[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 

Who Killed the Bush Doctrine?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
 
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
Liberty Now !



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pentagon Report on Iran:

"Can the United States live with a nuclear-armed Iran? Despite its rhetoric, it may have no choice," concluded the report by Judith Yaphe and Air Force Col. Charles Lutes, which was released on Thursday.

The potential for rolling back Iran's program, once it produces a nuclear weapon, "is lower than preventing it in the first place and the costs of rollback may be higher than the costs of deterring and containing a nuclear Iran," they said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051013/wl_nm/iran_usa_report_dc_1
_________________
Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="blank"]
espandyar wrote:


blank / Espandyar: Have you heard the Persian expression: making a mountain out of a straw (Az kaah khoohi sakhti).


blank jan, there is another expression which ends in: so they will settle for fever! (az marg (?) mitarsanand ta be tab rezayat dahad) something like this.

inha midanand ke Iranian az tajzieh bishtar az hamle mooshaki mitarsand. in ra migooyand ke be aan yeki rezayat dahim. va bar aks! be federalism mitarsanand ta hamle atomi ra be jaan bekharim!
_________________
Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Liberty, the Pentagon encorages dissenting ideas in study of all options, even as in far left field as the one in the article posted.

Doesn't mean it is policy just because a study and paper are conducted and written. There are many points of debate, this one just happened to get press.

I would venture to guess that the idea of living with a nuclear armed IRI is held by a vast minority within the US government.

As evidenced by many other statements of senior officials.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think this article actually wants to suggest that let's just live with it. it is emphasizing how critical it is not to let IRI get there in the first place. and that otherwise the cost maybe higher than the president or the future one, would want to take on. and it's true.

The potential for rolling back Iran's program, once it produces a nuclear weapon, "is lower than preventing it in the first place and the costs of rollback may be higher than the costs of deterring and containing a nuclear Iran," they said.

with this comes the prolongation plans which we are seeing now, and rollback meanning ...(?) anyhow, and the importance of regime change comes to mind. although most likely IRI doen'st want the bomb to attack anywhere, but to use it as negociation tool. as if the EU hadn't already given it the legitimacy it needs! but if U.S could lie as much as the IRI itself, there would be easier ways to convince them that they can actually stay in power, just do some minor changes! problem is, the next administration will then forget all about regime change plans! many are ready to live with it as you've mentioned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

about khouzestan. a word with regime thugs, if they're here!
we know the ayatollahs would give away any part of Iran just to prolong their regime! but once the brits have the oil, they wouldn't be needing you cavemen. ok? so don't go sell our land to the highest bit. damn it.

_________________
Paayande Iran


Last edited by Liberty Now ! on Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:35 am; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oh my God! I've just realized... that's just it. isn't it?

the brits have agreed that IRI goes, only if they get khouzestan!



hamino kam dashtim.
_________________
Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 2:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

European Parliament censures Iran nuclear, human rights violations

Fri. 14 Oct 2005



Iran Focus

London, Oct. 14 – The European Parliament overwhelmingly voted to condemn Iran on Thursday for both its nuclear non-compliance and widespread human rights violations.

Some 499 Euro-MPs voted in favour of the resolution urging Iran to “fully cooperate” with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations nuclear watchdog, adding further that Tehran should give international inspectors access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual-use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and development sites.

The EP gave its full support to the resolution adopted on 24 September 2005 by the IAEA Board of Governors, criticising Iran for non-compliance with the IAEA's Statute and underlining the resulting absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes.

It called on Iran to “re-establish full and sustained suspension of all aspects of its uranium enrichment activities including through tests or production at the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan and to permit the IAEA Director General to reinstate the seals that have been removed at that facility”.

On Iran’s state of human rights, the European Parliament strongly condemned “death sentences passed against and execution of juvenile offenders and minors, which in numerous cases represent a punishment for sexual acts and sexual orientation not considered crimes on the basis of international legal standards”.

It also condemned the treatment of minorities in Iranian Kurdistan and Arab-dominated Khuzestan province.

The European Parliament highlighted and condemned “the arrests and imprisonment of cyberjournalists and webloggers and the parallel censorship of several online publications, weblogs and internet sites as well as the recent arbitrary arrests of journalists and severe restriction of the media in Iran”.

The resolution also called on the Council of Ministers to review the European Union's list of terrorist organisations, with a number of Euro-MPs speaking out during the debate prior to the vote against the terror-tag placed on the main Iranian opposition group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK).

“The European Parliament calls on the Council to examine the way in which Parliament may become involved in the regular updating of Council Common Position No 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, taking into account developments from 2001 onwards", the final resolution stated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:06 am    Post subject: Time For A Clear Iran Policy Reply with quote

Quote:

Time For A Clear Iran Policy

November 04, 2005
United Press International
Leigh Baldwin

http://www.spacewar.com/news/iran-05zzzzzo.html

Washington -- The United States is at a crossroads over Iran. Regime change or nuclear security, action or negotiation; American strategy for countering Iranian development of nuclear weapons has long been hampered by a confusion of objectives. The time has come to formulate a clear plan to stop an Iranian bomb from becoming a reality.

Such, at least, was the consensus among experts who gathered at Washington's Brookings Institution Wednesday. The reality, however, is that America's Iran policy faces not so much a crossroads as a spaghetti junction.

There is no simple choice between compromise and confrontation. As long as the oil price remains high -- and it shows every sign of doing so -- economic carrots will have little effect. On the other hand, while Iraq remains in disarray, the big stick of invasion and enforced regime change remains unviable.

Given the straitened circumstances, United States policy makers might be forgiven for their lack of invention. After all, this is a game in which Iran holds all the cards: Economic solidity; stable government; at least temporary security from American invasion; Russian and Chinese friends on the United Nations Security Council and potent foreign policy levers in the form of the Iraqi Shiites, Palestinian terror groups and the Lebanese Hezbollah. But while there is no clear policy line to appeal to the "you're either with us or against us" mentality of the Bush administration, there is plenty the United States can do to improve its position.

The first task must be to establish a more coherent relationship with the European Union. Considering the recent trans-Atlantic tiffs over Iraq and arms sales to China, relations over Iran have been remarkably cordial. Policy co-ordination has also shown some success -- the practical freezing of the Iranian nuclear program between 2003 and the summer of 2005. The current arrangement has now reached the natural limit of its effectiveness, however.

"Previously, we have had a division of labor, where Europe provided the carrots and America the sticks," says Philip Gordon, a senior fellow at Brookings. "The United States must be willing to provide some carrots and Europe must be willing to provide some sticks."

The long relied-upon good cop-bad cop routine leaves the Europeans able to offer only limited security to Iran as long as America remains hostile. Likewise, European incentives are devalued by a lack of American support.

Secondly, the United States must arrive at a clear objective for its Iran policy. At the moment, there exists a strategic fudge, which aims simultaneously at Iranian co-operation over nuclear development and, in the long term, regime change. These aims are, more often than not, contradictory. A regime that fears invasion will be inclined to race to build a bomb, not to negotiate.

But abandoning regime change as an objective need not mean taking the military option off the table. Rather, it means convincing the Iranians and the international community as a whole that the military option derives only from the Iranian nuclear threat and not from an American desire to remold Iran in its own image.

Such an assurance would not only render negotiations more productive; it would facilitate the imposition of greater penalties for Iranian non-compliance: Sanctions cannot be applied against Iran without international co-operation. Were the United States to make clear that its Iran policy was focused entirely on nuclear security and not greater involvement in the regime politics of the Middle East, the big hitters on the Security Council would become immediately more open to supporting sanctions.

Sanctions, if applied, must be cautious and selective. "What sticks should we use?" says Charles Grant, who heads the Centre for European reform, a London-based think tank "Most people in Europe believe that economic sanctions don't work."

Grant advocates carefully targeted sanctions, such as restricting foreign travel for Iranian officials. Blanket measures affecting the entire population could reinforce Iranian nationalism and lead to greater intransigence, he says, citing Burma, Cuba and Iraq. Grant believes the United States and Europe can draw on their more productive use of limited sanctions against Serbia and South Africa to pressure the Iranian regime.

A third element of United States policy must be to search for some degree of common ground with the Iranians. This might not be as hard as it seems. "I'm not sure that the nuclear issue offers the best point of entry for U.S.-Iranian relations," says James Dobbins, Director of the Rand Corporation's International Security and Defense Policy Center.

"The bright point in U.S.-Iranian relations is the stabilization of Iraq, where we have a common interest. We might then be able to move on to other issues," he said, adding that Iranian officials were surprisingly helpful in rebuilding Afghanistan.

Lastly, the United States must work more closely with Russia and China if any strategy of coercion is to be effective. "If you couldn't get sanctions on North Korea, which doesn't have a friend in the world and produces nothing of value, how are you going to get sanctions against Iran?" says Dobbins.

Sanctions against Iran are achievable. But they will become feasible only through engagement with Russia and China over a range of issues, notably United States policy on energy, security and democratization in Central Asia. This is by no means impossible. While it would be rash to predict a new era of America multilateralism, there is "a trend towards greater co-operation with allies and negotiation," says Volker Perthes, director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs

Ultimately, Iranians will decide for themselves whether to pursue nuclear weapons. If they become determined to build a bomb, military action might be the only choice. But a more coherent American policy could influence the decision, and would certainly postpone it.


The only correct policy is Islamist regime change policy. It seems the American Scholars are not planning to open their eyes to the reality of Islamist regime.

American Policy Makers Can not Connect Dots:
Islamist Clerical Regime Opens Garrison to Recruit Suicide Bombers Against Freedom-Loving People Of World

DOT 1: "One of our garrison's aims is to spot martyrdom-seeking individuals in society and then recruit and organise them, so that, God willing, at the right moment when the Commander-in-Chief of the country's armed forces [Ayatollah Khamenei] gives the order, they would be able to enter the scene and carry out their missions", Jaafari said.
DOT 2: Islamist Regime weekly advertises "application form" for suicide operations.
DOT 3: This short clip is first-hand evidence that the Terrorist Islamic Republic of Iran has trained and mobilized some 40,000 human bombs to target the U.S. and Israel or anyone who is a threat to their ideology.
DOT 4: IOTM Video Clip - "I have had this honor to attack your liberalism, attack your civil society, attack your human rights, today I have this honor, I must say that paganism, paganism front, God enemies front, and Muslims enemies front, are they not but paganism front? If anything can be done to succumb this front to terror and fear and panic, such terror is sacred. Go; write tomorrow that Abbasi is the theorist for violence, the theorist for sacred terrorism". Question For UN and G8: Aren't these enough connected dots for actions to stop Islamist Clerical Madness by helping 70 million Iranian People to remove this regime NOW?

DOTS .............................................

The Islamist Regime Of Fear Is Far Weaker Than Anyone Imagine Recruiting Suicide Bombers Against Freedom-Loving People Of Iran and World is the sign of weakness not strength, they know that 70 million people are against them and waiting for correct time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

The Brookings institute, is a bastion of liberal thumb twiddling....You could probably grasp a really clear view of US "Iran policy" from what I've posted to date on this forum. Considering what I've written of late, you may glean a clue or two out of the following:



Macarena.

Q Like the song.

THE PRESIDENT: Si. Where do you live, Macarena?

Q I live here.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, good. Where are you from?

Q From Spain, but I ran away from that song 15 years ago. (Laughter.) It's following me all over the world.

You have talked about the importance of having good relationships within the neighborhood, and yet there seem to be worrying signs for the U.S. and Latin America. The polls trend to growing anti-Americanism feeling in the region; the Secretary General in the OAS is not the man you backed at the beginning; either American summit that took place recently finished with a declaration that was not fully to the taste of the United States. Is the United States at risk of losing its influence in Latin America?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, one reason why we have summits such as this is to remind people that we want to be good neighbors and good friends. And we share a lot of values, common values together. I mean, I'm going to a country, Argentina, that's a proud democracy. I'm going to a country, Brazil, which is -- which has had a peaceful election, which was a very important step. I'm going to Panama, which wasn't always a democracy and now is a flourishing democracy.

And it's a chance to say to people in the neighborhood, we share values: rule of law, justice, human rights, human dignity, the right for women to participate equally in society. These are very powerful messages. I will come and say to the people, the leadership, and whoever is listening down there, that our markets are open, so long as you open your markets. In other words, let's have open markets. The United States has got a strong economy, and it makes sense for countries to want to trade with us. And we want to trade with them.

And so the message is one of jobs and democracy and honesty and open government. Look, I understand not everybody agrees with the decisions I've made, but that's not unique to Central or South America. Truth of the matter is, there's people who disagree with the decisions I've made all over the world. And I understand that. But that's what happens when you make decisions.

And so I feel like relations are good, I think just so long as America never abandons her principles, that are universal in application, that this country will be fine. And listen, politicians come and go, but what doesn't change is the importance of standing on principle, and working with our friends in Central and South America that agree with the same principles.

As I repeat, I'm going to three countries that stand squarely on the principles. We may not agree on every issue. I understand that. And I don't expect people down there to -- first of all, I don't think good relations necessarily mean somebody has to agree with America a hundred percent of the time. That's not the definition of good relations. Good relations is mutual respect and a desire to work together to solve common problems; and most importantly, though, adherence to common values. I keep saying that.

Democracy is not an American value, it's a universal value. Human rights and human dignity is not uniquely American, it's important. It's important in Argentina as the history of your country has shown. It's very important in Brazil. It's been equally important in Panama, the notion of human rights and human dignity. There was a period of time in your country just like there was a period of time in my country where there wasn't a great adherence to human rights universally.

And so, the concept of democracy, as working through these issues, sharing experiences, and working together to continue the march of decency and freedom, is a very important part of this agenda.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Page 8 of 8

 
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