be troubles for such attorneys. Almost all of these attorneys at one time or another went to jail, including myself. And right now, one of my colleagues, Dr. Nasser Zarafshan [lawyer representing children of Iranian political activists killed in 1998] who is also my client, he's in jail.

Attorneys who defend political and ideological prisoners are endangered themselves. For their sake, we got together and we thought that we needed an organization. The Society for the Defenders of Human Rights was established for this purpose. In this society, we do three main tasks. First, defending--free defense for ideological and political prisoners. Second, providing assistance and support to the families of such prisoners. And three, taking a position concerning violations of human rights in Iran.

I'm sure you have noticed that several times I repeated that the first true--I mentioned the first true human rights NGO in Iran that is active in human rights, and what I mean is that we're not related to any government organization, we're not paid by the government, we don't receive any financial support, not from the government and not from anyone else. We are a group of attorneys who, unfortunately, all of us in the Islamic Republic, have gone to prison. But this imprisonment has not caused any feeling of vengeance in us. We are not looking at the issues with vengeance. We have tried to keep our own independence and neutrality. If we talk about difficulties and problems, similarly, if we see anything good, we talk about that, too. I briefly talked about discrepancies, the fault in Iranian laws, and my neutrality requires me, if there is any advancement of the laws, to mention that as well.

About three months ago, the women in Iran achieved great advances. The law for custody was changed. In accordance with a previous law, after any divorce the custody of children, until the age of 2 for boys and up to the age of 7 for girls, was with the mother; after that the children were usually taken and custody would be given to the father. But in accordance with the new law, after divorce, boys and girls until the age of 7 will have to remain with their mothers, with the father paying for their support. And after that, if the father and mother do not agree, do not mutually agree about who gets custody, then the courts, with due regard for the interests of the children, will determine who will have custody and what is in the interests of the child. Therefore, you see, that although we have problems and faults, big outstanding faults in the laws--we also have had victories.

The people of Iran want more acceleration in legal reform and they hope that one day the government of Iran will respect all its international obligations concerning human rights. I thank you for the attention you've had to my words and I finish my remarks here. And I will be available to answer any questions you might have.
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
stefania



Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 4250
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The State is the major obstacle to the implementation of the Bush Doctrine for Democracy in the Greater ME

It's not a coincidence if the rumors about a possible plan for Regime Change have come after also stating that Mr. Powell won't be serving again if Bush is re-elected.

I say again: more neocons and less "realists" at the White House!

Wolfowitz,Feith,Bolton,Abrahams and someone else should stay..

But Armitage,Boucher and the various CIA chiefs must go.

and Bush should stay.. Smile
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
stefania



Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 4250
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Senate candidate says: U.S. out of U.N.

Klayman launches nationwide petition campaign



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39509

The U.S. should get out of the United Nations, says a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Florida, and he has launched a nationwide petition campaign to rally support for the cause.

Larry Klayman, a Republican and founder of Judicial Watch, is making the U.N. crusade the cornerstone of his campaign for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Democrat Bob Graham. He faces Bill McCollum, Mel Martinez, Doug Gallagher, Johnnie Byrd and Karen Saull for the Republican nomination. Democrats running in the Aug. 31 primary for a chance at the seat include Peter Deutsch, Betty Castor and Alex Penelas.

"The United Nations is a complete and abject failure," says Klayman. "It was under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, the United States ended the Cold War and liberated Eastern Europe from the bondage of the Soviet Union, not the United Nations. President Reagan demonstrated that to achieve peace, free people must unite with their own strength and not that of the United Nations."

As an example of the U.N.'s failures, Klayman points to its role in the war on Iraq.

"During the months leading up to the war in Iraq, the world became aware that the alliance created by the United States and its allies were advancing the cause of freedom outside of and despite the United Nations," he said. "Had the United Nations been granted its do-nothing way, Saddam Hussein would still be sponsoring suicide bombers in Israel, working with al-Qaida terrorists, developing weapons of mass destruction, and oppressing innocent people. President George W. Bush’s leadership made glaringly obvious the failure of the United Nations to accomplish its original mission."

Klayman says the U.N. has lost its moral bearings.

"The United Nations has allowed itself to lose credibility before the world by allowing the rogue terrorist nations of Cuba and Syria to chair the United Nations Human Rights Commission, while condemning Israel for taking defensive measures against terrorists," he said.

"The United Nations has failed repeatedly to take action against such states as Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, and Zimbabwe, while constantly condemning and even working to subvert the actions of the United States and its allies to advance freedom.

During the 1980s, the United Nations constantly opposed and obstructed President Reagan as he sought to liberate the people of Eastern Europe and Central America from Communist domination. Now we face an even greater menace -- the war on terrorism. Despite the fact that terrorists delivered this war to the doorstep of New York City, itself the U.N. headquarters, the United Nations still refuses to take meaningful action toward combating this ominous threat with integrity. Now American troops are putting their lives on the line and dying, as the United Nation’s leadership just 'sneers' at President Bush and the United States."

In addition, Klayman says the U.N. is a direct threat to U.S. sovereignty, pointing to a presidential decision directive – PDD-25 – drafted by the U.N. and signed by President Clinton. Under this measure, Klayman says, U.S. soldiers "can be placed under United Nations auspices against their will. This statute violates the rudimentary concept of ensuring that citizen military not be forced into involuntary servitude as mercenaries. The United Nations holds the opinion, as well, that its treaties override the constitutions of nation states. These United Nations treaties include the Law of the Sea Treaty; this law violates the very concept of free seas espoused by the United States since its birth."

"While supposedly dedicated to world peace, the United Nations has become scandalously ripe with corruption over the decades," he adds. "The food-for-oil scandal is perhaps the most recent example of this corruption. However, another great evil, often not reported, is the situation in the Congo. United Nations troops and officials have shamefully preyed upon starving refugees in the Congo by exchanging their life-sustaining food supplies for sex, as documented by the Independent of London. United Nations workers and soldiers actually told young female refugees that unless they had sex with them, they would starve their families. How could any member of the United Nations overlook such a shameful grievance?"

Klayman pledges that as a U.S. senator he will immediately introduce legislation to withdraw from the United Nations.
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
iranmehr



Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:48 am    Post subject: Islamist Iran: Time for same Old Approach Reply with quote

Council on Foreign Relation
=================
Islamist Iran: Time for same Old Approach
.
1978 CFR
- concept: Islamist Green Belt against Red Communism
- author: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Cyrus Vance
- result: Hostage Crisis
http://humwww.ucsc.edu/history/historyjournal/edbernhardt.html
.
1989 CFR
- concept: Islamist Moderators
- author: Shireen Hunter
- result: IranGate. Iran-Contra
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19891201faessay5990/shireen-t-hunter/post-khomeini-iran.html
.
1996 CFR
- concept: Islamist Reform
- author: Madeleine Albright, Gary Sick
- result: Khatami oppressing student movement
http://www.cfr.org/about/pdf/ar_2003/nyprogram.pdf
.
2004 CFR
- concept: Islamist Conform
- author: Zbigniew Brzezinski
- result: Kerry / Bush to choose Sharon vs Khamenei
http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Iran_TF.pdf

iranmehr@1iran.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
stefania



Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 4250
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Opposition forces pro-regime US lobbyists to revise tone

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Jul 19, 2004



The launch meeting of the self-called "Iran Task Force" and its "front" heads' speeches, at the "Council on Foreign Relations" in Washington DC, encountered a massive wave of protest including several Urgent Action Calls and Statements along with hundreds of phones, faxes and emails. Several Iranian opposition groups, including the SMCCDI, had condemned the desperate and illegitimate try of some former US officials and pro-regime lobby groups, who were intending to try to save the shaky Islamic republic regime, and had called for massive protest actions in their statements and during interviews with Iranian opposition TV and radio networks.

A successful demonstration, by principled Iranians and Americans, was held in front of the meeting despite heavy security measures. Placards and slogans were slamming the speakers and any establishment of ties between the US and the Terrorist and Tyrannical Mullahcracy.

The pressures and the scandal made around the affair seem to have resulted in a relative success as the one sided speeches planned by Zbignew Brzezinski ( the National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter), and "Robert M. Gates (the former CIA Director (1991-93) and current President of Texas A&M University) were partially revised. These immoral individuals who are financed by various lobby groups and pro-regime elements were intending, in another demagoguery effort, to pass under silence the essential parameter which is the "True Aspiration of Iranian People for a Democratic Regime Change in Iran". But exposed, they had to publicly revise some of their former stands and acknowledge the existence of dissidence and opposition against the Islamic republic regime.

Several Iranians who were able to access the meeting blasted Brzezinski and Gates during the Q&A time and were able to shift many attention on the plight of the Iranian people and the terrorist nature of the Islamic republic regime. Many laughed when they heard Carter's naive former National Security Advisor announcing as the master axe of his plan a kind of "selective engagement". They reminded him of the same kind of ill-policy which was introduced over 10 years ago by the German Government named "Critical Dialogue". They emphasized that the German policy had no positive effect and had, with the passage of time, to adapt its name to a so-called "Constructive Dialogue" after witnessing the increasing misdeeds of the mullahs.

An exiled dissident cleric, named Ayatollah Haeri, went ahead and qualified the organizers as bunch of naive elements who will always fail in mullahs' trap and give them the necessary time to endanger the World's security.

It's to note that the pro-Islamic regime lobby groups and elements are hoping for the election of Senator John Kerry as the future US President. They do believe that Kerry will legitimize the Islamic republic and establish ties with the mullahs as he has promised publicly.

Plans, such as, the creation of the so-called "Iran Task Force" and various seminars held in several US universities, by so-called moderate Islamists, are in line with such master plan and intending to prepare the American opinion with such prospect. Blinded by short term commercial opportunities, they omit to mention that such illegitimate actions are translated by the Mullahcracy as America's fear of them and as a reward for their terrorist actions and a green light for more repression in Iran.
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
asher



Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 305
Location: Portland, Oregon

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iranmehr, thanks for the run-down on CFR's history of "great ideas"!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stefania



Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 4250
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Controversy on "selective engagement" plan with Iran

United Press International - World News
Jul 19, 2004



WASHINGTON -- A plan for "selective engagement" with Iran is a win-win strategy for the United States, former White House national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former Central Intelligence Director Robert Gates agreed Monday.

"If the effort to start negotiations with Iran succeeds, that's a good start. If it fails, then by making the effort to engage with Iran along with our European partners, then we will be in a much better position to seek multilateral cooperation to bring sanctions against Iraq, or to set the stage for other options," Gates said.

"If we are not to try to do these things alone, then we have to go this multilateral route," he said. "By working with the Europeans, we get an opportunity to stiffen their spines, and then to be in a position to get them into multilateral action."

Gates added that by showing that it was prepared to be reasonable, and to cooperate with its European allies and with Russia in try to persuade Iran to bring its nuclear program back within the international inspections regime of the United Nations, the United States would be able to rally U.N. support for sanctions against Iran if required.

Speaking at the Council of Foreign Relations in Washington Monday, after launching their report, "Iran: Time for a new approach," Gates and Brzezinski argued that the current U.S. policy of "passive antagonism" had failed to change Iran's behavior and had helped spur Iran's nuclear weapons program, and the United States should try a new approach.

The report suggests that the United States and Iran have a common interest in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, and that by starting negotiations on these topics, the United States may be able to persuade Iran that it is not in Tehran's best interests to develop nuclear weapons. It proposes that in return, the United States should accept Iran's ambition to develop peaceful nuclear power, and help it obtain enriched uranium on the world market, under strict international safeguards, in order to prevent Iran from developing its own nuclear fuel-enrichment technology.

Brzezinski stressed that a military option to disrupt Iran's nuclear ambitions should be "a last resort, only to be used under extreme provocation or in the face of imminent danger."

"It would be much tougher to take out Iran's nuclear facilities than the Osirak operation of 1981 (when Israeli warplanes destroyed Iraq's French-built nuclear reactor in a pre-emptive strike)," Brzezinski said. "There are multiple sites, some of them deep underground, and they are close to cities, so it would be a very difficult operation which could involve large numbers of civilian casualties."

Brzezinski also suggested that it was worth considering matters from Tehran's viewpoint. The Tehran regime felt under threat because their country was surrounded by nuclear-armed neighbors -- Pakistan, India, Russia and Israel. They live in a highly unstable and oil-rich part of the world, in which the United States is now establishing a series of military bases through the "war on terrorism."

It was understandable that they were nervous. If the United States could begin reassuring them, by starting talks on regional security, then it might be possible to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear weapons program.

"A regional security dialogue is something the Iranians want," Brzezinski said.

He added that that the nuclear weapons program has been widely popular inside Iran, and attacking it would serve to unite the Iranian people against America, and provoke Iran into retaliating against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"A military strike would cost many Iranian lives in the short run, but many American lives later," Brzezinski said. "And any Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would be viewed in the region as an act in which the United States was complicit."

Iran was one of the three countries -- along with Iraq and North Korea -- that were characterized as "the axis of evil" by President Bush in his State of the Union address of 2002. And the prospects of engaging Iran come at a time when the 9/11 Commission is suggesting that as many as eight of the 9/11 hijackers traveled through Iran on their way to commit the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

"We have ample evidence of people being able to move back and forth across that terrain," CIA acting director John McLaughlin said Sunday. "However, I would stop there, and say we have no evidence that there is some sort of official sanction by the government of Iran for this activity. We have no evidence that there is some sort of official connection between Iran and 9/11."

The new CFR report, prepared by a special task force of the council that was chaired by Gates and Brzezinski, was condemned Monday by several Iranian exile groups and by organizations critical of the current Tehran regime as a return to appeasement.

"Appeasement in dealing with ideologically driven totalitarian regimes never works, more so in the case of Iran's theocratic regime which has displayed an increasingly belligerent behavior in recent months and reneged on its agreement with France, Britain and Germany to stop enriching uranium," said the U.S. Alliance for a Democratic Iran. "It did not work with Nazi Germany in 1938, and it will not work today."

"The latest evidence in the bi-partisan 9/11 commission report of links between Iran mullahs and al-Qaida network seriously brings into question the wisdom of considering Iran as a party to any meaningful 'dialogue,'" the USADI statement went on. "The mullahs ruling Iran are gratified to know that their brutal suppression of Iranians through arrest, torture and execution of dissidents; and stoning, hanging and flogging citizens in public is paying huge political dividends."

The USADI statement also took issue with the report's suggestion that the Iran regime is now "well-entrenched" and that U.S.-inspired efforts at regime change or democratization are unlikely to succeed.

USADI also said that earlier efforts to engage Iran in the Clinton years had produced no meaningful political change.
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:36 am    Post subject: Wrong Again Dr. Z Reply with quote

By: Bijan R. Kian
President

National Organization
Iranian American Republican Council
Former Director
State of California

Office of Foreign Investment

July 19th, 2004

____________________________________________________________

Wrong again Dr. Z.!

President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Dr. Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski appears to be convinced that “engaging” the mullahs of the Islamic Republic in Iran is in the best interest of the United States. Further, he appears convinced that the Mullahs in Tehran are there to stay, there is no serious people’s movement in Iran to end the tyranny and terror of the Islamic Republic. He believes that “engagement” with the Mullahs will eliminate the growing threat of a nuclear Islamic Republic, end the Mullahs support for Hammas and Hezbollah and their opposition to the Middle East Peace Process, stop their destabilization efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and ring in a new era of U.S./Islamic Republic relations.

To express his views and those of his “Task Force” (sounds like an official body but it is not!), he has chosen an influential but Non Governmental Organization of New York Council of Foreign Relations to announce his views and strategies on a “new approach” with the Islamic Republic in Iran. His timing is also critical. It is an election year. His stance is also critical to note. It is basically the same as those views generally expressed by the presumed nominee of the Democrat Party, Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and completely opposite to the views of President Bush and those responsible for Middle East policy in his National Security Council.

Dr. Z. is wrong on all of his assumptions.

This is not the first time Dr. Z. is making wrong assumptions. The following is a quick factual audit of Dr. Z.’s political scorecard. He gets an “F” in foreign policy, and is asking for a “repeat”!!

In 1979, he stood on a hill in northern Afghanistan and told a group of turbaned Afghan warriors the Russians have no right to be here. That is your land down there. Go take it back. God is with you and we’ll back you up. And with that, the “Afghan Taliban” got their U.S. support. Dr. Z. assumed at that time that the Soviet Empire was there to stay. His “new approach” then, was to create a green belt around the Iron curtain.

Dr. Z. was wrong. The Iron Curtain went up, the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Empire was no more and that was the end of the Cold War. And the Taliban didn’t take the credit for ending the cold war. They did not turn into permanent U.S allies either. Instead, they became enemies of the United States and the Afghan people, harbored and aided terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and other thugs and terrorists who ran a boat filled with explosives onto the side of our naval ship, set our embassies ablaze in Africa, and ran airplanes into our World Trade Center and continue to kill our soldiers and civilians in Iraq.

Dr. Z’s political eyesight has not improved much since his days on a hill in Northern Afghanistan. He could not see then, that the Soviet Empire will be no more by 1989, exactly ten years later. He could not understand then and he certainly doesn’t seem to comprehend now that you strengthen your position by weakening your enemy’s powers and not the other way around!

He still cannot see ten years down the road. Dr. Z. continues to believe that you strengthen your position by strengthening your enemy’s position. An incomprehensible political theory that fails basic human logic expressed by a political philosopher whose ideas have proven wrong in a major way.

The Former Director of CIA, Robert Gates, states in his memoirs “From the Shadows”, that American Intelligence services began to aid the Afghan opposition to Kabul’s Soviet backed government of Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention on December 24, 1979. This fact was secretly guarded until 2001. According to Dr. Brzezinski, in his 1998 interview with a reporter from the French Weekly publication “Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998”, “the fact is that President Carter signed his first directive authorizing aid for opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan on July 3, 1979.” On that very day, Dr. Z. wrote a letter to President Carter commenting that in his opinion, this move will induce a Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan. What happened next were the destruction of Afghanistan as a nation and the rise of the Taliban. Dr. Z. was not a freelance consultant as his role is today. He was President Carter’s National Security Advisor. When the reporter from La Nouvel Observateur asked him: Do you regret having supported the Islamic Fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists? Dr. Z.’s answer was: What is most important to the World? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet Empire? Some stirred up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?

Dr. Z. really believes that the Taliban ended the cold war and he thinks nothing of the destroyed lives of the Afghan people.

Dr. Z. never talks about the Afghan people and the destruction of their country. Instead, he wants to take credit for President Nixon’s China policy, which was in part the work product of a different National Security Advisor, Dr. Henry Kissinger. He also wants to take credit for the liberation of the Central Europe and the end of the Cold war, which the world has solidly recorded as the legacy of the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan. A man whose ideas alone changed the world.

Some political ideas are considered naïve because they consider only part of the consequences of a particular political action. Dr. Z.’s political philosophy is simply dangerous. He conveniently compares our China policy to what we should do with the Islamic Republic and goes on to suggest that we should “engage” in talks with the tyrants and supporters of terrorism to “reduce” the threat posed by them.

Once again, he completely ignores the people of Iran and their vibrant movement to end the tyranny of a politically desperate and bankrupt regime of the Islamic Republic. Dr. Z.’s blurry political vision is mistaking Iran as a country with the Islamic Republic as a “failed regime” whose days are numbered. Iran is a country made of people of Iran. They plan to stay.

Dr. Z. is set to align himself once again with the wrong side. He is arguing for the merits of “engaging” those in “power” in Iran. He needs to go beyond the headline of “engagement” for the sake of “engagement”. He needs to define the “expected outcome” from engaging an “outgoing power”.

Dr. Z.’s resume reads that he is currently a writer, teacher and a consultant. A good consultant picks the right client. One who can pay in the long run. In a pure business sense, the People of Iran are much better client to keep.

Likewise, a good consultant must make his advice durable in order to stay credible or else one would get an “F” in business as well.!!

It is time now that we align ourselves with the freedom-seeking people of Iran and their interests. They match ours. They want freedom from terror. So do we.

The good news is: President Carter is no longer the President of the United States. Dr. Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeniski is no longer the United States National Security Advisor and The Council on Foreign Relations of New York and their “Task Force” on a “New Approach” does not set the Policy of the United States Government.

The President of the United States is George W. Bush. His National Security advisor is Dr. Condoleezza Rice and, in stark contrast with his opponent, The Democrat Senator from Massachusetts, President Bush stands with the People of Iran in their brave struggle to free themselves from the reign of terror and tyranny of the Islamic Republic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stefania



Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 4250
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another execution in Iran


Jul 20, 2004
SMCCDI (Information Service)


The Islamic republic regime executed publicly a third individual in less than two days. This new victim of the Mullahcracy's repressive policies was named "Moosa Noori" and was hanged in the central square of the western City of Dehloran.

It's to note that the Islamic regime has increased the number of executions since last March in an effort to put a stop on the growing opposition and increase of armed struggle. Several other individuals were hanged last week in several Iranian cities.
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:40 pm    Post subject: Analysis: Why the U.S. should engage Iran + complete CFR Reply with quote

Dears,

Please read the article below.

It is obvious that the American Democratic Party is yet looking after their illegitimate infant, meaning, Islamic Republic of Iran.

In all their argument, there is no mention of the enslaved murdered people of Iran. Their only concern is to gain their own advantages.

People & population of Iran & their destiny is not at all discussed or considered!

Is this the same United States of America, which its founders established?

Of course not, since at that time a Polish mad man was not permitted to come out so publicly with his own lunatic biased inhuman ideas & worst to be a permanent fixture of the establishment of the United States of America.

Especially for the sake of the future of our nationals, I hope that the present administration with its AXIS OF EVIL will prevail.

What is more surprising is participation of that dubious Iranian, called SHAOUL BAKHASH in that gathering?! Who is HE representing? Is a good question!

Regards,

H.H.


Article: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040719-060908-5711r

Analysis: Why the U.S. should engage Iran

By Martin Walker
UPI Editor
Published 7/19/2004 6:52 PM


WASHINGTON, July 19 (UPI) -- A plan for "selective engagement" with Iran is a win-win strategy for the United States, former White House national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former Central Intelligence Director Robert Gates agreed Monday.

"If the effort to start negotiations with Iran succeeds, that's a good start. If it fails, then by making the effort to engage with Iran along with our European partners, then we will be in a much better position to seek multilateral cooperation to bring sanctions against Iraq, or to set the stage for other options," Gates said.

"If we are not to try to do these things alone, then we have to go this multilateral route," he said. "By working with the Europeans, we get an opportunity to stiffen their spines, and then to be in a position to get them into multilateral action."

Gates added that by showing that it was prepared to be reasonable, and to cooperate with its European allies and with Russia in try to persuade Iran to bring its nuclear program back within the international inspections regime of the United Nations, the United States would be able to rally U.N. support for sanctions against Iran if required.

Speaking at the Council of Foreign Relations in Washington Monday, after launching their report, "Iran: Time for a new approach," Gates and Brzezinski argued that the current U.S. policy of "passive antagonism" had failed to change Iran's behavior and had helped spur Iran's nuclear weapons program, and the United States should try a new approach.

The report suggests that the United States and Iran have a common interest in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, and that by starting negotiations on these topics, the United States may be able to persuade Iran that it is not in Tehran's best interests to develop nuclear weapons. It proposes that in return, the United States should accept Iran's ambition to develop peaceful nuclear power, and help it obtain enriched uranium on the world market, under strict international safeguards, in order to prevent Iran from developing its own nuclear fuel-enrichment technology.

Brzezinski stressed that a military option to disrupt Iran's nuclear ambitions should be "a last resort, only to be used under extreme provocation or in the face of imminent danger."

"It would be much tougher to take out Iran's nuclear facilities than the Osirak operation of 1981 (when Israeli warplanes destroyed Iraq's French-built nuclear reactor in a pre-emptive strike)," Brzezinski said. "There are multiple sites, some of them deep underground, and they are close to cities, so it would be a very difficult operation which could involve large numbers of civilian casualties."

Brzezinski also suggested that it was worth considering matters from Tehran's viewpoint. The Tehran regime felt under threat because their country was surrounded by nuclear-armed neighbors -- Pakistan, India, Russia and Israel. They live in a highly unstable and oil-rich part of the world, in which the United States is now establishing a series of military bases through the "war on terrorism."

It was understandable that they were nervous. If the United States could begin reassuring them, by starting talks on regional security, then it might be possible to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear weapons program.

"A regional security dialogue is something the Iranians want," Brzezinski said.

He added that that the nuclear weapons program has been widely popular inside Iran, and attacking it would serve to unite the Iranian people against America, and provoke Iran into retaliating against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"A military strike would cost many Iranian lives in the short run, but many American lives later," Brzezinski said. "And any Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would be viewed in the region as an act in which the United States was complicit."

Iran was one of the three countries -- along with Iraq and North Korea -- that were characterized as "the axis of evil" by President Bush in his State of the Union address of 2002. And the prospects of engaging Iran come at a time when the 9/11 Commission is suggesting that as many as eight of the 9/11 hijackers traveled through Iran on their way to commit the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

"We have ample evidence of people being able to move back and forth across that terrain," CIA acting director John McLaughlin said Sunday. "However, I would stop there, and say we have no evidence that there is some sort of official sanction by the government of Iran for this activity. We have no evidence that there is some sort of official connection between Iran and 9/11."

The new CFR report, prepared by a special task force of the council that was chaired by Gates and Brzezinski, was condemned Monday by several Iranian exile groups and by organizations critical of the current Tehran regime as a return to appeasement.

"Appeasement in dealing with ideologically driven totalitarian regimes never works, more so in the case of Iran's theocratic regime which has displayed an increasingly belligerent behavior in recent months and reneged on its agreement with France, Britain and Germany to stop enriching uranium," said the U.S. Alliance for a Democratic Iran. "It did not work with Nazi Germany in 1938, and it will not work today."

"The latest evidence in the bi-partisan 9/11 commission report of links between Iran mullahs and al-Qaida network seriously brings into question the wisdom of considering Iran as a party to any meaningful 'dialogue,'" the USADI statement went on. "The mullahs ruling Iran are gratified to know that their brutal suppression of Iranians through arrest, torture and execution of dissidents; and stoning, hanging and flogging citizens in public is paying huge political dividends."

The USADI statement also took issue with the report's suggestion that the Iran regime is now "well-entrenched" and that U.S.-inspired efforts at regime change or democratization are unlikely to succeed. USADI also said that earlier efforts to engage Iran in the Clinton years had produced no meaningful political change.

---
Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International. All rights reserved.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redemption



Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 1158
Location: California

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, it was great to see on FOX NEWS and elsewhere analysts bashing Brezinksi and his policy of appeasement. They are right to bash it - we are all right. This type of policy is a self-serving, fanatical policy that makes no one safer. The only real policy is that of true regime - change and fully and unconditional support given to the Iranian people.

-
_________________
IRANIANS UNITE
PERSIA LIVES ON!!
FREE IRAN NOW!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stefania



Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 4250
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Appeasement of Iran, Fantasy of "Engagement"

July 16, 2004
US Alliance for a Democratic Iran



The sham parliamentary election in Iran last February turned a new page in the country’s political developments as the theocratic regime was working to cope with growing domestic and external challenges.

Before the election, the watchdog Guardian Council undertook a major political house-cleaning and disqualified the candidates from the pro-Khatami camp. The move was prompted by the clerics realizing that the old good cop-bad cop game was no longer tenable. The benefits of having a unipolar make-up in the ruling establishment far outweighed the political and diplomatic advantages of having a “reformist” wing.

The presence of former and current commanders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps in the new parliament has become highly visible. This, however, is not confined to the parliament or the state broadcasting. The GC commanders have also been playing a greater role in domestic suppression of political dissent as well as in advancing the mullahs’ sinister designs to undermine Iraq’s nascent democratization process. In addition, Supreme leader Ali Khamenei has put the GC in complete control of Tehran’s secret nuclear weapons program.

At first look, this may seem as a sign of increased confidence of the Iran rulers. In reality, however, it reflects desperate actions by a regime finding itself increasingly confronted by its citizens and the international community.

Domestically, anti-government protests, and strikes have spread beyond university campuses to many cities. Frightened by the specter of major anti-regime demonstrations on the anniversary of the July 1999 student-led uprising, the regime flooded the main streets of Tehran and other major cities with anti-riot security forces under the pretext of traffic control. It also arrested many student activists in the weeks prior to the anniversary. More recently, officials have unleashed a new campaign against women on the pretext of combating vice and “improper veiling”.

Irate because its allies in the Iraqi Governing Council were left out of the Iraqi Interim Government, Tehran has become more brazen in its meddling in Iraq. Iraqi Foreign Minister’s warning to the clerics to stay out of Iraq’s underscored this point.

The mullahs’ buy-time-and-dodge-the-bullet tactic in dealing with the IAEA is now fully exposed as even their EU backers are realizing what a big lie this so-called cooperation was. Result: a growing– albeit inadequate - determination to stop Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program.

Recruiting suicide bombers for dispatch to Iraq, providing ideological fuel for terrorist attacks against the West, seizing British navy personnel and boats, and reneging on last autumn’s agreement with the IAEA to stop enriching uranium, are just a few examples of the increasing role played by Revolutionary Guards.

This new intransigence at home and abroad is dictated by the regime’s survival instincts. The reformist vs. hardliner trickery has run its course.

The world community has also arrived at a historic crossroad: to continue to appease the mullahs or to side with Iranian people and their struggle to establish an Iran free of torture, terror, fundamentalism and weapons of mass destruction.

As the voices of appeasement – disguised under “engagement” or a “grand bargain” - are trying to revive this dead horse, they must remember that the Iran under the mullahs is where it is today not because no one has tried mollifying it. This policy has never worked in dealing with ideologically-driven totalitarian regimes, more so in the case of a religious fascism such as the one ruling Iran.

The advocates of “engagement” have been sounding the drumbeats of creating an “opening” with Tehran’s tyrants for more than two decades. Of course, so far, they have nothing to show for, except for humiliation of successive U.S. administrations and bolstering a loathed and isolated regime in Iran.

The choice made at this crucial juncture, no doubt, will have strategic reverberations in Iran, the Middle East and the Western world for decades to come. We have a chance to be on the right side of history by supporting Iran’s anti-fundamentalist, democratic opposition movement, which is the only viable vehicle for change in that country
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group