03/26: "Winds of War" - Face-off with Iran Takes Tougher Turn

=

03/25: "The Winds of War" - Seized Britons Face Prosecution After Tehran Claims
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=234936



<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Face-off with Iran Takes Tougher Turn</font>

March 26, 2007
The Christian Science Monitor
Scott Peterson
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0326/p01s04-wome.html </center>
BAGHDAD -- From the United Nations in New York to the Shatt al-Arab waterway that splits southern Iran and Iraq, the ongoing row over Iran's nuclear program turned decidedly more confrontational over the weekend.

The UN Security Council Saturday unanimously agreed to widen economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic, taking aim at the country's arms exports, state bank, and its elite Revolutionary Guard Corps. </b>

But new UN demands to suspend uranium enrichment are prompting more belligerence from Iran, as the country appears to be shifting its policy of avoiding confrontation to "following their traditional aggressive policies [pursued since the] Islamic revolution" of 1979, says Saeed Leylaz, an independent analyst in Tehran.

Signaling that it will not be bullied, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard seized 15 British sailors and marines that Tehran says were engaged in "blatant aggression" inside its waters on Friday along its disputed riverine border with Iraq. Britain denies that its crews entered Iranian waters.

While the new UN resolution is far weaker than what the US, Britain, and France first proposed, it "is a very big step toward surrounding [Iran]. The US is going step by step to surround the country militarily, economically, and politically," says Mr. Leylaz. "They are surrounding us, and [so] the British sailors have been arrested because Iran is trying to warn Western countries that it will perceive these new sanctions as enemy [actions]."

Measures of the sanctions vote reach beyond Iran's nuclear program, and are directed at individuals and the Revolutionary Guard Corps – the powerful, ideological force separate from the regular army – to limit Iran's growing influence across the region.

Washington is trying to "change the actions and behavior" of Iran, Nicholas Burns, the US under secretary of State for political affairs, told The New York Times. "And so the sanctions are immediately focused on the nuclear weapons research program, but we also are trying to limit the ability of Iran to be a disruptive and violent factor in Middle East politics."

Iran's reaction was given in New York by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, in lieu of a planned visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tehran claimed that the US "deliberately" failed to issue visas on time for the president's flight crew, a charge US officials deny.

"The world must know – and it does – that even the harshest sanctions and other threats are far too weak to coerce the Iranian people to retreat from their legal and legitimate demands," Mr. Mottaki told the council. "I can assure you that pressure and intimidation will not change Iranian policy," Mottaki said, adding that suspension of nuclear work was "neither an option nor a solution."

As a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is permitted to develop peaceful nuclear technology, which includes the complete nuclear fuel cycle. But outstanding issues remain, which have so far prevented UN nuclear inspectors from confirming that Iran's program is peaceful. Key Western powers, led by the US, accuse Iran of using its stated quest for nuclear fuel expertise as a cover for a weapons program. They note that mastering these peaceful processes would give Iran the capability to step over the "threshold" and pursue atomic bombs.

"This resolution sends an unambiguous signal to the government and people of Iran ... that the path of nuclear proliferation by Iran is not one that the international community can accept," said Emyr Jones Parry, the British ambassador to the UN.

Even as the UN vote was taken, the circumstances and location of the British sailors and Royal Marines remained unclear. Their detention echoed a similar incident in 2004, when eight British sailors were picked up, subjected to mock executions, and held for three days after straying into Iranian waters.

Iranian officials say the Britons have "confessed." But the political situation could not be more different today, with both sides in the "Iran versus the West" struggle looking for strategic advantage.

Iran's supreme religious leader Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei made a stern declaration in his New Year message last Wednesday, in a sign that Washington's mounting accusations about Iranian meddling in the region are being felt in Tehran.

"In case the enemies of Iran intend to use force and violence and act illegally, without a doubt the Iranian nation and officials will use all their capabilities to strike enemies that attack," he said.

That warning has been echoed by senior military officers. The British sailors were detained – British officials say "kidnapped" – less than two days later.

"The captured British sailors are under interrogation and admitted ... that they have transgressed Iranian territorial waters," said Army Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, Iran's deputy chief of staff.

"The United States and its allies know that if they make any mistake in their calculations ... they will not be able to control the dimensions and limit the duration of a war," said General Afshar.

Other reporting indicated that the Britons may have been picked up to be used as bargaining chips for the release of five Iranians detained in January by US forces in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil.

Iran claims they were "diplomats" who were "kidnapped" from an official Iranian consulate. The US alleges that the men were Revolutionary Guard operatives, caught with a "treasure trove" of intelligence and flushing documents down the toilet.

The London-based Asharq al-Awsat newspaper, quoting what it called a source close to Iran Al Qods Brigade – an elite unit of the Revolutionary Guard Corps that the US accuses of targeting Americans in Iraq – reported over the weekend that the arrest of the Iranians had compromised Al Qods operations in Iraq.

"The decision to detain the Britons was made at an emergency meeting of the Supreme Defense [Security] Council for the purpose of bargaining for the release of the Revolutionary Guard and intelligence officers being held by the Americans in Iraq," the pan-Arab newspaper quoted the source as saying.

This dynamic points to a broader strategic game at play in New York, Iran, and Iraq, analysts say.

"The issue is much more than the nuclear program [and] in recent months that has become clearer, as the Americans have started explicitly linking Iran with destabilizing Iraq, and putting a carrier task force into the Gulf, to reassure its allies and have more leverage on Iran," says Shahram Chubin, an Iran specialist at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.

"In the background, the fact is the nuclear program is only a symptom of the problem," says Mr. Chubin, author of "Iran's Nuclear Ambitions."

"Because the nature of Iran's activities in the region – that is anti-Americanism – is what animates most of the skepticism and the distrust of Iran's motives ... which are unacceptable to the US and many European countries."

The second unanimous UN vote against Iran may again be symbolic and nonmilitary, but unlike Iran's past talks with European and other negotiators, "there is absolutely no wiggle room" about the requirement to suspend, says Chubin. "The Security Council has twice been able to vote against Iran, but it's been unable to vote on Darfur. That tells you the Russians and Chinese are serious about this."

The result is concern in Tehran, on an issue that ranks high in national pride. Iran last week released a new 50,000 rial banknote, the largest denomination, that showed an atomic symbol over a map of Iran, and words from the prophet Muhammad: "If knowledge is in the heavens, the Persians will go and get it."

"For the last six months, the military forces of Iran have been under very high pressure – not only in Arbil, but in Istanbul, in Lebanon, everywhere in the world," says analyst Laylaz.

"The US is trying to make them nervous, and more or less it seems they have been successful," he adds. "And because of this, the system [Iran's Islamic regime] should do something. They have to react against that action."

New UN sanctions

UN Security Council Resolution 1747 tightens the Dec. 23 sanctions on Iran. The new resolution:

• Tells Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing, and heavy water-related reactor projects. The IAEA is to report within 60 days on compliance.

• Extends an assets freeze to 28 additional groups, companies, and individuals engaged in nuclear activities or development of ballistic missiles. The new list includes the state-owned Bank Sepah and commanders and firms controlled by Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

• Imposes an embargo exports of conventional weapons and calls on countries to "exercise vigilance and restraint" in importing weapons to Iran.

• Calls on nations and international financial institutions not to give financial aid or loans to Iran except for humanitarian and developmental purposes.

• Calls on nations to "exercise vigilance and restraint" in barring travel by Iranian officials engaged in sensitive nuclear activities.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>A Saudi - US Fence Around Iran </font>

March 26, 2007
The Christian Science Monitor
The Monitor's View
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0326/p08s02-comv.html </center>
Iran sent a belligerent warning last Friday: It seized 15 British sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf. The hostile move wasn't aimed only at London. It came just before anti-Iran moves by the UN Security Council and Sunni Arab nations. The real message? "Don't fence us in."
</b>
Tehran's radical Shiite regime faces an unusual partnership of foes opposed to its regional and nuclear ambitions. The United States and Saudi Arabia, either working separately or together, have rallied friends and allies to isolate Iran by adept diplomacy.

On Saturday, for example, the United Nations Security Council voted 15 to 0 to toughen sanctions on Iran for its failure to suspend suspect nuclear activities. The first sanctions were imposed in December. If Iran doesn't suspend uranium enrichment within two months, the UN may apply further pressure, or at least nod to efforts by some nations to divest from Iran.

And this Wednesday, the 22-state Arab League will gather in a rather public display of unity against Iran, hosted by Saudi Arabia's ruler, King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz. He has led the diplomatic offensive to roll back Iranian influence among Lebanese, Palestinians, and Shiite Iraqis.

From a larger perspective, the Saudis are trying to curb the influence of radical, violent Islam – a move that should win the Saudi regime more support from Muslims around the world who see it as caretaker of major holy Islamic sites.

The king, worried about Iran's ties to the radical Palestinian group Hamas, was also able to broker a deal this month between Hamas and the nationalist Fatah party to help form a new Palestinian unity government. He also may be helping to suppress Iran-backed Hizbullah forces in Lebanon. And there are reports of recent meetings between Saudi and Israeli officials.

Saudi Arabia is beefing up its Navy with US aid and supporting other Gulf states in building oil pipelines that would bypass the Gulf's Strait of Hormuz, thus weakening Iran's ability to threaten oil exports.

Confronting Iran directly, however, is not Saudi style. Its military is weak compared with Iran's. That's why the capture of British forces may be a signal from Iran's clerics – or maybe just a faction – that retaliation is a strong option.

The Saudis are also expected to use this Arab summit to reassert their 2002 peace offer to Israel. If Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gets her way (she's on her fourth Middle East trip in four months), the Saudis might engage more directly with Israel. Meanwhile, the US must continue to engage with elements of the new Hamas-led government, such as the non-Hamas foreign minister and finance minister.

The US and Saudi Arabia do have differences over how to isolate Iran, such as in bolstering Hamas. But both have an interest in weakening Iran's influence in Iraq and in ending its nuclear ambitions. In fact, Saturday's UN resolution goes beyond the nuclear issue to freeze the assets of commanders in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and its military unit, the Quds Force, which has ties to militant groups in Iraq and Lebanon.

A bolder Saudi Arabia and a more diplomatic US could make a good team in curbing radical Islamists in the Middle East.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/03/26/dl2601.xml

The last time Iranian forces kidnapped British naval personnel from Iraqi territorial waters, in 2004, the hostages were released after three days.

So it must remain our earnest hope that the current outrage in the Gulf will also turn out to be no more than another act of bellicose posturing by Teheran, and that HMS Cornwall will shortly welcome its crew members back on board, all safe and well.

More doubtful is how the behaviour of our Government, especially that of a Prime Minister who can no longer command respect at home or abroad, and his perennially invisible Foreign Secretary, will have materially helped that happy outcome.
advertisement

Yesterday Tony Blair used the platform of the EU summit to tell us what we already knew, namely that the Iranian action was "unjustified and wrong", and stressed how seriously Britain is taking the situation, adding: "It is the welfare of the people that have been taken by the Iranian government that is most important."

This was fine as far it went, but it was not enough.

To offer sympathy with the loved ones of the prisoners is appropriate, and expresses the sentiments of us all.

But Mr Blair is supposed to be our leader, not our mouthpiece, and neither homely platitudes nor dark hints cut any ice with the likes of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guards.

There may be neither political will nor public support for an invasion of Iran, but we do have the power to hurt that country grievously without committing our forces to another long haul, and the threat must be made explicit: release these prisoners, or else.

We must not delude ourselves about the cause of this crisis.

When his people were abducted, the commander of the Cornwall was quick to say that it was probably all just a misunderstanding; but our naval officers are trained to be adroit diplomats, ever alert for ways of preventing an incident from becoming a shooting match.

The Iranians have yet to respond to that pacific gambit, preferring instead to exploit the fears of innocent families, and with them the civilians of an entire nation, just like the terrorists they are.

And, true to the profile, they do this in support of an agenda that seems perverse to the civilised mind.

If Iran desires a lifting of sanctions, rather than their intensification, it would be prudent for it to stop lying to us about the details of its nuclear programme, to stop arming and directing insurgents in southern Iraq, and to stop violating Iraqi territorial waters.

Instead, it chooses to deepen our hostility, believing, against all the evidence, that threats rather than conciliation will weaken Western resolve, and even that it will be rewarded in some way for releasing the prisoners unharmed.

It is Mr Blair's job now to trumpet unequivocally the folly of such a belief.

We wait anxiously to see whether this weakened and discredited Prime Minister has the necessary spine to do what is required, or whether Britain will persist in presenting its weakest aspect to a potential enemy.

Have your say

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

The abduction of the 15 British soldiers aboard the HMS Cornwall three days ago is Iran's way of telling or reminding the world that it is a powerful military and regional force, and that the international community should be advised against overstepping its boundaries when it comes to the Islamic Republic's national interests.

By removing 15 British soldiers at gunpoint the day before the UN Security Council decided on new sanctions directed at Iran, the Iranians were saying quite clearly that they just don't give a damn.

Though President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad felt the sting of being refused audience in New York for the UN meetings on the sanctions, his audacious disregard for international peace and security is a message to the UN and the Security Council that Teheran is not scared of sanctions, and furthermore, the sanctions being discussed at the moment are not enough to deter the government from its course.

The kidnapping of foreign personnel is nothing new for the Iranian regime. This is a pattern that we have seen since the hostage crisis in 1979, when 66 American hostages were held for 444 days.

Since then, Iran has gone unpunished for all of its aggression directed at the West. As we have seen in the cases of the French and the British before them, Iranian scare tactics play along the lines of attacking foreign embassies in Teheran, or reverting to kidnappings of foreign officials in Lebanon or in Iran itself.

In 2003, when Iran viewed British foreign policy as leaning unfavorably against them, revolutionary guards fired at the British Embassy to reverse the pressure and relieve the strains dictated by Britain's application of foreign policy. The Iranians have even been so bold to attack an American military base in Lebanon, through its proxy Hizbullah (in 1983).

Israel has had the greatest opportunity to reprimand Iran for its aggressive tactics, but its failure in the war has allowed Iran to grow bolder and stronger.

Only the United States stands capable of putting an end to Iranian attacks, but the Americans are showing too much indecisiveness to convince the world they are about to do so. Iran has not yet attacked the US directly, which seems to be the only thing that would force the Americans into a military conflict with Iran. However, the American military presence in the Gulf is not the deterrent that many attribute to the fact that Iranian and American clashes have not yet erupted. And the Iranians have not yet had retribution for their five revolutionary guards arrested by American forces in Iraq!

The kidnapping of the British sailors in the Shatt al-Arab waterway separating Iraq and Iran is as significant as it is symbolic. The waterway is not only the main artery for Iraqi oil shipments, but it is been the center of a territorial feud between Iraq and Iran which has been going on for nearly 30 years. The claim by the Iranian Foreign Ministry that the sailors were in Iranian waters was a way for the Iranian government to let the new Iraqi government know that they still believe the waterway belongs to them.

If the Iranians go so far as to make a lot of noise over this incident, they may find themselves in a very strong position to attract a deal from the West. The Iranians hope that there are enough political implications in this ordeal to provoke an international incident and drive a wedge between the US and the UK, but the reality of the situation dictates that neither side would let tensions escalate to such a point.

The British could be persuaded to trade assets in exchange for their soldiers. The British know that any of their soldiers being tried for espionage in Teheran would mean unbearable amounts of pressure from inside their own country to get them out before an execution.

It seems strange that during a time of war, and with a heavy military presence, the British did not defend the unfortunate 15. If the British are scared of a full-scale conflict with the Iranians, the future does not look good for the 14 men and one woman of the HMS Cornwall.

Dr. Ely Karmon is a senior researcher at the Institute for Counterterrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center at Herzliya, and was interviewed by Yaniv Salama-Scheer.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879172761&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

[ Back to the Article ]
Copyright 1995-2007 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>US Troops 'Would Have Fought Iranian Captors'</font>

March 26, 2007
Independent
Terri Judd in Bahrain
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2393337.ece </center>
A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Republican Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage. In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.
</b>
Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."

The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: "The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"

His comments came as it was reported British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts. The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines - including one young mother - will undoubtedly renew accusations that Britain's determination to maintain a friendly face in the region has left its troops frequently under protected.

Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, the Royal Navy team from HMS Cornwall were seized on Friday after completing a UN-authorised inspection of a merchant dhow in what they insist were clearly Iraqi waters. The Iranian Republican Guard Corps Navy appeared in half a dozen attack speedboats mounted with machine guns..

Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

Three days after the team were taken hostage, Tony Blair publicly spoke about the diplomatic crisis for the first time. "I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," he said

"We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong," he added, speaking from Berlin.

In a telephone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki last night the Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett "expressed concern regarding the detention of the British soldiers". An Iranian official later confirmed that Iran may give consular access to the British sailors once an investigation into the incident is completed.

Yesterday, the armed forces spokesman General Ali Reza Afshar said the crew were in "sterling health" and were being interrogated in Tehran, where the Iranians claim they have "confessed" to straying into Iranian waters.

The Foreign Office minister, Lord Triesman, held "frank" discussions with the Iranian ambassador yesterday .

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnSYD83482.html


SYDNEY, March 26 (Reuters) - Oil neared $63 on Monday, setting a fresh 2007 record, on heightened geopolitical tensions between Iran and the West after Tehran vowed to continue its atomic programme despite new U.N. sanctions.

U.S. crude oil futures <CLc1> rose 45 cents to a three-month high of $62.73 a barrel in Globex electronic trading by 0022 GMT, extending Friday's gain which saw prices closing 59 cents higher.

Iran said on Sunday it would not stop its atomic programme, which it insists is only for peaceful purposes, and that it would limit cooperation with the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog in retaliation for new financial and arms sanctions. The West fears the programme could be used to develop nuclear weapons.

Although the West has been locked in a protracted dispute with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, the latest developments have renewed market concerns that the world's fourth-largest oil exporter could one day cut its oil exports to strike back at the West if the quarrels exacerbated, analysts said.

"The situation in the Middle East has become much more uncertain and the risk of tensions intensifying has underpinned the rise in oil prices and will continue to support prices," said David Moore, an analyst at Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved the sanctions on Saturday for Tehran's refusal to suspend its programme, but major powers also offered new talks and renewed an economic and technological incentive package offer. [ID:nN24298070]

Iran's capture of British navy personnel last week has also heightened tensions. Iran said on Sunday it was considering charging 15 British sailors and marines with illegally entering its waters, but added it may give consular access to them after an investigation. [ID:nL25359147]

Analysts said concern that civil unrest may intensify in Nigeria ahead of April elections was also a supporting factor for oil prices.

Thousands of foreign oil workers have left the oil rich Niger Delta since February last year, when a new militant group staged a series of attacks that forced Royal Dutch Shell to shut a fifth of Nigeria's oil production.

Oil prices would remain steady in a range of $55-$60 a barrel this year because of "persistent factors" including geopolitical tensions and a cold wave in Europe and the United States, Algerian government-run newspaper quoted Mines and Energy Minister Chakib Khelil as saying on Saturday. [ID:nL24226987]

U.S. oil has risen about 25 percent since crude oil futures dropped to $49.90 on Jan. 18. Apart from tensions in the Middle East, oil prices have also found support from reduced U.S. gasoline supplies ahead of peak summer driving demand.

Gasoline futures rose 1.1 cents on Monday to $2.93 a gallon, the highest since August.

Some analysts have said these concerns were exaggerated given that refiners were expected to emerge from maintenance sooner than usual this year.

© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.

=




<B><center>09:35, March 26, 2007

<font size=+1 color=blue>The ball is in Iran's court: experts</font>
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200703/26/eng20070326_360986.html </center>
Negotiations and a diplomatic solution are still the best way to end the Iranian nuclear standoff, experts believe.

"The (new) resolution demonstrated the UN resolve to keep the international nuclear non-proliferation mechanism intact by urging Iran to return to the negotiating table." Hua Liming, a former Chinese ambassador to Iran, told China Daily. </b>

The moderately tougher sanctions, already a compromise between relevant parties, are reversible and reflect concerns that anything short of consensus would weaken efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear defiance, said Hua.

"The new resolution has not closed the door to talks. In fact, it still pins much hope on a peaceful end to the long-term crisis," said Shi Yinhong, a professor at the School of International Relations, Renmin University of China.

Now the ball is in Iran's court, experts said. Compliance from Iran would contribute to a diplomatic solution to the stalemate, according to Shi.

The tightening of pressure on Iran would make more and more politicians and other people in Iran weary of the "defiance" and seek a change of position, Hua believes.

Source: China Daily

Thanks Dutch. The one by the Independent was very interesting.

=



<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Oil Prices Near $63 as Iran Tensions Intensify</font>

Topics:OPEC | Weather | Politics & Government | Energy
Sectors:Oil and GasBy CNBC.com
25 Mar 2007 | 09:27 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/17789210 </center>
Oil prices neared $63 on Monday, setting a fresh 2007 record, on heightened geopolitical tensions between Iran and the West after Tehran vowed to continue its atomic program despite new U.N. sanctions.

U.S. crude oil futures rose to a three-month high of $62.73 a barrel in Globex electronic trading in the Asian morning session Monday, extending Friday's gain which saw prices closing 59 cents higher. </b>

=





<b><center>March 26, 2007

<font size=+1 color=red>UAE opposes military solution to Iranian nuclear issue: FM </font>

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200703/26/eng20070326_360959.html </center>
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) hoped the current impasse over Iran's nuclear program would be resolved without any military confrontation, Emirates News Agency reported on Sunday.

Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed expressed the UAE's position on the Iranian nuclear issue in an interview with the London-based Al Majala Arabic Magazine. </b>

"The UAE is keen to promote peaceful coexistence between nations. We do not advocate the use of force as means of resolving disputes," Sheikh Abdullah said when answering question about his country's position on a possible U.S. military attack on Iran.

"Having been the scene for devastating wars during the last two decades, the region can not afford to have another war," he added.

He also expressed the worry by Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries on Iran's nuclear program, saying they need Iran's assurance that its nuclear project is for peaceful purposes and complies with the technical standards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

On Wednesday, Sheikh Abdullah urged Iran to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1737 to avoid further tensions in the region while meeting with his British counterpart Margaret Beckett in Abu Dhabi.

However, Iran's insistence on its nuclear program incurred the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1747 on Saturday, a harsher sanction resolution than the previous Resolution 1737.

Washington has accused Tehran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian program, a charge that Iran denies.

Source: Xinhua

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Document Describes Iran 'Fuel-Gas Bomb'</font>

By Staff
Mar 25, 2007
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_21271128.shtml </center>
Iranian scientists appear to have explored the potential military applications of powerful fuel-gas explosions, it was reported Sunday.

In a jointly authored thesis, three Iranian scientists wrote that "fuel-vapor cloud explosions can cause "severe damages" and that "preventing such events from happening requires a good knowledge." </b>

Raymond Tanter, who heads the Washington-based Iran Policy Committee, told YNetNews Sunday that while the language is "seemingly innocent and only for scientific purposes, the document seems to contain military applications for fuel-gas bombs."


Tanter said such documents were allowed to be published up until recently in Iran in order "to keep its young scientists at home rather than traveling to the West to publish."

Tanter said too much attention is being paid to one aspect of Iranian nuclear development activities. "Based on reports of the National Council of Resistance of Iran -- the main Iranian opposition group -- the regime has made great progress" in other forms of nuclear enrichment, he said.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini said his country would be unaffected by the latest U.N. resolution tightening sanctions against Tehran. (c) UPI

=




<B><center>08:22, March 26, 2007

<font size=+1 color=green>Iran says new UN Security Council resolution "unacceptable" </font>

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200703/26/eng20070326_360909.html </center>
A senior Iranian member of parliament said on Sunday that the new UN Security Council resolution with tougher sanctions against Tehran is "unacceptable, " local Mehr news agency reported.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chief of Iran's parliamentary national security and foreign affairs, described the Resolution 1747 that urges Iran to suspend uranium enrichment work is "unacceptable and inapplicable," Mehr said. </b>

"Iran will keep on pursuing its path within the framework of the nuclear rules...(and) advise the 5+1 group to return to the negotiating table quickly and without preconditions," Boroujerdi was quoted as saying.

He referred to the five permanent UN Security Council members, namely Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany.

Boroujerdi also said that the Iranian parliament will consider its response to the new resolution after Iran's New Year holiday, which ends on April 3.

Mohammad-Reza Bahonar, vice-speaker of the Iranian parliament, has also defended his country's right to develop nuclear technology, Iran's state television reported Sunday on its website.

"Iran is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and therefore it has the right to attain peaceful nuclear technology as other members have," Bahonar said Saturday night shortly after the UN Security Council unanimously adopted the resolution.

"We can continue our negotiations over the case if it is returned to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)," he added.

Resolution 1747, cosponsored by Britain, France and Germany and incorporating some of the amendments proposed by Indonesia, Qatar and South Africa, urges Iran to suspend uranium enrichment work " without further delay."

The new sanctions, moderately harsher than those included in previous resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue, call for a ban of Iranian arms exports, a freeze of assets of an additional 28 individuals and entities involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

In the previous resolution, adopted last December, the Security Council ordered all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs.

The new resolution calls for voluntary restrictions on travel by the individuals subject to sanctions, on arms sales to Iran, and on new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government.

It asks the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report back in 60 days on whether Iran has suspended enrichment work.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, addressing the council after the vote, defended Tehran's nuclear program as for civilian use and rejected the new resolution as a "scheme" aimed at "depriving the Iranian people of its inalienable rights."

Source: Xinhua

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/world/middleeast/26sunni.html?ref=world


BAGHDAD, March 25 — The cityscape of Iraq’s capital tells a stark story of the toll the past four years have taken on Iraq’s once powerful Sunni Arabs.

Theirs is a world of ruined buildings, damaged mosques, streets pitted by mortar shells, uncollected trash and so little electricity that many people have abandoned using refrigerators altogether.

The contrast with Shiite neighborhoods is sharp. Markets there are in full swing, community projects are under way, and while electricity is scarce throughout the city, there is less trouble finding fuel for generators in those areas. When the government cannot provide services, civilian arms of the Shiite militias step in to try to fill the gap.

But in Adhamiya, a community with a Sunni majority, any semblance of normal life vanished more than a year ago. Its only hospital, Al Numan, is so short of basic items like gauze and cotton pads that when mortar attacks hit the community last fall, the doctors broadcast appeals for supplies over local mosque loudspeakers.

Here, as in so much of Baghdad, the sectarian divide makes itself felt in its own deadly and destructive ways. Far more than in Shiite areas, sectarian hatred has shredded whatever remained of community life and created a cycle of violence that pits Sunni against Sunni as well as Sunni against Shiite.

Anyone who works with the government, whether Shiite or Sunni, is an enemy in the eyes of the Sunni insurgents, who carry out attack after attack against people they view as collaborators. While that chiefly makes targets of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi Army and the police, the militants also kill fellow Sunnis from government ministries who come to repair water and electrical lines in Sunni neighborhoods.

One result of such attacks is that government workers of either sect refuse to deliver services to most Sunni areas. For ordinary Sunnis, all this deepens the sense of political impotence and estrangement. American military leaders and Western diplomats are unsure about whether the cycle can be stopped.

“The Sunnis outside the political process say, ‘What’s the point of coming in when those involved in the government can do nothing for their own community?’ ” said a Western diplomat who is not authorized to speak publicly.

Militant religious groups, known as takfiris, “have taken these Sunni neighborhoods as bases, which made these areas of military operation,” which stops the delivery of services, said Nasir al-Ani, a Sunni member of Parliament who works on a committee trying to win popular acceptance of the Baghdad security plan. “Now the ministries are trying to make services available, but the security situation prevents it. Part of the aim of the takfiris is to keep people disliking the government.”

It adds up to a bleak prognosis for Sunnis in Baghdad. Until the violence is under control, there is unlikely to be any progress. But it is hard to persuade Sunnis to take a stand against the violence when they seem to receive so little in return.

“We want to highlight that when the government is denying services to Sunnis, they are pushing them toward the Sunni extremists who attack the Shiite-dominated security forces,” said Maj. Guy Parmeter, an operations officer for the First Battalion, Fifth Cavalry, which operates in the Sunni areas on the west side of Baghdad. “And when that happens, it makes it harder to deliver services to those areas.”

Government leaders admit that there has been outright obstruction on the part of some Shiite ministries. Ali al-Dabbagh, the government’s spokesman, said that the Health Ministry, dominated by Shiites loyal to the militant cleric Moktada al-Sadr, has failed to deliver needed services to Sunni areas, which had thrived under Saddam Hussein.

“This is part of the lack of efficiency in the ministry which didn’t improve this year,” Mr. Dabbagh said. He added, however, that he did not see any remedy in the near term.

But officials also emphasize that many of the skilled Sunnis who used to keep the ministries going have fled, so the ministries are not delivering services to anyone. Again, security has to come first, they said.

Ahmad Chalabi, a secular Shiite whose most recent role is to lead the committee working to win popular acceptance of the security plan, said he saw four problems particularly plaguing Sunni areas: food distribution, electricity, fuel and health services.

Mr. Chalabi says he may have found a solution for the first by assuring that food agents, especially in Sunni areas, have an Iraqi Army escort to the food warehouses. The other problems are deeper, and solutions will take far longer to find, he said.

Since there has been no census taken in years, it is difficult to say the relative proportion of Shiites and Sunnis in Baghdad. Rough estimates suggest that Sunnis now make up no more than 40 percent of Baghdad’s population and possibly much less.

Day-to-day life for most Sunnis has become a nightmare of frustration, punctuated by terror that they will be caught in the cross-fire. Sunni Baghdad is now made up of block after block of shuttered storefronts, broken glass and piles of rubble. By midafternoon in those neighborhoods, hardly a person is on the street. Many residents will not leave their neighborhoods to go to jobs or see a doctor for fear they will be kidnapped at a checkpoint.

Baghdad’s Sunni areas, mostly on the west side, were once roughly 70 percent Sunni and 30 percent Shiite, but those ratios have become more lopsided as Shiites have fled. Each neighborhood has its own sad tale.

In Amiriya, one of the western neighborhoods that was taken over early on by hard-line Sunni insurgents, the Americans and the militants have fought a running battle for more than three years. More recently Shiite militiamen joined the fray, kidnapping and killing those they believed were collaborating with the insurgents.

Now they have fled and been replaced by cells of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who threaten Sunnis who refuse to cooperate with them. They take over houses that families have fled and use them as bases to attack Iraqi Army and police checkpoints in the neighborhood.

Small wonder that streets are empty, shops are shuttered and neighbors view every foray for life’s essentials as a dangerous journey.

For Um Hint, who did not give her full name for fear of retaliation, the past four years have been a downhill slide. She learned to recognize the different insurgents by what they wear. “The ones we see now are different from the ones before because those wore masks,” she said. “The merchants no longer sell their goods from their stores. We must go to their houses when we want something like shampoo or clothes. Anyone trying to open his shop, the insurgents will threaten him. Sometimes they leave a note, but sometimes they put a bomb in front of the shop.”

The hazards on the streets have forced women to take over many of the activities often taken care of by men: food shopping, making inquiries at government agencies and taking household belongings for repairs. The militants “only kill men,” said Ms. Hint, 40. “So we go out alone.”

In Mansour, an odd silence pervades even before the shadows begin to lengthen. Along the once busy 14th of Ramadan Street, most shops are closed, and almost every side street is blocked off by coils of barbed wire and concrete blocks.

Residents describe an infrastructure so completely broken that they barely limp from one day to the next.

“I simply want to say that there are no services now,” said Abu Ali, 52, an engineer who works for a local cellphone company. “I get electricity for only two hours a day.”

He added: “The phones have been dead for two months; the sewers are bad; I have a broken water pipe in front of my house that has been flooding the street for nearly eight weeks. The garbage truck stopped coming two months ago.”

Even well into 2004, Mansour was one of the most luxurious shopping areas of Baghdad, the home of embassies and government officials. People lucky enough to live there could not imagine moving. Now, the Shiite areas they once scorned evoke envy because Shiite militias provide security and services.

“There are neighborhoods where people are receiving their food basket in full quantities and on time,” Mr. Ali said.

“The reason is that those areas are pure Shiite — they are controlled by Mahdi Army,” he said, referring to the militia that claims loyalty to Mr. Sadr. “There you have someone to complain to, even if it’s not the government.”

In Adhamiya, the most heavily Sunni majority neighborhood on the east bank of the Tigris, there has also been a succession of armed groups. Most recently, gangs of young men prowled the neighborhood and attacked anyone trying to help local residents. The head of the district council was gunned down 10 days ago; three months earlier his predecessor was killed the same way.

The council had been a beacon for beleaguered Adhamiya residents, its offices busy from early morning. But its members are under attack, and it is unclear how long they will be willing to continue to take the risks that come with helping their neighbors.

Haji Daoud, 46, a council member and engineer with a degree in psychology, is the man with many of the answers for those who come. He has a caseload of about 2,500 families. For the poorest, he has tried to organize shares in small generators so that they at least have enough electricity to turn on lights at night. No one has enough to run a refrigerator.

Mostly, people want jobs. Shaima, a 22-year-old divorced mother, asked Mr. Daoud if he could find her a job as a cleaner. Mr. Daoud shook his head. “There are no shops open here to clean,” he said.

Across from her sits Ahmed Ali, a grizzled 72-year old carpenter who came for help getting his food ration basket. Mr. Ali closed his carpentry shop because there was no electricity. Known throughout Adhamiya for his craftsmanship, he was famous for making an Arab version of the lute for local musicians.

His eldest son was killed a year ago. When he collected the body at the morgue, he found that holes had been drilled through his son’s joints, a form of torture that is a mark of Shiite militias. Last summer, his younger son was kidnapped near the neighborhood.

He leaned forward slightly on his cane and looked hard at Mr. Daoud as he tried to explain the depth of his losses: the carpentry shop, his food rations, his family. “I made lutes and sometimes I played, but my fingers are numb now,” he said. “I cannot play. I want only to find my kidnapped son.”

Ahmad Fadam and Mohammed Obaidi contributed reporting.



Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

=




<B><center>Monday, March 26, 2007

<font size=+1 color=blue>Iran won’t stop even for a second</font>

TEHRAN (Reuters)
http://www.bahraintribune.com/ArticleDetail.asp?ArticleId=146274&CategoryId=0 </center>
Iran said yesterday it would press ahead with its nuclear program despite an "illegal" UN resolution imposing new financial and arms sanctions.</b>

"Iran will not stop its peaceful and legal nuclear trend even for one second because of such an illegal resolution," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad said on his Web site www.president.ir.

"The Iranian nation will not forget those who backed and those who rejected (the resolution), while adjusting its international relations," he said without indicating what that adjustment in ties would entail.

A government spokesman said Iran would limit its cooperation with the UN watchdog, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency.

The adoption of the resolution will affect Iran’s cooperation with the so-called "subsidiary arrangements" with the IAEA, spokesman Gholamhossein Elham said on state television.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Chavez asks world to halt alleged planned US attack on Iran</font>

Posted: 26 March 2007 0748 hrs
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/266349/1/.html </center>
CARACAS: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday called on nations around the world to help stop what he says is a planned US attack on Iran.

Chavez, speaking one day after the UN Security Council voted to tighten sanctions on Iran over Tehran's refusal to curtail its nuclear program, cited a Russian press report which purportedly details the time and place of an attack on Iran by the United States, which he has dubbed "the empire." </b>

"The empire is moving aircraft carriers and has been moving troops on Iran," said Chavez, speaking on his broadcast program "Hello, Mr. President."

Hopefully the world "will halt this imperial craziness of attacking whomever it pleases. Hopefully the Congress of the United States, the United Nations and the most powerful countries of the world can halt this madness of the American empire," said Chavez.

Today it may be Iran, Chavez said, "but tomorrow it could be Belarus, Venezuela, or anyone they dislike."

Chavez is a close ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro and a vehement critic of US President George W. Bush. He hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Caracas in January. - AFP/yy

=





<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Blair warning to Iran as diplomatic efforts fail to trace captured patrol</font>

Julian Borger, diplomatic editor
Monday March 26, 2007
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2042795,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=19 </center>
Tony Blair yesterday denounced Iran for the "unjustified and wrong" seizure of 15 British sailors and marines, rejecting Tehran's claim they had entered Iranian waters, and warning that the situation had become very serious.

"I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," the prime minister said at a European summit in Berlin. "They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which was unjustified and wrong."</b>

Mr Blair's comments marked a hardening of British tone, after hopes that the capture of the British patrol on Friday would prove to be a misunderstanding had been dashed by statements from Iran over the weekend.

A senior military official, General Ali Reza Afshar, said on Saturday that the patrol had "confessed" to the incursion, and claimed the Britons had been taken to Tehran. Other sources hinted they might be put on trial.

Initially, British military officials and diplomats tried to defuse the situation by stressing the complicated nature of the boundaries between Iraq and Iran on the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the patrol had been conducting anti-smuggling operations. But Mr Blair's declaration left no room for ambiguity.

"This is a very serious situation and there is no doubt at all that these people were taken from a boat in Iraqi waters," he said. "It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters."

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, continued the diplomatic pressure last night when she spoke to the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki.

In a phone conversation, she made "very clear" that no violation of Iranian waters had occurred. She repeated demands for information on the whereabouts of the 15 and for consular access to them.

Mr Mottaki is in New York where the UN imposed fresh sanctions on Iran.

In response to the sanctions, Iran last night announced that it was partially suspending cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, while President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the latest sanctions would not halt the country's nuclear enrichment "even for a second".

A Foreign Office spokesman said Mrs Beckett's talks were confined to the issue of the seized military personnel.

Britain's ambassador to Tehran, Geoffrey Adams, yesterday met Iranian foreign ministry officials to find out where the 15 captives - 14 men and a woman - were being held.

British officials said that the meeting, the second in two days, was at Britain's request, but it was portrayed on the Iranian media as a summons and a dressing-down by Iran's foreign ministry.

Britain has not been able confirm reports that the group had been taken to Tehran. Foreign office minister David Triesman told Sky News yesterday: "We don't know where [they are], and I wish we did. We are asking to know whether they are being moved around inside Iran. We have been insisting that they should be released immediately; there is no reason to hold them."

Lord Triesman added: "These things are always very difficult. They are delicate discussions. My belief is that they will come to a good outcome, but you can never be certain."

British officials would not comment yesterday on a report in the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat, quoting an unnamed military source "close to" the elite al-Quds brigade of Iran's Revolutionary Guards as saying the seizure of the two-boat British patrol had been planned at a high level days in advance.

The aim, said the report, was to take captives to exchange for senior al-Quds officers arrested by US forces in Irbil, Iraq, earlier in the year.

Lord Triesman said Britain had been given assurances its sailors and marines the patrol were not being held hostage for political reasons, and another British official said: "For the time being, we are treating this as an isolated incident."

<b>War of words</b>

The EU yesterday attempted to reopen talks with Iran over its nuclear programme in the wake of new sanctions imposed by the UN security council, targeting Iranian arms sales and hard-line Revolutionary Guards leaders.

Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, said he would try to call Iranian lead negotiator Ari Larijani "to see if we can find a route that would allow us to go into negotiations".

Iran and the west looked as far apart as ever after a unanimous security council vote to impose tougher sanctions because of Iran's refusal to stop enriching uranium, and its seizure of a British naval patrol.

Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, denounced the vote as an attempt to coerce Iran into suspension of its peaceful nuclear programme". "I can assure you that pressure and intimidation will not change Iranian policy," he told the security council.

Iran insists its programme is peaceful but the west suspects it is for nuclear weapons.

This could EASILY turn into a Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Something tells me this was the intent of the Mullahs.

Pray for our Nation and our boys that will be caught in Iran's trap.

God Save the Republic.

P

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/26/africa/ME-GEN-Egypt-Constitution.php


CAIRO, Egypt: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's son and senior official in the ruling party urged for a strong turnout in Monday's national referendum on constitutional changes, saying it would be an important milestone for Egypt.

On Sunday, the eve of the vote, Gamal Mubarak called on Egyptians to show up at the polls and vote in favor of the changes his father has billed as necessary for democratic reforms.

"We hope we will get the turnout we worked to achieve and we hope that we will get the majority vote tomorrow in support of that very important step in our march toward further reform in the political side," said Gamal Mubarak, who heads the policy-making board of the ruling National Democratic Party.

The referendum is a "serious step on the right direction," added Gamal, who is believed to be groomed as his father's successor. "Tomorrow is an important day."

The NDP lawmakers pushed the 34 constitutional amendments through parliament a week ago, slating a referendum for Monday to give them final approval. Under Egyptian law, a simple majority "yes" vote is needed, regardless of the turnout.

But the hastily called balloting has prompted opposition groups to boycott the referendum. They argue the changes would reduce the independent oversight of elections and curbs of election fraud, a chronic problem in Egypt. Strong presidential security powers are also written permanently into the charter, which they fear will be abused.

One proposed amendment for example, would ban parties founded on religious denomination, a move apparently aimed at preventing the powerful opposition Muslim Brotherhood — which is banned but participates in elections through candidates running as independents — from becoming a legitimate political actor.

The Brotherhood has also threatened to hold protests on the day of the voting, despite a warning from the Interior Ministry that it would not allow demonstrations.

Ahmad Izz, another official in the ruling party, said Egypt has 36 million registered voters and that the NDP hoped for a 25 percent turnout.

Earlier Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in the southern city of Aswan that she has raised U.S. criticism of Egyptian democracy efforts in talks with President Mubarak, but added the United States would not try to dictate how Egypt should proceed.

"I've made my concerns known, as well as my hopes, for continued reform here in Egypt," Rice told a news conference. "The process of reform is one that is difficult — it's going to have its ups and downs."

Washington has also expressed concern that Monday's vote will be less than fair and democratic.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit defended the hasty vote.

"With all frankness, the responsibility of security in Egypt is an Egyptian responsibility," Gheit said.

Late Sunday, about 60 political activists of various Egyptian opposition groups supporting the boycott held a noisy demonstration against the constitutional changes outside the journalists' syndicate in downtown Cairo.

The police would not allow the rally to be held as planned on the central Tahrir square and directed the demonstrators toward the syndicate, where some 150 unarmed policemen kept them consigned to the pavement.

"Down! Down! Down with Hosni Mubarak," chanted the protesters, and, "We're not taking part in this referendum."

Police officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, said at least five demonstrators were arrested, including two bloggers who had spoken up against the referendum.

_____

AP writers Nadia Abou El-Magd and Jasper Mortimer in Cairo contributed to this report.

International Herald Tribune Copyright © 2007 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/world/africa/26egypt.html


CAIRO, March 25 — There was no time on Sunday for politics in Qalaat el-Kabash, a poor neighborhood in a poor city, a neighborhood that burned to the ground five days ago.

There were hundreds of people, homeless, sleeping with children amid ashes, in the open air, desperate only for their government to help with housing.

The government is asking Egyptians to vote Monday on 34 amendments to the Constitution, but as is often the case in Egypt, in Qalaat el-Kabash and around this city, issues of politics and governance were for many overshadowed by more basic concerns, like lack of jobs, low salaries, inadequate housing and the price of food.

“This government of ours doesn’t do anything,” said Yasmine Ahmed Hamed, holding her 7-month-old daughter as she sat barefoot in a burned brick room that had been her home. “If it did, it would have helped us. But that is the government in Egypt.”

Amid such cynicism, Egyptian authorities are hoping to persuade about 25 percent of 36 million eligible voters to turn out — which they say is the most their system can accommodate during voting hours. The National Democratic Party, the governing party of President Hosni Mubarak, has thousands of people whose sole task is to get people to vote. Hundreds worked phone banks in Cairo through the night exhorting party workers to do that.

The government says approval of the referendum will make Egypt safer against terrorists and more democratic. The entire political opposition in Egypt, and international human rights groups, have condemned the amendments as an erosion of civil liberties and an effort by the government to consolidate power by stifling political activity. The opposition has called for a boycott.

But it is a debate that did not seem to capture what people randomly interviewed in Cairo said they were seeking. In a word, they said they wanted competence. “We don’t want swimming pools; we don’t want BMWs; we want a life, a normal life! shouted Sharif Shenawi as he smoked a water pipe not far from the wealthy Garden City section of Cairo. “You talk about politics? Who cares? Feed me.”

Yehia Saad Hana sat nearby in his cubbyhole-size auto parts shop. He said: “All I want to ask, very simply, is: As an average citizen, why should I make the effort to go vote? What will I get out of it?”

The city was tense. Cairo is home to at least 15 million people, and it seemed in advance of the vote that police officers were on nearly every corner. The message, intentional or not, was clear to a population accustomed to the state exercising its authority through the police.

In a coffee shop on a street named Qasr el-Ainy, customers were stopped from talking about politics to reporters by the store owner, who said, “I don’t want any trouble with the government.”

As night fell in Tahrir Square, the geographic center of the city, hundreds of riot police officers and plainclothes agents ringed the area because of a planned antireferendum protest. In a stark illustration of Egypt’s anemic opposition politics, maybe 20 protesters arrived.

As they walked past the storefronts along Talaat Harb Street they started chanting, “Down, down with Mubarak!” and “So what does Mubarak want? That all the people kiss his feet?” The police charged, corralled them and threw them in the back of a big police wagon.

“So this is freedom!” shouted a shopkeeper standing on the street, who would not give his name for fear of arrest.

Maybe half a mile away, in the National Democratic Party’s main office building on the Nile, the president’s son, Gamal Mubarak, was describing the amendments as a step toward democracy. He said repeatedly that they represented the president keeping his campaign promises.

He acknowledged that the leadership would have to overcome cynicism about some of the changes, especially those that would limit the role of judges monitoring elections and in antiterrorism laws that would allow the president to suspend civil liberties in any case deemed related to terrorism.

“We think we are achieving progress,” said the younger Mr. Mubarak, who leads the party’s main policy committee. “We think we are moving in the right direction. We still know we have a way to go.”

In many ways, the case of the accidental fire in Qalaat el-Kabash illustrates just how far the government needs to go, people there said.

First, the houses burned. They were small, many made of brick and concrete, all constructed individually by their owners. Residents said it took three hours for the first fire trucks to arrive. Hundreds of homes were destroyed, leaving at least 1,000 people homeless.

Some residents protested outside the Parliament building, demanding help. About half received some compensation; the rest were left to return to the ashes that were their homes.

The police arrived a day later. The authorities said they came to clear the rubble, but the residents said they came to clear them out. The residents threw rocks and the police threw tear gas. And the residents ended up staying.

By Sunday, the neighborhood was a tableau of despair, more like an isolated village devastated by an earthquake than a neighborhood in a capital city. Men, women and children, covered in ashes, slept in the open air, or beneath planks of wood that once were their cabinets.

Some government officials said the homeless were demanding help they were not entitled to receive. And so the men with the “beards” showed up, according to the residents, and gave them food and the equivalent of $20 each. The were talking about Islamists, who they said they believed were with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The government gave out food, too. The speaker of Parliament, Ahmed Fathi Sorour, who also represents the area, provided people with frozen chickens. His aides went to a local school, locked themselves behind a 10-foot-tall gate and hurled the chickens one at a time into the crowd. There was chaos as people dived for the chickens.

“After 25 or 30 years of rule, why would we go vote? For what?” said Mustafa Ahmed, 30, who said his pregnant wife had a miscarriage during the tear-gassing. “With the state that we’re in, and Egypt keeps going backward, why would we go vote?”

Mona el-Naggar contributed reporting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Di...th=March2007&file=World_News2007032631734.xml


cairo • Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood said yesterday that changes to the country’s constitution would usher in a dark future for the most populous Arab country.

Hundreds of riot police deployed in downtown Cairo on the eve of a referendum on the constitutional amendments which rights groups and opposition activists say are a step backward for freedom and democracy.

“Based on these amendments, unless God shows mercy on us, the future for this country is dark,” Brotherhood leader Mohamed Mahdi Akef told Reuters in an interview.

“They’ve killed off everyone’s hopes. Even those with a shred of hope had it killed off,” he added.

Egypt’s government says the constitutional amendments are needed to keep extremism at bay, but both secular and Islamist opponents see the changes as an attempt to shore up the ruling party’s hold on power and say the vote will be rigged.

The amendments include an anti-terrorism clause giving police sweeping powers of arrest and surveillance. Opposition groups including the Brotherhood, which has a wide popular base, plan to boycott the vote.

“It’s one hundred per cent rigged,” Akef said. “Watch the balloting stations tomorrow. It’ll succeed. (Egypt) has armies of civil servants and factory workers.”

The amendments would allow President Hosni Mubarak to dissolve parliament unilaterally and weaken judicial oversight of elections, which have been marred by complaints of widespread irregularities. The changes would also bar political activity based on religion, seen as a swipe at the Brotherhood, the country’s strongest opposition group.

The anti-government Kefaya protest movement called on Egyptians to dress in black and raise banners of mourning on Monday, and asked activists to hold peaceful protests and strikes across the country.

Protests were planned in Cairo and the port city of Alexandria, as well as in London and Washington, and some analysts expected Egyptian authorities to use force to break up any public show of dissent.

“They obviously are determined to break any gathering of any significant number. Nonetheless, I think many people will try to rally or protest in a variety of ways,” said analyst Mohammed el-Sayed Said. Several hundred people protested against the amendments in provincial towns of Ismailia and el-Arish amid heavy security.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, visiting Egypt, voiced concerns over the amendments during talks with Mubarak but said political change would have “ups and downs” and said she would not tell Egypt how to proceed with reforms.

Palmetto said:

This could EASILY turn into an invasion of poland OR an attack on pearl harbor incident.
Something tells me this was the intent of the Mullahs.

Pray for our Nation and our boys that will be caught in Iran's trap.

God Save the Republic.

P

Click to expand...

There. I fixed it for you.

ElevenO said:

There. I fixed it for you.

Click to expand...

Wow, that was pretty presumptuous.

=



<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Intelligence Assets Listen in to Teheran </font>

March 26, 2007
Telegraph
Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/26/wiran126.xml </center>
The antennae of all British signals intelligence assets will now be pointing at Iran to gather information on the location of the 15 prisoners and the intentions of those holding them. At GCHQ headquarters in Cheltenham, listeners fluent in Farsi will be monitoring the mobile telephone and signalling airwaves of the Revolutionary Guards. </b>

MI6 sources inside Iran will be giving assistance on Teheran's thinking to help steer the diplomatic effort.

RAF Nimrods, based at Basra Air Station, Iraq, will also be circling with eavesdropping equipment.

As the intelligence-gathering resources run at full tilt, the SAS will be preparing to put in troopers.

An adviser from the regiment's Revolutionary Warfare Wing has been moved to the Gulf to assist diplomats and MI6 agents.

But it will have become apparent that any strike against Iran will only go ahead with the approval of America.

The SAS standby squadron in Hereford, who are permanently at three hours' notice to move, will yesterday have been waiting to hear if they are to be called in.

The soldiers, who practice hostile entry and marksmanship for several hours each day, would then be moved to a forward base in Cyprus, Qatar or elsewhere in the Gulf.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>The Most Un-Islamic Republic of Persia</font>

March 26, 2007
Asia Times Online
Spengler
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC27Ak03.html </center>
"A new Persian Empire masquerading as an Islamic Republic," I called Iran last year (<A href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK21Ak01.html">Jihadis and whores</a>, November 21). Now the mask has fallen. Iran's uninterrupted tantrum over the portrayal of the 5th-century BC Persian Empire in a US film is very Persian, but not at all Islamic. It has gone unnoticed in the shouting over 300 that the Koran explicitly welcomed the destruction of the pagan (Zoroastrian) empire at the hands of the Byzantine Christians a millennium after the Spartans and their allies defended the pass at Thermopylae. Iran's identification with pre- Islamic Persian paganism is decidedly un-Islamic. </b>

Writing of the destruction of the Sassanid Empire at the hands of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius at the Battle of Issus in AD 628, the Koran hailed a "victory for believers", namely the Christian monotheists of the Eastern Roman Empire, over the Persian heathens. [1] The Romans at first would be defeated (as they were when the Persians occupied Jerusalem in 615), but they would rise and win again, and "on that day, the believers shall rejoice" (Sura 30, verses 2-4). The Sura is by no means obscure, for Islamic scholars cite it as an example of a Koranic prophecy that came true.

That does not square with the declaration last Friday of Iran's embassy in France denouncing the local release of the film 300: "Throughout history, the Iranian culture has always advocated peace ... As a result, any wrong image about Iranian culture will be void of value and will be accordingly judged by those familiar with the history of the world." Every organ of the Iranian regime has issued a denunciation of 300, based on a comic-book account of the events of 480 BC. At Friday evening prayers, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani added his outrage to the chorus, according to the state news service. He "condemned production and screening of the film 300 and described it [as] a cruel case of historical theft and added that [this] film which has been produced by Hollywood distorts history and paints a fabricated picture of Iranians".

The West's hope to avoid war with Iran centers on Ayatollah Rafsanjani, the ostensibly moderate alternative to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. European diplomats as well as the Saudis hope that health problems will force Khamenei out of office, allowing Rafsanjani to assume the top position, and negotiate an end to Iran's nuclear-weapons program. [2] For the moment, Washington will sit back and see whether the Saudi scenario might succeed. If it does not, eventually it will employ force.

Too much, I think, is made over the tug-of-war within Tehran, and too little attention is paid to Iran's underlying motives. Within as little as a decade, Iran will produce too little oil to export, and its economy will collapse, as I warned in several locations, most recently on December 5 (Civil wars or proxy wars?). Within a generation Iran will have half as many soldiers and twice as many pensioners. Driving down the price of oil to crush the Iranian economy sooner rather than later is a favorite scenario of American strategists - Victor Davis Hanson offers it up in his latest column - and the Iranians know better than Americans that the sand has nearly run through the hourglass. Iran's imperial ambitions, I maintain, express a unique solution to an otherwise insoluble problem, namely to grab the oil resources of southern Iraq, Azerbaijan, and perhaps even northern Saudi Arabia.

These new imperial ambitions inspire Iran's impassioned defense of the ancient Persian Empire, which, as noted, trample over the Koran's clear view of the matter. What upsets the Persians is not the inaccuracies of 300, a Hollywood genre film with few pretenses at historical authenticity. They simply don't like the fact that the Persians lost.

On the surface, the most objectionable departure from historical fact is the figure of Persia's King Xerxes, who is portrayed as a monstrous, body-pierced, sexually ambiguous monster prancing madly about the battlefield. That is fanciful, to be sure, but conveys a deeper truth about the character of Persian rulers, who were among the most lascivious, concupiscent, slothful, sensual, deceitful and greedy gang of louts who ever had the misfortune to reign.

The high culture of the Persian court was not so much sexually ambiguous as it was overtly pederastic. Persian historian Ehsan Yarsheter observed of medieval Persian-language love poetry, "As a rule, the beloved is not a woman, but a young man." Hafez, the most celebrated of Persian poets (and the inspiration for many Western adaptors, including J W von Goethe), wrote many such love songs to adolescent boys as this:

My sweetheart is a beauty and a child, and I fear that in play one day
He will kill me miserably and he will not be accountable according to the holy law.
I have a fourteen-year-old idol, sweet and nimble
For whom the full moon is a willing slave.

His sweet lips have (still) the scent of milk
Even though the demeanor of his dark eyes drips blood. (Divan, No 284)

If the wine-serving magian boy would shine in this way
I will make a broom of my eyelashes to sweep the entrance of the tavern. (Divan, No 9)

Hafez was a poet of surpassing skill, to be sure, quite worthy of the widespread interest he attracted among 19th-century Europeans. Among the major cultures of the world, however, there is no other example of one so exclusively devoted to pederasty. The Greeks (and especially the Spartans) had their share of erotic fascination for boys, eg Ibycus (flourished 6th century BC). But the defining erotic figure of Greek literature is a woman, namely Helen.

In that light I do not think the makers of 300 portrayed Xerxes unfairly; they showed the inner man, as it were. As I wrote last October 24, [3] the Persians "have been rather a nuisance since Thermopylae in 480 BC, and it is time that someone taught them a lesson". My friend Corporal Malone LaVey of the United States Marine Corps agrees.

Notes

1. Wikipedia.

2. See for example The Guardian of March 25: "When the Security Council first agreed sanctions against Iran last December, it triggered a wave of condemnation of the president.

"The outcry, widely reflected in the Iranian media, aided the political renaissance of a pragmatic former president, Aqbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who had been written off after being defeated by Ahmadinejad in the 2005 presidential election. Rafsanjani has been trying to reassert himself since topping the poll in last December's elections to the Experts' Council - a powerful clerical body that supervises the performance of the supreme leader.

"That represents a potential threat to Khamenei, who has long seen Rafsanjani as a rival and supported Ahmadinejad's presidential bid against him.

"Add to this Ahmadinejad's mysterious cancellation of his address to the Security Council and a pattern begins to form."

3. Frailty, thy name is Tehran.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Iran Military Warns U.S. Against any Attack </font>

March 26, 2007
Reuters
Yahoo News!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070326...litary_dc_1;_ylt=AhNB7Wv0za6gpY2jV2aw1gVSw60A </center>
A senior Iranian military official warned the United States against launching any attack on the Islamic Republic, a news agency reported on Monday, two days after the United Nations imposed new sanctions on Iran. "If America starts a war against Iran, it won't be the one who finishes it," Morteza Saffari, naval forces commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency. </b>

"Our people will not even allow one American soldier to enter our country," Saffari said.

International tension over Iran's disputed nuclear program has risen in recent days, sending oil and gold prices higher. The West suspects Iran is seeking to make atom bombs, a charge Tehran denies.

Iran said on Sunday it would limit cooperation with the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog and vowed not to halt its atomic program "even for one second" after the Security Council voted to impose new arms and financial sanctions on Tehran.

On Friday, Iran's Revolutionary Guards seized 15 British navy personnel in the Gulf, sparking a diplomatic crisis.

The United States, which is leading efforts to isolate Iran over its nuclear ambitions, has said it prefers a diplomatic solution to the crisis but has not ruled out military options.

"We have the spirit of resistance and this is a factor to stop (them)," Saffari said. "Our nation's unity and martyrdom-seeking spirit with God's help is always a guarantee for the Islamic Iran's resistance."

=



<B><center>Analysis:

<font size=+1 color=blue>Iran Thumbs its Nose at the World</font>

March 26, 2007
The Jerusalem Post
Dr. Ely Karmon
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879172761&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull </center>
The abduction of the 15 British soldiers aboard the HMS Cornwall three days ago is Iran's way of telling or reminding the world that it is a powerful military and regional force, and that the international community should be advised against overstepping its boundaries when it comes to the Islamic Republic's national interests. </b>

By removing 15 British soldiers at gunpoint the day before the UN Security Council decided on new sanctions directed at Iran, the Iranians were saying quite clearly that they just don't give a damn.

Though President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad felt the sting of being refused audience in New York for the UN meetings on the sanctions, his audacious disregard for international peace and security is a message to the UN and the Security Council that Teheran is not scared of sanctions, and furthermore, the sanctions being discussed at the moment are not enough to deter the government from its course.

The kidnapping of foreign personnel is nothing new for the Iranian regime. This is a pattern that we have seen since the hostage crisis in 1979, when 66 American hostages were held for 444 days.

Since then, Iran has gone unpunished for all of its aggression directed at the West. As we have seen in the cases of the French and the British before them, Iranian scare tactics play along the lines of attacking foreign embassies in Teheran, or reverting to kidnappings of foreign officials in Lebanon or in Iran itself.

In 2003, when Iran viewed British foreign policy as leaning unfavorably against them, revolutionary guards fired at the British Embassy to reverse the pressure and relieve the strains dictated by Britain's application of foreign policy. The Iranians have even been so bold to attack an American military base in Lebanon, through its proxy Hizbullah (in 1983).

Israel has had the greatest opportunity to reprimand Iran for its aggressive tactics, but its failure in the war has allowed Iran to grow bolder and stronger.

Only the United States stands capable of putting an end to Iranian attacks, but the Americans are showing too much indecisiveness to convince the world they are about to do so. Iran has not yet attacked the US directly, which seems to be the only thing that would force the Americans into a military conflict with Iran. However, the American military presence in the Gulf is not the deterrent that many attribute to the fact that Iranian and American clashes have not yet erupted. And the Iranians have not yet had retribution for their five revolutionary guards arrested by American forces in Iraq!

The kidnapping of the British sailors in the Shatt al-Arab waterway separating Iraq and Iran is as significant as it is symbolic. The waterway is not only the main artery for Iraqi oil shipments, but it is been the center of a territorial feud between Iraq and Iran which has been going on for nearly 30 years. The claim by the Iranian Foreign Ministry that the sailors were in Iranian waters was a way for the Iranian government to let the new Iraqi government know that they still believe the waterway belongs to them.

If the Iranians go so far as to make a lot of noise over this incident, they may find themselves in a very strong position to attract a deal from the West. The Iranians hope that there are enough political implications in this ordeal to provoke an international incident and drive a wedge between the US and the UK, but the reality of the situation dictates that neither side would let tensions escalate to such a point.

The British could be persuaded to trade assets in exchange for their soldiers. The British know that any of their soldiers being tried for espionage in Teheran would mean unbearable amounts of pressure from inside their own country to get them out before an execution.

It seems strange that during a time of war, and with a heavy military presence, the British did not defend the unfortunate 15. If the British are scared of a full-scale conflict with the Iranians, the future does not look good for the 14 men and one woman of the HMS Cornwall.

Dr. Ely Karmon is a senior researcher at the Institute for Counterterrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center at Herzliya, and was interviewed by Yaniv Salama-Scheer.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Iran Feels Pinch As Major Banks Curtail Business</font>

March 26, 2007
The Washington Post
Robin Wright
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032501084.html?sub=AR </center>
More than 40 major international banks and financial institutions have either cut off or cut back business with the Iranian government or private sector as a result of a quiet campaign launched by the Treasury and State departments last September, according to Treasury and State officials. </b>

The financial squeeze has seriously crimped Tehran's ability to finance petroleum industry projects and to pay for imports. It has also limited Iran's use of the international financial system to help fund allies and extremist militias in the Middle East, say U.S. officials and economists who track Iran.

The U.S. campaign, developed by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, emerged in part over U.S. frustration with the small incremental steps the U.N. Security Council was willing to take to contain the Islamic republic's nuclear program and support for extremism, U.S. officials say. The council voted Saturday to impose new sanctions on Tehran, including a ban on Iranian arms sales and a freeze on assets of 28 Iranian individuals and institutions.

"All the banks we've talked to are reducing significantly their exposure to Iranian business," said Stuart Levey, Treasury's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. "It's been a universal response. They all recognize the risks -- some because of what we've told them and some on their own. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see the dangers."

The new campaign particularly targets financial transactions involving the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is now a major economic force beyond its long-standing role in procuring arms and military materiel. Companies tied to the elite unit and its commanders have been awarded government contracts such as airport management and construction of the Tehran subway. The practice has increased since the 2005 election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, U.S. officials say. The Revolutionary Guard -- of which Ahmadinejad is a former member -- is part of the hard-line leader's constituency.

"The Revolutionary Guard's control and influence in the Iranian economy is growing exponentially under the regime of Ahmadinejad," Levey said in a speech in Dubai this month.

The campaign differs from formal international sanctions -- and has proved able to win wider backing -- because it targets Iran's behavior rather than seeking to change its government. "This is not an exercise of power," Levey said in the interview. "People go along with you if it's conduct-based rather than a political gesture."

Iranian importers are particularly feeling the pinch, with many having to pay for commodities in advance when a year ago they could rely on a revolving line of credit, said Patrick Clawson, a former World Bank official now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The scope of Iran's vulnerability has been a surprise to U.S. officials, he added.

The financial institutions cutting back business ties are mainly in Europe and Asia, U.S. officials say. UBS last year said it was cutting off all dealings with Iran. London-based HSBC (which has 5,000 offices in 79 countries) and Standard Chartered (with 1,400 branches in 50 countries) as well as Commerzbank of Germany have indicated they are limiting their exposure to Iranian business, Levey said. The rest have asked the United States not to publicize their names.

Ahmadinejad's rhetoric -- from denying the Holocaust to comparing Iran's stock exchange to gambling -- has helped, experts say. "There is very little foreign investment in Iran not because of sanctions, but because of the atmosphere created by Ahmadinejad's crazy statements," said Jahangir Amuzegar, former Iranian finance minister and executive director of the International Monetary Fund.

Paulson kicked off the effort to warn major financial institutions and government officials about the long-term costs of doing business with Iran during the annual International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings in Singapore in September. Paulson, Levey and Treasury Deputy Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt have all held dozens of meetings with banks to explain how Iran is using dummy companies and deceptive practices through banks to finance its non-traditional or illicit business activities, U.S. officials say.

Both the Iranian government and the private sector have increasingly tried to persuade financial institutions to keep the name of "Iran" or the originating bank in Iran off transactions so they are not traced to the Islamic republic, U.S. officials say.

In a related effort, the Bush administration has warned "relevant companies and countries" about the risks of investing in Iran's oil and gas sector, R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in congressional testimony Wednesday. Washington is generally trying to drive home to Tehran that its policies will lead to serious "financial hardship," he said.

In December, Iranian oil minister Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh acknowledged that Tehran was having trouble financing petroleum development projects. "Currently, overseas banks and financiers have decreased their cooperation," he told the oil ministry news agency Shana.

The Bush administration has taken several other actions in recent months to contain Iran, including deploying two Navy carrier strike groups near the Persian Gulf, arresting operatives of the Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds Force in Iraq and pressing for two U.N. resolutions to punish Iran for not suspending its uranium enrichment program.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Subverting Iran - Washington's Covert War inside Iran</font>

March 26, 2007
Global Research
Gregory Elich
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=21131 </center>
Much attention has been given to the Bush Administration’s preparations for possible war against Iran as well as its drive to impose sanctions. Meanwhile, a less noticed policy has been unfolding, one that may in time prove to have grave consequences for the region. There is a covert war underway in Iran, still in its infancy, but with disturbing signs of impending escalation. In the shadowy world of guerrilla operations, the full extent of involvement by the Bush Administration has yet to be revealed, but enough is known to paint a disturbing picture.
</b>
The provision of aid to anti-government forces offers certain advantages to the Bush Administration. No effort needs to be expended in winning support for the policy. Operations can be conducted away from the public eye during a time of growing domestic opposition to the war in Iraq, and international opinion is simply irrelevant where the facts are not well known. In terms of expenditures, covert operations are a cost-effective means for destabilizing a nation, relative to waging war.

There is nothing new in the technique, and it has proven an effective means for toppling foreign governments in the past, as was the case with socialist Afghanistan and Nicaragua. In Yugoslavia, U.S. and British military training and arms shipments helped to build up the secessionist Kosovo Liberation Army from a small force of 300 soldiers into a sizable guerrilla army that made the province of Kosovo ungovernable. The very chaos that the West did so much to create was then used as the pretext for bombing Yugoslavia.

According to a former CIA official, funding for armed separatist groups operating in Iran is paid from the CIA’s classified budget. The aim, claims Fred Burton, an ex-State Department counter-terrorism agent, is “to supply and train” these groups “to destabilize the Iranian regime.” (1)

The largest and most well known of the anti-government organizations is Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), operating out of Iraq. For years MEQ had launched cross-border attacks and terrorist acts against Iran with the support of Saddam Hussein. Officially designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department in 1997, and disarmed of heavy weaponry by the U.S. military six years later, Washington has since come to view MEK in a different light. Three years ago, U.S. intelligence officials suggested looking the other way as the MEK rearmed and to use the organization to destabilize Iran, a recommendation that clearly has been accepted. (2)

Accusing MEK of past involvement in repressive measures by former president Saddam Hussein, the current Iraqi government wants to close down Camp Ashraf, located well outside of Baghdad, where many of the MEK fighters are stationed. But the camp operates under the protection of the U.S. military, and American soldiers chauffeur MEK leaders. The Iraqi government is unlikely to get its way, as the MEK claims to be the primary U.S. source for intelligence on Iran. (3)

U.S. officials “made MEK members swear an oath to democracy and resign from the MEK,” reveals an intelligence source, “and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them.” Reliance on the MEK began under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney, and soon MEK soldiers were being used in special operations missions in Iran. “They are doing whatever they want, no oversight at all,” said one intelligence official of the MEK’s American handlers. (4)

The Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), is another organization that conducts cross-border raids into Iran. Israel provides the group with “equipment and training,” claims a consultant to the U.S. Defense Department, while the U.S. gave it “a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S.” Aid to guerrilla groups, the consultant reports, is “part of an effort to explore alternative means of applying pressure on Iran.” (5) It has been noted that PJAK has recently shown an impressive gain in capability during its operations, both in terms of size and armament, a fact that can surely be attributed to Western support. (6)

Jundallah (God’s Brigade) is an extremist Sunni organization operating in Sistan-Balochistan province that has been launching armed attacks, planting explosives, setting off car bombs, and kidnapping. Based in Pakistan, it is unclear if this group is connected with the Pakistani organization of the same name, which has ties with Al-Qaeda. (7) Jundallah denies that it has any links to either Al-Qaeda or to the U.S. But Iranian officials claim that a recently arrested Jundallah guerrilla has confessed that he was trained by U.S. and British intelligence officers. There is no way to verify that such a confession has actually taken place, nor its reliability as it may have come as a result of coercion, but the claim would not be inconsistent with U.S. policy elsewhere in Iran. (8)

It is probable that in the coming months the Bush Administration will expand support for anti-government forces in order to more effectively destabilize Iran and gather intelligence. Already U.S. Special Forces are operating in Iran collecting data, planting nuclear sensors, and electronically marking targets. Separatist forces have cooperated in those efforts. “This looks to be turning into a pretty large-scale covert operation,” comments a former CIA official. U.S. and Israeli officials are establishing front companies to help finance that covert war. (9) To fully capitalize on ethnic discontent along Iran’s periphery, the U.S. Marine Corps has commissioned a study from defense contractor Hicks and Associates on Iran and Iraq’s ethnic groups and their grievances. (10)

That these separatist organizations clearly engage in terrorism hasn’t deterred the Bush Administration from backing them. The potential for baneful consequences is considerable. CIA support for the anti-Soviet and anti-socialist Mujahedin in Afghanistan spawned a worldwide movement of Islamic extremism. Western support for ethnic secessionists shattered Yugoslavia and the invasion of Iraq fired the flames of ethnic discord and made a shared life impossible. It remains to be seen if the Bush Administration can succeed in achieving its goal of effecting regime change in Iran. That process could have devastating consequences for the people of Iran. Those officials in the Bush Administration who advocated and implemented covert operations “think in Iran you can just go in and hit the facilities and destabilize the government,” explains a former CIA official. “They believe they can get rid of a few crazy mullahs and bring in the young guys who like Gap jeans, [and] all the world’s problems are solved. I think it’s delusional.” (11)

Gregory Elich is the author of Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit. Gregory Elich is a frequent Global Research contributor.

NOTES

William Lowther and Colin Freeman, “US Funds Terror Groups to Sow Chaos in Iran,” Sunday Telegraph (London), February 25, 2007.

“Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO), Global Security.org Syed Saleem Shahzad, “Sleeping Forces Stir in Iran,” Asia Times, June 26, 2003. Gian Marco Chiocci and Alessia Marani, “Iranian Mujaheddin Gather Funds in Italy,” Il Giornale (Milan), October 2, 2006.

Ernesto Londono and Saad al-Izzi, “Iraq Intensifies Efforts to Expel Iranian Group,” Washington Post, March 14, 2007.

Larisa Alexandrovna, “On Cheney, Rumsfeld Order, US Outsourcing Special Ops, Intelligence to Iraq Terror Group, Intelligence Officials Say,” The Raw Story, April 13, 2006.

Seymour Hersh, “The Next Act,” New Yorker, November 27, 2006.

James Brandon, “PJAK Claims Fresh Attacks in Iran,” Global Terrorism Analysis, March 6, 2007.

Ali Akbar Dareini, “Explosion Kills 11 Members of Iran’s Elite Revolutionary Guards,” Associated Press, February 14, 2007.

Broadcast, Islamic Republic of Iran News Network (Teheran), February 17, 2007.

Richard Sale, “Cat and Mouse Game Over Iran,” UPI, January 26, 2005.

Guy Dinmore, “US Marines Probe Tensions Among Iran’s Minorities,” Financial Times (London), February 23, 2006.

Julian Borger and Ian Traynor, “Now US Ponders Attack on Iran,” The Guardian (London), January 18, 2005.
link to original article

=




<B><center>Royal Navy Incident:

<font size=+1 color=brown>Iran's Plan to Drag the US and the UK </font>

Walid Phares
Mon Mar 26, 1:30 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070326/cm_rcp/royal_navy_incident_irans_plan </center>
The capture of British Navy servicemen by Iranian forces is not simply an incident over sea sovereignty in the Persian Gulf. It is a calculated move on behalf of Teheran's Jihadi chess players to provoke a "projected" counter move by London and its American allies. It is all happening in a regional context, carefully engineered by the Mullahs strategic planners. Here is how: </b>

The Iranian regime's master plan is to wait out the remainder of Tony Blair's mandate (few more months) and the remaining "real time" of President Bush (till about the end of 2007). For the thinking process in Tehran, based on their Western consultants, believe that Washington and London have reached the end of the rope and will only have till 2008 to do something major to destabilize Ahmedinijad regime. As explained by a notorious propagandist on al Jazeera today the move is precisely to respond to the Anglo-American attempt to "stir trouble" inside Iran. Anis Naccash, a Lebanese intellectual supporter of the Ayatollahs regime, appearing from Tehran few hours ago on the Qatari-based satellite and "explained" that the "US and the UK must understand that Iran is as much at war with these two powers in as much as they support the rise of movements and security instability inside Iran." He added that Khamenei is clear on the regime's decision to strike: "we will be at war with you on all levels: secret, diplomatic, military and other." Pro-Iranian propagandists in the region, via media and online rushed to warn that this movement is part of Iran's counter-strike against any attempt to destabilize the regime. Two major tracks emerge from these statements, the Iranian military maneuvers and the capture of British Navy personnel.

1) Iran's domestic front is putting pressure on the Ahmedinijad regime.

From internal reporting, dissidents and anti-Ahmedinijad forces from various social sectors are practically in slow motion eruption against the authorities. Students, women, workers and political activists have been demonstrating and sometimes clashing with the regime's security apparatus. Western media didn't report proportionally on these events over the past few weeks. In addition, ethnic minority areas have been witnessing several incidents, including violence against the "Revolutionary Guards," including in the Arab and Baluch areas. And last but not least, the defection of a major intelligence-military figure early this month to the West was, according to internal sources, a "massive loss" to the regime and a possible first one in a series.

2) The regime "need" an external clash to crush the domestic challenge.

As in many comparable cases worldwide, when an authoritarian regime is faced with severe internal opposition it attempts to deflect the crisis onto the outside world. Hence, Teheran's all out campaign against the US and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon and the region is in fact a repositioning of Iran's shield against the expected rising opposition inside the country. Hence the Khomeinist Mullahs plan seem to be projected as follow:

a. Engage in the diplomatic realm, to project a realist approach worldwide, but refrain from offering real results

b. Continue, along with the Syrian regime, in supporting the "Jihadi" Terror operations (including sectarian ones) inside Iraq

c. Widen the propaganda campaign against the US and its allies via a number of PR companies within the West, to portray Iran as "a victim" of an "upcoming war provoked by the US."

d. Engage in skirmishes in the Gulf (and possibly in other spots) with US and British elements claiming these action as "defensive," while planned thoroughly ahead of time.

3) The regime plan is to drag its opponents into a trap

Teheran's master planners intend to drag the "Coalition" into steps in engagement, at the timing of and in the field of control of Iran's apparatus. Multiple options and scenarios are projected.

a. British military counter measure takes place, supported by the US. Iran's regime believe that only "limited" action by the allies is possible, according to their analysis of the domestic constraints inside the two powerful democracies.

b. Tehran moves to a second wave of activities, at its own pace, hoping to draw a higher level of classical counter strikes by US and UK forces. The dosing by Iran's leadership is expected to stretch the game in time, until the departure of Blair and of the Bush Administration by its political opponents inside the country's institutions and public debate.

In a short conclusion the "War room" in Tehran has engaged itself in an alley of tactical moves it feels it can control. But the Iranian regime, with all its "political chess" expertise, may find itself in a precarious and risky situation. For while it feel that it can control the tactical battlefield in the region and fuel the propaganda pressure inside the West with its Petro-dollars, it may not be able to contain the internal forces in Iran, because of which it has decided to go on offense.

The Ahmedinijad regime wishes to crumble the international consensus to avoid the financial sanctions: that is true. But as important, if not more, it wants to be able to crush the revolt before it pounds the doors to the Mullahs palaces.

=



<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>U.S. says Iran move on IAEA "disappointing"</font>

43 minutes ago
March 26 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070326/pl_nm/iran_nuclear_usa_dc </center>
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House expressed disappointment on Monday in Iran's pledge to limit cooperation with the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog over its nuclear program. </b>

The U.N. Security Council imposed arms and financial sanctions on Iran on Saturday for its refusal to suspend nuclear work. Key nations at the same time offered new talks and renewed an economic and technological incentive package offer.

Iran said in response it would partially suspend cooperation with the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency and called the sanctions illegal.

"Considering the international community is united in its desire to work with Iran on a solution, their comments are disappointing," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council.

The United States suspects Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, a charge Tehran denies.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Intelligence chiefs told of Iran's reprisal threat</font>

Gethin Chamberlain, Tim Shipman and Kay Biouki in Teheran, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:54am BST 26/03/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/25/wiran125.xml </center>
British Intelligence chiefs were warned in January to expect reprisal attacks from Iran after America detained five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq.

Although the CIA alert led to the United States raising its official security threat level throughout the Middle East and elsewhere, Britain did not follow suit.
</b>
The warning came after the US received credible information that Iranian-backed extremists were plotting attacks on Western targets.

American intelligence analysts told their British counterparts that the arrest of the five Iranians would have a direct impact on southern Iraq. Crucially, they warned that there was evidence that Iran intended to step up attacks in the border area and around Basra, where British forces are based.

A security source said: "The intelligence was passed to the UK and was generally disseminated. The intelligence that led to the arrests showed that Iran was financing and facilitating operations on the border and in the South.

"But there was no raising of comparative threat levels by the British, even though the majority of casualties from Iranian weaponry have been the British, not the Americans. Perhaps we should have been more on alert."

Relations between Iran and the West have deteriorated in recent months due to the diplomatic stand off over Teheran's nuclear programme and a growing anger in Washington and London over Iranian interference in Iraq.

advertisement
Both sides have accused the other of spreading misinformation and the US and Iran have each ratcheted up their military standing in the region, with the Iranians acquiring new missile capabilities and the US moving two aircraft carriers into the Gulf.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is under pressure at home over his management of the ailing Iranian economy and he has been openly criticised for antagonising not just the West, but also traditional allies such as Russia, with his hardline stance on the nuclear issue.

Iran's capture of the 14 British servicemen and one servicewoman in the Gulf, close to the Shatt al-Arab waterway which separates Iran from Iraq, took the British military by surprise. Senior defence officials said the incident was unlikely to have been a misunderstanding because British and Iranian forces were well-versed in the niceties of working cheek by jowl.

"We have a non-escalatory posture with respect to the Iranians," one senior official said. "Day in, day out, working in a difficult situation, you tend to work out how to react.

"No one wants to be in a position where you get into a shooting war with somebody. Our posture towards them, and theirs towards us, is to avoid confrontation."

The sailors and marines were seized as they returned to their small rigid inflatable boats after boarding a ship suspected of being involved in smuggling in the waterway.

A defence official said they had completed their mission, which was described as "amiable", and were preparing to return to the Type 22 frigate Cornwall, from which they had been operating, when they were surrounded by Iranian gunboats.

Given the overwhelming odds, they had no choice but to go along with the Iranian demands, the official said.

The Ministry of Defence yesterday declined to explain why Cornwall had failed to spot the approach of the Iranian gunboats, or why it had not then intervened.

The five Iranian officials arrested in northern Iraq in January were accused of membership of the al Quds force, which mounts overseas operations. Two other suspected members of the group, which is the intelligence arm of the Revolutionary Guard, were picked up in Baghdad in December and expelled.

Members of the Revolutionary Guard, which owes its allegiance directly to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, were behind both the latest seizure of British personnel and the capture of eight British servicemen in similar circumstances on the same waterway in 2004. The unit's commanders recently threatened to retaliate against what they say is a campaign of kidnapping of its officers by western intelligence.

Some sources in Teheran last night suggested that the captured Britons would be released "within a day or two". "Iranians have no intentions of creating another international dispute with the world, and it is not likely that they would allow this to escalate into a bigger diplomatic problem," one source said.

=





<B><center>March 26, 2007

<font size=+1 color=purple> SPIRALING CRISIS OVER SEIZED BRITISH SAILORS</font>

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,473872,00.html </center>
<u>Iran Warns of Possible Trial</u>

The British Foreign Office is demanding consular access to 15 British soldiers captured by Iran, but Tehran is refusing and has indicated that the Britons could be put on trial. It has also reacted to harsher UN sanctions by announcing that it is limiting its cooperation with the world's nuclear authority.</b>

Iranian naval vessels seized 15 British sailors on Friday. Tehran is now considering putting them on trial for illegally entering Iranian waters.
Charged relations between Iran and the West got tenser this weekend, with the unfolding crisis surrounding the capture of British sailors leading to a sharp exchange of words and Iran reacting to tougher United Nations Security Council sanctions by announcing it will suspend some of its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

British Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett demanded Sunday that Iran give British diplomats access to the 15 members of the Royal Navy who were detained last Friday by Iran. In a telephone call with her Iranian counterpart she made it very clear that the sailors had been in Iraqi waters, according to a British Foreign Office spokesman. The British government has yet to be given access to the group of 14 men and one woman.

There are signs that Tehran is considering putting the British military personnel on trial. General Ali Reza Afshar, Iran's top military official, said on Saturday that the seized Britons had been taken to Tehran for questioning and had confessed under interrogation to "aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters."

Legal proceedings

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, speaking at a press conference in New York on Sunday, said the captured Britons were involved in "the illegal entrance into Iranian territorial waters and this issue is being considered legally." He said: "The Iranian authorities had intercepted these sailors and marines in Iranian waters and detained them in Iranian waters."

The comments were seen as a direct rebuff to the British prime minister's demands earlier in the day that the military personnel be released. Tony Blair had insisted that the sailors were in Iraqi waters at the time of their arrest. He said the detention of the personnel was "unjustified and wrong." And added "It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters and I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us." He said he wanted the issue "resolved in as easy and diplomatic a way as possible."

Britain's ambassador to Iraq, Iran Geoffrey Adams, has met with government officials but could not gain access to the British military personnel. He was told by an Iranian foreign ministry official that they were "well and sound" and that "legal proceedings" were under way.

Iranian student groups have called for the Britons to be held until the United States releases five Revolutionary Guard members captured in Iraq in January. Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a Saudi-owned newspaper based in London, quoted an unidentified Iranian military source as saying that the aim of the capture had been to trade the Royal Marines for these Guards. "Orders were given to the marine units of the Guards to implement the first part of the plan which included besieging one of the British naval patrols in charge of combating smuggling and arrest the soldiers."

However, Iranian state television on Monday read a statement from Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mehzi Mostafavi denying that Tehran had any aim of a prisoner exchange.

Ali Pahlavan, editor of Iran News, a Tehran-based newspaper, told the BBC that the move could be a strategy "to challenge British and American supremacy in this part of the world, which is troubling because this could lead to confrontation and this could be the trigger and could lead to escalation."

UN sanctions

Other radical groups are demanding that the sailors only be released when the sanctions against Iran are lifted. According to the London Times, there is now some speculation among diplomats that the British sailors were ambushed by a naval unit of the Revolutionary Guards in order to put pressure on Britain ahead of the Security Council vote on imposing harsher sanctions.


NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.

Nevertheless, the sanctions were imposed after a vote on Saturday night and the Iranians reacted by announcing that they would reduce their cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Iranian government will only reverse this decision when the UN sends the issue back to the IAEA, government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham said on Sunday.

According to Elham, the cabinet had decided to suspend "codes 1-3 of the minor arrangements of the safeguards," with the IAEA. These codes commit the Iranian government to informing the UN nuclear watchdog of any new steps or decisions it takes with its nuclear program.

The scaling back of cooperation with the IAEA is retaliation for the new sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council on Saturday, which Elham called "illegal and bullying."

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticized the sanctions as the result of "hostility of some powers against Iran." Speaking on state television, Ahmadinejad said that the enemies of Tehran had made another mistake and that the Iranian uranium enrichment program would not be halted "even for one second."

Foreign Minister Mottaki said the resolution would have consequences. He insisted that Tehran had tried to negotiate with the permanent members of the Security Council and Germany and added that the sanctions were "illegal, unwarranted, and unjustified" and that they undermined the credibility of the Security Council.

The Security Council voted unanimously in favor of a second resolution on Saturday night in the hope of persuading Iran to forgo its nuclear program. The West suspects that the civilian energy program is in fact a program to develop nuclear weapons. The sanctions include a ban on Iranian arms exports and freezes the assets of 28 people and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile program, many of which are linked to the Revolutionary Guard.

The IAEA is due to deliver a report in 60 days on whether Iran has halted uranium enrichment. If it has failed to do so the mullah regime could face even tougher UN sanctions.

smd/spiegel/ap

=




<B><center>March 26, 2007
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,473862,00.html

SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH IRAN'S FOREIGN MINISTER

<font size=+1 color=red>"We Warned the United States"</font></center>

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, 53, discusses efforts to resolve the conflict over Tehran's nuclear program, his country's right to resist and its offer to help bring peace to Iraq.

Manoucher Mottaki, foreign minister of Iran: "We have prepared ourselves for both a solution at the negotiating table and a confrontation."</b>

SPIEGEL: Mr. Minister, fears are growing all over the world that the intensifying conflict with the United States over Tehran's nuclear program could lead to a new military conflict. Do you share this concern?

Mottaki: There has been conflict between the United States and Iran for the past 28 years. Look at the war in Iraq and the US's unilateral approach. Time has shown that our view of things can prevail, even, more recently, in parts of the United States. Now we have sat down at the table in Baghdad with Washington, and one of the messages of this meeting is: There are political and diplomatic ways out of the crisis, but increasing military strength is not a solution. However, there are still irreconcilable differences when it comes to the conflict over Iran's nuclear program.

SPIEGEL: Isn't it a serious mistake to underestimate the US's resolve? Saddam Hussein experienced that first-hand.

Mottaki: We underestimate neither the United States nor the Iranian people.

SPIEGEL: Does this mean that you would be prepared for an attack on your nuclear plants?

Mottaki: The United States cannot support another crisis for its taxpayers. Certainly, the Americans have always made it clear that they are keeping all options open. From the very start, we have prepared ourselves for both a solution at the negotiating table and a confrontation. Naturally we prefer the first option. We hate war. But we also view resistance as our obligation.

SPIEGEL: Is Iran's nuclear program truly so important that you would even risk going to war over it?

Mottaki: Every country in the world sets its goals and should also be able to achieve them. On March 5, 1957, exactly 50 years ago, we signed a treaty with the United States that granted us the right to acquire nuclear power plants. The first sentence in that agreement guarantees that the peaceful use of atomic energy is one of the fundamental rights of all nations. We consider the right to development to be inalienable.

SPIEGEL: The international community would certainly be more willing to believe your claims if Iran had not repeatedly deceived the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Mottaki: There have certainly been some open questions with respect to the past. However, our current work on the nuclear program is completely transparent. There are absolutely no deviations from this program. However, there are some concerns over the future. We are willing to answer all further questions concerning the past and will provide the necessary assurances and guarantees for possible future problems.

SPIEGEL: The veto powers in the United Nations Security Council don't appear to take much stock in such assurances. They support sanctions.

A satellite image of the Natanz uranium enrichment plant: "We have always been a powerful country."
Mottaki: Every country is obligated to respect the decisions of the UN bodies. But the Security Council should not jeopardize its legitimate powers through illegal behavior and pressures from individual member states. There is a historical precedent. Iran is in the process of completing the nationalization of its oil industry. The beginning of this nationalization process was the subject of debate in the Security Council 50 years ago. It too was seen as a threat to peace and stability at the time, which of course was absurd. In the nuclear conflict, the question that now arises is over which offence we are actually being punished for. Uranium enrichment is one of the fundamental rights of every country.

SPIEGEL: Could you imagine, as a compromise, negotiations over outsourcing uranium enrichment to another country?

Mottaki: If we consider the history of treaties with other countries, then we have serious doubts about that.

SPIEGEL: Are you referring to Russia's current refusal to supply the fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant -- the construction of which is nearing completion?

Mottaki: We cannot invest billions of dollars in our nuclear power plants and then rely on the help of other nations to produce and supply the fuel.

SPIEGEL: How do you imagine a solution to the conflict?

Mottaki: First the path to new negotiations must be cleared. If the Security Council refers the treatment of Iran's nuclear program to the IAEA once again, we can take up the ratification of the supplementary protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in our parliament ...

SPIEGEL: ... which would allow the agency's inspector to conduct inspections at any time.

Mottaki: Only if the case is withdrawn from the Security Council at the same time. The two must be treated equally, although we doubt this will be the case. Nevertheless, we will view such steps as an attempt to build a bridge between the positions of both sides.

SPIEGEL: But Tehran is also considering cutting off oil shipments to the West if new sanctions are imposed.

Mottaki: We are the ones who must tolerate sanctions today, and that's why we are opposed to boycotts to achieve political interests. But of course we too must be granted the right to a full energy supply.

SPIEGEL: So you are using oil as a threat, after all?

Mottaki: Securing our energy supply has always been an established element of our policy.

SPIEGEL: Your president, who has a penchant for provocation, has cancelled his appearance before the Security Council in New York. Are you perhaps secretly relieved?

Mottaki: Why? The president's first speech before the General Assembly was already very constructive. At the time, he proposed that governments or private companies from other countries invest in the Iranian nuclear program. Can anybody think of a nuclear program more transparent than this?

SPIEGEL: You speak of building bridges, but thanks to his shrill speeches, your president is more notorious for demolishing bridges.

Mottaki: It so happens that we are confronted with statements of those seeking to deny us the right to use nuclear energy under any circumstance. We see this as an attempt to rob us of an inalienable right, and that is the only price we will never pay. Our president has always supported dialogue.

SPIEGEL: He caused an international outcry when he suggested wiping Israel off the map.

Israeli security and emergency personnel simulate a chemical weapons attack near Tel Aviv: "We consider the Zionist regime in Palestine to be illegitimate."
Mottaki: We see the constant repetition of this accusation as a sign that some countries are determined not to address the real questions but to suppress them. World War II was a tragedy that happened to take place in Europe. Many millions of people died in that war, including Jews. Who were these Jews? All documents prove that they were Europeans. Why should the Islamic world be responsible for the consequences of that war?

SPIEGEL: We see the most important question as a different one: Is Iran willing, after more than a half-century, to recognize Israel's right to exist?

Mottaki: We consider the Zionist regime in Palestine to be illegitimate. It is wrong to claim, as many do, that people without a country arrived in a country without people. There were many inhabitants of Palestine, and the Jewish survivors of World War II were not a people without a country. They were Europeans.

SPIEGEL: And because you deny the Jewish state its right to exist, you support its archenemies, like the Palestinian Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah.

Mottaki: Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorists. We call this resistance. You are making a big mistake if you view the events in the region too much from the perspective of the United States. America has already made enough mistakes in this region. One is that it gives the Zionist regime free rein to conduct its aggression.

SPIEGEL: Even if Washington's actions aren't always the smartest, this by no means justifies supporting extremists.

Mottaki: If one truly wants democracy -- the declared goal of the Americans -- one must also accept the consequences. Both Hamas and Hezbollah succeeded in democratic elections, and they owe this success to their resistance to the Zionist regime.

SPIEGEL: So the bloodshed in the Middle East will continue?

Mottaki: It doesn't have to be. We are seeing recent approaches in America to a constructive policy for the region, which makes us hopeful.

SPIEGEL: Despite this domestic American criticism, especially of the Iraq policy of the administration of President George W. Bush, many US politicians believe that your country is helping fuel the Iraqi civil war between Sunnis and Shiites by supplying weapons to fellow Shiites.

Mottaki: Washington is simply trying to divert attention from its failed Iraq policy with these kinds of claims.

SPIEGEL: Do you deny that Iran has interests in its neighboring country, especially in the Shiite south?

Mottaki: We have no interest in Iraq being broken up into a Kurdish north, a Sunni central portion and a Shiite south. That would make the horrible situation even worse. This is why we support the government in Baghdad in its attempts to save the country's unity.

SPIEGEL: Tehran's growing influence is already sparking fears among Arab neighbors of Shiite dominance in the region.

Mottaki: But we Shiites are the minority in the Islamic world. If Shiites play a more dominant role in one country or another because they are the majority there, this is no cause for concern. Our strength is not a threat to anyone. Our religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa that forbids sowing discord between Sunnis and Shiites. Those who do so are neither Shiites nor Sunnis. Besides, as we see in Iraq, this conflict between fellow Muslims is being brought into our community from the outside.

SPIEGEL: It is an irony of history that Iran has the "great Satan," the United States, to thank for its new strength. Shouldn't you be grateful to Washington for having liberated Iran from its enemies, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan?


NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.

Mottaki: We have always been a powerful country. We can look back on a long and great history, and we have enormous capacities and possibilities. The Americans are now paying the price for not wanting to listen to us, and others. We warned the United States against spending billions of dollars to arm Saddam and the Taliban. By bringing down these regimes they simply corrected their old mistakes. We just hope that the US will not make any further mistakes.

SPIEGEL: German troops are also deployed in Afghanistan. The German navy is patrolling the Lebanese coast. Could this adversely effect relations with Iran?

Mottaki: The Germans are involved in Lebanon at the request of the Beirut government, whose decisions we respect. As far as the Afghanistan mission is concerned, I hope, together with my German counterpart, (Foreign Minister) Frank-Walter Steinmeier, that people will see the Germans mostly as development workers and not military personnel. However, we are very concerned about developments there and have warned our German friends that the situation could spin out of control.

SPIEGEL: Should there be further talks with the United States over solving the conflicts in the region?

Mottaki: The meeting in Baghdad was worthwhile. Our exchange was very constructive and productive. No one spoke badly about the other. We are prepared to forget the mistakes of the past. We should turn to the future, especially in the case of Iraq.

SPIEGEL: Does this mean that you will meet with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and that you plan to shake hands with the Americans?

Mottaki: As a devout Muslim, I adhere to our Islamic principles and will certainly not shake hands with Ms. Rice. As far as we are concerned, resolving the crisis in Baghdad is more important than all symbolic gestures. All parties must work together to bring the suffering in Iraq to an end.

SPIEGEL: Will Tehran be as constructive if Washington continues to intensify pressure in the nuclear conflict?

Mottaki: We will not allow our brothers and sisters in Iraq to suffer because the United States wants to deprive us of our right to uranium enrichment. But this will not make it easier to find a solution for Iraq.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Foreign Minister, we thank you for this interview.

The interview was conducted by editors Dieter Bednarz and Hans Hoyng.

<b>Note to readers:</b> <i>SPIEGEL conducted its interview with Mottaki prior to the news on Friday that Iran had detained 15 British Navy personnel Tehran said had illegally entered into Iranian waters near the border with Iraq. It also preceded Saturday's move in the UN Security Council to broadened sanctions against Iran.</i>

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Iran grills British soldiers despite push for release by Siavosh Ghazi </font>

March 26 2007
51 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070326/wl_uk_afp/iranbritainmilitary;_ylt=A0WTcVdv0AdGdksB5BdvaA8F </center>
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran said on Monday it was interrogating 15 British sailors it seized last week claiming they had entered its waters illegally, defying intense international pressure for their release.

As the diplomatic row deepened, Britain's ambassador Geoffrey Adams held more talks at the foreign ministry in Tehran and was assured that the group was "fit and well," the Foreign Office said in London.</b>

Baghdad also backed up Britain's claim that the 14 men and one women -- whose exact whereabouts remain unknown -- were taken in Iraqi waters in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that divides the two countries.

Shockwaves from the seizure, which British Prime Minister Tony Blair has labelled "unjustified and wrong," continued to reverberate around the world.

With tensions rising in the region over both the group's capture and Iran's disputed nuclear programme, oil prices rose to their highest levels this year -- well above 62 dollars in Asian trade.

Britain says the naval personnel -- eight sailors and seven marines -- conducting "routine" anti-smuggling operations when they were seized at gunpoint in the Shatt al-Arab water in the north of the Gulf on Friday.

The Foreign Office said Adams met senior Iranian officials for an hour in his second meeting in two days, describing the meeting as "cordial" and conducted in a "business-like atmosphere.

"The ambassador pressed hard for details of where the detainees are being held and for consular accesss to them and what plans the Iranians had for their release," a spokeswoman said.

"The MFA (ministry of foreign affairs) assured us that the group is fit and well and in Iran. There are no further details at this stage."

Iran's deputy foreign minister Mehdi Mostafavi said the sailors were being interrogated but gave no information about where they were being held or whether they would face formal charges.

"The case of the Britons who violated Iranian territorial waters is following the due legal process and they must answer for their violation," state television reported.

"The British sailors are currently being interrogated and must clarify whether they entered Iranian waters deliberately or by mistake," he said. "When it becomes clear, a decision will be made."

Mostafavi denied reports Iran wanted to exchange the sailors with Iranians seized by US forces in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil in January, an incident that triggered further tensions between Tehran and archfoe Washington.

Iraq said Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari had telephoned his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki on Sunday to urge the release of the Britons, saying they were operating in Iraq with the government's consent.

"The minister stressed that they, according to Iraqi authorities' information, were detained inside Iraqi territorial waters," his ministry said in a statement.

"They are part of the multinational forces with the approval of the Iraqi government and in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolution," it added. "The minister demanded that they be released and the issue be tackled wisely."

Iran is already at loggerheads with the international community over its nuclear programme and on Saturday was slapped with tougher UN Security Council sanctions for failing to halt senstivie uranium enrichment work.

It announced on Sunday it would limit cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, in a first response to the new sanctions.

On Sunday Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett lobbied for the navy personnel's safe return in a phone call with Mottaki, who told a press conference at the United Nations in New York that the detained group stood accused of "illegal entry" into Iranian waters.

Iran's ambassador to London has been summoned to the Foreign Office twice over the incident -- once to meet a senior civil servant Friday and again for talks with Foreign Office minister Lord David Triesman on Saturday.

=




<B><center>Monday, March 26, 2007

21:18:40 Vietnam (GMT+07)
http://www.thanhniennews.com/worlds/?catid=9&newsid=26449

<font size=+1 color=blue>Iran says detained Britons well, location secret</font></center>

Iranian Revolutionary Guards chant slogans in support of Iran's nuclear program during Friday prayers in Tehran
Iran says British sailors it detained are well but has not disclosed where they are being held, Britain said on Monday, as tension over their capture and Tehran's nuclear plans sent oil prices to a 2007 high. </b>

Naval Revolutionary Guards units seized the 15 sailors and marines in the Gulf on Friday, sparking a diplomatic crisis -- just a day before the United Nations imposed new sanctions on Iran over its disputed atomic program.

Britain said it had asked Russia, which has close commercial and diplomatic ties with Tehran, and other countries to help in efforts to secure their release.

"We are in touch with governments in the region to enlist their help in lobbying Iran for the release of the group," a Foreign Office official said in London.

Iran has said it is considering charging the Britons with illegally entering its waters. Vice Foreign Minister Mahdi Mostafavi said on Monday they were being interrogated to see if they had crossed into Iranian territory on purpose or not.

"When that is clear the appropriate decision will be made," Mostafavi said, Iranian state television reported.

Britain says they were seized in Iraqi waters.

Some hard-line groups suggest the case could be a bargaining chip in Iran's nuclear and other rows with the West, exposing what analysts say are divisions with more moderate voices in Iran who want to build bridges abroad not exacerbate tensions.

"It appears there is no decision on (how to handle) this issue," said one Iranian analyst pointing to the relatively subdued coverage in Iran's media so far.

A diplomat echoed this view, saying hard-line news sources were making the most noise. Both the analyst and diplomat said the incident may have taken the authorities by surprise and did not appear pre-planned, so there was a debate about next steps.

Oil up on crisis

In London, the Foreign Office said Britain's ambassador to Tehran had asked to see a senior Iranian Foreign Ministry official for details of the 15 and to be allowed to see them.

The official "assured him the group were fit and well and in Iran. He gave no further details at this stage," it said.

Iraq also urged Iran to free the 15 detained Britons, saying they were detained in its waters, as London says.

Britain says the two boatloads of Royal Navy personnel were searching a merchant vessel on a UN-approved mission in Iraqi waters when Iranian gunboats encircled and captured them.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards captured eight British servicemen in similar circumstances in 2004 and released them unharmed after three nights.

Oil climbed toward $63 on Monday, setting a new record for this year, on the growing tension between Tehran and the West.

On Saturday, the UN Security Council slapped arms and financial sanctions on Iran for its refusal to suspend nuclear work, but major powers also offered new talks and renewed an economic and technological incentive package offer.

The sanctions -- which follow measures adopted in December -- will stay in place until Iran halts the enrichment of uranium, which can be used to make a bomb or to generate power. Iran has 60 days to comply or face possible new sanctions.

In response, Iran said it would limit cooperation with the UN's nuclear watchdog and vowed not to halt its atom work.

The West suspects oil-rich Iran is seeking to make nuclear bombs, a charge Tehran denies.

Despite the apparent deadlock, a European Union diplomat said the 27-nation bloc was hopeful talks would resume with Iran. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana expects to speak to Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani later on Monday.

The United States, leading efforts to isolate Iran over its nuclear ambitions, has said it prefers a diplomatic solution to the crisis but has not ruled out military options.

"We do not seek a confrontation with Iran, we seek a diplomatic outcome," said Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Iranian military warns U.S. against any attack</font>

<i>Comments come two days after U.N. imposed new sanctions on Tehran</i>

Updated: 3:33 a.m. CT March 26, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17793323/ </center>
TEHRAN, Iran - A senior Iranian military official warned the United States against launching any attack on the Islamic Republic, a news agency reported Monday, two days after the United Nations imposed new sanctions on Iran.</b>

<font size=+0 color=red><b>“If America starts a war against Iran, it won’t be the one who finishes it,”</font></b> Morteza Saffari, naval forces commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency.

“Our people will not even allow one American soldier to enter our country,” Saffari said.


International tension over Iran’s disputed nuclear program has risen in recent days, sending oil and gold prices higher. The West suspects Iran is seeking to make atom bombs, a charge Tehran denies.

Iran said Sunday it would limit cooperation with the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog and vowed not to halt its atomic program “even for one second” after the Security Council voted to impose new arms and financial sanctions on Tehran.

On Friday, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards seized 15 British navy personnel in the Persian Gulf, sparking a diplomatic crisis.

The United States, which is leading efforts to isolate Iran over its nuclear ambitions, has said it prefers a diplomatic solution to the crisis but has not ruled out military options.

“We have the spirit of resistance and this is a factor to stop (them),” Saffari said. “Our nation’s unity and martyrdom-seeking spirit with God’s help is always a guarantee for the Islamic Iran’s resistance.”

“Our people will not even allow one American soldier to enter our country,” Saffari said.


“We have the spirit of resistance and this is a factor to stop (them),” Saffari said. “Our nation’s unity and martyrdom-seeking spirit with God’s help is always a guarantee for the Islamic Iran’s resistance.”

Tough talk from Tehran Tom.

Remember the reason that British RN boarding party was in the water in the first place was to inspect a ship for smuggling materials into Iraq....
------------------------
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=286374


Some 90 cars stolen in Lebanon were smuggled into Iraq by way of Syria in the first two months of 2007, according to sources in Lebanon. Although cars smuggled into Iraq mostly end up for sale on the black market -- and are not specifically destined for use in suicide bombings -- Syria's failure to enforce effective border controls on stolen cars raises serious questions as to its ability, or willingness, to prevent other types of cross-border smuggling and infiltrations, including by suicide bombers. As such, the situation helps to undermine efforts to bring security and stability to Iraq.

Car theft is a well-organized criminal activity in Lebanon, and most of the stolen cars end up in Syria. During the period of Syria's military presence in Lebanon, some Syrian intelligence officers participated in the trafficking of stolen cars, charging criminal organizations approximately $1,000 per car for their help in getting the vehicles across the Lebanese-Syrian border. Since the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the country in 2005, incidents of car theft have slowed down noticeably, which suggests the extent to which Syrian officials were involved.

The cars are stolen in Lebanese cities and then taken to chop shops in the Northern Bekaa Valley near Baalbek, where Hezbollah maintains a strong presence. At these facilities, the vehicle identification number is erased from the engine block and other indications of the car's origins are removed. From there, they are taken along the rugged back roads through the Anti-Lebanon Mountains into Syria.

When the cars are ready to be smuggled out of Lebanon, Syrian intelligence officers enter the process. Under an arrangement with local officials, the Syrian facilitators turn a blind eye to the smuggling operation -- apparently as long as the smugglers are not caught by Syrian border patrols. In that case, the officials would prosecute the smugglers, though it is not clear whether they would go after the intelligence officers.

The stolen cars are then smuggled across the Syrian border into Iraq, entering the county at the al-Walid crossing near al-Qaim in Anbar province. The crossing is part of a centuries-old system of smuggling routes though the Syrian Desert, which includes the "Rat Line" used to bring foreign jihadist insurgents into Iraq. Although the Syrians claim to be serious about enforcing border security along the Iraqi border, the smugglers can easily avoid Syrian patrols, which operate on a fixed schedule.

Although it is possible that some of these cars end up being used in attacks and suicide bombings in Iraq, the vehicles more likely are destined for the black market. Since the fall of Hussein regime, the market for cars and spare parts has grown. In Baghdad alone, the number of registered cars reportedly has almost tripled, to more than 1 million, since Saddam Hussein's downfall. To satisfy this demand, secondhand cars are imported from the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan. In addition, stolen cars from all over the world -- including the United States -- have ended up in Iraq. It is virtually impossible to trace the origin of most of these vehicles, given the lack of adequate motor vehicle registration and record-keeping in Iraq's often chaotic environment.

Syrian ineffectiveness in plugging the holes in its border with Iraq, however, clearly is one reason for the flood of stolen vehicles. Moreover, the lack of border controls presents another obstacle to security and stability in Iraq because, if cars can be smuggled in, practically anything else can as well -- including suicide bombers.

As if we didn't have enought to worry about...
___________________________________
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=286339


Egyptians are voting on Monday in a referendum on key constitutional amendments, proposed by the president, that were pushed through the legislature last week. Gamal Mubarak (the son of the president and head of the ruling National Democratic Party politburo) estimated Sunday that voter turnout would be quite low -- in the 20 percent range.

If the man who is widely assumed to be his aging father's chosen successor is so pessimistic about support for the amendments, which will consolidate the Mubarak regime's hold on power, it seems obvious that the situation is fairly bad. But what does "bad" mean in the context of political continuity for Egypt?

Let's review the situation briefly:

Egypt at the moment remains very much a single-party state, led by President Hosni Mubarak. It's not clear how healthy he is, but as he is nearing his 79th birthday, a change in leadership in the near- to medium-time seems a safe bet. The NDP holds 311 seats in the 454-seat parliament. The last election, in 2005, gave rise to loud cries of vote-rigging, but the opposition was not strong enough to make the allegations stick or force a new vote. Therefore, with just over a two-thirds majority, the NPD remains strong enough to push through any legislation of its choice.

That's exactly what happened March 19, when the legislature passed some 34 controversial amendments that will consolidate the regime's hold on power. Three of these are particularly noteworthy:

* A measure that gives authorities sweeping powers to monitor the communications of people who are suspected of involvement in terrorism, and to refer them to special military courts. These counterterrorism measures will allow the government to continue with emergency laws that have been in place since 1981.


* A measure that would allow the government to suspend judicial supervision of elections. This law would overturn a June 2000 Supreme Constitutional Court ruling, which mandated that each ballot box be placed under a judge's supervision. Instead, oversight would be given to a "supreme independent council" -- likely an appointed body.


* An amendment designed to roll back the gains made by the Muslim Brotherhood Islamist movement, which increased its representation in parliament six-fold - to 88 seats -- in the last elections. The amended law would prohibit the formation of parties based on religion.



Though the government faces opposition from a wide array of secular activists -- workers in the textile, cement, auto, railway and transportation industries all have engaged in strikes, as have poultry farmers, garbage collectors and public gardeners -- the true challenge is posed by the MB, which has deep roots in society and is Egypt's most organized political force. The size of the MB's increase in parliament in the 2005 elections, despite the claims that the government was playing dirty pool, attest to its popularity.

For now, the government is not in crisis. Even if Gamal Mubarak's voter turnout predictions prove accurate, the constitutional amendments should win approval in the referendum. The real question, however, is how long it will take for the unrest that appears to be growing in cross-sections of Egyptian society to reach critical mass. With opposition now apparent among political factions and social movements alike, an alignment of some sort seems likely in the future.

The Mubarakian regime is, in truth, only as strong as the president's health. Containing mass unrest in Egypt -- especially if there is a transition at the helm -- could prove challenging, to say the least, for Cairo.

Oil and gold are telling the story boys and girls:

War is officially on the fast track. And there are other powers encouraging it to start our rapid decline.

FYI, Israel is being excluded from the equation in most of the MSM newspeak that I hear and they are warning us, in the back channels I'm sure, to either eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat or else.