Eye On Iran

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Iran vs. the world

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was scheduled for some lectern-pounding at the UN last weekend. But he canceled at the last minute, blaming the United States for a visa snafu. Too bad. After last year's bravura tour of New York, we were hoping for a new set of flimsy denials about Iran's nuclear ambitions, further evasions on its funding for terrorism and fresh explanations of its deplorable threats against Israel. But Ahmadinejad stayed home and avoided personally witnessing not only another UN defeat but also fielding a lot of questions about what could be turning into a new hostage crisis. If he had come to New York, reporters could have asked him why Iran seized 15 British sailors and marines last Friday, stoking tensions in a region that, frankly, doesn't need any more crises.

Were the British forces taken as bargaining chips, to be exchanged for five Iranians captured in January by American forces in Iraq, as a Saudi-owned London-based newspaper reported? Were they seized to distract attention from a unanimous UN Security Council vote over the weekend, ratcheting up the sanctions on Tehran for its nuclear program? Or could this simply be a ham-handed warning to America and its allies that Western forces are operating in Iran's neighborhood, and Tehran can make things uncomfortable at will?
Perhaps Ahmadinejad would have impressed some New Yorkers, as he did last year, with his jaunty demeanor. But Ahmadinejad desperately needs a public relations victory not in New York, but in Iran. Many Iranians seem increasingly apprehensive as their country is driven into further isolation, diplomatically and economically. Capturing British forces, holding them incommunicado and interrogating them as spies probably plays well in a country that seeks to portray itself as a victim of Western aggression. But this is needlessly -- and reprehensibly -- provocative.

And there's evidence that Iran's belligerence is wearing thin in other parts of the world. On Monday, the presidents of Russia and China issued a joint statement calling on Iran to fulfill the Security Council's resolutions. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Hu Jintao said that their countries were ready to "search for a comprehensive, long-term and mutually acceptable solution to the Iranian nuclear problem." They stressed that the dispute should be resolved peacefully. But the subtext of the message was unmistakable: Two of Iran's major allies and trading partners are growing increasingly impatient.

Iran has argued for years that uranium enrichment is its right under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It has brandished the treaty as some sort of bill of rights to enrich uranium. That's nonsense, of course. But now that the world is calling Iran's bluff, what do the mullahs do? They promptly begin to back out of agreements that the country pledged to follow in the same treaty. Iran announced on Sunday that it was partially suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

That would be a bigger threat if Iran were actually cooperating fully with the IAEA now. But it's not. Not even close. Just check the last, oh, half dozen reports from that agency on Iran. There's a long list of demands from the IAEA for information and documentation from Iran. Iran's response: Forget it.

Probably a good thing that Ahmadinejad skipped New York this time. His act, like his country's, is getting old.

[Rasputin]

The UN Security Council has agreed a statement voicing "grave concern" at Iran's capture of 15 British sailors.
It also calls on Tehran to allow the UK consular access to the personnel, but stops short of "deploring" Iran's action, as requested by the UK.

Iran, which the UK later confirmed had sent it a note, said it was not helpful to try to engage third parties.

Meanwhile, an Iranian TV channel says it is to broadcast a "confession" by one of the detained navy personnel.

Official TV channel Al-Alam did not say what the confession would contain or the identity of the sailor involved.

The Foreign Office said of the note, sent to the British embassy: "We can confirm that, as reported in the Iranian media, the Iranian government has sent a formal note to the British embassy.

Confidential

"Such exchanges are always confidential, so we cannot divulge any details, but we are giving the message serious consideration and will soon respond formally to the Iranian government."

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the note may contain "matters of substance" which may be the beginning of a "proper exchange" and could "offer the possibility of a solution".

This case can and should be settled through bilateral channels.

Iran's UN mission


Letter urges Iraq withdrawal

On a visit to British troops in Afghanistan on Friday, Chancellor Gordon Brown welcomed the UN resolution.

He said: "The UN resolution is calling definitively for [the navy crew's] release. That's the unanimous view of the international community."

Mr Brown described the treatment of captured Leading Seaman Faye Turney, 26, an interview with whom has been shown on Iranian TV, as "cruel, callous, inhuman and unacceptable".

Responding to the UN statement, David Cameron, the Conservative leader, said: "Really there's only one right outcome to this which is for Iran to release those people that they took captive, that they should be released without any further ado. It's as clear and as simple as that."

The British ambassador to the UN, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, said the UN's statement was a "good outcome" for the UK.

Sir Emyr added that it sent the "right message" to Iran to allow access to the sailors and marines, and secure their prompt release.

UK VERSION OF EVENTS
1 Crew boards merchant ship 1.7NM inside Iraqi waters
2 HMS Cornwall was south-east of this, and inside Iraqi waters
3 Iran tells UK that merchant ship was at a different point, still within Iraqi waters
4 After UK points this out, Iran provides alternative position, now within Iranian waters



UK version in more detail

The UK failed to win support for a stronger statement deploring Iran's actions, following opposition led by Russia.

Iran's UN mission said in a statement: "This case can and should be settled through bilateral channels.

"The British government's attempt to engage third parties, including the Security Council, with this case is not helpful."

Satellite data

The UN Security Council statement was agreed following more than four hours of negotiations.

In full, it said: "Members of the Security Council expressed grave concern at the capture by the Revolutionary Guard and the continuing detention by the government of Iran of 15 United Kingdom naval personnel and appealed to the government of Iran to allow consular access in terms of the relevant international laws.

"Members of the Security Council support calls, including by the secretary general in his March 29 meeting with the Iranian foreign minister, for an early resolution of this problem, including the release of the 15 UK personnel."

The Britons, based on HMS Cornwall, were seized a week ago by Iranian Revolutionary Guards as they returned from searching a vessel in the northern Gulf.

Iran says they had strayed into Iranian territorial waters, a claim which the UK has denied.

Earlier this week, the Royal Navy produced satellite data it said proved its case.

Second 'letter'

Meanwhile, Iran has released a second letter, apparently written by Leading Seamen Turney, which urges the UK to withdraw from Iraq.

The letter, which was released by the Iranian embassy in London and addressed to British MPs, states: "Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?"

It also says that "even through our wrongdoing" the Iranians have "treated us well and humanely".

On Thursday, Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, said the release of Leading Seamen Turney had been delayed, and spoke about the UK's "incorrect attitude".

[Rasputin]

Britain is in "direct bilateral communication" with Iran as it tries to win the release of 15 detained sailors and marines, British Defense Secretary Des Browne said on Sunday.

"We are anxious that this matter be resolved as quickly as possible and that it be resolved by diplomatic means and we are bending every single effort to that," Browne told BBC television.

"It's not my intention to go through the detail of that blow by blow, and it wouldn't be appropriate to do that, but we are in direct bilateral communication with the Iranians," he said.

Iran detained the British sailors and marines on March 23, accusing them of illegally entering its waters, while Britain says they were searching a ship in Iraqi waters.

Iran and Britain have exchanged diplomatic notes on the incident in the last few days, but their content is unknown.

The Sunday Telegraph newspaper reported that Britain would be prepared to give Iran guarantees that the Royal Navy would not knowingly enter Iranian waters without permission.

But Britain would not apologize or say its boats entered Iran's waters, the report said.

It said there were plans to send a Royal Navy captain or commodore to Tehran, as a special envoy of the government, to deliver the assurance.

The Foreign Office declined comment on the report.

"They (the Iranians) know that not only have we a very clear position but that we have the support of almost the whole of the international community," Browne told the BBC.

"The message from the U.N., the message from the EU ought to make it clear to them that their responsibility is to release our detained personnel," he said.

[Rasputin]

Uzi Arad, former director of intelligence at Israel's spy agency, Mossad, has made a lifetime's study of revolutionary Iran. If international sanctions and diplomatic arm-twisting fail to halt its suspect nuclear activities, he is clear what the west must do: bomb Tehran.
Israel's official policy, like Britain and the US, stresses peaceful pressure to secure Iran's compliance with its nuclear obligations. The so-called military option has been assiduously talked down ever since President George Bush appeared to talk it up in January. In any case, military experts say, air strikes would have limited success.

Mr Arad has no such inhibitions: "A military strike may be easier than you think. It wouldn't just be aimed at the nuclear sites. It would hit military and security targets, industrial and oil-related targets such as Kharg island [Iran's main oil export terminal in the Gulf], and regime targets ... Iran is much more vulnerable than people realise."
Like most Israeli politicians and planners, Mr Arad says maximising pressure on Iran by all non-military means is the current priority.

"Instead of threatening war, my preference would be for building an international coalition to end the [nuclear] crisis," said Israel's veteran vice-premier Shimon Peres. Yet Iran's behaviour following its seizure of the 15 British service personnel showed how difficult that would be. "They will use every trick," Mr Peres said. "They will try and string it out, try to exert maximum pressure. It's blackmail ... But they will pay the price in the end."

To say Iran has become an obsession for Israeli leaders is an understatement. Tehran's sinister hand is seen in all the key problems facing the country, including Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, and in the fostering of what Professor Amnon Rubinstein calls Israel's "sense of abandonment surrounded by a rising sea of Islamism".

What is termed the Ahmadinejad phenomenon, after Iran's anti-Zionist president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, represents by common agreement an existential threat. It is radically altering the way Israel views its neighbourhood.

One result has been the effective downgrading of the Palestinian issue. Officials welcome the latest US peacemaking efforts. But they say ongoing, low-level conflict can be "managed" almost indefinitely. Similarly, Israel's relations with Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia, have reached a sort of high in recent months, driven not by a developing affinity, but by shared fear of Iran.

But perhaps the most startling shift in Israel's outlook is its increased willingness to "internationalise" the search for solutions, whether in Lebanon, where it agreed to an enlarged peacekeeping presence after last summer's war, in Palestine, where it has sought EU and other help in isolating Hamas, and in terms of improving relations with the UN.

And as both Mr Arad and government ministers see it, facing down a potentially nuclear Iran is a global, not just an Israeli necessity - and will require a joint international effort. "We draw a parallel with the Third Reich," said a senior leader of the Likud opposition party. "They [Iran's leaders] are mad ... For Ahmadinejad, the cold war idea of mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it's an incentive."

[Rasputin]

Channel 4 says it is considering delaying a drama about British soldiers in Iraq as the UK negotiates to free 15 Royal Navy personnel captured by Iran.
The Mark of Cain, which was due to be broadcast on Thursday, shows British troops abusing Iraqi detainees.

But families of the captured crew and senior military figures have expressed concerns about the timing of the show.

Channel 4 said it was reviewing the broadcast date, but was "not convinced" the drama could influence negotiations.

It is based on the case of three British soldiers who were convicted of abusing Iraqi civilians at Camp Bread Basket, Basra, in May 2003.

It is a drama but it will be seen as fact by those watching it

Major General Patrick Cordingley
Robin Air, whose son Royal Marine Captain Chris Air is among those being held in Iran, told the Daily Telegraph he did not agree with the Channel 4 programme.

"It would be very distressing if a television broadcast was to affect the negotiations that our diplomatic service is engaged in at the moment," he said.

"It would be an act which is at best reckless."

His views were echoed by Major General Patrick Cordingley, who commanded Britain's Seventh Armoured Brigade - the renowned Desert Rats - in the last Gulf War.

We are monitoring the situation very carefully and continue to review the planned broadcast date

Channel 4
"It's the depiction of scenes of British troops mishandling Arabs and therefore it will be seen as the general British approach to handling Arabs in the Middle East," he told the BBC's World At One programme.

"It is a drama but it will be seen as fact by those watching it."

"I don't want it not to be shown but I think this is just the wrong moment to do it."

In a statement, Channel 4 said it had "noted the comments made in the press" by the families of the detainees.

"This is the first time those concerns have been raised and while we are not convinced there is a serious danger of the drama influencing the outcome of the negotiations for their release, we are open to further dialogue.

"We are monitoring the situation very carefully and continue to review the planned broadcast date."

[Rasputin]

Tehran's standoff with west sees tourists snub Persian treasures

Tehran's standoff with west sees tourists snub Persian treasures
Industry faces collapse as tension grows over nuclear issue and sailors' detention
Robert Tait in Tehran, The Guardian Thursday April 12 2007

Siosepol Bridge in the ancient city of Isfahan. Iran's tourist trade has been badly damaged by recent events. Photograph: Alamy

With its enduring relics of a glorious imperial past, spectacular glittering mosques and breathtaking landscapes, Iran lays claim to some of the finest cultural jewels in the Middle East.

But a potentially catastrophic collapse in the country's tourist trade is threatening to leave this dazzling array of attractions largely unseen by foreign eyes, as international tensions with the west deter a growing number of overseas visitors. The problem has been exacerbated by the recent detention of 15 British marines and sailors, which prompted mass cancellations of foreign tours to a land described this week by its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a cradle of civilisation.

Fears of military conflict over Iran's nuclear programme and disquiet over Mr Ahmadinejad's infamous remarks on the Holocaust had already caused a sharp decline in the number of affluent western visitors, a vital source of foreign currency in a struggling economy.

Now industry insiders say the problem has reached crisis levels. Even before the sailors' crisis, Iranian travel agents were staggering under the burden of declining foreign trade. One of Tehran's leading travel agents recently laid off 70 workers due to the fall-off.

Mohammad Hassan Kermani, director of Iran's federation of travel agents, said the 13-day stand-off between London and Tehran had compounded the trend and caused the cancellation of all previously-booked European tour groups until 2009. He said foreign governments were advising their citizens not to visit Iran, with long-term consequences for an industry that employs an estimated 2.5 million Iranians.

"What is happening today to Iran's tourist industry is not a few days or few months damage, and we must acknowledge that foreign tourists have cancelled all their tours until 2009. Until future notice they have no interest in travelling to this country," Mr Kermani told the newspaper Etemad-e Melli. "Fears of coming here were reinforced by the sailors' detention and travelling tours were cancelled. It indicates a crisis in Iran's tourism industry and it is inflicting irreparable damage."

[Rasputin]

Diplomatic Exit

Javad Zarif, the highest-ranking Iranian diplomat in the United States, made a rare trip to Washington last month. The timing could not have been worse.

Five days earlier, Iran's Revolutionary Guard had seized 15 British sailors in the Persian Gulf. The U.N. Security Council had just imposed new sanctions on Iran for failing to ensure that its nuclear energy program could not be subverted to make the world's deadliest weapon.

Yet Zarif, whose five-year stint as Tehran's ambassador to the United Nations is about to end, was widely welcomed here, getting access that would make envoys from America's closest allies green with undiplomatic envy.

He was even invited to Capitol Hill to chat with with presidential hopefuls from both sides of the aisle.

"Zarif is a tough advocate but he's also pragmatic, not dogmatic. He can play an important role in helping to resolve our significant differences with Iran peacefully," Democrat Joe Biden said afterward. Noting his previous talks with the Iranian envoy, Republican Chuck Hagel called for "direct engagement" between Washington and Tehran. "Isolating nations does not fix problems," Hagel said.

During Zarif's talk with Democrat Dianne Feinstein, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican John Warner of the Armed Services Committee dropped by to have a word. "I find him to be a positive, reasonable figure, and it would be useful if he could stay at the U.N.," Feinstein said later.

Similar encomiums were heard as Zarif made the rounds of Washington think tanks. At a luncheon hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, Martin Indyk, the former ambassador to Israel, turned to the Iranian envoy and said, "We're going to miss you."

At a dinner hosted by the Nixon Center, its president, Dmitri Simes, introduced Zarif as "one of the most impressive diplomats I've met anywhere. He obviously is a strong spokesman for his country, but he knows how to do it with eloquence and credibility."

All this transpired in just over 24 hours -- the time limit dictated by a special State Department permit that allowed him to leave the 25-mile quarantine imposed on Iranian diplomats at the United Nations.

* * *

Ever since the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, relations between Washington and Tehran have devolved into a bizarre mix of non-communication, misunderstanding and occasional farce. With Iran's history of arming Iraqi, Lebanese and Palestinian militias, seizing British sailors, refusing to support Arab-Israeli peace, allegedly having a nuclear weapons program, and swinging from revolutionary to reformist back to hard-line politics, both Republican and Democratic administrations have struggled with whether there is any Iranian official that the United States can talk to -- and actually believe.

Some U.S. foreign policy experts say Zarif may be one of the few.

Simes compares Zarif to Anatoly Dobrynin, the legendary Soviet ambassador who served in Washington for a quarter-century during the Cold War.

"Both countries were lucky to have someone who was willing to serve as an honest communication channel, who knew there were a lot of voices in both countries who wanted to destroy the relationship," says Simes. "Dobrynin's role was to keep a modicum of cooperation alive. That's what Zarif is trying to do."

Others think Zarif is just more skilled at talking out of both sides of his mouth -- and that anyone in the current regime shares the same extremist agenda. "All their goals are the same. They all want to destroy Israel," says Kenneth Timmerman, executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran and author of "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran."

"But there are tactical differences on how to achieve it," he says. "Some think they can trick the U.S. into making a deal that would be advantageous to the regime and keep it in power. Others are willing to be more confrontational. But there's no doubt that they're all out to get nuclear weapons."

"He's very used to Western habits, so he is the perfect face for an unreasonable regime," says former U.N. ambassador John Bolton. "But he has no independent discretion on what he does."

Before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's announcement last year that the United States was willing to join Europe in talks with the Iranians if they suspended uranium enrichment, Bolton was asked to deliver an advance text to let Tehran know. His secretary notified the Iranian U.N. mission and set up a time for Bolton to hand it to Zarif. But a half-hour later, the mission called back to say the Iranian government did not want a meeting. "I called him and said: 'I have to give you this piece of paper and you have instructions not to meet me. So what do we do?' " Bolton recalled. "We agreed to have it sent by messenger."

Ironically, Zarif is suspect among hard-liners at home, too -- one reason analysts believe he is being recalled this summer.

Zarif follows the rules of the revolutionary Islamic regime: He won't shake a woman's hand or wear a tie, which is disparaged as a symbol of the West. But he speaks English with an American accent after getting two degrees at San Francisco State and a doctorate in international relations at the University of Denver. He was at Denver shortly after Rice finished her PhD there in the same subject.

"We had some of the same professors," Zarif says with a chuckle.

He then moved to New York for his first U.N. posting, before going home to become deputy foreign minister. As he often notes, he has spent more of his adult life in the United States than in Iran. Both of his grown children are currently living in the United States.

"In America, he's the face of the Islamic Republic, and in Iran hard-liners view him as the face of America," says Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Being in the middle has taken a physical toll. Zarif's hair has gone from a little salt in a lot of pepper to snowy white during his time at the United Nations -- and he is only 47.

[Rasputin]

Even unofficial dialogue between Washington and Tehran has been an elusive goal since the Carter administration broke off relations after the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy. Each country has made overtures to the other, but rarely at the same time. The one connection imploded in the disastrous arms-for-hostage swap during the Reagan administration.

Indyk, who served in the Clinton administration, recalls when he and two other State Department officials went to New York for a speech to the Asia Society by then-Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi. They dispersed around the room, Indyk says, to try to meet him. But when a mutual contact offered to make introductions, Kharrazi apparently got wind of it and quickly left.

On another occasion, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright attended a small U.N. meeting on Afghanistan in part to have contact with her Iranian counterpart, Indyk says. But the Unites States knew so little about what Iranian officials looked like that they did not realize he had sent his deputy. The foreign minister had skipped the meeting to avoid the potential controversy at home of meeting with Albright.

After the 9/11 attacks, diplomats from the two countries began to actually meet when they were in the same room. In 2001, Zarif was Iran's emissary to U.N. talks on the future of Afghanistan after the Taliban's ouster. In Bonn, Germany, he met daily with U.S. envoy James Dobbins, who credits Zarif with preventing the conference from collapsing because of last-minute demands by the Northern Alliance to control the new government.

"It was about 2 in the morning," Dobbins recalls. The Northern Alliance, an ethnic faction backed by the United States, Iran and Russia, insisted on 18 of 24 ministries, excessive given the population and political realities, Dobbins says.

"Finally, Zarif took him aside and whispered to him for a few moments, after which the Northern Alliance envoy returned to the table and said, 'Okay, I give up,' " says Dobbins, who is now director of the Rand Corp.'s International Security and Defense Policy Center.

Assigned to the United Nations in 2002, Zarif met three times in 2003 with then-National Security Council staffer Zalmay Khalilzad or Ambassador Ryan Crocker about Afghanistan and Iraq, a tentative behind-the-scenes effort that died after a massive suicide bombing by al-Qaeda in Riyadh that initially appeared to have possible Iranian links.

Since then, Zarif has continued "Track 2" diplomacy. In 2005 he agreed to a dinner-party debate on Iran's nuclear program with Robert Einhorn, former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, sponsored by the International Crisis Group and hosted by board member George Soros.

Einhorn is among those who believe that Iran is worth dealing with -- eventually. "I'm not sure it would be productive at this juncture," he says. "But in six to 12 months, if Iran comes to the conclusion that it's playing a losing hand and it needs a better deal, there is no one better than Zarif to do that."

Last year Zarif participated in a Princeton seminar -- by video, as he could not get State Department permission to travel from New York -- when he was pressed on Iran's position on the Holocaust. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had just questioned whether it truly happened. As he has often said publicly, Zarif said he believed the Holocaust took place and that it was genocide and a crime against humanity. He then countered that the Palestinians should not have to pay the price for mass murder by the Germans. Only later did he learn that the questioner was Uri Lubrani, Israel's envoy to Iran before the 1979 revolution.

"I asked him a very tough question. He is a very loyal and able servant of his masters," Lubrani recalls. "But I have a notion -- only a notion -- that he did not agree with his boss."

And when former secretary of state James A. Baker III was working on the Iraq Study Group report, he went to dinner at Zarif's elegant diplomatic residence across from Central Park to talk about cooperation on Iraq. The most controversial section of the final report recommended diplomatic outreach to Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq.

Unlike most of Iran's reclusive envoys, Zarif has also been a regular on American television, from "The Charlie Rose Show" to C-SPAN. But his willingness to talk doesn't mean any give in his defense of his country's positions:

He insists that Iran is not interested in developing a nuclear weapon. He says Iran wants stability in Iraq, its neighbor. And he denies that Iran is trying to create a "Shiite crescent" running from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. "It is a scare tactic," he said on "Charlie Rose" in February.

On the issue of terrorism, Zarif counters the long list of extremist movements supported by Iran by noting that U.S. troops in Iraq are not taking action against the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, a group that is both the leading Iranian opposition group and on the State Department's terrorism list.

What draws former U.S. officials and Middle East analysts to Zarif is his willingness to talk about solutions to policy differences. Arms specialists credit him with meeting American scientists to discuss ways to allow Iran to enrich uranium, while guaranteeing Tehran could not use it for bombmaking.

As he prepares to leave the United Nations, Zarif warns that time is running out. "It would have been far easier to resolve the nuclear issue two years ago, a year ago or last week than it is now," he said at the Nixon Center dinner. "And it is far easier to resolve the nuclear issue today than in two or three months' time, after the next Security Council resolution against Iran. I know if you follow this path, you will have a few more resolutions and we will have a few more centrifuges spinning in Natanz."

"The outcome is not resolution but greater confrontation on both sides," Zarif said. "That is not the path that is needed."

The Bush administration remains skeptical. A senior State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says Zarif has presented a "user-friendly face" for the Iranian regime. "But the fact of the matter is that their behavior has belied his smooth diplomatic effort."

Zarif is sanguine about his failure to bring down the "wall of mistrust," his mandate when he was originally dispatched by the comparatively reformist government of President Mohammad Khatami.

Asked what he has achieved during his U.N. stint, Zarif says, "Not much.

"I don't think that the West interpreted our openings and accommodations the way they should have. They interpreted them as a sign of weakness, whereas it was a genuine desire by people like me to change the nature of the relationship," he says. "Since it was misinterpreted, the reaction was disappointing and in fact only heightened tension and increased mistrust.

"A stupid idealist who has not achieved anything in his diplomatic life after giving one-sided concessions -- this is what I'm called in Iran."

Some U.S. analysts suggest that Zarif may have played more of a role than he realizes.

"The history of relations since the revolution has been ships passing in the night," says Indyk. "When we were ready to talk, they weren't, and when they were, we weren't. We've never been able to get to the table. With him there, we had the best chance. Without him, it will be much more difficult."

[Rasputin]

Albert Einstein's sub-section of theory of relativity which is called special relativity offers some consequences one of which states that "two events that appear simultaneous to an observer A will not be simultaneous to an observer B if B is moving with respect to A". Interpretation of this single consequence in field of political science offers similar results.

When our fathers used to remind us that the entire Pahlavi regime and the clan of Ghajar before them as well as the religious leaders were collectively a creation and direct results of decades of British interference in Iran we used to laugh at them in our ignorance, doubts and skepticism because we were no longer a part of that period's history and our inherent lack of trust to recorded history. Nor are the youth of today aware that when they chant "down with America and Israel" they are merely serving the wills of the British spies and the British government that wants America's hands cut off from Iran.

It's only recently that a few contemporary Iranians are gradually coming to understand that their true enemy is not and has never been Israel or America but rather the same shrewd British who sent spies to Iran from India -- e.g. Khomeini's father -- and continue having their key puppets running the shows in Iran. But for as long as US government does not declare publicly that its number one enemy in the west Asia are the British and not Muslims; the falsification of the truth will continue and America has to pay the high price of invading countries to curb the British domination. If Iran's building an atomic bomb is so bad why doesn't US encourage the British to attack Iran single-handedly and US keep out of it? That's because US is aware that the British are the best friend and sponsor of the Islamic monarchy.

Because Iranian modern history and its documentation are filled with lies, flattery and lascivious lopsided compliments to the kings and religious charlatans; it leaves us very little trust in our history because with change of each dynasty all heroes become villains and vice versa. Those whom would have ended up in prisons of Shah are now heroes for crimes that they have committed and their images are the garnish of the official Iranian postage stamps. So the joke is on us.

And why are we getting so upset and defensive when someone makes a movie such as "300"? If it was not for Xenophon of Ephesus and Herodotus of Halicarnassus we wouldn't even have a recorded history and everything would have been subject to similar arguments that are offered in such trash movies. We help collection of thousands of signatures to protest a trash movie and unaware that such signatures are basically a mere database for more SPAM. Each time you sign a petition you help the Spammers and not the Iranian heritage.

Such deep mistrust of our recorded history and constant falsification by the west has been forcing Iranians to rely on what is most tangible to them. Googoosh and Forough Farrokhzad become their heroes but they forget Kassravi. They worship Khomeini but forget Amir Kabir; they welcome British spies in Iran and in exchange force their educated brains to exile in foreign lands.

This shifting of points of view puts generation after generation of Iranians in clash of political opinion with each other. Today's youth blames us for bringing Khomeini and we blamed America for bringing Shah back and taking Mossadegh out. This absence of unity when you add to it the diverse ethnic mosaic of Iran has created for lack of words a perfect zoological garden that although all animals are captives of the same environment yet because of their diversity will look at each others as pray and predators with no common cause. Mistrust your fellow countryman unless proven otherwise.

So with this long overture let me ask you a question. Do you really think that our main issue and agenda as a nation should be the freedom of Iranian women to have the choice of not covering their hairs? Is this the only agenda left to resolve? The British supported the regressive radical Islam offered by Khomeini and the school of Islamic Brotherhood incubated in London and took us about 100 years back and now we are fighting to get back what we already had a century ago -- our women could go out without a cover!

So here is my point: Could you show me one nation on earth that its female population has achieved true freedom but you cannot find adequate public restrooms on the streets of its capital? You see, you could not name one and that's what I am trying to get into. What good would such freedom offer a nation of 70 millions that when nature calls they have no place to go to relieve themselves when away from home? If a nation wants to achieve freedom of speech, thoughts and expression it certainly cannot reach that goal without having sufficient public restrooms.

Next time when shit happens try to line up your priorities: is going to the restroom more urgent or resolving the ethnic unrest in Chechnya? That is precisely why the Russians and all former Soviet states have not achieved the freedom that they were dreaming of even after two decades since the Soviet empire broke up, because they do not have enough public restrooms. And that is precisely why everyone wants to come to America where with the exception of some McDonald's that charge 10 cents, to take a shit everywhere else is free.

If Iranians want to bring down that callous British-appointed government of Iran they must first do what is unprecedented in any country in the world. We cannot do what Gandhi advocated in India -- peaceful resistance or Dr. King advocated in the south for civil rights. Those tactics will not dismantle the grip of the British in Iran. Arm struggle against the regime is not a practical approach so we have to use an alternative weapon that we all possess and can inflict emotional damages to the regime's image, and is environmentally less catastrophic than say using Molotov cocktail.

We Iranians are an innovative nation (case in point we invented Sheism that alienated us from the entire Muslim world) and today I suggest we do something that would bring that government down fast and expediently. Curious, well that is mass and united urination and defecation in all government buildings, streets, malls and hospitals and you name it. Imagine a nation of 70 millions goes against its government by taking a shit (golaab beh rootoon) anywhere as long as they can avoid arrest.

Women in particular will have the best opportunity to fight the regime since under the cover of black chadors they can squat anywhere and take a shit in any government offices. Go to Ministry of Justice and while sitting on benches waiting for your turn do what any brave Iranian should do -- take a shit. Go to Roodaki Concert Hall and while Beethoven Symphony No. 1 is being performed you do your own No. 2 and the entire audience take a shit all over their seats and leave the concert prematurely. Take a shit inside the metro stations and the moving cars! Avoid arrest and do it while acting as if you are reading a newspaper.

The British however were vigilant about such revenge by the Iranians and if you go to their embassy in Tehran you will see that more than half century ago they installed public restrooms outside their embassy (northern walls) which serves two purposes -- prevents the public to urinate outside their embassy and also it's their secret escape route in case of an emergency. The walls of the restrooms are made such that at a tunnel through the embassy will bring the ambassador under the shithouse and he and his entourage can escape any harm. So, Iranians should be united in their cause and at nights go around the British Embassy in Tehran and their consulates in any city in Iran and take a grand shit, in fact take the entire family out and call it a night in the town.

[Rasputin]

Part II

This symbolic gesture by people will make big news all over the world. No news agency can manipulate us by separating our men from our women and our gays from our heterosexuals, our Kurds from our Turks and our Jewish brothers and sisters from our ethnic Armenians, we are all to become a united nation shitting all over in the name of freedom of expression the Persian style. Down with religious monarchy and long live Iran. Fox News, CNN and BBC (in particular) will no longer be able to pick and choose the news and manipulate the truth. We will prove to them that our problem is not just our women's lack of freedom, both men and women are suffering in Iran, the children and the aged they are all victims of the regime and we can no longer wait, we have to take a shit at any cost, we no longer can wait!

Someday you'll wake up in Orange County, California and tune to CNN and on the top of the news you will hear that "thousands of Iranians took to the streets of Tehran and invaded banks and government buildings and shitted all over the offices! We advise our viewers to use discretion as some scenes are very graphic."

Oil export can be brought to a halt if our brave oil industry workers take a shit in the national oil company offices and checkpoints in the name of freedom! We forgive them for selling us short when Khomeini wanted them to go on strike and they did. Our brave brothers and sisters attend government staged demonstration but instead of chanting useless slogans take a shit at every opportunity they find while waving their feasts in the air, teachers to encourage students to shit in the classrooms. How many people can they arrest for a simple act which is forced by nature anyway? Plus what is their evidence in the court? How would the government prove that the dried shit in your dossier presented by the prosecutor belongs to you and not his own wife, unless if they do a DNA analysis to prove that hefty pile was that of yours which will be a tedious task anyway.

Now, you tell me which one is more effective? To let a part of your hair out of your scarf and get arrested and go to jail or as a man to wear a colored t-shirt and be taken to police station or instead just join the freedom fighters and start shitting all over that government and its establishments and what it stands for? Trust me if Babak Khorram-Din was alive today he would shit all over that regime in defiance too. You be the judge. I hope even the leftist Mojahedeen Khalgh in exile follow this advice and instead of spending their days and nights in Iraq playing backgammons and poker come to the mainstream and they also start taking shit in defiance of the Iranian regime.

Iranians abroad should follow the path and don't hold back. While in the US it can be a misdemeanor but to the best of my knowledge taking a shit in public in France is something normal, so Iranians should have no problem to do their "thing" at the Iranian government and airline offices anywhere in France and please do the same in Belgium and in Switzerland since they have done a lot of damage to us by harboring our criminals, and yes don't forget Canada since they still follow the British line and have the bitch's picture on their currency! How low can they go?

Don't hold back, leave a mark on pages of history; take a shit in the name of freedom of expression. Use your weapons! Victory is at hand

[Rasputin]

متكي: حذف هيچ كشوري از نقشه جهان ممكن نيست

منوچهر متكي، وزير امورخارجه ايران طي ميزگردي در نشست ويژه اي كه مجمع اقتصاد جهاني در زمينه خاورميانه برگزار كرده است گفت كه كشورش هيچ طرحي براي نابودي هيچ ملت يا كشوري ندارد و "هر بچه دبستاني مي داند كه محو هيچ كشوري از نقشه جهان امكانپذير نيست".

متكي در ميزگردي در نشست مجمع اقتصاد جهاني گفت كه طرح صلح عربي با شكست مواجه مي شود
اظهارات آقاي متكي اشاره اي بود به سخنان محمود احمدي نژاد كه در حالي كه چند ماه بيشتر از رياست جمهوري اش در ايران نگذشته بود گفت كه اسرائيل بايد از نقشه جهان محو شود و با اين سخنان، اعتراض گسترده اي در سطح جهاني برانگيخت.

اما آقاي متكي در ادامه سخنانش بار ديگر موضع رسمي دولت جمهوري اسلامي را تكرار كرد كه دولت اسرائيل را دولتي نامشروع مي داند و اعتقاد دارد كه بايد نظام سياسي سرزميني كه كشور اسرائيل در آن تشكيل شده از راه همه پرسي اي تعيين شود كه همه ساكنان بومي اين سرزمين، اعم از مسلمان، يهودي و مسيحي در آن شركت كنند.

وزير امورخارجه ايران همچنين در اين ميزگرد از پيشنهاد اخير رهبران عرب براي حل بحران جاري ميان فلسطينيان و اسرائيل انتقاد كرد و گفت كه اين طرح با شكست مواجه مي شود چون به گفته او، مسائل سرنوشت سازي همچون تعيين پايتخت كشور مستقل فلسطيني و بازگشت حدود پنج ميليون آواره فلسطيني در آن لحاظ نشده و از جانب ديگر، اسرائيل هم ميلي به صلح ندارد.

پيشنهاد رهبران عرب كه با مخالفت وزير امورخارجه ايران مواجه شده، به طرح صلح عربي شهرت يافته و يكي از محورهاي اصلي ميزگردهايي است كه در نشست ويژه مجمع اقتصادي جهاني برگزار مي شود.

اسرائيل از كليت طرح صلح عربي استقبال كرده و نخست وزير اين كشور به پادشاه اردن قول داده كه طرح را بررسي كند، هرچند در عين حال با محورهاي اصلي طرح ابراز مخالفت كرده است.


حامد كرزي رئيس جمهور افغانستان و امير تركي الفيصل سفير پيشين عربستان سعودي در آمريكا نيز در كنار منوچهر متكي در ميزگرد شركت داشتند

وزير امورخارجه ايران نيز در ميزگرد گفته: "وقتي به تاريخچه طرحهاي صلح نگاه مي كنيم مي بينيم كه طي سي سال گذشته حدود 130 طرح صلح مطرح شده اما هيچكدام از آنها به دليل رويكردي كه طرف ديگر (اسرائيل) داشته، تحقق پيدا نكرده است".

در ميزگردي كه اين سخنان در آن ابراز شده، علاوه بر آقاي متكي، حامد كرزي، رئيس جمهور افغانستان، شوكت عزيز، نخست وزير پاكستان، معروف بخيت نخست وزير اردن، شيخ سلمان بن حمد آل خليفه وليعهد بحرين و امير تركي الفيصل سفير پيشين عربستان سعودي در آمريكا نيز شركت داشتند.

نشست ويژه مجمع اقتصاد جهاني در ساحل درياچه بحر ميت برگزار مي شود كه 392 متر پايينتر از سطح درياهاي آزاد قرار دارد و از اين لحاظ، پست ترين مكان روي زمين به شمار مي رود.

در اين نشست حدود هزار تن از سرمايه داران، مديران كلان اقتصادي و سياستمداران جهان شركت دارند و با اينكه برنامه نشست، رشد فرهنگي و اقتصادي خاورميانه اعلام شده، اما عمده مذاكرات نشست در زمينه بحران جاري در عراق و سرزمينهاي فلسطيني است.

نشست بحر ميت در شرايطي برگزار مي شود كه ميان جنبشهاي فتح و حماس، دو گروه اصلي سياسي فلسطيني، درگيري خونيني جريان دارد و ارتش اسرائيل هم حملات پي در پي به مواضع حماس كه در حال حاضر اداره تشكيلات خودگردان فلسطيني را در اختيار دارد، وارد مي سازد.


پادشاه اردن، ميزبان نشست بحر ميت در كنار همسرش ملكه رانيا

نشست بحر ميت و بحران عراق

در ميزگردي كه منوچهر متكي در آن به انتقاد از طرح صلح عربي پرداخت، گرداننده ميزگرد گفت كه حمله آمريكا به عراق كه به سقوط حكومت صدام حسين در اين كشور انجاميد، ناخواسته به ايران كمك كرد كه نفوذ خود را در منطقه گسترش دهد.

آقاي متكي در واكنش به اين نظر گفت: "ما به هيچ كمكي نياز نداريم" اما بلافاصله با لحن شوخي افزود: "بعضيها مي گويند ما پشت درهاي بسته حرف مي زنيم، كدام درها؟ من نمي دانم".

وي در ادامه سخنانش گفت كه ايران علناً به آمريكا نسبت به "اشتباهاتش" در عراق هشدار داده اما آمريكاييها هيچ وقت به اين هشدارها گوش ندادند تا همين اواخر كه گزارش گروه مطالعه عراق در انتقاد از سياست دولت جورج بوش در مورد عراق منتشر شد.

آقاي متكي در اين نشست بار ديگر بر موضع رسمي دولت جمهوري اسلامي تأكيد كرد كه حركتهاي تروريستي را در عراق را ناشي از حضور ارتشهاي بيگانه در اين كشور مي داند و گفت كه آمريكا و متحدانش دير يا زود ناگزير به خارج ساختن نيروهاي خود از عراق خواهند شد.

وي برقراري ثبات و امنيت در عراق را در گرو "راه حلي جامع" دانست.

اظهارات وزير امورخارجه ايران در انتقاد از آمريكا ده روز پيش از موعدي ايراد شد كه قرار است نخستين مذاكره مستقيم ميان ايران و آمريكا پس از 28 سال انجام بگيرد.

آقاي متكي و ديگر مقامات ايراني تاكنون نظر خوشبينانه اي نسبت به موفقيت چنين مذاكره اي ابراز نكرده اند و آقاي متكي در ميزگرد نشست بحرالميت نيز هدف آمريكا از مذاكره با ايران را استفاده تبليغاتي عنوان كرد، هرچند وي در عين حال ابراز اميدواري كرد كه مذاكره با آمريكا بتواند در اصلاح سياست آمريكا در عراق مؤثر شود.

مذاكره ميان ايران و آمريكا قرار است در بغداد برگزار شود و منحصر به مسائل عراق باشد.

جواد لاريجاني در بحر ميت

محمدجواد لاريجاني، برادر بزرگتر علي لاريجاني، مذاكره كننده هسته اي ايران كه در سالهاي دهه هشتاد ميلادي معاونت وزارت خارجه ايران را به عهده داشت نيز با اينكه هم اكنون سمتي سياسي در ايران بر عهده ندارد وزير امورخارجه كشورش را در نشست بحر ميت همراهي مي كند.

پيش از آنكه وزير امورخارجه ايران در نشست بحرالميت اظهاراتي متفاوت با موضع گيري مشهور رئيس جمهور ايران ايراد كند، آقاي لاريجاني طي مصاحبه هايي با رسانه هاي مختلف در حاشيه نشست بحر ميت گفته بود كه سخنان رئيس جمهور ايران در مورد نابودي دولت اسرائيل و محو اين كشور از نقشه جهان نادرست تعبير شده و ايران هيچ طرحي براي محو اسرائيل ندارد.

آقاي لاريجاني در زمان تصدي معاونت وزارت خارجه به ديدگاههاي ميانه رو و گاه متفاوت با سياستهاي رسمي جمهوري اسلامي شهرت داشت.

[Rasputin]

Academics May Boycott Iran Over Scholar's Detainment

Momentum is building behind an academic boycott of Iran to pressure the government to free imprisoned American scholar Haleh Esfandiari, who was jailed in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison on May 8 after more than four months under house arrest.

The Middle East Studies Association of North America, which has 2,700 members worldwide, has written to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warning that the detention of scholars has triggered "grave concern" and that Esfandiari's imprisonment has sent a "chilling message to scholars throughout the world." Esfandiari is director of Middle East programs at the Smithsonian's Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

"Harassment and detention of scholars is always cause for grave concern, but in this case it should be noted that the scholar in question is widely respected both for her knowledge and ability to provide clear and dispassionate analysis," the letter added. It also charged that Iran's action against the 67-year-old grandmother, who was visiting Iran to help her ailing mother, 93, violates the republic's constitution because she has been denied legal counsel.

MIT professor Noam Chomsky also issued a statement yesterday calling Esfandiari's detention "deplorable" and warned that the action by Iran's intelligence ministry was "a gift" to American policymakers trying to organize support for military action against Iran. "Now is a time for diplomacy, negotiations, and relaxation of tensions, in accordance with the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans and Iranians, as recent polls reveal," Chomsky said. "The intolerable treatment of this highly respected scholar and human rights activist severely undermines the efforts of those who are seeking peace, justice and freedom in the region and the world."

In his popular blog, University of Michigan Middle East expert Juan Cole said that he canceled plans to attend a conference this summer in Iran because of Tehran's imprisonment of Esfandiari and called on other academics to do the same. "Everyone should be outraged about this story. Her arrest should be an issue for everyone who believes in human rights, in academic freedom, and in women's rights," he wrote. Cole also suggested that academics and others protest in front of Iranian diplomatic missions.

Although the United States broke off diplomatic relations after the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, American academics have been frequent visitors to conferences in Iran.

"Academics may now feel they are put at risk, but if you have a fellow academic who is highly respected and is being held prisoner for promoting the very contact that Iran has been seeking, that is perfectly good grounds for not going to a conference there," said Gary Sick of Columbia University and a former member of the National Security Council under presidents Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

Iranian prison authorities allowed Esfandiari a one-minute telephone call to her mother yesterday, according to her husband, George Mason University professor Shaul Bakhash. Esfandiari could say only that she was waiting for clarification of her situation.

Iran's judiciary said last week that she was being investigated for "crimes against national security."