اهداف جامعه ایرانی چیست؟ « ما چگونه فکر می کنیم» و آنچه که در ایران مهم انگاشته می شود.

۱۳۸۶ خرداد ۱۸, جمعه

US freezes assets of Iranian companies

Sat, 09 Jun 2007

The United States froze the assets of four Iranian companies, accusing them of being involved in Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Although Iran has favored peaceful use of nuclear energy within the NPT framework, the US has unfairly accused Tehran of possessing weapons of mass destruction and has frozen the assets of four Iranian companies including Pars Tarash, Farayand Technique, Fajr Industries Group, and Mizan Machine Manufacturing Group.

The US Treasury Department froze the assets of three other Iranian companies on February 16. Friday, the G8 threatened to impose "further sanctions" if Iran continues uranium enrichment.

Security Council refuses to condemn Iran

By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 8,

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council refused to approve a statement Friday that would condemn remarks about Israel's impending destruction attributed to Iran's hard-line president because of objections from Indonesia, council diplomats said.

Qatar, the only Arab nation on the council, said it had no instructions, which also meant approval on Friday was impossible, the diplomats said. The statement must be approved by all 15 council members.

France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, who called for condemnation of the remarks attributed to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said it was unfortunate that the council could not act immediately. But he said he would try again on Monday to get all 15 council members to approve the statement.

"At stake is ... a real question of principle. When the president of a country talks about the destruction of another country, a member of the United Nations, this is a serious issue," de La Sabliere said.

"His remark is very similar to the one he made in 2005 and the Security Council reacted in 2005," the French ambassador said. "I am confident that the council will react this time again."

In October 2005, the Iranian president caused outrage in the West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map."

The official Islamic Republic News Agency reported Sunday that Ahmadinejad referred twice to Israel's destruction.

IRNA quoted the president as saying that in last summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah "the Lebanese nation pushed the button to begin counting the days until the destruction of the Zionist regime." It also quoted him as saying "God willing, in the near future we will witness the destruction of the corrupt occupier regime."

Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, said Ahmadinejad had not really threatened Israel, council diplomats said.

Indonesia also accused the Security Council of double standards in defending Israel. It accused the council of doing nothing when Palestinians are attacked, when Israeli ministers threatened Iran or when the newspaper Haaretz called for Ahmadinejad's assassination, the diplomats said.

France, Britain and the United States stressed that there was a difference between comments in a newspaper and comments by a head of state, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the consultations were private.

"A statement by a head of state calling for or implying the destruction of a member state of the United Nations is as a matter of principle unacceptable, and this is a threat to international peace and security," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters after the closed meeting.

On Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed dismay at the Iranian report.

The brief press statement proposed by France would have the council "strongly condemn the remarks about the destruction of Israel" attributed to Ahmadinejad, while reaffirming Israel's rights and obligations as a U.N. member. It would also "reaffirm that under the United Nations Charter, al members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

Tabriz Music

Tabriz Babek komik



Tabriz Babek komik


Tabriz-Music



Tabriz Babek komik


Tabriz Comedy Show


Shajaryan Daneshgah Tabriz 1


Shajaryan Daneshgah Tabriz 2


US Navy works to keep lines open to Iran

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 7,

ABOARD THE USS NIMITZ IN THE GULF - Even as Iran and the U.S. face off bitterly, Navy commanders in the Persian Gulf are working quietly to keep communications open with Iran's military, hoping the contact will avert an accidental stumble into armed confrontation.

Most of the talk takes place over the crackle of radios, using the standard international bridge-to-bridge communications network, Rear Adm. Terry Blake, commander of the strike group led by the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, said aboard ship this week.

Other contacts are between Iranian pilots and air communications networks.

Conversations often begin with an Iranian voice, in accented English, announcing that Iran has detected foreign planes or ships and wants to know their purpose, said the carrier's skipper, Capt. Michael Manazir.

"Hey, vessel at such and such a latitude and longitude, this is the Iranian navy. Who are you? What's your course and speed?" Manazir said, paraphrasing a typical call from Iran.

"We say: 'Iranian navy, this is coalition warship 68. Our course is three-zero-zero at 15 knots, operating in international waters.'"

Most of the conversations are brief and businesslike, with little information shared.

But not every encounter is pleasant. The Iranians frequently send frigates and patrol craft or reconnaissance planes, including U.S.-made P-3 Orions, to watch the U.S. ships.

The Navy often responds by scrambling an F/A-18 fighters to intercept and shadow Iranian planes.

"They're curious, if you will," Blake said. "They want to understand who's operating in the area."

The U.S. now has two carriers — the Nimitz and the USS John C. Stennis — operating in the Gulf, often just off Iran's coast.

The carriers and the ships in their strike groups were mostly unaffected by this week's Cyclone Gonu, which hit Oman in the southern Arabian peninsula and brought rain to the far southern coast of Iran, but did not greatly affect Gulf waters.

In Washington, U.S. officials have said the increased naval presence in the Gulf serves as a warning to Iran not to test U.S. resolve at a time when the American military is busy in Iraq.

But Blake and Manazir said the second carrier was mostly part of the Navy's contribution to the buildup of forces in Iraq since January and the continued air bombing in Afghanistan, rather than a warning to Iran.

"Our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are what's drawing our presence here, not Iran," Manazir said.

He said he considers it understandable that Iran is wary of U.S. warships off its coast, just as Americans would be wary if the Iranian navy were off Massachusetts or California.

"That's their coastline. There's a respect for their air and water space. But to avoid a misunderstanding, we need dialogue," said Manazir, 48, of Mission Viejo, Calif.

When the Nimitz and eight other U.S. warships put on a show of force last month — sailing through the Strait of Hormuz and conducting exercises off Iran's coast — U.S. commanders were in direct radio touch with Iranian navy and air force officers, Blake said.

This week, the Nimitz was operating in a 75-mile by 25-mile patch of sea called Carrier Operating Area 4. The easternmost edge is about 40 miles from the Iranian city of Bushehr, where Russia is building a nuclear power plant.

Carrier Operating Area 4 consists of deep water with no oil platforms and less merchant ship traffic than other areas. It's also far enough from Iran so the Nimitz's 70 planes aren't likely to stray into Iranian airspace.

"The reason we do that is to avoid conflict with Iran that we don't want to have," Manazir said.

So far, the U.S.-Iranian dispute over Tehran's nuclear program and the March capture and release of 15 British sailors and marines in disputed northern Gulf waters have not ended the military-to-military dialogue.

"It's a complete disconnect from what you read in the papers. We don't see a manifestation at the tactical level of the verbiage at the political level," said Manazir, surveying the giant ship's bustling flight deck from the bridge.