THE ARCHITECTS OF WAR: WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

President Bush has not fired any of the architects of the Iraq war. In fact, a review of the key planners of the conflict reveals that they have been rewarded — not blamed — for their incompetence.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ

Role In Going To War: Wolfowitz said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money for pay for the reconstruction, and that Gen. Eric Shinseki’s estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed was “wildly off the mark.” [Washington Post, 12/8/05]

Where He Is Now: Bush promoted Wolfowitz to head the World Bank in March 2005. [Washington Post, 3/17/05]

Key Quote: “We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” [Wolfowitz, 3/27/03]

DOUGLAS FEITH

Role In Going To War: As Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Feith spearheaded two secretive groups at the Pentagon — the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans — that were instrumental in drawing up documents that explained the supposed ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. The groups were “created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true.” Colin Powell referred to Feith’s operation as the Gestapo. In Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack, former CentCom Commander Gen. Tommy Franks called Feith the “f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” [LAT, 1/27/05; NYT, 4/28/04; New Yorker, 5/12/03; Plan of Attack, p.281]

Where He Is Now: Feith voluntarily resigned from the Defense Department shortly after Bush’s reelection. He is co-chairman of a project at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government to write an academic book on how to fight terrorism. Feith’s secretive groups at the Pentagon are under investigation by the Pentagon and the Senate Intelligence Committee for intelligence failures. [Washington Post, 1/27/05, 11/18/05; Washington Times, 3/3/06]

Key Quote: “I am not asserting to you that I know that the answer is — we did it right. What I am saying is it’s an extremely complex judgment to know whether the course that we chose with its pros and cons was more sensible.” [Washington Post, 7/13/05]

STEPHEN HADLEY

Role In Going To War: As then-Deputy National Security Advisor, Hadley disregarded memos from the CIA and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet warning that references to Iraq’s pursuit of uranium be dropped from Bush’s speeches. The false information ended up in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address. [Washington Post, 7/23/03]

Where He Is Now: On January 26, 2005, Stephen Hadley was promoted to National Security Advisor. [White House bio]

Key Quote: “I should have recalled at the time of the State of the Union speech that there was controversy associated with the uranium issue. … And it is now clear to me that I failed in that responsibility in connection with the inclusion of these 16 words in the speech that he gave on the 28th of January.” [Hadley, 7/22/03]

RICHARD PERLE

Role In Going To War: Richard Perle, the so-called “Prince of Darkness,” was the chairman of Defense Policy Board during the run-up to the Iraq war. He suggested Iraq had a hand in 9-11. In 1996, he authored “Clean Break,” a paper that was co-signed by Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and others that argued for regime change in Iraq. Shortly after the war began, Perle resigned from the Board because he came under fire for having relationships with businesses that stood to profit from the war. [Guardian, 9/3/02, 3/28/03; AFP, 8/9/02]

Where He Is Now: Currently, Perle is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where he specializes in national security and defense issues. He has been investigated for ethical violations concerning war profiteering and other conflicts of interest. [Washington Post, 9/1/04]

Key Quote: “And a year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they’ve been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation.” [Perle, 9/22/03]

ELLIOT ABRAMS

Role In Going To War: Abrams was one of the defendants in the Iran-Contra Affair, and he pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. He was appointed Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs during Bush’s first term, where he served as Bush’s chief advisor on the Middle East. His name surfaced as part of the investigation into who leaked the name of a undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. [Washington Post, 5/27/03, 2/3/05]

Where He Is Now: Abrams was promoted to deputy national security adviser in February of 2005. [Slate, 2/17/05]

Key Quote: “We recognize that military action in Iraq, if necessary, will have adverse humanitarian consequences. We have been planning over the last several months, across all relevant agencies, to limit any such consequences and provide relief quickly.” [CNN, 2/25/03]

DAVID WURMSER

Role In Going To War: At the time of the war, Wurmser was a special assistant to John Bolton in the State Department. Wurmser has long advocated the belief that both Syria and Iraq represented threats to the stability of the Middle East. In early 2001, Wurmser had issued a call for air strikes against Iraq and Syria. Along with Perle, he is considered a main author of “Clean Break.” [Asia Times, 4/17/03; Guardian, 9/3/02]

Where He Is Now: Wurmser was promoted to Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs; he is in charge of coordinating Middle East strategy. His name has been associated with the Plame Affair and with an FBI investigation into the passing of classified information to Chalabi and AIPAC. [Raw Story, 10/19/05; Washington Post, 9/4/04]

Key Quote: “Syria, Iran, Iraq, the PLO and Sudan are playing a skillful game, but have consistently worked to undermine US interests and influence in the region for years, and certainly will continue to do so now, even if they momentarily, out of fear, seem more forthcoming.” [Washington Post, 9/24/01]

ANDREW NATSIOS

Role In Going To War: Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Andrew Natsios, then the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, went on Nightline and claimed that the U.S. contribution to the rebuilding of Iraq would be just $1.7 billion. When it became quickly apparent that Natsios’ prediction would fall woefully short of reality, the government came under fire for scrubbing his comments from the USAID Web site. [Washington Post, 12/18/03; ABC News, 4/23/03]

Where He Is Now: Natsios stepped down as the head of USAID in January and was teaching at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh’s School of Foreign Service as a Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy and Advisor on International Development. In September 2006, Bush appointed him Special Envoy for Darfur. [AP, 2/20/06; Georgetown, 12/2/05; Washington Post, 9/19/06]

Key Quote: “[T]he American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” [Nightline, 4/23/03]

DAN BARTLETT

Role In Going To War: Dan Bartlett was the White House Communications Director at the time of the war and was a mouthpiece in hyping the Iraq threat. Bartlett was also a regular participant in the weekly meetings of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). The main purpose of the group was the systematic coordination of the “marketing” of going to war with Iraq as well as selling the war here at home. [Washington Post, 8/10/03]

Where He Is Now: Bartlett was promoted to Counselor to the President on January 5, 2005, and is responsible for the formulation of policy and implementation of the President’s agenda. [White House]

Key Quote: “President Bush understands that the need to disarm Saddam Hussein is necessary. He has made that case to the United Nations Security Council. He’s made that case to the United States Congress. The entire world rallied behind this resolution that gives him one last chance. He has that chance, but time is running out.” [CNN, 1/26/03]

MITCH DANIELS

Role In Going To War: Mitch Daniels was the director of the Office of Management and Budget from January 2001 through June of 2003. In this capacity, he was responsible for releasing the initial budget estimates for the Iraq War which he pegged at $50 to $60 billion. The estimated cost of the war, including the full economic ramifications, is approaching $1 trillion. [MSNBC, 3/17/06]

Where He Is Now: In 2004, Daniels was elected Governor of Indiana. [USA Today, 11/3/04]

Key Quote: Mitch Daniels had said the war would be an “affordable endeavor” and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as “very, very high.” [Christian Science Monitor, 1/10/06]

GEORGE TENET

Role In Going To War: As CIA Director, Tenet was responsible for gathering information on Iraq and the potential threat posted by Saddam Hussein. According to author Bob Woodward, Tenet told President Bush before the war that there was a “slam dunk case” that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Tenet remained publicly silent while the Bush administration made pre-war statements on Iraq’s supposed nuclear program and ties to al Qaeda that were contrary to the CIA’s judgments. Tenet issued a statement in July 2003, drafted by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, taking responsibility for Bush’s false statements in his State of the Union address. [CNN, 4/19/04; NYT, 7/22/05]

Where He Is Now: Tenet voluntarily resigned from the administration on June 3, 2004. He was later awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom. [Washington Post, 6/3/04]

Key Quote: “It’s a slam dunk case.” [CNN, 4/19/04]

COLIN POWELL

Role In Going To War: Despite stating in Feb. 2001 that Saddam had not developed “any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction,” Powell made the case in front of the United Nations for a United States-led invasion of Iraq, stating that, “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction.” [Powell, 2/5/03; Powell, 2/24/01]

Where He Is Now: Shortly after Bush won reelection in 2004, Powell resigned from the administration. Powell now sits on numerous corporate boards. He is poised to succeed Henry Kissinger in May as Chairman of the Eisenhower Fellowship Program at the City College of New York. In September 2005, Powell said of his U.N. speech that it was a “blot” on his record. He went on to say, “It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.” [ABC News, 9/9/05]

Key Quote: “‘You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,’ he told the president. ‘You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.’ Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.” [Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack]

DONALD RUMSFELD

Role In Going To War: Prior to the war, Rumsfeld repeatedly suggested the war in Iraq would be short and swift. He said, “The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.” He also said, “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” [Rumsfeld, 11/14/02; USA Today, 4/1/03]

Where He Is Now: After repeated calls for his resignation, Donald Rumsfeld finally stepped down on November 8, 2006, one day after the 2006 midterm elections. [AP, 11/8/06; Reuters, 3/19/06]

Key Quote: “You go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” [CNN, 12/9/04]

CONDOLEEZZA RICE

Role In Going To War: As National Security Adviser, Rice disregarded at least two CIA memos and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet stating that the evidence behind Iraq’s supposed uranium acquisition was weak. She urged the necessity of war because “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” [Washington Post, 7/27/03; CNN, 9/8/02]

Where She Is Now: In December of 2004, Condoleezza Rice was promoted to Secretary of State and is being widely-mentioned as a possible presidential candidate. [ABC News, 11/16/04]

Key Quote: “We did not know at the time — maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency — but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information that was mistaken.” [Meet the Press, 6/8/03]

DICK CHENEY

Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was “pretty well confirmed” that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was “in fact reconstituting his nuclear program” and that the U.S. would be “greeted as liberators.” [Meet the Press, 12/9/01, 3/16/03]

Where He Is Now: Cheney earned another four years in power when Bush won re-election in 2004. Despite recent calls from conservatives calling for him to be replaced, Cheney has said, “I’ve now been elected to a second term; I’ll serve out my term.” [CBS Face the Nation, 3/19/06]

Key Quote: “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” [Larry King Live, 6/20/05]

GEORGE W. BUSH

Role In Going To War: Emphasizing Saddam Hussein’s supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, supposed ties to al Qaeda, and supposed nuclear weapons program, Bush built public support for — and subsequently ordered — an invasion of Iraq. [State of the Union, 1/28/03]

Where He Is Now: In November 2004, Bush won re-election. Since that time, popular support for the war and the President have reached a low point. [Washington Post, 3/7/06]

Key Quote: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” [Bush, 10/7/02]

Perle: ‘I Never Believed Saddam Was Responsible For 9/11′

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviewed former Iraq war architect Richard Perle to get his response to accusations by George Tenet that he was advocating an attack against Iraq in the days after 9/11. Perle acknowledged meeting Tenet a week after 9/11 at the White House, but claimed he never conversed with Tenet. Perle then said, “I never believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.”

But CNN played a clip from 9/16/01 that showed Perle telling the network:

Even if we cannot prove to the standard that we enjoy in our own civil society they are involved, we do know, for example, that Saddam Hussein has ties to Osama bin Laden. That can be documented.

Watch it:

There is more strong evidence that Perle was advocating a war against Iraq shortly after 9/11. As ThinkProgress has noted, Perle signed a letter to President Bush on 9/20/01 that stated the following:

[E]ven if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

Moreover, conservative pundit Robert Novak recalls in a column today:

Over the telephone on Sept. 17, Perle told this column that there were few good targets in Afghanistan but many in Iraq. Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense, was then chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board.

After thoroughly trashing Tenet, Perle later in the same interview cited him as a source for a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. “There was a relationship,” Perle said. “It has not only been documented, as I said in the clip. But George Tenet himself has written a letter that indicates this.”

Tenet did indeed write a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002 claiming an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. But Tenet recently told Blitzer, “We were sloppy in that letter.”

Pentagon to Deploy 35,000 Replacement Troops

Commanders in Iraq See 'Surge' Into '08

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 9, 2007

The Pentagon announced yesterday that 35,000 soldiers in 10 Army combat brigades will begin deploying to Iraq in August as replacements, making it possible to sustain the increase of U.S. troops there until at least the end of this year.

U.S. commanders in Iraq are increasingly convinced that heightened troop levels, announced by President Bush in January, will need to last into the spring of 2008. The military has said it would assess in September how well its counterinsurgency strategy, intended to pacify Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, is working.

"The surge needs to go through the beginning of next year for sure," said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day commander for U.S. military operations in Iraq. The new requirement of up to 15-month tours for active-duty soldiers will allow the troop increase to last until spring, said Odierno, who favors keeping experienced forces in place for now.

"What I am trying to do is to get until April so we can decide whether to keep it going or not," he said in an interview in Baghdad last week. "Are we making progress? If we're not making any progress, we need to change our strategy. If we're making progress, then we need to make a decision on whether we continue to surge."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday's announcement of the upcoming deployments "is not a reflection on any decision with respect to the duration of the surge."

As the initial U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad nears its June completion, Odierno and other commanders offered details of how they will execute the military's new Iraq strategy, how they expect insurgents and militias to react, and political factors that will bear upon their success.

Commanders said that even with the ongoing increase in Iraq of tens of thousands of American troops, violence could increase in coming months, and some indicators in Baghdad suggest that is already happening.

Partial data on attacks gathered from five U.S. brigades operating in Baghdad showed that total attacks since the new strategy began in February were either steady or increasing. In some cases, certain kinds of attacks dipped as the U.S. troop increase began, only to begin rising again in recent weeks. Overall, "the number of attacks has stayed relatively constant" in Baghdad, said one U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to be quoted by name.

The U.S. military commands that oversee Baghdad and Iraq as a whole have so far failed to meet requests to release current statistics on attack trends, with some U.S. officers voicing concern that the information would be skewed by critics to argue that the strategy is not working.

Although the military can help curtail violence, U.S. commanders say, Iraqi leaders must ultimately forge political compromises in order to create an enduring peace. "They have to pass a certain amount of key legislation for all of this to move forward. If they don't, we could secure all we want but it's not going to be successful," Odierno said, adding that "the jury's still out" on whether Iraq's leaders will act in the national interest.

The main thrust of the military effort in the near term, Odierno said, is to position a critical mass of U.S. and Iraqi troops inside Baghdad to quell the violence that was spiraling out of control late last year. As currently planned, Baghdad will have 25 battalions of U.S. troops and 38 battalions of Iraqi soldiers and police when the increase is complete, he said.

The push to expand the U.S. and Iraqi presence in Baghdad's neighborhoods reflects what U.S. commanders now acknowledge was a mistaken drawdown in 2005 and 2006 of American troops in the capital, leaving Iraqi forces in their place.

"What we had been doing for 3 1/2 years didn't keep up with the sectarian violence spreading so swiftly," said Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., the senior U.S. commander for Baghdad. The new approach "will take every bit of the five brigades" of combat troops now flowing in as reinforcements in the city of 6 million people, he said.

"It's fairly obvious that we transferred out too soon," said Col. Bryan Roberts, who commands a U.S. cavalry brigade in central Baghdad.

The limited U.S. troop presence was one reason that sectarian killings soared out of control in Baghdad after the February 2006 bombing of an important Shiite mosque in Samarra. That spurred what U.S. officers now call the sectarian cleansing of most of eastern Baghdad and large swaths of the west -- as Shiites forced Sunnis out of all but a few enclaves -- a movement that was arrested only with the troop increase this February.

"The sectarian cleansing is pretty much done on the east side" of Baghdad, said a U.S. military official. But since the influx of U.S. and Iraqi forces began, he said, "for the most part the Shia expansion is frozen where it is."

Another vital aspect of the strategy to secure Baghdad, commanders said, is to array more forces on the periphery of the capital to block Sunni insurgents and Shiite militiamen from using the outskirts for staging attacks.

"The Baghdad belts or support zones" have "always been the generator of violence in Baghdad," Odierno said. As a result, he plans to allocate about half of the final two incoming brigades in outlying areas.

Because Iraqi forces are concentrated inside the city, fewer are available to go to the outskirts to partner with U.S. troops, who must cover large areas, he said. In western Baghdad's Mansour district, for example, about 3,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops are covering an area with 300,000 people. "That's huge," said Lt. Col. Dale Kuehl, the U.S. commander for the area.

Still, the decision to place U.S. troops in both Baghdad and the outskirts has led to concern among some officers that their forces will be spread too thin. "If we lose Baghdad, it's game over," said one officer. "We need to concentrate forces in Baghdad and be really ruthless in accepting risk elsewhere," he said.

U.S. commanders said they expected Sunni and Shiite fighters to try to counter the Baghdad strategy in part by staging attacks in other regions.

"They will try to do whatever they can in other cities to draw us out of Baghdad" using vehicle bomb attacks, Odierno said. The Sunni extremist group al-Qaeda in Iraq, for example, might try to establish a base where there are fewer U.S. troops, such as the northern city of Mosul, he said. "We are watching that very closely."

Al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters have recently staged attacks in the predominantly Shiite southern cities of Karbala and Najaf, prompting U.S. and Iraqi officials to launch an assessment of whether the Iraqi police and army have the capability they need to protect the Shiite shrines there, as well as in Samarra and Baghdad, Odierno said.

Diyala province, a demographically mixed area between Baghdad and Iran, has already experienced an upsurge in violence following what Odierno said was in influx in recent months of Shiite militiamen from Baghdad and al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters from Anbar province, a Sunni stronghold in the west of the country. The U.S. military had to dispatch an additional battalion to Diyala, and Odierno said he is considering sending another.

In Anbar, meanwhile, violence has dropped dramatically in recent months because of the cooperation of local tribes -- a trend that could allow for a smaller U.S. presence there in the future, Odierno said. "We have less attacks in Anbar than in any other region," he said.

In Baghdad, sectarian killings have fallen dramatically since January, while suicide bombings using vehicles have increased. Overall, attack patterns varied in different parts of Baghdad. For example, in Mansour to the west, extrajudicial killings fell in February only to increase again by April, while other attacks remained on average the same. In the Rasafa district of central Baghdad, weekly attacks went from 88 in January to 25 in February but are now at about 60.

In the relatively safe Haifa Street area of Baghdad, monthly attacks fell by about 50 percent from January to February but since then have increased slightly, including a significant increase in suicide car bomb attacks. In Sadr City, a large Shiite slum, attack levels have remained fairly constant since January.

In Iraq on Tuesday, violence continued against civilians, U.S. troops and members of the Iraqi security forces. A car bombing at a market in the southern city of Kufa killed at least 16 people and wounded more than 70, according to Najaf provincial police and health officials. The midmorning blast occurred near a Shiite mosque and a popular restaurant, leaving shattered glass and pools of blood on the streets.

Two U.S. soldiers were killed and one was wounded in a roadside bombing southeast of Baghdad, the military said in a statement.

In Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad, a suicide bomber wearing a police uniform detonated an explosives belt at a police station northeast of the provincial capital of Baqubah, killing five officers and wounding 15, said Lt. Mohammed Hekman of the Diyala police.

Staff writer Karin Brulliard in Baghdad contributed to this report.

قدرداني آيات عظام از اجراي طرح امنيت اخلاقي

سرويس شهرستان ها-
آيات عظام مكارم شيرازي و موسوي اردبيلي در ديدار رئيس پليس اطلاعات و امنيت عمومي ناجا در قم با وي گفت وگو كردند.

آيت الله مكارم شيرازي در اين ديدار گفت: كاري كه شما شروع كرده ايد خيلي ها مي خواهند فقط در مبارزه با بدحجابي محدود شود، اما كار شما مقياس بسيار وسيعي دارد و همه بايد از كار شما تشكر كنند و تا آنجايي هم كه من اطلاع دارم از اين حركت همه راضي هستند.

آيت الله مكارم شيرازي با تاكيد بر اطلاع رساني مناسب افزود: با استفاده از بسترهاي موجود (ائمه جمعه، بزرگان علم، خطبا و مداحان و همه كساني كه تريبون در اختيار دارند) ناهنجاري ها و خطرات ناامني هاي اخلاقي را به مردم بگوئيد و در اين كار از آنها كمك بگيريد.

وي در پايان ضمن اشاره به ايجاد فرهنگ سازي مناسب اجتماعي و فرهنگي گفت: پليس بايد در صدا و سيما و حوزه هاي مختلف فرهنگي و تبليغاتي حضور پيدا كند و به مردم بگويد كه جوانان شما در خطرند تا مردم با اين تفكر شما بيشتر آشنا شوند.

همچنين به گزارش خبرنگار كيهان از قم، آيت الله موسوي اردبيلي نيز در اين ديدار گفت: اصل كار خيلي لازم است. دهه اول انقلاب براي مبارزه با بدحجابي طرح هايي اجرا شد، اما موفقيتي نبود چون مامورها كاركشته نبودند و طرح ها خام بودند ولي الان آمار موفقيت به صورت نسبي خوب است و كارهايي كه انجام داده ايد بسيار خوب است و مهم نيست كه حتي صد درصد پاسخ بگيريد. آيت الله موسوي اردبيلي افزود: در طرح ها دقيق باشيد. با دقت و تامل با مامورهاي مجرب و آموزش ديده كار را دنبال كنيد ولو اين كه خيلي سريع نتيجه ندهد، چنانچه رضايت خدا مدنظر باشد رضايت مردم جلب خواهد شد.

براساس اين گزارش سرتيپ اشتري رئيس پليس اطلاعات و امنيت عمومي ناجا در اين ديدار در گزارشي به تشريح امنيت اجتماعي و اخلاقي پرداخت

6 Charged in Plot to Attack Army Post

Six foreign-born Muslims were arrested and accused Tuesday of plotting to attack the Army's Fort Dix and massacre scores of U.S. soldiers - a plot investigators say was foiled when the men took a video of themselves firing assault weapons to a store to have the footage put onto a DVD.

The defendants, all of them from the former Yugoslavia and the Middle East, include a pizza deliveryman suspected of using his job to scout out the military base.

Authorities said there was no direct evidence connecting them to any international terror organizations such as al-Qaida. But several of the men said they were ready to kill and die "in the name of Allah," according to court records.

Their goal was "to kill as many soldiers as possible" in attacks with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and guns, prosecutors said.

They also allegedly spoke of attacking the Navy base in Philadelphia during the annual Army-Navy football game, when the place would be full of sailors, and conducted surveillance at other military installations in the region.

"This was a serious plot put together by people who were intent on harming Americans," U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie said. "We're very gratified federal law enforcement was able to catch these people before they acted and took innocent life."

Investigators said they infiltrated the group with an informant well over a year ago and bided their time while they secretly recorded the defendants, five of whom lived in Cherry Hill, a Philadelphia suburb about 20 miles from Fort Dix.

One defendant, Eljvir Duka, was recorded as saying: "In the end, when it comes to defending your religion, when someone is trying attacks your religion, your way of life, then you go jihad."

The six were arrested Monday night trying to buy AK-47 assault weapons, M-16s and other weapons from an FBI informant, authorities said. They were scheduled to appear before a federal judge in Camden on Tuesday afternoon to face charges of conspiracy to kill U.S. servicemen.

Four of the men were born in the former Yugoslavia, one was born in Jordan and one came from Turkey, authorities said. All had lived in the United States for years. Three were in the United States illegally; two had green cards allowing them to stay in this country permanently; and the sixth is a U.S. citizen.

One suspect spoke of using rocket-propelled grenades to kill at least 100 soldiers, according to court documents.

"If you want to do anything here, there is Fort Dix and I don't want to exaggerate, and I assure you that you can hit an American base very easily," Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer was recorded as saying last August.

"It doesn't matter to me whether I get locked up, arrested or get taken away," Serdar Tatar was quoted as saying. "Or I die, it doesn't matter. I'm doing it in the name of Allah."

Asked if those arrested had any links to al-Qaida, White House spokesman Tony Snow said it appears "there is no direct evidence of a foreign terrorist tie."

In court documents, prosecutors said the suspects came to the attention of authorities in January 2006 when a shopkeeper alerted the FBI about a "disturbing" video he had been asked to copy onto a DVD.

The video showed 10 young men in their early 20s "shooting assault weapons at a firing range ... while calling for jihad and shouting in Arabic 'Allah Akbar' (God is great)," the complaint said. The 10 included six of those arrested, authorities said.

By March 2006, the group had been infiltrated by an informant who developed a relationship with Shnewer, and the informant secretly recorded meetings last August, according to court documents.

Christie said one of the suspects worked at Super Mario's Pizza in nearby Cookstown and delivered pizzas to the base, using that opportunity to scout out Fort Dix for an attack.

"Clearly, one of the guys had an intimate knowledge of the base from having been there delivering pizzas," Christie said.

The men also allegedly conducted surveillance at other area military installations, including Fort Monmouth in New Jersey, Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, and a Philadelphia Coast Guard station.

Besides Shnewer, Tatar and Duka, the other three men were identified in court papers as Dritan Duka, Shain Duka and Agron Abdullahu.

Fort Dix is used to train soldiers, particularly reservists. It also housed refugees from Kosovo in 1999.

The description of the suspects as "Islamic militants" caused renewed worry among New Jersey's Muslim community. Hundreds of Muslim men from New Jersey were rounded up and detained in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks, but none were connected to that plot.

"If these people did something, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law," said Sohail Mohammed, a lawyer who represented scores of detainees after the 2001 attacks. "But when the government says `Islamic militants,' it sends a message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous."

"Don't equate actions with religion," he said.

Associated Press Writers Matt Apuzzo and Ben Feller in Washington, Geoff Mulvihill in Mount Laurel, Tom Hester Jr. in Trenton and Jeffrey Gold in Newark contributed to this story.

UAE arrests 12 Iranian divers near disputed isle

by Farhad Pouladi Tue May 8,

TEHRAN (AFP) - The United Arab Emirates has arrested 12 Iranian divers who were working at a sunken ship off a disputed island in Gulf waters, just ahead of a visit by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, officials said Tuesday.

"Twelve divers who were working in international waters were arrested by United Arab Emirates forces," Hassan Nouripour, the chairman of Sadaf Sefid Khark diving company, was quoted by the ISNA agency.

An official at the Iranian foreign ministry, who was not named, condemned the arrests as "illegal" and said that its consular staff had already met with the detainees, ISNA reported.

The divers were arrested on May 1 while working 18 nautical miles off the island of Abu Musa, which, along with the islands of Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb are at the heart of a maritime dispute between the UAE and Iran.

The islands were seized by Tehran after British forces left the Gulf region in 1971 but are claimed by Abu Dhabi.

The arrests come just days ahead of a visit by Ahmadinejad to the UAE on Sunday, the first by an Iranian president to the UAE since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Disputes over the islands have on occasion strained relations between the two countries who nonetheless maintain robust links, especially in trade.

Nouripour said that the diving firm had sent its employees out to the ship after the vessel's owner asked the company to retrieve the cargo from the sea floor and had received full permission from the Iranian authorities.

It had apparently sunk last year while sailing from Dubai to the port of Dailam in southern Iran when caught out by a sudden storm.

"The ship was some 22 nautical miles away from the UAE in international waters but Tuesday last week two Emirati patrol boats came to the site, talked to our divers and forcefully took them to the UAE."

UAE authorities were not immediately available for comment.

The foreign ministry official told ISNA: "These divers were 18 miles off Abu Musa and 24 nautical miles away from the UAE. Therefore their arrest was completely illegal."

He added: "To solve the issue we are pursuing it and it resulted into our embassy staff meeting them."

"Currently these 12 divers are in a good condition and we are following their case to release them," he added.

The maritime dispute also sparked the 2005 arrest and imprisonment by Iran of a Frenchman and a German who strayed into territorial Iranian waters after navigating on the basis of maps handed out in the UAE.

After spending more than a year in Iranian jails they were pardoned and released.

In March, Iranian naval forces seized 15 British sailors and marines in the Gulf, claiming they had entered Iran's territorial waters. Britain countered that they had been engaged in anti-smuggling operations in Iraqi waters.

After nearly two weeks in captivity, the 14 men and one woman were freed by Ahmadinejad.

Ex-nuclear negotiator released on bail

Tue, 08 May 2007

Iranian officials have said former member of Iran's nuclear negotiations team Hossein Mousavian has been released on bail.

The former nuclear negotiator was arrested over alleged links with foreigners and exchanging information with them.

Mousavian part of a moderate negotiating team that served until 2005, was arrested at his home in Tehran last Monday.

He played a central role in talks that saw Iran strike a deal with Europe under which it suspended its uranium enrichment activities.

!رابطه نوری‌زاده و فاطمه رجبی

آیا این همزبانی و همزمانی معنادار است

آفتاب: مقاله علیرضا نوری‌زاده در روزنامه فرامنطقه‌ای «الشرق ‌الاوسط» با هیجان و استقبال گسترده سایت‌های حامی دولت مخصوصاً فاطمه رجبی نماد رسانه‌ای حامیان دولت مواجه شد. علیرضا نوری‌زاده روز یک‌شنبه در روزنامه الشرق الوسط ادعا کرد که موسویان جاسوس انگلیس بوده است و اطلاعات مربوط به جاسوسی او از سوی سرویس اطلاعاتی روسیه به وزارت اطلاعات ایران داده شده است. نوری‌زاده همچنین تلویحاً بازداشت موسویان را ناشی از رقابت سرویس‌های اطلاعاتی روسیه و انگلیس در ایران دانست!

بلافاصله پس از انتشار این مقاله نوری‌زاده، سایت‌های حامی دولت از جمله رجانیوز، انصارنیوز (پایگاه خبری شورای هماهنگی نیروهای حزب‌الله)، عدالتخانه و سپهرنیوز با قدرت وارد میدان شده و غالباً این مقاله نوری‌زاده را تیتر یک خود کردند!! در این میان سایت «رجانیوز» که توسط فاطمه رجبی اداره می‌شود تا آن‌جا پیش رفت که نوری‌زاده را «تحلیلگر بین‌المللی» نامید و تاکید کرد تاکنون تمام اظهارات نوری‌زاده درست از آب درآمده است! رجانیوز البته حدود 20 دقیقه بعد این عبارت و یک پاراگراف از خبر مزبور را حذف کرد. سایر سایت‌های تند و افراطی حامی دولت نظیر «انصارنیوز»، «عدالتخانه» و «سپهر» نیز البته توجه قابل درکی را به این مقاله نشان دادند.

نکته مهم در این میان، ارتباط قابل توجه سایت‌های افراطی حامی دولت با علیرضا نوری‌زاده یکی از شاخص‌ترین چهره‌های مخالف جمهوری اسلامی است. پرسش مهم این است: فاطمه رجبی که حتی خاتمی و کروبی را نیز برانداز می‌داند و به اسم «حمایت از نظام» به اغلب شخصیت‌های معتدل و تعقل‌گرای جمهوری اسلامی (از خاتمی و هاشمی گرفته تا حدادعادل، هاشمی شاهرودی، حسن روحانی، قالیباف، ضرغامی، محسن رضایی و...) دشنام می‌دهد چه ارتباطی با علیرضا نوری‌زاده دارد که در جریان بازداشت موسویان دقیقاً مواضعی یکسان با یکدیگر داشته و به منبع خبری یکدیگر تبدیل شده‌اند؟ آیا با این وصف نباید نگران بود که فاطمه رجبی چند ماه بعد اظهاراتی از دیگران سران اپوزیسیون خارج‌نشین را به عنوان منبع خبر نقل کرده و در لوای حمایت پرطمطراق از نظام و ژست اولترا اصولگرایی، به تریبون این افراد تبدیل شود؟

از حدود 10 سال قبل اخبار ضد و نقیضی درباره ارتباطات خاص علی‌رضا نوری‌زاده با برخی محافل تندرو در ایران منتشر شده و برخی رسانه‌های اپوزیسیون ادعا کرده‌اند که نوری‌زاده عامل یک جریان خاص سیاسی امنیتی‌ است که در قالب یک روزنامه‌‌گار برانداز، اهداف آنان را دنبال می‌کند. این شایعات تا آن‌جا پیش رفت که حامیان این فرضیه حتی اطلاعاتی درباره یک کتابخانه در لندن منتشر کردند. اکنون صرفنظر از درستی یا نادرستی این مدعیات، حداقل رفتار فاطمه رجبی و نوری‌زاده در ماجرای موسویان و تکرار ادعایی که فقط و فقط از سوی رسانه‌های این دو نفر مطرح شده است نشان می‌دهد که تصادفاً هماهنگی‌هایی نیز میان این دو وجود دارد.

صرفنظر از مقاله نوری‌زاده، 5 سایت مدعی دولت که همزمان مقاله مزبور را منتشر کرده و درصدر اخبار خود قرار دادند باید به یک تناقض و پارداوکس بزرگ پاسخ دهند. آیا انتشار این مطلب توسط سایت‌های فاطمه رجبی به این معنی است که سایر مطالب نوری‌زاده نیز قابل انتشار و استناد است؟ آیا رسانه‌ها می‌توانند تحلیل‌ها و مطالب این نویسنده درباره محمود احمدی‌نژاد را نیز منتشر کنند؟ به نظر می‌رسد که حامیان افراطی دولت در این زمینه نیز بر مبنای دو استراتژی قدیمی و شناخته ‌شده خود حرکت کرده‌اند. اول آن که «هدف وسیله را توجیه می‌کند». و دوم آن که هرگونه دروغ‌پردازی، هتک حرمت و رفتارهای غیرقانونی و غیراخلاقی برای افزایش قدرت جناح خانم رجبی مجاز، مشروع و حتی ضروری است!

Leader urges unity among Farsi-speakers

Tue, 08 May 2007

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged Farsi-speaking nations to use their common culture as a path to unity.

"There exist many social, cultural and religious affinities among the nations of Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Iran which will help them boost multilateral relations and improve the capabilities of one another," the Leader said in a meeting with Tajik President Imaomali Rahmon Tuesday in Tehran.

Accompanied by a business delegation, President Rahmon is on a three-day visit to Tehran to further bilateral cooperation with a focus on economy.

Ayatollah Khamenei called Tajik culture an undividable aspect of ancient Persian culture, adding that a major policy of the Islamic Republic is the expansion of ties with friendly and brotherly countries like Tajikistan.

President Rahmon, for his part, praised Iran for the authority and progress it has achieved during the past few decades, saying Iran's success is a pride for all Muslims across the world.

"Enemies of Islam and Iran are against the unity of the countries in the region. However, we are proud and happy to see Iran following policies that urge unity among the nations," he added.

Senior officials from 6 world powers to meet in Berlin on Iran's nuclear defiance

VIENNA, Austria: Senior officials from the United States and five other world powers will meet in Berlin this week to discuss ways to react to Iran's continued defiance of U.N. Security Council demands to stop uranium enrichment, diplomats said Tuesday.

The diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to divulge the information, said U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Nicholas Burns would be joined in the German capital on Thursday by counterparts from Russia, China, Britain, France — the other U.N. Security Council members — as well as Germany and a representative from the European Union.

The planned meeting comes less than a week after a similar gathering Wednesday in London and amid signs that Tehran continues to ignore the council's ban on its enrichment program, despite two sets of U.N. sanctions imposed on the Islamic republic.

It also follows on recent talks between Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, and Javier Solana, the EU's senior foreign policy envoy. The talks are meant to seek a common basis for renewed talks between Iran and the six powers centered on a stop to all activities linked to enrichment, which can generate both nuclear power and the fissile material for warheads.

Both envoys said after their talks last month that some progress was made, with diplomats familiar with their meeting saying the two had touched on the concept of a "double time out" — a simultaneous freeze of such enrichment activities in exchange for a commitment not to impose new U.N. sanctions.


The "double time out" concept is the brainchild of International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei and is part of a confidential document made available to 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."

Still, Iran publicly opposes any suspension to its enrichment activities. Instead, there are indications it is expanding its program

Diplomats last week told the AP that Iran had recently set up more centrifuges at its underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, bringing the number of machines ready to spin uranium gas into enriched form to more than 1,600.

An International Atomic Energy Agency document obtained last month said the Islamic regime was running more than 1,300 centrifuge machines to enrich uranium at Natanz.

Its ultimate goal is to have 50,000 centrifuges. That would be enough to supply fuel for what Iran says is a planned network of atomic reactors to generate electricity. Or it could produce material for a full-scale nuclear weapons program.

Iran Pleased with Success at NPT Meeting

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Following Iran's insistence on the necessity of indiscriminative implementation of all contents of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference unanimously approved of Iran's stance, Tehran's envoy to IAEA said.

Iran on Tuesday objected to a clause inserted in the agenda of the meeting, saying that the agenda should deal with other aspects of the NPT as well.

Speaking to FNA on Tuesday, Iran's permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ali Asghar Soltanieh pointed to the political pressures exerted by the US and certain western countries to push Iran into isolation at the meeting, and said, "Owing to the insistence of the Iranian delegation on its primary stance which required full implementation of all the contents of the NPT without any segregation, the conference eventually approved Iran's stance after 10 days of debates and put it on the agenda of talks."

The draft agenda for the meeting primarily focused on the necessity of full compliance with the NPT requirements by the member states, but following Iran's strong objections and its insistence, the participants unanimously approved that the agenda should also deal with the non-compliance of the established nuclear states with article 4 of the NPT, which requires all established nuclear states to help other member states access and use civilian nuclear energy through transferring the technology to the latter group of countries.

As a result of the approval, the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference will also study non-compliance of the established nuclear states in its current and future meetings, including those in 2008 and 2009, the envoy said.

The first session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference was adjourned for five days after two days of operation due to Iran's objections. Iran's protest, which pertained to the insertion of a clause into the agenda which unjustly dealt with full compliance with NPT contents by those countries which strive to access and use nuclear technology received wide debates after a large number of delegations from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Syria, Indonesia, Algeria, Malaysia, Venezuela and Cuba officially voiced support for Iran's stance.

Iran and the said delegations protested against the inclusion of only one of the articles of the NPT and ignorance of the rest of the content of the treaty, including dismantlement and disarmament of the nuclear weapon states and implementation of article 4 mentioned above.

At the beginning of the conference, certain countries strove to make hue and cry about Iran's objection and alleged that Iran sought to push the meeting into failure. Media and diplomats of the same countries also strove to convince the world that Iran is worried about a discussion of its nuclear issue at the meeting.

Soltanieh further said that during the last month, the Non-Aligned Movement has prepared several statements on the different articles of the NPT, which will be announced gradually.

The meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference started on April 30 and will continue till May 11.

Why U.S. needs to sit down with Iran

By Trudy Rubin

The Philadelphia Inquirer

He was supposed to sit across from her at the dinner table. Everyone was waiting to see if they would start a conversation.

But Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki left the diplomatic dinner in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, before Condoleezza Rice got there. "I'm not given to chasing anyone," said the U.S. secretary of state when asked if she felt stood up.

Thus ended the latest chapter of the ongoing saga of whether Iran and the United States will talk.

This isn't the end of the story. Iran and top Bush officials have openly signaled their interest in dialogue. The European Union's top foreign policy official, Javier Solana - point man for multilateral talks on Iran's nuclear program - says "the United States must engage" directly with Iran. Top Iraqi leaders say the same.

Yet, disputes within the administration still block serious talks. Vice President Dick Cheney and his circle want Iran regime change, not engagement. Rice understands the need for talks, but wants to keep them narrowly focused - on issues like Iranian arms for Iraqi militias.

"They are taking very limited baby steps," says Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council. Without some broader strategy for U.S.-Iran dialogue, Parsi doesn't think such talks can go anywhere.

I agree. So here's four reasons the White House should start a strategic dialogue with Iran.

First, neither talks nor diplomacy mean capitulation. I get e-mail equating dialogue with Iran to Neville Chamberlain's pact at Munich. Nonsense. Reagan talked to the Kremlin, and Nixon went to China. Talks mean both sides put their interests on the table and discuss them directly. They may or may not reach agreement. Talks don't mean America endorses the nature of Iran's regime, or its human rights violations against students, women or workers.

Iran has rebuffed U.S. efforts in the past for direct contacts, and we have done likewise. But the issues at hand - Iran's nuclear program, its role in the region, and Iraq's future - require us to try again.

Second, if America wants to prevent Iran from getting the capacity for nuclear weapons, the best option is smart, tough diplomacy. Various formulas offer some hope of limiting Iran's program. They can't be fully explored unless we talk directly to Iran, alongside multilateral negotiations.

The alternative - bombing Iran's nuclear energy sites - would strengthen Tehran's hard-liners and Islamists worldwide; it would ensure that Iran pursued a bomb.

Third, Washington's interests in Iraq coincide more with Tehran's than with those of any other Middle Eastern country. Iran's Shiites back the elected Shiite-led Iraqi government; Sunni Arab states in the region yearn for the return to power of Iraq's Sunni minority.

Iran is making trouble for U.S. soldiers in Iraq because the United States has called for regime change in Tehran. We and the Iranians are playing tit-for-tat. We're still holding five Iranians we arrested in Erbil (which may be why Iran's foreign minister snubbed Rice). If the Tehran regime believed Washington no longer sought its ouster, we could work together to stabilize Iraq.

Fourth, despite the flaming rhetoric of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there is reason to think the time is ripe for talks. In 2001, Iran provided U.S. forces with crucial cooperation in stabilizing Afghanistan.

In 2003, Iran transmitted a proposal for a "grand bargain" to the State Department. The proposal agreed to consider ending aid to Palestinian opposition groups, and acting to limit Hezbollah to politics. Iran was also willing to discuss accepting the Saudi/Arab League proposal that called for recognition of Israel alongside a Palestinian state. In return, Iran wanted to discuss its desire for "full access to peaceful nuclear technology" and wanted to be dropped from the "axis of evil."

That proposal got short shrift from the Bush team. We will never know whether it had the full backing of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

In 2003, the United States had a much stronger hand in the Middle East. The ouster of Iran's archenemy, Saddam, and the mess in Iraq, have made Iran far more powerful. No one can be certain a "grand bargain" is possible today.

But there is an open struggle going on inside Iran between pragmatists who want to bargain and hard-line radicals led by Ahmadinejad. "There is a new discourse between those who want normalization (with the West and the United States) and those who want to retain tension and revolutionary fervor," says Hooshang Amirahmadi. He is an Iranian-American professor at Rutgers who played a key role in back-channel discussions that laid the ground for the Iranian proposals of 2003.

In the Iranian system, Ahmadinejad is not the key foreign policy maker - that is Ayatollah Khamenei. This is a moment when America needs to explore Iran's intentions, to see whether Iran is finally ready to play by accepted international rules. That would require the White House to stop dreaming of regime change, and put all issues on the table. It would require a whole new U.S. strategic approach to the region.

The venue for talks - Sharm el-Sheik, whatever - doesn't matter. What matters is the political will.

---

ABOUT THE WRITER

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers may write to her at: Philadelphia Inquirer, P.O. Box 8263, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101, or by e-mail at trubin@phillynews.com.

Bush won't give up military option on Iran: Rice

Tue May 8, 2007

DUBAI (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush will keep a military option on the table as he seeks a diplomatic solution to the standoff with Iran over its nuclear plans, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.

"The American president will not abandon the military option and I believe that we do not want him to do so," Rice said in an interview with Al Arabiya television, part of which was broadcast on Tuesday.

Iran is embroiled in a standoff with the West over its nuclear ambitions. The West suspects it is seeking to develop atomic weapons but Tehran says it wants only to generate electricity so that it can export more of its oil and gas.

Rice in remarks dubbed in Arabic said Bush remained "committed to the diplomatic option. If the world remained strong, there would be a chance for the success of the diplomatic option".

Two sets of United Nations sanctions have been imposed on Iran since December and major powers have warned a third, tougher resolution might be needed if Tehran did not halt uranium enrichment.

"I say to the Iranians ... there are two options -- isolation and dialogue," she said.

Analysts say the measures, including arms and financial sanctions, are hurting business and deterring foreign investment in the Islamic state, which despite its oil wealth is struggling with inflation and unemployment.

Iranian officials have repeatedly rejected Western demands to halt work to enrich uranium, which can be used to fuel nuclear power plants or make atom bombs if refined further.

Rice reiterated that Washington would change its policy against Tehran, adopted after anti-U.S. Iranian clerics toppled the U.S.-allied Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in an Islamic revolution in 1979.

"The international community has made its demands through the United Nations; Iran should stop nuclear enrichment, after that there would be a change in the U.S. policy that has been going on for 27 years and then I can talk to them about any issue."

Washington severed its ties with Tehran in 1980 after students seized the U.S. embassy there and held 52 hostages for 444 days.