Iran Stand-Off and the 'Freeze-Freeze' Solution

DR. FATIMA SHAHNAZ reviews US versus Iran conflict on nuclear issue and says that US is under increased pressure to accept the path of negotiations. Further, it is not in a position to open a new war front in Iran.

Europe finds itself cornered in the stalemate between Washington and Tehran over what is now visibly a 'lose-lose' game after Iran's defiance of two U.N. Security Council Resolutions on the suspension of its uranium enrichment programme. The challenge facing Europe, as world powers meet in Berlin this week to debate new punitive measures against Iran's nuclear program is to 'think outside the box.' This, of course, means distancing itself from Washington's pressure tactics, which forced Europe into compromising Iran in the earlier Security Council votes. Now, with the failure of the Security Council and financial sanctions imposed unilaterally by the U.S., the ground realities have sunk in: Since Iran is far from softening its position and suspending its nuclear programme, the EU sees the outcome can only be a 'lose-lose' situation. What is now needed for the West is a desperate face-saving device, which Europe strives to embody considering the high stakes involved, and the looming threat of another protracted war in the region led by the neo-con administration in Washington in the region. Even though the prospects of the war seem to flounder with the US Congress and legislators (plus military brass and even Republicans in the President's Party) in tenterhooks over neo-con belligerence toward Iran, the hallmark of the Bush administration has been its wars of aggression. But Iran continues, in the face of global isolation, to defy the American Goliath. U.S. financial sanctions have failed to force Tehran into compromise and the Deputy Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, stressed the Islamic Republic's stance by stating earlier this week that Tehran was ready to “pay the price” by continuing its nuclear programme. US MILITARY MANOEUVRES IN PERSIAN GULF Some 'changes of the guard' have taken place in the Persian Gulf area in the U.S. fleet posted there. Two American aircraft carriers – the Dwight D. Eisenhower and cruiser Anzio left the 5th Fleet last Friday, passing through the Suez Canal and ending their mission begun seven months back with combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; but the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group is en route to the region to join the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, operating in the area since February, deployed to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle also left the Persian Gulf area. While the military configurations realign, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney left on May 8 on a six-day tour of four key Middle East countries, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Egypt. According to senior American intelligence sources in Washington and the region, the main focus of Cheney's agenda would be a military confrontation with Iran. The Americans calculate on playing the sectarian card, the Shia-Sunni fractiousness rehearsed in Iraq; they also speculate that all four countries, leading Sunni allies of the United States, would submit to Washington's pressure-tactics to ally with Israel. Since Cheney's visit to Riyadh in November 2006, the Vice President and National Security Council Middle East director Elliot Abrams have been forming a regional military and political coalition against Iran. This seems like lame pipedreams considering the anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli sentiments that unite the Islamic world. ISRAELI WAR-GAMES However, failing to get Arab support, and due to the vast opposition to the Bush policies within the American military, diplomatic and intelligence networks, according to one Arab analyst Cheney, will resort to using the Israeli proxy to launch an attack (if possible) on Iran, for refusing to shut down its nuclear enrichment programme. Israel would trigger the ignominious “9/11” factor, which was used to push the American government and people into launching attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. In brief, this would be the case of the 'runaway ally'. The reasoning behind this is that an Israeli strike against Iran would push the Congress and public into a showdown with Iran since the United States would step in to support Israel. While the war-drive has dampened somewhat in the U.S. because of the Iraq disaster, some sources confirm preparations for a war-scenario based on recent developments. For instance, in recent months the Bush administration has stepped up its provision to Israel of smart bombs and the latest generation of Patriot anti-missile batteries. The Israeli war-rhetoric has also escalated. In an interview with the German magazine Focus (April 28) Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned that Israel had the capacity to launch 1,000 cruise missile strikes against Iranian targets within a ten-day period. A month ago, Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Prime Minister, was in Washington for private meetings with Cheney. In a speech addressing the annual convention of the Jewish lobby group, AIPAC, he equated Iran with Nazi Germany in 1938, promising that Israel would strike Iran before the Islamic Republic acquired nuclear weapon-building capability. Netanyahu, a right-wing war-hawk and favourite of the neo-cons, has intensified his campaign of a no-confidence drive in the Knesset to unseat Olmert after the Winograd Commission Interim report made strong criticism of the Olmert government's fiasco in the Lebanon war in summer 2006. Netanyahu is five votes short of the 61 needed to replace Olmert, and according to Israeli polls, his right-wing led coalition would win if early elections were to be held. EUROPE'S STALEMATE In summer 2006, European diplomats feared an escalation of the Iranian nuclear crisis following Security Council sanctions. Since then, Iran has defied two Chapter VII U.N. Security Council Resolutions to suspend its uranium enrichment programme and has further retaliated by cutting back on cooperation with the IAEA. The end result of the Security Council measures has, indeed, made both parties entrench their positions. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated, “What has been the result of three (UN) Security Council resolutions, two introducing sanctions? Iran has quickened the pace of its peaceful activities and reduced its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency … This can go on, but the result is an escalation of the crisis.” Further, Iran has proceeded to an expansion of its nuclear programme since the new centrifuges installed can only strengthen Tehran's bargaining power. Also, according to non-proliferation experts, the reality is that Iran will finally achieve the necessary technology necessary, which would dispel any notions of compromise. These prospects foster the lose-lose situation the West fears most. An 'out of the box' solution is needed for Europe to attempt to end the stand-off. EU High Representative for the Common Foreign Security Policy Javier Solana has publicly called for direct U.S. Iran talks. Moreover, he has stressed that reform of the non proliferation treaty is essential as the case of Iran cannot be isolated from this broader issue. The Europeans have also floated the idea of an international enrichment consortium in Iran, plus other prospects. Tehran's former negotiations with Europe (with suspension of enrichment) have emboldened its stand that the West must also commit to solutions that would not make suspension permanent. THE “FREEZE FOR FREEZE” SOLUTION There have been two phases in Iran's position vis-à-vis Europe: prior negotiations led Tehran to believe that “objective criteria” would allow Iran to exercise its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, provided the necessary guarantees certifying its programme was strictly civilian. But as European bias tilted in favour of Washington, which demanded that acceptable criteria would make Iran suspend uranium enrichment altogether, Tehran found itself both in a bind and compromised by the EU. Now, Tehran continues to reject the call for suspension of any framework that deprives Iran of its uranium production. The alternative Europe faces in the current gridlock between Washington and Tehran is to revive an idea floated last summer which was the “freeze-for-freeze” solution. This required both sides to freeze their activities from any further development without stopping them altogether. Iran would then be allowed to 'freeze' its programme without suspending it, meaning it could continue its current nuclear development without expanding the programme by adding new centrifuges. Meanwhile, Washington would be pacified since the U.N. sanctions against Iran would remain intact, as it was difficult for the U.S. to get the UNSC to take the sanctions route. This course would not oblige Washington to confront Russian and Chinese resistance to new sanctions. However, the caveat to this solution would be that the Security Council measures would also be frozen under the 'freeze-for-freeze' directive. While still at its nascent stage, promoters of the 'freeze-for-freeze' concept believe that war-fatigue may eventually set in with opposition against Bush policies, and another lose-lose situation in Southwest Asia.

Iran gas price hike said shows weakness

By SEBASTIAN ABBOT, Associated Press Writer Mon May 28,

CAIRO, Egypt - Iran's decision to raise gasoline prices has thrown new light on one of its most entrenched problems — the danger a vulnerable, subsidized economy poses for a country under international pressure over its nuclear program.

Experts warn of the popular backlash that other countries have faced when dealing with the same need to raise long-subsidized staple prices, including in Indonesia which saw a wave of protests in 2005. At the same time, they doubt the 25 percent price hike imposed last week on Iran's gasoline will do much, on its own, to solve the country's underlying economic problems.

Even after Tuesday's decision to raise gasoline prices from the equivalent of 30 cents a gallon to 38 cents a gallon, Iran has some of the lowest gas prices in the world, and fuel remains cheaper than drinking water. Those prices have led to unnaturally high demand and have saddled the government with fuel subsidies that cost billions of dollars a year.

The demand also forces Iran to import more than half the gasoline it consumes because it lacks enough refinery capacity up — a glaring vulnerability as the U.S. and its allies look for pressure-points in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.

"The gasoline import issue is the Achilles heel for Iran," said Amy Jaffe, an energy expert at Rice University's U.S.-based James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. "It shows the vulnerability of their economy."

Consistently high oil prices over the past few years have helped the economy grow more than 4 percent annually and left Iran awash in petroleum money, masking the economy's underlying weakness. But the country lacks the investment it needs to reverse its falling oil production because billions of dollars are spent instead on subsidies for fuel, food, paper, fertilizer, pharmaceuticals and other products.

Outside experts estimate that Iranian energy subsidies alone, including gasoline and natural gas, amount to $30 billion, or 15 percent of the country's entire economy, and total subsidies are close to twice that figure.

Conservatives in Iran's parliament, especially those aligned with the country's national oil company, have long pushed for higher gasoline prices.

There has been sharp criticism of the government for withdrawing billions of dollars to pay for domestic expenditures, like the subsidies, from a fund it set up in 2000 to hedge against a future downturn in oil prices and invest in the energy sector.

"They have so much more revenue than they ever thought they would have," said Jaffe. "Yet at $70 per barrel, they were taking money out of the oil stabilization fund, not putting it in it. That's unsustainable."

Siphoning off this money in the current climate leaves the country vulnerable if oil prices fall and robs the oil sector of productive investment. Investment from outside Iran is also increasingly rare, as the U.S. pressures foreign oil companies not to do business in Iran.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has promised to share Iran's oil wealth with the nation's poor, has opposed past attempts to increase gasoline prices and cut demand.

"He doesn't want to be the man who has to drink this poison," said Saeed Laylaz, a prominent Iranian analyst.

Ahmadinejad made it clear this time that parliament had forced him to agree to the latest increase, Laylaz noted. The president has also faced increasing domestic political pressure over his defiant stand on the country's nuclear program.

But Frank Verrastro, an oil analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the international pressure could also give Ahmadinejad cover to enact unpopular measures.

"If as a result of increasing prices, you reduce demand and import reliance, then it makes you less vulnerable," he said. "It's unpopular, but if you can sell it as being under siege by foreign threats, you can mask the pain a bit."

So far, response in Iran has been fairly muted; prices weren't raised enough to reduce demand, Jaffe said.

Narsi Ghorban, an independent energy consultant based in Tehran, said if planned rationing goes into effect, that could have much more impact. The plan would allow consumers to use "smart cards" to purchase a set amount of gasoline at the current subsidized price, and any additional quantity at a much higher price.

But Laylaz said the ration plan was simply creating a black market in "smart cards," further enabling those close to the government to enrich themselves at the expense of the poor, in an economy considered full of corruption and cronyism.

"The mismanagement of the economy hurts Iran more than any international sanctions," he said

Talking to Iran — or Talking War?

By ADAM ZAGORIN, WASHINGTON

When representatives of the U.S. and Iran meet in Baghdad on Monday, it will mark the first substantive encounter between the two sides since before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Officially, the agenda is supposed to include security in Iraq, avoiding the nuclear standoff between Iran and the West, and other contentious issues.

But the talks are occurring in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion, in which confrontational invective is growing. Just days after the U.S.-Iran meeting, a group of powerful neo-conservatives —including some of those who were most active in promoting the invasion of Iraq — plan to gather for an all-expenses-paid conference entitled "Confronting The Iranian Threat: The Way Forward" at a luxurious resort in the Bahamas. Many of the 30 or so invited guests have been strident critics of Iran and hard-liners on maintaining the U.S. presence in Iraq. They include six current Bush Administration officials — among them U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad and his wife, Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky — as well as think-tank academics, conservative opinion columnists and Uri Lubrani, the top adviser on Iran to Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Though it is not clear how many will actually attend the conference, a spokesman for the organizers, the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the meeting was intended "to bring together a wide range of experts to examine all options for dealing with Iran."

President Bush himself identified some of those options this week in response to reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran is expanding its uranium enrichment capabilities in defiance of U.N. Security Council demands that it freeze that activity. IAEA chief Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei also noted that Iran was three to eight years away from having the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. "My view is that we need to strengthen our sanction regime," Bush said, adding that he and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had discussed plans to beef up punitive U.N. measures.

[TIME's Joe Klein also reports that Vice President Cheney is actively promoting military action against Iran, despite such a course of action being unanimously opposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a meeting with President Bush last December.]

Meanwhile, two longtime Bush supporters among the neo-conservatives — an ideological pressure group with advocates in and out of government — have revived public calls for military action against Iran. Norman Podhoretz, editor of the journal Commentary, authored an article in the magazine's June 2007 issue, "The Case for Bombing Iran." And former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told Fox News this week that "the only recourse is to dramatically ratchet up the economic and political pressure on Iran and keep open the option of regime change or even military force."

The US put on a major show of that military force this week, as a U.S. Navy flotilla carrying 17,000 sailors and Marines moved into the Persian Gulf. Carrier strike groups led by the U.S.S. John C. Stennis and the U.S.S. Nimitz were joined by the amphibious assault ship U.S.S. Bonhomme Richard and its strike group. Planes from the two carriers and the assault ship are to carry out exercises, while ships run submarine, mine and other maneuvers.

Washington may also be moving to ratchet up covert pressure on Tehran. ABC News reported this week that President Bush has given the CIA a green light to conduct non-lethal covert operations against Iran using propaganda, disinformation and the squeezing of Iran's international banking transactions.

The Iranians, meanwhile, hold several U.S. citizens as undeclared hostages under various pretexts, including allegations of spying. And the U.S. continues to hold a group of Iranians seized by U.S. troops in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Erbil in January. The U.S. accuses them of being members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard engaging in subversion in Iraq; Tehran says they are diplomats detained without justification.

Given these rising tensions, what hope is there for a successful diplomatic exchange between the U.S. and Iran next week in Baghdad? "There are powerful forces pushing the two parties into these talks," says Dr. William Samii, a longtime Iran specialist currently with the Center for Naval Analyses, a federally funded non-profit. "But there may be even stronger pressures that will make agreement difficult to reach."

One of Iran's top negotiators, Ali Larijani, also seemed to hedge carefully when asked if the talks would focus exclusively on Iraq, as called for by the U.S., or whether they might also include other points of contention. "Talking with the U.S. over issues related to Iran is not an impossible matter," Iran's state news agency, IRNA, quoted him as saying. "However, this depends on the subject matter."

"The talks will be held upon the request of our Iraqi friends and for the sake of assisting the people of Iraq," Larjani added. "We will not spare any efforts to restore peace and stability to Iraq and support the country's territorial integrity."

Regardless of the tensions that overshadow next week's U.S.-Iran parley, there's no question that each side stands to benefit from some kind of a deal. The new Iraq strategy developed by General David Petraeus, the American commander, and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker stresses political accomodation inside Iraq. That is based on their judgment that neither the Iraqi insurgents nor the powerful Shi'ite militias can be readily defeated by the U.S. on the battlefield. Iran's active cooperation, or at least tacit support, appears crucial to that strategy. As for Iran, its leaders have said they would like to see the U.S. withdraw — perhaps not immediately, but in the relatively near future. The most obvious way to reconcile those U.S. and Iranian goals would be for both parties to work together at stabilizing security in Iraq long enough for President Bush or his successor to justify bringing the troops home.

ايران مذاکره با آمريکا را مثبت ارزيابی کرد

پس از آنکه در پايان نخستين مذاکرات رسمی ايران و آمريکا در عراق، سفير ايالات متحده در بغداد مطالب مطرح شده در اين مذاکرات را با خبرنگاران در ميان گذاشت، سفير ايران نيز در جمع خبرنگاران حاضر شد و جزئيات بيشتری در اين زمينه مطرح کرد.

حسن کاظمی قمی، سفير ايران در عراق که طی 27 سال اخير نخستين مقام مذاکره کننده رسمی ايران با آمريکاييها شده است، نتيجه اين مذاکرات را مثبت ارزيابی کرد و گفت در اين مذاکرات تشکیل کمیته ای امنیتی با حضور سه طرف ايرانی، آمريکايی و عراقی به منظور تقویت بنیه نظامی و دفاعی عراق مطرح و بررسی شده و هر سه طرف بر سر حمایت از دولت عراق و "اهتمام برای کمک به بازگشت حاکمیت این کشور بر اداره امور ملی خود" توافق کرده اند.

ناکافی دانستن اقدامات آمريکا در آموزش و تجهيز ارتش عراق موضوعی است که رايان کروکر، سفير آمريکا در بغداد به مطرح شدن آن در گفتگوهايش با حسن کاظمی قمی اشاره کرده بود.

هرچند آقای کروکر افزوده بود که آقای کاظمی قمی و هیئت همراهش جزئیات بیشتری در مورد رویکرد خود نسبت به بحران امنیتی عراق مطرح نکردند.

میزگردی با عطاالله مهاجرانی، منصور فرهنگ و صادق صبا

گزارش رادیویی در مورد مذاکرات ایران و آمریکا

گزارشی در مورد روابط ایران و آمریکا

لحظه تاريخی: گفتگوی ايران و آمريکا

سفير ايران در عراق گفت به همتای آمريکايی اش گفته است که ارتش عراق به دليل نداشتن تجهیزات لازم برای مقابله با تروریستها در پایان بخشیدن به مصائب عراق با مشکل روبرو شده و دولت ایران آماده کمکهای همه جانبه در جهت افزايش توان دولت عراق در اداره امور اين کشور است.

آقای کاظمی همچنين گفته در مذاکره با سفير آمريکا آنچه دولت ايران اشتباهات آمريکا در اداره امور عراق می خواند را بصراحت مطرح کرده و در مقابل به تمامی مواردی که آمريکا آنها را دخالت ايران در عراق می داند "پاسخ مقتضی" داده است.

مذاکرات رايان کروکر و حسن کاظمی قمی در سه جلسه و به مدت چهار ساعت به طول انجاميد، آن گونه که طرفين گفته اند دولت عراق خواهان ادامه اين گفتگوهاست که قرار است پاسخ دولتهای ايران و آمريکا به درخواست دولت عراق بعداً اعلام شود.

مذاکرات ايران و آمريکا در دفتر نوری مالکی، نخست وزیر عراق انجام گرفت و آقای مالکی در آغاز گفتگوها حضور داشت و پس از آن نيز هوشيار زيباری، وزيرخارجه عراق و تنی چند تن از مقامات عراقی در مذاکرات حضور داشتند.

آن گونه که هر دو طرف ايرانی و آمريکايی اعلام کردند، مسئله پنج شهروند ايرانی که در بازداشت نظاميان آمريکايی در عراق به سر می برند در گفتگوهای بغداد مطرح نشد.

سفير ايران گفته که در اين مورد، دولت ايران با دولت عراق طرف است و مسئوليت را متوجه عراقيها می داند.

عبدالفتاح سلطانی از همه اتهامات وارده تبرئه شد

دادگاه تجدید نظر در تهران، عبدالفتاح سلطانی، وکیل دادگستری را از کلیه اتهامات وارده، از جمله افشای اسناد محرمانه و تبلیغ علیه نظام تبرئه کرد. آقای سلطانی ژوئیه 2005، تیر ماه 1384، در تهران بازداشت شد و بعد از سپری کردن بیش از هفت ماه در زندان، با وثیقه 100 میلیون تومانی آزاد شد.

آقای سلطانی، وکالت شماری از پرونده ‌های سياسی و مطبوعاتی را از جمله پرونده اکبر گنجی، روزنامه نگار ناراضی که شش سال در زندان به سر برد، و خانواده زهرا کاظمی، خبرنگار ايرانی کانادايی که در حين بازداشت در ايران به طرز مشکوکی جان خود را از دست داد، بر عهده داشته است.

عبدالفتاح سلطانی در مورد تبرئه خود به خبرگزاری کار ایران، ایلنا، گفته است: " بنده پیش از این از سوی شعبه ۲۶ دادگاه انقلاب تهران از اتهام جاسوسی تبرئه اما به اتهام افشای اسناد محرمانه (افشای محتویات پرونده هایی که وکالت آنها را بر عهده داشتم) و تبلیغ علیه نظام به ۵ سال حبس تعزیری و ۵ سال محرومیت از حقوق اجتماعی محکوم شده بودم."

آقای سلطانی به این حکم نیز اعتراض کرد و پرونده به دادگاه تجدیدنظر ارجاع شد، و شعبه ۱۷ دادگاه تجدید نظر استان تهران، سلطانی را از کلیه اتهامات انتسابی تبرئه کرده است.

گفتگو با عبدالفتاح سلطانی

به گفته آقای سلطانی، دادگاه تجدیدنظر دلیل تبرئه او را فقدان دلایل لازم در پرونده اعلام کرده است.

اتهامات سنگین

بازداشت آقای سلطانی در سال 2005، اعتراض حقوقدانان، وکلای دادگستری و مجامع حقوق بشری، از جمله همکاران او در کانون مدافعان حقوق بشر را به دنبال داشت و بيش از 180 وکيل و حقوقدان در اقدامی بی سابقه در تاريخ قضايی ايران، طی نامه ای به محمود هاشمی شاهرودی، رئيس قوه قضائيه جمهوری اسلامی، خواستار آزادی فوری او شدند.

پيش از بازداشت آقای سلطانی، روزنامه محافظه کار کيهان در گزارشی ادعا کرده بود که شیرین عبادی، وکیل ایرانی برنده جایزه صلح نوبل، و دو نفر ديگر "از جمله فردی به نام سلطانی" در بام بيمارستان ميلاد تهران، محل نگهداری آقای گنجی برای مداوا، مشاهده شده اند، و قصد داشتند خود را به گنجی، که در آن زمان ممنوع الملاقات بود، برسانند.

يک روز بعد از چاپ این گزارش، جمال کريمی راد، سخنگوی آن زمان قوه قضاييه ايران اعلام کرد اتهام اين وکيل دادگستری "انتشار اسرار و اسناد فعاليت ‌های هسته ‌ای" ايران است.

کمی بعد از آن نيز سعيد مرتضوی، دادستان تهران، با تاييد اين سخنان گفت که جرم آقای سلطانی "انتقال اطلاعات سری و محرمانه کشور به افراد فاقد صلاحيت و وابستگان سفارتهای خارجی" است.

آقای سلطانی در آن زمان بلافاصله بعد از آزادی اش به بخش فارسی بی بی سی گفت که اين "اتهامات سنگين" برای وادار کردن او به "عقب نشينی" مطرح شده بود.

Iran offers to train Iraqi forces

Mon, 28 May 2007

Iran' ambassador to Iraq has offered weapons and training to the Iraqi army, stating the US has not been able to help Baghdad defend itself.

"The Iraqi government is in need of strong military and security structure to confront its security problems and we have offered all forms of assistance such as weapons, training and equipment," Hassan Kazemi Qomi said following a meeting with his US counterpart.

While describing the meeting, the first of its kind in nearly three decades, as "positive", Kazemi Qomi told US ambassador Ryan Crocker that the Iraqi army was not receiving the weapons it needed, AFP reported.

Crocker, for his part, reiterated US accusations that the Iranians were funneling weapons and sophisticated explosives to Iraq's militias.

"The negotiations today were an important first step between the two sides," Kazemi Qomi told reporters. "The Iraqi government said it will invite the two sides to resume negotiations and we received this proposal positively."

Kazemi Qomi, however, added that he would have to consult with Tehran first, and one of his assistants said no date had been set for the follow-up meeting. "If it is possible, it will happen," the assistant said.

Crocker earlier pointed out that further meetings were not necessarily the solution to Iraq's continuing crisis.

Are Islam and democracy compatible?

by Michel Hoebink*

28-05-2007

Is Islam compatible with democracy? This was the topic of debate among three Islamic intellectuals at an event held recently in Amsterdam. It proved to be a fierce confrontation between secularist Sadiq al-Azm and Muslim reformers Abdolkarim Soroush and Tariq Ramadan.

AbdolKarim Soroush lecturing at Sharif University (photo: Hessam M.Armandehi)

As it was in the 17th century, the golden age of Spinoza and Rembrandt, the Netherlands is presently a haven for free thinkers from less tolerant regions. Three prominent reformers from the Islamic world are currently visiting Dutch universities.

Abdolkarim Soroush, the most important source of inspiration for the Iranian reform movement, and Syrian philosopher Sadiq al Azm, the most famous atheist in the Arab world, are both visiting professors at Amsterdam's VU University. Meanwhile, Tariq Ramadan, the famous Swiss-Egyptian champion of a "European Islam", is visiting professor in identity and citizenship at Erasmus University in Rotterdam.

Islamic democracy?
This month, May 2007, the three took part in a discussion at a packed Felix Meritis centre in Amsterdam. (The huge turnout was in inverse proportion to the level of security. Has the Netherlands already changed so much since the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh?) The burning question for the evening was whether Islam is compatible with democracy. Is there such a thing as an Islamic democracy?

Sadiq al Azm

Secularist Sadiq al-Azm doesn't believe so. The principles of democracy, he says, come from Europe. Modern reformist thinkers are trying to 'naturalise' them and give them legitimacy by claiming they are supported by the Koran. The Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini thus referred to an "Islamic republic". But according to Mr al-Azm, there is no such thing as an Islamic republic, any more than there is an "Islamic democracy".

Permitted if not forbidden
Abdolkarim Soroush and Tariq Ramadan concur with Mr al-Azm to an extent. They agree that the principles of democracy can't be derived from the Koran, as some reformers have claimed. But they say this doesn't mean that Muslims can't have democracy. Everything that Islam doesn't expressly forbid is permitted, democracy included. In fact, the most important democratic principles combine well with the moral doctrines of the Koran: the separation of powers, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and the accountability of government to its to citizens.

Tariq Ramadan

Own model for Muslims
However, both Mr Soroush and Mr Ramadan think this doesn't oblige Muslims to embrace European notions of democracy.

"We agree on the principles," says Mr Ramadan, "but if you study the individual European countries you see the principles are applied differently everywhere. Each European country has its own model of democracy. Muslims should be given the space to develop their own model too."

"Nonsense," is the fierce response from Mr Azm, "That's exactly what our dictators in the Middle East are always saying: 'We also have democracy, but our democracy is a bit different from yours. We have our own version of democracy.' Our dictators love this argument. You're talking like one of them!"Irreconcilable
According to Mr al-Azm, the two reformers want to have their cake and eat it: "Let's not beat about the bush. If you want democracy, certain principles will have to go. There are areas in which the two are simply irreconcilable. Slavery is allowed in the Koran! And Jews and Christians are second-class citizens, as ahl al-dhimma. That's totally incompatible with democracy."Mr Soroush admits that Mr al-Azm has touched on a sensitive issue. But slavery isn't the problem, he says. "It's true the Koran allows it, but it doesn't prescribe it, so it's not a problem for Muslims to abolish it."

Easily ignore
On the question of the status of non-Muslims and also of women, Mr Soroush believes there are indeed pronouncements in the Koran that are hard to reconcile with democratic principles. However, he doesn't think these "two minor points" are worth all the fuss:

"It isn't a matter of essential principles here, but of a couple of rules that Muslims can easily ignore without running the risk of being called an unbeliever."

Here Mr Ramadan disagrees

"I don't think it is at all evident that Islam doesn't grant equal citizenship to women and non-Muslims. In traditional jurisprudence it is true that Jews and Christians have an inferior position. But in Medina the Prophet granted equal rights to the Jews. I believe that equal citizenship is a part of Islamic tradition."

متن كامل سخنان كاظمي‌قمي در ديدار با كروكر

نماينده ايران در گفت‌وگوهاي بغداد مواضع جمهوري اسلامي را درباره عراق براي حل مشكلات اين كشور تشريح كرد.

به گزارش فارس، دور اول گفت‌وگوي ميان سفير جمهوري اسلامي ايران و سفير آمريكا در عراق صبح امروز دوشنبه با حضور مقامات عاليرتبه عراقي برگزار شد.

درجلسه افتتاحيه امروز علاوه بر اعضاي 2 هيات ايراني و آمريكايي، رئيس پارلمان عراق، معاونين نخست وزير و وزير امور خارجه عراق حضورداشتند كه روساي 2 هيات ايراني و آمريكايي و مقامات عراقي به سخنراني پرداختند.
متن كامل سخنراني حسن كاظمي قمي سفير جمهوري اسلامي ايران و رئيس هيات ايراني در اين گفت‌وگوها به اين شرح است:

«در آغاز سخن فرصت را مغتنم شمرده و مراتب قدرداني خود را از ميزباني دولت عراق و جناب آقاي مالكي كه در نظر دارد با ديدگاهي واقع بينانه و در چهارچوب همكاري مشترك راهكارهاي مناسب برون رفت از چالش‌هاي فراروي عراق را بيابد، ابراز مي‌دارم و حمايت قاطع و پشتيباني كامل جمهوري اسلامي ايران را از دولت و ملت عراق در همه زمينه‌هاي سياسي، اقتصادي و امنيتي مورد تاكيد قرار مي‌دهم
جمهوري اسلامي ايران به عنوان همسايه عراق با برخورداري از روابط ديرينه فرهنگي، مذهبي و تاريخي ميان دو ملت و طولاني‌ترين مرزهاي آبي و خاكي، اوضاع و تحولات اين كشور را همواره با دقت پيگيري نموده و بر احترام به تماميت ارضي، حفظ وحدت داخلي و ارتقاي ثبات و امنيت در اين كشور تاكيد مي‌نمايد.

جمهوري اسلامي ايران عليرغم متحمل شدن خسارات فراوان مادي و معنوي در اثر تجاوز رژيم صدام، همواره در كنار مردم و معارضين بوده و از هيچ گونه همكاري در راستاي احقاق حقوق مردم عراق دريغ نورزيده است. ضمن اينكه بدليل سياست‌هاي غير انساني رژيم صدام، بيش از سه دهه ميزبان حدود دو ميليون پناه جوي عراقي بود. علاوه بر خدمات انساني، بدنبال تجاوزات رژيم صدام، جمهوري اسلامي ايران در پي درخواست مبارزان عراقي از مبارزات حق طلبانه ملت عراق عليه رژيم فاشيست ضد بشري صدام حمايت نمود.

بدون ترديد حمايت گسترده و بي‌دريغ جمهوري اسلامي ايران از احزاب و گروه‌هاي مبارز كرد، سني و شيعه عراقي موجب ادامه حيات سياسي و استمرار مبارزه آنان عليه رژيم صدام گرديد. ضمن اينكه رژيم صدام همواره تلاش مي‌نمود تا ضمن سركوب مبارزين عراقي از گروهك تروريستي شناخته شده منافقين عليه مردم عراق و جمهوري اسلامي ايران بهره برداري نمايد.

كشف گورستان‌هاي دسته جمعي مملو از اجساد مردم مظلوم عراقي كه بخش عمده آن متعلق به اكراد و شيعيان بود از جمله جنايات رژيم صدام به شمار مي‌رود كه در راستاي قيام مردمي انتفاضه در سال 1991 م به وقوع پيوست. حركت و قيام مردمي كه در پي تهاجم صدام به كويت و شروع حملات آمريكا و متحدين آن عليه تجاوز صدام آغاز گرديد و به سرعت گسترش يافت، ليكن متاسفانه توقف اين عمليات توسط آمريكا و متحدين موجب كشتار وسيع مردم عراق اعم از كرد و شيعه (و حتي بخشي از جامعه سني) گرديد.
همچنين عمليات انفال در كردستان عراق توسط رژيم كه بيانگر نمونه‌هايي از ددمنشي‌هاي رژيم صدام است و در اين دو مقطع جمهوري اسلامي ايران همانند مقاطع ديگر به كمك مبارزين و مردم عراق شتافته و بخش عظيمي از آوارگان (حدود 5/1 ميليون نفر) را در خود جاي داد و از آنان حمايت و ياري نمود.

جامعه جهاني به خوبي واقف است كه طي جنگ تحميلي رژيم بعث عليه جمهوري اسلامي ايران و هشت سال دفاع مقدس جمهوري اسلامي ايران، رژيم صدام به كرات از سلاح‌هاي ممنوعه‌اي همچون سلاح‌هاي ميكروبي و شيميايي عليه ملت ايران استفاده نمود. اما جمهوري اسلامي ايران بر مبناي وظيفه ديني و انساني خود حتي براي يك بار از حق مقابله به مثل استفاده نكرد چرا كه آن را مغاير با احكام شرع اسلام و همچنين مصالح و منافع مردم مظلوم عراق مي‌دانست.
همانگونه كه اشاره شد جمهوري اسلامي ايران قبل از سقوط رژيم صدام، از مبارزه رهايي بخش و معارضين عراقي، اعم از كرد، شيعه و سني حمايت نمود و آنان را در جهت ايجاد وحدت و كمك به ساقط كردن صدام پشتيباني كرد. در اين راستا نشست‌ها و اجلاس‌هاي مهمي متشكل از رهبران عراقي درتهران، ديانا و صلاح الدين، بر پايه سه محور اساسي وحدت عراق، وحدت رهبران عراقي و ايجاد يك راهكار منطقي كه همه طيف‌ها و رهبران را براي اداره امور عراق در بر گيرد، شكل داد.

به همين دليل پس از سقوط صدام، تشكيل شوراي حكومتي (مجلس حكم) از مهمترين دستاوردهايي بود كه به شدت مورد حمايت جمهوري اسلامي ايران قرار گرفت. تشكيل اين شورا از توصيه‌هاي اكيد جمهوري اسلامي ايران به دوستان عراقي بود به همين منظور جمهوري اسلامي ايران با اعزام هيئت و حضور در صلاح الدين ضمن كمك به شكل دهي اجلاس رهبران، نسبت به تشكيل مجلس حكم به گونه‌اي كه همه رهبران موثر كرد، سني و شيعه و حتي مسيحي را در برگيرد كمك شاياني نمود. با تشكيل شوراي حكومتي، جمهوري اسلامي ايران بلافاصله هيئت بلند پايه‌اي را با هدف تاييد و حمايت از فرآيند سياسي به عراق اعزام نمود و اين اعزام در شرايطي صورت پذيرفت كه مخالفت بسياري از كشورها از فرايند سياسي و شوراي حكومتي را به همراه داشت.

جمهوري اسلامي ايران همانند دوران مبارزه ملت عراق، تاييد و حمايت همه جانبه خود را از تلاش رهبران، مراجع ديني و مردم، اعم از كرد، شيعه و سني و مسيحي در فرايند سياسي در عراق جديد، يعني شكل گيري شوراي حكومتي، حكومت موقت، دولت انتقالي، انتخابات مجلس ملي، رفراندوم قانون اساسي، تاسيس مجلس نيابي و تشكيل دولت، ادامه و كمك به دولت منتخب دائمي در ايفاي وظايف اساسي خود در سه پروسه سياسي، امنيتي، بازسازي و خدمات رساني را در سرلوحه خود قرار داد، كه به اختصار بخشي از آن مورد اشاره قرار مي‌گيرد:

- اعزام هيأت‌هاي بلند پايه از جمله دو وزير امور خارجه و دبير شورايعالي امنيت ملي كشور به عراق
-دعوت از رهبران و شخصيت‌هاي سياسي، احزاب و گروهها و تشويق آنان براي مشاركت در فرايند سياسي و دولت سازي
-ارتقاء سطح روابط به سفارت

-افتتاح سركنسولگري جمهوري اسلامي ايران در شهرهاي مختلف عراق (عليرغم وجود فضاي ناامن حاكم بر عراق، به شهادت رسيدن دبير اول سفارت ج.ا. ايران در بغداد و دستگيري ديپلمات‌هاي ايراني)
-حمايت بي‌دريغ دولت در كمك به ارائه خدمات به مردم عراق، از جمله انتقال برق كه به زودي به ميزان 500 مگاوات افزايش خواهد يافت و تا 1620 مگاوات قابل ارتقاء خواهد بود

- تامين نيازمندي‌ها در زمينه سوخت از جمله نفت سفيد، بنزين و گازوئيل
- كمك‌هاي انسان دوستانه به ميزان شش هزار تن در زمان سقوط رژيم صدام
-اعطاي وام يك ميليارد دلاري

- انتقال داوطلبانه بخش اعظم آوارگان و ادامه زندگي مناسب بيش از 350 هزار اتباع عراقي در ايران
- راه‌اندازي خطوط پروازي تهران ـ بغداد
- كنترل مرزها و عهده دار شدن نقش نيابتي در كنترل، حفظ و حراست از مرزها
- ايجاد بازارچه‌هاي مرزي مورد نياز عراق

- كمك‌هاي توسعه اي، سرمايه گذاري، تجارت و گردشگري
- بازسازي عتبات عاليات
- احياي صنعت توريسم عراق
- كمك به اجراي پروژه‌هاي بازسازي در كردستان عراق و ساير مناطق

بنابراين با مروري بر عملكرد خدماتي وارتباطات جمهوري اسلامي ايران در دو مقطع قبل و پس از سقوط رژيم صدام به خوبي مشهود است كه نقش جمهوري اسلامي ايران در حمايت از مردم و دولت عراق، نقشي بي‌بديل و مهم بوده است.
جمهوري اسلامي ايران معتقد است، امروز هم، متاسفانه مردم عراق همچنان مواجه با رنج‌ها و مشقات فراواني بوده و كمتر ملتي را مي‌توان يافت كه همانند مردم عراق دچار چنين رنج ومحنتي باشند و اين در حالي است كه عراق كشوري ثروتمند، داراي تاريخ و تمدني كهن و برخوردار از شخصيت‌هاي كم نظيري مي‌باشد كه تاثيرگذاري آن در جهان عرب، اسلام و منطقه بسيار مشهود مي‌باشد.

هم اكنون اين ملت فرهيخته با داشتن سرزميني غني و بهره‌مند از مواهب خدادادي، به دليل عملكرد نادرست و طولاني مدت آمريكا در تداوم وضعيت فعلي اشغال عراق، با مشكلات فراواني مواجه گرديده است. استمرار فضاي ناامني، كشتار بي‌گناهان، تخريب كليه زيربناهاي اقتصادي، برق، صنايع و نفت، بدليل فقدان يك ساختار دفاعي و امنيتي قوي در برابر تجاوزات و اقدامات تخريبي و تروريستي و عدم اختيارات كافي دولت در بكارگيري قواي مسلح و عدم شناخت نيروهاي عمل كننده بيگانه از فرهنگ و حساسيت‌هاي ديني و برخي شيوه‌هاي عملكرد ناصحيح موجب گرديده است تا ضمن ايجاد بد بيني‌هاي قومي - مذهبي، تاثير طرح‌هاي امنيتي را در برقراري امنيت تضعيف نمايد.

ما متعجب هستيم كه چرا مي‌بايست تجهيزات ارتش و پليس عراق ضعيف‌تر از گروه‌هاي تروريستي باشد و ارتش و پليس سلاح‌هاي لازم براي دفاع از خود و ملت را نداشته باشند ؟ چگونه ممكن است نيروهاي مسلح عراق بتوانند در چنين شرايطي بر گروههاي تروريستي كه مجهزترشده‌اند فائق آيند ؟ انگيزه عدم تجهيز ارتش و پليس عراق چيست ؟ از سوي ديگر وجود شركت‌هاي شخصي امنيتي متعدد كه همچون پيمانكاران ساختماني عمل مي‌كنند، وضع امنيتي در عراق را پيچيده و اين كشور را در لبه پرتگاه سقوط قرار داده است. اين امر موجب شده است تروريست‌ها با خيال راحت مردم عراق را بصورت گروهي به قتل برسانند.
علاوه بر آن به دليل ناامني در عراق شاخص‌هاي زندگي، بشدت كاهش يافته است، كه از جمله مي‌توان به كمبود خدمات رساني در زمينه‌هاي حياتي مانند آب، برق و سوخت اشاره نمود كه اين امر شرايط سختي را بر اين ملت مظلوم تحميل نموده است.

جمهوري اسلامي ايران به عنوان يكي از كشورهاي همسايه و مسلمان عراق با داشتن مرزهاي مشترك طولاني (بيش از 1300 كيلومتر)، مشتركات ديني و فرهنگي و برخورداري از تعاملات تاريخي و مردمي، منافع مشترك با مردم عراق و تاثيرپذيري متقابل از تحولات يكديگر، خود را در رنج و غم اين مردم شريك مي‌داند و حفظ دستاوردهاي ملت مظلوم عراق را كه تجلي آن در ايجاد يك حكومت دمكراتيك متبلور گرديده است، از رسالت‌هاي اساسي خود به شمار مي‌آورد و ثبات وامنيت در عراق را عامل مهمي بر تقويت ثبات و امنيت در منطقه دانسته و بي‌ثباتي و ناامني عراق را عامل مهمي در تخريب ثبات و امنيت در سطح منطقه و گسترش تروريسم و تهديد امنيت جهاني مي‌داند.

جمهوري اسلامي ايران ضمن تاكيد بر ضرورت حفظ وحدت ملي و حفظ تماميت ارضي و حمايت از روند دموكراسي و سياست ملي عراق و اهميت همزيستي مسالمت آميز تمامي قوميت‌ها و مذاهب در عراق، بارها آمادگي خود را در كمك به دولت منتخب ملي عراق اعلام نموده است و مجددا بر اين آمادگي با توجه به شناخت از مشكلات عراق و تجربه امنيتي طولاني كشورمان تاكيد دارد.
در چنين شرايط حساسي كه عراق با اشغال طولاني و رفتار ناصحيح آنان از يك سو و ناامني تروريست‌ها از سوي ديگر و همچنين در هم شكستن زير ساخت‌ها و افول وضعيت اقتصادي ملت مواجه است، دولت جمهوري اسلامي ايران براي احقاق حقوق ملت عزيز عراق، هر گونه حمايت از دولت دموكراتيك منتخب عراق به رياست آقاي مالكي را وظيفه خود دانسته و اميدواريم اين نشست منجر به سيادت هر چه سريعتر ملت عراق و پايان دادن به ناامني‌ها و سرعت يافتن روند بازسازي كشور شود».

كروكر در پايان مذاكره با ايران: مي‌دانيم ايراني‌ها در عراق هستند!
سفير آمريكا در عراق در پايان گفت‌وگوهاي خود با سفير ايران در بغداد طي كنفرانس خبري اعلام كرد: ما در اين گفت و گو نيامده بوديم كه دلايل اثبات‌ كننده‌اي براي فعاليت‌ ايراني‌ها در عراق ارايه بدهيم، بلكه ما خود مي‌دانيم كه ايراني‌ها در عراق هستند و فعاليت مي‌كنند.

به گزارش ايسنا به نقل از شبكه‌ تلويزيوني الجزيره، رايان كروكر، سفير آمريكا در عراق طي كنفرانس كوتاهي پس از پايان نشست چهار ساعته‌ي ايران و آمريكا به پرسش برخي از خبرنگاران خارجي پاسخ گفت.

وي در پاسخ به سوال خبرنگاري مبني بر آن كه آيا در اين ديدار پيامي نسبت به تمايل آمريكا يا خواست آمريكا براي برقراري و عادي‌سازي روابط با ايران ارايه شد و هم‌چنين از ايران به آمريكا، گفت: همان طور كه مي‌دانيد از مهمترين نقاط توافق دو جانبه براي برگزاري اين گفت و گو آن بود كه محور اصلي اين گفت وگو بر مسايل داخلي عراق متمركز باشد. بنابراين هيچ گونه گفت و گويي در اين زمينه كه بتواند گوياي ارايه‌ يك پيام باشد انجام نگرفت.

كروكر همچنين در پاسخ به سوال ديگري مبني بر آن كه شما پيش از اين گفت و گو اعلام كرده‌ بوديد كه درباره‌ فعاليت‌هاي ايراني‌ها در عراق و ورود اسلحه از ايران به عراق گفت و گو خواهيد كرد، گفت: هدف اصلي ما آن بود كه در اين زمينه تلاش بيشتري داشته باشيم ودر اين ارتباط سخن بگوييم اما طرف ايراني آمادگي اين موضوع را نداشت همچنين ما آمده‌ بوديم كه بگوييم اين گونه فعاليت‌ها در عراق از سوي ايران نه تنها براي عراق بلكه براي تمامي منطقه خطرناك است.

سفير آمريكا در بغداد همچنين گفت: به هر حال ما نيامده بوديم كه در اين گفت‌وگو مدارك و اسناد جهت اثبات فعاليت ايراني‌ها در عراق ارايه بدهيم؛ زيرا كه ما مي‌دانيم ايراني‌ها درعراق هستند و فعال مي‌باشند.

كروكر تاكيد كرد: همان طوري كه همه مي‌دانند اين شايسته نيست كه ديپلمات‌ها بخواهند درباره‌ موضوعي به صورت عميق و گسترده توضيح بدهند و من نيز مبادرت به چنين كاري نمي‌كنم.

وي همچنين گفت: دولت عراق در اين گفت و گوي دو جانبه حضور داشت و اين دولت اين گفت‌وگوها را رهبري مي‌كرد.

سفير آمريكا همچنين تاكيد كرد: موضوع اصلي اين گفت و گوها بيشتر در ارتباط با مسائل داخلي عراق و نحوه‌ حل و فصل كردن اين موضوع متمركز بود.

وي همچنين عنوان داست: اين ديدار چهار ساعته ديدار كاري بوده و توافق گسترده‌اي بر سر سياست‌گذاري در عراق صورت گرفت. ايران بايد رفتارش را تغيير داده و كمك به شبه‌نظاميان، آموزش و تامين بودجه آنها را متوقف كند.

افاضات رییس دانشگاه اصفهان در مورد سوسک

رئیس دانشگاه اصفهان در واکنش به پیدا شدن سوسک در غذای دانشجویان؛سوسك جزءگران‌ترين و باكلاس ترین غذاهای برخي از كشورهاي جهان محسوب مي‌شود

جمهوري اسلامي نوشت: پيدا شدن تعدادي سوسك در غذاي يكي از خوابگاه‌هاي دانشگاه اصفهان، به اعتراض جمعي آنها نسبت به اين مساله و توضيحات عجيب محمدحسين رامشت رييس اين دانشگاه نسبت به اين امر انجاميد. تعداد زيادي از دانشجويان دانشگاه اصفهان كه به پيدا شدن سوسك در غذاي خود معترض بودند، با طي كردن فاصله 2 كيلومتري خوابگاه تا دانشگاه و در حالي كه شعار مي‌دادند: رامشت! پاسخگو خواستار حضور او در ميان خود و پاسخگويي وي به درخواست‌هاي خود شدند. رييس دانشگاه اصفهان پس از لحظاتي خود را به محل رساند و خطاب به دانشجويان گفت: پيدا شدن سوسك در غذا اين همه عربده‌كشي و لات‌بازي ندارد، سوسك يكي از غذاهاي باكلاس برخي از كشورهاي جهان است و جزء گران‌ترين غذاها محسوب مي‌شود. اين مساله كه اين همه ناراحتي ندارد، سوسك را مي‌‌گذاشتيد كنار و غذاي خود را مي‌خورديد. چرا اين‌قدر سر و صدا راه انداخته‌ايد و اعتراض مي‌كنيد؟ ظاهرا سخنان رييس دانشگاه اصفهان با اعتراض دانشجويان همراه شده و تعدادي از دانشجويان با شعار رامشت استعفا استعفا سخنان وي را قطع نمودند.

U.S., Iran reach Iraq policy consensus

By STEVEN R. HURST,
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD - The United States ambassador in Baghdad said he and his Iranian counterpart agreed broadly on policy toward Iraq during four-hour groundbreaking talks on Monday, but insisted that Iran end its support for militants.

The Iranian ambassador later said the two sides would meet again in less than a month.

Hassan Kazemi Qomi, the Iranian envoy, also said that he told the Americans that his government was ready to train and equip the Iraqi army and police to create "a new military and security structure."

Kazemi did not elaborate nor would he say how U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker responded.

The Baghdad talks were the first of their kind and a small sign that Washington thinks rapprochement with Iran is possible after more than a quarter-century of diplomatic estrangement that began with the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"The next meeting will occur in Iraq in less than one month," Kazemi told an Associated Press reporter after his news conference at the Iranian Embassy.

Crocker earlier said the Iraqis planned to propose a second session and that the United States would decide upon a follow-on meeting when the invitation was issued.

"We will consider that when we receive it," Crocker told reporters in the U.S.-controlled Green Zone. "The purpose of this meeting was not to arrange other meetings."

Crocker described the session as businesslike and said Iran proposed setting up a "trilateral security mechanism" that would include the U.S., Iraq and Iran, an idea he said would require study in Washington.

The U.S. envoy also said he told the Iranians their country needed to stop arming, funding and training the militants. The Iranians laid out their policy toward Iraq, Crocker said, describing it as "very similar to our own policy and what the Iraqi government have set out as their own guiding principles."

He added: "This is about actions not just principles, and I laid out to the Iranians direct, specific concerns about their behavior in Iraq and their support for militias that are fighting Iraqi and coalition forces."

Kazemi did not raise the subject of seven Iranians now in American custody in Iran, Crocker said: "The focus of our discussions were Iraq and Iraq only."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), who was criticized by the White House for her trip to Syria — also a U.S. rival — praised the Bush administration for holding Monday's talks.

"I think it's very important, and at the end of the day we want to know that every remedy, every diplomatic remedy has been exhausted," she said in Berlin.

The talks were held at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Green Zone office.

Al-Maliki did not attend the meeting, but the prime minister greeted the two ambassadors, who shook hands, and led them into a conference room, where the ambassadors sat across from each other.

Before leaving, al-Maliki told both sides that Iraqis wanted a stable country free of foreign forces and regional interference. The country should not be turned into a base for terrorist groups, he said. He also said that the U.S.-led forces in Iraq were only here to help build up the army and police and the country would not be used as a launching ground for a U.S. attack on a neighbor, a clear reference to Iran.

"We are sure that securing progress in this meeting would, without doubt, enhance the bridges of trust between the two countries and create a positive atmosphere" that would help them deal with other issues, he said.

Speaking in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the United States should admit its Middle East policy has failed.

"We are hopeful that Washington's realistic approach to the current issues of Iraq by confessing its failed policy in Iraq and the region and by showing a determination to changing the policy guarantees success of the talks and possible further talks," Mottaki said.

Monday's talks, as predicted, had a pinpoint focus: What Washington and Iran — separately or together — could do to contain the sectarian conflagration in Iraq.

"The American side has accusations against Iran and the Iranian side has some remarks on the presence of the American forces on Iraqi lands, which they see as a threat to their government," said Ali al-Dabagh, an Iraqi government spokesman.

But much more encumbered the narrow agenda — primarily Iran's nuclear program and Iranian fears that the Bush administration will seek regime change in Tehran as it did against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Washington and its Sunni Arab allies, on their side, are deeply unnerved by growing Iranian influence in the Middle East and the spread of increasingly radical Islam.

Compounding all that is Iran's open hostility to Israel.

Other issues clouding the talks included U.S. Navy exercises in the Persian Gulf last week and tough talk from President Bush about new U.N. penalties over the Iranian nuclear program. The United States says Iran is trying to build a bomb; Iran says it needs nuclear technology for energy production.

Further complicating the talks, Iran said Saturday it had uncovered spy rings organized by the United States and its Western allies.

Blair seeks wartime powers for police

Mon, 28 May 2007

British Prime Minister Tony Blair plans to push for a new anti-terrorism law before he steps down giving wartime powers to police.

Blair, who is due to step down on June 27 after a decade in office, wrote in an article in The Sunday Times that his government planned to publish new anti-terrorism proposals "within the next few weeks".

An interior ministry spokeswoman confirmed the government was looking at a "stop and question" power in the new legislation. "We are considering a range of powers for the bill and 'stop and question' is one of them," she said.

The "stop and question" power would enable police to interrogate people about who they are, where they have been and where they were going, The Sunday Times said. Police would not need to suspect a crime had taken place.

If suspects failed to stop or refused to answer questions, they could be charged with a crime and fined, The Sunday Times said. Police already have the power to stop and search people but have no right to ask them their identity and movements.

The new law comes after three suspects disappeared last week.

Writing in The Sunday Times, Blair argued that the disappearance of three terror suspects under control orders, a form of house arrest, was due to society's mixed-up priorities rather than government mistakes.

"The fault is not with our services or, in this instance, with the Home Office (interior ministry). We have chosen as a society to put the civil liberties of the suspect, even if a foreign national, first," Blair wrote.

The proposal has received a volley of criticism, with a member of Blair's own cabinet joining the skeptics.

Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain, who is running for the Labor party deputy leadership, warned that the move could become "the domestic equivalent of Guantanamo Bay".

Shami Chakrabarti, of civil rights campaigners Liberty, accused Blair of "political machismo, a legacy moment."

"Stopping and questioning anyone you like will backfire," she said.

The Sunday Times said the powers already existed in Northern Ireland. Civil rights groups viewed the plan to extend them to the rest of Britain as an attack on civil liberties, it said.

Such powers had existed before in other parts of Britain only in wartime, it said.

Interior Minister John Reid is proposing other measures to combat terrorists, the report said. These would give police the power to take documents away for examination, even if their value as evidence was not immediately obvious, and the power to remove vehicles to examine them.

Blair's government passed tough anti-terrorism measures after the September 11, 2001, attacks on US cities and again after four British suicide bombers killed 52 people on London's transport network in July 2005.

U.S., Iran resume public talks for first time in 28 years

Monday, May 28, 2007
The Associated Press

Iran and the United States resumed public diplomacy Monday for the first time in more than a quarter century.

The meeting, in Baghdad between ambassadors, on security in Iraq could produce a chapter in world history for its success or a footnote for its failure.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker represented Washington. Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi spoke for Iran at the talks, which were held at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office in the Green Zone compound in Baghdad.

Just before 10:30 a.m., al-Maliki greeted the two ambassadors, who shook hands, and led them into a conference room, where the ambassadors sat across the table from each other. Al-Maliki then made a brief statement and left the room.

He told both sides that Iraqis want a stable country free of foreign forces and regional interference. The country should not be turned into a base for terrorist groups, he said. He also said that the U.S.-led forces in Iraq were only here to help build up the army and police and the country would not be used as a launching ground for a U.S. attack on a neighbour, a clear reference to Iran.
'Enhance the bridges of trust'

"We are sure that securing progress in this meeting would, without doubt, enhance the bridges of trust between the two countries and create a positive atmosphere" that would help them deal with other issues, he said.

Speaking in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Monday the talks could lead to future meetings, but only if Washington acknowledges that its Middle East policy has not been successful.

"We are hopeful that Washington's realistic approach to the current issues of Iraq by confessing its failed policy in Iraq and the region and by showing a determination to changing the policy guarantees success of the talks and possible further talks," Mottaki said.
Talks focus on Iraq

Monday's talks were to have a pinpoint focus: What Washington and Tehran — separately or together — could do to contain the sectarian conflagration in Iraq.

Washington wants Tehran to stop arming, financing and training militants, particularly Shia militias that are fighting American and Iraqi troops. Tehran wants Washington out of Iraq, period.

But much more encumbers the narrow agenda, primarily Iran's nuclear program and more than a quarter-century of diplomatic estrangement after the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran.

Further, the Iranian Shia theocracy fears the Bush administration harbours plans for regime change in Tehran and could act on those desires as it did against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Iraq hopes to play mediator role

Washington and its Sunni Arab allies, on their side, are deeply unnerved by growing Iranian influence in the Middle East and the spread of increasingly radical Islam.

Compounding all that is Iran's open hostility to Israel.

A political aide to al-Maliki told the Associated Press that Iraq hoped to play a mediator's role in easing tensions between the Americans and Iranians, which Iraqi officials have routinely said are being played out in Iraq.

Many small issues could cloud the talks before they begin. There were U.S. Navy exercises in the Persian Gulf last week and tough talk from President Bush about new UN penalties against Tehran over its nuclear program. The United States says Tehran is trying to build a bomb, while Iran says it needs nuclear technology for energy production.