Amir Taheri saga: the journalist who perverts the truth

The Latest Neocon Lie About Iran
GARY LEUPP

Now that Canada's National Post has apologized for the disinformational article about Iran it published on its front page last Friday, one should inquire as to how this happened in the first place. The Post had reported that on May 15, the Iranian Parliament had passed a law establishing "separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public. The new codes would enable Muslims to easily recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis (unclean)." This was absurd. The one Jewish member of the 190-member Iranian Majlis, Moris Motamed, among others refuted it noting that Iranians would never put up with such a law. He added, "Our enemies seek to create tension among the religious minorities with such news and to exploit the situation to their benefit."

The legislator must surely count Iranian-American journalist Amir Taheri, author of the nonsense, among these enemies. …
»»» Continued @ Information Liberation

The West should offer "Grand Bargain" to Iran

Iran: last exit for diplomacy

Joschka Fischer, the former Germany’s foreign minister and vice chancellor from 1998 to 2005, has given a bold view on Iranian nuclear crisis which can give some clear clue of how the Europeans perceive the challenge behind the closed doors. Answering to the question of “what should be done?� Fischer says, “There remains a serious chance for a diplomatic solution if the US, in cooperation with the Europeans and thus certainly with the support of the Security Council and the non-aligned states of the Group of 77, offers Iran a “Grand Bargain.�

The Iran crisis is moving fast in an alarming direction. There can no longer be any reasonable doubt that Iran’s ambition is to obtain nuclear weapons capability. However, at the heart of the issue lies the Iranian regime’s aspiration to become a hegemonic Islamic and regional power and thereby position itself at eye level with the world’s most powerful nations.
It is precisely this ambition that sets Iran apart from North Korea: whereas North Korea seeks nuclear weapons capability in order to entrench its own isolation, Iran is aiming for regional dominance and more. Iran is betting on revolutionary changes within the power structure of the Middle East to help it achieve its strategic goal.

To this end, it makes use of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also of Lebanon, Syria, its influence in the Gulf region, and, above all, Iraq. This combination of hegemonic aspirations, questioning of the regional status quo, and a nuclear programme is extremely dangerous. Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear bomb - or even its ability to produce one - would be interpreted by Israel as fundamental threat to its existence, thereby compelling the West, and Europe in particular, to take sides. …
»»» Continued@The Financial Express

American Think Thank: US should engage directly to Tehran

Tehran Wants to Talk
May 25, 2006
Robert McMahon
Iran's political establishment appears to be reaching out to Washington for direct talks to try to resolve the dispute over its nuclear program. The Washington Post quotes analysts, foreign diplomats, and U.S. officials as saying Tehran has been using a range of intermediaries to convey to the United States its interest in talks. Iran's Supreme National Security Council chief and top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, reportedly sent such a message through UN nuclear agency head Mohammed ElBaradei, who had high-level meetings in Washington this week. ElBaradei declined to directly mention Larijani but described himself as an "honest broker" between the United States and Iran who brings "their different perspectives to each other."

The Bush administration believes Iran is trying to shift the focus to Washington rather than respond to calls by the UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency to suspend its program and accept nuclear fuel from abroad. ...
»»» Continued @ Council on Foreign Relations

Iran: Amnesty International Verdicts

AI assessment of current human right situation in Iran
Part of the Amnesty International Report 2006
Published 23 May 2006

The Amnesty International Report documents human rights abuses in 150 countries around the world. In the introduction of this year's report it reads, “ During 2005 some of the world’s most powerful governments were successfully challenged, their hypocrisy exposed by the media, their arguments rejected by courts of law, their repressive tactics resisted by human rights activists.� AI added, “After five years of backlash against human rights in the ‘war on terror’, the tide appeared to be turning.�

However, the following passages are the part which reflects Iran’s case in 2005.

AI assessment on Iran: Scores of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, continued to serve prison sentences imposed following unfair trials in previous years. Hundreds more were arrested in 2005, mostly in connection with civil unrest in areas with large minority populations. Internet journalists and human rights defenders were among those detained arbitrarily without access to family or legal representation, often initially in secret detention centres. Intimidation of the families of those arrested persisted. Torture remained commonplace. At least 94 people were executed, including at least eight who were under 18 at the time of their alleged offence. Many sentences of flogging were imposed. The true number of those executed or subjected to corporal punishment was believed to be considerably higher than the cases reported. …
»»»»»» Continued @ AI

ReportIran is not responsible for the credibility of the contents of this report.

Harvard Researchers Propose Plan to Resolve Iranian Nuclear Crisis

U.S. and Iranian Experts Offer Concrete Steps Toward Agreement
Leading Harvard researchers from the United States and Iran have joined forces to develop a plan aimed at resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis. Abbas Maleki, director-general of the International Institute for Caspian Studies and a former deputy foreign minister of Iran, and Matthew Bunn, a former non-proliferation adviser in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, assert that " any viable solution needs to meet all sides’ bottom lines," and they lay out specific steps to do that. Bunn is a senior research associate with the Managing the Atom Project, and Maleki is a senior research fellow with the Energy Technology Innovation Project and the International Security Program.
______________________________________
Finding a Way Out of the Iranian Nuclear Crisis
Abbas Maleki and Matthew Bunn

As the UN Security Council debates Iran's nuclear program, a whiff of confrontation is in the air. Iran is a proud country with a tradition of resistance to foreign pressure and is likely to respond better to serious offers than to what it sees as blackmail. In response to Security Council sanctions, Iran might carry out its threat to pull out of nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Military strikes, and the inevitable Iranian responses, pose incalculable risks for all concerned. All sides need to look hard for new proposals to resolve the crisis before confrontation becomes inevitable. ...
»»» Continued @ STTP

Security guarantees is the key to resolve Iran nuclear crisis

EU3 finally acknowledged security guarantees is the key to resolving Iran nuclear crisis
Alex Bigham from Foreign Policy Centre
Interviewed in London by Majid Khabazan
21 May 2006

An analyst at The Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) in London, Alex Bigham said, "the key to resolving the Iran nuclear crisis is looking at the security guarantees and this is the first time that there has been an offer of security package by the EU3."
Referring to the ongoing meetings of the EU3 about the so called new incentives to Iran the head of Research for the Iran Programme at the FPC added, "we acknowledged long time ago that Iran has a legitimate security concern in the region which must be addressed by the west."
On his return from Iran he spoke on Sunday and argued that the August 2005 EU3 package - which was offered to Iran and immediately rejected by Tehran -was not enough and covered technological and economic incentives only and the most important difference that the new package has is the security guaranties.
He, who along with his colleague Hugh Barnes, Director of Democracy of Conflict at the centre, spent recently some two weeks in Iran, hoped that Britain, France and Germany take the matter seriously.
"I hope the two sides take this opportunity, which is on the table now, seriously and reach to some kind of agreement because the other two options, of a military strike by the Americans or a nuclear race in the region, would be disastrous," Bigham added.
He argued that the difficult part is that the America is the real power that can provide guarantee in the region and Washington seems not ready for a direct dialogue with Iran.
(Iran tends to debate the issue of nuclear situation clearly more than what the Americans do,) he stressed.
The Foreign Policy Centre is a European think tank launched under the patronage of the British Prime Minister. The centre published recently a report entitled Understanding Iran in that it argued that the West's failure to engage successfully with Iran is due to a failure to understand the structure of the state and the background to recent political changes in the country.
It has also launched a research programme on Iran aiming to fulfil the lack of knowledge about Iran in the west of which the first visit to the country by its experts was part of this project.
By referring to his visit to Iran Bigham said, "what we came across on our trip is that our report was right and there is a potential and willing in Iranian side for dialogue and negotiation to settle the crisis."
Bigham said that the analysts in Iran spoke to a number of people from conservative and reformers sides who some were government advisors. He also mentioned that they spoke to representatives of civil societies, NGOs and a wide range of journalists while travelling to major cities of Iran except Ahwaz.
"In terms of people we met", Bigham added, "there is a national pride on nuclear achievements but we have to ask people what price they would be prepared to pay for serious nuclear programme?"
In answering to the question that why the west is not willing to openly recognise Iran’s legitimate right in uranium enrichment he said, "the problem is that not only EU misunderstands Iran but Iranians also misunderstand EU."
Bigham added, "Not any of EU3 argued that Iran does not have the right to nuclear power: FPC acknowledged, Jack Straw (former British foreign minister) acknowledged and British government has continued to acknowledge that right."
"It is really a question of the process being entirely open and the right kind of inspections regime being in place, but frankly, Iran was found in non compliance by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)," Bigham argued.
"We certainly argue that the west is guilty of double standards in the region" he said, "and we need to look again at the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and look at its article six and force nuclear powers in the region such as Pakistan, Israel and India to comply with the international laws whether or not they are members of the NPT."
Bigham agreed that enrichment is clearly an important issue but added that there are as well other issues with regards to nuclear programme such as the issue of nuclear fuel cycle and the use of heavy water reactors the way in which that reprocessing can be directed for weapon purposes.
The think thank centre is going to publish a new report about the latest developments on Iran nuclear issue containing the come ups of the recent visit to Iran and new suggestions to both sides of the spectrum.

The interview was published with some changes by Fars News Agencis

Reading Ahmadinejad in Washington

The Iranian president's letter needs to be taken seriously.
by Hillel Fradkin
29/May/2006,
The Weekly Standard Volume 011, Issue 35

WILL THE UNITED STATES declare war on the Islamic Republic of Iran? For months, this question has been the theme of diplomatic and public discourse--with horror usually expressed at the idea. But it now seems that we have this backwards. For the import of the letter that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, sent to President Bush in the first week of May is that Ahmadinejad and Iran have declared war on the United States. Many reasons are given, but the most fundamental is that the United States is a liberal democracy, the most powerful in the world and the leader of all the others. Liberal democracy, the letter says, is an affront to God, and as such its days are numbered. It would be best if President Bush and others realized this and abandoned it. But at all events, Iran will help where possible to hasten its end.
…Continued @ Weekly Standard

• 
  Hillel Fradkin is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and coeditor of Current Trends in Islamist Ideology.

Iran oil bourse and the future of dollar

Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William R. Clark

"A successful Iranian bourse will solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations."

Contemporary warfare has traditionally involved underlying conflicts regarding economics and resources. Today these intertwined conflicts also involve international currencies, and thus increased complexity. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran's nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian "petroeuro" system for oil trade. Similar to the Iraq war, military operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of 'petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. …

»»» Continued @ MMN

This report was written on Friday August 05. 2005, but as it has a powerful argument on the effects of Iranian oil bourse on the dollar we decided to publish it anyway.

About the Author: William Clark has received two Project
Censored awards for his research on oil currency conflict, and has recently
published a book, Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar
(New Society Publishers, 2005). He is an Information Security Analyst, and holds
a Master of Business Administration and Master of Science in Information and
Telecommunication Systems from Johns Hopkins University. He lives near Bethesda,
Maryland. Website: http://www.petrodollarwarfare.com/

Iranian-Americans oppose any United States military attack on their motherland

Iranian-Americans and a war on Iran
David Rahni
15 - 5 - 2006
Iranian-Americans oppose any United States military attack on their motherland. Such action, writes David Rahni, would be catastrophic for both Iran and the US's global reputation.

The United States, and its United Nations security council allies France and the United
Kingdom, is exerting heavy pressure on the diplomatic consultations over whether Iran should be ordered to suspend its nuclear-enrichment programme.

A resolution agreed under chapter VII of the UN charter, which addresses threats to peace and acts of aggression, would likely lead to sanctions against Tehran. Such a resolution would also pave the way for possible US military action by conventional or tactical-nuclear air-strikes, or through all-out military attack. Currently, veto-holding China and Russia are opposed to any resolution under chapter VII.
… Continued @ Open democracy

David Rahni is a professor of chemistry and adjunct professor of dermatology in New York, who has also served as adjunct professor of environmental law. He is a naturalised Iranian-American.

United States not open to negotiation, to discussion, to being reasonable

Appealing to the United States is not very appealing
By William Blum
05/15/06 "Information Clearing House" --

-- With his recent letter to President Bush, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become part of a long tradition of Third-World leaders who, under imminent military or political threat from the United States, communicated with Washington officials in the hope of removing that threat. Let us hope that Ahmadinejad's effort doesn't result in the equally traditional outright US rejection.

Under the apparently hopeful belief that it was all a misunderstanding, that the United States was not really intent upon crushing them and their movements for social change, the Guatemalan foreign minister in 1954, President Cheddi Jagan of British Guiana in 1961, and Maurice Bishop, leader of Grenada, in 1983 all made their appeals to be left in peace, Jagan doing so at the White House in a talk with President John F. Kennedy.(1) All were crushed anyhow. In 1961, Che Guevara offered a Kennedy aide several important Cuban concessions if Washington would call off the dogs of war. To no avail.
… Continued @ ICH

• 
  
  William Blum is the author of "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2 " and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower". < http://www.killinghope.org/ > He publishes a free monthly newsletter, Anti-Empire Report, which can be subscribed to by sending an email to < bblum6@aol.com >

Iranian nukes not the real issue

Politics: Iran Nuclear Conflict is about US Dominance
By Gareth Porter
(Inter Press Service)

WASHINGTON - In pushing for a showdown over Iran's nuclear program in the United Nations Security Council, the administration of US President George W Bush has presented the issue as a matter of global security - an Iranian nuclear threat in defiance of the international community.

But the history of the conflict and the private strategic thinking of both sides reveal that the dispute is really about the Bush administration's drive for greater dominance in the Middle East and Iran's demand for recognition as a regional power.

... Continue @ Asia Times

Gareth Porter is a historian and national-security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published last June.

Appealing to the United States is not very appealing

 By William Blum

05/15/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- With his recent letter to President Bush, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become part of a long tradition of Third-World leaders who, under imminent military or political threat from the United States, communicated with Washington officials in the hope of removing that threat. Let us hope that Ahmadinejad's effort doesn't result in the equally traditional outright US rejection.

Iran's politics: constants and variables

Hzem Saghieh
12 - 5 - 2006
Iranians' traditional attitudes to Arabs and the west are being supplemented by a growing regional confidence, says Hazem Saghieh political editor of the London-based Arab newspaper al-Hayat.

It is a pity that in the middle east we can never think about the slightest event going on around us without dredging up the past. Current affairs, which have a bearing on the future, are as closely tied to the past as a newborn child is to its mother.

Whether recent or remote, the past is always more than a mere background to events. This is as true of Iranian politics as it is of anything else. Thus, whenever Arab-Iranian relations undergo some development or other, there are always scholars reminding us of the Safavid dynasty established in 16th-century Iran. At that time, the Safavids embraced Shi'ism, not from religious zeal but because they wanted to distinguish themselves within the Islamic world from the Sunni Arabs.
… Continued @ Open Democracy

A need for understanding Iran

The Foreign Policy Centre, a think thank close to Tony Blair, launched Understanding Iran: People, Politics and Power on April 2006 a report authored by Hugh Barnes and Alex Bigham. The report seeks to map out the diverse and diffuse power structures in Iran, analyse some of the personalities involved, and look at the potential for civil society. This is a powerful report in terms of highlighting the lack of understanding of modern Iran in Europe and America though with obvious weaknesses in the context due to the lack of enough contacts of the authors with Iranians inside Iran.

To download Understanding Iran, click - http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/776.pdf

The Evidence That Iran Will Be Nuked

April 18, 2006: America's Step Off the Nuclear Edge: Take the nuclear option off the table now!
By Jorge Hirsch, 12 May 2006 (source: Antiwar.com)

Remember the old cartoons where the character walks off a cliff and continues walking on thin air until he looks down and plunges? America walked off the cliff on April 18, 2006, and has been suspended above the nuclear abyss since, set to plunge down at a moment's notice. Meanwhile, it is in a catatonic state of collective stupor, or perhaps it should be called collective suspended animation. Even according to Fox News, a U.S. nuclear strike against Iran is now only a question of when, not if.

Since April 18, 2006, America has been illegally and immorally threatening to use its weapons of mass destruction against a state that is not known with certitude to possess any weapons of mass destruction, to prevent that state from acquiring knowledge that is being acquired by other states at this very moment.

Since April 18, 2006, America has shattered the legal and moral basis of all international agreements relating to arms control and nonproliferation to which it is a party, and indeed has punctured the legal and moral basis for the United Nations itself.

And we all see it coming, slowly and inexorably. The actual attack was not in April as was predicted in this column, so it may be June or August, any time before the November election that could change the face of Congress. Those who want it and those who don't are equally impotent to influence the course of events to speed it up or slow it down: it follows a script in which every cartoon character repeats the same tired clichés that can be predicted without any imagination [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. All the while, the U.S. plan to nuke Iran continues to move forward, focused and unrelenting.
… Continue @ AntiWar

If Iran attacked there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no truth

John Pilger detects the Salvador Option
Columnists John Pilger
Monday 8th May 2006

The American public is being prepared. If the attack on Iran does come, there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no truth, writes John Pilger

The lifts in the New York Hilton played CNN on a small screen you could not avoid watching. Iraq was top of the news; pronouncements about a "civil war" and "sectarian violence" were repeated incessantly. It was as if the US invasion had never happened and the killing of tens of thousands of civilians by the Americans was a surreal fiction. The Iraqis were mindless Arabs, haunted by religion, ethnic strife and the need to blow themselves up. Unctuous puppet politicians were paraded with no hint that their exercise yard was inside an American fortress. ... Continues at NewStatesman

Big money for corrupt US companies in Afghanistan

CORRUPTION:
The Enron-isation of Afghanistan?
William Fisher
NEW YORK, May 3 (IPS) - "Contractors in Afghanistan are making big money for bad work" -- that is the conclusion reached in a new report from CorpWatch written by an Afghan-American journalist who returned to her native country to examine the progress of reconstruction. … Continued