Iran-U.S.A

[Rasputin]

روز چهارشنبه که جرج بوش رئيس جمهوری آمريکا به شکلی ناگهانی تغيير وزير دفاع کابينه اش را اعلام کرد، بسياری از کارشناسان از برکناری دانلد رامسفلد آن اندازه تعجب نکردند که از انتخاب رابرت گيتس به جای او. گيتس از پشتيبانان تعامل و مذاکره با حکومت ايران بوده است. تابستان دو سال پيش او در کنار مشاور امنيت ملی وقت کاخ سفيد، رياست گروهی را برعهده داشت که خواهان گشودن باب مذاکره با ايران بود. در بخشی از گزارش گروه آمده بود نداشتن تماس با ايران و عدم حضور در اين کشور برای مدتی طولاني، عميقا به درک آمريکا از تحولات داخلی و منطقه ای آسيب می رساند. اين امر به نوبه خود نفوذ واشنگتن را در خاورميانه محدود می کند؛ ضرورتی ندارد مذاکره ميان ايران و آمريکا به هماهنگی کامل ميان دولت های دوطرف موکول شود. گيتس و برژينسکی در بخش ديگری از گزارش خود تاکيد می کنند که هرگونه گسترش احتمالی روابط ميان واشنگتن و تهران بايد مشروط به اين شود که جمهوری اسلامی برنامه تسليحات هسته ای خود را برچيند و به پشتيبانی از گروه های تروريستی پايان دهد.

[Rasputin]

گزارش ها می گويد که آمريکا و بريتانيا موضوع همکاری ايران و سوريه در حل بحران امنيتی عراق را مورد بررسی قرار می دهند.

دفتر تونی بلر، نخست وزير بريتانيا، اعلام داشته که وی در سخنانی که روز دوشنبه، ۱۳ نوامبر، ايراد می کند ضمن حمايت از گفتگو با ايران و سوريه در مورد همکاری اين دو کشور در استقرار امنيت و ثبات در عراق، شرايط اين گفتگوها را نيز توضيح خواهد داد.

در همين حال سخنگوی دفتر رياست جمهوری آمريکا در واکنش نسبت به پيشنهاد اخير يک هيات تحقيق آمريکايی در اين زمينه گفت که آقای بوش روز دوشنبه با اعضای اين هيات ملاقات می کند و نخست وزير بريتانيا نيز از طريق ارتباط ويديويی در اين جلسه شرکت خواهد داشت. اين هيات دو گزينه را پيشنهاد کرده بود: خروج مرحله ای نيروهای آمريکايی از عراق يا مشارکت دو کشور سوريه و ايران در حل بحران امنيتی اين کشور.

روز دوشنبه غلامحسين الهام، سخنگوی دولت ايران، در مورد آمادگی دولت آمريکا برای مذاکره با ايران و سوريه، خواستار تغيير روش آمريکاييان شد. به گزارش ايرنا آقای الهام در نشست خبری خود آنچه را که چرخش ۱۸۰ درجه در سياست های آمريکا می خواند تحولی مثبت توصيف کرد و گفت "اگر آمريکايی ها اين تصميم را بگيرند، مشکلات و مسايل قابل حل است."

در مورد واکنش سوريه، عماد مصطفی، سفير سوريه در ايالات متحده، گفت که کشورش از ايفای نقشی فعال در استقرار ثبات در عراق استقبال می کند و افزود که شرط اين همکاری اين است که دولت عراق نيز مايل به چنين اقدامی باشد.

آمريکا و برنامه اتمی ايران

پيش از اين گزارش شده بود سرگی لاوروف، وزير امور خارجه روسيه ابراز اميدواری کرده است که مذاکرات بين المللی در مورد برنامه هسته ای ايران هر چه سريعتر از سر گرفته شود. همچنين روز يکشنبه ۱۲ نوامبر اهود اولمرت نخست وزير اسراييل به واشنتگن سفر کرده است. گفته می شود يکی از اهداف اصلی اين سفر گفتگو در مورد مساله اتمی ايران است و اهود اولمرت تلاش می کند تا نظر کشورهای ديگر در قبال موضوع هسته ای ايران را به موضع آمريکا و اسراييل نزديکتر کند.

گفته می شود که شکست اخير جمهوری خواهان در انتخابات ميان دوره ای کنگره آمريکا، کنترل مجلس سنا و نمايندگان توسط دموکراتها که به تضعيف نسبی موضع نو محافظه کاران می انجامد، می توانند سياست خارجی کاخ سفيد را دستخوش تغييراتی کند.

[Rasputin]

سخنگوی کاخ سفيد در آمريکا اعلام کرد که گفتگوی مستقيمی با ايران صورت نخواهد گرفت و بار ديگر وی تاکيد کرد که ايران بايد ابتدا فعاليت های هسته ای حساس خود را به حال تعليق درآورد.
به گزارش خبرگزاری مهر به نقل از خبرگزاری شين هوا، "تونی اسنو" در جمع خبرنگاران گفت: در اين مرحله موضع ما در رابطه با گفتگوهای مستقيم با ايران روشن است و گفتگوی مستقيمی با اين کشور صورت نخواهد گرفت.

اظهارات وی پس از آن صورت می گيرد که روز گذشته "تونی بلر" نخست وزير انگليس در لندن از جامعه بين المللی خواست تا به منظور پيشرفت فرايند صلح در خاورميانه از ايران و سوريه کمک بگيرند.

در همين رابطه، "جان هاوارد" نخست وزير استراليا ديگر متحد آمريکا و انگليس در آنچه که لندن و واشنگتن از آن به مبارزه با تروريسم ياد می کنند از گفتگو با ايران و سوريه به منظور تامين ثبات در خاورميانه استقبال کرد و اين در حاليست که روزنامه واشنگتن پست از ديدار "جيمز بيکر" وزير امور خارجه اسبق آمريکا و تهيه کننده گزارش عراق برای دولت بوش با "محمد جواد ظريف" نماينده ايران در سازمان ملل متحد در نيويورک خبر داد.

اسنو در ادامه گفت که کشورش با ايران در قالب نشست های چند جانبه و طرفهای ديگر، تماس هايی دارد و اشاره کرد که آن گونه که گفته می شود تماس هايی وجود ندارد.

وی درباره سوريه نيز گفت: واشنگتن با اين دمشق دارای روابط ديپلماتيک است و ما به روابط خود با سوريه ادامه خواهيم داد.

[Rasputin]

روزنامه واشنگتن پست در گزارشی با اشاره به فعاليت*های کميسيون مستقل تحقيق در مورد عراق به رياست جيمز بيکر وزير امور خارجه اسبق آمريکا و حضور جرج بوش در جلسه روز دوشنبه اين کميسيون، از ديدار و گفت*وگوی جيمز بيکر با محمدجواد ظريف، سفير ايران در سازمان ملل در يک ضيافت شام سه ساعته خبر داد. به نوشته اين روزنامه جيمز بيکر در راستای اين ايده که برای پايان دادن به خشونت*ها در عراق بايد با دشمنان آمريکا به ويژه ايران و سوريه مذاکره شود، در ضيافت شامی با محمدجواد ظريف سفير ايران در سازمان ملل حضور يافت و با او در اين زمينه به گفت*وگو پرداخت.

در اين ضيافت شام که به نوشته واشنگتن پست به ميزبانی ظريف و در اقامتگاه او در نيويورک صورت گرفت، بيکر بر اين نکته تأکيد کرد که او به عنوان مذاکره کننده دولت آمريکا سخن نمي*گويد اما کميسيون مستقل تحقيق در مورد عراق مايل است از همکاری و پيشنهادات ايران در اين زمينه استفاده کند.

اين روزنامه با استناد به منابع ايرانی نوشت که بيکر به طور خاص در مورد امکان و احتمال همکاري*هايی بين تهران و واشنگتن در مورد عراق از ظريف سوال کرده است.

اين گزارش مي*افزايد، اقدام بيکر در حالی صورت گرفته است که چهره*های عمده نومحافظه*کاران آمريکا به چنين تماس*هايی بسيار بدبين هستند و از آن انتقاد مي*کنند و معتقدند اين تصور که ايران ممکن است به آمريکا برای خروج از بحران عراق کمک کند، اساسا مضحک و بي*پايه است.

اين در حالی است که جاش بولتون، رئيس دفتر کاخ سفيد گفته است که اگر کميسيون تحقيق عراق پيشنهاد گفت*وگو با ايران و سوريه را مطرح کند، دولت بوش با وجود اختلافات با اين دو کشور با اين پيشنهاد به شکل باز برخورد خواهد کرد.

[Rasputin]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has said Tehran is ready to talk to the US - once it changes its attitude.
His remarks follow suggestions that the US should start direct talks with the country to reduce the violence in Iraq.

US President George W Bush has said Iran must halt nuclear activities before any talks could begin, but Mr Ahmedinejad rejected this.

Meanwhile, the UN nuclear watchdog has criticised Iran for further enriching uranium despite the risk of sanctions.

In a report, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that over the past two and a half months, Iran has produced a small amount of uranium enriched to low levels, but it did not give exact figures.

It also said the IAEA had discovered traces of plutonium at a site in Iran, and had asked Tehran for an explanation.

Nuclear rights

At a news conference, the Iranian president said his country sought positive interaction with the entire world, including the US - if the country changed its behaviour.

"We will talk to the US government under certain conditions. Should it correct its behaviour, we will talk to them," Mr Ahmedinejad said during a press conference.

The BBC's Tehran correspondent, Frances Harrison, says Iran is essentially re-stating its position - that the US must stop interfering in the internal affairs of other nations before any discussions can begin.

We will talk to the US government under certain conditions

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad


What Iran and Syria want
Legacy of mistrust
Mr Ahmedinejad said the minimum condition for talks would be that Iran would stand by its rights, including nuclear rights.

In its latest report on the country, the IAEA said that Iran was failing to co-operate with the UN on resolving important questions about its nuclear programme.

Discussion channels

So far, no formal offer of talks has been made by Iran. A foreign policy decision of this kind would normally be taken only by the country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.

The US state department said it had made an offer to talk to Iran specifically about Iraq.

"That particular channel did not work out," spokesman Sean McCormack said.

"If, in future, we want to avail ourselves of that channel, then it is certainly a possibility. I don't think that right now that is something that is under consideration."

But, despite the conflicting positions, our correspondent says that there remains a desire in Tehran to prevent Iraq sliding into full-scale Shia-Sunni war for fear that Iran might get sucked into any conflict.

[Rasputin]

خبرگزاری فارس:واشنگتن*پست به نقل از كارشناسان:

ايران و سوريه در مذاكرات با آمريكا درباره عراق ، برگ برنده را خواهند داشت

خبرگزارى فارس: به گفته كارشناسان آمريكايي، فشار فزاينده بر دولت بوش براى مذاكره مستقيم با ايران و سوريه درباره عراق و تشديد خشونت ها در عراق موجب شده تهران و دمشق دست بالا را در مذاكرات احتمالى داشته باشند و قدرت عمل آمريكا محدود شود.


به گزارش فارس به نقل از روزنامه آمريكايى "واشنگتن*پست"، انتظار مى رود ايده مذاكره با ايران و سوريه جزو توصيه هاى گزارش ,گروه مطالعه عراق, باشد كه قرار است ماه آينده ميلادى به جورج بوش ارائه شود. جيمز بيكر، وزير امورخارجه سابق و ساير اعضاى آن از جمله حاميان ايده تعامل با دشمنان در كنار متحدان آمريكا هستند.
همچنين تونى بلر، نخست وزير انگليس هفته گذشته خواستار مذاكره آمريكا با تهران و دمشق شد و رئيس سازمان اطلاعات مركزى(سيا) و رئيس سازمان اطلاعات دفاعى نيز گفته اند مذاكره مى تواند راهگشا باشد. علاوه بر اين تعداد زيادى از كارشناسان، كاخ سفيد را تشويق به برقرارى ارتباط با كشورهايى كه در عراق تاثيرگذار هستند، كرده اند.
اما مقامات دولت بوش با اين ادعا كه مذاكره با ايران و سوريه تاثير اندكى بر كاهش خشونت ها در عراق خواهد داشت، آن را رد كرده اند.
با وجود اين، كارشناسان از هر دو حزب دموكرات و جمهوريخواه اعتقاد دارند ايران و سوريه هم اكنون منافع مشتركى با آمريكا در جلوگيرى از وخامت اوضاع در عراق دارند اما هشدار مى دهند بر سر ميز مذاكره، ايران و سوريه براى اولين بار پس از سال ها دشمنى و خصومت و تحريم هاى آمريكا، برگ برنده را در اختيار دارند.
اين كارشناسان اعتقاد دارند اگر دولت آمريكا در آستانه اشغال عراق در سال 2003 يا حتى سال گذشته با ايران و سوريه مذاكره مى كرد، مى توانست از موضع قدرت عمل كند. شائول بخاش، استاد دانشگاه جورج ميسون و كارشناس مسائل ايران با اشاره به اين موضوع گفت:,نه ايران و نه سوريه بدون اين كه امتيازى در مقابل بگيرند، به نفع آمريكا كارى انجام نخواهند داد و آنچه كه اين دو كشور مى خواهند، چيزى نيست كه آمريكا مايل به دادنش به آنها باشد.,
جاشوا لانديس، استاد دانشگاه اوكلاهما نيز معتقد است همكارى ايران و سوريه با آمريكا با خطراتى همراه خواهد بود.
وى توضيح مى دهد:,سوريه و ايران هر دو اعتقاد دارند كه آمريكا در حال رفتن به سوى قهقرا در عراق است و هر دو مايل نيستند نفوذ خود را روى آنچه مى دانند محكوم به شكست است، گرو گذارند.,
ژنرال مايكل هايدن، رئيس سازمان سيا نيز طى جلسه اى خطاب به كميته نيروهاى مسلح سناى آمريكا گفت ايران و سوريه مى توانند نقش بيشترى در عراق داشته باشند و اگر آمريكا آنها را متقاعد كند كه منافعشان با عراقى از هم گسيخته تامين نمى شود، ممكن است مؤثر باشد.

[Rasputin]

رژيم اسلامی از زبان علی لاريجانی دبير شورای عالی امنيت ملی به اظهارنظرهای برخی مقامات کاخ سفيد در مورد احتمال مذاکره با ايران واکنش نشان داده است. تا جايی که پای مذاکره به ميان می آيد دو برداشت متفاوت مطرج است. جرج بوش در سخنانی در روز سه شنبه گذشته در رابطه با مذاکره با ايران گفت:"اگر ايرانی ها خواهان گفتگو هستند، ما راه را به آنها نشان داده ايم و آنها بايد برنامه غنی سازی اورانيوم را به تعليق در آورند."
آمريکا همچنان تلاش برای تصويب و اجرای قطعنامه تحريم ها را در مذاکرات با گروه پنج باضافه يک تعقيب می کند. در مجموع چنين به نظر می رسد که تصميم سازان کاخ سفيد تا جايی که به پرونده هسته ای ايران مربوط است همچنان بر شرط اصلی خود يعنی تعليق کامل غنی سازی اورانيوم و پذيرش بازرسی های سر زده از تاسيسات هسته ای ايران تاکيد دارند. و منظورشان از مذاکره بيشتر به وضع عراق مربوط است. در اين زمينه "ديويد ساترفيلد" از مشاوران بلندپايه وزير خارجه آمريکا به کميته نظامی سنای آمريکا, گفت: "با احترام به ايران، ما آماده هستيم در حالت کلی گفت*وگوهايی در خصوص فعاليت*های ايراني*ها در عراق با آنها داشته باشيم."
جدا کردن مذاکره با رژيم اسلامی در مورد عراق از مذاکره مستقيم بر سر پرونده هسته ای و مخالفت با مذاکره بی پيش شرط بر سر پرونده هسته ای ايران در حالی صورت گرفته است که روزنامه واشنگتن پست در تحليلی در مورد علت اين مخالفت از زبان يک تحليل گر مسايل ايران نوشته است: "نه ايران و نه سوريه بدون اين كه امتيازى در مقابل (کمک به آمريکا در عراق) بگيرند، به نفع آمريكا كارى انجام نخواهند داد و آنچه كه اين دو كشور مى خواهند، چيزى نيست كه آمريكا مايل به دادنش به آنها باشد."
لاريجانی که پس از ديدار با محمود الزهار وزير امور خارجه فلسطين سخن می گفت, با اشاره به اظهارات وزير امور خارجه آمريكا در مورد شروع مناسب مذاكرات با ايران گفت:"صداهاى مختلفى از آنجا به ما مي*رسد؛ ولى به نظرم يك پريشان*گويي*هاى سياسى است و خيلى حرفهاى روشنى گفته نمي*شود. مسئله مهم براى ما اين است كه سخن دقيق بگويند."
لاريجانی با گفتن اين که "آماده*ايم در درون تفاهم سياسى حركت كنيم" بر پايبندی رژيم به نتايج مذاکرات اخير با سولانا تاکيد کرد و گفت: "مذاكرات قبلى با سولانا را ما به هم نزديم؛ بنابراين آنها يا بايد بپذيرند كه اين مسئله از درون مذاكرات حل شود يا ما كار خود را انجام دهيم."
لاريجانی گفت:"كسانى كه به دنبال قطعنامه و تحريم هستند، مذاكرات را از بين مي*برند."
او گفت: "براى ايران مهم است كه تحقيق و توسعه داشته باشد، مسير غني*سازى هم روشن شود و هر بحث ديگرى حول و حوش اين مسئله قابل مذاكره است."
لاريجانی در مورد شرط آمريکا برای مذاکره, يعنی تعليق غنی سازی اورانيوم گفت:" ما هيچ دليلى براى تعليق نمي*بينيم؛ اما از مذاكره براى حل مسئله استقبال مي*كنيم."
او در واکنش به انتقاد آژانس در آخرين گزارش خود در مورد مانع تراشی بر سر نظارت هايش در تاسيسات هسته ای ايران, تهديدات ساير مقامات رژيم مبنی بر جلوگيری از ادامه بازرسی های آژانس در صورت ارجاع پرونده ايران به شورای امنيت را مورد تاکيد قرار داد و گفت:" قبلاً هم به آنها گفته بوديم اين مشكل ما نيست، گفته شده بود كه اگر پرونده ما به شوراى امنيت برود، ما نمي*توانيم پروتكل الحاقى را داوطلبانه اجرا كنيم؛ چون اين مصوبه مجلس است؛ لذا هر وقت پرونده ما را به آژانس برگردانند، مي*توانيم راجع به اين موضوعات بحث كنيم."
در مجموع رژيم اسلامی همچنان بر مذاکره بدون پيش شرط, حفظ و ادامه غنی سازی اورانيوم
بازگشت پرونده از روی ميز شورای امنيت و کنار گذاشتن قطعنامه تحريم و آمريکا بر تعليق غنی سازی اورانيوم و بازرسی های سر زده از تاسيسات هسته ای ايران تاکيد می کنند. آمريکا در عين حال همچنان در تلاش است تا قطعنامه تحريم ها را که فعلا با مخالفت روسيه با بخش هايی از آن مورد بحث گروه پنج باضافه يک قرار دارد در شورای امنيت سازمان ملل به تصويب برساند.

[Sepideh_UK]

Well hope they get somewhere...

[Rasputin]

Call for External Investigation of Brutal Abuse Against Iranian American UCLA Student


An investigation is underway at the University of California at Los Angeles regarding an incident late Tuesday night in which an Iranian American UCLA student was stunned at least four times with a Taser by the University California Police Department. Mostafa Tabatabainejad, a UCLA student, was repeatedly stunned and taken into custody when he did not exit the University Library in a timely manner.

See the six-minute footage on youtube.

This altercation has raised concern over whether the police abused their authority and used excessive force to remove the student from the premise. NIAC has called for a thorough external investigation to assess the situation and to reprimand the parties at fault.

Click on the button GO to write a letter to the UCPD, the University of California at Los Angeles, and the Mayor of Los Angeles!

Nancy Greenstein, the Director for the Police Community Services Division, tells NIAC that Tabatabainejad refused to reveal his ID and would not leave the computer lab voluntarily.

“The University has a long time policy of checking student’s ID’s after 11 PM,” explains Greenstein, and adds that “the student wouldn’t identify himself and the police had to be called.”

According to the UCLA Daily Bruin Newspaper, UCPD Assistant Chief of Police Jeff Young says that the officers on duty in the library at the time resorted to use of the Taser when Tabatabainejad failed to comply with demands to exit the library.

A six-minute video of the altercation provides disturbing images of Tabatabainejad being repeatedly stunned despite very audibly screaming his intention to leave the library and to abstain from resisting the police.

The UCPD press release mentions, Tabatabainejad went limp and refused to exit as the officers attempted to escort him out of the building. The release also maintained that Tabatabainejad "encouraged library patrons to join his resistance." The officers thus, deemed it necessary to use the Taser in a "drive stun capacity."

During the altercation between Tabatabainejad and the officers, bystanders can be heard in the video repeatedly asking the officers to stop Tasing Tabatabainejad and requesting their names and identification numbers. The video shows one officer responding to a student by threatening that the student will "get Tased too.”

According to the UCLA Daily Bruin interviews with Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, such a threat of the use of force by a law enforcement officer in response to a request for a badge number is an "illegal assault."

Several studies have documented that a Taser delivers volts of low-amperage energy to the body, causing a disruption of the body's electrical energy pulses and locking the muscles.

As the Bruin reports, Peter Eliasberg referenced a 2001 Lancet Medical Journal study that affirms a charge of three to five seconds can result in immobilization for five to fifteen minutes, which would mean that Tabatabainejad might have been physically unable to stand when the officers demanded that he do so.

The UCLA administration refused to provide NIAC with comments on the specifics of the incident as it is still under investigation. In a statement released Wednesday, Interim Chancellor of UCLA, Norman Abrams said investigators were reviewing the situation and the officers' actions.

[Rasputin]

شنبه محمدعلی حسينی سخنگوی وزارت امور خارجه جمهوری اسلامی با محکوم کردن ضرب و شتم مصطفی طباطبايی نژاد دانشجوی ايرانی تبار توسط پليس دانشگاه يو سی ال ای خواستار مجازات عاملين حادثه و اعاده حيثيت دانشجوی مضروب شد. روز جمعه جمعيت کثيری از ايرانيان، دانشجويان دانشگاه لس آنجلس و گروه های مدافع حقوق بشر در يک تظاهرات گسترده در محوطه دانشگاه، خواهان تحقيقات فوری درباره استفاده پياپی پليس از اسلحه شوک الکتريکی در مقابله با دانشجوی ايرانی که از ارائه کارت شناسايی خود به آنها خودداری کرده بود شدند. اين واقعه که سه شنبه شب گذشته در کتابخانه دانشگاه UCLA رخ داد، توسط يکی از دانشجويان فيلمبرداری شد و ساعاتی بعد فيلم در شبکه اينترنت به نمايش در آمد. استفن ياگمن وکيل حقوق شهروندی مصطفی طباطبايی نژاد جوان 23 ساله ايرانی تبار که در آمريکا و يک خانواده بهايی به دنيا آمده، امروز به طور جداگانه اعلام کرد ثابت خواهد کرد پليس دانشگاه مصطفی را به خاطر برخورداری از شکل و شمايل اهالی خاورميانه مجبور به ارائه کارت شناسايی کرده است

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

معاون وزير امور خارجه اعلام کرد كه ايران از هر گامى كمك كننده*اى به ايجاد صلح در عراق استقبال مي*کند.

سعيد جليلي، معاون وزير امور خارجه در گفت*وگو با روزنامه فايننشيال تايمز آلمان گفت، با اين وجود ايران به مذاکراتى که واشنگتن در آن حضور داشته باشد خوش*بين نيست.

معاون وزير امور خارجه خاطر نشان کرد: سياست آمريکا دليل اوضاع بد عراق است و بايد تغيير کند.

جليلى افزود: خروج نيروهاى آمريکايى از عراق تنها راه حلى است که صد در صد نتيجه بخش است.

اين روزنامه آلمانى زبان نوشت، محمود احمدي*نژاد، رييس جمهور ايران از همتايان سورى و عراقي*اش براى سفر به تهران دعوت کرده است تا درباره ايجاد ثبات در عراق با يکديگر رايزنى كنند.

[Rasputin]

US-Iranian relations have been in a very low and often hostile level for close to 30 years. Both countries have unresolved grievances and rather long memories. During this period, the International role and standing of both countries have changed. By the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has become the sole superpower for the first time in the history. Ironically, this new role and the subsequent events resulting from this role -- especially in the Middle East -- has created circumstances that have made Iran to emerge as a regional power to contend with. With regard to the history of Iran and the role, she has played in her past, this position appeals to the Iranians irrespective of their varying ideologies, place of residence, level of education or wealth.

According to the statements made by the US Intelligence communities, expressed publicly at the various podiums including the Senate Committees, the US is almost entirely blind and deaf to what is happening inside Iran. Judging by the statements made by the present administration’s officials they all -- from the President down -- receives their information from two sources. The information either comes from the Iranian dissidents of all colors each with their own particular agenda or those made available by Israel. Unfortunately, even the information provided by Israel is also tainted. This is due to the fact that Israel resembles an island surrounded by hostile elements that would inevitably force her to place its own national security before the interests of the US, probably its only supporter in the international arena.

It is for these reasons that it is timely that the US should revise its policy and approach to Iran. Sanctions, ignoring, hostile actions, taking, or creating issues has not worked so far. In the meantime, Iran has grown from a country crippled by a revolution and a long debilitating war to an undeniable regional power in search of its deserved dignity and a place in the decision-making tables. This position has even forced some elements in the US government and the military to discuss breaking a long-standing taboo and eliminate this possible source of belligerence by the use of nuclear weapons.

So far, the US has resisted bilateral discussions, which is the most logical solution for international conflicts and was used so successfully during the Cold War. Several elements have encouraged and sometimes worked quite hard to produce this outcome. This is obviously an incorrect approach and is harmful for both countries. The remedy is for the US to know the country better and change the tactics that have been unsuccessful so far. The following are the reason why two countries should resume talking, without mediators. This will help to figure out a way to find a solution for the grievances that produces the gulf in between. The past history shows that there are no mediators that do not have agendas of their own and do not benefit from fishing in the muddy waters.

To start with, let us look at the historical aspects of the US-Iranian relationship.

US-Iran relationship: past and present
In the late 19th and beginning of the 20th century, during the early stages of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, an American by the name of Howard Baskerville assumed a venerated degree of adulation and almost sainthood amongst the Iranian masses. Baskerville is arguably the source of affection that many older Iranians have for America. This Nebraskan missionary lived and was killed in the northwestern city of Tabriz. Baskerville was a teacher in the American School, one of many such institutions created by the American missionaries who had worked in the city since the mid-19th century. He arrived in Iran in 1907 fresh out of Princeton Theological Seminary to teach at the American Memorial School in Tabriz, and was swept up in the first Constitutional Revolutionary mood which was going on. Taking the revolutionary fervor of the country to heart he participated in the demonstrations and was killed during a fight with a royalist blockade that was starving the city. This tragic incident happened on April 19, 1909, when he led a contingent of 150 nationalist fighters into battle against the royalist forces and a single bullet tore through his heart, killing him instantly nine days after his 24th birthday. Many Iranian nationalists still remember Baskerville as a symbol of an America that they saw as a welcome ally and a useful “third force” that might help Iran to break the power of Britain and Russia who were strangling Iran and threatening to divide the country into two spheres of interest. In the eyes of many Iranians who care about democracy and freedom, Baskerville is considered to have offered his own life for their cause and a sculpture of him is erected in the Tabriz House of Constitution.

A number of other Americana nationals, like Morgan Schuster appointed as the Treasurer General of the country during the initial stages after the Constitutional Revolution and Dr. Samuel M. Jordan the great educator and founder of the Secondary-High school education who by the virtue of services to the country are still remembered with great respect. Despite the Revolutionary zeal of the present regime their names still remain on the streets, Boulevards and theatres named after them earlier. During WW II presence of the American troops amongst the occupying forces, not only did not diminish the American popularity amongst the Iranians, the American Soldier became the symbol of kindness, evenhandedness and generosity.

The life of this cordial and kindly relationship came to an abrupt end in the August 1953. The increasing US interests for the control of the Middle East oil supplies led to the US government to back Britain that was involved in a conflict with Iranians who wished to nationalize the oil industry and have a larger share of the wealth of their country. The US backing of Britain led to the * CIA staged coup in Iran, overthrow of the democratically elected and very popular prime minister, and return of the Shah to power from a short-lived exile in Rome. The following events which led to the humiliation of Iranians and their sufferings at the hands of the ever increasing oppression imposed by the Shah’s secret police SAVAK were the contributing factors in the increasingly strained relationship between the US and the people of Iran. 25 years of living under an arrogant and corrupt regime, upheld by a brutal secret police, and the suffocating oppression all supported by the US, plundering of the national wealth by US civil and military industrial corporations, led and shared by the Iranians close to the Shah’s regime, created an explosive atmosphere that resulted in 1978 Revolution. Repercussions of the Iranian revolution and political losses suffered by the US were immense. Loss of Iran as a partner and a reliable client state had deprived the US literally from its eyes, ears and means of exerting pressure for the purpose of preservation of interests in the region. The ultimate and most undesirable outcome of this event was that the US had ended up in an unenviable situation where it had to rely on only one source of information namely Israel. The position was even worse considering that Israel had an agenda of its own; for the Israelis protection of their own national interests was far more important than defending the interests of the US. Immediately after the revolution the US tried belatedly to repair its damaged relations with Iran by adding to the number of US diplomats familiar with the language, traditions and culture of Iran and approaching the figures in the opposition. However the Hostage Crisis threw the US-Iranian relationship into a headlong, downward spin that has continued ever since.

[Rasputin]

The **Hostage Crisis that followed the power grab by the well organized Iranian religious establishment, started initially as a gut reaction to prevent a sudden and probable counterattack by the defeated regime and its supporters. Uncertainty about the real or imaginary power of the remnants of the SAVAK, Shah’s secret police, confusion about the real reasons behind the sudden and unexpected collapse of a state that only a few months earlier had been called the “Island Of Stability" in the region and being afraid of another CIA backed coup were some of the reasons behind the actions of a handful of students. However, to the surprise of its perpetrators the action received an unexpected massive support from the public. The main reason behind this, at the time seemingly inexplicable, is now thought to be a manifestation of the national sense of betrayal from a source which had been considered a friend and a supporter at the hour of need. Iranian grassroots believed that the US had abandoned them and supported an old known enemy, Britain, when Iran was in dire need of a friend during the oil crisis of 1953. Ayatollah Khomeini and other theocrats, uncertain of their hold but with their hands on the pulse of the public, realized the importance of the opportunity inadvertently handed to them. By using this tool, they were able to outmaneuver their secular opponents however they were aware that they would have to pay the considerable price of the wrath of the International community especially the US. This was a deal they were ready to accept and pay for later.

In response to these unfortunate events, the greatest diplomatic and military power of the world the US would not and has not forgotten or forgiven the humiliation suffered at the hands of a few priests and their revolutionary followers. On the other hand the insurmountable suspicion and fear of Iranian regime from retaliation by the US, fuelled by the old grievances over US behavior in the past and the results of the hostage crisis, in a nutshell form the nucleus of the factors that lie at the heart of the present unfavorable relationship between the two countries.

Iranians have paid dearly for their misbehavior. Financially they have lost billions of dollars in unearned revenues. The country has suffered severe economical blows due to the sanctions and the loss of a whole generation killed or maimed during eight years of the war of aggression by Iraq. All accessible intelligence evidence suggests that Iraq attacked Iran at a wink and a nod from the US. During the war, unhindered by the International community Iraq freely used all manners of warfare including poison gas and bombardment of the civilian population centers. From psychological and human point of view, the conflict cost for Iran was the loss of several hundred thousand lives and thousands upon thousands of maimed and handicapped, young and old, civilian and combatant. Presence of the maimed war veterans and the burden of caring for them, the terror of missiles raining on the major Iranian cities, the destruction of ancient Iranian civilization centers the use of chemical weapons against the soldiers and civilians alike, total destruction of larger and smaller cities by the Iraqi army are still alive in the memories of the people and are parts of the price paid. The direct participation of the US forces, at least at the final stages of the war resulting in the destruction of the infrastructure of the oil industry, annihilation of the Abadan Refinery the largest in the world and Kharg Island again the largest offshore loading platform in the Persian Gulf, the intelligence provided to the Iraq harvested from the US spy satellites hovering over the area are all reminders of the terrible punishment dealt out. Iranians still grieve upon shooting down of the civilian Iran Air aircraft with over 270 persons on board over international waters by a missile fired from a US naval vessel at the last days of the Iraq war and the bigotry surrounding the US response compared with the similar incidence with a Korean aircraft shut down by the Soviets well inside the Soviet airspace. Added to the problem is the US disregard for certain part of the Algiers Agreement reached on release of the hostages, promising to keep out of Iranian affairs and a promise not to participate in the overthrow of the regime. These factors are the elements which are ingredients of a deep distrust between the US and Iran that make reaching a détente in relations extremely difficult. These are also the elements that are instrumental in providing public support for the ruling regime that does not hesitate to dust them off and flaunt them whenever needed.

Iran in the eye of the history
Compared to the rest of the region, Iran is a peaceful non-aggressive country in spite of its size, population, and relative economic prosperity. Throughout its history especially in the past 250 years, Iran’s military forces have been used as a deterrent or purely as a defense force. Conversely, Iran has been a subject of aggressions by its neighbors and even countries from further a field. Romans, Arabs, Mongols, Turkic tribes, Afghans, Ottomans, Russian, the British, and lastly the Iraqis have each taken a turn in attacking looting and sometimes temporarily holding parts of the country. Even during the reign of the Safavid dynasty, the last of Iran’s great kings, the military power of the country was used for purely defensive purposes resisting or expelling the aggressions of its neighbor the Ottomans from parts of Iranian soil that they had occupied.

During the WWII in spite of the declared and internationally recognized neutrality of Iran, she was attacked on September 1941 by the Allied forces and parts of the country especially towns and civilian centers were bombarded by the Russians and the British forces. My own hometown and my own family home was the target of the Russian bombs on the first day of the attack and a number of my close relatives were lost during this first attack.

Demography of Iran
Origin of the people who have settled in the Iranian plateau is from the Caucasian tribes of the mountains to the northwest of the plateau. Through the intrusion of the various marauding tribes and folk groups into the country, Iranian heritage extends from the Mongol Genghis Khan to the Macedonian Alexander. As a result of these invasions and the culture and languages left behind, Iranians have assumed the present different subtitles of Azeris, Gilaks, Persians, Kurds, Lors, Baluchis, and Turkmen etc. Each of these apparently different ethnic groups speaks a different dialect with its roots in Farsi, widely known as Persian which is the common language of the Iranians. The only exception is the Arabic speaking Iranians of the southwest and southern Iran who use Arabic as the local language. In spite of these diversities and apparent different ethnicities that are quite confusing for the foreigners, Farsi is the cultural backbone of the people of Iran and has been so for close to one thousand years. The language is not limited to the present borders of Iran but is widely used by the peoples of the Old Persian Empire. This includes Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan and India, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It even constituted the cultured language used by the people of India, and Azerbaijan Republic before the British and Russians replaced Farsi with their own languages. The recent assumption and the consequent discussions about using these ethnic differences as tools of splitting Iran on the lines that followed the events in Iraq is an erroneous myth introduced by elements who intend to use these factors as a tool for manipulation of the less knowledgeable planners of the prospective military actions against Iran. Investigating journalist Seymour Hersh and former UN weapon inspector Scott Ritter report that the US and the Israeli agents in Iraqi Kurdistan, Azerbaijan are already engaged in creating and training groups to be used as “agents provocateur” in future actions inside Iran.

This is not a new idea. The previous victim of this assumption was Saddam Hussein counting on the cooperation of the Arab speaking Iranians with his invading troops. To Saddam’s utter surprise the Arabic speaking tribes who were to be liberated by their Arab brethren, became the initial barriers resisting the invasion. The assumed Arab population of this area fought the invading army house to house and with tooth and nail until the central government that was in a post-revolutionary disarray could get organized and gather a proper military force to fight off the invaders. Almost a half century earlier immediately after the end of WWII the so called Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan, a puppet government created by the Russians under similar assumption, which was to isolate and include the Iranian Azerbaijan inside the Iron Curtain, was easily dislodged and sent packing as soon as Russians ceased their support of the regime.

[Rasputin]

Shiite sect, its characteristics and structure
As mentioned almost 90% of the Iranians are Shiites. Arab domination and conquest of the Persian Empire was only successful militarily. In reality, Arabs could not achieve the total subjugation of the several centuries old Iranian civilization. One of the many and continuous efforts to liberate the country from the Arab domination was creation of a rift between the successors of the Prophet Mohammad through introduction of the Shiite sect into Islam. The movements started by the Iranians supporting Hussein the reclusive grandson of Prophet Mohammad who had been denied the seat of Islamic Caliphate by the Mo’avia bin Umayya, an elected successor to Ali, Hussein’s father and the 4th Caliph after Mohammad. To escape the persecution from the reigning caliph, Hussein accepted the invitation of the people of Kufa -- city in the present day Iraq -- and together with all the members of his family including women and children decided to immigrate to this remote city. Sensing the beginning of a budding rebellion Mo’avia sent his son Yezid with a force of over 10,000 men to stop Hussein’s immigration. Hussein and his family with only a handful of armed men were surrounded in the present day Karbala. Following a few days of resistance, the followers of Hussein, numbering only 72 including women, children and infants, were defeated. The goal was achieved through deprivation of the immigrants from their water supply, an absolute taboo in the Arabian Chivalric rules of the time. All the male members of the family including a 6 months old baby were put to sword. Although Mo’avia and his successors the Umayyad dynasty ruled the Islamic world for over one century, the saga of Imam Hussein became the story of the first martyr of the Shiite sect and the beginning of a deep and permanent rift in Islam. It is the day of this massacre that is celebrated by the Shiites in bloody scenes of self-flagellations every year. According to the Shiites, Hussein’s act is considered the ultimate act of self sacrifice for a cause. Veneration of Imam Hussein has become the national symbol of Iranian aspirations to fight for the principles, the support of the underdog and championship of the lost causes. It is interesting to note these tendencies in the heart of every Iranian and probably this is the reason behind the Iranian support of the Palestinian cause. It is also the cause that the more Iranian government is threatened by the Big Bad USA the more support it is going to enjoy amongst the people of Iran.

Geopolitics of Iran; the Iranian Plateau
Geopolitically Iran has been and probably still is the most valuable real estate in the world. In the past, this piece of land was the key bridge joining East Asia and the west. This is probably the reason why, facing the prospects of the crossing the barren deserts of the Arabian peninsula in the south and the frozen expanses of the central Asian deserts and the hostile impassable mountains of Tibet and Afghanistan the only remaining hospitable crossing was through the fertile valleys of the northern and central Iranian plateau. Alexander is the only western invader who has crossed this country from the west while Mongols from the east and the Arabs from the south could achieve this goal and cross Iran successfully. Romans, Byzantines and later Ottomans could only breach a short distance into the northwestern Iran before retreating to their own territories. The plateau straddles the Caspian Sea in the north and the Persian Gulf in the south. It is covered with high mountains and deep almost impassable valleys in the north and west and a central arid desert in the east and south. The country lies on vast supplies of oil, natural gas and other minerals including Uranium. Water has always been a problem in the Middle East and Iran is no exception. However, the presence of high snowy mountains catching and precipitating the humidity of the prevailing winds mainly from the west, a central fertile but arid plateau combined with the ingenuity of the inhabitants has created the Quanat System of irrigation. The system is extremely difficult to maintain but effective. It simply brings the water of the mountain aquifers through subterranean canals to the fertile plains of the centre. This system of irrigation is the secret of independence, wealth, and the cultural heritage of Iran. Prior to the discovery of oil, it was these qualities, and the geopolitical position of Iran that attracted the invaders and was the source of the country’s problems.

Despite of its not very large surface area Iran borders with 15 sovereign countries. They include Iraq and Turkey in the west, Armenia, Azerbaijan in northwest, countries around the Caspian Sea, namely Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation. Afghanistan in the north east and east, Pakistan is in the east and through the Persian Gulf Iran borders with all the Gulf States, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar. Except for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey, all of the above countries are oil rich and potentially unstable. These are countries that the West depends on them for its energy supplies. Added to the equation is the important fact that Iran has a tight grip on the Straits of Hurmoz through which all the ship-born supplies of oil, almost 25% of world production passes. All these factors make Iran the key to the Middle East and aptly the guardian of the energy supplies of the Western world. Aware of this fact the newly developing energy hungry power pole awakening in the East, China, India and Japan are making advances to Iran that is not hidden from the eyes of the West and Iran. Participation of Iran in the last meeting of the Shanghai Group as an observer and possible partnership later should be regarded as an indicator of the desire of these countries in having Iran to lean to their side.

Who runs Iran today?
The Clerical class or Mullahs
T he present Iranian government is a Shiite theocracy called the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is fashioned after the ideas of the late Ayatollah Khomeini who against all imaginable odds hammered out and drove home these ideas during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The constitution of the Islamic Republic was mandated by a general referendum carried out shortly after the revolution and expulsion of 25 centuries of uninterrupted monarchic rulers. According to this constitution, the ruling elite occupying the top of the hierarchy is made up of The Guardian Council ( GC) a committee of the Shiite clergy headed by the Supreme Leader elected and appointed by the same body. The GC is in effect an upper house of parliament with the power to approve or disapprove the lower house's resolutions. The council has 12 members. Six are clerical Islamic canonists and six others are civilian jurists. The Supreme Leader appoints the clerical members and the secular group are elected by the Majlis the lower house of legislation from among candidates nominated by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). Supreme Leader and the GC appoint even the members of SJC. In other words there is a wide open revolving door between the highest levels of the governing bodies and the clergy.

The government is made up of the President and his cabinet of ministers with limited executive powers. The legislative powers are at the hands of the Majlis deputies. The members’ candidacy is vetted and approved by the GC and then are elected by the people. All legislation voted by the Majlis has to be approved by the GC and the Supreme leader before it becomes the law of the land.

The Shiite clerics that reach the apex of the hierarchy and the exalted ranks of Ayatollahs and Grand Ayatollahs go through an extremely rigorous process of selection and education with a steep pyramidal system. The education requires a lifetime of study in various seminaries usually adjacent to a holy shrine like Qom or Najaf. The final goal of each student is to attain the position of an Ayatollah but only few reach it. The process requires the students or Talabehs to go through a rigorous and frugal life style and tough study program paid for by the budget provided to the Ayatollah responsible for the seminary.

All Shiites including the Grand Ayatollahs are religiously bound to have an Ayatollah as their personal sources of emulation in all matters of their lives. Ayatollahs as a group, are called Maraaj’e, literally translated; the source of emulation or Mentors. The most prominent recent example of these personalities and their influence in the running of their flock is Grand Ayatollah Sistani and the role he played in the course that post occupation Iraq has followed.