[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 

NEVER FORGET Handshakes With Terror Master
Goto page Previous  1, 2
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

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

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remarks at the 60th United Nations General Assembly

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
United Nations Headquarters
New York, New York
September 17, 2005

(10:45 a.m. EDT)

SECRETARY RICE: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates,
ladies and gentlemen:

On behalf of President Bush, and all of the American people, welcome to New
York City.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, my fellow citizens have experienced the
compassion of the United Nations.

I want to thank Secretary General Annan for mobilizing the support of this

And I want to thank the representatives of 126 countries that have offered
assistance in our relief efforts.

The United States will never forget your generosity in our time of need.

Fellow delegates: In moments of tumultuous historical change, leaders must
become architects of a better world.

We must survey the new international landscape, lay firm foundations of moral
principle and build institutions that reflect our unique moment in history. It
is these institutions that enable citizens of conviction to lead us ever closer
to the ideals of justice that stir every soul -- the universal desire for
security, and prosperity, and liberty, and dignity.

Sixty years ago was just such a time of transformation. After one of the
greatest cataclysms in world history, the United States joined with visionary
builders from over 50 countries to create the United Nations.

We placed the enduring principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms at
the foundation of the UN Charter. And we built an institution that has helped
to support a peaceful world order for six decades.

Today, however, with the end of the Cold War, and the rise of globalization,
and the emergence of new threats, the very terrain of international politics
has shifted beneath our feet.

In this new world, we must again embrace the challenge of building for the

Fellow members of the General Assembly: The time to reform the United Nations
is now. And we must seize this opportunity together.

Chapter 1, Article 1, of the UN Charter proclaims the four "purposes of the
United Nations" -- great aspirations that have stood the test of time.

But consider what different forms they take today -- in 2005 -- as opposed to
1945, when they were first declared.

The first purpose of the United Nations is to help "maintain international
peace and security."

In 1945, the most serious threats to peace and security emerged between states
and were largely defined by their borders.

Today, however, the greatest threats we face emerge within states and melt
through their borders -- transnational threats like terrorism, and weapons
proliferation, pandemic disease and trafficking in human beings.

The second purpose of this institution -- as written in the UN Charter -- is
"to develop friendly relations among nations, based on equal rights and
self-determination of all peoples."

In 1945, a life of liberty and dignity was more an aspiration than a reality
for a majority of the world's people.

Today, however, more nations than ever have enshrined the principles of
democracy and human rights -- a true moral triumph that will only be complete
when all individuals are secure in their basic freedoms.

The third purpose of the United Nations is "to achieve international
cooperation in solving international problems."

In 1945, the fear was that strong, aggressive states -- eager and able to
expand their frontiers with force -- would be the primary cause of
international problems.

Today, however, it is clear that weak and poorly governed states -- unwilling
or incapable of ruling their countries with justice -- are the principal source
of global crises -- from civil war and genocide, to extreme poverty and
humanitarian disaster.

The final purpose of the United Nations -- as the Charter states -- is "to be a
center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of common

In 1945, the world's leaders joined together to build an institutional
partnership that could address the shared challenges of their time.

Today, faced with the realities of a new world, we must transform the United
Nations to meet the shared challenges of our time.

The members of this body must work together to strengthen security in a world
threatened by stateless extremists.

Today, I call on the nations of the world to ratify the Comprehensive
Convention on Terrorism.

No cause, no movement, and no grievance can justify the intentional killing of
innocent civilians and non-combatants.

This is unacceptable by any moral standard.

It is time for every member of the United Nations to outlaw acts of
international terrorism.

We must also work together to promote prosperity and development in a world of
great potential.

The United States is committed to the Millennium Development Goals.

And at Monterrey, three years ago, all nations agreed that development must be
a two-way street.

Donor countries have a responsibility to increase their assistance to
developing nations. And developing nations have a responsibility to govern
justly, to advance economic liberty, and to invest in their people.

The Monterrey Consensus is working.

Now is not the time to revert to old, failed thinking about development.

Countries representing three-quarters of the developing world's population are
on a pace to meet the targets of the Millennium Declaration by 2015.

And as President Bush said on Wednesday, the United States is prepared to take
new action to accelerate this progress: We will eliminate all tariffs and
subsidies that distort free trade -- as other nations do the same.

Members of the United Nations must work together as well to support democracy
in a world of expanding liberty. To advance this common purpose, in 2004,
President Bush proposed the creation of a Democracy Fund. With the broad
support of this body, we have made that a reality.

The Fund is now receiving donations -- in cash and in kind -- from countries
both large and small, who wish to help other nations lay the foundations of

Showing its leadership as the world's largest democracy, India made the
generous opening pledge of $10 million.

Now to be sure, when speaking about democracy, the United States has reason for

After all, it was only in my lifetime that America guaranteed the right to vote
for all its citizens.

Obviously, the path to democracy is long, and imperfect, and different for
every nation.

But the principles of democracy are universal -- as is the desire for them. And
the United Nations must support every country that embraces the challenge of
self-government. In Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, in the Palestinian territories
and throughout the world, peoples who want to build democracy deserve our help.

The many goals we share are great indeed. And the United Nations has a major
role to play in their achievement.

But for this institution to become an engine of change in the 21st century, it
must now change itself.

The United Nations must launch a lasting revolution of reform.

The UN Summit Declaration, which every head of state endorsed this week,
expresses a global consensus that reform is imperative. And I want to thank
former General Assembly President Ping for his tireless hard work.

Our challenge now -- under President Eliasson's leadership -- is to enact the
vital reforms that will make the United Nations more accountable to its
members, more suited to new challenges and more faithful to its founding

The United States welcomes the commitment of all leaders to establish a new
Peace-Building Commission. Now, we must embrace the difficult task of
implementing that vision.

A Peace-Building Commission should plan for post-conflict missions before
crises erupt.

And it must help to coordinate reconstruction efforts after the fighting stops.

In a world threatened by civil strife, the United Nations needs to be better
prepared to help countries rebuild in the aftermath of conflict.

We are also pleased that the world's leaders recognized the importance of
establishing a new Human Rights Council.

But it will take a lot of hard work in the coming months to realize this goal.

The Human Rights Council must have fewer members, less politics, and more
credibility. And it should never -- never -- empower brutal dictatorships to
sit in judgment of responsible democracies.

The Human Rights Council must have the moral authority to condemn all violators
of human rights -- even those that sit among us in this hall.

Finally, we welcome the promise of the world's leaders to make the United
Nations a more effective -- and more principled -- institution.

As President Bush said on Wednesday, "The United Nations must stand for
integrity, and live by the high standards it sets for others."

For the United Nations to champion democracy more legitimately, we must
increase the transparency and accountability of this institution.

For the United Nations to promote prosperity more credibly, tougher ethics
rules and greater internal oversight are needed to ensure the highest
professional standards.

And to make the United Nations relevant to the challenges of today, the purpose
and performance of all UN programs must be reviewed thoroughly, consistently,
and comprehensively.

Our fellow citizens deserve a United Nations that commands their respect -- and
is worthy of their hard-earned tax dollars.

In a democracy, leaders must be able to justify that their people's money is
indeed being well spent.

Real progress on these fundamental reforms will prove that the United Nations
can address greater issues of change -- in particular, the reform of the
Security Council.

We want this important body to reflect the world as it is in 2005 -- not as it
was in 1945.

The United States is open to expanding the Security Council.

We have long supported a permanent seat for Japan. And we believe that
developing countries deserve greater representation on this body.

All of this would make for a more effective Security Council -- and the
Security Council must be effective.

It must be able to deal with great challenges like terrorism and nuclear
proliferation, especially when it faces real threats and when countries like
Iran threaten the effectiveness of the global non-proliferation regime.

When diplomacy has been exhausted, the Security Council must become involved.

Questions about Iran's nuclear activities remain unanswered, despite repeated
efforts by the IAEA.

And after agreeing to negotiate with Europe, Iran has unilaterally walked away
from the talks and restarted its nuclear programs.

Iran should return to the negotiations with the EU-3 and abandon forever its
plans for a nuclear weapons capability.

My friend, the experience of recent years has reinforced the universal truth
that international institutions are only as strong, and effective, and relevant
as their members choose to make them.

The United Nations is no different.

The United States believes in a United Nations that is strong and effective.

And we have ambitious hopes for its future.

So in this year, as the United Nations marks its 60th anniversary, let us
recommit ourselves to principled action.

Let us embrace the same spirit of creation that moved the builders and leaders
of 1945.

And let us reform this great institution to meet the challenges of a new era.

Thank you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:11 pm    Post subject: Why president Bush can not arrest Ahmadinejad in USA? Reply with quote


Former Hostages ID Ahmadinejad
NewsMax.com Wires
Saturday, Sept. 17, 2005
by Kenneth R. Timmerman

NEW YORK - A group of former hostages from the U.S. embassy in Tehran reaffirmed today there was "no doubt" that the lead interrogator during their ordeal was the current president of Iran.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has denied he personally took part in the hostage-taking, addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York today for five minutes, despite a finding by the U.S. Department of State that he was a "terrorist" and was ineligible for a visa..

Before he spoke, the former hostages and their supporters held a vigil in front of the Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran at 3rd avenue and 40th street.

"For twenty-six years, the government of Iran has not been held accountable for their violation of international law," said Kevin Hermening, who at 21 was a freshly-arrived Marine guard at the Embassy and the youngest hostage. "Despite our political differences as individuals, we all agree as a group that it is time to seek remedy. Ahmadinejad and his government need to be treated as a pariah."

Barry Rosen, now a professor at Columbia University, agreed. "We have lived with this for the rest of our lives," he said. "We were treated like animals."

He said the group of former hostages had resolved to talk anew about their ordeal in order to put a human face on victims of torture. "We are talking about the lives of millions of human beings who are living in pain on a daily basis."

Hermening identified Ahmadinejad as the lead interrogator for the military and security personnel at the embassy. "He was not an English speaker, but directed the interrogations. He told [the interpreters] what to ask. He ordered me to open safes," Hermening said.

He said he had spoken to other security officers at the embassy, including Tom Ahern and Colonel Charles Scott, and that all agreed there was "no doubt" the lead interrogator was Ahmadinejad.

Hermening recounted the story of Colonel David Roeder, who has spoken to reporters but was unable to travel to New York. "Colonel Roeder's interrogator was the current president of Iran. He told Rader, 'we know where you live. We know that you have a handicapped child. We know what time he gets picked up for school. We know where. If you don't answer our questions as we like, we are going to chop off his fingers and his toes and send them one by one to your wife in a box.'"

Iranian human rights activist Dr. Manoucher Ganji helped convince Hermening, Scott, and fellow hostage William Daughterty to speak to National Iranian TV (NITV), which broadcasts into Iran from Los Angeles. In separate interviews this summer, each described his encounter with the current Iranian president while being held hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

Personally Conducted

Roeder said that out of his 51 interrogations, Ahmadinejad personally had conducted one-third of them.

The former hostages said they had recognized Ahmadinejad even before photographs of the hostage-takers resurfaced in U.S. newspapers last June, at the time of the first-round of the Iranian presidential elections. "We knew the man from the movement of his eyes, his lips. We knew him," Hermening said.

Before the NITV interviews, the U.S. Department of State had not sought out the former hostages, although they knew that Ahmadinejad would be applying to travel to the United States to address the UN General Assembly this week.

"After their statements to an international television audience, the State Department couldn't do anything else but recognize him as a terrorist," Ganji said.

Ganji also presented to reporters the former head of a taxi company in Tehran, who said he was personally assaulted and tortured by Ahmadinejad in 1981.

Joseph Pirayoff's company was based in the Hotel Intercontinental in Tehran and provided long-term rentals to U.S. defense contractors, in addition to taxi services.

During the 1979 revolution, he received a phone call from a U.S. military attaché at the embassy, asking him to secretly transport family members of U.S. diplomats to evacuation flights at the Tehran airport at night.

Nearly two years later, Pirayoff said Ahmadinejad and 25 revolutionary guardsmen stormed his apartment looking for president Abolhassan Banisadr, who was ousted by Ayatollah Khomeini in a coup in June 1981. "I told them I didn't know Banisadr," he said. Ahmadinejad hit him so hard in the face he broke his jaw.

Ganji himself was “on an Iranian government hit list for eighteen years” while organizing opposition to the regime from Paris, he said.

Some of the former hostages were so upset that the State Department had failed to contact them to confirm the reports about Ahmadinejad that they wrote to Congress last week.

In a letter addressed to the chairman and ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, Rosen, Doughterty, Roeder, and Paul Lewis recounted the latest chapter of their saga.

"To our consternation, the administration waited six weeks [after the election of Ahmadinejad] before contacting ajy former hostages and then only to arrange future appointment times for interviews. The State Department began conducting the very first debriefings on Wednesday, 10 August. Then - incredibly - the very next day, with the debriefing process scarcely begun. the government leaked to the media a CIA report that the investigation had already been concluded that our stated concerns were a case of mistaken identity."

Initial media reports with the leaked CIA report appeared on Friday, August 12, just two days after the first debriefings of former hostages were held. The former hostages have worked with Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R, Fla), who has introduced legislation that would provide payment to the former hostages and their families.

The new bill, HR 3358, would abrogate the Jan. 19, 1981 Algiers Accords that prohibited U.S. persons from suing the government of Iran. The Algiers accords required the United States to release frozen Iranian government assets in exchange for the hostages, and sheltered the Iranian government from lawsuit.

More than twenty-four years after their release, the ordeal the hostages underwent remains with them.

Barry Rosen still recalls with shame signing a "confession" after his captors threatened to kill him. "I was thinking of my two young children," he recalled.

Kevin Hermening recalls the day his captors threatened to execute him, holding him blindfolded and handcuffed while they shouted execution commands and poked him repeatedly in the back with automatic rifles. "It was the most frightening experience of my life," he said.

Kenneth R. Timmerman
President, Middle East Data Project, Inc.
Author: Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran
Tel: 301-946-2918
Reply to: timmerman.road@verizon.net
Website: www.KenTimmerman.com


If Bush Admin is serious regarding the War on Terror can arrest Ahmadinejad and should not wait for UN actions. Presidet Reagon arrested Noriga and he is in prison now why president Bush can not arrest Ahmadinejad in US?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

As you know Noriega was detained after the US invaded Panama, in a military "regime change" operation.

He had previously be indited under US law...in monkey boy's case the results of the investigation warrented Homeland Security's refusal of visa..
...and the investigation is however incomplete... Thus no inditement as yet.

As I said this is not over...in fact it has barely begun.

Personally, I wish it were as cut and dried as your comparison would seem on the surface, but there's a whole lot going on that I don't think is quite clear yet to the Iranian oposition....and it has nothing to do with appeasment in any form.

I've just read monkey boy's speech given today...and truly he's put his head in the noose.
I've rarely seen quite an example of blatent hypocracy and bald faced lies before in my life.

And to answer the basic question of why he was allowed to speak at all....beyond head of state status....it was so every member of the international community could witness this hypocracy for itself...in person.

I would say this about detainment....since I believe it was I who first voiced the possibility on this forum....he's still in the US first of all....and second...I anticipated that if it were done it would be after he spoke, simply because to do so before would appear to have political connotation in preventing freedom of speech...understand?

Now, I doubt if it will be in the confines of the UN grounds if so...simply because there are host nation issues involved in this...however, once notice is given to the UN, (a copy of warrant issued by the Justice Dept.) then he may be picked up by US , without involving UN personel.

All I can say is that this has never been done before, and even though I voiced it as a possibility...I do not expect anything.

The ramifications would be profound, and present a host of other issues and problems associated by such action....both as host nation, and in regards to any ongoing diplomatic efforts.

Not to mention the fact that the IRI would accuse the US of "kidnapping", and regard it as an act of war.

But I think if logic is used, one may rightly weigh the pro's and con's, as I'm sure the US gov has.

But, I don't know what may happen with this...as I said, he's still "in country."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

Found this off the UN site, might put more detail into how things transpired....


The Secretary-General met Thursday afternoon with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to discuss issues of mutual concern, including Iraq and other regional matters, as well as the nuclear issue.

Following that meeting, the Secretary-General used his good offices to invite the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom (known as the E-3), as well as the European Union’s High Representative, Javier Solana, to join them.

There were cordial discussions on the need to continue the negotiations on the nuclear issue in search of a mutually agreed solution. In that context, President Ahmadinejad reaffirmed his intention to put forward new proposals during his speech to the General Assembly on Saturday.


One of the precepts of the UN founding was to foster good relations and dialoge among nations, so just as Annan is the"meet and greet guy", he's also bound by the charter to attempt mediation where possible.

As I've noted you've (or someone) has altered the topic title, I don't think it would be out of line for me to remind folks to never forget why the UN was founded in the first place....for as diplomacy never fails to fail until it succeeds....when it has exausted possibilities and remains a failure...then serious consequences arise from the failure to resolve outstanding issues.

As distressing as it may be to you, it would be far more distressing if diplomacy wasn't persued to the fullest.

Though after today, I give it less than a 2% chance of succeeding...with or without Sec. Council referral.

Options presented By SMCCDI to boot the IRI out of the UN as a "consequence" of failed diplomacy may bring the IRI to it's senses (if not it's knees, along with all the other suggestions in coordination), and failing that....then what?

I mean, it's like the IRI and monkey boy are beggin' for someone to push a button...and they should be damned careful what they wish for.

They may get it. Much to the detriment of the Iranian people.

In the meantime, a lot of patience, and thought is going into this by a lot of folks to prevent this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !

Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyrus, I totally agree with you on that.

they should arrest the guy.

they make it seem like they are afraid of IRI,

this whole trip sends the wrong kind of message to terrorists worldwide.

something should happen, otherwise, they will get more aggressive on Americans everywhere.

it's like giving all terrorists a free pass to hit on any American around the world. they probably think doing so, they could even get a trip to NYC. with security escorts and Hyat hotel and all!

by now all terrorists must think if they attack Americans they all become world class celebrities.

no wonder why they mainly target Americans!

now I know.
Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny thing about the photos Cyrus, you'd think the IRI's state run news agencies would be parading these around as much as possible....but not one photo was published from what I've read about it...

Another thing that may seem strange on the surface, but isn't if you think in terms of "reverse Psycology" is the fact when I said Antar had put his head in a noose, I think you'll see just how effectively he brought the entire world body of the UN to one common conclusion, that not only was he lying through his teeth, but that his speech on Saturday has solidified opinion and the will of nations to bring Iran before the Sec. Council.

Syria's Assad never showed...cancelling a "charm offensive" that was reportedly planned....which wouldn't have been effective anyway...but Assad the terrorist was just a bit too smart to take the bait.

Monkey boy on the other hand, delivered the goods, just as anticipated.

Thing about ants is not only are they deaf and can't listen to reason, but they DO react to stimuli....in predictable ways.

Antar was like a "groupie" getting a back stage pass, and I believe his "kissing up" to folks like Putin, Annan and embarrasing the IRI in general in a very unsuccessful stage performance....like "amature night" at the local theater isn't going over very well in Tehran at the moment.

The Ayattolla is probably one pissed off preacher right about now, considering the effect on IRI position....which now is much weaker than before....all those press reports of western "confusion" got the boy so hyped up and overconfident, that he blew the one chance he was given to consolidate support...or resolve the issue without Sec Council involvement.....but that's ego for you....

Wonder if he'll figure out that he was played like a violin.

Live and learn....the hard way..(chuckle).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 1455
Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, you have to wonder what Khamenei was thinking when he ordered the RG's to forge all those ballots to put this bloody handed buffoon into this visible position. Perhaps Khamenei was afraid of that Rafsanjani or any of the reformers could endanger his own position if they had even the limited powers of the Presidency (or the international prestige that goes with being an 'elected' president, enough to say, call for international intervention in a power struggle with Khamenei and get some calls back).

Like it or not, he selected this assassin, executioner, terrorist, kidnapper to be the public face of the regime, which I feel can only accelerate the pace of events for better or for worse.
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:02 pm    Post subject: The Failure of Containment Reply with quote

The Failure of Containment

Monday, September 19, 2005
Weekly Standard
Amir Taheri

Source: http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/18365

The Board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is scheduled this week to decide whether to refer Iran to the United Nations' Security Council for alleged violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran is making a last-minute effort to stall the decision, but it is already clear that the European strategy--carried out by Britain, France, and Germany--for dealing with Iran's clandestine quest for nuclear weapons has failed.

The trio of E.U. nations had based their policy on three assumptions. The first was that Tehran was playing the nuclear issue merely for short-term political gains, to attract attention and win "respect." But we now know that the decision to develop nuclear weapons' "surge capacity" was made at least a decade ago as part of a new National Defense Doctrine, which has been described by "The Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei as "sacrosanct."

The second assumption was that last June's presidential election would sweep Hashemi Rafsanjani, a wheeler-dealer mullah with business connections in all three European countries, to power. As president, Rafsanjani was supposed to abandon Iran's nuclear project in exchange for "an honorable place" at the global high table plus business deals for his clan. Things, however, went differently. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who did win the presidency, has nothing but contempt for Britain, France, and Germany. One of Ahmadinejad's advisers, a certain Muhammad-Javad Larijani, has described the trio as "among the most savage nations on earth."

The third assumption of the European trio was that the Islamic Republic would tremble at the prospect of referral to the Security Council. This, too, has proved false. Far from fearing the prospect, the new leadership appears determined to bring it about. "We have no fear of the Security Council," says Hussein Shariatmadari, one of Ahmadinejad's ideological mentors. "If the IAEA does not abandon its accusations we may take the issue to the Security Council ourselves."

This is not braggadocio. Tehran claims it already has Russian and Chinese assurances that any "anti-Iran" resolution would be vetoed.

This is all very embarrassing, to say the least. The Europeans have no clue as to what they might do if the issue goes to the council and comes to nothing because of a lack of consensus. Would they go for unilateral sanctions against Iran? Would they take military action?

The Bush administration, for its part, is in an equally embarrassing position. Having subcontracted its Iran policy to the trio, it is now bereft of that fig leaf.

Europe and Washington appear to be downplaying the whole situation, presenting supposedly new research, along with a series of conspicuous leaks, to convince public opinion that the Iranian nuclear threat isn't so urgent after all. One National Intelligence Estimate report, leaked last month, claimed that Iran was 6 to 10 years away from making an atomic bomb. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British think tank, which echoed that claim last week, was quickly followed by French experts making similar claims in Paris newspapers.

None of this, however, addresses the distinct possibility that the entire nuclear issue has been nothing but a distraction from Iran's fundamental hostility to the West. The "medium and long-term program" that President Ahmadinejad presented to the Islamic Majlis (parliament) last month is based on the stark assertion that the world is heading for a "clash of civilizations," part of which will be fought between the United States and Iran in the Middle East.

The 6,000-word document describes the United States as a "sunset" (ofuli) power and presents Iran as a "sunrise" (tolu'ee) power. It claims that Iran is "the core power" of Islam and certain to win the duel against a United States "in its last throes." The 6,000-word document also declares, "Leadership is the indisputable right of the Iranian nation."

While part of this can be written off as hyperbole, there is no doubt that the new leadership in Tehran is already engaged in a low-intensity war against the United States as it sends terrorists across the border into Iraq. Tehran is prepared to keep up the drumbeat of arms and terrorists until the end of George W. Bush's presidency. The new leadership sees Bush as an aberration and is convinced that whoever succeeds him will revert to the traditional American policy of "waving a big stick and running away."

With something like 200 million pouring into its coffers every day as a result of rising oil prices, the Islamic Republic has embarked on a major military buildup, especially close to the border with Iraq, which has been put under the control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Ahmadinejad has also promised "substantial increases" in the nation's military budget and the controversial nuclear project.

By overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baath in Iraq, the United States has destroyed the two most determined foes of the Islamic Republic. By driving Syria out of Lebanon, the United States has left Iran as the sole major regional influence in

Beirut. Even the weakening of traditional Arab despotic regimes has helped the Islamic Republic, which is busy reviving its networks in Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and even Egypt and North Africa. The Iranian message is simple: "The Americans will run away, but we shall always be there!" That message is finding increasing resonance, even among the new leaderships in Kabul and Baghdad.

"The tide is turning in our favor," says Shariatmadari. "Even Katrina is working for us!"

Tehran's new cockiness is largely due to the Bush administration's failure to develop a coherent Iran policy. This has conceded to Iran the initiative, while the United States is playing catch-up and damage control, especially in Iraq.

Washington has three options. First, it can try to engage Iran in the hope of changing aspects of its behavior in exchange for diplomatic and security concessions. This would be a new version of the "grand bargain" that President Bill Clinton tried to sell to the mullahs in 1999. Clinton's attempt failed because the Tehran leadership at the time was too divided. Such a bargain has a better chance this time if only because the Iranian side now speaks with one voice. But it would mean sacrificing prospects of democratization in Iran in the name of short-term considerations of realpolitik.

The second option is to accept a mini-version of the Cold War, this time with Iran as the chief adversary. This mini-Cold War could last decades and, like the big one fought against the USSR, would almost certainly include low-intensity wars fought through proxies in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Caspian Basin, the Persian Gulf, and Israel-Palestine. The Islamic Republic will lose in the end, just as the USSR did. But the cost of achieving victory over years, if not decades, could be enormous, especially for the United States' regional allies including Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The third option is a policy of regime change. This need not mean military invasion as in Afghanistan and Iraq, although the use of force should never be ruled out. The Islamic Republic is a fragile structure in no position to play a costly power game at the high table. Its leadership has lost the confidence of perhaps a majority of Iranians, while the factional feuds of the past could return to plague it at any moment. More important, Iran has a strong domestic potential for a grassroots democracy movement that could challenge the bellicose vision of the present leadership. Such a policy may not succeed before the end of the Bush presidency. But it would have the immense merit of putting the mullahs on the defensive and might even put the fear of Mammon, if not God, in them.

Amir Taheri is the former editor in chief of the Iranian newspaper Kayhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find there are a lot of assumptions in the article above, and the distraction technique of the IRI is not working.

What Tehran may claim is utterly suspect and self serving.

IRI has tried various ways to change the subject many times, but the issue is about them, not anyone else.

Given the IRI's possesion of, production and research into Biological, Chemical, and its intent to aquire nuclear weapons....flatly going directly against what monkey boy stated as "Islamic law" to not produce WMD...well, I guess that makes him an "apostate" along with all the pissed off preachers that rule by decree in the IRI, via the Guardian Council.

Having these in the possesion of the #1 sponsor of terrorism is a dire threat to peace and stability. And everyone knows it...the issue is what steps, and in what sequence will be taken to deal with it....

Press Availability at UN Headquarters

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
New York City
September 19, 2005


QUESTION: Russia is saying that it would like to delay referring Iran to the
Security Council. What is the U.S. view on this?

SECRETARY RICE: I'm quite certain that at some point in time Iran is going to
be referred to the Security Council, particularly if Iran continues to
demonstrate that it is not prepared to give the international community
assurances that it is not going to try to build a civil nuclear -- try to build
a nuclear weapons program under cover of civil nuclear power.

I think there was broad disappointment at the Iranian speech and the fact that
there seemed to be very little recognition that there are real concerns about
what Iran has been doing over the last 15 years.

Now, the timing of any such referral, of course, is a matter for diplomacy and
we will look to talk to people about that. But I don't think there is any
disagreement, and in fact I've met with all my counterparts who are engaged in
this -- I don't think there is any disagreement that there are serious concerns
about the Iranian nuclear activities, that those concerns have got to be
answered, and that Iran must be prevented from gaining the technology and the
technological know-how that would potentially lead to a nuclear weapon in a
very volatile region.


QUESTION: You could not find anything in the President of Iran initiative -- he
had more than eight parts -- to accept? You don't accept anything, especially
the nuclear-free Middle East? Why you don't ask Israel to freeze?

SECRETARY RICE: My concern about the Iranian program is the concern of the
international community, that the Iranians have -- were caught engaging in
activities that they did not report. There is a lot of concern about what else
they are doing. They need to -- they owe the IAEA answers. They were in
negotiations with the European Union. They unilaterally walked out of those
negotiations. It's time for Iran to get back to those negotiations and to take
note of and try to respond to the legitimate concerns of the international


QUESTION: Part of the Iranian President's speech on Saturday that specifically
deals with the idea of inviting foreign companies to actually take part in
enriching uranium in Iran, are you saying we categorically reject that or you
say we want to keep it but we want more?

And one more on Lebanon, if I may. You met the Lebanese Prime Minister at the
same time as the Lebanese President was addressing the General Assembly. Do we
infer from that that as far as your Administration is concerned, President
Lahoud is a thing of the past?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first on Iran. I am not going to get into trying to
comment on each and every line in the speech of the Iranian President, just to
say that I think people found it disappointing that Iran has not addressed the
concerns of the international community. There is a way for them to do that.
They are in negotiations with the EU-3. We have backed those negotiations.
Those negotiations need to begin again and Iran should stop its nuclear
activities that people are concerned about.

In terms of Lebanon, you know that I was in Beirut. I met with all the members
of the government. But the Prime Minister of Lebanon was in a session with the
international friends of Lebanon who are in favor of a new Lebanon, a Lebanon
that is, in fact, free of foreign interference and influence, a Lebanon that is
able to comply with its international obligations and a Lebanon that is able to
make the reforms -- economic and political -- that need to be made. And I think
it was a wonderful gathering of people who support this new Lebanon and that
the Prime Minister was there was very important.
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
Page 2 of 2

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