04/06: "The Winds of War" - Deaths Fuel Iran Row

=



04/05: "The Winds of War" - Tehran's Victory
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=236474




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Deaths Fuel Iran Row </font>

April 06, 2007
The Times
Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor, and Greg Hurst, Political Correspondent
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1620785.ece </center>
The return of the 15 British captives was soured yesterday when four troops — two of them women — were killed in Iraq by a massive roadside bomb. Tony Blair said that elements in Iran were masterminding the terrorism in Iraq, and avoided thanking President Ahmadinejad for the “gift” of sending them home. </b>

The Ministry of Defence began the painful process yesterday of examining a catalogue of failures that led to the capture and humiliation by Iran of the 15 British Marines and sailors.

The Times understands that appeals for more firepower to protect Britain’s UNmandated patrols in the Gulf were repeatedly turned down by Whitehall.

Other failings identified include poor intelligence, inadequate training and sloppy tactical procedures, according to naval sources.

The 14 men and one woman were reunited with their families in emotional scenes at the Royal Marines base in Chivenor, Devon.

Mr Blair made clear, though, that Britain’s problems with Iran and in Iraq were far from over.

One revelation likely to rile Tehran came from former captive Captain Chris Air, of the Royal Marines, who admitted in a Sky News interview before his abduction that one of his duties was “to gather int [intelligence]” on Iranian activity in the area.

The Prime Minister said that the international community must remain steadfast in opposing moves by Iran to develop nuclear weapons and focus on the “sober and ugly reality” of Iranian support for terrorists operating in Iraq.

“The general picture . . . is that there are elements at least of the Iranian regime that are backing, financing, arming, supporting terrorism in Iraq and I repeat that our forces are there specifically at the request of the Iraqi Government and with the full authority of the United Nations,” Mr Blair said.

The MoD began debriefing the former captives, examining the circumstances that led to their capture and drawing lessons from the experience, the second time in four years that Royal Navy personnel have been captured by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

In particular, the boarding party from HMS Cornwall were too poorly armed to defend themselves against more powerful Iranian vessels. The mother ship was too far to offer assistance and its Lynx helicopter, which had earlier provided air cover, had returned to the frigate when the attack took place.

Intelligence failures are also being blamed for the incident. British troops in southern Iraq had been warned of the dangers of being taken hostage, after Iran openly threatened to capture American or British soldiers. They had been authorised to use “maximum force” to protect themselves.

And yet, on the eve of a UN Security Council vote on a British resolution to impose sanctions against Iran, no warning was given to the boarding party about the dangers to which they were being exposed.

Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, took a swipe at armchair admirals critical of the Royal Navy’s operations.

“I think we ought to be very careful about commenting from the comparative comfort of wherever we are, when we are not out there on operations, about decisions that operational commanders and other people make,” he told Sky News.

The Conservatives said that they would be pressing for answers. Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said that it was important to know how the incident was allowed to take place and how to avoid it happening again.

They wanted answers to why the 15 personnel were held so far from HMS Cornwall, why the ship’s radar did not detect their Iranian captors, why the Lynx helicopter did not stay with them, whether the Navy needed smaller vessels able to operate in shallow waters and whether protection should be strengthened.

The four British soldiers who died in Basra yesterday were in a heavily armoured vehicle that was destroyed by a roadside bomb. The two women were from the Intelligence Corps and the Royal Army Medical Corps. Their Kuwaiti interpreter was killed with them. It was the deadliest attack on British troops in months, and came on a day when almost 20 coalition and Iraqi soldiers died in attacks across Iraq.

Lieutenant-Colonel Kevin Stratford-Wright, British army spokesman, said that the ambush occurred on an armoured column that was returning from a late-night “routine” operation to seize a rebel arms cache in the Shia port city, a hotbed of competing militias, tribes and oil smuggling mafias.

At about 1.30am, before the column of five or six vehicles reached the suspected weapons dump, gunmen opened fire and the commanding officer aborted the mission. The bomb exploded under an armoured personnel carrier as the soldiers were returning to base.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Tehran Thinks it Has Moved One Step Closer to a Nuclear Arsenal</font>

April 06, 2007
Telegraph
Con Coughlin
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/06/do0605.xml </center>
Suddenly, Iran is everybody's friend. The safe return to Britain of 15 sailors and Marines in time to celebrate Easter with their families and friends has shown the ayatollahs in a new light. Gone is the image of a regime that represses its people and seeks the annihilation of its foes. Forgotten are the chants of the Friday prayer worshippers calling for the destruction of America, the "Great Satan", and "Little Satan", as Britain is disparagingly referred to in the parlance of Iran's radical mosques. </b>

Instead, we now find ourselves having to come to terms with a regime that is rational, benign and generous of spirit. For how else can one explain the magnanimity of the Iranians in arranging the captives' safe return? They had, after all, been caught red-handed conducting military operations within Iranian territorial waters.

We know this, of course, because of the "confessions" the captives made on television before their release. Such was the gravity of their crime that the Iranians believed they had every right to put them on trial where, if convicted, they faced lengthy jail terms. But by arranging for their return home, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former Revolutionary Guards commander who was hitherto deemed an ideologically driven menace, has shown himself to be a statesman of international repute. Rather than getting bogged down in a protracted dispute over territorial boundaries, he found it within himself to forgive the Servicemen and to send them home.

The logical conclusion - or so many will now argue - to be drawn from this transformation in the way we view the Iranian government is that if goodwill can prevail over an issue as delicate as the detention of British Servicemen, why can't it be extended to other areas of dispute, such as Iran's support for radical Shia groups in Iraq and its desire to acquire nuclear technology?

That is certainly the kind of response the ayatollahs will be hoping for now. But while the Servicemen's release might appear to be a simple act of altruism, an ulterior motive is never far from their minds.

In terms of seeking Iran's help in securing the release of British hostages, we have been here before. The Iranians were pivotal in ending the captivity of Terry Waite, John McCarthy and all the other Western hostages in Lebanon during the 1980s. But then they were best placed to do so, having ordered the hostages' abduction in the first place.

Iran has always seen terrorism as a useful tool for achieving its political ambitions. On that occasion, they used the hostages as a bargaining chip to limit Western interference in the Gulf after the campaign to liberate Kuwait in 1991. The moment the allies fulfilled their pledge to disband the coalition assembled to defeat Saddam's occupation forces, Waite et al were released.

A similar subtext lies at the heart of Ahmadinejad's decision to release the British Servicemen. The Iranians are concerned that their attempts to consolidate their hold over radical Shia groups in southern Iraq are being frustrated by the American and British military, especially after a number of Revolutionary Guard officers were detained for their involvement in equipping Iraqi insurgent groups with deadly weaponry, including the materials used in roadside bombs such as the one that yesterday killed four British soldiers and their translator outside Basra.

Five Revolutionary Guard officers are still in American custody, and, while both London and Teheran insist no deal was done, it is surely no coincidence that an Iranian official was yesterday granted access to the detained officers, the first contact Teheran has had with them since their arrest at the start of the year.

But for Iran, the radicalisation of the Shia of southern Iraq is almost a sideshow compared with the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Even as Sir Nigel Sheinwald, Tony Blair's foreign affairs guru, was in Teheran negotiating the release, work was continuing at Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz where the Iranians could have sufficient fissile material for an atom bomb by the end of next year.

The acquisition of a nuclear arsenal is the ayatollahs' dream, and everything they do - whether it is grandstanding over the detention of a handful of British Servicemen or prevaricating with UN nuclear inspectors - is aimed at achieving this ambition. With yet another UN deadline approaching for the Iranians to cease uranium enrichment at Natanz or face tougher sanctions, the issue of the British captives provided Ahmadinejad with the perfect platform to demonstrate to an international audience the benefits to be gained from treating Teheran with respect, not threats.

As Ahmadinejad made clear in the rambling, two-hour anti-Western diatribe he delivered before dramatically announcing the captives' release, Iran has as much of a right to develop nuclear technology as any other country, and, by letting them go free he and his advisers are seeking to reinforce the point that they are honourable men who, contrary to what Messrs Bush and Blair would have us believe, are perfectly capable of acting in good faith.

But if the Iranians are merely interested in developing nuclear technology as an alternative energy source, why, then, does their pattern of behaviour over a period of more than a decade suggest their intentions are far more sinister?

Why, for example, are the Iranians negotiating with North Korea to share the technological expertise Pyongyang gleaned from last year's successful test-firing of an atom bomb? And why have the Iranians put the International Atomic Energy Agency under pressure to remove nuclear inspectors they consider to be too effective in uncovering glaring inconsistencies in Iran's official declarations about its nuclear programme?

The answer to these and many other questions relating to Iran's nuclear programme is that the Iranians are trying to conceal their true intentions. They might, as in the case of the British captives, appear both rational and reasonable, but only a fool would take their gestures of goodwill at face value.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>The Twenty-Five Hundred Years' War </font>

April 05, 2007
American.com
Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.american.com/archive/200...ontents/the-twenty-five-hundred-years2019-war </center>
If a no-nonsense Greek infantryman holding the pass at Thermopylae were to be told that, 2,500 years in the future, Western constitutional states would still be facing an apocalyptic struggle with a totalitarian government in Persia, he would hardly be surprised. </b>

Persians, or Iranians as they’re called today, have been at odds with both the West and neighboring Asians since antiquity. In that sense, the bumper-sticker anti-Americanism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is nothing new. Neither was Ayatollah Khomeini’s virulent hatred of the Great Satan.

Darius I incorporated most of the Greeks of Ionia under the Persian Empire, and would have done the same in mainland Greece had the Athenians not stopped him at Marathon in 490 B.C. A decade later, his son Xerxes invaded Greece with a half million infantry and sailors, only to be ruined at Salamis and Plataia by the Athenian-Spartan alliance.

Westerners—including Xenophon’s Ten Thousand, the Spartan King Agesilaos, and Alexander the Great—sought payback against the imperial Achaemenids, who ruled over a Persian Empire that stretched from what is now Pakistan through Saudi Arabia to Egypt and north into Turkey. By Roman times, long after the fall of the Achaemenids, the Parthians—another Persian dynasty—continued the East-West struggle, destroying Crassus and nearly his entire Roman army at Carrhae. The subsequent Sassanid Persians fought the Byzantine Greeks constantly for control of Anatolia and the Levant, before themselves falling to the wave of Arab Islamic invaders.

Iran’s location explains much of this violent history. It is not only a bridge from the Orient to the West, but also a north-south clearinghouse between Russia and the Arab world. The Strait of Hormuz currently forms the bottleneck for global petroleum commerce, but even in the age of sail, the narrow sea passage always served as a means for Iranians to shut off all entry into the nearby Persian Gulf.

Persians, or Iranians as they’re called today, have been at odds with both the West and neighboring Asians since antiquity.Much of Ahmadinejad’s apparent domestic appeal stems not from his posture as an Islamist who takes on Israel on behalf of the Palestinians but as a leader who seeks to restore a Persian and Shiite claim to Muslim greatness. The efforts of Iran to undermine the Iraqi government, overturn Lebanese democracy, finance Hezbollah, and use Syria to balance the Gulf sheikdoms are not so different from the management of shifting alliances and intrigue that enabled Cyrus the Great to cobble together the first Persian Empire.

So throughout the checkered history of Iran and the West there have been constant themes that suggest that our current rivalry with Tehran is neither new nor surprising. Fairly or not, Westerners have always viewed their relations with Persia in terms of freedom versus despotism, of individual citizens at Thermopylae fighting the coerced hordes of Xerxes’ subjects. Roman poets likewise depicted Romans fighting Parthians as free-minded Western infantry battling treacherous nomadic horsemen who shot arrows even as they seemed to ride away.

Religion, too, has been an old fault line. Zoroaster, founder of ancient Persia’s religion 600 years before Christ and a millennium before Mohammed, painted a binary world of light against darkness in an apocalyptic and all-encompassing belief system—a view not all that antithetical to subsequent Shiite Islam’s emphasis on struggle and martyrdom. Persians, it seems, have always embraced religion in terms of good believers versus all the rest—without the pacifism of the Sermon on the Mount.

But then again, Iranians have some reason to be paranoid about foreign interventionists and intriguers. We hear much from them today about the “den of spies” in the American Embassy 30 years ago, about the 1953 Anglo-American overthrow of the democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddeq, and about the joint Russian-American virtual takeover of Iran in 1941. So is Western conflict with Ahmadinejad’s restive Iran inevitable?

Not exactly, since there have also been periods of realist engagement between Persians and Westerners. Just as historian Xenophon, in the fourth century B.C., believed that Cyrus the Younger was a pro-Western reformer who might bring Persia into the Hellenic world, so, too, the modernizing Shah Reza Pahlavi and the reformer Mosaddeq in contrasting ways both wanted Iran to incorporate ideas from the West.

Long after Ahmadinejad and the Iranian theocracy are gone, a powerful and proud Iran will still emulate and rival, still befriend and distrust Westerners—captive to a history that is as illustrious as it is volatile.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Iran's Crackdown - Hostage Crisis a Distraction?</font>

April 05, 2007
New York Post
Amir Taheri
http://www.nypost.com/seven/0405200...ackdown_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm?page=0 </center>
Was the crisis over the cap ture of the British host ages part of a smoke screen for a crackdown on dissidents in Iran? The question is posed in Tehran as the establishment debates the future of the regime's foreign and domestic policies.
</b>
The crackdown is beginning to gather pace. Several publications critical of government have been shut down, and numerous officials regarded as "not revolutionary enough" elbowed out, especially in the provinces. And now the regime seems to be setting the stage for show trials that recall the worst days of Stalinism in the Soviet Union.

Last month, a member of the Majlis, the regime's ersatz parliament, was sent to prison for six years on trumped-up charges. The real "crime" of Salaheddin Ala'i: He had criticized the killing of dissidents in Iran's Kurdistan province.

Next week, it will be the turn of former Deputy Interior Minister Mostafa Tajzadeh, who'll stand trial on charges of undermining the security of the Khomeinist state.

Tajzadeh is one of the establishment's most interesting figures. A man with impeccable revolutionary credentials, he has always insisted that the regime cannot ensure its future by silencing or murdering critics.

The next on the block is expected to be Muhammad Reza Khatami - a brother of former President Muhammad Khatami - who also has an impressive revolutionary resume.

In 1979, he was one of the two dozen or so "students" who raided the United States' Embassy in Tehran and seized its diplomats hostage. Later, he built a career in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and solidified his revolutionary credentials by marrying a granddaughter of Ruhallah Khomeini, the ayatollah who created the Islamic Republic. During his brother's presidency, Muhammad Reza acted as deputy speaker of the Majlis.

Yet, he too, is targeted by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's new radical administration - charged with "activities that undermine the Islamic system."

Ahmadinejad believes that people like these three represent dangers for the system - if only because they insist that the authorities should obey the laws set by their own regime. In his view, a revolutionary regime, because it stands outside the normal framework of history, simply cannot be bound by any law.

According to dissident sources in Tehran, the regime's security apparatus is preparing show trials for scores of others. The chief targets: thousands of middle-class elements who joined the Khomeinist revolution because of a misunderstanding. Ahmadinejad calls them "the half-pregnant ones" - people who dream of being revolutionaries but also crave for a comfortable, Western-style bourgeois life.

Ahmadinejad's supporters speak of a "third revolution" - which, in practice, would amount to a purge of dissidents within the establishment.

Many actual or would-be dissidents have already left Iran for what they hope will be temporary exile in Europe or America. They include a dozen former Cabinet ministers and hundreds of lesser functionaries and apologists. If the looming crackdown gathers pace, thousands more may join them.

To prepare the ground for his "third revolution," Ahmadinejad has worked on three schemes.

* First, he has radicalized political discourse.

Under his two predecessors, Presidents Hashemi Rafsanjani and Muhammad Khatami, the regime had gradually changed its vocabulary by abandoning the revolutionary terminology and borrowing terms of ordinary politics.

Those two mullah-presidents spoke of economic development, civil society and a dialogue of civilizations. They also allowed some space for non-revolutionary (though not overtly counter-revolutionary) expression in such fields as art, cinema and literature.

Yes, both also banned hundreds of newspapers and magazines, and imprisoned scores of critics. They also organized the murder of numerous real or imagined opponents inside and outside Iran. But they targeted the regime's own children.

They divided Iranians into two categories: khodi (our own) and biganeh (outsider).

Rafsanjani and Khatami allowed khodi some latitude to criticize the regime - and also used these critics as safety valves to reduce tension in society.

The biganeh, however, were allowed no space for expression. Their writings were blacklisted by the Ministry of Islamic Guidance, and their names banned from the media or used only in vilification campaigns. When perceived as too much of a threat, they were murdered, their corpses thrown in the streets - as was the case under President Khatami.

The radicalization of discourse under Ahmadinejad makes it hard for the "half-pregnant" to speak with forked tongues.

Khatami was able to tour the world, speaking of a dialogue of civilizations while allowing no dialogue inside Iran. Ahmadinejad recognizes the fact that a revolution is, primarily, a monologue - or even a soliloquy, addressed to itself.

* Second, Ahmadinejad aims to link any criticism of the system with foreign powers.

In the decisions to close newspapers or put "khodi" figures on trial, the authorities drop hints about illicit relations with "foreign enemies of Islam." This amounts to a return to classical revolutionary lore in which anyone who criticizes the regime must be an agent of a foreign enemy.

* Ahmadinejad's third and perhaps most important scheme is to revive the regime's pretension of sacredness. He claims to receive periodic instructions from the Hidden Imam - a Mahdi-figure who, according to Shiite lore, went into hiding in 940 A.D. and will someday return to preside over the end of the world. He has thus restored the concept of the Hidden Imam to a central position within the Khomeinist doctrine.

The concept was pure fiction from the start, and most leaders of the Islamic Republic realized that retaining it posed insurmountable theo-political problems. This is why the Hidden Imam was given a back seat under Rafsanjani and Khatami, although both are Shiite clerics.

By restoring the Hidden Imam, Ahmadinejad makes it impossible for anyone to claim that Shiism, let alone Islam, admits of a range of interpretations. In this version of the Khomeinist doctrine, Islam is equated with Shiism, Shiism with the Hidden Imam - and the Hidden Imam with the Khomeinist regime.

THE "half pregnant" had hoped that "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi might, would, at some point, restrain Ahmadinejad. Earlier this month, however, Khamenehi, in his Iranian New Year message, paid glowing tribute to Ahmadinejad, and endorsed his strategy.

The "half-pregnant" are now forced to choose between becoming full-blown revolutionaries - or joining the counter-revolution.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Here's a Way to Deal With the Scorpion </font>

April 06, 2007
The Times
Amir Taheri
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1620496.ece </center>
While everyone should be happy that the 15 British servicemen are home from Tehran, it is, perhaps, too early to uncork the bubbly. For the undeclared war that the Islamic Republic has waged against Western democracies since 1979 is far from over. A reminder of this came just as the 15 captives boarded a plane for London, when gunmen linked to Moqtada al-Sadr, the Iraqi cleric working for Tehran, killed four British soldiers in Basra in an ambush. </b>

Why did the mullahs decide to seize the hostages and why did they release them unexpectedly? Hostage-taking has been part of the Islamic Republic’s strategy since its inception in 1979. In the first months of its existence, the Khomeinist regime seized and quickly released hundreds of Western hostages. The policy reached a crescendo in November 1979 when Khomeinist “students” raided the US Embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days. Today a German businessman, a Canadian academic and a French researcher are captives of the mullahs.

The seizure of hostages is based on an ancient tradition first practised by early Islamic conquerors. The Arab general Saad Abi Waqqas realised that Muslim fighters were awestruck by the Byzantine soldiers in the early stages of Islamic conquests in the 7th century. He solved the problem by putting captured Byzantine soldiers on show to demonstrate that the “Infidel” were fragile men, not mythical giants.

The mullahs remembered the Abi Waqqas stratagem last summer amid growing rumours of an impending US attack on the Khomeinist regime. Their first aim was to capture some Americans. Last September, they set a trap for a platoon of GIs from the 101st Airborne Division patrolling the Iraqi border with Iran. The Americans had been led into the trap but after an intense shooting match with the Iranian force sent to capture them, they managed to flee to safety.

President Bush’s decision to change the rules of engagement for US forces in Iraq with the new “surge” strategy, allowing Americans to kill or capture any Iranian perceived as a threat, made it more difficult for the mullahs to do an Abi Waqqas. As a result, the British, whose rules of engagement prevent them from fighting Iranians even in self-defence, were chosen as the softer target.

By seizing the British almost at the same time as the United Nations Security Council was giving unanimous approval to fresh sanctions against Iran, based on a text written by British diplomats, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad achieved several objectives.

He showed that his regime could heighten tension any time. He told his Revolutionary Guards not to be unnerved by the talk of war with the “Infidel”. He enhanced his popularity among Arabs, who now regard him as heir to Nasser, and his dream of wiping Israel off the map. He also used the incident as a smokescreen for a purge of dissidents within the Establishment, putting several prominent figures on trial for “damaging state security”.

The seizure of the British naval personnel is the latest episode in a low-intensity war that the Islamic Republic has waged against the West for almost three decades. In this war, Iran has killed hundreds of Western, especially American and French troops, in suicide attacks in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. More recently, its agents have killed at least 200 American troops and an unknown number of British soldiers in Iraq. Its influence against Nato in Afghanistan, against President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan and against Lebanon and Israel, through Hezbollah and Hamas, are well known.

So far, the West’s response has been timid and occasional. The mullahs play a long-term game, acting as carpet-weavers, knotting one mischief at time, day in and day out. They know that their fragile regime, hated by a majority of Iranians, would not survive a full-scale clash with the West. This is why they deal their poison in small but steady doses, enough to weaken the foe but not too much to mobilise Western opinion in favour of full confrontation.

The debate on what to do about the mullahs hits a deadend because it is limited to two options: regime change or surrender. Those who blame the West for the world’s evils urge surrender, in atonement of sins supposedly committed against Iran over centuries. They hope that once the mullahs are given everything, they would start behaving reasonably. This argument ignores the fact that the Khomeinist regime’s political DNA would not allow it to act reasonably. A scorpion does not sting because it wants to misbehave but because it is programmed to do so.

When it comes to the regime-change option, the usual suspects who still cry for Saddam Hussein would be up in arms. President Ahmadinejad knows that no American or British leader can garner popular support for preemptive war against Iran.

The alternative, however, is not one of surrender or regime change. The Western democracies could give the Islamic republic a taste of its own medicine — and engage it in the kind of low-intensity warfare that Iran itself indulges in. The mischief must not be cost-free. It would be resisted though diplomatic and economic means as well as through support for the democratic and reformist forces inside Iran. Throughout history, adversaries end up by adopting aspects of each other’s strategy.

The Islamic Republic wants a Khomeinist Middle East. The “Infidel” want a democratic, pro-West Middle East. The two visions are incompatible. Eventually, one must win as the other loses. As the British celebrate the return of their hostages they would do well to decide which vision deserves support.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq</font>

POSTED: 10:26 p.m. EDT, April 5, 2007
From Michael Ware
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html </center>
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, despite being considered terrorists by the United States, continues to receive protection from the American military in the face of Iraqi pressure to leave the country.

It's a paradox possible only because the United States considers the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK, a source of valuable intelligence on Iran.</b>

Iranian officials tied the MEK to an explosion in February at a girls school in Zahedan, Iran. <A href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/17/iran.bombing/index.html">(Full story)</a>

The group also is credited with helping expose Iran's secret nuclear program through spying on Tehran for decades. And the group is considered an ally to America because of its opposition to Tehran.

However, the U.S. State Department officially considers the MEK a terrorist organization -- meaning no American can deal with it; U.S. banks must freeze its assets; and any American giving support to its members is committing a crime.

The U.S. military, though, regularly escorts MEK supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf.

"The trips for procurement of logistical needs also take place under the control and protection of the MPs," said Mojgan Parsaii, vice president of MEK and leader of Camp Ashraf.

That's because, according to U.S. documents, coalition forces regard MEK as protected people under the Geneva Conventions.

"The coalition remains deeply committed to the security and rights of the protected people of Ashraf," U.S. Maj. Gen. John D. Gardner wrote in March 2006.

The group also enjoys the protection of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

"The ICRC has made clear that the residents of Camp Ashraf must not be deported, expelled or repatriated," according to an ICRC letter.

Despite repeated requests, neither Iran's ambassador in Baghdad nor the U.S. military would comment on MEK, also known as Mojahedin Khalq Organization, or MKO.

But former U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said, "What we have here is a policy that described the people here from the MEK as a protected group, and one of our coalition partner countries is actually protecting them in the camp where they mostly are, but there is no change in our policy that the MEK, we still regard them as a terrorist organization."

When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Green Berets arrived at Camp Ashraf to find gardens and monuments there, along with more than 2,000 well-maintained tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, anti-aircraft guns and vehicles.

All 3,800 camp residents were questioned by Americans -- including, interestingly, a female tank battalion. No arrests were made, and the camp quickly surrendered under a cease-fire agreement -- an agreement that also guaranteed its safety.

"Everyone's entry to the camp and his departure are controlled by the U.S. military police force," Parsaii said.

The MEK denies it is a terrorist group. Both Iran and the Iraqi government, however, accuse the group of ongoing terrorist attacks, and the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government wants it out.

"We gave this organization a six-month deadline to leave Iraq, and we informed the Red Cross," said Shirwan al-Wa'eli, Iraq's national security minister. "And presumably, our friends the Americans will respect our decision and they will not stay on Iraqi land."

For now, however, the United States continues to protect MEK.

"There are counter-pressures, too," Khalilzad said. "There are people who say, 'No, they should be allowed to stay here.' And as you know, around the world there are people with different views toward them."

=





<B><center>09:12, April 06, 2007

<font size=+1 color=brown>U.S. commander denies attack on Iran soon</font>

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200704/06/eng20070406_364290.html </center>
Visiting commander of U.S. Central Command Admiral William J. Fallon on Thursday denied an attack on Iran soon, saying that the Iranian issue should be solved through diplomatic channels.

Fallon made the denial to reporters after his meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt's Red Sea resort Sharm el-Sheikh, the official MENA news agency reported here. </b>

Asked whether the United States would attack Iran soon, especially as Washington beefed up military presence in the Gulf region recently, the top U.S. officer gave a negative answer.

"Washington already had its hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan," he explained.

Talking on the Iranian nuclear issue, Fallon told the reporters that Iran should be convinced through diplomatic channels that seeking to possess nuclear weapons is not a good idea.

He, meanwhile, expressed that the United States in general does not encourage nuclear proliferation in the Middle East region and is keen on maintaining the peace and security of the region.

Enhanced military nuclear capabilities of countries in the region would be counterproductive and even unwarranted, he said, while being asked about the danger posed by Israel's nuclear weapons to regional security and stability in light of the U.S. hardline stance towards the Iranian nuclear program,

The U.S. stance towards Tehran is as clear and firm as that of UN member states, Fallon said, accusing Iran of pursuing a program leading to producing nuclear weapons, which were "Gulf leaders' concerns about Iran's intentions".

Tehran has denied the allegation.

Fallon's visit to Egypt is part of his first regional tour since he assumed post last month succeeding General John P. Abizaid.

He has already visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, where he met with the countries' leaders and top officials to listen to their views on regional issues and discussed bilateral cooperation with them.

Source: Xinhua

=



<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Syria, Hizbullah, Iran prepare in case of war</font></b>

<i>Defensive measures taken amid US-Iran tensions spur concern
about accidental conflict</i>

<b>By Nicholas Blanford
http://abcnews.go.com/International/CSM/story?id=3013564 </center>
BEIRUT, Lebanon The prospect of an attack by the United States against Iran has triggered a flurry of military activity around the Middle East as Tehran mobilizes its allies to prepare a defense. In a region where suspicion dominates and trust is rare, politicians and analysts warn, mounting tensions between the US and Iran could spark a war by accident.</b>

"The situation is such that you can't rule out an unplanned development," says Zvi Shtauber, director of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University in Israel. "Since we're living in an era where there is no negotiation, it looks like everything is open…. things are so fragile that you could have an accidental development."

Those concerns were voiced this week by Amos Yadlin, Israel's chief of military intelligence, who told the government that Lebanese Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran are making defensive preparations in expectation of war. "We are closely monitoring these preparations because [Iran, Syria and Hizbullah] could misinter-pret various moves in the region," Mr. Yadlin was quoted by the Israeli Haaretz daily as saying. Israeli media reported that Israel asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to relay to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during her visit to Damascus Wednesday a message of reassurance that Israel has no intention of attacking.

Still, the Middle East has a grim history of bellicose rhetoric and military gestures causing unintended consequences. A fatal chain of misinterpreted muscle-flexing moves by Egypt and Israel provoked the Arab-Israeli war of June 1967, a conflict that redrew the geostrategic map of the Middle East, and the repercussions of which continue to be felt today.

More recently, Hizbullah's abduction of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12 last year sparked a 34-day war that cost Lebanon more than 1,000 lives and damage estimated at $3.6 billion. Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah subsequently all but admitted that the party's leadership had misread Israel's response to the abduction of the two soldiers.

"If any of us had a 1 percent doubt that Israel was going to reply in this savage manner, we wouldn't have captured those soldiers," he said in a television interview.

President George W. Bush has vowed to resolve the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions by the time he leaves office in early 2009.

Although the White House says it is pursuing diplomacy to achieve its goal, it refuses to rule out the military option. The recent disappearance of a senior Iranian general, the arrests of Iranian diplomats in Iraq, and the deployment of US naval battle groups in the Persian Gulf have raised expectations in the region that a US attack on Iran may be imminent.

"US threats against Iran are no longer regarded by the Iranians and Syrians as just saber-rattling, and it's only natural that they prepare themselves," says Amal Saad-Ghorayeb of the Carnegie Endowment's Middle East Center in Beirut.

Hizbullah officials and fighters say that the party has launched an intensified training program with new recruits pushed through month-long courses in camps scattered along the flanks of the Bekaa Valley in eastern Lebanon. Veteran fighters receive refresher courses and can volunteer for 45-day programs to join special-forces units.

"There is a high level of recruitment. The rearmament is happening because there will be a war with Syria. The Israelis cannot accept the insult of the July war," says Mohammed, a Hizbullah activist in Beirut, referring to last summer's conflict.

Analysts suspect, however, that Israel will bide its time to absorb and apply the lessons learned from last summer's conflict before contemplating a second round with its Lebanese foe.

Nawaf Mussawi, Hizbullah's foreign affairs adviser, says he doubts that Israel's government is strong enough domestically to persuade the public to support a second major war against Lebanon. But, he adds, Hizbullah "is ready for all eventualities."

"What we expect, or don't expect, from Israel has nothing to do with our preparations. In any situation, we are prepared," Mr. Mussawi says.

Iran's regionwide defensive preparations against a potential US attack, ironically, have been aided by Washington's policy of politically isolating Syria since 2003 and the Hamas-led Palestinian government since last year.

Ignored by the US and Europe, Syria and Hamas turned to Iran. In June 2006, Syria and Iran signed a mutual defense pact and last month inked a protocol on deepening bilateral military cooperation.

"There is a belief very much in Syria and certainly with Hizbullah that, should the Americans attack Iran, then Israel will get involved in a preemptive operation here," says Timur Goksel, a Beirut-based security-affairs analyst.

A Lebanese intelligence source says that the Syrian Army is being taught some of the guerrilla-style tactics devised by Hizbullah in Lebanon. "The Iranians are trying to convince Syria that if they use the same tactics as Hizbullah and if they can last 20 to 30 days in a war with Israel before a cease-fire, then [the public perception will be that] they will have won and Israel will have lost," the source says.

Iran also took advantage of the refusal by Israel and the US to deal with the Hamas government in the Palestinian territories, which was elected in January 2006. Tehran stepped into the gap, pledging Hamas $150 million to compensate for the freeze on Western development aid.

Israel claims that dozens of Hamas militants have traveled to Iran for training and that Iranian-supplied weapons are being smuggled via tunnels from Egypt into Gaza. "Hamas is doing all its best to arm itself. The attempt to stop it is like putting a door in the middle of the desert," Dr. Shtauber says, commenting on an Egyptian promise this week to stave the flow of weapons. "You can just go around it."

" Ilene R. Prusher contributed to this report from Israel.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Why Did Iran Blink?</font>

April 5, 2007 - 5:56PM
http://www.themonitor.com/onset?id=1419&template=article.html </center>
It is certainly a relief that the Iranian regime has decided to release the 15 British sailors and marines who were seized by Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces March 23. It would have been preferable if the regime had immediately released the British service people, who, if they ventured into Iranian waters, almost certainly did so inadvertently. But this outcome is preferable to what would have been increasing pressure for Britain, or perhaps even the United States, to put more pressure on the Iranian regime through military and paramilitary means.
</b>
The entire incident, however, leaves us with more questions than answers.

What was the motivation for Iranian forces to seize the British sailors and marines in the first place? Does the resolution of the incident suggest a split within the Iranian regime, between hard-liners led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and pragmatists, led by Ali Larijani, head of the Supreme National Security Council and representing the interests of most of the mullahs? Or are any splits merely superficial?

Britain’s Sky News said its sources revealed that Qatar and Syria were instrumental in bringing about a resolution. What interest would those two countries have in common, and what leverage, if any, would they have over Iran? Could Saudi Arabia, which has been increasingly active diplomatically in the region, have played a role?

Unfortunately, for all his sometimes unpredictable and inflammatory hard-line tendencies, and whether or not he was pressured into releasing the hostages, Ahmadinejad played the resolution of this crisis shrewdly and expansively. He referred to the release as a “gift” to the British people while insisting that Iran had been deeply wronged by an incursion into territorial waters.

As Robert Hunter, a senior adviser at the RAND Corp. and former U.S. ambassador to NATO said, whatever the truth of the matter, “he made Iran sound like the civilized party in this affair.”

Mr. Hunter believes that Great Britain played things just about right, consistently denying it had done anything wrong, refusing in public to negotiate, exercising patience rather than hurling threats, and (probably) arranging for the release of an Iranian diplomat who had been captured in Iraq.

As Mr. Hunter also suggested, now is a good time to step back and think seriously about our priorities in the region. The United States is likely to be a permanent presence in the Persian Gulf, and Iran will inevitably be a regional power. We need to start talking to determine how those interests, some of which will coincide and some of which will conflict, can be worked through without warfare or nuclear weapons.

=
This article about the Ruskies' confidence reminds me of the old saying:
"Whistling past the Grave Yard in the Dark!" ~ Dutchman</i>



<B><center>08:35, April 06, 2007

<font size=+1 color=purple>Russia deems Iran's defense system strong enough to resist U.S. attack</font>

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200704/06/eng20070406_364192.html </center>
Iran has a strong air defense potential to resist possible U.S. air strikes, a senior Russian military official told a news conference on Thursday.

The Iranian air defense system "makes it possible to oppose any types of aircraft," including those possessed by the U.S. armed forces, Yury Solovyov, commander of Russian special forces, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying. </b>

The Iranian air defense system includes mainly Russian-made hardware, and also French and other countries' (air defense) systems, Solovyov said.

"Let us not forget that Iranian air defense specialists were trained in our country," he said.

Last week, a Russian security official said that Russian intelligence had information that U.S. Armed Forces had nearly completed preparations for a possible military operation against Iran and would be ready to strike in early April, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.

The United States has not excluded a military option in the standoff with Iran over its refusal to abandon its uranium enrichment program.

The UN Security Council passed a new resolution on Iran two weeks ago toughening economic sanctions against the country and accepting the possibility of a military solution to the crisis.

Source: Xinhua

=

<i> This article reminds me of another "old saying....

"One is scared! And the other one is glad of it!" ~ Dutchman</i>



<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Iran's air defense can repel U.S. air strikes - Russian brass </font>

Global Research, April 5, 2007
RIA Novosti
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070405&articleId=5288 </center>
MOSCOW, April 5 (RIA Novosti) - Iran has air defense systems capable of repelling possible United States air strikes, a high-ranking Russian military official said Thursday.

A Kuwaiti newspaper warned Wednesday that the United States was planning a missile strike against Iran some time in April. In an editorial citing unnamed Washington sources, As-Siyasa said air-to-surface missiles could be used in U.S. strikes against Iran, but that no ground operation would be launched to avoid casualties among U.S. service personnel. </b>

"In line with my assessment, Iran's air defense system is strong enough," Colonel General Yury Solovyov, commander of the Air Defense Forces Special Command (former Moscow Military District Air Defense Command), said. "Currently Iran has our [Russian] air defense missile systems, which are capable of tackling U.S. combat aircraft. Iran also has French and other countries' [defense] systems."

Russia, which is separated from Iran in the south by three tiny South Caucasus nations and shares a sea border with the Islamic Republic, has been actively promoting a diplomatic solution to the Iranian issue.

Solovyov also said that Russia had been receiving detailed information on the current developments in the Persian Gulf situation.

Last week, a Russian security official said that Russian intelligence had information that U.S. Armed Forces had nearly completed preparations for a possible military operation against Iran and would be ready to strike in early April.

The U.S. has not excluded a military option in the standoff with Iran over its refusal to abandon its uranium enrichment program. The UN Security Council passed a new resolution on Iran two weeks ago toughening economic sanctions against the country and accepting the possibility of a military solution to the crisis.

The U.S. Administration sees Iran as a "rogue state" and is determined to stop the Islamic Republic, diplomatically or otherwise, from obtaining nuclear weapons. Washington now plans to deploy a missile defense shield in Central Europe allegedly to protect itself from potential missile strikes from Iran or North Korea.

bump

=





<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>U.S. Media Feasted on Iranian Baloney</font>

April 06, 2007
The Sacramento Bee
James P. Pinkerton
http://subscriber.sacbee.com/user_r...o=http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/150116.html </center>
Once again, the Iranians have prevailed in a hostage crisis. The smirking leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, fresh from his latest demonstration of "performance-art politics," is no doubt preparing his next stunt for the world stage.

And once again, the rogue regime in Tehran has been enabled by many Westerners, who knee-jerkingly sentimentalize hostages, reflexively look for the worst in their own country and instinctively adapt the language of their avowed enemies. </b>

Any hostage who appears on television, or on Internet video, becomes an object of media fascination. By now, there's an established ritual of recognition: First, reporters with cameras interview the hostage's family. Second, they look for yellow ribbons in the hostage's hometown. Third, they badger politicians, demanding to know why more hasn't been done to free the hostage. Meanwhile, should the hostage be in a position to speak, well, the whole world -- the whole media world, at least -- hangs on every word.

In the case of the 15 British sailors and marines captured March 23, the Iranians got more help than they reasonably could have expected. The captives all seemed young and handsome -- except for one, who was young and pretty. More to the point, they seemed all too eager to "confess" to being in Iranian waters.

"Whatever happened to name, rank and serial number?" -- and nothing more -- thundered The Daily Mail, a London newspaper. In Vietnam some American POWs were tortured for years before they would help the enemy make its case -- and some never gave an inch. But these Brits seemed to be having a happy enough time. And in being so free with their "confessions," they undercut their government's position.

Subsequent investigation might show more nuance to this story, but the British armed forces desperately need to review their training for those uniformed personnel who risk capture by the enemy -- and figure out a way to punish those who flout specified procedures.

Speaking of procedures, one might ask: What's wrong with the British Navy? How could the successors to Sir Francis Drake and Lord Nelson be so feckless as to allow the Iranians to grab one of their vessels without firing a shot? Surely some courts-martial, up and down the chain of command, are called for -- although, of course, they won't happen.

But let's get back to the media, which have been played by the Iranians like a harp. When Ahmadinejad's government announced the hostages were being "pardoned" as a "gift to the British people," the media mostly went along with the Iranian spin.

CNN's Tony Harris, for example, announced that Iran was "granting amnesty" to the Brits. In print stories, the words "pardon" and "amnesty" were mostly used inside quotation marks, as a way of saying that those words were the Iranian words, but on television and radio, when the words were spoken, that distinction was lost.

So the Iranian government can claim another success -- at "semantic infiltration." That's the phrase used by late New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan to describe one side's effectiveness at getting the other side to use its favored word choices -- "the process whereby we come to adopt the language of our adversaries."

Thus, semantic infiltration is a kind of propaganda in which totalitarian regimes rename themselves as, say, "people's republics."

Moynihan further noted it's predictable that evildoers would seek to conceal their true nature. But, he asked, "Must we aid them in that effort by repeating those words?" And finally, he warned that the good guys risk changing their own perceptions -- losing their own moral bearings -- if they make use of such semantically infiltrated words.

So we await the next Iranian "show." Most likely, it will be brazen performance art, flouting international law and risking lives.

And if the past is any guide, Western "critics" will eat it up.

=





<B><center>7:52 am:

<font size=+1 color=brown>Suicide chlorine truck bomber kills more than 2 dozen in Ramadi </font>

By BASSEM MROUE | Associated Press
April 6, 2007
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/59789.html </center>
BAGHDAD (AP) _ A suicide bomber driving a truck loaded with TNT and toxic chlorine gas crashed into a police checkpoint in western Ramadi on Friday, killing at least 27 people and wounding dozens, police in the Anbar provincial capital said.</b>

In the deep south of the country, the Basra police commander said the type of roadside bomb used in an attack that killed four British soldiers on Thursday had not been seen in the region previously. Maj. Gen. Mohammed al-Moussawi's description of the deadly weapon indicated it was a feared Iranian-designed explosively formed penetrator.

Two more of the bombs were discovered planted along routes heavily traveled by U.S. and British diplomats in Basra. Weeks earlier, the American military had claimed Iran was supplying Shiite militia fighters in Iraq with the powerful weapons, known as EFPs. They hurl a molten, fist-sized copper slug capable of piercing armored vehicles.

The bombing in Anbar province marked the ninth use of suicide chlorine bombs in the sprawling, mainly desert territory that has been a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency.

Recently, however, many Anbar tribes have switched allegiance, with large numbers of military-age men joining the police force and Iraqi army in a bid to expel al-Qaida in Iraq fighters. Suicide bombings are an al-Qaida trademark.

Police Maj. Mohammed Mahmoud al Nattah, member of the Anbar Salvation council, told state-run Iraqiya television the bomber hit a residential complex and dozens of wounded were taken to the Ramadi hospital.

Police opened fire as the suicide car bomber sped toward a checkpoint, three miles west of the city, according to police Col. Tariq al-Dulaimi. Nearby buildings were heavily damaged and police were searching the rubble for more victims.

South of Baghdad, Iraqi forces backed by American paratroopers swept into a troubled, predominantly Shiite city before dawn, and the U.S. military said as many as six militia fighters had been killed.

Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a U.S. military spokesman, said eight others were wounded and five detained. There were no reports of civilian casualties in the assault on Diwaniyah, he said.

Residents reported heavy fighting between the U.S. and Iraqi forces and gunmen of the Mahdi Army militia in the city, 80 miles south of Baghdad.

Dr. Hameed Jaafi, the director of Diwaniyah Health Directorate, said an American helicopter fired on a house in the Askari neighborhood, seriously wounding 12 people as the early morning assault began.

Bleichwehl said there were no U.S. air strikes either by helicopters or planes.

Also Thursday, the U.S. military confirmed an American helicopter carrying nine people had been downed south of Baghdad and that four were injured.

An Iraqi army official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of security concerns, said the helicopter crashed after coming under fire near the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Latifiyah, about 20 miles south of Baghdad. The U.S. military did not confirm that account.

It was the ninth U.S. helicopter to go down in Iraq this year. The U.S. military has studied new evasive techniques, fearing insurgents have acquired more sophisticated weapons or have figured out how to use their arms in new and effective ways.

The four British soldiers _ including two women _ were killed Thursday as the American military announced the deaths of eight more U.S. soldiers since Tuesday.

The Basra region police commander, al-Moussawi, said two similar bombs had been discovered Friday morning; one was discovered on the road leading to Basra Palace, the compound that houses a British base and the British and U.S. consulates. A second was uncovered in the western Hayaniyah district where Thursday's attack occurred. The area is known as a stronghold of the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

The reported deaths of the American forces and the bomb attack on the British unit marked the start of the eighth week of the joint U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown in Baghdad and surrounding territory.

Prime Minister Tony Blair called the Basra attack an ''act of terrorism'' and suggested it may have been the work of militiamen linked to Iran. He stopped short of accusing Tehran, however.

''Now it is far too early to say that the particular terrorist act that killed our forces was an act committed by terrorists that were backed by any elements of the Iranian regime, so I make no allegation in respect of that particular incident,'' Blair said.

He added, however, ''This is maybe the right moment to reflect on our relationship with Iran.''

One U.S. soldier died and two were wounded in a roadside bombing Thursday in restive Diyala province north of Baghdad, the military said. Four others died Wednesday in two roadside bomb explosions in southern Baghdad and north of the capital, while a fifth was killed by small-arms fire in the eastern part of the city. Two other soldiers were killed by small-arms fire on Tuesday _ one in eastern Baghdad and another on foot patrol in the southern outskirts of the capital.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Iraq Police: Iranian-Made Bombs Used in Attack that Killed 4 Britons</font>

Friday, April 06, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264471,00.html </center>
BAGHDAD — The Basra police commander on Friday said the roadside bomb used in an attack that killed four British soldiers had not been used in southern Iraq before, and his description of the deadly weapon indicated it was a feared Iranian-designed explosively formed projectile.</b>

Anbar province has been a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency but many tribes in the region recently switched allegiance, with large numbers of military-age men joining the police force and Iraqi army in a bid to expel Al Qaeda in Iraq fighters.

The U.S. military has claimed Iran is supplying Shiite militia fighters in Iraq with explosively formed projectiles, known as an EFP. They hurl a molten, fist-sized copper slug capable of piercing armored vehicles.

The four British soldiers — including two women — were killed Thursday as the American military announced the deaths of eight more U.S. soldiers since Tuesday.

The Basra region police commander, Maj. Gen. Mohammed al-Moussawi, said two similar bombs had been discovered Friday morning; one was discovered on the road leading to Basra Palace, the compound that houses a British base and the British and U.S. consulates. A second was uncovered in the western Hayaniyah district where Thursday's attack occurred. The area is known as a stronghold of the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

4 British Soldiers, Kuwaiti Interpreter Killed in Ambush in Southern Iraq The reported deaths of the American forces and the bomb attack on the British unit marked the start of the eighth week of the joint U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown in Baghdad and surrounding territory.

Also Thursday, the U.S. military confirmed an American helicopter carrying nine people had been downed south of Baghdad and that four were injured.

An Iraqi army official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of security concerns, said the helicopter went down after it came under fire from anti-aircraft guns near the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Latifiyah, 20 miles south of Baghdad. The U.S. military did not confirm that account.

It was the ninth U.S. helicopter to go down in Iraq this year. The U.S. military has studied new evasive techniques, fearing insurgents have acquired more sophisticated weapons or have figured out how to use their arms in new and effective ways.

Prime Minister Tony Blair called the Basra attack an "act of terrorism" and suggested it may have been the work of militiamen linked to Iran. He stopped short of accusing Tehran, however.

"Now it is far too early to say that the particular terrorist act that killed our forces was an act committed by terrorists that were backed by any elements of the Iranian regime, so I make no allegation in respect of that particular incident," Blair said.

He added, however, "This is maybe the right moment to reflect on our relationship with Iran."

One U.S. soldier died and two were wounded in a roadside bombing Thursday in restive Diyala province north of Baghdad, the military said. Four others died Wednesday in two roadside bomb explosions in southern Baghdad and north of the capital, while a fifth was killed by small-arms fire in the eastern part of the city. Two other soldiers were killed by small-arms fire on Tuesday — one in eastern Baghdad and another on foot patrol in the southern outskirts of the capital.

The deadly attack against the British patrol in southern Iraq was the greatest loss of life for Britain in more than four months and it cast a shadow over celebrations marking the return of 15 British sailors seized by Iran two weeks ago in disputed waters in the Persian Gulf.

"Just as we rejoice at the return of our 15 service personnel so today we are also grieving and mourning for the loss of our soldiers in Basra, who were killed as the result of a terrorist act," Blair said.

The British patrol struck a roadside bomb and was hit by small-arms fire early Thursday in the southern city of Basra, British military spokeswoman Capt. Katie Brown said. The explosion created a 9-foot crater in the road. Hours after the attack, a British soldier's helmet was still laying in the street among dozens of spent bullets.

The latest casualties raised to 140 the number of British forces to die in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion — 109 in combat.

Blair has announced that Britain will withdraw about 1,600 troops from Iraq over the next few months and hopes to make other cuts to its 7,100-strong contingent by late summer.

=



<b><center>IRAN

2007/04/06

------------------------------------------------------

<font size=+2 color=blue>US, Israel incline towards collapse </font>

04:20:10 È.Ù
http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=234528&n=32 </center>
Interim Friday Prayers Leader of Tehran Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said the era of America and the Zionist regime is gone and they incline towards collapse.

Speaking to thousands of worshipers at Tehran University campus, Jannati said, "however, this takes time and history is moving in this direction although they may not realize."</b>

Ayatollah Jannati said the enemy has launched a psychological warfare and tries to pretend that Shia is a threat.

He urged all Muslim Ulema to stand against this conspiracy.

Talking about his recent trip to Egypt, Ayatollah Jannati said President Ahmadinejad is a very popular figure in that country and an opinion poll in Egypt showed that Ahmadinejad is the second popular leader only after the Lebanese Sayed Hassan Nasrallah.

He added President Ahmadinejad's foreign policy has been very successful and urged everybody in the country to support the government.

On nuclear issue, Ayatollah Jannati said Iranian people are awaiting to hear the good news which the officials have promised.

He expressed hope that one day, IRI would gain access to the full cycle of uranium enrichment.

On Islamic solidarity, he referred to the Islamic Revolution Leader's naming the new Iranian year as the year of 'national unity and Islamic harmony' and underlined the importance of unity among Muslims as a factor to neutralize the enemies' plots.

Ayatollah Jannati said since the disgraceful defeat of the Zionist regime by a group of Muslim youth in Lebanon, America and the Zionist regime have been propounding the idea of Shia crescent and saying that Shia Muslims are a danger to the Sunnis.

On internal affairs, Ayatollah Jannati referred to the implementation of article 44 of the Constitution which calls for privatization of the national economy and said success in implementing this law can make the economy thrive.

M/D

=




<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>US revs up pressure on Iran after release of Britons</font>

Published: Friday April 6, 2007
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_revs_up_pressure_on_Iran_after_r_04062007.html </center>
The United States Thursday shrugged off Iran's release of 15 captured British sailors and warned it faced tougher sanctions if it does not bow to UN demands to halt its uranium enrichment operations.

Refusing to accept the idea that the return of the Britons 12 days after they were seized showed Tehran's readiness to engage the international community, the White House reminded Tehran of the UN Security Council's demands on its nuclear program.</b>

"I would view the detention of the British sailors as not in line with their willingness to work with the international community," the White House national security council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, referring to Iran's leaders.

"What would show that they are more in line with the international community is to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions, and suspend their uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities," said Johndroe.

"We'd be hopeful to not have to go back to the UN Security Council for an additional sanction regime," the spokesman said.

And US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack accused Iran of using "hostage-taking as a tool of its international diplomacy."

For its part Tehran Thursday declared its refusal to bow to pressure on its nuclear program, which it says is for power generation but major Western powers believe is aimed at developing nuclear weapons.

Shortly after Johndroe's remarks, Iranian state television reported that Iran's nuclear chief Ali Larijani told the European Union there was no chance that Tehran would suspend uranium enrichment.

The exchange marked the resumption of more strident rhetoric after the 12-day crisis over the British sailors and marines, who Iran captured in or near Iranian waters on March 23 March.

Tehran declared the 14 men and one woman had illegally moved into Iranian waters, but Britain maintains they were seized in Iraqi waters where they were carrying out anti-smuggling oprations under UN resolutions.

The United States, which does not maintain direct relations with Iran, on Thursday welcomed their release, but tellingly praised London, not Tehran, for the peaceful end of the tense standoff.

US President George W. Bush, on his Texas ranch for a long Easter weekend, spoke for about an hour by secure video with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Johndroe told reporters.

"The president welcomed the safe return of the British personnel who had been detained in Iran. He also commended the British on their resolve in bringing the situation to a peaceful resolution," he said.

McCormack confirmed that Washington had toned down its rhetoric throughout the standoff, though on Saturday Bush referred to the Britons as "hostages" who had been seized in Iraqi waters.

"In the context of an ongoing hostage crisis, of course we are not going to say anything that could make the situation worse or make it more difficult to realize a peaceful solution," McCormack said. "Absolutely, we're going to tailor our rhetoric."

At the same time, McCormack hinted at possible face-to-face talks between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on the sidelines of an international conference on Iraq in early May.

"We have said from the beginning, when this first surfaced, that if there would be a ministerial conference, that we are not going to exclude any particular diplomatic interaction," he said.

McCormack emphasized the possible bilateral meeting would focus on Iraq exclusively, and not address the Iranian nuclear program. US officials denied any link to the Britons' release.

On another front, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that US officials were not inclined to release five Iranians captured in Iraq, and accused Iran of supporting Iraqi insurgents.

"I think there's no inclination right now to let them go," Gates told reporters, rejecting speculation that the United States was preparing to release the group or allow consular access to them as part of a deal involving Iran's release of the British captives.

Meanwhile controversial former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton described the hostage standoff as a "double victory" for Tehran.

Iran "won a victory when they captured the hostages and they won a victory when they released the hostages" Bolton said on the US-funded Alhurra Arabic-language television network.

"I think they were testing British resolve in response to this provocative act and I think they already had their answer, which was that the British are not going to respond in a strong fashion," he said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Global reaction to British marines: Iran claims comments 'dictated' by MoD</font>

Last updated at 18:13pm on 6th April 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...article_id=447146&in_page_id=1811&ito=newsnow </center>
Iran's state television said the British military "dictated" to its sailors what to say in a press conference Friday, in which they said they were pressured while in custody to admit to being in Iranian waters.

In its news report on the sailors, Iranian state TV said they held a "pre-organised" press conference in which "the British sailors only read from pages dictated to them." </b>

"They made statements completely different from what they had said in Iran and claimed that they were in Iraqi waters when detained," the TV newsreader said.

The newscast then turned to an in-house "political analyst," who called the sailors' press conference "a show".

"British military officials dictated it, but this show will not change the reality or undermine the credibility of the fact that the British sailors were in Iranian waters," said the analyst, who spoke to TV by telephone and was identified only by his family name, Zaraei.

State-run TV did not air the press conference, showing only a few seconds of it later during the news report. The government-run Arabic language station Al-Alam broadcast the beginning of the conference live, but then halted it after a few minutes.

At the press conference, one of the freed sailors, Lt. Felix Carman, said the 15 were blindfolded, bound and faced constant psychological pressure during their two weeks in Iranian detention.

He said they were threatened with seven years in prison unless they confessed to straying into Iranian waters. He insisted his crew was in Iraqi waters when they were seized by Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

In Friday prayer sermons at mosques around Iran, government clerics touted the resolution of the standoff with Britain as a victory for Iran.

Some told worshippers that the British government had apologised for the crews' entry into Iranian waters.

The British government says it never apologised, and even Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acknowledged in comments ahead of the sailors' release that Britain stuck to its stance that the sailors were in Iraqi waters.

"The capability of Iran to preserve its borders has been shown to all, and our nation will will respond with strength to any violation by any power," Ayatollah Mohsen Mojtahed Shabesteri said in a sermon in the northeastern city of Tabriz.

Sheikh Abdol-Nabi Nemazi, speaking at a mosque in the central city of Kashan, said "the surprise act of freeing the British troops stunned the world."

"The admission by the British sailors that they violated Iran's waters and the apology of the British nation exposed the lying claims of Bush that Iran took these individuals hostage," he said, referring to U.S. President George W. Bush's use of the term "hostages" to refer to the detained Britons.