Senate Passes Bill Seeking Iraq Exit, Veto Is Expected

By CARL HULSE
Published: April 27, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 26 — The Senate on Thursday sent President Bush a $124 billion war spending measure that he has promised to veto, forcing Democrats to begin confronting the difficult question of what to do after the president acts.


Lawmakers and senior Democratic aides in the House and Senate acknowledge that there is no consensus among the party’s leadership on how to respond legislatively to the veto, with members of the House and Senate advocating competing options and some outside antiwar groups urging the Democrats to hold firm.

“It gives new meaning to the notion of a fluid process,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, after the Senate voted 51 to 46 over serious Republican objections to approve the emergency war measure. Two Republicans joined 48 Democrats and one independent in supporting the bill that would order troops to begin leaving Iraq by Oct. 1 at the latest; 45 Republicans and one independent opposed it.

The White House reaction was swift and harsh. “Eighty days after President Bush submitted his troop funding bill, the Senate has now joined the House in passing defeatist legislation that insists on a date for surrender, micromanages our commanders and generals in combat zones from 6,000 miles away, and adds billions of dollars in unrelated spending to the fighting on the ground,” said Dana Perino, the administration spokeswoman.

With the veto coming, some Democrats argue that the bill should simply be stripped of the timelines that have drawn Mr. Bush’s ire and sent back with the benchmarks and troop readiness rules intact. Others say Congress has made its antiwar statement and should now give the president the money without conditions.

Another wing, including House Democrats who are influential on military policy, prefers providing money for the troops for a few months while keeping pressure on the White House through other Pentagon-related legislation. Still others want to turn the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group into law.

Each alternative carries its own risk because Democratic leaders might not be able to muster the votes for passage of an alternate bill because a substantial bloc of Democrats opposes providing more money without some demand for a withdrawal.

One senior House aide summarized the problem succinctly: The president does not want the bill Democrats have passed, and Democrats might not be able to pass the bill the president wants.

But the Democratic leadership was not ready Thursday to contemplate the tough course ahead in public. With the Senate joining the House in approving the spending bill, Democrats delivered their most significant challenge to Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy since they took power in January after an election that many Democrats saw as a referendum on the president and his handling of the war.

“We have carried forth the wishes of the American people,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader.

Recent public opinion polls show the Democrats, with a push for a timeline for leaving Iraq, have struck a chord. A New York Times-CBS News poll found that those surveyed favored a timeline for withdrawal in 2008 by a wide margin, 64 percent to 32 percent. The poll of 1,052 people conducted April 20-24 also found public support for Congress to have the final say on troop levels in Iraq, 57 percent to 35 percent.

The poll also showed that those surveyed said 56 percent to 36 percent that they believed Congress should allow the war money to go forward without timelines once Mr. Bush vetoes the bill.

Senate Republicans called the measure a wasted exercise. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, joined the White House in declaring the bill “dead before arrival.”

Others pointed to statements by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq who met privately with lawmakers on Wednesday, that Al Qaeda is a primary source of violence in Iraq.

“They are attacking Americans,” said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas. “They are attacking Iraqis. They are trying to take over Iraq so they will have the capability to spread their terrorism throughout the world.”

Democrats said that Republicans were once again trying to tie the terrorism threat to what is predominantly a civil war in Iraq and that a withdrawal there would in fact allow American forces to concentrate better on terrorism.

“Redeploying our troops who are bogged down in the middle of an Iraqi civil war will enable us to refocus on our top national security: the global fight against Al Qaeda and its affiliates,” said Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.

“It is time to come home,” said Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey.

As they begin to fashion their post-veto strategy, Democrats say they will listen carefully to what Mr. Bush says in rejecting the bill, studying the nuances for negotiating room beyond his call for a spending measure with no restrictions.

Republican leaders in the House and Senate have recently indicated an openness to legislation that contains some form of benchmark to better chart the progress of the Iraqi government.

“There are a number of members of my conference who do think that benchmarks could be helpful, depending upon how they’re crafted,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. “And that’ll be among the many items we discuss in moving forward and getting the money to the troops as quickly as possible.”

Mr. McConnell said he and Mr. Reid had already had preliminary talks about how to proceed after the veto.

Democrats said Mr. Bush was going to have to engage them as well.

دیدار لاریجانی با سولانا

US General Says Iran-Linked Group Attacked US Troops

By Al Pessin Pentagon 26 April 2007

Pessin report - Download 563k
Listen to Pessin report

The top U.S. commander in Iraq says an Iraqi group affiliated with an elite Iranian force carried out an attack last year in which five U.S. soldiers were killed near the Iraqi town of Karbala. The statement by General David Petraeus follows months of suspicion about Iranian involvement in the incident, but the general says he cannot directly connect Iranian agents to the attack. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

General David Petraeus at the Pentagon, 26 Apr 2007

General Petraeus told a Pentagon news conference that his conclusion about the Karbala attack comes from the results of interrogations of the leaders of an Iraqi insurgent group affiliated with Iran called the Khazali Network.

"Iranian involvement has really become much clearer to us and come into much more focus during the interrogation of the members, the heads, of the Khazali Network and some of the key members of that network that have been in detention now for a month or more," said General Petraeus.

General Petraeus says the network received money and weapons from Iran, and that some of its members were trained inside Iran. He says a computer captured with some members of the organization contained a document proving its involvement in the Karbala attack, but he says there was no indication that Iranian agents were directly involved.

"We discovered, for example, a 22-page memorandum on a computer that detailed the planning, preparation, approval process and conduct of the operation that resulted in five of our soldiers being killed in Karbala," he said.

In the January incident, insurgents attacked a building in Karbala. One U.S. soldier was killed during the attack and four others were kidnapped. Three were later found handcuffed together and shot to death. The other had a bullet wound in his head and died as U.S. forces were taking him to a hospital.

General Petraeus says the Iraqi group responsible for the attack is linked to Iran's elite Quds Force, which conducts special operations abroad. But he could not say whether senior Iranian leaders are involved in the Iraq operations.

"We do not, at least I do not, know of anything that specifically identifies how high it goes beyond the level of the Quds Force commander Soliman," noted General Petraeus. "Beyond that, it is very difficult to tell. We know where he is in the overall chain of command. He certainly reports to the very top. But, again, nothing that would absolutely indicate, again, how high the knowledge of this actually goes."

General Petraeus also criticized Syria for allowing foreign fighters to enter Iraq through its territory. He says the foreigners carry out 80 to 90 per cent of the suicide bombings in Iraq, which have killed hundreds of Iraqi civilians in recent weeks. The general says al-Qaida organizes those bombings, and he called the group "Public Enemy Number One" in Iraq.

In spite of the bombings, General Petraeus says some progress is being made toward establishing security in Iraq. He cited a sharp drop in sectarian killings in Baghdad, and increased cooperation from Sunni leaders, especially in al-Anbar Province. Still, he acknowledged that U.S. and Iraqi casualties remain high and there is much work to do.

"Because we are operating in new areas, and challenging elements in those areas, this effort may get harder before it gets easier," he said.

The general says the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq will not be completed until mid-June, and he will not be able to make even a preliminary assessment of its success until September.

He said that assessment will be based on the security situation, but also on economic development, progress on key political issues and whether there are improvements in the Iraqi legal system. He also said Shiite militias must be brought under control for Iraq to have long-term stability.

General Petraeus tried to steer clear of the political debate in Washington, in which Congress, under the control of the Democratic Party, is trying to set a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. But he did answer a question about what might happen in Iraq if a U.S. withdrawal were to begin in October, as the Democrats want.

"My sense is that there would be an increase in sectarian violence, a resumption of sectarian violence, were the presence of our forces and Iraqi forces at that time to be reduced and not to be doing what it is that they are doing right now," said David Petraeus.

He said as bad as the situation in Iraq is now, it could get "much, much worse."

General Petraeus said Washington works on what he called an "American Clock" regarding the Iraq war, a clock that runs fast because of frustration over the length of the conflict and the number of U.S. casualties. He said that, in Baghdad, what he called the "Iraqi Clock" runs more slowly because of the sharp political divisions.

Top cleric warns Iran on economy, disunity

by Farhad Pouladi Thu Apr 26,

TEHRAN (AFP) - A top cleric and ex-presidential challenger has issued an unusual public warning over the state of Iran's economy and political disunity which he said are threatening the tenets of the Islamic revolution.

Ali Akbar Nateq Nuri, an advisor to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, expressed concern that money supply growth and factional political bickering in the Islamic republic are spiralling out of control.


"If no economic plan is presented for the country, even if a barrel of oil costs 200 dollars, we will simply be faced with an increase in liquidity resulting in high prices and inflation," said Nateq Nuri, according to the ISNA news agency.

"There is a flood of liquidity in society. Wherever it appears it destroys," Nateq Nuri was quoted as telling a group of 100 MPs.

Inflation is currently one of the hottest topics in Iranian politics amid a spike in prices of basic goods and warnings by economists that high money supply growth indicates prices will rise further.

According to the research centre of parliament, money supply in Iran is set to rise 41 percent in the current Iranian year to March 20, with inflation hitting 23.4 percent.

Nateq Nuri was the conservative candidate who was heavily beaten by Mohammad Khatami when the reformist won Iran's presidential elections by a landslide in 1997.

Always close to Khamenei, he is now increasingly seen as a pragmatist but rarely spells out his views in public. It is rare in Iran for a man of his prominence to issue such explicit warnings over the state of the country.

He took aim at mounting political tribalism, especially disagreements between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and parliament which he said were endangering the country's annual slogan of "national unity and Islamic cohesion".

"This is an immediate necessity for today and will not be achieved unless we pay more attention to our common ground rather than our differences," he said.

Some members of parliament and the reformist press have criticised Ahmadinejad and some of his ministers for their policies, especially over the economy and the president's provocative speeches on its nuclear drive.

Conservatives close to the president have wasted little time in hitting back, accusing the critics of undermining national unity at a time of crisis with the international community.

The cleric warned Iran's disparate collection of reformists, conservatives and hardliners that "the four pillars (of the Islamic republic): Islam, revolution, Imam and supreme leader should be the basis of cooperation."

He lamented that human resources were being wasted with skilled officials at ministries who were currently out of political favour losing their jobs to less adept allies of those in power.

When Ahmadinejad became president in 2005, dozens of experienced officials at key ministries such as foreign affairs and oil were moved out and replaced by people closer to the sympathies of the president.

"In our country, if a political party wins they take the losers in a minibus out of the organisations (they worked for) and they replace them with a bus load of their own people," Nateq Nuri said.

"The continuation of this situation results in stagnation and a waste of human resources... We should not put people aside as we do not like their tastes," he said.

Benjamin Franklin Medal awarded for Sudbury Neutrino Observatory measurements

Benjamin Franklin Medal awarded for Sudbury Neutrino Observatory measurements - Albert Einstein, Alexander Graham Bell among past recipients

KINGSTON, ON, April 23 /CNW Telbec/ - Queen's University physicist Arthur McDonald and the team of scientific sleuths from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) have won another prestigious international award for their groundbreaking discoveries about the nature of matter and the structure of the universe.

This week at a gala ceremony in Philadelphia, Dr. McDonald will receive the 2007 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Physics, with co-winner Yoji Totsuka from the University of Tokyo, for "the discovery that neutrinos change flavour and have mass." The Franklin Institute Awards Program honours scientists, innovators and entrepreneurs who have made extraordinary scientific achievements, benefited humanity, advanced science, launched new fields of inquiry and increased the understanding of the universe.



Past winners of these medals - which date back to 1824 - include Albert Einstein, Alexander Graham Bell, Marie and Pierre Curie, and Orville Wright. More than 100 Franklin Institute Laureates have gone on to receive Nobel Prizes.

"This is an outstanding international recognition for SNO Director Art McDonald and the whole SNO Project team," says Vice-Principal (Research) Kerry Rowe. "The Franklin Institute Awards are among the world's oldest and most prestigious comprehensive science awards, with laureates representing some of the most distinguished scientific achievements of the past 180 years."

Dr. McDonald and his SNO team solved the 30-year-old puzzle of the "missing solar neutrinos" in their underground laboratory two kilometres below the surface of CVRD-INCO's Creighton Mine in Sudbury, Ontario. Their discovery that neutrinos (sub-atomic particles considered the basic building blocks of the universe) change from one type to another on their journey to Earth from the Sun modifies the long-held Standard Model of particle physics, and was designated as one of the most important scientific breakthroughs in the world in 2001 by the journal Science.

In 2006 the SNO team members were the first recipients of the John C. Polanyi Award for outstanding scientific achievement. Dr. McDonald is the Gordon and Patricia Gray Chair in Particle Astrophysics at Queen's, an Officer of the Order of Canada, and past recipient of the Gerhard Herzberg Gold Medal from NSERC Canada, the Tom W. Bonner Prize in Nuclear Physics from the American Physical Society, and the Bruno Pontecorvo Prize from Russia.

The SNO team includes more than 150 scientists from Queen's, Carleton, Laurentian and Oxford Universities; the Universities of Guelph, British Columbia, Pennsylvania, Washington and Texas; TRIIUMF, Berkeley, Los Alamos and Brookhaven National Laboratories and LIP, Lisbon.

"I am honored to accept the Franklin Medal for the scientific results obtained by our SNO team", said Professor McDonald. "This has been a tremendous collaborative effort over many years. Our success has arisen from the combined talents and hard work of many colleagues and from the tremendous support that we have received from our many international partners."

Events surrounding the Franklin Institute Awards this week include seminars, lectures by the nine recipients, interactive demonstrations and educational programs for Philadelphia area students. The Franklin medals will be presented on Thursday April 26.

Many of the Canadian SNO scientists are involved in the development of the new SNOLAB international underground science laboratory, expanding the existing SNO research laboratory 2 km underground in INCO's Creighton mine near Sudbury, Ontario. This new laboratory will provide opportunities for very sensitive future measurements of Dark Matter particles thought to make up about 25 per cent of the Universe, as well as other frontier measurements of neutrino properties made possible by eliminating almost all sources of radioactive background.

For further information on the Franklin Awards:
http://www.fi.edu/tfi/exhibits/bower/07/laureates.html

For further information on SNO:
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/

For further information: Nancy Dorrance, Queen's News & Media Services, (613) 533-2869; Lorinda Peterson, Queen's News & Media Services, (613)
533-3234

آقای سبحانی نیا نماینده مجلس و عضو هیات رییسه

این را در وبسایت آقای سبحانی نیا نماینده مجلس و عضو هیات رییسه مجلس به آدرس زیر پیدا کردم که مطلب قابل تاملی است.

آدرس وبسایت ایشان:

www.sobhaninia.com

و آدرس این مطلب

http://www.sobhaninia.com/web/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1394

و تصویر وبسایت را در پایین می گذارم تا سردرگمی پیش نیاید ایشان دارای تحصلات عالی و روحانی هستند.
و اما مطلبی که ایشان در وبساتشا ن آوره است این است

به گزارش خبرگزاری تقریب به نقل از "مفکره الاسلام"، هر روز صدها تن از از مردم ترکیه ، در هنگام

اذان صبح روبروی قفس شیری می ایستند تا صدایش را بشنوند که در آن زمان اسم خدا را بر زبان جاری می کند.

این در حالی است که بازدیدکنندگان از این اتفاق شگفت انگیز ازآن فیلمبرداری و عکسبرداری می کنند و صدای او را ضبط می کنند تا جایی که تعدادی از آنها اقدام به فروش صدای شیر می کنند.

در این رابطه رئیس باغ وحش ازمیر در تصریحاتی ضمن اشاره به قدرت لایزال خداوندی در پیدایش چنین اتفاقی ، به این نکته اشاره کرد بعضی از مردم خواهان غذا دادن به شیر و لمس وی یا تمیز کردن قفس شیر و حتی نماز خواندن بروی، هستند


و این هم ویدیو شیر در باغ وحش در ترکیه که در وبسات ایشان آمده است . قضاوت در این مورد را به عهده شما می گذارم /الموتی

In Search of Cyrus The Great

The people of Babylon, who, against the will of the gods had suffered a yoke unsuitable for them . . ., I offered relief from their exhaustion, and ended their servitude.”
Cyrus Cylinder:25-27
(October 29, 539 BCE)

In Search of Cyrus The Great (Persian)

In Search of Cyrus The Great (English) “For the first time in human history, Cyrus used his great power to improve the human condition rather than degrade it.” Dr. David Stronach (UC Berkeley)

THE TRUTH BEHIND ‘300’

For many Iranians the cinematic movie '300' may come as a shocking revelation. But to those of us who came up through America's school system, the 'Battle of Thermopylae,' which is what the movie '300' is based on, is as familiar as George Washington's fabled "cherry tree" episode.

The Battle of Thermopylae was of course written by the classical Greek author, Herodotus, who lived in the Persian city of Halicarnassus. His book, 'The Histories' became part of Western folklore only recently. It was not until about 1850 that America embraced Herodotus as the leading authority on Persian history.

Before 1850, however, the West had a very favorable impression of the Persian Empire. That's because the West's main source for Persian history was the Bible and the 'Cyropaedia,' written by another Greek author named Xenophon.

But the Cyropaedia glorified the monarchy of Cyrus The Great, and in the wake of two bloody revolutions fought by America and France to liberate themselves from their own monarchies, a major campaign began, around the mid 19th century, to promote democracy throughout the rest of Europe, and Herodotus was the perfect propaganda tool.

Herodotus was a democratic groupie and was quickly ushered in as the "Father Of History." Around 1850, his 'Battle Of Thermopylae' came to symbolize the West's struggle for democracy against the powerful forces of Persia's monarchy.

The story is easy to buy into: 300 brave Spartans saved Western democracy from 2.7 million evil Persians. But aside from the fanciful numbers which need decimal-point adjustments, this whimsical tale has far graver consequences than a mere biased account of history.

The 'Battle Of Thermopylae' has been the single most powerful wedge, which has divided East and West for over 2 millennia. In a time when East and West should be reconciling their differences, along comes the movie '300' to drive that wedge even deeper.

What is most disturbing about this movie is not that it lacks historical accuracy. It is not that Xerxes, the Grandson of Cyrus The Great and loving husband of Esther, is shown as an oversized drag queen. It is not even the outdated racist cliché of casting the Persians as Africans and the Spartans as white, blue-eyed 'Chippendale dancers,' when in reality the roles may well have been reversed.

What is so distressing about this movie is the realization of the tremendous power Hollywood wields in determining a people's identity. It is the same nightmare Native Americans endured during the whole 'cowboy-movie' genre.

But for those who are quick to dismiss '300' as a fleeting fantasy flick aimed at the insignificant, 17 to 24 year-old male video-gamer, think again. First there was Alexander, now '300,' next could well be the 'Battle Of Marathon,' another one of Herodotus's glowing accounts of ancient Persia.

Herodotus is accepted blindly by virtually all Western demographics. Even the New York Times is not immune. Here is how it described the Persians in its April 20, 2004 issue about the Battle Of Marathon:

"the defeat of a ruthless state (Persia) that had enslaved much of the known world from the Balkans to the Himalayas."

- William J. Broad,
(NY Times)

"the ancient Greeks defeated the Asian invaders (Persia) and saved Europe in what scholars call one of the first great victories of freedom over tyranny"

- William J. Broad,
(NY Times)

What stretches the limits of hypocrisy is that there isn't a single shred of archeological evidence that the Persians ever owned slaves. Yet we know that slavery was an integral cornerstone of Greek society. Aristotle's manifesto even sanctions it. Persia, which was once a haven for runaway slaves from Egypt, Greece, and later Rome, is today branded as a slave-hungry empire by cultures which were built on slavery!

What makes Herodotus's propaganda so difficult to refute is that it is peppered with facts. But in reality, it is a desperate diatribe. Perhaps his biggest ploy is his attempt to equate democracy with freedom. These two words are used virtually interchangeably throughout his book. And the West has swallowed it hook-line-and-sinker.

But America's founding fathers knew better. They implemented many safeguards to protect freedom from the pitfalls that mired Athenian democracy. Even Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others which have been tried."

Democracy may well be the best form of government. But what makes America great is not so much democracy, as it is its Bill Of Rights. And this is exactly what made Persia Great. Democracy can often lead to tyranny by the majority as was the case in democratic Athens, where women, slaves and foreigners did not have the right to vote.

In monarchic Persia, however, women enjoyed a level of gender equality unmatched even to this day, and slavery was not practiced. The fact is, Persia's monarchy was more free than Athens' democracy, all because of Persia's Bill Of Rights.

No one exemplifies Persia's freedom better than Herodotus himself. He describes Athens as the bastion of freedom, yet he chose to live in Persia. Xenophon, on the other hand, who actually lived in Athens, reminisces enviously about the monarchy of Cyrus The Great.

Herodotus claims Persia had enslaved most of the known world, yet we know Herodotus was not a slave. He traveled freely throughout the empire, openly criticizing it.

Why did Herodotus not live in Greece? Because Persia - the empire he is so quick to demonize - afforded him the very freedom to publish his scathing report of it. People want to live where their god-given rights are protected, regardless of whether its democratic or monarchic.

These god-given rights were first drafted into law by the founder of the Persian empire, Cyrus The Great. In fact, ancient Persia may well have served as the blue print for America's Bill Of Rights. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the architects of America's Constitution, were great admirers and owned several copies of Xenophon's Cyropaedia.

Today, no other country resembles ancient Persia as closely as does the United States. If any country should sympathize with, rather than celebrate, Persia's quagmire in Greece, it is the United States. Few events in history mirror America's war on terror as closely as Persia's war on Greece.

The Greeks had been carrying out terrorist attacks on Persian holdings for years. They had attacked Persian cities, set fire to Persian temples, disrupted key trade routes, and pirated merchant ships crossing the Bosphorus. They incited rebellions inside Persian provinces, but perhaps most abhorrent to the Persians was the ease by which the Greeks broke their treaties and betrayed Persia's trust.

Rather than resort to violence, however, Persia tried to keep the Greeks in check by financially supporting Greek politicians who were "pro-Persian," much the same way America fights its proxy wars. But what finally triggered Persia's wrath was an act rarely mentioned in the West, though well documented, even by Herodotus (7:11).

Persia's 9/11:

In 498 BCE, Athens carried out a terrorist attack on Sardis, a major Persian city, which made 9/11 seem like child's play. Aristagoras, an Athenian, set fire to the "outlying parts" of Sardis trapping most of its population "in a ring of fire." (Herodotus 5:101)

More innocent civilians died at the hands of Aristagoras than Osama bin Laden could ever hope to kill. And just as most of the world supported America's retaliation against Al Qaeda, so did it rally in support of Persia's attack on Athens.

The Spartans were not even targets of Persia's attack, until they violated a universal protocol by killing a Persian messenger who Herodotus claims was asking for Sparta's submission but in reality was probably sent by Persia's king, Xerxes to convey the same message America sent to the entire world after 9/11: "you're either with us, or against us."

The Spartans were Greek Jihadists who lived only to die. They were by all accounts ruthless savages who murdered Greek slaves known as "Helots" just for sport, cultivated a culture of thievery and rape, and practiced infanticide, as the movie '300' rightly points out in its opening scenes. Sparta was not even democratic. It was an oligarchy at best. Despite knowing all this, the West continues to hail the Spartans as the saviors of Western democracy.

Yes, the Spartans died fighting a foreign invader. But so do countless terrorists. Yet few would consider them "good guys." Those who do are then not much different from Westerners who cheer for the Spartans.

Persia was drawn into a protracted war against terror, much the same way the U.S. was. Cheering for the Spartans merely because they were underdogs, is like cheering for Osama bin Laden today.

The Power Of Film:

History is no longer written by the victors, it is written by filmmakers. Most minority groups in America have come to realize this fact and are quick to bankroll films that communicate their stories to the rest of the world. Perhaps the movie '300' was a necessary wake-up call for the Iranian/Persian community to support responsible filmmakers, who report history with honesty and integrity.

Alex Jovy's epic movie about Cyrus The Great could have done wonders for the Iranian image (www.chahayagroup.com). But Alex Jovy's movie today sits idle due lack of money. My documentary film about Cyrus The Great has languished for a mere want of $400,000 (www.spentaproductions.com/cyruspreview.htm).

Iranians are the most affluent minority group in America. If they set their mind to it, they could set the historical record straight virtually overnight. Until then, their history will be written by the likes of Zack Snyder.

Cyrus Kar

In Search of Cyrus the Great

"Buying the War" by Bill Moyers, Media coverage of Iraq war

PBS page Original page on PBS

Four years ago on May 1, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln and delivered a speech in front of a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner. Despite profound questions and the increasing violence in Baghdad, many in the press confirmed the White House's claim that the war was won.

He was hailed by media stars as a "breathtaking" example of presidential leadership in toppling Saddam Hussein. MSNBC's Chris Matthews declared, "We're all neo-cons now;" NPR's Bob Edwards said, "The war in Iraq is essentially over;" and Fortune magazine's Jeff Birnbaum said, "It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context."

How did the mainstream press get it so wrong? How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported? "What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked. How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored," says Moyers. "How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?"

On Wednesday, April 25 at 9 p.m. on PBS, a new PBS series BILL MOYERS JOURNAL premieres at a special time with "Buying the War," a 90-minute documentary that explores the role of the press in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Two days later on April 27, BILL MOYERS JOURNAL airs in its regular timeslot on Fridays at 9 p.m. with interviews and news analysis on a wide range of subjects, including politics, arts and culture, the media, the economy, and issues facing democracy. "Buying the War" includes interviews with Dan Rather, formerly of CBS; Tim Russert of MEET THE PRESS; Bob Simon of 60 MINUTES; Walter Isaacson, former president of CNN; and John Walcott, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder newspapers, which was acquired by The McClatchy Company in 2006.

In "Buying the War" Bill Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes document the reporting of Walcott, Landay and Strobel, the Knight Ridder team that burrowed deep into the intelligence agencies to try and determine whether there was any evidence for the Bush Administration's case for war. "Many of the things that were said about Iraq didn't make sense," says Walcott. "And that really prompts you to ask, 'Wait a minute. Is this true? Does everyone agree that this is true? Does anyone think this is not true?'"

In the run-up to war, skepticism was a rarity among journalists inside the Beltway. Journalist Bob Simon of 60 Minutes, who was based in the Middle East, questioned the reporting he was seeing and reading. "I mean we knew things or suspected things that perhaps the Washington press corps could not suspect. For example, the absurdity of putting up a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda," he tells Moyers. "Saddam…was a total control freak. To introduce a wild card like Al Qaeda in any sense was just something he would not do. So I just didn't believe it for an instant." The program analyzes the stream of unchecked information from administration sources and Iraqi defectors to the mainstream print and broadcast press, which was then seized upon and amplified by an army of pundits. While almost all the claims would eventually prove to be false, the drumbeat of misinformation about WMDs went virtually unchallenged by the media. THE NEW YORK TIMES reported on Iraq's "worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb," but according to Landay, claims by the administration about the possibility of nuclear weapons were highly questionable. Yet, his story citing the "lack of hard evidence of Iraqi weapons" got little play. In fact, throughout the media landscape, stories challenging the official view were often pushed aside while the administration's claims were given prominence. "From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the administration's case for war," says Howard Kurtz, the POST's media critic. "But there was only a handful of stories that ran on the front page that made the opposite case. Or, if not making the opposite case, raised questions."

"Buying the War" examines the press coverage in the lead-up to the war as evidence of a paradigm shift in the role of journalists in democracy and asks, four years after the invasion, what's changed? "More and more the media become, I think, common carriers of administration statements and critics of the administration," says THE WASHINGTON POST's Walter Pincus. "We've sort of given up being independent on our own."

Chapter 1




Chapter 2





Chapter 3





Chapter 4




Chapter 5

Congress passes Iraq bill, veto awaits

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
April 26, 2007

WASHINGTON - A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from
Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with
President Bush on the war.

At the White House, the president immediately promised a veto.

"It is amazing that legislation urgently needed to fund our troops took 80 days to make its way around the Capitol. But that's where we are," said deputy press secretary Dana Perino.

The 51-46 vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage of the same bill a day earlier, fell far short of the two-thirds margin needed to overturn the president's threatened veto. Nevertheless, the legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.

"The president has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq," said Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.V., chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He later added: "It's time to bring our troops home from Iraq."

The $124.2 billion bill requires troop withdrawals to begin Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The House passed the measure Wednesday by a 218-208 vote.

Across the Potomac River at the Pentagon, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told reporters the war effort likely will "get harder before it gets easier."

Republicans said the vote amounted to little more than political theater because the bill would be dead on arrival after reaching the White House. Bush said he will veto the bill so long as it contains a timetable on Iraq, as well as $20 billion in spending added by Democrats.

"The solution is simple: Take out the surrender date, take out the pork, and get the funds to our troops," said Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky.

Republicans Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon and Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska sided with 48 Democrats and Independent Bernard Sanders (news, bio, voting record) in supporting the bill. No Democrats joined the 45 Republicans in voting against it. Missing from the vote were GOP Sens. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona and Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina, both staunch advocates of the president's Iraq policy.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), I-Conn., sided with Republicans in opposing the bill.

"We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between al-Qaida terrorism or sectarian violence. Or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving," Lieberman said.

Democrats said the bill was on track to arrive on the president's desk by Tuesday, the anniversary of Bush's announcement aboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on," Bush said on May 1, 2003, in front of a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Bush since has acknowledged that the war has not progressed as he had hoped. After the November elections in which Democrats swept up enough seats to take the majority, he announced a new strategy that involved sending additional forces to Iraq.

Perino said earlier that if Democratic lawmakers timed the sending of the bill to the anniversary of Bush's speech, it would be "a ridiculous P.R. stunt."

"That is the height of cynicism, and absolutely so unfortunate for the men and women in uniform and their families who are watching the debate," she said Thursday morning.

As Democrats pushed through the bill, Petraeus depicted the situation in Iraq as "exceedingly complex and very tough." He said there have been some improvements in the two months since Bush's troop buildup began, but "there is vastly more work to be done across the board. ... We are just getting started with the new effort."

Asked at a Pentagon news conference Thursday about the impact on the effort in Iraq if that legislation passed, Petraeus said, "I have tried to stay clear of the political minefields of various legislative proposals."

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press the vote was not helpful.

"We see some negative signs in the decision because it sends wrong signals to some sides that might think of alternatives to the political process," al-Dabbagh said. "Coalition forces gave lots of sacrifices and they should continue their mission, which is building Iraqi security forces to take over."

In the House, two Republicans — Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland and Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina — joined 216 Democrats in passing the bill. Voting no were 195 Republicans and 13 Democrats.

Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., said Democrats were still considering what to do after Bush's veto. One option would be funding the war through September as Bush wants but setting benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet, he said.

Murtha chairs the House panel that oversees military funding.

"I think everything that passes will have some sort of condition (placed) on it," he said. Ultimately, Murtha added, the 2008 military budget considered by Congress in June "is where you'll see the real battle," he said.

Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., said the immediate focus should stay on the president "making such a tragic mistake in vetoing this." Eventually, "I think he's going to have to accept constraint on his bad judgment here. . . . We've got to keep relentlessly putting pressure on him."

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has said the Army has enough bookkeeping flexibility to pay for operations in Iraq well into July. Lawmakers and Capitol Hill staff aides view mid- to late May as the deadline for completing the war spending bill to avoid hardships.

U.S. Senate passes bill with Iraq timeline, despite veto threat

Last Updated: Thursday, April 26, 2007

CBC News

The U.S. Senate passed a war funding bill on Thursday, but it has almost no chance to become law because President George W. Bush has vowed to veto it.

In a largely symbolic gesture, the bill sets a timeline for U.S. troops to begin leaving Iraq, something Bush has said he would not accept.

The 51-46 Senate vote, largely on party lines, was far from the two-thirds majority that is needed to override a presidential veto.

It follows a 218-208 vote in the House of Representatives.

It sets the scene for a showdown on war funding between the Bush administration and the Democrats, who hold slim majorities in the Senate and House.

Putin Suspends Arms Pact Over Missile Dispute

MOSCOW, April 26 — President Vladimir V. Putin said today that Russia would suspend its compliance with a treaty on conventional arms in Europe that was forged at the end of the cold war.

Instead, Mr. Putin said, the Kremlin would use its future compliance with the treaty as a bargaining point in the dispute with United States over American proposals to install missile defenses in Europe.

Mr. Putin’s announcement, made in his annual address to Parliament, underscored the Kremlin’s anger at the United States for proposing a new missile-defense system, which the Bush administration insists is meant to counter potential threats from North Korea and Iran.

It also demonstrated Russia’s lingering frustrations with the treaties negotiated by the Kremlin in the 1990s, when Russia, still staggering through its post-Soviet woes, was much weaker and less assertive on the world stage than today.

Though the step by Mr. Putin was an incremental one, it was highly symbolic. The agreement in question, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, known by the initials C.F.E., was signed in 1990 by the N.A.T.O. nations and the nations of the former Warsaw Pact, including Russia. It required the reduction and relocation of much of the main battle equipment then located along the former east-west dividing line, including tanks, artillery pieces, armored vehicles and attack aircraft. It also established an inspection regime.

Under the treaty, more than 50,000 pieces of military equipment were converted or destroyed by 1995. With its initial ambitions largely achieved, it was renegotiated in 1999, adding a requirement that Russia withdraw its forces from Georgia and Moldova, two former Soviet republics where tensions and intrigue with Moscow run high.

Russia has not withdrawn its troops, and the revised treaty has not been ratified by most of the signatory nations, including the United States, which has withheld ratification until the Kremlin complies with the troop-withdrawal commitments.

Though in many ways the treaty had already stalled, it remained a powerful diplomatic marker, a central element in the group of agreements that defused the threat of war in Europe as communism collapsed.

Mr. Putin abruptly called into question the treaty’s future today, announcing a moratorium on compliance and seizing two contentious issues, the proposed American missile-defense system and the West’s reluctance to ratify the latest treaty. Mr. Putin pointedly did not use any of the conciliatory language he sometimes inserts in his speeches to leaven his criticisms of the United States.

He did not define specifically what he meant by a moratorium. But he suggested that Russia might withdraw completely from the treaty if he is not satisfied with the results of negotiations with the N.A.T.O.-Russia Council, an organization created in 2002 to increase cooperation between the former enemies.

“I propose discussing this problem,” he said, “and should there be no progress in the negotiations, to look at the possibility of ceasing our commitments under the C.F.E. treaty.”

That remark drew the loudest applause of the day from Russia’s largely compliant parliament, which for the most part sat quietly during Mr. Putin’s 70-minute speech. It also drew a swift reaction from N.A.T.O.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the organization’s secretary-general, expressed continued support for the treaty, and demanded clarification from Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister.

“I expect Foreign Minister Lavrov to explain the words of his President,” Mr. de Hoop Scheffer told news agencies.

The Russian president’s remarks coincided with the latest effort by the Bush administration to promote its missile-defense proposal, which would include building an interceptor rocket base in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic.

Russia has said that the missile defense plans could upset the balance of forces in Europe, and represent an escalation that could lead to a new cold war.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice dismissed those Russian concerns in an appearance today in Oslo, calling them “purely ludicrous.”

But even as she spoke, Mr. Putin was stepping up the dispute, part of a day in which he also chided the West for what he called meddling in Russia’s domestic affairs in the guise of democracy-promotion efforts.

Mr. Putin also restated to the Parliament his intention to leave office next year, at the end of his second four-year term. The Russian constitution limits each president to a maximum of two terms, but there have been calls by politicians loyal to Mr. Putin to set the rule aside and remain in office, and speculation has never fully subsided that he might.

But Mr. Putin was clear about his intentions today, saying that the annual address was his last. “In the spring of next year, my duties end, and the next state-of-the-nation speech will be delivered by a different head of state,” he said.

What do CEO's and Teachers have in Common: Workopolis Unveils Canada's Top 20 Jobs

Both Rank Highest in Job Satisfaction

Toronto , March 29, 2007 – It really is better at the top. Workopolis, Canada's leading provider of internet recruitment and job search solutions, today announced the results of The Top 20 Jobs, a comprehensive study of working Canadians. CEO’s / President’s report the highest levels of job satisfaction, with Teachers ranked second in the overall scoring.

The study developed by NorthStar Research Partners for Workopolis asked almost 9,000 working Canadians to evaluate job satisfaction of their current position based on 11 factors that contribute to employee satisfaction, such as corporate culture, the opportunity to learn and financial rewards.

“Job satisfaction is the holy grail of the workplace,” said Patrick Sullivan, President of Workopolis. “Every employee wants to find it and every employer wants to provide it. This research really dug beyond the surface of what people say to uncover what truly motivates them and makes them happy – or unhappy – at work.”

A comprehensive report and interactive quiz can be found at www.TheTop20Jobs.com

Complete Top 20 List:

Rank	Job	Key Drivers of Satisfaction
1	CEO / CFO / President	Corporate Culture Opportunity to Learn
2	Teacher / Tutor	Work / Life Balance Corporate Culture
3	HR Professional	Corporate Culture Opportunity to Use Skills
4	Actor / Director	Opportunity to Learn Ability to be Creative
5	Nutritionist	Stress Level Opportunity to Contribute to Community
6	Career Counselor / Trainer	Corporate Culture Opportunity to Learn
7	Chef	Ability to be Creative Work / Life Balance
8	Mental Health Counselor / Social Worker	Corporate Culture Work / Life Balance
9	Graphic Designer	Opportunity to Use Skills Opportunity for Advancement
10	Market Researcher / Analyst	Corporate Culture Opportunity to Use Skills
11	Public Relations / Communications Specialist	Opportunity to Use Skills Ability to be Creative
12	Writer / Journalist	Opportunity to Use Skills Corporate Culture
13	Nurse	Corporate Culture Opportunity for Advancement
14	Computer Programmer	Ability to be Creative Corporate Culture
15	Bar / Restaurant / Hotel Manager	Opportunity to Use Skills Financial Rewards & Benefits
16	Web Designer / Developer	Corporate Culture Opportunity to Use Skills
17	Product Manager	Corporate Culture Financial Rewards & Benefits
18	Construction Tradesperson	Opportunity for Advancement Work / Life Balance
19	Medical / Biological Researcher	Flexibility in Work Hours Ability to be Creative
20	Engineer	Opportunity to Learn Ability to be Creative

Understanding Job Satisfaction

According to the survey, the top three drivers of job satisfaction were: corporate culture, the opportunity to use skills and the opportunity to learn. Financial rewards, flexible work hours and stress level were the bottom three drivers.

“Canadians have made it clear that money really isn’t everything,” said Sullivan. “We’re seeing a strong shift in priorities on the job. Factors like learning and development, creativity and corporate culture have become true indicators of job satisfaction for today’s working Canadians.”

The Workopolis Top 20 Jobs found that corporate culture was nearly twice as important to job satisfaction as flexibility in work hours, and three times as important as maintaining manageable stress levels. Interestingly, the ability to be creative and the opportunity for advancement are less important to the 18-24 age group than to those in the 25-34 and 35+ age groups.

What Would You Change About Your Job?

Despite the new definition of job satisfaction, the number one desired change respondents want of their current job is improved financial rewards and benefits – by a margin of 24 per cent. The other top changes indicated were: the opportunity for advancement and reduced stress. Financial considerations are even more important to satisfying the younger crowd, with 41 per cent of those 18-24 indicating this would be what they would most like to change.

While CEO’s and Teachers finished in a close race, the top two professions differ greatly when revealing their desired changes at work:

• CEO’s seem to be sacrificing a lot for the love of the job and autonomy: nearly one quarter (23 per cent) indicate a need for more work/ life balance.
• On the other hand, when Teachers were asked what they would change about their career choice, the overwhelming response was financial rewards (42 per cent) revealing once again that money really isn’t everything when it comes to the love of a job.

But What Would You Miss the Most?

The number one quality that people would miss about their current job is flexibility in work hours. This is especially true in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, with more than one-third (37 per cent) of respondents giving this response. Employees in the 18-24 age group also felt this way (36 per cent)

By profession:

• A nine to five position would be an issue for over half of Market Analysts/ Researchers (55 per cent would miss flexibility in work hours).
• Bar/ Restaurant/ Hotel Managers would most miss the flexible hours (47 per cent) as would Writers/ Journalists (33 per cent).
• More than a third (39 per cent) of Web Designer/ Developers and Graphic Designers (38 per cent) would miss their working environment.
• Chefs would most miss the ability to be creative (33 per cent).

What Profession Best Suits You? That Depends on What You Value

• The opportunity to use skills and abilities is the second most valued quality to the Canadian worker. C-level professionals, followed by Teachers can boast strong performance on this dimension. CEO's also rank significantly higher than the rest of the professions on the third most valued quality – the opportunity to learn.
• Although flexibility in work hours is not overly valued to Canadians as a whole; Market researchers, Web-designers, Cashiers and CEO's feel their jobs have a high degree of flexibility.
• While Marketing Assistant does not make the list of Top 20 Jobs, respondents in that profession feel that their jobs provide them with excellent corporate culture - the number one driving factor for all professions.

“To maintain job satisfaction, it’s important to assess how well your current job stacks up to the values you treasure most,” added Sullivan. “While a new company car might be an essential motivator for some, others may crave the ability to be creative or be autonomous. Keeping your options open to new opportunities can be a motivator to someone who has found themselves in a bit of a rut.”

http://www.workopolis.com/index.html

Iran to shift international flights to new airport

Thu Apr 26,

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran is seeking to move all Tehran's international flights from the end of next month to a new and still under-used airport outside the city, the Fars news agency reported on Thursday.

Transport Minister Mohammad Rahmati said owing to an increase in domestic traffic, international flights would switch from the central Mehrabad airport to Imam Khomeini International Airport (IKIA), some 30 kilometres (18 miles) south of the city.

"Since the number of domestic flights from Mehrabad airport has increased and it has a limited capacity, all international flights will be moved by the end of May 22," Rahmati was quoted as saying.

"We are seriously pursuing this plan and many of the international flights have already moved to the IKIA," he added.

However Western airlines in Tehran said that they had not been informed of the decision and emphasised it would be almost impossible to shift their operations in such a short time.

"We are not aware of such a decision," said a representative of Italy's Alitalia, who asked not to be named. A British Airways official said: "We have not heard such a thing from the authorities."

IKIA, named after Iran's revolutionary leader, has had a turbulent history since its opening in 2004 as the Islamic republic's showpiece airport and a hub intended to rival Dubai.

When it first opened in May that year, Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards moved in to shut it down over their objections to the involvement of a Turkish-led consortium in the project.

The Guards said the consortium had business dealings with Iran's arch enemy Israel, making it a danger to national security.

Even when the first flight touched down in May 2005, Britain and Canada told their citizens to use flights from Mehrabad amid concerns about runway safety at IKIA.

Currently all major European airlines operting in Iran such as British Airways, Lufthansa and Air France use Mehrabad airport. Iran has no direct airline links to North America and IKIA is currently only used by carriers to the Middle East and Asia.

Dubai-based Emirates is among the few foreign carriers to use the new airport and even at busy times it appears spookily empty with the spaces intended for dozens of duty-free shops and cafes still unused.

آیا مشکل مردم ما شکل موی بچه ها است

مراسم تدفین صدام حسین

فیلم مراسم تدفین صدام حسین

Iran-EU negotiators report progress

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer Thu Apr 26,

ANKARA, Turkey - Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Thursday that talks with a senior EU official had brought the two men closer to "a united view" of how to break a deadlock over Tehran's defiance of a U.N. Security Council demand to freeze uranium enrichment.

The upbeat comments by Ali Larijani boosted expectations that he and Javier Solana, the European Union's top foreign policy official, had chipped away at differences over enrichment — a potential pathway to nuclear arms — in two straight days of talks.

"In some areas we are approaching a united view," Larijani told reporters after a breakfast meeting with Solana and Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. "We are aiming to reach out for a common paradigm."

Solana spoke of a "good meeting," adding: "We cannot make miracles, but we tried to move ... the (nuclear) dossier forward.

"The fact that we are together again is itself a very important development," he said, alluding to the last time the two men met — in September talks that collapsed over the enrichment issue.

Neither revealed details of their talks. But a government official based in a European capital said the two touched on possible new discussions of what constituted a suspension of enrichment and related activities.

A new definition of an enrichment freeze acceptable to both sides was "the key issue," said the official, who demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing the confidential information with The Associated Press.

In an interview with CNN-Turk television, Larijani said "new ideas" had emerged.

"I can't give exact details because these ideas need more time to be developed. But I can call them a very positive, concrete first step," he said. Larijani also said another meeting on the nuclear issue would be held in two weeks, but he did not specify the location.

There also was mention of a "double time out" — a simultaneous freeze of such activities in exchange for a commitment not to impose new U.N. sanctions, said the official, who was briefed on the outcome of the meeting.

The "double time out" concept is supported by International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei and is part of a confidential document shared on Wednesday with the AP.

The one-page document, based on a Swiss initiative, proposes that during such a double-moratorium "Iran will not develop any further its enrichment activities," and the six powers "will not table any additional U.N. resolutions and sanctions."

Diplomats said that the document is opposed by the United States, Britain and France but that parts of it could nonetheless serve as the basis of a later agreement that could lead to formal negotiations.

Solana was meeting with Larijani on behalf of the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — the countries at the forefront of international efforts to pressure Iran to make nuclear concessions.

Government officials outside Turkey had told the AP ahead of the meeting that the six powers Solana represented ultimately may be willing to allow Iran to keep some of its uranium enrichment program intact, instead of demanding it be completely dismantled.

That would be a major development: The United States in particular publicly continues to insist that Iran needs to mothball all enrichment and related activities.

Still, the Ankara meetings are only preliminary discussions meant to establish if there is enough common ground for further talks between the two men that could lead to the resumption of formal nuclear negotiations between the six powers and Iran.

Iran's defiance of a U.N. Security Council demands on enrichment has led to two sets of sanctions against the country.

Iran argues the sanctions are illegal, noting it has the right to enrich uranium to generate nuclear power under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iranian officials say nuclear power is the only purpose of their program, dismissing suspicions that they ultimately want weapons-grade uranium for the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

But the United States and others say past suspicious nuclear activities, including a program Iran kept secret for nearly two decades, set the country apart from others that have endorsed the treaty.

Negotiations broke down last year when the Iranian government refused to suspend enrichment in exchange for a package of economic and political inducements, including help in developing a peaceful nuclear program.

Solana was expected to brief Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice next week, when he attends an EU-U.S. summit in Washington, as well as the foreign ministers of the other five major powers. They, in turn were likely to set ground rules for the next meeting between the two