Eye On Iran

[Rasputin]

RIYADH (Reuters)Saudi Arabia told an Iranian envoy this month that Shi'ite power Iran was putting the Gulf region in danger, in a reference to Iran's conflict with Washington over Iraq and nuclear policy, a newspaper said.


In the interview in Kuwait's al-Seyassah on Saturday, King Abdullah also issued a veiled warning to Iran to quit what he said were efforts to spread Shi'ism in the Sunni-dominated Arab world.

The United States and its key ally Saudi Arabia accuse Iran of "interference" in Iraq, through backing Shi'ite militias and parties, and suspect Tehran is developing a covert nuclear weapons program a charge Iran denies.

"Saudi leaders and the Saudi state have always known their limits in dealing with nations, east and west. I explained this to Ali Larijani and advised him to pass it on to his government and its followers, with regard to foreign dealings," he said.

"The dangers it (Iranian government) could fall into will fall upon all of us."

Saudi sources have said Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, visited Riyadh this month to seek help with Washington and reassure Saudi Arabia over the nuclear program.

King Abdullah also appeared to accuse Iran of exploiting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for its own ends. "The Arabs alone should solve the issue of Palestine ... We don't want anyone to trade in our issues and become stronger through them," he said.

Iran is backing Palestinian Sunni Islamist group Hamas, which is conflict with Western countries because it refuses to recognize Israel before entering into peace negotiations. It also backs Lebanese Shi'ite group Hezbollah, which is leading a popular campaign to bring down the Western-backed government.

Arab states have had difficulty persuading the United States to restart peace talks leading to a state for the Palestinians.

King Abdullah also said efforts to spread Shi'ism in the Arab world would fail. Leading Sunni clerics have said in recent months that Iran is promoting Shi'ite belief in Arab countries.

"We are following this issue and we are aware of the extent of Shi'ite proselytism and how far it has got," the king said.

"But we don't think it will achieve its goal because the huge majority of Muslims who are Sunnis would not change their faith and sect ... We know our role as the state where the message (of Islam) began," he said.

[Rasputin]

It is three in the morning. I woke up in sweats in the middle of the night and I can't go back to sleep. Why? Because I am worried that my motherland is going to be attacked and I sit here in my comfort home and watch while my relatives, my country man are savagely killed under bomb attacks? I said to myself I am not going to be silenced about this. But that is just me one voice. What about the one million Iranian living in North America and almost over half million living here in United States? I have no statistical figure on hand but I can assume that the total combination of Iranian assets here in United States is over a trillion, with a purchasing power of over billions.

But do we have a lobby group or state representative? Do we have special interest group? Haven't you noticed after living so many years in here that United States is ran and controlled by special interest group as well as lobbyists?

Iranians are very successful as individuals but when it comes to group or team work they are horrible. And now we see the consequences of that. We can not even defend our motherland and like always we take it like a coward and hide in our half million dollar homes or Mercedes and try to change our identity and call our selves Persian instead of Iranians and pretend that this whole thing was a nightmare and is soon going to be over. No my friends it is the reality. The drums to all out war against Iran can be heard form white house to Persian Gulf. Please stop the silence and join together with one voice and unity and stop the war against your home and honor.

To my brothers and sisters in Iran, I beg you to unite together and stop the silence. To those revolutionaries and Basijis, Hezbollahis, and regular Iranians, anti-government, oppositions or reformist stop the silence. How long does Iran have to support its Arab neighbors and fight for the Arab causes when they don't even care themselves? How long does Iran and the Iranian nation has to be humiliated on the world stage under pretext of fight for the helpless and donate the nations money to the poor people in the world while Iranians are starving to death? Here are some recent facts. Iran donated billions of Iranian nation money to Hizbolah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine and other Arab nations like Syria.

While the Lebanese youth joined with Palestinians and Syrians mourn the loss of Saddam Hussein and his murderous followers who used to savagely kill Iranians under the so called Pan Arab pretext to destroy the Persians. How long do we have to nurture our enemies then let them to come and stab us behind our back? Mr. Khomeini gave billions to Yasser Arafat then he turned his back during the Iran-Iraq war and supported Saddam Hussein cause to fight Iranians.

More facts: Iran's inflation is in double digit number. The cost of living in Iran is sky rocketing while peoples' disposable income is decreasing. More Iranian brain drain to overseas, Iranian youth with PhDs, law and engineering degrees the jewels of Iran are leaving the country in thousands costing the Iranian government billions of dollars every year (actually admitted by the Iranian government). The brain drain of Iranian youth is a classic sign of economic failure imposed and practiced by the incompetent and tyrants ruling the Iranian nation.

More facts: Iranian president just promised billion of dollar donation to the Latin American countries while Iranians in their own country don't have a roof over the head. Sistan Baluchistan, Kurdistan and other provinces from north to the south and from west to east of Iran all lack the basic needs to provide for their own citizens. Then Iranian government lavishly overspends Iranians treasure and money made from natural resources for the foreigners.

More facts: the smog in Tehran is killing thousand every month and the future side effects on the youth or new born from Mercury and other harmful by products of the burning fuel is unknown. I am guessing cancer would be another thing Iranian government can be proud of which they can add to their list of accomplishment. The Iranian Oil ministry just recently announced that they can not account for 6 billion dollar loss. No one knows where the money has gone another sign of corruption and mishandling of Iranian nation money.

So why continue our silence? Past Iranian history has thought me that we tend to wait and see what happens. I highly recommend we stop waiting. We already know what the current regime has done their mishandling about the Iranian affairs. We also have witnessed what a war can do to a nation. So why should we be silent about both issues? What we need here is a strategy and plan to defend Iran's and Iranian interest here in US as well as we need a short term and long term solution in Iran.

The long term solution here for the Iranians living in USA is to form an organization that can defend their rights. We have a very powerful economic voice and that voice needs to be heard. If you attach a dollar value to the Iranians living here the cost to USA is in billions. We need to create this organization that is free from any political or religious entity or presentation and the main cause and objective of this organization is to represent Iranians from all walk of life and religious or ethnic background.

At the end of the day we are all Iranians. This organization will lobby for Iranian citizens living in here by addressing issues that are affecting us and supports special interest groups or political figures that are willing to defend and help the Iranian causes here in USA. In the short term gather with your communities and friend and speak out against the war. The onus is on all the famous Iranian figures in Californian either on television or radio to organize an anti war protest not to defend the tyrant in Iran but to defend your mother land and innocent Iranians.

The plan inside Iran is much more complex and dangerous, however one that can not be ignored. It is a fact that this regime must go and the current administration must go. The only way to do is by speaking out against it but do it with one voice. When you start it go all the way. This government has many weaknesses take advantage of it. One of the weaknesses; for example, is that the majority of the public and the nation is on your side. The other weakness is that e government has no control over the whole country. In major cities such as Tabriz, Shiraz, Zahedan and Sannadaj they have very little control over the population. In addition, you got the whole world on your side.

All the eyes are on Iran. Any public demonstration will be publicized like the Tiananmen Square. But don't demonstrate without any planning. From the past demonstration it seems like that the government thugs were able to crash it and the reason was that you were all gathered in one place. Make sure that this time you carry the demonstration simultaneously in several Tehran neighborhoods and Iranian cities. Do it together with one voice and common cause and that is a democratic Iran that is ruled and governed by a true leader and an Iranian Patriot who loves his nation and its people.

[Rasputin]

It would be naive to think that ‘outsourcing’ is a new phenomenon; at least the kind we see in Iraq today can be traced back to the 1940’s. In 1947, the National Security Act created the CIA. Little known or discussed is the fact that one of the fist acts of the National Security Council was the subversion of Italian democracy. In 1948, Italy was leaning towards a leftist government. Washington spent millions of dollars on propaganda to ensure that the election results were consistent with US desires.

While the US bullied its way without resorting to violence, it later came to light that the CIA had organized a secret paramilitary army of 15,000 troops in Italy called ‘Operation Gladio (derived from the Latin gladius meaning sword) with hidden stockpiles of weapons and explosives ready to resort to violence in the event that the elections did not go Washington’s way.

Operation Gladio continued into several other European countries. Many members of Operation Gladio were also in a shadowy organization known as P-2. One of P-2's specialties was the art of provocation. Leftist organizations were infiltrated, financed and / or created, and the resulting acts of terrorism were blamed on the left. The aim of this ‘successful’ strategy was to show how violent and dangerous the left was and to turn the people against them.

The strategy of terrorism, provocation, and propaganda is at work in Iraq today. This carefully planned strategy started with the bombing of the Askariya Shrine -- the deliberate start of the Sunni-Shia divide.

In 1982, Oded Yinon, a senior advisor at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a journalist, articulated the Zionist plan to Balkanize the Middle East by breaking up the Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. “The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short-term target,” Yinon wrote.

While the blame was put squarely on the Sunnis for the bombing of the mosque, the Shias are blamed for taking revenge on the Sunnis, but not just any Shias, the ‘Shia extremists backed by Iran’. This is the President’s call to war on Iran -- Operation Galio or false flag at work. But the operation is not yet complete. It has been announced that the President has authorized the troops to kill or capture Iranians in Iraq.

This White House has a minimum of 3,800 P-2 operatives in Iraq -- they are the MEK. (It is worthwhile repeating that MEK -- Mojahedeen-e Kahlg -- are a terrorist organization responsible for the assassination of Americans who have been given special persons status by President Bush. See: US State Department: Chapter 6,Terrorist Groups.)

Operation Gladio is a success at the word go! A single MEK member can be captured with explosives provided by the US and Iran would be implicated. Mr. Bush would have the American people on his side, and indeed, the world, while the whistle of bombs would shut out the cry of the innocent and they run for cover in Iran.

It is an irony that the speech by Pope Benedict XVI which caused so much outrage in the Moslem world, Sunni and Shia alike, made reference to the Prophet Mohammad’s sword, yet the ‘sword’ in Operation Gladio now being taken up in Iraq to slaughter Moslems in the most devious fashion has not invoked the good Pope to speak up against the evil taking place under his nose. However, as the Pope’s speech demonstrated, this White House must realize that people steadfastly unite in the face of a greater enemy.

This administration must also bear in mind that had there been a divide between the Moslem sects, and a fear of a Shia ascent, A.Q. Khan and the predominantly Pakistani government would not have allowed the export of nuclear technology and equipment to Shia Iran. The effect of the propaganda that is temporarily driving the people of the Middle East apart will wane. At that point, the frenzy that drove their passion and hatred will be directed towards the very source that instigated their hatred.

This White House must be cautious that an attack on Iran will bring with it the retaliation of the Islamic Sword for generations to come. The American people must demand a different legacy from their President than the one he is condemning them to.

[Rasputin]

The neocons have learned nothing from five years of catastrophe

The United States today spends approximately as much as the rest of the world combined on its military establishment. So it is worth pondering why it is that, after nearly four years of effort, the loss of thousands of American lives, and an outlay of perhaps half-a-trillion dollars, the US has not succeeded in pacifying a small country of some 24 million people, much less in leading it to anything that looks remotely like a successful democracy.

One answer is that the nature of global politics in the first decade of the 21st century has changed in important ways. Today's world, at least in that band of instability that runs from north Africa and through the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and central Asia, is characterised by numerous weak and sometimes failed states, and by transnational actors who are able to move fluidly across international borders, abetted by the same technological capabilities that produced globalisation. States such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Palestine and a host of others are not able to exercise sovereign control over their territory, ceding power and influence to terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, political parties-cum-militias such as Hizbullah in Lebanon, or various ethnic and sectarian factions elsewhere.
American military doctrine has emphasised the use of overwhelming force, applied suddenly and decisively, to defeat the enemy. But in a world where insurgents and militias deploy invisibly among civilian populations, overwhelming force is almost always counterproductive: it alienates precisely those people who have to make a break with the hardcore fighters and deny them the ability to operate freely. The kind of counterinsurgency campaign needed to defeat transnational militias and terrorists puts political goals ahead of military ones, and emphasises hearts and minds over shock and awe.

A second lesson that should have been drawn from the past five years is that preventive war cannot be the basis of a long-term US nonproliferation strategy. The Bush doctrine sought to use preventive war against Iraq as a means of raising the perceived cost to would-be proliferators of approaching the nuclear threshold. Unfortunately, the cost to the US itself was so high that it taught exactly the opposite lesson: the deterrent effect of American conventional power is low, and the likelihood of preventive war actually decreases if a country manages to cross that threshold.

A final lesson that should have been drawn from the Iraq war is that the current US government has demonstrated great incompetence in its day-to-day management of policy. One of the striking things about the performance of the Bush administration is how poorly it has followed through in accomplishing the ambitious objectives it set for itself. In Iraq, the administration has acted like a patient with attention-deficit disorder. The US succeeded in organising efficiently for key events such as the handover of sovereignty on June 30 2004, or the elections of January 30 2005. But it failed to train Iraqi forces, failed to appoint ambassadors, failed to perform due diligence on contractors and, above all, failed to hold accountable those officials most responsible for these and other multiple failures.

This lack of operational competence could in theory be fixed over time, but it has important short-term consequences for American grand strategy. Neoconservative theorists saw America exercising a benevolent hegemony over the world, using its enormous power wisely and decisively to fix problems such as terrorism, proliferation, rogue states, and human-rights abuses. But even if friends and allies were inclined to trust America's good intentions, it would be hard for them not to be dismayed at the actual execution of policy and the amount of broken china this particular bull left behind.

The failure to absorb Iraq's lessons has been evident in the neoconservative discussion of how to deal with Iran's growing regional power, and its nuclear programme. Iran today constitutes a huge challenge for the US, as well as for America's friends in the Middle East. Unlike al-Qaida, Iran is a state, deeply rooted historically (unlike Iraq) and flush with resources as a result of energy price rises. It is ruled by a radical Islamist regime that - particularly since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election in June 2005 - has turned in a disturbingly intolerant and aggressive direction.

The US unintentionally abetted Iran's regional rise by invading Iraq, eliminating the Ba'athist regime as a counterweight, and empowering Shia parties close to Tehran. It seems reasonably clear that Iran wants nuclear weapons, despite protestations that its nuclear programme is only for civilian purposes; nuclear energy makes little sense for a country sitting on some of the world's largest oil reserves, but it makes sense as the basis for a weapons programme. It is completely rational for the Iranians to conclude that they will be safer with a bomb than without one.

It is easy to outline the obstacles to a negotiated end to the Iranian programme, but much harder to come up with an alternative strategy. Use of force looks very unappealing. The US is hardly in a position to invade and occupy yet another country, especially one three times larger than Iraq. An attack would have to be conducted from the air, and it would not result in regime change, which is the only long-term means of stopping the WMD programme. It is hard to have much confidence that US intelligence on Iranian facilities is any better than it was in the case of Iraq. An air campaign is much more likely to build support for the regime than to topple it, and will stimulate terrorism and attacks on American facilities and friends around the globe. The US would be even more isolated in such a war than during the Iraqi campaign, with only Israel as a certain ally.

None of these considerations, nor the debacle in Iraq, has prevented certain neoconservatives from advocating military action against Iran. Some insist that Iran poses an even greater threat than Iraq, avoiding the fact that their zealous advocacy of the Iraq invasion is what has destroyed America's credibility and undercut its ability to take strong measures against Iran.

All of this could well be correct. Ahmadinejad may be the new Hitler; the current negotiations could be our Munich accords; Iran could be in the grip of undeterrable religious fanatics; and the west might be facing a "civilisational" danger. I believe that there are reasons for being less alarmist. Iran is, after all, a state, with equities to defend - it should be deterrable by other states possessing nuclear weapons; it is a regional and not a global power; it has in the past announced extreme ideological goals but has seldom acted on them when important national interests were at stake; and its decision-making process appears neither unified nor under the control of the most radical forces.

What I find remarkable about the neoconservative line of argument on Iran, however, is how little changed it is in its basic assumptions and tonalities from that taken on Iraq in 2002, despite the momentous events of the past five years and the manifest failure of policies that neoconservatives themselves advocated. What may change is the American public's willingness to listen to them.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

1. Iran has never been independent or self-ruled for the last 300 years. This has raised many eyebrows in many Western capitals.

2. The Axis of Evil, US-UK-Israel, are very scared seeing a true democracy growing in the heart of the Middle East where BLACK GOLD is at stake and they want to control it.

3. The traditional Western mentality and operatives of subversive actions against smaller nations, like Iran, that used to work for the past 300 years is no longer working on Iran. This has made these folks very nervous.

4. As the other General stated (can be seen on YouTube) the US has had operatives inside Iran for the past 18 months The traditional method is not working, so they're trying other methods: Bringing several aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf, coupled with a media blitz against Iran, lies, deceptive practices, accusations, WMD BS, nuclear untruths to name a few.

5. This is GWB, Dick Cheney and neo-cons war to continue the occupation to control the oil rich region. GWB-war wants to publicly project a deceptive public ploy withdraw a winner using this ploy to convince the public to stay for a long hall. This is not what the majority (about 70&#37 of the American people want. This is a GWB war against the will of the (American) people and the US congress.

6. The world has never seen this situation before. If war breaks out, there will be no winners. This is not Vietnam of the 60's. This is United States of Iran with the people united in and outside of Iran. If any idiot touches our homeland, all Hell will break loose. Take my word!

7. The best way out of this mess is for the US congress to cut off funds to GWB-war machine and bring the American soldiers home alive and immediately open up a dialogue with Iran. Subversive ploys will no longer work. Force will not work. Bombs will not work. Killing millions will not work. Deceptive practices will not work.

8. This is not Algeria where over one million citizens, innocent people, women and children were slaughtered by the French. This definitely is not Iraq where shock and awe were exercised by the US forces.

9.This is The UNITED STATES OF IRAN. Believe it, accept it, and respect it.

[Rasputin]

ساندي*تايمز, اعلام كرد: اردشير حسن*پور، 44 ساله كه يك دانشمند هسته*اى ايران بود، توسط موساد، سرويس امنيتى اسرائيل، ترور شده است.
هفته*نامه ,ساندي*تايمز, به نقل از يك منبع امنيتى نوشت:حسن*پور در نيروگاه اصفهان كار مي*كرد كه در آن گاز هگزافلورايد اورانيوم توليد مي*شود.
اين گاز به منظور غني*سازى اورانيوم در يك نيروگاه ديگر در نطنز مورد نياز است.
,روا بالا,، از يك موسسه جاسوسى آمريكا به نام ,استراتفور, روز جمعه اعلام كرد، حسن*پور از سوى موساد مورد هدف قرار گرفته و ,اطلاعات بسيار قوى, وجود دارد كه وى توسط اسرائيلي*ها ترور شده است كه بارها تهديد به جلوگيرى از پيشرفت برنامه هسته*اى ايران كرده*اند.
حسن*پور در سال 2004 جايزه تحقيقات نظامى را دريافت كرد و سال گذشته نيز برنده جايزه جشنواره علمى بين*المللى خوارزمى شد.
به گزارش اين هفته*نامه، بازرسان آژانس بين*المللى انرژى اتمى مي*گويند صدها كارشناس و كارگران در حال كار فشرده براى نصب تجهيزات در مركز غني*سازى نطنز هستند تا ايران در روز 22 بهمن نصب سه هزار سانتريفوژ در اين مركز را اعلام كند.

[Rasputin]

A wide coalition of foreign policy thinktanks, former US generals, and faith groups, will today sound a much needed counter blast to the argument growing in Washington and Israel that if Iran can not be persuaded to suspend uranium enrichment voluntarily, its bomb making plans should be terminated by force. Not least among those arguing for more negotiation is Britain's former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton. As in Iraq, the case against a military strike is being made first and foremost by pragmatists, well versed in Tehran's history of concealment and evasion. They are not peaceniks prepared to give President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the benefit of the doubt. Some of them do not even argue that the military option should be taken off the table, if it increases the pressure on Iran to reconsider. This time their voice should be heard.

The neoconservative proponents of a pre-emptive strike paint a lurid picture about the dangers of allowing Iran, the paymasters of Hizbullah, to develop a bomb. They say a point of no-return will soon be reached, and once the threshold has been crossed, a nuclear capable Iran will cast a long shadow not only over Israel but the entire region, fuelling bomb making programmes in other Gulf states, as well as Egypt. They argue that the dangers of allowing Iran to go nuclear outweigh the dangers inherent in a military strike.
But they are less prepared to answer the "what next ?" question that went so spectacularly unheeded by the Pentagon's planning of the invasion in Iraq. Iran's uranium enrichment plants could not be eliminated in one clean military strike, as was the case when Israel attacked the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. An attack would involve repeated bombing over a period of days, if not weeks, resembling the air campaign in Kosovo. Nor could bunker-busting bombs kill off the knowledge Iranian nuclear scientists had gained, let alone all their buried treasures. There are suggestions that Mossad could engineer an accident in the huge hall needed to house thousands of high speed gas centrifuges, or that they were already responsible for the mysterious death of an Iranian nuclear scientist, Ardeshire Hassanpour, who worked at a plant in Isfahan where uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. The best that overt, or covert, action could achieve is a delay in Iran's bomb making capacity. The worst is that it would make Iranian survivors more, not less, determined to complete the mission.

The proponents of military action also forget that Iran's policy of persuading the world it has a natural right to continue enrichment is not Mr Ahmadinejad's alone, even though everything he says and does plays into the hands of the hawks in Washington. Iran's rejection of the Paris agreement of November 2004, in which it agreed to suspend its enrichment programme in return for economic aid, preceded the election of Mr Ahmadinejad in June 2005.

There is no easy choice in dealing with Iran, and it will not be easy to continue pursuing a negotiated settlement. For one thing, Iran could soon announce it has achieved a technological breakthrough in the enrichment process, even though most experts believe it will be bluffing. But let us remember one thing. Iran is not Iraq and this time we are not reliant on single-source intelligence. We know full well how prone this regime is to making U-turns. In fact, Mr Ahmadinejad could be more under threat domestically from the rising price of tomatoes than from the rising price of his covert bomb programme. But even if it ultimately becomes impossible to deflect Iran from getting the bomb, and that is still some years away, it may well be that Iran is more containable by the threat of mutually assured destruction than by repeated air strikes. To believe that, you also have to subscribe to the view that the Islamic regime is not suicidal, and prepared to bargain away the lives of millions of its people.

[Rasputin]

The United States and Iran are among foreign contributors to the 85-million-dollar reconstruction of 90 bridges in Lebanon destroyed or damaged by Israel during its offensive on the country last year.

With the United States due to contribute more than 20 million dollars to reconstruct a bridge on the main Beirut-Damascus highway, Iran has offered three million dollars to rebuild 17 bridges.

Direct material damage to housing and infrastructure in Lebanon during Israel's 34-day war on the Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim guerrilla group Hezbollah in July-August 2006 has been put at 3.6 billion dollars.

About 20 bridges were totally destroyed and some 70 others damaged.

Almost six months after the war war ended on August 14 with a UN-brokered ceasefire, a total of 21 bridges have been repaired. Several more are under reconstruction and another 10 are awaiting the start of rebuilding work.

"It is a very delicate situation, because some of the targeted bridges are vital roadways for local and international transport on the Beirut-Damascus road," said Elias Helou, the Council for Development and Reconstruction (CDR) state official in charge of the bridge-rebuilding project.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) is financing the reconstruction of the Mdairej bridge, the highest in the Middle East.

The 70-metre- (230-foot-) high bridge was hit on July 21 in the early days of Israel's onslaught against Hezbollah. A 220-metre- (242-yard-) long section was destroyed.

"Its rehabilitation will take about two and a half years and will cost more than 20 million dollars," said Helou, adding that a US firm will reconstruct the bridge originally built in 1998 at a cost of 56 million dollars.

For the more modest amount of three million dollars, Iran is due to pay for work on 17 bridges, mostly in Shiite-dominated southern Lebanon but also in the east and north of the country.

Figures were unavailable for other donors helping to finance the rebuilding of Lebanon's bridges; these include Saudi Arabia, Italy and Greece as well as Lebanese individuals and companies.

Among the local donors is the family of the late Lebanese billionaire and former prime minister Rafiq Hariri -- who was assassinated in a massive Beirut car bombing in 2005 -- which has pledged to rebuild 22 bridges.

The Casino Du Liban has offered three million dollars to fund the rebuilding of a bridge north of Beirut, with the work being undertaken by French firm Fressynet International and a Lebanese partner.

Immediately after the war the authorities, with the help of France, Britain and Russia, installed temporary metal bridges to help restore traffic access across the small mountainous country.

[Rasputin]

Al-Qaeda

Last week, the CIA sent an urgent report to President Bush's National Security Council: Iranian authorities had arrested two al-Qaeda operatives traveling through Iran on their way from Pakistan to Iraq. The suspects were caught along a well-worn, if little-noticed, route for militants determined to fight U.S. troops on Iraqi soil, according to a senior intelligence official.

The arrests were presented to Bush's senior policy advisers as evidence that Iran appears committed to stopping al-Qaeda foot traffic across its borders, the intelligence official said. That assessment comes at a time when the Bush administration, in an effort to push for further U.N. sanctions on the Islamic republic, is preparing to publicly accuse Tehran of cooperating with and harboring al-Qaeda suspects.

The strategy has sparked a growing debate within the administration and the intelligence community, according to U.S. intelligence and government officials. One faction is pressing for more economic embargoes against Iran, including asset freezes and travel bans for the country's top leaders. But several senior intelligence and counterterrorism officials worry that a public push regarding the al-Qaeda suspects held in Iran could jeopardize U.S. intelligence-gathering and prompt the Iranians to free some of the most wanted individuals.

"There was real debate about all this," said one counterterrorism official. "If we go public, the Iranians could turn them loose." The official added: "At this point, we know where these guys are and at least they are off the streets. We could lose them for years if we go down this path."

The administration's planned diplomatic offensive is part of an effort to pressure Tehran from multiple directions. Bush has given the U.S. military the authority to kill or capture Iranian government agents working with Shiite militias inside Iraq. Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said serial numbers and markings on some explosives used in Iraq indicate that the material came from Iran, but he offered no evidence.

With the aim of shaking Tehran's commitment to its nuclear program, Bush also approved last fall secret operations to target Iranian influence in southern Lebanon, in western Afghanistan, in the Palestinian territories and inside Iran. The new strategy, a senior administration official said, aims to portray Iran as a "terror-producing country, instead of an oil-producing country," with links to al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and death squads in Iraq.

U.S. officials have asserted for years that several dozen al-Qaeda fighters, including Osama bin Laden's son, slipped across the Afghan border into Iran as U.S. troops hunted for the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. U.S. and allied intelligence services, which have monitored the men's presence inside Iran, reported that Tehran was holding them under house arrest as bargaining chips for potential deals with Washington.

Last fall, Bush administration officials asked the CIA to compile a list of those suspects so the White House could publicize their presence. For years, the administration has not revealed their names, in part because it sought to protect its intelligence sources but also because at the time the U.S. government was concealing the identities of suspects it was holding in secret CIA custody.

But the names of some of the men in Iran have become public, including "high-value" targets such as al-Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith of Kuwait and Saif al-Adel of Egypt. U.S. intelligence officials said they are members of the "al-Qaeda operational management committee." U.S. intelligence officials said there are suspicions, but no proof, that one of them may have been involved from afar in planning an attack in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in May 2003. Intelligence officials said bin Laden's son Saad is also being held with the other men in Iran.

Five administration officials were made available for interviews for this story on the condition that they not be identified. Other officials who spoke without permission -- including senior officials, career analysts and policymakers -- said their standing with the White House would be at risk if they were quoted by name.

The State Department, Pentagon and CIA referred all questions about the story to the National Security Council. In a written response to questions, NSC spokesman Gordon Johndroe said: "Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is one of the reasons for the sanctions now against it. We note that U.N. Security Council resolutions already oblige all states to ensure that members of terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, are brought to justice."

Since al-Qaeda fighters began streaming into Iran from Afghanistan in the winter of 2001, Tehran had turned over hundreds of people to U.S. allies and provided U.S. intelligence with the names, photographs and fingerprints of those it held in custody, according to senior U.S. intelligence and administration officials. In early 2003, it offered to hand over the remaining high-value targets directly to the United States if Washington would turn over a group of exiled Iranian militants hiding in Iraq.

Some of Bush's top advisers pushed for the trade, arguing that taking custody of bin Laden's son and the others would produce new leads on al-Qaeda. They were also willing to trade away the exiles -- members of a group on the State Department's terrorist list -- who had aligned with Saddam Hussein in an effort to overthrow the Iranian government.

Officials have said Bush ultimately rejected the exchange on the advice of Vice President Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who argued that any engagement would legitimize Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism. Bush's National Security Council agreed to accept information from Iran on al-Qaeda but offer nothing in return, officials said.

But no information has been forthcoming, intelligence officials said. One official said the CIA and the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency have disagreed over how effectively the Iranians are controlling al-Qaeda members and whether the Tehran government is aware of the extent of al-Qaeda movements through the country.

Nevertheless, administration officials said they are determined to press Iran on the matter.

"We are not convinced that the Iranians have been honest or open about the level or degree of al-Qaeda presence in their midst," said one Bush adviser who was instrumental in coming up with a more confrontational U.S. approach to Iran. "They have not made proper accounting with respect to U.N. resolutions, have not been clear about who is in detention and have not been clear as to what is happening to individuals who might be in custody."

Bush administration officials pointed to U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1373, which state that harboring al-Qaeda members constitutes a threat to international peace and security, and authorize force to combat that threat. The resolutions compel nations to share any information on al-Qaeda suspects and give the United Nations authority to freeze the assets of suspects and those who provide them with safe haven.

Two U.S. officials said the administration plans to argue that Iran is violating those resolutions. A team of senior U.S. officials has been holding briefings for visiting European diplomats on the issue while administration lawyers prepare options for holding Iran in violation of U.N. resolutions.

"We've started a more aggressive and major attempt to try to convince other countries to use their influence on this issue," a senior U.S. diplomat said. "Until now, the Europeans have been focused on the nuclear issue and we want this high up on the agenda."

But another government official predicted that no European country would support a call on Iran to turn the al-Qaeda group over to U.S. military detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a facility widely condemned by Washington's closest allies. In the past year, U.S. officials said they successfully pushed Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to seek extradition of their citizens held in Iran, but Tehran rebuffed the requests. Administration officials said they interpreted the refusal as evidence of cooperation between the Iranian government and the group.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

MUNICH, Germany - Iran's nuclear program is not a threat to Israel and the country is prepared to settle all outstanding issues with the International Atomic Energy Agency within three weeks, its top nuclear negotiator said Sunday.

Ali Larijani, speaking at a forum that gathered the world's top security officials, said Iran doesn't have aggressive intentions toward any nation.

"That Iran is willing to threaten Israel is wrong," Larijani said. "We pose no threat and if we are conducting nuclear research and development we are no threat to Israel. We have no intention of aggression against any country."

Iran insists it will not give up uranium enrichment, saying it is pursuing the technology only to generate energy. The United States and some of its allies fear the Islamic republic is more interested in enrichment's other application — creating the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

In Israel, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev dismissed Larijani's comments, saying Iran's government was trying to convince the international community that their intentions are benign.

"The fact is that they have failed in this attempt and there is a wall-to-wall consensus that the Iranian nuclear program is indeed military and aggressive and a threat to world peace," he said.

The IAEA, led by Mohamed ElBaradei, has said it has found no evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. But the watchdog has suspended some aid to Iran and criticized the country for concealing certain nuclear activities and failing to answer questions about its program.

"I have written to Mr. ElBaradei to say we are ready to within three weeks to have the modality to solve all the outstanding issues with you," Larijani said at the forum.

On Friday, the IAEA suspended nearly half the technical aid it provides to Iran, a symbolically significant punishment for nuclear defiance that only North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq had faced in the past.

That decision was in line with U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed on Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. The suspension must still be approved by the 35 countries on the IAEA's board of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"Today we announce to you that the political will of Iran is aimed at the negotiated settlement of the case and we don't want to aggravate the situation in our region," Larijani said. "We know that this issue can be settled won in a constructive dialogue and we welcome that."

ElBaradei's Friday report to board members called for the full or partial suspension of 18 projects that it deemed could be misused to create nuclear weapons. The agency had already suspended aid to Iran in five instances last month.

While the IAEA programs do not involve significant amounts of money, a senior U.N official familiar with Iran's file said the suspensions carry "symbolic significance" because they are part of Security Council sanctions.

Iran gets IAEA technical aid for 15 projects and 40 more involving multiple other countries. In projects involving other nations, only Iran was affected by the suspensions.

The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany all want Iran to stop its enrichment program. But their approaches have differed over the past year, often straining the joint effort.

Russia and China, which both share economic and strategic interests with Iran, have been reluctant to impose harsh sanctions. After months of disputes, the Security Council imposed sanctions in December that fell short of the harsher measures sought by the United States.

In March, the IAEA board will also hear a report from ElBaradei expected to confirm that Iran has expanded its enrichment efforts — a development that would empower the Security Council to impose stricter sanctions.

[Rasputin]

Iranian foreign policy: not so revolutionary anymore

Khomeini landed at Tehran's Mehrabad airport on Feb. 1, 1979, and every year since that date marks the beginning of the Ten Days of Dawn (dah-yi fajr), the annual commemoration of the Islamic revolution.

Observers at the time feared that similar revolutions would occur in other Islamic states, and in a speech this week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicated that such a possibility is not out of the question. In Isfahan, Iran, on Feb. 3, he said he has encountered revolutionary sentiment in his global travels, provincial television reported. "Not just academics, not just men of letters, not just intellectuals," Mr. Ahmadinejad told the crowd, "but the people on the streets and in marketplaces lovingly shout: 'Iran, Iran, long live Iran, may Iran remain, may Iran be victorious.' "

Ahmadinejad is a committed ideologue surrounded by like-minded advisers, and he may actually believe that Muslims in other states are inspired by the Iranian revolutionary model. But the reality is that the only place where it has gained a foothold is in Lebanon, with the Shiite Muslim organization, Hizbullah. Iranian officials continue to praise Hizbullah and provide it with financial and military support, but the Iranian revolutionaries who were keen to export their experience two decades ago have mostly adopted a pragmatic foreign policy approach today.

Hizbullah's founding document, written in 1985, left little doubt about the relationship with Iran. It announced Hizbullah's desire for Islamic rule in Lebanon until there is Islamic rule worldwide, and it identified Ayatollah Khomeini as its leader. The document's language mirrored Khomeini's in many other ways: For example, it expressed the desire to eliminate Israel as well as hostility toward the United States. Those words were translated into deeds with suicide bombings that killed 241 US Marines in 1983, and with kidnappings and murders of Americans throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s.

Hizbullah's attachment to Iran at the time was based on more than the revolutionary example and a religious connection. Islamic Revolution Guards Corps personnel from Iran were training Hizbullah fighters in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon from 1982 onward, and as the former Iranian ambassador to Syria, Ali Akbar Mohtashami-Pur, said in the Sharq newspaper in August 2006, Hizbullah members even fought on the Iranian side in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. In that same interview, Mr. Mohtashami-Pur acknowledged Iranian provision of missiles to Hizbullah more recently. Semistate charities in Iran, furthermore, provide Hizbullah with millions of dollars in aid.

Iranian assistance to Hizbullah in the 1980s was guided largely by an activist impulse and the desire to see Khomeini's creation replicated elsewhere. For similar reasons, Iran directed assistance to Shiite mujahideen fighting the Soviet invaders of Afghanistan, and it tried to incite Shiite residents of Bahrain and Kuwait to revolt against their rulers.

Exporting the revolution and assisting the so-called oppressed in other countries continue to be codified in the Iranian Constitution. Iran no longer focuses on Shiite Muslims alone, however, and it helps Sunni groups such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

In practice, and despite Ahmadinejad's rantings, Tehran now prefers greater pragmatism in its foreign relations. Therefore, continuing assistance to Hizbullah has less to do with duplicating Iran's theocracy and assisting a "liberation movement" than it does with a desire to have an armed ally on Israel's border that can be mobilized in a time of war. Tehran is working with Saudi Arabia to preclude a renewed outbreak of sectarian clashes in Lebanon because it recognizes the harm this does to Hizbullah's domestic standing. When Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani visited Damascus on Jan. 21 and when Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Mualem visited Tehran two days later, the avoidance of Shiite-Sunni strife was a major aspect of their talks.

There is no question that Iran continues its involvement with armed groups throughout the Middle East, and it also works bilaterally with neighboring states in order to gain regional dominance at the expense of the US. Iran will work with Shiite or Sunni entities in this quest. But these allies are unlikely to put their own survival on the line in the interest of Iran's ambitions.

If Washington is serious about ending Iranian interference in Lebanon and elsewhere, it must make clear to those cooperating with Iran that their survival is at stake, and it should use all available diplomatic tools to communicate to Iran the danger that Iran faces. Ahmadinejad may speak irrationally, but there are other national leaders in Tehran with a firmer grasp on reality.

[Rasputin]

The Islamic revolution makers of 1960's and 1970's are traveling around the world these days to paint a different image of their Islamic system for the Iranians abroad and others. In the summer of the year 1997, when a "moderate" clergy could gain the trust of Iranians as new Islamic president with promises of change and prosperity in his political campaign and debates, many people (including myself) were convinced that real change in near future would be inevitable.

During those days it happened that I was there to witness how our nation tried to defeat the deceitful masters of Islamic regime in their own game. Polling stations were packed and many had run out of the electoral cards. Long lines of enthusiastic people of all spectrums in society were indication of political maturity of Iranians who had decided to choose a peaceful way to show their opposition to the current behavior of Islamic regime at that time hoping that their participation in election would make the leaders of Islamic regime to rethink their treatment of the nation.

The hard line candidate who was strongly but obscurely supported by Ali Khamenei became very disappointed after that event and joined the long list of "non-elected" officials around Ali Khameni who in fact is the main holder of real power in Islamic Republic system. The angry lecture by Ali Khameni for Islamic Judges immediately after this election and asking them to perform their duties and fight against corruption in the system was clear threat against those who worked to defeat the hard line candidate.

The mayor of Tehran at that time was Mr. Karbaschi who was considered the main cause of defeat of hard line candidate by investing in extensive campaign for Khatami's presidency. The sweetness of defeating "supreme leader" in his game did not last that long for Iranian people. The newly "reformist" faction which had been formed around Khatami's messages and campaign promises came under attack by hard liners which had their grip on power through different tools. Mr. Karbaschi was removed and sent to prison for corruption and other members of "reformists" followed during the months and years after that.

Factional struggles in Islamic regime was taken to a new level in second year of Khatami's presidency after some of the known internal opposition figures, who were not part of either faction in Islamic regime, were kidnapped and/or murdered in a series of murderous actions by Islamic Republic's information ministry under Dorri-Najafabadi. These murders became a source for new confrontations between the two factions and resulted in revelation of the role of hard line islamist figures who had the information ministry under their influence. In fact, these struggles, killings and imprisoning which had intensified after election of Khatami, was the only outcome for Iranian people as the society continued its economic decline.

In the meantime, Islamic leaders who had taken mass participation of Iranians in elections at record level as a symbol of their legitimacy took advantage of this situation and started a trail of unfair economic and military contracts with different foreign companies just to fill the pockets of some associates with generous commission pay. Coming of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with war mongering slogans and rhetoric added more to the overwhelming number of problems that Iranian people had to deal with. The infamous conference of holocaust deniers in Tehran and the meddling of Islamic government in the affairs of Lebanon and Iraq through different terrorist groups and spending hundreds of millions of dollars from the pockets of poverty ridden nation is just the tip of the iceberg.

It maybe obvious to Iranians that Mahdi militia in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon are both receiving extensive financial support from Islamic Republic regime in Iran but it seems like a mysterious and complicated issue for westerners whose involvement in Iraq has created a lot of political problems for them at home! In this anniversary of "Islamic revolution", thanks to warmongering slogans, activities and speeches of irresponsible leaders of Islamic regime, Iran is in a grave danger of being forced into a war from which extremely disastrous consequences will arise! Islamic regime, through a calculated process, has dragged Iran into a situation which has tied the destiny of their corrupt system with many political entities in different nations all around the world in order to guaranty its continuity.

The menace of Islamic Republic in Iran has cost Iranian nation more than two thousand billion dollars and much of the natural resources have been destroyed as a result of over consumption. The burden of more than half a million mullahs which their number is growing everyday plus their families and the organizations that have been created for their protection, has put a huge economic toll on Iranian society.

Despite the enormous increase in revenue from oil and gas production, Iranians have to struggle for survival through their daily life. In the past three years, the revenue from crude oil alone has been over $120 billions which is more than three fourth of the oil revenue from the time of first oil discovery to the year 1979 in Iran and yet, the external debt is more than $14 billion, inflation rate above 15% and unemployment of over 11%. Official statistics put 16% of Iranians below poverty line while the actual figure is much higher and in some estimates, it is as high as 40% of population.

The intensity and magnitude of problems which have been created by Islamic Republic leaders for Iranians is constantly increasing and dragging the nation to the point of no return. Growing interest in acquisition of nuclear weapon by leaders of Islamic Republic, which is just to deter any danger to their system rather than defending the nation, has created a lot of concerns among international community that can not see any good in this affair.

Today, after passing of 28 years from the event which was supposed to provide solutions to some of the issues in Iran, Iranian people are facing a situation in which their very existence as a nation is under threat because of irresponsible behaviors of a group of leaders who consider themselves representatives of Allah on the earth. The danger is very real and the integrity of Iran is under a serious threat. Islamic Republic leaders have wasted a huge amount of resources on a defense system which is not capable of doing anything other than protecting themselves while leaving most vital parts of Iranian territory susceptible to disintegration.

Time is passing very fast and the opportunity to avoid unimaginable damages to our homeland will soon be vanished. Iranian opposition of all spectrums will be as much responsible as Islamic regime in these historic times, for not doing enough to create a united front and speak with one voice to lead our nation out of this tremendously dangerous situation.

[Rasputin]

In the turbulent world of party politics where party members choose their own captain to steer their ship, candidates swarm around their aspirant supporters, hoping to be elected next as the following captain. This procedure is as old as politics itself. Some candidates are more able and eloquent in their approach than others. Some are more charismatic than others and some simply know exactly how to play the game to win sympathy. This is all quite accepted and known, since acumen and leadership qualities of a candidate decide whether he wins the game or not. The arena that exists for this game is present in its national state and facilitates for the people to behold this spectacle and decide for themselves who to support and follow.

But what happens if this game occurs outside of this arena? In a place where there are no rules or limits to rhetorical deceit, where charisma and one-liners rule freely to seduce the people's sympathy, without any formal argumentation of party program or planned actions for the future? This is what happens with party politics in exile. The Iranian political parties that became forbidden after the Islamic Revolution were forced to continue their activities abroad, resulting in an anarchistic and unprofessional approach to party politics. One might even question the legitimacy of these Iranian political parties that only exist outside Iran. Is it not so that political party's only make sense in a society where they have legitimacy and power? What is a political party without any power, one might even ask.

Unfortunately certain quasi political characters have managed to claim their own so-called "leadership" of political party's outside of Iran, based on nothing more than their political martyrdom by being once jailed in Evin as a political prisoner. Apparently, anyone who gets himself into Evin receives an unequivocal legitimacy and is immediately labeled as " hero" and "legend". In this process, some even become so bigheaded to claim that they are very powerful, and even say this about themselves! As Margaret Thatcher once said: "Power is like being a lady…if you have to tell people you are, you aren't!"

Iranian intellectuals who speak their mind freely and are imprisoned because of that are unmistakably very brave people. But most of them do not claim heroism or being a "legend" after being released. This, from my point of view intrinsically proves their integrity.

The fact remains that Iranian political parties abroad are operating in a twilight zone that firstly doesn't allow them any legitimacy and secondly provides no transparency whatsoever about their leadership or party program. Perhaps this is one of the many problems that Iranian opposition parties are facing in this era, namely their lack of power. Some political characters who claim their leadership role therefore do not show any different mindset than the dictatorial regime they supposedly oppose. Apparently we can take a person out of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but we can't take the Islamic Republic of Iran out of a person!

The only legitimate way, from my perspective, to have a role in Iranian political activities outside of Iran, is to create a shadow parliament. This shadow parliament would only be legitimate if the people inside it would be chosen by the Iranian diasporas based on their personal achievements, campaign and program.

Perhaps, if Iranians abroad were to create a culture of tolerance they would be taking the first step towards reaching a true democratic mindset. This is a challenging issue for us Iranians to reach. If we only examine our language and definitions we would be confronted with our own democratic shortcomings. An example is the non-existence of the Persian word for "compromise". There actually is a translation for the word, but is defined differently. The definition would be more in the direction of "giving in" or "accepting defeat". What does this say about our culture?

Iranians are a proud and ambitious nation. Unfortunately we all want to be leaders and none of us actually want to learn how to go on all fours before learning how to walk and run. We preferably all want to run before even knowing how to walk. All those who aspire a role in Iranian politics abroad, would do their own people a great favor by learning about the rules of the game before entering the nonexistent arena and screaming at top of their lungs: "The King is Dead, Long Live the King!"