WAR against IRAN
For the reasons discussed, relocation of MKO to France, and also other European countries, after its expulsion from Iraq is out of the question. The next option, then, might be the United State of America. In spite of telltales that the organization benefits from a number of supporters inside the Congress and other lobbying bodies, for many reasons, including ideological and strategic challenges, MKO is barred to inter the US territories, let alone to be accepted as political settlers.
It is a well proven fact that MKO ideologically antagonizes the capitalist camp characterized as deterring man’s evolution. In MKO ‘s early ideological texts, the group’s anti-capitalist ideas and its ambition to implement a radical redistribution of wealth as well as to inaugurate a classless society are fundamentally sanctioned principles. In contrast to their strongly claimed pro-democratic conducts especially in the past few years, there is no close affinity between MKO’s ideology and liberalism. In many critical situations that the organization has considered as turning-points, and particularly in the course of its ideological revolution, MKO has reiterated the significance of its ideology, even compared with those of Marxist groups, as extremely antagonizing capitalism and especially that of the America’s. Unlike terrorist groups like al-Qaeda whose antagonism with America is rooted in their reactionary and historical positions, MKO’s contradiction is generated out of a scientific comprehension and socio-historical dynamism. Giving further clarification about MKO’s ideological revolution, Mehdi Abrishamch has stated:
Mojahedin’s ideological grasp, in contrast to others, has distinctively and quantitatively historical and social inclinations. Nowhere else can you possibly find the world explained as in MKO and chiefly by Rajavi. [1]
That is MKO’s last achievement revealed particularly following the ideological revolution, which is exactly concurrent with the publication of the State Department’s genuine report on MKO. Although some five months after the publication of the State Department’s report, and in a hasty response to the report, the organization published a book entitled The Democracy Betrayed, the report itself and the later registration of MKO as a FTO proved that the US has developed a deep understanding of MKO and its dual nature and that, it would no longer be duped by the group’s fallacious mottos and claims. The latest report of the State Department Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism released on April 30 discloses even a deeper appreciation of the organization by stating that the group’s leader has established a”cult of personality”. Thus, the US is well aware of the group’s left ideological drift that in circumstances shifts tactics in pro-democratic disguise.
The support MKO claims is receiving from a number of neocons, by the means of which it might practice the proposed “third option”, proves to be nothing above a political ploy regarding the group as cost-effective instrument against Iran. Even in some instances MKO is looked upon as a worthless implement since Americans have no doubt that advertised publicity of MKO among Iranians ends to the gates of a castle in the air.
It seems that the existing US-Iran tensions can be an alibi to grant MKO a temporal settlement in the US soil. However, MKO’s terrorist tag and the US determination to combat terrorism on the one hand and MKO’s insistence on preserving its militarist structure that indicates its tenacity of resorting to armed struggle strategy on the other hand disillusions Americans to trust and endure presence of the organization on their soil. The capacity of MKO as a terrorist organization to conduct terrorist operation anywhere in the world is a truth Americans fail to come to terms with as stated in the State Department’s latest report:
MEK leadership and members across the world maintain the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, the United State, Canada, and beyond. [2]
Americans believe that MKO has the capacity to conduct its terrorist feats under an idealistic cult structure throughout the world. The self-immolation and suicide operations are known to be the most practical stratagem and revolutionary deeds advocated by the leaders:
Many members and sympathizers of Mojahedin, residing in military camps as combatants against the regime or scattered in different countries, are urging to commit self-immolation or other self-sacrifice deeds to advance Iranian modern revolution. [3]
Of course, Americans admit that in spite of MKO’s open manipulation of propaganda and terrorist approaches to achieve its objective in its campaign against the Iranian government, it has never been tried for its crimes:
The group’s worldwide campaign against the Iranian government uses propaganda and terrorism to achieve its objectives and has been supported by reprehensible regimes, including that of Saddam Hussein. During the 1970s, the MEK assassinated several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the violent takeover in 1979 of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Despite U.S. efforts, MEK members have never been brought to justice for the group’s role in these illegal acts. [4]
The cause is not malfunctioning of judiciary systems but MKO’s capacity of adaptation strengthened through other complicated ideological and cultist teachings. MKO’s inherent tendency toward Machiavellianism frustrates having any trust in its promises and Americans are well aware of the fact that even the group’s surrendering of weapons following the invasion of the coalition forces to Iraq was a tactic to prevent its complete demise. Stated in the State Department’s report:
Following an initial Coalition bombardment of the MEK’s facilities in Iraq at the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom, MEK leadership negotiated a cease-fire with Coalition Forces and voluntarily surrendered their heavy-arms to Coalition control. [5]
MKO has the potentiality of perpetrating terrorist operations in the US far beyond the menaces of al-Qaeda. Even much above the terrorist threats, MKO’s cultist deeds, like self-immolations in some European countries, are perpetration of unspeakable cultist prejudice and violence which Americans can never tolerate because they have had enough of these deeds by destructive cults that have shaken the country only in the past few years. Thus, MKO’s presence in the US will impose irreparable damages both on the country’s policy making and the nation. The American citizens never consent to live next-door with the terrorists and the cultists.
References:
[1]. Lecture delivered by Mehdi Abrishamchi on the ideological revolution within MKO.
[2]. The State Department Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, the report released on April 30.
[3]. Mojahed, No. 253: Massoud Rajavi’s speech made in the first open session of the ideological revolution in Paris.
[4]. The State Department Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, the report released on April 30.
[5]. Ibid.
In June 1981, Iran’s Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, then Tehran’s Friday Prayer Leader, survived an assassination attempt at Abudhar mosque, which left him permanently disabled in his right arm.
The group responsible were the Mujahideen Khalq Organization (MKO), who are responsible for the deaths of 16,000 victims, including a president, a prime minister, 80 parliamentarians, but more importantly, 80% of their victims were innocent civillians.
Although barely reported in the West this month: an English court ruled the British government’s decision to put this terrorist group on the proscribed organisations list was perverse; the Iraqi Attorney General Jafar al-Mousavi, has appointed a judge and prosecutor to bring the leadership of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization to justice for their role in war crimes and crimes against humanity under Saddam; and Members of European Parliament met with Members of Justice Advocacy Group (an Iranian victims NGO) in Tehran, to express European commitment to keep the group on the EU proscribed organisations list.
A representative of the Members of Justice Advocacy Group told the MEPs:
If the MKO which embarked on terrorism as its tactic, strategy and ideology, are used as tools, be sure that they would use this opportunity to launch terrorist operations against the European citizens too, because, terrorism is the innate nature of the group
Prime Minister Gordon Brown agrees, he refused to reverse the decision to put the anti Iranian MKO on the terror list, pointing out that it had been involved in terrorism before and there was “no evidence” that the organisation had changed, and Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said ”I am disappointed at this judgement. We don’t accept it and we intend to appeal,” adding the list will remain on the MKO would remain on the list during the appeal.
So why would a British court decide that it was “perverse” to put this terrorist organisation that has tried to assassinate a serving head of state and religious leader? Is the judge a terrorist sympathiser or raging Iranophobe, like some of the terror cult’s supporters in the Houses of Parliament?
I doubt it, it’s probably because the Government didn’t make its case, it declined to say that it knows full well the cult is still actively involved in terrorism in Iraq, because it does it with the full knowledge and assistance of the American occupation army, whose custody the MKO in Iraq is supposed to be in. America won’t hand over these terrorists to the Iraqi government, even though there is Interpol arrest warrants out for them.
But then Britain is sponsoring terrorist attacks in Iran’s Khuzestan province, through neo-fascist, Anti Iranian, Arab supremacists, including the Al-Ahwaz Liberation Front. Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked whether the Government will ”proscribe the Al-Ahwaz Liberation Front on the ground that it is a terrorist organisation” — to date they’ve refused, which is worth bearing in mind the next time Britain accuses Iran of being a state sponsor of terrorism, a charge which Britain is both overtly and tacitly guilty of.
Stephiblog.wordpress.com
No Comments
Many of us remember the Iraqi exile groups whose tall tales the Administration used to justify the invasion of their country in 2003. Fewer people are aware that similar groups from other Middle Eastern countries frequent the halls of Congress and editorial board rooms carrying their frightening ghost-written books with guidance from pro-war think tanks. The organized challenge against the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) summary on Iran this month included such a group, which for years cried wolf about Iran.
The NIE’s critics are complaining that it falsely weakens the Bush administration’s campaign against Iran. Trusting that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons is suicidal, warn the neoconservatives who prompted the invasion of Iraq in search of imaginary banned weapons. As in the period that preceded the Iraq War, the hawks are now validated by an exile entity dedicated to violent regime change. The Iranian enabler group that has replaced the old Iraqi National Congress is the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). In cooperation with leading neoconservative figures, NCRI has for over a decade spared no effort to destroy any chance of a U.S.-Iranian détente.
Eight days after the NIE summary assured the world that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons at this time international media reported that NCRI dismissed the report’s findings. No other Iranian opposition group has actively challenged the new NIE’s credibility.
Going even farther, NCRI’s Washington spokesman, Alireza Jafarzadeh, claimed that Iran’s nuclear program is managed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp’s (IRGC) scientists during a Fox News interview. As the most trusted branch of Iran’s armed forces, the IRGC was late this year designated by the White House as a sponsor of international terrorism. The exile group has also echoed the Washington war party’s claims that Iran is arming Iraqi resistance groups with advanced weapons resulting in U.S. casualties.
NCRI’s scare campaign against Iran is an attempt to overcome its own infamy. The”Council”is a front group based in Paris for the Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (known also as MEK, MKO, or PMOI), according to the U.S. State Department, which bans both as a single terrorist organization. MEK’s pariah status makes it entirely dependent on the goodwill of the U.S. military, which has since the spring of 2003 sheltered its 3,500-plus fighters in northern Iraq after they disarmed.
The militia has for a quarter-century topped Tehran’s”most wanted”terrorist list and is now sought by Iraq’s government for atrocities it allegedly committed in Saddam’s service. It fled Iran in the mid 1980s and fought on the Iraqi side during the Iran-Iraq war, hoping to overthrow the young Islamic Republic. Its campaign to deepen Western distrust of Iran is motivated primarily by the real possibility that its key figures will face capital crimes charges in Iraq and Iran if a U.S. accommodation with Iran ends the militia’s utility to U.S. strategists as a bargaining chip. The latest sign of MEK’s vulnerability emerged December 16 when Iran asked that the next round of U.S.-Iran negotiations in Baghdad address MEK’s status.
Like the old Iraqi National Congress headed by Ahmad Chalabi, the MEK has powerful conservative backers in Western capitals that promote it as a democratic alternative. In Washington, these have included John Ashcroft, Dick Armey, Richard Perle, and members of Congress Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Tom Tancredo, all of whom were and remain advocates of the Iraq invasion. Among officially designated foreign terrorist organizations, MEK is the only one that can obtain street demonstration permits in Washington through its thinly disguised front operations. Poster-size portraits of the husband and wife team that have headed MEK for a generation are in abundance at such rallies, including one held on the grounds of U.S. Congress in 2004.
The surest way for the MEK to stay in business appears to be just the path they are following. They need to make themselves indispensable to the warmongers in the United States by helping subvert accommodation with Iran. (In this, they share the predicament of their neocon masters, who will be out of a job if peace prevails for too long.)
If Washington decides against an all out war on Iran and opts instead for a”low intensity conflict,”as Ronald Reagan’s wars of attrition in Central America came to be known, the MEK can well be the core of a Contra-style mercenary force. Claiming the mantle of the”Reagan Revolution,”the neoconservatives would certainly welcome that as the next best thing to the war that they want badly even after the NIE largely vindicated Iran. There have been persistent rumors over the past year that American military or intelligence agencies have trained selected MEK operatives for clandestine missions in Iran, after having them renounce terrorism and swear allegiance to”democracy.”
If, on the other hand, the Bush administration or its successor chooses sustained dialog instead of confrontation with Iran, the future of the MEK will never be far from the minds of Iranian negotiators. The White House has stressed its twin objectives of strengthening the government of”liberated”Iraq and limiting Tehran’s influence there. Iranian leaders see an inherent contradiction in that policy. They are anxious to find out whether the U.S. will continue to shelter the MEK as an irritant to Iran or will transfer custody of the militia to Iran’s trusted Iraqi authorities as an affirmation of Iraqi sovereignty. As Washington prepares for its next round of talks on Iraqi security with Iran in January, a sure way it can build confidence would be to agree to discuss this sensitive matter.
Rostam Pourzal, Alternet.org, December 28, 2007
In Yossi Melman’s article, published in Israeli newspaper Haaretz, part of the records of Raymond Tanter- as the main supporter of MKO in the U.S.- has been exposed:
"Tanter, 67, is considered a genius in international relations. At the age of 25, he completed his doctorate at the University of Indiana. He belongs to the school that introduced the use of mathematical models and quantitative studies in international relations. He has taught at top American universities, and in 1974 he spent his sabbatical at Hebrew University’s Institute for International Relations (in the interest of proper disclosure, I was his student at the time.)
Between one academic job and the next, Tanter filled several positions in the White House and the Pentagon, mainly during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. For two years (1981-1982) he was a member of the National Security Council, in charge of Libya and Lebanon (among his other assignments, Tanter followed Israeli policy which led to the invasion at the time.) He is identified with the Republican Party and has for the most part held conservative opinions. In his opinion, however, President George W. Bush’s administration is not sufficiently conservative."
This much of his records, and his support for the terrorist organization of MKO, is enough to understand how anti-people the MKO is.
For more information, we can point to his mission on using the Contras (similar to his opinions on using the MKO).
However, the most important issue in his case is that despite all Melman’s complements about him, Tanter is so discredited that he’s currently acting as an agent of the MKO.
Irandidban – 2006/12/25
Two days ago, I saw a report by NCRI stating that the Rt Hon the Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC, speaking to a conference at the British Houses of Parliament on December 7, had stressed de-proscription of MKO. He was quoted to have started by saying:
Some time ago, earlier this year, I had the privilege and the pleasure of going over to Paris to meet with Mrs. Rajavi and if anyone here has not met her, I entirely agree with the assessment of her, that she is one of the most charismatic leaders in the world and if you haven’t met her, it is time people took the opportunity to try and see her.
I do not know whether Lord Fraser was beguiled by Maryam Rajavi’s ceremonial and stylish manner of conduct of the husband nominated president and naïve of her past terrorist conducts when he assessed her as a charismatic leader of the world or he believes in the same policy she does. I have tried convincing myself that Lord Fraser, a nice man expressing deep concern about Iranian people’s suffering, has never heard Maryam Rajavi’s expression, a military commander active in Iraq under Saddam, that all girls and women under her command were ready to fight shoulder to shoulder with Iraqi forces to die for the great leader Saddam Hussein as she did.
Maryam Rajavi, traveled from Iraq to France in 1993 as the conductor of deception strategy to fill the political campaign gap out of the cult. In all her messages from Paris to the military system based in Iraq, she emphasized that “everything at the end is bomb, bullet and gun.” Her disguise as a pro-democrat does not imply she has quit terrorist acts forever, but temporarily in order to dupe a few unaware parliamentarians.
Karim Haghi, a defected member once serving as a bodyguard of the Rajavis, in an interview confirmed that "Mrs. Rajavi told us to kill them [Kurds] with tanks and try to preserve our bullets for other operations. We were forced to kill both Kurds and Shiites, and I said I didn’t come here to kill other people."
Lord Fraser’s concluding words does indicate that he is fully aware of what he intends:
Mr. Chairman, as you well you know, I am strongly supportive of all the endeavours of this group to achieve its aims and the first thing we must do is the de-proscription of the PMOI.
It is so regrettable to see that at a time when the world is distressed by the nightmare of a terrorism domination and has initiated a unanimous battle to thwart its threat, some people representing as the defenders of their nation’s rights vow to be defenders of globally blacklisted terrorists who have betrayed their own nation.
To whom it may concern, Since August 2007, I have received telephone calls and emails from individuals, who are among a group of 200 Iranians being detained for the past five years in an American military camp in Iraq. The following summary is based solely on these telephone calls and e-mails. These emails are available upon request. Year 2002 The United States State Department interviewed all the members of the organization of the People Mojahedin of Iran, PMOI (Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization). A group of 200 individuals, who had been in disagreement with Mojahedin for some times, informed the US officials that they wanted to leave the PMOI. This group was later taken to a camp called Temporary International Presence Facility (TIPE) in Khalis city in Diyala province The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) assigned refugee status to these individuals, promising that all the necessary arrangements would be made in near future and they would be sent to another country. These 200 individuals were detained against their will in TIPF. Lt. Col. Amy F. Turluck was the American director of the camp. Year 2006 150 individuals started a peaceful vigil. Their main request was to leave the camp. This vigil was suppressed by 150 anti-insurgent US guards who used pepper spray and guns. The guards arrested all the representative of the group, in addition to some individuals. The arrested individuals were then sent to solitary confinement for several months and were later transported to a smaller camp. Year 2007 July The Iraqi government issued Laissez Passers for these refugees and informed them that with these Laissez Passers they could leave the TIPF camp and Iraq. The Laissez passers and the money of theses refugees were confiscated by Lt. Col Turluck and they were told that they could not leave the camp or Iraq. On many occasions the refugees asked Colonel Turluck to return their Laissez Passers and money so that they could leave the camp, but to no avail. The American military authorities also told them that the Iraqi government would not allow them to leave the country and that they would need visas for leaving Iraq. The relatives of these refugees went to the Iraqi Embassy in Tehran to inquire about the situation. They were told that the Iraqi government had already issued the Laissez Passers and that these refugees were free to leave the camp, acquire visa from a country and leave Iraq. These relatives also approached the Turkish Embassy in Tehran to find out if the Turkish government would issue visas to these refugees. They were informed that Turkey via its embassy in Iraq was prepared to grant visas to these 200 refugees if they applied in person. The refugees, however, were constantly told by the camp authorities that they have only the following two options. 1. To rejoin the PMOI (even though the PMOI is on the black list, i.e. it is considered to be a terrorist organization by both the United States and the European Union). 2. To go back to Iran (even though they could be executed by the Iranian regime). September · Twenty individuals started another peaceful vigil. This time Col. Turluck threatened to suppress the vigil once again if they did not stop it. Five of these individuals went on a hunger strike and as a result were placed in solitary confinement. They could not have any visitors and could not call their families. October · On October 8th, one individual was taken to the camp hospital and nobody was allowed to visit him. By October 12, after being on hunger strike for 29 days, he was told by the American authorities that if he would not break his hunger strike they would take him to Booka prison, cut his stomach open and would then force feed him. This individual was later transported to Krapeh hospital prison, which is usually used for members of Alghaedeh. · On October 8th, the other four individuals had been on hunger strike for 15 days, 12 days, 11 days and 9 days. One individual who was kept in the hospital of the camp had internal bleeding and had vomited blood. Col. Turluck visited these individual in their cells and told them that they should write their will and indicate where they wanted to be buried. These individuals were constantly being harassed by the American authorities to end their strike. · On October 13 Colonel Turluck announced that the Laissez Passers would be returned to all the refugees. While visiting the refugees on hunger strike in the solitary confinement, she promised them that if they broke their strike, their Laissez Passers would be retuned and they would be taken to Mousel. The refugees on hunger strike ended their strike and returned to the camp. · Colonel Turluck had promised that the voluntary project of re-location to Musel would be finalized by the end of October. · On October 22nd, these refugees were informed that due to the security reasons, they would not be allowed to use the phone. · By the end of October it became evident that the project of re-location to Musel was not going to materialize. November · By early November as the lies about re-location to Musel became evident, those who had broken their hunger strike started another hunger strike. · By November 20th, one of these individuals had been on hunger strike for 9 days. · On November 18 th , sometimes during the night, five of these individuals, who were on hunger strike, were taken out of the camp and were left on a nearby road. · Before leaving the camp, the camp authorities videotaped these individuals. In these videotapes they were asked to state that they were leaving the camp on their own free will. · Few days later five more individuals were taken out of the camp at night and were abandoned on the nearby road. · By now 20 individuals have been taken out of the camp in the dark of the night and have been dropped off somewhere close to the camp. · These abandoned individuals are in danger any time they come across an American checkpoint, the head hunters of the Iranian regime and the dangerous gangs and individuals in Iraq. · By November, the previous director of the camp, Col. Turluck, was replaced by Officer Harmon. December · On December 17 two individuals who had left the camp and were residing in a hotel, left their friend in the hotel for an outing. They have not been heard from since then and no one has any information of their whereabouts. · On December 18 six more individuals were taken out of the camp and were left on a nearby road. No one has heard from these individuals since then. Conditions at the camp: · No access to outside/denied to see a lawyer · No access to the internet · The limited letters, e-mails and phone calls are censored and monitored. If the refugees talk about their condition in the camp on the phone, the American authorities threaten them with losing the right to use the phone. Some emails were never sent and the complaints remain unanswered. · Limited medical services in the camp · No medical services outside the camp · A prisoner, who is going blind and needs immediate surgery, is not allowed to go to Baghdad for the operation. · Water shortage- no water on some days and on other days 3-4 hours at most, for months at a time · The refugees live in tents.
.Constant mal-treatment and torture – In one occasion, these refugees denied entry to their tents to an American soldier who refused to remove his boots. (They pray in the tents and therefore everybody must remove their shoes prior to entering the tent). The angry soldier beat them up and broke the shoulder of one of them. Needles to say, the broken shoulder was never treated medically. · There have been fifty incidents such as this resulting in the batter and injury of these refugees. · When these refugees go on hunger strike, they are immediately moved into solitary confinement and they lose all their privileges such as visits by their friends or contacting their families by phone. · There is evidence of cooperation between American authorities and PMOI. Once in a while some members of the PMOI are brought into the camp. They mingle with the refugees and try to get as much information as possible. They then pass the information to the American authorities and leave the camp. Two of these PMOI spies are presently living in Germany. Mohammad Hassibi Tel: 512-349-7899 hassibi@chebayadkard.com
Mohammad Hassibi, December 20, 2007 http://www.chebayadkard.org/chebayadkard/sokhan/20071217/maghaleh306.pdf
Mojahedin Khalq terrorists the sources that America uses it in its allegations against Iran and the IAEA has repeatedly rebuked the allegations of the White House in its reports Iranian leader tempers anti-U.S. rhetoric; Ahmadinejad takes a softer tone in the wake of a U.S. report that says Tehran had halted its nuclear arms program. Ramin Mostaghim and Borzou Daragahi Special to The Times 12 December 2007 Los Angeles Times Home Edition TEHRAN In his first formal news conference since a U.S. intelligence report last week undercut claims that Iran was secretly developing nuclear weapons, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad struck an unusually mild tone Tuesday, calling for dialogue with Washington and forgoing his usual anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric. He also denied that Iran had resumed a secret nuclear weapons program, a claim made by an Iranian exile group, the Mujahedin Khalq, which has been listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department and the European Union. The group cited unidentified sources in Iran as saying the Islamic Republic had restarted its program in 2004. A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate released last week concludes that Iran halted its weapons program in 2003. Tehran denies ever having such a program. Ahmadinejad initially gloated over the report as vindication for Iran, though it says his country continued to enrich uranium and that Iran easily could restart its weapons program. But at the two-hour news conference, Ahmadinejad described the report as "a positive and forward step" by the U.S. to ease tensions in the Middle East. "We do hope there will be one or two steps forward so as to make a different atmosphere for finding solutions," he told reporters. "If further steps are taken, then our problems will be less complicated."
Despite the softened tone, Ahmadinejad said Iran would continue its uranium enrichment program in defiance of international standards. He predicted Iran would have the ability to run 50,000 high-speed centrifuges within five years. Iran has about 3,000 centrifuges, which if run continuously for a year could in theory produce enough highly enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb, though inspectors have not detected high levels of enrichment at Iran’s facility in Natanz.
Many officials in Iran viewed the U.S. report as an olive branch, and some analysts have urged the Iranian leadership to take the opportunity to enhance ties or at least reopen channels of communication between Tehran and Washington. The two nations have had a hostile relationship since the 1979 revolution in Iran.
U.S. and Iranian officials are scheduled to meet in Baghdad on Dec. 18 for the fourth round of talks over securing Iraq. Such meetings have usually been preceded by chest-thumping and accusations on both sides. But at Tuesday’s news conference, his eighth since taking office in 2005, Ahmadinejad expressed confidence that the meetings would eventually produce positive results for bolstering security in Iraq.
Regardless of what the U.S. report concludes, Iran still faces the prospect of a third round of international sanctions over its enrichment of uranium. A team of International Atomic Energy Agency experts arrived in Tehran on Sunday in an attempt to clear up lingering questions over the country’s nuclear program. Iran insists its goal is to generate electricity, but the West suspects the effort is a cornerstone for an eventual weapons program.
Iran’s nuclear program and political and material support for armed groups fighting Israel have brought Tehran under heightened international scrutiny. Ahmadinejad and his circle also have come under enormous pressure from multiple quarters within Iran’s fractured political class.
On Monday, influential lawmaker Ahmad Tavakoli criticized Ahmadinejad for gloating over the U.S. report, which Tavakoli said contains many allegations that cast Iran in a negative light.
"By expressing happiness we may increase the credibility of these kinds of reports," said Tavakoli, a former ally of Ahmadinejad. "In the future, they may release some reports which will have more credibility and are against the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Former President Mohammad Khatami, who tried unsuccessfully to liberalize Iran’s Islamic system, told students at Chamran University on Tuesday that people should not be "Islamicized by force," a criticism of Ahmadinejad’s hard-line social policies.
Witnesses said students chanted, "Death to despotism!" Hundreds of students demonstrating at Tehran University on Sunday burst through the campus gates, chanting, "Ahmadi-Pinochet, Iran will not be Chile!" before they were dispersed by riot police.
Rival conservative, moderate and reformist Iranian political factions see Ahmadinejad and his loyalists as vulnerable in upcoming March parliamentary elections, primarily because of his administration’s failure to curb inflation, create jobs or draw foreign investment.
Although he confidently answered questions about Iran’s nuclear program, the security situation in Iraq and his country’s opposition to Israel, Ahmadinejad brushed aside a question about the reason for recent increases in the price of dairy products and other foods.
"In the near future," he said, "I will explain it in a press conference to the people."
daragahi@latimes.com
Mostaghim is a special correspondent and Daragahi a Times staff writer.
Reports by LATimes (USA) and ISNA (Iran), December 12, 2007
————-
BBC Monitoring Middle East, December 11, 2007
Text of report by semi-official Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) website
MKO claims Iran resumed nuclear weapon programme in 2004 – Agency
Tehran, 11 December: The terrorist group of hypocrites [a reference to Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization, MKO] claimed that America’s intelligence estimates in which it had been said that Tehran has stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 is true, but Iran has resumed this programme since 2004.
According to Wall Street Journal, this claim of the terrorist group of hypocrites, that is going to be announced publicly today, is in tandem to the claims by American Conservatives’ war-mongers who say that the National Intelligence Estimate has brought about the misunderstanding that Iran’s nuclear programme is not considered a critical threat.
The terrorist group of hypocrites is among the sources that America uses it in its allegations against Iran and the IAEA has repeatedly rebuked the allegations of the White House in its reports.
The American Conservatives has called that the process which led to this estimate should be reviewed.
But Iran has repetitively emphasized the peacefulness of its nuclear plans and after the release of this estimate on last Monday [4 December], Iran has emphasized that it had no nuclear weapons programme.
The National Intelligence Estimate has raised new questions regarding the damaged credibility of the White House regarding war [with Iran].
The estimate, which is the result of a consensus among 16 American intelligence agencies, declares that it is not clear whether Iran pursues nuclear weapons or not. By stopping its programme, Iran has shown that it has been more responsive in the face of international pressures than what had been estimated.
At the same time, the National Intelligence Estimate’s report warns that the Islamic Republic still has kept the nuclear option open and rejects the international society’s demand for suspending uranium enrichment and it is possible that Tehran could produce nuclear weapons between 2010 to 2015.
By claiming that Iran has stopped its nuclear weapon programme in 2003, this intelligence report adds: The decision of Tehran for stopping the nuclear programme shows that Iran is not as determined in producing nuclear weapons as we had estimated in 2005.
Source: ISNA website, Tehran, in Persian 0930 gmt 11 Dec 07
IRGC: US attack ‘highly unlikely’
The Commander of the IRGC has described the US attack on Iran as ‘highly unlikely’, saying Washington knows Iran is different from Iraq.
Brigadier General Mohammad-Ali Jafari said the US is aware of Iran’s military capabilities and added that Tehran will give an ‘appropriate response’ if the US attacks the country.
The Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) made the remarks in an exclusive interview with Press TV on the 28th anniversary of the foundation of the Mobilization Resistance Force or Basij.
Jafari said, however, that there was the possibility of a ‘limited air campaign’ by the US on a number of sites in Iran.
In that case, we have to defend our country and we have the means to nullify their attacks, he added.
In another part of the interview, Jafari said the recent IAEA report indicated that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and described the US and Israel’s threats regarding the issue as ‘psychological warfare’.
In response to a question regarding the US accusations against the IRGC, Jafari said Iran is a victim of terrorism while the US backs the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO), an anti-Iranian terrorist group based in Iraq.
Jafari concluded that Iran will never wage a war on any country but will always remain prepared to defend its soil.