Eye On Iran

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

As Iran ignores another Security Council deadline to suspend the enrichment of uranium, the idea of allowing it to engage in limited enrichment under strict inspection is being more widely discussed.

This would be a "third way" solution between the continuation of sanctions, which have been ineffective in stopping Iran's activities, and a military attack, which would plunge the region into conflict and probably not be supported by some of the closest US allies.

So urgent is the situation becoming that there is talk in intelligence circles of mounting operations against Iran in which its purchases of nuclear and missile equipment on the black market (to which it has been forced by sanction to turn) would be sabotaged by the deliberate planting of defective material.




Such operations could, at best, simply slow Iran down, but the US network CBS says that some are already underway. ABC News reports in addition that President Bush has authorised the CIA to conduct what ABC calls "non-lethal covert action against Iran involving propaganda, disinformation and the manipulation of Iran's international banking transactions". These stories indicate that the US is not going to adopt the "third way".


Accept but limit

The concept of a negotiated agreement to accept but also to put limits on enrichment has gained ground with comments from Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN's nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In an interview with the New York Times, he said: "We believe they pretty much have the knowledge about how to enrich.

"From now, it's simply a question of perfecting that knowledge. People will not like to hear it, but that's a fact."

Dr ElBaradei said: "The fact of the matter is that one of the purposes of suspension, keeping them from getting the knowledge, has been overtaken by events."

His remarks immediately led to complaints from the US and those countries most strongly supporting it - Britain, France (President Nicolas Sarkozy holding firm here) and Germany.

Current strategy

They reckon that it undermines the current approach, which is a combination of applying pressure through sanctions (aimed at stopping Iran from getting nuclear and missile technology) and offering help with the development of civilian nuclear energy, as long as enrichment is not part of that.

If Iran gets enrichment technology, then the present strategy will have failed

Mark Fitzpatrick IISS
The British UN ambassador Sir Emyr Jones Parry told reporters in London recently that if Iran did not comply with UN demands, there would be more sanctions. "There will be more of the same - more people and more companies in Iran under sanctions," he said.

The issue is expected to be discussed at the G8 summit in Germany early next month.

Mark Fitzpatrick, nuclear watcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London said that the idea of an enrichment agreement was a "fallback position."

"If Iran gets enrichment technology, then the present strategy will have failed," he said. "However, if this strategy is seriously challenged, there will be tension between those whose impulse is to hold out for suspension and those who think there is a new reality.

"An agreement with Iran would have to limit its enrichment, perhaps to the number of centrifuges it has already installed, and there would have to be a strict system of inspections, with surprise visits. Such a system would have to go beyond the extra measures Iran agreed to some time ago but never ratified. The closest precedent would be what happened in Iraq where inspectors had the power to go where they wanted."

Iran says that it has no intention of building nuclear weapons but is simply exercising its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop fuel to a limited level for use in power stations.

The US and some Western countries argue that Iran does not need to make the fuel itself and that it wants to position itself, at least, to be able to enrich fuel to the higher level needed for a nuclear bomb.

[Rasputin]

وزارت اطلاعات ايران می گويد چند 'شبکه جاسوسی' را که وابسته به آمريکا و متحدانش در عراق هستند، شناسايی کرده است.
رسانه های ايرانی بعد از ظهر روز شنبه پنجم خرداد ماه (بيست و ششم ماه مه) با انتشار بيانيه اين وزارتخانه اعلام کردند که گروه های شناسايی شده در 'مناطق غرب، جنوب غربی و مرکزی ايران' فعاليت می کرده اند.

خبر شناسايی شبکه های جاسوسی و نسبت دادن آنها به 'اشغالگران' در عراق در حالی منتشر می شود که قرار است دو روز ديگر سفيران ايران و آمريکا در بغداد ديدار کنند. اين ملاقات که محور آن وضعيت عراق اعلام شده، اولين برخورد مستقيم دو کشور پس از انقلاب 1979 خواهد بود.

مناطق اعلام شده، به ويژه غرب و جنوب غربی ايران، به دليل همسايگی با عراق، نفت خيز بودن، و حضور پرشمار اقليت های قومی کرد و عرب، از اهميت ويژه ای برای دولتمردان اين کشور برخوردار است.

حساسيت دولت ايران در مورد تحرکات برخی گروه ها در مرزهای غربی اش، از زمان حمله نيروهای ائتلاف تحت رهبری آمريکا به عراق بيشتر شده و مقام های جمهوری اسلامی مکررا آمريکا و بريتانيا را به 'تحريک' برخی جريان ها در اين مناطق متهم کرده اند.

سختگيری در مورد 'رابطه با بيگانگان'

برخی ناظران بر اين باورند که سير رو به وخامت مناقشه هسته ای ايران و افزايش فشارهای خارجی موجب شده مراجع امنيتی و قضائی جمهوری اسلامی برخورد با اشخاص و گروه هايی را که به نوعی مرتبط با کشورهای ديگر - به ويژه آمريکا - هستند، شدت ببخشد.

در هفته های اخير چهار ايرانی با تابعيت دوگانه که به اين کشور سفر کرده بودند، اجازه خروج از ايران نيافته و در مواردی بازجويی و بازداشت شده اند.

بيانيه اخير وزارت اطلاعات ايران جزئيات بيشتری در مورد آنچه 'شبکه های جاسوسی' ناميده شده، اعلام نکرده و تنها از 'سرويس *های اطلاعاتی اشغالگران' و 'برخی جريان *های موثر عراقی' به عنوان هدايت کنندگان اين 'شبکه ها' نام برده است.

پيشتر، در ماه فوريه سال جاری ميلادی (بهمن ماه 1385) غلامحسين محسنی اژه اي، وزير اطلاعات ايران، از شناسايی يکصد جاسوس سازمانهای اطلاعاتی آمريکا و اسرائيل در مناطق مرزی ايران خبر داده بود که به گفته وي، قصد داشته اند به اطلاعات نظامی و سياسی ايران دست يابند.

آقای اژه ای همچنين از طرح "دشمنان" برای تربيت جاسوس در ايران سخن گفته و افزوده بود "تمامی افرادی را که به بهانه گذراندن دوره* های آموزشی و با هدف شرکت در دوره *های آموزشی جاسوسی از کشور خارج شوند، شناسايی و دستگير کرده ايم".

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

The US has called on Iran to stop arming militants in Iraq at the first bilateral public talks between the two countries in almost 30 years.
US envoy Ryan Crocker said his Iranian counterpart had rejected the charges at the four-hour talks in Baghdad, which focused exclusively on Iraq's security.

Both countries agreed that a secure and stable Iraq was in their interests.

Iran's ambassador, Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, described the meeting as a success and said there were plans for future talks.

As the talks ended, a car bomb exploded near an important Sunni mosque in the centre of Baghdad, killing at least 20 people and wounding dozens of others.

'Looking for results'

Speaking after the meeting in the Green Zone, Mr Crocker said he had spelt out Washington's concerns about alleged Iranian support for insurgents who have been attacking Iraqi and US-led forces.

Generally there was a positive fruit from this round of negotiations

Hassan Kazemi-Qomi
Iranian ambassador to Iraq


Timeline: US-Iran ties
Will talks help future of Iraq?

He said the arming of the militia groups, allegedly led by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps' Quds Force, needed to end and that the US would "be looking for results".

The US ambassador to Iraq acknowledged that the Iranians too had made their views clear.

"They made the assertion that the coalition presence was an occupation and that the effort to train and equip the Iraqi security forces had been inadequate to the challenges faced," he said.

Mr Crocker said he had rejected the allegation by making clear that coalition forces were in Iraq at the Iraqi government's request and that the coalition had invested billions of dollars into training and equipping Iraqi forces.

Nevertheless, Mr Crocker said the talks had proceeded "positively" and there had been broad agreement for a "secure, stable, democratic, federal Iraq in control of its own security, at peace with its neighbours".

He also said Washington would consider an Iranian proposal for the setting up of a regular "trilateral security mechanism" incorporating Iraq, Iran and the US to co-ordinate on such matters.

"A point that I made in the meeting is that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss further meetings - it was to lay out concrete concerns as we did and our expectation that action would be taken on them," he added.

'Tense atmosphere'

Iran's ambassador said the talks had been promising.

"Generally there was a positive fruit from this round of negotiations," he told reporters. "[They] were an important first step between the two sides."


Iran criticised the US attempt to create a viable Iraqi security force
Mr Kazemi-Qomi reportedly told the Associated Press that the two sides would meet again in Iraq in less than a month, but one of his assistants later said Tehran would have to be consulted and that no date had been set.

Contrary to suggestions in the Iranian press that he would attack US foreign policy in his speech at the talks, Mr Kazemi-Qomi cited a long list of assistance Iran has given Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein and made a politely worded comment about the poor performance of the coalition authorities.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said the US had sent more than 40 messages to Tehran asking for the meeting in Baghdad.

"I repeatedly asked them to submit a formal request and they eventually did," he told students while on a tour of Isfahan.

Mr Ahmadinejad also said it had been his decision not to broaden the agenda of the talks beyond the security situation in Iraq.

"In their letter they said that they had left the agenda of talks open so that we could negotiate on any other issue, but I gave them a negative response," he said.

There are tensions between Washington and Tehran over a range of issues, including Iran's continuing defiance of international pressure and sanctions over its nuclear programme.

The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says that, given the atmosphere of recrimination currently prevailing between Iran and the US, the remarkable thing is that this meeting took place at all.

Iraq says it hopes the meeting will lead to further dialogue, but the impression is that the Americans will want to see a change in Iranian behaviour before they pursue it much further, our correspondent adds.

[Rasputin]

Rumors have been building for weeks now, and it appears very likely that Condi Rice will finally get to make some genuine international relations history of her own, and become the first US official to formally meet with Iran since the 1979 US embassy takeover and hostage crisis.

Like most, I still feel the deep pain of that most embarrassing moment in our history. Forced to live with a national shame that members of our own tribe could resort to kidnapping and parading captives in blindfolds, only to make the most ridiculous of points.

The points?

That the US has spies? That US foreign policy props up paper dictators like the Shah, Noriega, Pinochet, Saddam, Marcos, and today's Musharraf? That US foreign policy is driven by elitist motives of oil companies, and their paid-for barons in congress? That the US on the outside is a far different place than the US on the inside?

What makes these points ridiculous is that everyone knows them already. And while it may be wrong, nothing justifies resorting to a cowardly act, like taking hostages.

Now I can hear everyone calling me a traitor, and of course we should offer this kind of advice to the Iranian government. And I hope we can do that one day, when we have one that won't kill us for doing so.

But since this website is blocked in Iran, and since I am sure someone in the "State Department" must be reading this esteemed publication hourly for it's "poignant insight", I figure the odds of getting someone's attention are better.

But here's what Condi ought to do, if she meets with her Iranian counterparts:

Shake all of their hands with the cameras rolling. This will establish you as the one with power. Even if they pull away, smile even more broadly and turn to the cameras and joke that you 'don''t bite'. Reach in further and grab their hands in both of yours. If they run away, chase them around the table if you have to. Force them to acknowledge the ridiculousness of their anti-woman proposition.

Apologize for the US led overthrow of Mossadegh, and correct the impression the US tried to portray about him at that time. Admit that Mossadegh was not in fact a communist. Declare Mossadegh a genuine hero of the Iranian people.

Doing this will take some of the wind out of their sails, as no one, not even Khomeini, can compete with a redeemed Mossadegh. It will also let them know that by acknowledging what amounts to the US' biggest mistake in Iran, that had this mistake not been made, you and the people of Iran would not have to deal with these morons in the first place.

Event though I just did, don't treat them like morons.

Based on your low polling numbers, they have the PR upper hand, so defer to their momentary self-perceived greatness, and let them have their current PR win. You've got nothing to go with right now, best to steer clear of any moral arguments. Especially ones you can't defend.

Quickly assure them that the US will not attack or invade Iran, and as soon as Iraq is stable, the US will withdraw all forces, but reserves the right to return should it's security be threatened by anyone in the region.

This will remove the current immediate fear of invasion that they are cunningly holding over the heads the Iranian people, and will hit their internal credibility. With no looming war, people can go back to complaining about lack of basic freedoms and women's rights. For which they have no moral argument.

Stay away from any discussion of Israel. If pressed, remind them that if Cyrus the Great gave back the Jews their homeland, and recognized their right to exist, than you would think the sons of Cyrus would do no less, and honor their, and the world's, father of democracy.

This will immediately put them at odds with their heritage, and show you know their history. But stay away from Israel at all costs. There is no way you can ever justify Israel's position on Palestine.

Since this is a cornerstone of their argument for international meddling, they will try to put you in the indefensible corner to discuss Palestine. Remind them politely that everyone is there to discuss solutions for Iraq, and once this immediate situation is resolved, you are open to their help on that problem as well. This will anger the Iranian critics back home and they will feel the backlash of, "Why do you ruin opportunities to negotiate with the Americans by constantly talking about Palestine all the time!"

What to do if things get out of hand:

Although very rare, sometimes, public spectacle Iranian social situations can get rowdy. Keep in mind you are a woman, and that they fear your mystical powers and that they are really scared that if unchecked, you will unleash your ultimate Femme power and control over them. Know that if you step out of your subjugate role, and talk to them that way they cannot respond even to save face, and shortly after, their heads may actually explode. Especially if you leave the room with their jaws on the floor.

Here are several ways to leave the room with their jaws on the floor:

Mention that you are glad to see that Iran has finally accepted an unveiled woman of authority. That it is good to see Iran actually speaking to an unveiled woman about important issues. You are very concerned though that the respect they have shown you apparently does not extend to Iranian women.

Respecting some non-Iranian women, while disrespecting Iranian women is disingenuous and an insult to all daughters of Cyrus the Great. You hope that this demonstrated example of their willingness to consider an unveiled woman to be valid will be taken back as your gift of hope to all Iranian women.

Or this one could really mess with their minds:

While these talks have been somewhat amusing, you wish that you could actually be negotiating the discussions with the representatives of Iran, and not the toadies of an illegitimate self-appointed religious ruling committee of the Guardian Council. That you are saddened to see the great vision of Khomeini and the hopes of the Iranian people for true freedom and democracy trampled by self serving, corrupt, extremist factions subverting a peaceful religion and Iran's constitution for their own vanity and financial gain.

Then provide the reporters with a list of the personal wealth of each key member of Iran's government and provide Swiss bank account numbers. Make enough copies.

Or this one:

While you appreciate the kind gentlemen coming to today's meeting, you had hoped that you could meet with the freely elected representatives of the free people of Iran. But regrettably since that does not exist, you frankly don't see the point in any further discussions. Then get up and leave. As you get to the door, turn and say, '"Please let Mr. Ahmadinejad know that since he too was not freely elected by the free people of Iran, that the US cannot grant him any kind of foreign leader status. Even to speak at the UN. Although he is free to apply for a tourist visa as an Iranian citizen, at any US consulate in the world.

And finally:

Ask to present a video before speaking, then show all the Discovery channel footage from nuclear weapons testing. The small wood frame house exploding, the 1950's era US soldiers in the trenches covering their eyes from being hit by the shock wave dust in Nevada, the silhouetted ships at sea, mushroom cloud after mushroom cloud, and that shot of a Big Boy dropping to the ground out of the airplane's bomb bay. Try to pick footage that shows Nevada, which looks uncannily a lot like Iran.

Then ask them to seriously consider what the sons and daughters of Zal and Rostam would want them to do. And to stop consulting with the Deev.

Keep smiling, because nothing throws an Iranian man off topic more, than a smiling woman.

[Rasputin]

TEL AVIV - The short, sudden twitch on his shoulders are becoming more visible and frequent. They usually erupt when he is addressing large crowds. Maybe its because he is excited, or because he is nervous. No one can be sure. Yet, he turns into a completely different person when he is giving TV interviews, especially to foreign reporters. Suddenly, the twitches disappear. It's as if he is in a trance. In such circumstances, he is a postcard picture of a confident Pasdar (Revolutionary Guard).

I use to have a teacher like him at school. He too was a Pasdar. Friendly, and at times nervous. But when we used to ask him to recount his war stories, it was as if someone flipped a switch. His eyes would shine, his back would straighten, and his voice would boom with confidence.

The same happens to Ahmadinejad. In front of the camera, on one to one interviews, his hands barely move. He gazes straight at the interviewer. He blinks, and moves his head, ever so slightly. The camera seems to give him comfort. Maybe its because the camera, unlike the students at Amir Kabir University , does not have the capability to answer back, and to scream “Death to the Dictator”. The very fact that he only answers to foreign reporters in Farsi is another comfort. He does speak English. In fact, according to his school friends, his English is good.

Ahmadinejad is a man who likes to be in charge. He is much more of a lone wolf than Khatami. He was a leader who worked through consensus. Ahmadinejad on the other hand, when it comes to making decisions, does not believe in Mardom Salari (democracy). He believes that he knows what is best, and if anyone stands in his way, he will either ignore them, or push them away. This trait was visible when he was the Mayor of Tehran. Apparently he was a good Mayor, but he was very moody. He would treat his employees very harshly. Ahmadinejad would not think twice about sacking someone, if he did not like them, or thought that they were not conservative like him.

His children, especially his oldest son Mahdi do not seem to be as dedicated to the revolution, as Ahmadinejad and his wife are. An engineering student at the Daneshgahe Elm Va San'at (University of Science and Technology ), he was sacked from the Islamic Students Union, because he was too lazy. Ali Reza, his youngest son, is a huge Internet fan. Ahmadinejad complained about the huge phone bill which Ali Reza racked up during his electioneering campaign. He too is studying engineering, and hangs around with Basiji students, but does not hold a high position like his brother Mahdi did. Ahmadinejad's oldest child, a girl, married soon after the election of her father. She is an electronics engineer. His wife is an engineer too, a Mechanical one. A family of engineers. Maybe the Ahmadinejads bottle fed jadvale zarb (multiplication table) to their kids in their infancy. If they did, it worked.

Ahmadinejad's wife is an especially interesting character. She has a masters, and is a lecturer these days. Despite the fact that she is very conservative, and is a good cook (according to Ahmadinejad) she is not a stay at home kind of person. She has a big influence on Ahmadinejad's feminist beliefs and has apparently acquired a taste for traveling on the presidential Boeing 707, with her husband. She has been on a number a foreign trips with him, including Malaysia and the US . She should not get too used to it. Its very likely that after 2009 her husband will lose his flight privileges, along with his presidency. The upcoming petrol rationing scheme would quite probably deal a mortal below to his chances to get reelected. One can almost hear Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf rubbing his hands in absolute glee.

Many people denounce George Bush, because they say that he is too stubborn. He wants to “stay the course” in Iraq , despite all the failures, because to change would be out of character. Ahmadinejad, compared to President Bush is the master of the “staying the course” concept. To him, change, especially in ideology tantamounts to treason. This is not because of show. There are more important reasons than that, related to his past. Ahmadinejad is not a particularly brilliant person. Nor is he a good politician.

One of the biggest factors which got him where he is today, is his refusal to change. This can be seen as far back as his childhood. In the early 1970s, when more and more young people and families were becoming secular in Shah's Iran , Ahmadinejad stayed true to his father Ahmad's religious teachings. So when the revolution did happen, people like Ayatollah Beheshti noticed his genuine religious loyalty and therefore helped him move up the ladder, because he was more trustworthy. Beheshti who had lived in Germany , had seen his fair share of overnight revolutionaries, who had suddenly put on a beard, in search of power and position. He did not trust them.

After the revolution, and after the war especially, many Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guards) entered private business, and made millions through shady companies and deals. Ahmadinejad however, continued to work as a civil servant, until he ran for president. Nor did he change his beliefs. During the late 1990s and early 2000, many opportunist Pasdaran and conservatives, changed colors, and joined the ranks of reformists. Not Ahmadinejad. He was one of the most vocal opponents of the reformists, even at the height of their power. Such qualities got him noticed with Ayatollah Khamenei, who in 2005 was looking for a loyal soldier as president. This is one of the main reasons behind Khamenei's support for Ahmadinejad, without which he would not become president.

Mahmoud Saborjian was born in 1956 in the village of Aradan, in the province of Semnan. On the advice of his uncle who lived in Tehran , his father Ahmad, and his mother Seyyede Khanoom, moved to Tehran . They changed jobs, and surname. They had seven children. The fourth one is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the sixth president of post revolution Iran.

[Rasputin]

This week Paris will host the greatest gathering of Iran’s pro-democracy forces ever assembled to overthrow the Islamic Regime through a non-violent civil disobedience movement.

The Iran Solidarity Assembly (“Hambastegi Melli”) of Paris has been an enormous undertaking that has been three years in the making. Over two-hundred political luminaries will attend the invitation-only event. However, millions of Iranians will be following the proceedings with the help of Voice of America, Radio Farda, Radio Israel, The BBC and independent Iranian broadcasters such as: Channel One, Pars TV and Radio Sedaye Iran.

The Iran Solidarity Assembly includes representatives of virtually all of Iran’s various political, ethnic, social and economic groups who have assembled together for the first time ever to ask the free world to stand in solidarity with them as they begin to coordinate the efforts of pro-democracy forces inside Iran to over throw the Islamic regime.

The attendees include representatives from the following political families: the Socialists, the Liberal Democrats, the Republicans, the federalists and those who support a parliamentary monarchy similar to those of Spain, Netherlands and the United Kingdom. All in all, over thirty-five political parties will attend. Many of the supporters of Iran Solidarity supported the Iran referendum movement when Khatami was in power and the world still did not recognize the danger of the Islamic Republic.

The attendees will also include the leaders of various tribes and ethnic groups of Iran including: Koomaleh and the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran.

However, by far, the most important and unique aspect of the assembly will be the presence of various social and economic groups from Iran who have struggled in isolation to protect the very limited rights and freedoms that they have left. The assembly will have representatives of the following groups: the women, the students, the various ethnic and religious minorities, political prisoners, teachers, journalists and bloggers, dissident clerics, civil rights attorneys, laborers, union members and doctors and nurses.

Iran Solidarity hopes to unify and coordinate the various efforts of these different groups to attempt to organize an independent, home-grown, grass-roots civil disobedience movement that will help the various groups coordinate to allow the Iran Solidarity Movement to reach a critical mass that will cause the toppling of the Iranian regime.

Iran Solidarity will seek to address the desire of the overwhelming number of Iranians for freedom by unveiling a credible, all-inclusive leadership that will for the first-time provide the people of Iran with an alternative that they can believe in and fight for. Iranians do not want Ahmadinejad and theocratic rule. However, they have never been presented with an alternative that they can support and fight for. Iran Solidarity will change that.

The free world has been faced with two undesirable options: appeasing a nuclear-armed terrorist state that wishes to destroy the world or war. The people of Iran are presenting the world with a third choice: a secular democratic Iran living in peace with its neighbors and the world.

Lets help the people of Iran. Lets stand with the Iran Solidarity Movement. Your messages of solidarity will be transmitted to the people of Iran.

[Rasputin]

Iran's liberal press tiptoes between "red lines"

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Mohammad Quchani has worked for 11 newspapers that were closed by the Iranian authorities and most never reopened. So he won't predict how long the daily which he launched last month as editor will survive.

"It depends on political issues and it also depends on how the newspaper proceeds," the 30-year-old said in the central Tehran offices of Ham Mihan (Compatriot).

For newspapers like Ham Mihan which back the ideas of Iran's liberal-leaning reformist camp, avoiding closure demands a careful balancing act -- pushing the boundaries of criticism but staying within sometimes obscure political "red lines."

The situation is more nuanced than the image of Iran portrayed by critics in the west, of a system that represses all critical opinion. There are Iranian commentators who even see signs of a fragile revival for reformist publications.

But journalists say it is still easy to fall foul of the authorities -- particularly since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005 with speeches against the West and those he sees challenging the values of the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Sharq, the reformist daily Quchani previously worked for, was closed in September for a range of offences, which included defying demands that it replace its managing director, who was accused of blasphemy and insulting officials.

At the time, some journalists saw the move as part of the government's efforts to silence any opposition -- a charge officials dismiss, saying the government welcomes criticism.

Initially, many of the Sharq journalists launched a new title -- following a pattern that emerged in the late 1990s when dozens of reformist newspapers were shut, only to be opened under a different guise, some publishing for just days.

The authorities quickly saw the new paper as a thinly veiled version of Sharq and shut it. But Sharq fought its closure in court and won. In May it republished.

NO-GO AREAS

"We will do whatever we can not to have any legal problems. We will respect those 'red lines' that we can understand, not to pass beyond them," said Managing Director Mahdi Rahmanian, 40, whose removal had originally been demanded by the authorities.

Iran's nuclear row with the West is a subject which requires "sensitive and careful" coverage, he said. Judiciary news "we are a bit careful about." He is wary about military stories. And other ministries "complain this is our red line."

"But our problem is sometimes we don't know where are the prohibited areas," he added.

Other journalists say there is a level playing field for all newspapers. Amir Mohebian, political editor of the conservative Resalat, says that broadly "we have freedom to publish our ideas, both ... reformist and conservative."

Even without the challenge of no-go areas, battling for readers is tough: Iran's biggest circulation daily, Hamshahri, sells some 400,000 copies a day, compared with Sharq's 70,000, in a country of about 70 million.

Hamshahri is an organ of Tehran council and its view has swung from reformist to conservative with swings in the make-up of the municipality.

Smaller papers fight for advertising. Struggling to make ends meet with newsstand sales, they often need a wealthy patron.

Quchani said advertisers were being scared away by "the authorities" from buying space in his newspaper, a charge that could not be independently verified.

FRAGILE RECOVERY

Some see the republication of Sharq and launch of Ham Mihan as a modest revival for Iran's reformists, who want more social and political freedoms and better ties with the world.

Iran is now under U.N. sanctions for not stopping work that the West says is to build atomic bombs, a charge Tehran denies.

"This sort of sign shows that, in spite of the hardline pressure in the political field, the pragmatist branch of the political system is still working," said Tehran University professor Hamidreza Jalaiepour.

Ahmadinejad's opponents -- a group that increasingly spans both reformists and more pragmatic politicians like former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani -- have recovered some of their poise since his presidential victory.

In the city council elections in December, Ahmadinejad's supporters were roundly trounced, particularly in Tehran.

But others say the recovery of a more moderate voice in Iranian politics is fragile. Analysts point to the arrest of U.S.-Iranians on charges of spying as the latest sign those who oppose rapprochement with the West are still in charge.

Iranian blog sites, which often carry reports and opinion, are regularly blocked by the authorities.

Some say the survival of the two reformist newspapers may be partly because the authorities want to show the world Iran allows political debate, particularly as groups position themselves ahead of the 2008 parliament elections.

Others say it is a purely legal matter and that papers like Sharq and Ham Mihan have shown a greater readiness to stay within the "red lines" so that they will at least have some voice to influence debate ahead of the March 14 polls.

"When we get closer to the parliamentary election, we will see them publish because, I feel, they accepted to work inside the framework of the law," said Mohebian.

[Rasputin]

Many analysts have often stated that Iran is the primary benefactor of America’s “War on Terror.” The experts’ analysis, however, may be a little short-sighted. Prior to the start of “War on Terror,” Iran was virtually surrounded by two hostile regimes: Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. With the demise of these regimes at the hands of U.S.-led Coalition Forces, Iran has emerged as a major regional powerhouse.

Iran’s Islamic government has nurtured the Shia Islamic parties that now wield enormous power both in Iraq’s government and on its streets in the form of militias. Iran has also forged a defense pact with Syria, its main ally in the region. The militant group Hezbollah, which forms one of the Lebanon’s major power centers, was a creation of Iran’s foreign policy in cooperation with Syria. To the east, Iran continues to exert significant political and cultural influence in post-Taliban Afghanistan, particularly in bordering provinces. For these reasons, Iran can be marked as a rising regional force.

Iran’s newfound strength, however, is not unchallenged and therefore may not last. Recent events in the region indicate a concerted effort by the U.S. and Israel, along with the tacit support of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, to not only contain Iran’s rise, but also to roll it back.

Last summer’s Hezbollah-Israel war was a step in that direction. Although the war began with Hezbollah’s cross-border raid, it gave the Israeli government the green light to destroy Hezbollah; this was one of Prime Minister Olmert’s stated main objectives, and was implicitly endorsed by the Bush Administration. Indeed, the U.S. and Israel were hoping to decimate Hezbollah as part of a wider strategy related to Iran’s nuclear plans. The aim of destroying Hezbollah can be viewed as part of a broader plan to roll back Iran’s influence in Lebanon so as to isolate Iran in regards to its nuclear program.

Israel has now hinted to the Syrian government its willingness to return the Golan Heights, which were captured in 1967, provided that Syria break its pact with Iran and end its support for Hezbollah.

The Syrian government has always viewed Hezbollah as a bargaining chip to use against Israel in its pursuit to regain the Golan Heights. Now, with the emergence of nuclear Iran, Israel may be willing to return the occupied land to Syria in an attempt to weaken its greater enemy, Iran.

The U.S., indicating a change in American policy, encouraged Israel’s offer to Syria:

In the past, Israeli and U.S. officials have said privately that Washington didn't want Israel to talk with Syria, because of its ties to militants in Iraq and its meddling in Lebanon. But Bush is under pressure from allies, lawmakers and advisers who think Washington should improve relations with Syria in an effort to isolate Iran. [AP news]

The Bush Administration’s decision to send more than 20,000 U.S. troops into Baghdad can also be viewed with Iran in mind. The surge has disproportionately targeted the pro-Iran groups in Baghdad, mainly the anti-American cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, who once declared that he and his al-Mahdi Army would defend Iran in the case of a U.S. attack.

Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are supporting the Israeli and American agenda for Iran, as they have time and again stated their hostility to a nuclear Iran whose Islamic revolutionary ideology challenges their governments’ legitimacy.

So what does all this mean? Iran spends less than one percent of what America spends on defense, meaning Iran cannot flex its muscle against the American military. Iran’s strength comes from is alliances, influence, and strongholds in the region. Iran’s regional clout is its playing card against any U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In other words, Iran’s Islamic government is telling the U.S.: “If you strike us, we will wreak havoc on you and your interests in the region.”

Indeed, with less than 600 days left in the Bush presidency, the events of this past year show a growing trend to isolate Iran over its nuclear program. The Israeli aim of destroying Hezbollah in Lebanon in last summer’s 34-day war, Israel’s attempts to isolate Iran by offering to return the Golan Heights in exchange for Syria’s cessation of military ties with Iran, and the surge in American forces in Iraq and their disproportionate targeting of pro-Iran groups, all signify that the U.S. government and Israel are working to roll back Iran’s regional power in time for a showdown over Iran’s nuclear plans.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Analysts trace the broadening crackdown to a March speech by Ayatollah Khamenei, whose pronouncements carry the weight of law. He warned that no one should damage national unity when the West was waging psychological war on Iran. The country has been under fire, particularly from the United States, which accuses it of trying to develop nuclear weapons and fomenting violence in Iraq.

President Ahmadinejad and other senior officials have dismissed all the criticism as carping. The president blames the previous administration for inflation or calls it media exaggeration, while Tehran’s chief prosecutor, Said Mortazavi, said Iranians who oppose the Islamic Republic look for an excuse to criticize it.

After a meeting of senior police and judiciary officials in Tehran on June 19 to review what was described as “the public security drive,” the Iranian Labor News Agency quoted Mr. Mortazavi as saying that if the state did not protect public security, then “louts” and criminals “would be safe in society.

The three Iranian-Americans are being held in the notorious Section 209 of Evin Prison, the wing controlled by the Intelligence Ministry, and have been denied visits by their lawyers or relatives. Iran recognizes only their Iranian nationality and has dismissed any diplomatic efforts to intervene. A rally to demand their release is set for Wednesday outside the United Nations.

The three are Haleh Esfandiari, the director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; Kian Tajbakhsh, an urban planning consultant with the Open Society Institute; and Ali Shakeri, of the Center for Citizen Peacebuilding at the University of California, Irvine. A fourth, Parnaz Azima, a journalist who works for Radio Farda, an American-financed station based in Europe, has been barred from leaving the country.

“People don’t want to come to conferences, they don’t even want to talk on the phone,” said Abbas Milani, the director of the Iranian studies program at Stanford University. “The regime has created an atmosphere of absolute terror.”

To the political crackdown, Mr. Ahmadinejad adds a messianic fervor, Mr. Milani noted, telling students in Qom this month that the Muslim savior would soon return.

The appeal of such a message may be limited, however. Iran’s sophisticated middle class wants to be connected to the world, and grumbles that the country’s only friends are Syria, Belarus, Venezuela and Cuba. But it might play well with Mr. Ahmadinejad’s main constituency.

“They are the poor, the rural,” said Vali Nasr of the Council on Foreign Relations. “They don’t travel abroad, they don’t go to conferences. He is trying to undermine the social and political position of his rivals in order to consolidate his own people.”

Most ascribe Mr. Ahmadinejad’s motives to blocking what could become a formidable alliance between the camps of Mr. Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani, both former presidents. Parliamentary elections are scheduled for early next year, and the next presidential vote in 2009.

“Having to face a single pragmatic conservative and reform block is extremely threatening,” Mr. Nasr said, hence the intimidation of all possible supporters.

Not that everyone has been intimidated. More than 50 leading economists published a harshly worded, open letter to the president saying his policies were bringing economic ruin. High unemployment persists, there has been little foreign investment and inflation is galloping, with gasoline alone jumping 25 percent this spring.

Gasoline rationing is expected within a month, with consumers so anxious about it, reported the Web site Ruz, financed by the Dutch government, that s***mishes broke out in long lines at some pumps on June 17.

Iran can prove a difficult country to separate into black and white. Amid all the recent oppression, for example, last week the public stoning of a couple — the punishment for adultery — was called off. Women’s rights advocates had been agitating against it.

Also, two recent movies touched off controversy as too racy. One depicted an extramarital affair, and the hero of the second was an abortion doctor who drank and gambled, and yet was so beloved of the patients he had seduced that they sent him bouquets on his wedding night.

In an attempt to deflect criticism that its standards had grown loose, the Ministry of Islamic Guidance, which vets all books, movies and gallery exhibits, issued a statement noting that both scripts had been approved under the former administration of Mr. Khatami.

[Rasputin]

انتصاب فاميلي - همسر متكي معاون وزارت امور خارجه
معاونت حقوق بشر و زنان وزارت امور خارجه مسئوليت پيگيري پرونده هاي حقوق بشري جمهوري اسلامي ايران در محافل گوناگون بين المللي و ارتباط با شوراي حقوق بشر را بر عهده دارد.
مدير كل اداره حقوق بشر و زنان وزارت امور خارجه منصوب شد .

به گزارش خبرنگار « فردا »، منوچهر متكي وزير امور خارجه، همسر خود را به عنوان مشاور خود و مدير كل اداره حقوق بشر و زنان وزارت امور خارجه منصوب نمود.

پروانه نظر در حالي به اين سمت منصوب مي شود كه سياست هاي دولت نهم، پيش از اين بر دوري از فاميل گرايي و انتصاب بر اساس شايسته سالاري عنوان شده بود .

اين معاونت مسئوليت پيگيري پرونده هاي حقوق بشري جمهوري اسلامي ايران در محافل گوناگون بين المللي و ارتباط با شوراي حقوق بشر را بر عهده دارد.

[Rasputin]

IF IRAN were to decide to end its high-wire defiance of the UN Security Council and open negotiations for a diplomatic solution to the stand-off over its nuclear work—telling all about its nuclear past and suspending production of potentially bomb-useable uranium and plutonium—it would need to find a ladder to climb down on. Constructing one has been the aim of European diplomats in months of off again, on again talks. So far, to no avail.

Suspension, Iran insists, is out. Instead, as the council has stepped up sanctions, Iran has speeded up the installation of centrifuge machines at its enrichment plant at Natanz and cut back co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's watchdog. So what to make of a new offer from Iran's nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, to talk to the IAEA about answering its inspectors' persistent questions?

Last year, in an effort to avoid being referred to the Security Council for its egregious breaches of nuclear safeguards, Iran offered to clear up all outstanding issues in just three weeks. It never did. Inspectors want answers about undocumented imports of nuclear kit, unexplained traces of plutonium and enriched uranium, suspected military links to what is claimed to be a peaceful nuclear programme, and the possession of documents and the conduct of experiments that make little sense except as part of a weapons programme.

Sceptics note that Mr Larijani's latest offer (talks about ways to provide answers, rather than just giving them) comes as sanctions discussions—on the agenda of George Bush's meeting next week with Russia's Vladimir Putin—are set to resume at the UN. Yet for months Iran has insisted it would not co-operate in the inspectors' quest until its case was returned from the Security Council to the IAEA.

The agency's director-general, Mohamed ElBaradei, professes himself encouraged by the apparent change of heart. In a report to the IAEA's 35-nation board in June, Mr ElBaradei had called Iran's obstruction of the inspectors' work “disconcerting and regrettable”.

In his talks with European diplomats, Mr Larijani has also toyed with the idea of a time-limited suspension of enrichment work—only to be overruled by his bosses in Tehran, says Gary Samore of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. It was never clear whether his aim was to get negotiations started without too much loss of face or just to head off sanctions. Offering to dribble more information to inspectors may likewise be a play for time.

This week Mr Larijani praised Mr ElBaradei for an earlier controversial suggestion that Iran might as well be allowed to continue limited enrichment, since it had already mastered many of the skills. Mr Larijani also knows that both Russia and China are unenthusiastic in principle about sanctions. By sounding emollient rather than defiant, he may be hoping they will all help keep the UN off his back.

And if they don't, or won't? Pointing out what Iran needs to do to restore its nuclear reputation and searching for ways to get negotiations going may not be time wasted. Eventually, the diplomats hope, Iran, in an increasingly tight spot, will reach for both as its ladder to climb down on. But no one is holding their breath.

[Rasputin]

VIENNA, Austria - The U.S. and its allies are reviewing a proposal that would commit the U.N. Security Council to hold off on new sanctions on Iran if the country stops further development of its uranium enrichment program, diplomats said Friday.

The public stance by Washington and its key backers remains a full enrichment freeze — Iran not only would have to stop expanding its capacities, but also would need to stop reprocessing of nuclear material and building equipment used for that process.

But the review reflects a potential compromise by accepting Iran's relatively advanced enrichment program — at least initially — in exchange for renewed multilateral negotiations that aim at a long-term freeze and a rollback of the activity.

Diplomats told The Associated Press earlier this month that while the United States remained opposed, the idea was being informally discussed among Britain, France and Germany as a possible way of ending the deadlock over enrichment and permitting a resumption of talks on the issue.

On Friday, they said that the idea had become more concrete with Britain recently drafting a proposal that now was being circulated among the six nations seeking to engage Iran at the negotiating table — the United States and the four other Security Council members and Germany.

Existence of a British draft was first reported by Newsweek on Friday.

"The 'freeze for freeze' is an apparent precondition for the negotiations," said one of the diplomats, alluding to Security Council readiness to "freeze" work on new sanctions if Tehran agrees to keep the status-quo on enrichment and agrees to resume negotiations. "But the ultimate goal remains long-term suspension."

The potential compromise on enrichment comes amid other encouraging indications of movement on the nuclear impasse, with Iran recently pledging to answer key outstanding questions on nearly two decades of nuclear activities — most of it clandestine until revealed by a dissident group four years ago.

Beside demanding an enrichment freeze — and a stop to construction of a plutonium-producing reactor — the Security Council has called on Iran to provide answers to the International Atomic Energy Agency on activities that could be linked to a weapons program and has slapped two sets of sanctions on Tehran because of its defiance.

While the key issue remains enrichment, any follow-through by Iran on its decision to share sensitive information with the IAEA could feed sentiment for a compromise that would allow it to retain some elements of its enrichment program.

Officials told the AP last month that Iran had considered stopping some — but not all — of its enriched-uranium producing centrifuges last year in exchange for negotiations. But the U.S., Britain and France continued to insist on a full freeze.

The issue gained in importance last month when IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei sent a report to the Security Council that says Iran has expanded its enrichment activities instead of freezing them — a finding that could act as a trigger for a third set of sanctions.

The compromise being discussed derives from a Swiss proposal under which Iran would not expand its enrichment work in exchange for the Security Council not imposing further sanctions while diplomats pursue a resumption of formal negotiations.

Multilateral talks with Iran broke off in August 2005 after Tehran rejected an offer of political and economic incentives in exchange for a pledge for long-term suspension and resumed its enrichment activities.

Since then, Iran has repeatedly said an enrichment freeze was out of the question while the six world powers insisted they would accept nothing less as a condition for resuming negotiations.