U.S.: Iranian bombs rise in Iraq

Story Highlights : U.S. military says January increase in bombs believed linked to Iran - Devices are known as EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) - Gen. Petraeus: EFPs increased by a factor of two or three over last 10 days - Bush administration, military say Iran arming, training Iraqi insurgents - Read

Petraeus Speaks Out

ABC News

VIDEO : Bush arrives in Kuwait on Mideast peace mission

http://www.wmtw.com/news/15038682/detail.html#

http://www.wmtw.com/news/15038682/detail.html#

Navy official: Ship fired warning at Iran boat

Video: Full tape confrontation released

Adm. Mullen: US-Iranian Navy Cash Reflects Shift in Tehran Military Strategy

Pentagon Releases Video Depicting Confrontation Between U.S. and Iranian Forces

Bush Says On Track for Iraq Troop Cut, Warns Syria and Iran

Iran's Urge to Dominate Makes it Vulnerable

Text of President Bush's speech in the United Arab EmiratesStory

CAMP ARIFJAN, Kuwait (CNN) -- Attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq with bombs believed linked to Iran -- known as explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) -- have risen sharply in January after several months of decline, according to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Explosively formed penetrators are more sophisticated and deadlier than typical improvised explosive devices. Iraqi and U.S. officials indicated just a month ago that Iran was using its influence to improve security in Iraq by restraining cross-border weapons flow and militia activity. The U.S. military had said in recent months that the number of EFP attacks had gone down. Gen. David Petraeus disclosed the reversal to reporters after a meeting with President Bush who was visiting troops in Kuwait. "In this year, EFPs have gone up, actually, over the last 10 days by a factor of two or three, and frankly we're trying to determine why that might be," Petraeus said. Petraeus did not say how many American troops have been killed or wounded by EFPs in recent days. The U.S. military announced nine troop deaths from bombings in the first 11 days of January, but the death announcements did not specify if EFPs were involved.
EFPs are more sophisticated and deadlier than the typical improvised explosive devices (IED) used by insurgents as roadside bombs to attack convoys and foot patrols until last year. EFPs use components manufactured in Iran and militants are trained in Iran to use them, the U.S. military has said.President Bush, in remarks to reporters in Kuwait, said: "Iran must stop supporting the militia special groups that attack Iraqi and coalition forces, and kidnap and kill Iraqi officials."The Bush administration and the military have long maintained that Iranian agents, particularly the Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps -- have been arming and training Iraqi insurgents. E-mail to a friend

Bush Lauds Mideast Democracy, Rips Iran : President Says Iran Is Threatening Security Of World : January 13, 2008

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates -- President George W. Bush said Sunday that Iran is threatening the security of the world, and that the United States and Arab allies must join together to confront the danger "before it's too late." Bush said Iran funds terrorist extremists, undermines peace in Lebanon, sends arms to the Taliban, seeks to intimidate its neighbors with alarming rhetoric, defies the United Nations and destabilizes the entire region by refusing to be open about its nuclear program. "Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terror," Bush said in a speech he delivered about mid-way through his eight-day Mideast trip that began with a renewed push for an Israeli-Palestinian peace pact - an accord he said whose "time has come." "Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere," Bush said. "So the United States is strengthening our long-standing security commitments with our friends in the Gulf, and rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late." Bush lauded democratic reforms in Gulf nations ruled by authoritarian leaders. "This new era is being built with the understanding that power is a trust that must be exercised with the consent of the governed," Bush said. Bush spoke at the Emirates Palace, at an opulent, gold-trimmed hotel where a suite goes for $2,450 a night. Built at a cost of $3 billion, the hotel is a kilometer long from end to end and has a 1.3 kilometer white sand beach -- every grain of it imported from Algeria, according to Steven Pike, a spokesman at the U.S. Embassy here. Half the audience was dressed in western attire and the other half in Arabic clothes -- white robes and headdresses for men and black abayas, many with jeweled edges, for women.

Bush urges Iran regime to heed people's will

by Laurent Lozano

ABU DHABI (AFP) - US President George W. Bush reached out to the Iranian people Sunday in the keynote address of a Middle East tour, telling them they had a right to live under a government "that listens to your wishes". In the wide-ranging speech in the United Arab Emirates capital of Abu Dhabi, Bush hit out at the Tehran regime across the Gulf saying that it was "today the world's leading state sponsor of terror" and, with Al-Qaeda, the main threat to the region's stability.
The US president also addressed Israelis and Palestinians telling the former that peace with their Arab neighbours was the best guarantee of security and the latter that they should "reject the terrorists who pose the greatest threat to a Palestinian state." The United Arab Emirates is Iran's main trading partner with up to 10,000 Iranian firms operating in its commercial hub of Dubai and Bush's intention to use the platform to speak out against the Tehran regime had been well trailed. "To the people of Iran, you're rich in culture and talent. You have the right to live under a government that listens to your wishes, respects your talents and allows you to build better lives for your families," he said."Unfortunately your government denies you these opportunities and threatens the peace and stability of your neighbours."So we call on the regime in Tehran to heed your will, and to make itself accountable to you."The day will come when the people of Iran have a government that embraces liberty and justice and Iran joins the community of free nations. When that good day comes you will have no better friend than the United States of America."The Middle East tour which Bush began in Israel on Wednesday has been overshadowed by renewed tensions with Tehran following a face-off between Iranian and US naval vessels in the entrance to the Gulf earlier this month.Washington has since repeatedly warned Tehran that its commanders are authorised to use force in self-defence if necessary and Bush has stepped up his rhetoric against the Iranian regime."Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere," the US president said in Abu Dhabi."It seeks to intimidate its neighbours with missiles and bellicose rhetoric."But in an embarrassing climbown that was gleefully seized on by Tehran, the Pentagon admitted that a sound recording it had released of a voice threatening to blow up the US vessels may not have emanated from the Iranian vessels.
The Navy Times reported that US naval experts now believe the threatening voice may have been that of a local heckler known as the "Filipino Monkey" who frequently interrupts ship-to-ship radio traffic with insulting interventions. Tehran accused Washington on Sunday of distorting the incident "to fool the region" during Bush's visit and called on US officials to apologise. "They tried to bring it up at the same time as Bush was travelling to the region to paint Iran in a bad light. But their plans fell flat," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said.Bush also used his speech in Abu Dhabi to urge Israelis and Palestinians to have faith in the renewed peace negotiations launched in Annapolis outside Washington in November and to shun the alternative of armed struggle and war."To the Palestinian people, the dignity and sovereignty that is your right is within your reach," said Bush, who after a first visit to the Holy Land as president last week, said he is "very hopeful" a final peace deal can be reached before he leaves office in January. "Oppose the extremists and terrorists who represent the greatest threat to a Palestinian state. The United States will help you build the institutions of democracy and prosperity and make your dreams of a state come true. "To the people of Israel, you know that peace and reconciliation with your neighbours is the best path to long term security. We believe that peace is possible, though it requires tough decisions." Bush also renewed his call for reform in the Middle East pointing to the example of Japan after World War II where he said a thriving democracy had been built without affecting indigenous culture or religion, despite the strong opposition of supporters of an absolute emperor. He listed a string of Arab countries which had held elections in recent years. Even in the United Arab Emirates, indirect elections to an advisory federal council, which are the only polls to have been held so far, were the "first step in a wider reform," he said.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard in secret Iraq talks with US : Marie Colvin

THE HEAD of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps slipped into the green zone of Baghdad last month to press Tehran’s hardline position over the terms of the current talks with American officials, it was claimed last week. Iraqi government sources say that Major-General Mohammed Ali Jafari, 50, travelled secretly from Tehran. Jafari appears to have passed through checkpoints on his way into the fortified enclave that contains the American embassy and Iraqi ministries, even though he is on Washington’s “most wanted” list. Last year Washington declared the guard a “foreign terrorist organisation” and imposed sanctions on it. One of the accusations that led to the designation was the charge that the Quds Force, a branch of the guard, was supplying rockets, mortars and roadside bombs known as explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) to Shi’ite militias in Iraq. In recent days there has been a sharp increase in the use of such bombs against American troops, and last weekend five Iranian speedboats were said to have harassed three American Navy ships, radioing a threat to blow them up. On his tour of the Middle East yesterday President George W Bush put Tehran on notice over its support for the insurgency in Iraq. “Iran’s role in fomenting violence has been exposed,” he said in Kuwait. Iran and the United States have held three rounds of talks over security in Iraq. They have made little progress so far but are considered a breakthrough because they are the first face-to-face encounters since 1980. At the insistence of the Americans, the talks between Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq, and Hassan Kazemi Qomi, his Iranian counterpart, have been kept to the issue of security in Iraq. But Tehran wants them broadened to include the release of Iranian diplomats being held in Baghdad by the Americans. It is understood Jafari was sent to Baghdad to ensure that this happened.
Video: The Hormuz clash

Power Shifts Behind the Throne

12:33 »
157 بنای تاريخی آماده واگذاری به بخش خصوصی
12:15 »
مرگ 8 شهروند تهرانی بر اثر گازگرفتگی تنها طی يک روز
11:09 »
مردم خلخال در سرمای 30 درجه زیر صفر گرسنه رها شده اند
11:03 »
بيشتر دبستان‌های تهران سرد و بدون‌ آب بودند
11:00 »
برق شهرستان املش هم قطع شد
10:59 »
کودکان مسجد سلیمان اولین دارنده گاز طبیعی کشور از سرما می‌لرزند
10:57 »
مهرداد لهراسبی در زندان گوهردشت دست به اعتصاب غذا زد
10:48 »
تردیدی نیست که قصد رسیدن به بمب هسته ای را دارند
10:40 »
داستان سرگردانی شهر به شهر دانشجویان دختر
10:37 »
احمدی نژاد: كسانی در داخل از تركمنستان خواستند گاز را قطع كند
10:34 »
اطبا، فقرا و مستضعفین را هم معاينه كنند
10:31 »
مردم بم در سرمای شديد با نبود برق به سر می برند
10:28 »
رتبه درآمدی ايران در ميان كشورهای صادركننده نفت و گاز
10:20 »
خامنه ای: "آمریکا نمی تواند ما را شکست دهد"
10:11 »
رویتر: کشف بمب های ساخت رژیم تهران در افغانستان
09:58 »
جوانان بندرترکمن توسط نیروی انتظامی به زاهدان تبعید شدند
09:55 »
پروژه وزارت كشور رژیم برای ردصلاحیت‌های فله ‌ای
09:45 »
رئیس جمهور آمریکا وارد امارات متحده عربی شد
01:35 »
حلق آويز یک زندانی روی برانكار مخصوص حمل مجروحان
00:58 »
توقف ٢هزار دستگاه اتوبوس گازسوز براثر افت فشار گاز در تهران
00:52 »
در ارائه آمار و ارقام حساب ذخيره ارزي ابهام وجود دارد
00:08 »
یکی از فعالان کمپین یک میلیون امضا به پلیس امنیت احضار شد

Bush: Iran 'World's Leading' Terror Sponsor

U.S. Presidents Says Iranian Actions 'Threaten The Security of Nations Everywhere'
CBS News Timeline: The U.S. And Iran

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (CBS) ― President Bush said Sunday that Iran is threatening the security of the world, and that the United States and Arab allies must join together to confront the danger "before it's too late." Bush said Iran funds terrorist extremists, undermines peace in Lebanon, sends arms to the Taliban, seeks to intimidate its neighbors with alarming rhetoric, defies the United Nations and destabilizes the entire region by refusing to be open about its nuclear program. "Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terror," Bush said in a speech he delivered about mid-way through his eight-day Mideast trip that began with a renewed push for an Israeli-Palestinian peace pact - an accord he said whose "time has come." Chiding U.S. allies who have withheld civil liberties, Bush said governments will never build trust by harassing or imprisoning candidates and protesters. But his rebuke was general, and he did not single out any U.S. partner in the region for oppressive practices. "You cannot expect people to believe in the promise of a better future when they are jailed for peacefully petitioning their government," Bush said. "And you cannot stand up a modern, confident nation when you do not allow people to voice their legitimate criticisms." Bush gave the speech on democracy in one of the few countries in the region - the Emirates - where democracy has not been a vital issue, but virtually ignored. In other countries in the region, especially Egypt, the fight between democracy activists and autocratic governments has been much more pointed and controversial. He called on the Palestinians to reject extremists, although he did not mention the Islamic radical group Hamas, which has gained control of the Gaza Strip. And he said the Iranian government in Tehran should make itself accountable to its people. "Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere," Bush said. "So the United States is strengthening our long-standing security commitments with our friends in the Gulf, and rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late." On Oct. 25, 2007, the Bush administration announced sweeping new sanctions against Iran — the harshest since the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979 - again charging that Tehran supports terrorism in the Middle East, exports missiles and is engaging in a nuclear build up. The measures target the Revolutionary Guard Corps and a number of banks and are designed, among other things, to punish Tehran for its support of terrorist organizations in Iraq and the Middle East.Bush spoke at the Emirates Palace, at an opulent, gold-trimmed hotel where a suite goes for $2,450 a night. Built at a cost of $3 billion, the hotel is a kilometer long from end to end and has a 1.3 kilometer white sand beach - every grain of it imported from Algeria, according to Steven Pike, a spokesman at the U.S. Embassy here. Half the audience was dressed in western attire and the other half in Arabic clothes - white robes and headdresses for men and black abayas, many with jeweled edges, for women. Bush said advancing democracy and freedom is the core of his administration's foreign policy and critical to U.S. security. "The United States has no desire for territory. We seek our shared security in your liberty. We believe that stability can only come through a free and just Middle East where the extremists are marginalized," the president said. He noted democratic reform in Iraq. "You have made your choice for democracy and have stood firm," Bush said, speaking to the Iraqi people. "The terrorists and extremists cannot prevail." Making an equally direct appeal to the Palestinians, Bush said "The dignity and sovereignty that is your right is within your reach." In renewing his "Freedom Agenda" - Bush's grand ambition to seed democracy around the globe - he declared that "democracy is the only form of government that treats individuals with the dignity and equality that is their right." "We know from experience that democracy is the only system of government that yields lasting peace and stability," he added. Yet he was speaking about democracy in a deeply undemocratic country, the Emirates, where an elite of royal rulers makes virtually all the decisions. Large numbers of foreign resident workers have few legal or human rights, including no right to citizenship and no right to protest working conditions. Some human rights groups have accused the Emirates of tolerating virtual indentured servitude, where workers from poor countries like Sri Lanka are forced to work to pay off debts to employers, and have their passports seized so they can't leave. Officials in Abu Dhabi and the neighboring emirate of Dubai have said they are taking slow and gradual steps toward reform, both democratic and in labor rights. In the country's first-ever elections in late 2006, the government hand-picked a group of voters to cast ballots to choose members of a government advisory panel. But there is little clamor for elections in a wealthy country whose citizens are a privileged minority with access to free housing and lucrative government jobs. Many here say the galloping economy is evidence the government has done a good job.

Iran In Position To Target U.S. Interests : Oxford Analytica

Senior Iranian leaders repeatedly have vowed to target U.S. interests around the world should their country come under attack from the United States or Israel. Accordingly, Tehran is positioning itself to inflict significant pain on the United States and its allies in multiple countries.
Iran has historically been active in Afghanistan, as have Kabul's other powerful neighbors, Pakistan and Russia. However, there is growing evidence that Tehran has recalculated its strategic interests there as tension rises with the United States over its nuclear ambitions.
As the world's largest Shiite country, Iran has been the traditional foreign backer of Afghanistan's Shiites. After Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, Iran became a patron of the Northern Alliance, while Pakistan supported the victorious Taliban. Iran viewed the rise of the Sunni Taliban with deep concern. After the fall of central Afghanistan to the group in 1998, Iran said it had the right to take all necessary action to protect its security interests. It followed up with a number of measures.
Since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, Iran pursued two major strategic objectives in Afghanistan:
1. Partnership. It has developed a close strategic partnership with President Hamid Karzai's government:
--Iran and Afghanistan have joint trade, energy, investment, cultural and scientific projects.
--This year, they are expected to begin work on road and rail links.
--They have also cooperated in efforts to crack down on the rising drug trade.
2. Influence. Tehran also has moved to exert influence in western and central Afghanistan. Tehran's goal is to secure strategic depth and influence in areas close to the border. Some activities are directed at the United States.
The bilateral relationship has been largely cooperative. However, the prospect of conflict with the United States has added a new dimension. Tehran regards its involvement in the country as a hedge against a possible U.S. or Israeli strike against nuclear facilities in Iran. This means that Iran is prepared to undermine U.S. interests in the country should relations between Washington and Tehran deteriorate substantially.
There is scope for friction in three main areas:
--Taliban. Iranian "hedging" has involved opening contacts with Afghan insurgent groups over the past two years. There is evidence of direct contacts between Iranian intelligence agents and the Taliban leadership. There are also signs that the Taliban have sought to acquire weapons and weapons technology from Iran. However, there are no indications that Iran has responded to such moves.
--Other Insurgents. Individuals within the Iranian government have provided money and training to a small number of foreign jihadists in eastern Afghanistan. There has been some cooperation between insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, who use Iran as a transit country.
--Warlords. Iran could also use its close relationship with warlords to further undermine U.S. efforts in Afghanistan by spreading violence to western and central parts of the country.
Yet this hedging strategy entails several risks:
--A major Iranian effort to fund Afghan insurgent groups would jeopardize Iranian-Afghan relations and their growing political and economic ties.
--A stronger Sunni-based insurgency in Pakistan and Afghanistan would undermine Iran's broader Shiite interests.
--A third and more significant risk is the destabilization of Afghanistan. A further deterioration into lawlessness could trigger a range of spillover effects that would have a negative impact on all of the countries in the region.
Iran will not jeopardize its close relationship with Afghanistan and bolster Sunni extremist groups unless it is backed into a corner. A sharp deterioration in U.S.-Iranian relations risks triggering such a move. However, if this can be avoided, Tehran will probably remain more helpful than harmful to U.S. and NATO interests in Afghanistan, as well as those of the government in Kabul.
To read an extended version of this article, log on to Oxford Analytica's Web site.
Oxford Analytica is an independent strategic-consulting firm drawing on a network of more than 1,000 scholar experts at Oxford and other leading universities and research institutions around the world. For more information, please visit www.oxan.com.

What's going on ?

In a raid, some 30 military jeeps surrounded a in Ramella building with troops firing stun grenades and shooting in the air while calling on the militants to surrender. They then entered the compound and seized the 18 men.Among those taken was Khalil Shilo, a member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent offshoot of Abbas' Fatah movement. Shilo had been on the run for seven years, since the outbreak of the second Palestinian uprising in 2000.

MIDDLE EAST: HAMAS OFFERS 'COMPLETE' CEASEFIRE

Tel Aviv, 7 March (AKI) - Hamas is willing to offer Israel a total ceasefire in exchange for the support of the Jewish state in ending an international boycott of the Palestinian Authority government, a senior official of the Islamist Palestinian movement has told an Israeli newspaper. Tel Aviv daily Haaretz did not identify the official who on Wednesday was quoted as saying that the Palestinians "will offer a promise from Hamas and Fatah of a total cease-fire with Israel, including a complete halt to Qassam [rocket] fire and suicide bombings".The offer would be delivered by Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, which has been tentatively scheduled for Sunday. However, the Hamas official warned that if Israel presses for a continuation of the international boycott and refuses to work with the unity government, the existing partial cease-fire will be in danger. According, to Haaretz, Olmert plans to use the meeting to urge Abbas to ensure that the new Palestinian government, which is currently being formed, accepts the condition set by the Quartet group of international negotiators: recognizing Israel, renouncing violence and honouring previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements.Meanwhile tension continues to accompany the run-up to the Abbas-Olmert meeting with Israeli troops on Wednesday raiding the Palestinian military headquarters in Ramallah and arrested 18 people who have been described as militants who had sought shelter there.In the raid, some 30 military jeeps surrounded the building with troops firing stun grenades and shooting in the air while calling on the militants to surrender. They then entered the compound and seized the 18 men.Among those taken was Khalil Shilo, a member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent offshoot of Abbas' Fatah movement. Shilo had been on the run for seven years, since the outbreak of the second Palestinian uprising in 2000.

03.04.07, 7:53 AM ET Iran denies Mideast peace plan discussed in Saudi talks

TEHRAN (AFX) - The office of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday vehemently denied a report he had backed an Arab plan for normalising ties with Israel on his visit to the kingdom.The official SPA agency said on Saturday that Ahmadinejad had 'voiced support for the Arab peace initiative' endorsed at an Arab summit in 2002 in his talks with Saudi King Abdullah.'In the meeting of President Ahmadinejad with King Abdullah there was absolutely no talk about the 2002 initiative,' Ehsan Jahandidieh of the presidential press office told AFP.Under the Saudi-authored plan, the Arab world would normalise ties with Israel in exchange for a full withdrawal from Arab land occupied since 1967 and the establishment of a Palestinian state.However Iranian leaders have repeatedly vowed that the Islamic republic will never under any circumstances recognise Israel, with which it has no relations.Ahmadinejad has said that Israel should be 'wiped from the map' and predicted that the Jewish state is doomed to disappear.

"A cemetery of dreams."

Maintaining Perspective
By Fouad Ajami / Posted 2/25/07 -
'It's too soon to tell," The late Chinese leader Zhou Enlai is reported to have answered when asked for an evaluation of the significance of the French Revolution of 1789. This was nearly two centuries after the great upheaval of France. evolutions are full of cunning, and the Iranian Revolution, now almost three decades old, has been no exception-cunning and ferocity side by side, the talk of a revolutionary millennium often concealing the skills of a leadership steeped in the ways of the bazaar. Shrewd players, these clerical leaders have found the cracks in the order of states around them. Brutal men, they rule a society of great historical sophistication. Given room to maneuver by a substantial windfall of oil income, they have made their nation a player of consequence in its neighborhood. Sly and opportunistic, Iran's rulers have been able to pick and choose at a time, and in a place, of great volatility. American power swept away two regimes that the Iranians dreaded-the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. True, America was now a land power on Iran's flanks; the Iranians ducked at first, then gathered themselves as the American burden grew. Mixing bravado and bluff, and granting proxies in Palestine and Lebanon, the leaders of the Iranian theocracy appear to have succeeded in spreading the image of a mighty power able to have its way in the world. For some, that great arc stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean is now a battleground between Pax Americana and the Persians. This belief is in part due to the abdication of the Arab states, their virtual absence from the contest of nations.



There is bigotry in Arab lands, an animus on the part of the Sunni majority toward the political emancipation of the Arab Shiites. Arab diplomats and leaders shy away from Iraq-the pitiless jihadists are the only Arabs who come to Iraq-but the Iranians are present in force as pilgrims and traders and troublemakers and intelligence operatives. "A cemetery of dreams." Iran is a radical player in the world of states, to be sure, but we should not overstate its power. We should not fall for the Persian bluff. It is important that we do all we can to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions and to checkmate it in arenas that count, but we should always remember that this is a society swimming against the tide of history and confronting the limits of its capabilities. There is an Iranian role in Iraq, but it should not be exaggerated. It is not true that the Iraqi political class marches to the Iranian drummer. It is well known that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spent his years of exile in Syria and kept his distance from the Iranians.




"Iraq is a cemetery of dreams," a thoughtful Iraqi observed to me of his country. "Iranian dreams, no less than American dreams perhaps." Iraqis are a tough breed, and the notion that they are eager to take their country into a Persian dominion is unconvincing. The Iranians dwell virtually alone in the House of Islam, separated by language and culture, marked by their Shiism. Then there are the troubles that count-the disabilities at home. Iran's deranged president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, came into power promising to put Iran's oil wealth "on the dinner table." But the Iranian economy is on the ropes. Hyperinflation, the drying up of international credit lines, and the astounding growth in energy consumption in Iran are bringing the country to the edge of crisis. The price of bread and meat and basic commodities has risen by as much as 25 percent. To tranquilize the realm, gasoline is subsidized well below its cost, and domestic consumption now accounts for a stunning 40 percent of Iran's oil production. Dire predictions now hold that the country will be unable to export much oil a decade from now. The true believers will proclaim that revolutionary purity trumps all, but worldly needs and affairs ultimately prevail. A society that spends $20 billion a year to subsidize the price of energy, electricity, and gasoline will in the end have to contend with the wrath and disappointment of its people. There is swagger in Iran, and there is menace, for its rulers are without scruples. Terrorism, for them, is always an option. But theirs is a vulnerable and brittle society. There is no need to "engage" them and bail them out as they stumble. The regime should be harassed, contained, and held to account. We may not have to wait two centuries to pronounce on the fate of this revolution. The swagger abroad and the rot at home: It is a trajectory we are all too familiar with by now.This story appears in the March 5, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.

Iran: The Radical Wins Again ,,,Is this realy true or is it only a prelude to a regime change?

February 28, 2007 - New York Post - Amir Taheri
As the Tehran leadership prepares to go to the wire in its confrontation with the international community over the nuclear issue, one thing is clear: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is emerging with his position in the Khomeinist establishment strengthened. By Amir Taheri : >Read the Article

Just a few weeks ago, we were told that Ahmadinejad's star was on the wane, that "moderate mullahs" had persuaded "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei to restrain the firebrand president. Yet last week, as the U.N. Security Council's ultimatum to the Islamic Republic expired, it was Ahmadinejad who gave the regime's final word. Addressing a provincial crowd, the president announced that Iran's nuclear program has no reverse gear. The Islamic Republic would stop uranium enrichment only if all nations with a nuclear industry - that is to say, some 30 countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council - did so. Ahmadinejad has the great merit of seeing the problem for what it really is. Fantasists such as Javier Solana, the European Union's ineffective foreign-policy czar, have tried to present the Islamic Republic's uranium-enrichment program as a technical issue. Others, like French President Jacques Chirac, have advised acceptance of what they regard as a fait accompli. For Ahmadinejad, however, the issue is political in the grand sense of the term - with nothing less at stake than the survival of the Khomeinist regime. The 1979 revolution had a tripartite slogan: "independence, liberty and Islamic government" - and the regime that emerged tried to build its legitimacy on that basis. Over the last quarter-century, however, it has failed to deliver. In practical terms, Iran today is more dependent on the outside world than before the Khomeinists seized power. In 1977, Iran imported 11 percent of the food it needed; today, it imports almost half. In 1977, Iran was an overall exporter of crude oil and petroleum products; today, it imports more than 40 percent of its gasoline. In 1977, there were no outside forces in the Gulf. Today, the United States and its allies control the waterway. Iranian ships passing through the Gulf, and aircraft flying over it, have to clear their routes with the Americans. As for liberty, most Iranians today know that they are much less free, especially in social and cultural terms, than they were before the mullahs seized power. A recent study by the International Monetary Fund shows Iran experiencing the largest brain-drain of any country in history, largely because the educated elites are fleeing an oppressive atmosphere. The slogan's third part, Islamic government, has also remained a chimera. Many genuinely religious Iranians, including some Shiite clerics, see Khomeinism as an "evil innovation" (bed'aah) because it violates a fundamental principle of the faith by pretending that it can create a truly Islamic government before the return of the Hidden Imam. Ahmadinejad is conscious of the Islamic Republic's massive loss of legitimacy in the early 1990s (at least). But he knows that he can't restore it by offering greater liberty: Any loosening of the regime's tight grip on power could open a Pandora's box of political, sectarian and ethnic grievances and demands that no undemocratic regime can deal with. That leaves the radicals with two options: thickening the Islamic coloring of the regime, and emphasizing its claim of independence. Ahmadinejad has tried to thicken the regime's religious coloring by casting himself in the role of the proverbial Islamic ghazi (holy warrior) who will ride his white horse into Jerusalem to liberate it from the infidel. The regime's claim of independence is best illustrated by its refusal to kowtow to the diktats of the major powers, especially the United States. The nuclear program would not have been an issue in Iran just two or three years ago - most Iranians knew nothing of the program and the controversy it had provoked. But today, largely thanks to Ahmadinejad's constant hammering of the theme during his ceaseless provincial tours, most Iranians are familiar with the issue. And, because Ahmadinejad has presented the dispute as an attempt by the great powers to deny Iran nuclear energy, many Iranians, while suspicious of the regime's motives, nevertheless support its position. Ahmadinejad's supporters hailed his election as the second Khomeinist revolution, in the hope that the cooling embers of Islamist passion could be fanned again into raging flames. They have promoted such ideas as a "clash of civilizations," in which Khomeinist Iran would provide the hard core of a new Islamic "superpower" to challenge the United States and offer humanity an alternative to the existing international order. Thanks to Ahmadinejad, the nuclear issue has become a regime-change issue. If the Khomeinist regime emerges victorious from the current confrontation, it would move to a higher degree of radicalism - thus, in effect, becoming a new regime. The radical faction would be able to purge the rich and corrupt mullahs by promoting a new generation of zealots linked with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and the security services. It would also move onto the offensive in the region, seeking to reshape it after the Khomeinist revolution's geostrategic interests. If, on the other hand, the regime is forced to back down on this issue, the radical moment would fade, while the many enemies of the regime regroup either to topple it or to change it beyond recognition, as Deng Xiaoping did with China's Maoist regime. We are witnessing the start of what could be a long, complicated conflict - not a prelude to the sharp, short exchange that many expect. What is at stake is the future not only of Iran but also of the place of American power in the world. This showdown cannot end without a clear winner and loser. Amir Taheri is an Iranian-born journalist and author based in Europe.

Russia's New Initiatives in the Persian Gulf : Drafted By: Dario Cristiani

Shortly after giving a much-discussed speech at the annual security conference in Munich, Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan from January 11-13, 2007. This was the first trip of a Russian head of state to the three countries, and following Putin's speech the trip took on greater importance, especially the visits to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The trip highlighted how Russia's perception of its role in the international system has changed. In recent years, Moscow has represented itself as a "great power" with global influence, which was evident in Putin's harsh criticism of the United States during the conference.

Putin launched many direct and indirect accusations at the United States during the conference, such as: "We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. … One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. ... Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force -- military force -- in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. … N.A.T.O. expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance...it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust." He also criticized harshly the U.S. and European positions over the Kosovo question and the procedure to set up a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia's new attitude and its renewed sense of power have shaped its moves in the Middle East, particularly in the Persian Gulf, and are part of Russia's goal of playing a more important role within the international system. It does not mean a return to the Cold War era confrontation with the United States; rather, the institutional stabilization at home and Moscow's geopolitical reinforcement -- obtained through the often unscrupulous use of energy leverage in Russia's "near abroad" -- created the opportunity for Russia to again play a stronger part in world affairs.
Russia's Foreign Policy and the Renewed Importance of the Persian Gulf
Russia's foreign policy toward the Middle East is a paradigmatic example of the "extreme" pragmatism that has characterized Putin's attitude toward global political affairs since his arrival at the Kremlin in 2000. Russian moves in the Middle East aim at establishing good relations with every regional player. Therefore, Putin seeks positive ties with Israel, Iran, Syria, and Egypt, trying to keep a balance among the different interests and perceptions of these actors. The recent trip to the Persian Gulf is another example of this attitude.
The Persian Gulf is clearly one of the most important areas for the global balance of power. It is still the most important region for world energy supplies, and it is the theater where an important geopolitical shift is emerging out of competition between the United States and Iran. For Russia, playing a primary role in this region represents an important element to its internal stability. Since gaining power in 2000, Putin's main goal has been "rebuilding" the Russian state, which was threatened by powerful forces of disintegration, and to strengthen Moscow's hold in those areas of the country where Islam plays a fundamental role, especially in Chechnya and Tatarstan. Therefore, Putin is in search of a more effective role in the Gulf and in establishing friendly relations with countries such as Saudi Arabia that have an ideological and confessional influence over these groups. Demonstrating the importance of the relationship, the most significant Islamic political personality in Russia, Mintimer Shaimiev, the head of the Tatarstan republic, was part of the Russian delegation to the Middle East, even though Tatarstan's relations with Putin are not friendly.
Moscow's Goals in the Persian Gulf
Many issues were discussed during the meetings, but the most important were economic and commercial relations, the state of the global energy market, and the nuclear issue. From an economic point of view, Russia has great interest in entering Middle Eastern markets, which could represent an important opportunity for Russian arms and energy firms. Strengthening its economic role in the region would strengthen its political influence over these countries. The situation of the global energy market is a fundamental concern for Russia and this issue could represent an element of division between it and Saudi Arabia because they have two divergent approaches to the question. Both countries want to use energy as a geopolitical lever, but their aims in such a field are different. Saudi Arabia wants to raise its oil production in order to lower oil prices as an instrument to weaken Iran's emergence as a major regional power and to secure its relations with the West; by maintaining positive relations with the West, Saudi Arabia earns the protection of the United States and its allies. Russia, however, wants to maintain high oil prices because higher revenues in this field could permit Moscow to maintain its strong economic development and to offset the difficult process of modernizing its energy industry. During the past few years, energy security has become an important weapon to secure geopolitical influence, and Moscow has used this weapon in order to reposition itself in the international system. Putin, therefore, wants to build an important net of relations with those actors in the global energy system that may have the possibility to influence energy prices.
With energy demand on the rise, Russia wants to use its position as a major energy producer of both oil and gas in order to regain geopolitical significance. Putin aims to contain the freedom of action of other producers in the energy market, as well as reduce the geopolitical options for Russian energy clients in search of diversifying their supplies. This is a policy not only aimed at Saudi Arabia, but also at Iran, Algeria, Nigeria and Qatar, which was the second stop on Putin's Middle East tour and has the third-largest natural gas reserves in the world after Russia and Iran. This is also the reason behind the idea of creating a "gas cartel" similar to O.P.E.C. This cartel was discussed in Doha but its fulfillment appears difficult because the gas market has different players than the oil market. Finally, the idea of Putin helping Riyadh with nuclear power development was discussed during the meeting. All major regional players in the Middle East appear eager to gain nuclear energy capabilities. During the last few months, several announcements about this question have been made in the region, such as from Egypt and Turkey. Additionally, the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council claim the right to develop nuclear power. Therefore, Russia wants to exploit the opportunity to increase its regional involvement by giving support to those countries in search of nuclear energy. Putin, in a recent trip to Egypt, offered Russian nuclear knowledge to Cairo. The same offer was given to Saudi Arabia during Putin's meeting there. Moreover, Russia is one of the major diplomatic players involved in the Iranian nuclear dispute, as well as the development of Tehran's capabilities. [See: "The Risks Involved in Egypt's Quest for Nuclear Power"] There are several motivations for Putin's activism in the nuclear diplomatic game within the Middle East. On the one hand, it is an instrument for gaining influence over the regional dynamics of an area where Russia, since the end of the Cold War, has suffered a loss of power. It is also a tool for the Kremlin to bind the countries that want to develop nuclear energy to Russia. This is a very important point: by offering technical and logistic support for the construction of nuclear facilities, Russia will be able to create a relationship of technical, and consequently political, dependence in a fundamental sector among those countries that acquire nuclear knowledge from Moscow. This is the Russian strategy toward Iran. It is possible that Moscow does not prefer a nuclear Iran because the relations between the two countries are complex and often their interests diverge in spite of the current friendly ties. Therefore, Russian support for Iran on the nuclear issue is instrumental: it represents a way to limit Iran's strategic independence, and it is an instrument of pressure in the overall confrontation with the United States. The role of a "nuclear technology supplier" that Russia wants to play within this region is also an effort to show that Russia has the capability to represent an alternative for those regimes allied with the United States. To this point, during the past few months, Putin has visited Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which are the main Arab-Islamic allies of the United States in the region. Russia wants to use the troubles of the United States in Iraq and the perception that Washington's Middle East policy is weakening to erode the U.S. geopolitical position in the Middle East. [See: "Intelligence Brief: U.S. Moves to Implement the Surge Strategy"] Further to this consideration, the selling of arms to the major players in the region is an instrument to place pressure on the United States. Moscow discussed selling 150 T-90 tanks, which is the most modern tank in the Russian army arsenal, and some multi-purpose helicopters, the Mi-17, with Saudi Arabia. Moreover, in January, Tehran acquired from Russia 29 Tor-M1 missile defense systems that will be used for the protection of military and civilian assets in Isfahan and Bushehr, which are two of the most important sites of Iran's nuclear activities. This system was successfully test fired on February 7 by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This strategy, however, has several controversial points. Moscow's moves are conditioned on the difficult balance between its support for Iran and its desire to reinforce its relations with those Arab countries that perceive the rise of Tehran as a threat. Saudi Arabia is the Arab country most concerned about Iran, and its political moves are oriented to limit the regional growth of Tehran. [See: "Intelligence Brief: Tensions Increase Between Iran and Saudi Arabia"] Serious obstacles, therefore, threaten to prevent Moscow from gaining its desired results on both fronts in the mid-term. Moreover, if the tensions between Iran and the rest of the Arab-Islamic states in the area increase, Russia's strategy could be affected strongly. Furthermore, despite its troubles, the United States is still the prominent power in the region. It will be extremely difficult for Moscow to replace Washington's role as the main ally of these countries. Although Moscow is attempting such a move, as long as the United States remains the hegemonic power in the region, and maintains a strong military presence in the Gulf area, this strategy will be difficult to realize.
Conclusion
In recent years, Russia has acquired new confidence about its role in global affairs. Putin succeeded in reinforcing the state, which was threatened with disintegration, and in gaining renewed geopolitical influence in its near abroad by using its energy leverage. Russia is moving powerfully in other contexts to play a greater role in the global geopolitical system. Putin's recent trip to the Persian Gulf is an example of this. Russia's foreign policy is aimed at gaining a part of the influence it lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The strengthening of relations with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states is part of Russia's strategy for achieving this goal. Russia wants to use its role as a weapon and energy supplier, as well as a supplier of nuclear technology, to enhance its relations with all the major regional actors involved in the balance of power. It wants to use its relations with these states to place pressure on its geopolitical competitors, especially the United States. This does not mean that Russia wants to support every aspiration of Iran or Saudi Arabia; instead, it means that Moscow will calibrate its support for these countries on the basis of its contextual geopolitical needs. If, however, political tensions in the area continue to increase and the polarization between the major actors of the region mount, Moscow's attempt to become one of the Middle East's most influential players may encounter unexpected difficulties and force the Kremlin to adapt to the new situation tactically.

'Devastating response' if Iran nukes attacked

Terrorists say Tehran providing instructions in case U.S., Israel strike atomic facilities
By Aaron Klein/ © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Iran is anticipating a U.S. or Israeli military strike on its nuclear facilities and has been providing Palestinian terrorists and other regional allies with contingency plans for attacks against the Jewish state and American regional interests in the event of war, according to Palestinian terrorist leaders. A senior leader of the Islamic Jihad terror group, which Israel says is backed by Iran, told WND Tehran is expecting to be attacked, but he didn't provide a time frame in which Iran anticipates a strike.He claimed during any attack his organization has been directed by Iran to "wreak havoc" on Israel with suicide bombings, rocket attacks and "special surprises." He said rocket attacks would be launched from both the Gaza Strip and from the West Bank, which borders Jerusalem. He threatened his terror group will target American interests in the Middle East whether any purported strike against Tehran is carried out by Israel or the U.S."
The Zionists and the Americans are coordinated 100 percent. It doesn't matter who attacks Iran, we are planning to hit them both," said the Islamic Jihad leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he said the topic was "very sensitive." He said overall Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Shallah has been coordinating war plans with Iran, Syria and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah Lebanese militia. Shallah resides in Damascus and travels frequently to Tehran. Abu Ahmed, the northern West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization, told WND all major Palestinian militant organizations are preparing to work together in the event Iran is attacked. "Our strategy is not to leave the Islamic alliance (Iran) alone against the enemy. All Palestinian organizations will work together in shooting rockets, suicide bomb attacks and other steps and actions decided closely." The Brigades is the declared military wing of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party. Together with Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the last two years, including a bombing last month in Eilat and an attack in Tel Aviv last April that killed eight Israelis and American teenager Daniel Wultz. Israel says major Brigades cells in the Gaza Strip and West Bank receive Iranian funding through contacts with Hezbollah. Abu Ahmed said in his terror group's estimation Iran will indeed be attacked. "It's not a question of if, but when. The campaign now in the American media is just like the campaign before the invasion of Iraq," he charged. A senior leader of the Popular Resistance Committees terror group, speaking on condition of anonymity, told WND his group has also been preparing for what he called "the upcoming war." The Committees is a coalition of terror organizations operating in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank responsible for hundreds of anti-Israel rocket and shooting attacks. It is accused of bombing a U.S. convoy in Gaza in 2003 in which three American government contractors were killed. "We are preparing the tomb that Allah is digging for the Zionists and Americans," said the Committees leader. He claimed during any U.S. or Israeli military strike against Tehran, a response will be directed against Israel and American interests by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorists. "The war will be a war on more than one front. It will be everybody against everybody. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and the Palestinian organizations will work together. War with Iran is coming and it means the Middle East will not remain the same after it," the Committees leader said. Syria and Iran signed a military agreement in which either will respond if the other is attacked. Israeli security officials told WND Israel is not currently planning to strike Iran. Speaking theoretically, they said if any war breaks out involving Iran, they expect Syria, Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorists to join the fray and attack Israel. The security officials said the greatest threat Syria poses to the Jewish state are the country's missiles. They noted Syria recently test-fired two Scud-D surface-to-surface missiles, which have a range of about 250 miles, covering most Israeli territory. The officials said the Syrian missile test was coordinated with Iran and is believed to have been successful. It is not known what type of warhead the missiles were armed with. In addition to longer range Scuds, Syria is in possession of shorter range missiles such as 20mm and 305mm rockets, some of which have been passed on to Hezbollah. According to information received by Israel, Russia is set to conclude a deal worth several hundred million dollars transferring thousands of advanced antitank missiles to Syria. Antitank missiles used by Hezbollah during Israel's war in Lebanon this past summer devastated Israeli tanks and caused the highest number of Israeli troop casualties during the 34 days of military confrontations. Last week, a senior officer from the intelligence unit of the Israeli Defense Forces announced Hezbollah is stronger today than before the 2006 Lebanon war. "Hezbollah has reinforced and it is stronger today than it was before the war in Lebanon," General Yossi Beidatz, head of the IDF's intelligence research department, told the Knesset. During the war in Lebanon, Hezbollah fired more than 3,000 rockets into northern Israel, killing 39 civilians and devastating many northern towns. Beidatz also said Syria is reinforcing its military to prepare for the possibility of a new armed conflict in the region. According to reports in the Israeli media, Syria, aided by Iranian officers, has been boosting its army and navy. The reports, denied by Damascus, claimed Syria last week was moving troops closer to the border with Israel.The claim by Palestinian terrorists Iran is preparing for war come as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday his country's nuclear program cannot stop while a deputy foreign minister vowed Tehran was prepared for any eventuality, "even for war." "Iran has obtained the technology to produce nuclear fuel and Iran's move is like a train ... which has no brake and no reverse gear," Ahmadinejad said, according to Iranian state media. Manouchehr Mohammadi, a deputy at Iran's foreign ministry commented, "We have prepared ourselves for any situation, even for war." Iranian military commanders have said recent war games, the latest of which involved testing several missiles this month, show Iran's readiness to counter any attack. Meanwhile U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said over the weekend Iran's atomic ambitions must be curbed. He told reporters "all options" were on the table. During a visit to Australia, Cheney said it would be a "serious mistake" to allow Iran to become a nuclear power. An Australian newspaper quoted Cheney endorsing comments by U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that the only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran. Iran ignored last week's United Nations deadline to halt uranium enrichment, a process that can be used to fuel for nuclear power plants or produce material for warheads. Tehran claims it wants to negotiate but has repeatedly ruled out suspending its atomic program.

The Redirection, New Yorker , Seymour M. Hersh

In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made defiant pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and his country’s right to pursue its nuclear program, and last week its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on state television that “realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by the U.S. and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region.” After the revolution of 1979 brought a religious government to power, the United States broke with Iran and cultivated closer relations with the leaders of Sunni Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. That calculation became more complex after the September 11th attacks, especially with regard to the Saudis. Al Qaeda is Sunni, and many of its operatives came from extremist religious circles inside Saudi Arabia. Before the invasion of Iraq, in 2003, Administration officials, influenced by neoconservative ideologues, assumed that a Shiite government there could provide a pro-American balance to Sunni extremists, since Iraq’s Shiite majority had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. They ignored warnings from the intelligence community about the ties between Iraqi Shiite leaders and Iran, where some had lived in exile for years. Now, to the distress of the White House, Iran has forged a close relationship with the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.” Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee told me that he had heard about the new strategy, but felt that he and his colleagues had not been adequately briefed. “We haven’t got any of this,” he said. “We ask for anything going on, and they say there’s nothing. And when we ask specific questions they say, ‘We’re going to get back to you.’ It’s so frustrating.” The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney. (Cheney’s office and the White House declined to comment for this story; the Pentagon did not respond to specific queries but said, “The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran.”) .The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations. The new strategy “is a major shift in American policy—it’s a sea change,” a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. The Sunni states “were petrified of a Shiite resurgence, and there was growing resentment with our gambling on the moderate Shiites in Iraq,” he said. “We cannot reverse the Shiite gain in Iraq, but we can contain it.” “It seems there has been a debate inside the government over what’s the biggest danger—Iran or Sunni radicals,” Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has written widely on Shiites, Iran, and Iraq, told me. “The Saudis and some in the Administration have been arguing that the biggest threat is Iran and the Sunni radicals are the lesser enemies. This is a victory for the Saudi line.” Martin Indyk, a senior State Department official in the Clinton Administration who also served as Ambassador to Israel, said that “the Middle East is heading into a serious Sunni-Shiite Cold War.” Indyk, who is the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, added that, in his opinion, it was not clear whether the White House was fully aware of the strategic implications of its new policy. “The White House is not just doubling the bet in Iraq,” he said. “It’s doubling the bet across the region. This could get very complicated. Everything is upside down.” The Administration’s new policy for containing Iran seems to complicate its strategy for winning the war in Iraq. Patrick Clawson, an expert on Iran and the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, argued, however, that closer ties between the United States and moderate or even radical Sunnis could put “fear” into the government of Prime Minister Maliki and “make him worry that the Sunnis could actually win” the civil war there. Clawson said that this might give Maliki an incentive to coöperate with the United States in suppressing radical Shiite militias, such as Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Even so, for the moment, the U.S. remains dependent on the coöperation of Iraqi Shiite leaders. The Mahdi Army may be openly hostile to American interests, but other Shiite militias are counted as U.S. allies. Both Moqtada al-Sadr and the White House back Maliki. A memorandum written late last year by Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser, suggested that the Administration try to separate Maliki from his more radical Shiite allies by building his base among moderate Sunnis and Kurds, but so far the trends have been in the opposite direction. As the Iraqi Army continues to founder in its confrontations with insurgents, the power of the Shiite militias has steadily increased. Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that “there is nothing coincidental or ironic” about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. “The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,” Leverett said. “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.” President George W. Bush, in a speech on January 10th, partially spelled out this approach. “These two regimes”—Iran and Syria—“are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq,” Bush said. “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.” In the following weeks, there was a wave of allegations from the Administration about Iranian involvement in the Iraq war. On February 11th, reporters were shown sophisticated explosive devices, captured in Iraq, that the Administration claimed had come from Iran. The Administration’s message was, in essence, that the bleak situation in Iraq was the result not of its own failures of planning and execution but of Iran’s interference. The U.S. military also has arrested and interrogated hundreds of Iranians in Iraq. “The word went out last August for the military to snatch as many Iranians in Iraq as they can,” a former senior intelligence official said. “They had five hundred locked up at one time. We’re working these guys and getting information from them. The White House goal is to build a case that the Iranians have been fomenting the insurgency and they’ve been doing it all along—that Iran is, in fact, supporting the killing of Americans.” The Pentagon consultant confirmed that hundreds of Iranians have been captured by American forces in recent months. But he told me that that total includes many Iranian humanitarian and aid workers who “get scooped up and released in a short time,” after they have been interrogated. “We are not planning for a war with Iran,” Robert Gates, the new Defense Secretary, announced on February 2nd, and yet the atmosphere of confrontation has deepened. According to current and former American intelligence and military officials, secret operations in Lebanon have been accompanied by clandestine operations targeting Iran. American military and special-operations teams have escalated their activities in Iran to gather intelligence and, according to a Pentagon consultant on terrorism and the former senior intelligence official, have also crossed the border in pursuit of Iranian operatives from Iraq. At Rice’s Senate appearance in January, Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, of Delaware, pointedly asked her whether the U.S. planned to cross the Iranian or the Syrian border in the course of a pursuit. “Obviously, the President isn’t going to rule anything out to protect our troops, but the plan is to take down these networks in Iraq,” Rice said, adding, “I do think that everyone will understand that—the American people and I assume the Congress expect the President to do what is necessary to protect our forces.” The ambiguity of Rice’s reply prompted a response from Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, who has been critical of the Administration: Some of us remember 1970, Madam Secretary. And that was Cambodia. And when our government lied to the American people and said, “We didn’t cross the border going into Cambodia,” in fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee. So, Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the President is talking about here, it’s very, very dangerous. The Administration’s concern about Iran’s role in Iraq is coupled with its long-standing alarm over Iran’s nuclear program. On Fox News on January 14th, Cheney warned of the possibility, in a few years, “of a nuclear-armed Iran, astride the world’s supply of oil, able to affect adversely the global economy, prepared to use terrorist organizations and/or their nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors and others around the world.” He also said, “If you go and talk with the Gulf states or if you talk with the Saudis or if you talk with the Israelis or the Jordanians, the entire region is worried. . . . The threat Iran represents is growing.” The Administration is now examining a wave of new intelligence on Iran’s weapons programs. Current and former American officials told me that the intelligence, which came from Israeli agents operating in Iran, includes a claim that Iran has developed a three-stage solid-fuelled intercontinental missile capable of delivering several small warheads—each with limited accuracy—inside Europe. The validity of this human intelligence is still being debated. A similar argument about an imminent threat posed by weapons of mass destruction—and questions about the intelligence used to make that case—formed the prelude to the invasion of Iraq. Many in Congress have greeted the claims about Iran with wariness; in the Senate on February 14th, Hillary Clinton said, “We have all learned lessons from the conflict in Iraq, and we have to apply those lessons to any allegations that are being raised about Iran. Because, Mr. President, what we are hearing has too familiar a ring and we must be on guard that we never again make decisions on the basis of intelligence that turns out to be faulty.” Still, the Pentagon is continuing intensive planning for a possible bombing attack on Iran, a process that began last year, at the direction of the President. In recent months, the former intelligence official told me, a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours. In the past month, I was told by an Air Force adviser on targeting and the Pentagon consultant on terrorism, the Iran planning group has been handed a new assignment: to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq. Previously, the focus had been on the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities and possible regime change. Two carrier strike groups—the Eisenhower and the Stennis—are now in the Arabian Sea. One plan is for them to be relieved early in the spring, but there is worry within the military that they may be ordered to stay in the area after the new carriers arrive, according to several sources. (Among other concerns, war games have shown that the carriers could be vulnerable to swarming tactics involving large numbers of small boats, a technique that the Iranians have practiced in the past; carriers have limited maneuverability in the narrow Strait of Hormuz, off Iran’s southern coast.) The former senior intelligence official said that the current contingency plans allow for an attack order this spring. He added, however, that senior officers on the Joint Chiefs were counting on the White House’s not being “foolish enough to do this in the face of Iraq, and the problems it would give the Republicans in 2008.”
Please read the rest of this article by following this link : http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh

Bush: 'Preposterous' to suggest intelligence on Iran is wrong

Bush insists that Iran is providing weapons for Iraq




Text of President Bush on Wednesday, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions : http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/14/ap3427046.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Wednesday he's convinced that the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons to fighters in Iraq, even if he can't prove the orders came from the highest levels in Tehran. More important, Bush said in his first news conference of the year, is protecting U.S. troops against the lethal new threat. "I'm going to do something about it," Bush said. U.S. officials have said that Iran helped on attacks on troops in Iraq, an assertion denied by Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Meanwhile, Bush shrugged off congressional debate on a resolution opposing his Iraq policy, noting that the measure was non-binding and mostly symbolic. But he said U.S. troops are counting on lawmakers to provide them the funds they need to win.
Bush spoke as the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives debated a measure opposing his decision to send some 21,500 additional troops to Iraq. "They have every right to express their opposition and it is a non-binding resolution," he said of the House members, who were continuing a marathon Iraq policy debate on Capitol Hill even as he spoke. In his first news conference since Dec. 20, Bush said he received a briefing earlier in the day from Iraq from newly-confirmed Gen. David Petraeus, the new chief commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, who is now in Baghdad. "We talked about the coordination between Iraqi and coalition forces," Bush said. For now, he said, that coordination appeared to be good, although Bush said much work remains. Meanwhile, Bush responded carefully when asked about Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent sharp criticism of U.S. foreign and military policy. Bush said he had a "complicated relationship" with the Russian leader. Bush also said that he and Putin have a lot they agree on, and that's what people in the United States need to understand. Chief among those common priorities, Bush said, is making sure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.



Putin slammed U.S. domination of world affairs at an international conference of security officials in Germany over the weekend, saying it was making the world more dangerous by overusing its military power. The depth of Putin's criticism surprised U.S. officials. Moscow and Washington drew closer together immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, but more recently relations have been more strained.
Some highlights: 11:58 a.m.
Sitting down with Iran wouldn't work: The last question was why -- if the U.S. could negotiate with the former Soviet Union over nuclear weapons -- it can't sit down one-on-one with Iran. "If I thought we could achieve success I would sit down" with Iran, the president said. "But I don't think we could achieve success right now." The president said there is a better chance of success if "the whole world stays engaged" and he pointed to the multi-lateral talks with North Korea as an example of such a strategy working.11:47 a.m.Opponents are patriots too: Those who oppose his policies in Iraq are just as patriotic as he is, the president said. But he said again that lawmakers who disagree with what he's doing still need to vote to approve the funds that he says troops need to accomplish the mission he's set out for them. 11:42 a.m. ET. On "CIA leak;" no comment: Washington Post reporter Peter Baker tried several ways to get the president to comment on the "CIA leak" saga, which is in the news this week thanks to the trial of former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who's accused of lying during the investigation of that leak. "Not going to talk about it Peter," Bush said. He offered to "recycle" Baker and give him a chance to ask a different question. Baker declined. 11:35 a.m. ET. Troop morale: Questioned about whether he has been told that the morale of U.S. troops in Iraq is weakening, the president said, "what I hear from commanders is that the place where there is concern is from the family members," not the troops. 11:28 a.m.Iran: Back on Iran and evidence that it is supplying weapons to terrorists and insurgents in Iraq, Bush responded forcefully to a question on why U.S. intelligence should be trusted. "The idea that we're somehow manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing (bombs) is preposterous," Bush said.


11:25 a.m.North Korea: Tuesday, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton slammed the deal reached this week with North Korea on its nuclear weapons program. Bush said Bolton and others who criticize the agreement are "flat wrong." "I changed the dynamic on the North Korean issue by convincing other people to be at the table with us ... (and) we had a breakthrough," Bush said. "Those who say the North Koreans have got to prove themselves by following through on the deal are right," Bush added, "and I'm one" who says that.11:20 a.m. On Iran: The president was asked about comments this week by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said he isn't sure the government of Iran has ordered that weapons be supplied to insurgents in Iraq. "Either they knew or they didn't know," that some Iranian weapons have ended up in Iraq, Bush said. "What's worse? That the government knew or that the government didn't know?"11:13 a.m.Don't prejudge Iraq plan: Of the debate underway in Congress over non-binding resolutions that oppose his plans in Iraq, the president said "it opposes our new plan before it has a chance to work." While Congress has the right to debate the policy, Bush said, it also needs to approve funding that will give U.S. troops what they need to carry out their missions in Iraq.11:07 a.m. ET. Securing Baghdad "will take time:" In his opening remarks, the president spoke about an update he got this morning from Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq. "The operation to secure Baghdad is going to take time," Bush said, "and there's going to be violence." He is aware, the president added, that U.S. and Iraqi forces will not be able to stop all suicide bombers and others who want to disrupt progress in Iraq. But, "to step back from the fight in Baghdad would have disastrous consequences for people in America," Bush said. If "we fail there, the enemy will follow us here."

Bush was pressed repeatedly during the nearly hour-long news conference to explain an apparent contradiction between U.S. military briefers in Baghdad and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, over Iranian government involvement in the purported supply of weapons, including high-powered explosives, that have been used against U.S. forces in deadly roadside bombings in Iraq. In a weekend briefing, reporters in Baghdad were told that the "highest levels" of the Iranian government had ordered the smuggling of the weapons into Iraq. But Pace said later it was not clear "that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this." Bush said the Quds Force, a component of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, has been "instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs [improvised explosive devices] to networks inside of Iraq" and that the Quds Force "is part of the Iranian government." He added, "What we don't know is whether the head leaders in Iran ordered the Quds Force to do what they did." He then asked, "What's worse? That the government knew or that the government didn't know?" He said in reply to a subsequent question, "There are weapons in Iraq that are harming U.S. troops" because of smuggling by the Quds Force. "Whether [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds Force to do this, I don't know." Bush asserted, "There is no contradiction that the weapons are there and they were provided by the Quds Force." Disclosing this does not mean that he is "trying to have a pretext for war" against Iran, Bush said. "This means I'm trying to protect our troops." He repeated his previous warnings that U.S. forces "will deal with" networks and agents involved in smuggling Iranian weapons into Iraq. U.S. officials have vowed to carry out such actions inside Iraq's borders.

PRESS RELEASE BY JONDOLAH REGARDING THE BUS EXPLOSION IN ZAHEDAN

The latest news

2007 Friday 16 February

اطلاعیه جنبش مقاومت مردمی ایران (جندالله )
به نام خداجنبش مقاومت مردمی ایران (جندالله ) بیانیه تفرقه انگیز حسنعلی نوری فرماندار رژیم در زاهدان مبنی بر ادعای اینکه مسلم کیخا شهید عقیده ، اصالت و مردانگی سیستانی و شیعه است را به شدت محکوم می کند.
اینگونه بیانات اقدامی در راستای تفرقه اندازی بین مردم شیعه و سنی ، فارس و بلوچ می باشد و این نوع حرکات در راستای ضرب المثل مشهور تفرقه بینداز و حکومت کن می باشد .
همچنین جنبش مقاومت مردمی باری دیگر تاکید می کند که هیچ یک از دلاوران مبارز دستگیر نشده و ادعاهای پوچ و بی اساس رژیم آخوندی را تکذیب می کند.
از آنجا که رژیم می خواهد بر ضعف خود سر پوش نهاده و وانمود کند که بسیار مقتدر است فورا اعلام کرد که ما عوامل اصلی این عملیات را دستگیر کرده ایم و نیز مسئولیت ضعف خود را بر دوش دیگر کشورها نظیر پاکستان انداخت .
کسانی که دستگیر شده اند از اقوام و خویشاوندان مبارزان هستند که هیچ گونه همکاری با جنبش نداشته اند و رژیم از این ترفند برای فشار بر مبارزین استفاده می نماید و در مورد آنچه که رژیم ادعا می کند که سلاح ها و مهماتی کشف نموده ، جنبش این نکته را تایید می کند ولی در خانه ای که این مهمات قرار داشته اند فردی حضور نداشته و کسی دستگیر نشده است .
ادعای رژیم مبنی بر کشف اسنادی در ارتباط رابطه جنبش با سرویس های اطلاعاتی امریکا و انگلیس کذب محض بوده و مضحکه می باشد و دال بر بی عقلی ، جهالت و نادانی مسئولان جاهل و نادان رژیم می باشد .
اولا : اگر ارتباطی با سرویس های اطلاعاتی می باشد این وظیفه شبکه اطلاعاتی و کادر سیاسی است نه شاخه نظامی .
ثانیا : بر اساس آموزشهای چریکی اسنادی نه اینچنین مهم بلکه اسناد معمولی را نباید در منطقه عملیاتی نگاه داشت .
ثالثا : جنبش هیچ نیازی برای برقراری ارتباط با سرویس های اطلاتی ندارد و باید برای عقل و خرد این سرمداران رژیم عزای عمومی اعلام کرد ( بر این عقل و خرد بباید گریست ).
و در آخر جنبش مقاومت مردمی شدیدا به تمامی سردمداران رژیم و مزدورانش در منطقه هشدار می دهد که جواب تمام این توطئه ها و تبلیغات دروغین ، دستگیری و شکنجه جوانان بیگناه و به پای تلویزیون کشیدن آنها و وادار نمودنشان به اعتراف به جرمهای ناکرده را در اسرع وقت آنچنان زیبا و خوب خواهد گرفت تا باشد عبرتی برای بی خردان زیرا که خردمندان تا به حال می بایست عبرت می گرفتند .
و ان شاء الله به حول و قوه الهی حیات خلوت دشمنان مردم ایران را در پایتخت کشور که آزادانه و با امنیت تردد می کنند تبدیل به جهنمی خواهیم کرد تا همه مستکبران عالم بدانند که قهر و خشم یک ملت با سرکوب خاموش نخواهد شد.
طی این اطلاعیه فرماندهی نظامی جنبش مقاومت مردمی به شرافت خود قسم یاد می کند که اگر جوانان بیگناه تا چند روز دیگر آزاد نشوند درسی به یاد ماندنی به رژیم خواهیم داد و تمام استراتژیها و دکترینهای ضد حکومتی را اختیار خواهیم نمود.جنبش مقاومت مردمی ایران
انفجار زاهدان: اطلاعیه جدید جنبش مقاومت مردمی ایران (جندالله)
بنام خدا
جنبش مقاومت مردمی ایران (جندالله ) عملیات موفقیت آمیز چهارشنبه ۲۵ بهمن ماه ۱۳۸۵ دلاوران مبارز شاخه نظامی شهید احمد دهمرده را به عموم مردم ستمدیده بلوچستان و ایران تبریک عرض مینماید و همچنین این مژده را به مردم عزیز میدهد که رشته عملیاتهای اقتدار ۲ با موفقیت کامل به پایان رسید و به زودی رشته عملیاتهای اقتدار ۳ در ابعادی وسیعتر در سایر نقاط و مراکز حساس نظامی ایران به اجرا در خواهد آمد. موفقیت و پیروزی مبارزان در عملیاتهای متعدد مرهون خون مبارزان شهید و مردم بیگناهی که در زندانها و دادگاههای دژخیمانی همجون نکونام ها و بدون داشتن وکیل و اثبات جرمی به اعدام محکوم گشتند می باشد.
جنبش مقاومت به اطلاع مردم می رساند که اخبار مربوط به دستگیری مبارزین دروغ محض بوده و رژیم از روی ضعف و زبونی خویش در برابر مبارزین اینچنین شایعاتی را انتشار میدهد. طی این اطلاعیه فرمانده امیر عبدالمالک بلوچ رهبری جنبش مقاومت مردمی از اپوزیسیون خواستند که ندای حق خواهی مردم مظلوم ما را بیش از پیش به گوش هموطنان و جهانیان برسانند تا همگان بدانند که بر ما چه میگذرد. در ادامه ایشان افزودند که جنبش مقاومت مردمی به روشهای مسالت آمیز و مقاومت منفی و پرهیز از خشونت اعتقاد دارد تا زمانی که طرف مقابل نیز به این روشها احترام بگذارد اما هنگامیکه به اعتراضات مسالمت آمیز مردمی با خشونت پاسخ داده میشود دیگر این روشها ناکارآمد شده و توسل به این روشها پایان می پذیرد و در این مرحله است که چاره ای جر دست به سلاح بردن وجود ندارد. ما عدم خشونت را به عنوان یک استراتژی قبول داریم نه به عنوان یک اصل کلی و اساسی و اخلاقی . بنابراین استفاده از یک روش بی اثر هیچ پاداش اخلاقی ندارد و ما باری دیگر قبل از آغاز رشته عملیاتهای اقتدار ۳ رژیم را به فراهم نمودن زمینه برای راههای مقاومت منفی و اعتراضات دموکراتیک دعوت می نماییم و اگر رژیم از امروز این زمینه را فراهم نماید ما در انظار مردم ایران و حهان اعلام میکنیم که سلاح را بر زمین میگذاریم و در صورتیکه رژیم این زمینه را مهیا نکند ما نیز چاره ای به جز سلاح نداریم زیرا در کشوری که فضای خفگان بر آن حاکم باشد هیچ راهی برای زنده ماندن جز مقاومت مسلحانه نخواهد بود. جنبش ما هیچ گونه وابستگی با قاچاق مواد مخدر ، طالبان و القاعده نداشته و ندارد و اگر رژیم خود را صادق میداند چرا به نمایندگانی که از طرفش نزد ما می آیند اجازه نمی دهد تا حقایق را در رسانه های اظهار نمایند. خواسته های ما منطقی است و حقوقی است که همه انسانها در سراسر دنیا از آن برخوردارند و اولین خواسته ما این است که رژیم به منشور حقوق بشر سازمان ملل متحد احترام گذاشته و مطابق با آن ما حقوق اقلیتهای ملی و مذهبی را به رسمیت بشناسد . جنبش مقاومت مردمی ایران (جندالله )

GOOD MORNING AMERICA AND WATCH OUT DEMOCRATS

Its wishful thinking to hope that Iran’s ayatollahs would commit to more constructive policies in the region. This is against all that the Islamic Republic has written, preached, or practiced world-wide for 27 years.

The Message to the Americans : The U.S. needs to get one very important thing right on Iran. By Farhad Mansourian .
In the February 1, 2007, issue of the Iranian journal Sobheh Sadegh, Reza Zaker, the head of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Strategic Research Institute, states that “kidnapping American soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Central Asia, Pakistan, India, Africa, Latin America, and even Europe and transferring them to safe houses is even easier than ordering a container full of Chinese junk.” The article continues, “We can open our purse just a little and witness the capture of a long line of blue eyed and blonde officers trapped by hungry fighters who are simply waiting for our direction.” Meanwhile, Hassan Kazami Qumi, Iran’s ambassador in Iraq, brags to the New York Times that Iran is going to “greatly expand...economic and military ties with Iraq.” In the Gaza Strip, Fatah says its arrested seven Iranian military “trainers.”The Islamic Republic is no status quo power. The Iranian government is expanding its operations into Afghanistan, Gaza, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, and elsewhere.



With the partisan shift in Congress, pressure on the Bush administration to begin negotiations with Iran is mounting. In the February 8 Washington Post, two Iranian-American scholars argued that the U.S. should begin unconditional negotiations with Tehran. They spoke of the Iranian government’s factions, but did not mention that all Iranian politicians, regardless of faction, are subject to the dictates of the Supreme Leader.
Under today’s conditions it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for Iran and the U.S. to find a diplomatic solution to their ever-increasing conflict. Faced with strategic stalemate, we can break it only by changing the strategy itself.
It is imperative that the U.S. government achieve unity on Iran policy.
The issue of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a partisan one, but rather an American one. Democrats need to know that as suggested by Baker-Hamilton report “the need to unconditionally engage Iran in the hope that Iran’s ayatollahs would commit to more constructive policies in the region” is simply not in line with what the Islamic Republic has written, preached, or practiced worldwide for 27 years. If the ayatollahs sense that all they have to do is keep the Middle East in chaos until the Democrats take control of the White House, then American and world security will continue to be gravely compromised. Democrats must be reminded that if they win the White House, they would also inherit this mess.
The Bush administration needs to strengthen its message to the Iranian people and their Islamic regime. They need to clearly understand that, as Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said, the Iranian government “have to understand that there are consequences to their actions.” The Iranian people must be reminded and the White House and Congress must affirm that if it has to pursue dialogue, it does not mean abandoning the freedom-aspiring Iranian people.
The dialogue must have both moral clarity and purpose.
The Bush administration and Congress should commit to aiding internal Iranian efforts that strive to bring about democratic regime change from within.
Only through these efforts will we, as Americans, be safe from this peril that the Islamic Republic has become.— Farhad Mansourian is a research fellow at the Center For Promotion of Democracy & Human Rights.

Lieutenant General David Petraeus

Stakes high as Bush's Iraq strategy gets underway



The make-or-break US strategy to quell the violence in Iraq has begun in earnest with the new commander of US troops Lieutenant General David Petraeus
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/qzalumni/testimonials/petraeus.html
set to spearhead the offensive. "He's the General Grant of the surge," said Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham, quoted by the Washington Post, referring to the legendary Union general in the American Civil War, Ulysses S. Grant, who went on to be president. "He's our last best chance as a military commander to bring about a change on the ground," the paper added, saying the general had flown to Iraq this week. read the rest of this article by following the link.