 |
| |
|
|
oedo
|
 |
and the revolution
Feb 2000
time: 05:28
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?nav=hptop_tb
quote:
U.S. Eyes Pressing Uprising In Iran
Officials Cite Al Qaeda Links, Nuclear Program
y Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 25, 2003; Page A01
The Bush administration, alarm-ed by intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda operatives in Iran had a role in the May 12 suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia, has suspended once-promising contacts with Iran and appears ready to embrace an aggressive policy of trying to destabilize the Iranian government, administration officials said.
Senior Bush administration officials will meet Tuesday at the White House to discuss the evolving strategy toward the Islamic republic, with Pentagon officials pressing hard for public and private actions that they believe could lead to the toppling of the government through a popular uprising, officials said.
The State Department, which had encouraged some form of engagement with the Iranians, appears inclined to accept such a policy, especially if Iran does not take any visible steps to deal with the suspected al Qaeda operatives before Tuesday, officials said. But State Department officials are concerned that the level of popular discontent there is much lower than Pentagon officials believe, leading to the possibility that U.S. efforts could ultimately discredit reformers in Iran.
In any case, the Saudi Arabia bombings have ended the tentative signs of engagement between Iran and the United States that had emerged during the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.
U.S. and Iranian officials had met periodically to discuss issues of mutual concern, including search- and-rescue missions and the tracking down of al Qaeda operatives. But, after the suicide bombings at three residential compounds in Riyadh, the Bush administration canceled the next planned meeting.
"We're headed down the same path of the last 20 years," one State Department official said. "An inflexible, unimaginative policy of just say no."
U.S. officials have also been deeply concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons program, which has the support of both elected reformers and conservative clerics. The Bush administration has pressed the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, to issue a critical report next month on Iran's nuclear activities. Officials have sought to convince Russia and China -- two major suppliers of Iran's nuclear power program -- that Iran is determined to possess nuclear weapons, a campaign that one U.S. official said is winning support.
But a major factor in the new stance toward Iran consists of what have been called "very troubling intercepts" before and after the Riyadh attacks, which killed 34 people, including nine suicide bombers. The intercepts suggested that al Qaeda operatives in Iran were involved in the planning of the bombings.
Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld accused Iran of harboring al Qaeda members. "There's no question but that there have been and are today senior al Qaeda leaders in Iran, and they are busy," Rumsfeld said. Iranian officials, however, have vehemently denied that they have granted al Qaeda leaders safe haven in the country.
Until the Saudi bombings, some officials said, Iran had been relatively cooperative on al Qaeda. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Iran has turned over al Qaeda officials to Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. In talks, U.S. officials had repeatedly warned Iranian officials that if any al Qaeda operatives in Iran are implicated in attacks against Americans, it would have serious consequences for relations between the two countries.
Those talks, however, were held with representatives of Iran's foreign ministry. Other parts of the Iranian government are controlled not by elected reformers, but by conservative mullahs.
A senior administration official who is skeptical of the Pentagon's arguments said most of the al Qaeda members -- fewer than a dozen -- appear to be located in an isolated area of northeastern Iran, near the border with Afghanistan. He described the area as a drug-smuggling terrorist haven that is tolerated by key members of the Revolutionary Guards in part because they skim money off some of the activities there. It is not clear how much control the central Iranian government has over this area, he said.
"I don't think the elected government knows much about it," he said. "Why should you punish the rest of Iran," he asked, just because the government cannot act in this area?
Flynt Leverett, who recently left the White House to join the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, said the administration may be taking a gamble. "It is imprudent to assume that the Islamic Republic will collapse like a house of cards in a time frame that is going to be meaningful to us," he said. "What it means is we will end up with an Iran that has nuclear weapons and no dialogue with the United States with regard to our terrorist concerns."
Ever since President Bush labeled Iran last year as part of an "axis of evil" -- along with North Korea and Iraq -- the administration has struggled to define its policy toward the Islamic republic, which terminated relations with the United States after Iran's 1979 revolution. The administration never formally adopted a policy of "regime change," but it also never seriously tried to establish a dialogue.
In July, Bush signaled a harder line when he issued a strongly worded presidential statement in which he praised large pro-democracy street demonstrations in Iran. Administration officials said at the time that they had abandoned any hope of working with President Mohammad Khatami and his reformist allies in the Iranian government, and would turn their attention toward democracy supporters among the Iranian people.
But the prospect of war with Iraq reopened some discreet contacts, which took place under U.N. supervision in Europe. The contacts encouraged some in the State Department to believe that there was an opening for greater cooperation.
In an interview in February with the Los Angeles Times, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage drew a distinction between the confrontational approach the administration had taken with Iraq and North Korea and the approach it had adopted with Iran. "The axis of evil was a valid comment, [but] I would note there's one dramatic difference between Iran and the other two axes of evil, and that would be its democracy. [And] you approach a democracy differently," Armitage said.
At one of the meetings, in early January, the United States signaled that it would target the Iraq-based camps of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK), or People's Mujaheddin, a major group opposing the Iranian government.
The MEK soon became caught up in the policy struggle between the State Department and the Pentagon.
After the camps were bombed, the U.S. military arranged a cease-fire with the group, infuriating the Iranians. Some Pentagon officials, impressed by the military discipline and equipment of the thousands of MEK troops, began to envision them as a potential military force for use against Tehran, much like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
But the MEK is also listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department. Under pressure from State, the White House earlier this month ordered the Pentagon to disarm the MEK troops -- a decision that was secretly conveyed by U.S. officials to Iranian representatives at a meeting in Geneva on May 3.
Nine days later, the suicide bombers struck in Saudi Arabia. |
the usual suspects: nuclear weapons and terrorism.
this is how it started in Iraq as well one year ago. now the US is raising enmity on one of the most civilized and progressive countries of the Middle East. 
where will this all end? 
Last edited by oedo on 25-05-2003 at 21:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:28
|
|
I dont think there will be any "new" wars until after the 2004 elections.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
We haven't exactly been on friendly terms since that whole embassy invasion thing. |
Well, we know what your last regime change in Iran created about 20 years later.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Btw, this should be of interest to DanS:
quote:
In an interview in February with the Los Angeles Times, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage drew a distinction between the confrontational approach the administration had taken with Iraq and North Korea and the approach it had adopted with Iran. "The axis of evil was a valid comment, [but] I would note there's one dramatic difference between Iran and the other two axes of evil, and that would be its democracy. [And] you approach a democracy differently," Armitage said. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Well US policy has reformers and mullahs agreeing on one thing: getting nukes as fast as possible.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eli
quote:
till an f-15 arrives , ...... with Israeli airforce markings |
Unlike Iraq, the Irani nuclear problem is relatively decentralized. One strike against the reactor is not going to completely destroy their nuclear development capability.
The way to do it is to either use lots of missiles, and Israel isnt capable of it, take a huge risk by flying half of the IAF to various targets in Iran simultaneosly, or convince Uncle Sam to use his B-2 bombers.  |
hi ,
we got more long range missiles to hit them then they have places to hide , .... 
as for uncle sam , iran might better behave or they might get the same as afga and iraq , .....
as for the f-15's , they shall have upto date intel and hit the right place at the right time , .....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:28
|
|
"this is how it started in Iraq as well one year ago. now the US is raising enmity on the most civilized and progressive country of the Middle East. "
We are rasing emnity, while they are supporting Al Qaeda!?
I don't see how you call Iran a civlized and progressive country. That country is still a well known supporter of terrorism(Hezbollah, etc.) and is still a theocracy.
"The days fo the Islamic republic as is are already numbered, due to purely Iranian developments. It will take many years, but change is inevitable."
Nothing is inevitable. All those who hold true power, the mullahs, are backed and supported by a lorge force with guns, and they believe enforcing Sharia on the country is the will of Allah. They have shown willingness to ignore democratic pressure before, even when Khatami was being elected by over 70%. Iran's mullahs will not go quietly.
"
Eh? The population certainly is fundamentally opposed to the mullahs--those who hold the real power."
Correct, the people there would prefer a liberal state, not the current government in power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
Yeh, the "most progressive" line brought a chuckle from me. The mullahs have been cracking down on colored head scarves in the last couple of weeks. Yeh, that's progressive.  |
Ph my god! I mena, Iranina women can vote, they can get university degrees, they can join politics and be elcted..but if they can't wear colored headgear, well, it murder!!
If we take women's rights as a sign or porgressiveness, the Iran is certainly better than say, Saudi Arabia, our biggest arms customer in the region.
When was the last time anyone here hear learn about "reformist" papers in any of the big US allies? Sure, the Ayahotollahs close the, but to close somehting means it must have had a chance to open, and many keep popping up and up. And Iran has had far more pratcie with elections in the last 20 years than the vast majority of Arab states, and not fraulent, staged elections, but elections were actual political parties not tied to the government can win.
Get the tersm right DanS: Ayahtollahs, not Mullahs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:28
|
|
The days fo the Islamic republic as is are already numbered, due to purely Iranian developments. It will take many years, but change is inevitable.
I agree with GePap on this. Or, more to the point, we don't know how long it will take, but perhaps years. However, the developments aren't purely Iranian, although mostly. Those who want to risk jail time can put up a dish and pull in monarchist and democratic channels from Los Angeles. As far as I can tell, this reaches upwards of 10-20% of the population. The internet is also connecting the Iranian diaspora in the West with those in-country.
If we take women's rights as a sign or porgressiveness, the Iran is certainly better than say, Saudi Arabia, our biggest arms customer in the region.
I agree. But does a favorable comparison to Saudi Arabia suddenly make you the most progressive country in the region? Puleeez.
and many keep popping up and up
From what I can tell, those papers do not keep popping up, god bless them. Most of the Iranian dissidents appear to be becoming dissillusioned by how little they have accomplished recently.
Get the tersm right DanS: Ayahtollahs, not Mullahs.
Mullahs is the right term as well. So piss off. 
Last edited by DanS on 25-05-2003 at 21:01
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-05-2003 16:05
|