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

‏نمایش پست‌ها با برچسب us. نمایش همه پست‌ها
‏نمایش پست‌ها با برچسب us. نمایش همه پست‌ها

۱۳۸۶ بهمن ۱۰, چهارشنبه

انتقاد از حضور خلیلزاد در نشستی با متکی + ویدیو مذاکرات

'انتقاد از حضور خلیلزاد در نشستی با متکی'
مجتبی ثمره هاشمی، زلمی خلیلزاد، منوجهر متکی

کاخ سفید از حضور زلمی خلیلزاد، نماینده آمریکا در سازمان ملل در نشستی در داوس سوئیس با حضور منوچهر متکی، وزیر امور خارجه و مجتبی ثمره هاشمی، مشاور ارشد رئیس جمهور ایران انتقاد کرده است.

نیویورک تایمز و لس آنجلس تایمز، دو روزنامه مهم آمریکا امروز سی ژانویه در گزارش هایی به این موضوع پرداخته اند.

در این نشست مجمع جهانی اقتصاد در سوئیس که به سیاست خارجی ایران می پرداخت، به غیر از آقایان متکی، خلیلزاد و هاشمی ثمره، گرت اوانس از گروه بحران بین الملل که مدیریت جلسه را به عهده داشت، خالد عبدالله جناحی، عضو هیات مدیره بانک شامل بحرین و لیلیا شوتسووا از موسسه کارنگی حضور داشتند.

مناقشه هسته ای ایران، روابط ایران با همسایگان خود عراق و افغانستان، روابط با سوریه و لبنان، روابط با حماس و حزب الله، دیدگاه های ایران در مورد اسرائیل از جمله مسایلی است که در این نشست مورد بررسی قرار گرفت.

آمریکا با ایران رابطه دیپلماتیک ندارد و دولت جورج بوش، رئیس جمهور آمریکا به دنبال انزوای بیشتر ایران در عرصه بین المللی است.

روزنامه نیویورک تایمز به نقل از هلن کوپر، گزارشگر خود نوشته است که حضور زلمی خلیلزاد، نماینده آمریکا در سازمان با شگفتی مقام های دولت جورج بوش همراه شده است. این روزنامه نوشته است که مقام های آمریکایی هنگامی از حضور زلمی خلیلزاد در نشستی با منوچهر متکی خبردار شدند که ویدئوی این نشست در سایت یوتیوب منتشر شد.

نیویورک تایمز نوشته که نتوانسته است با آقای خلیلزاد برای اظهارنظر در این مورد ارتباط برقرار کند اما در ریچارد گرنل، سخنگوی او گفته است که حضور آقای خلیلزاد در این نشست در کنار مقام های ایرانی، در نشستی چندجانبه با حضور یک مجری بوده است.

آقای گرنل به نیویورک تایمز گفته است که هیج دیدار و مکالمه جداگانه ای در کار نبوده و طرفین با یکدیگر دست هم نداده اند.

این روزنامه خاطرنشان می کند که مقام های بلندپایه دولت بوش که نام آنها را فاش نکرده گفته اند که از این مساله خشمگین هستند.

مقام های آمریکایی هنگامی از حضور زلمی خلیلزاد در نشستی با منوچهر متکی خبردار شدند که ویدئوی این نشست در سایت یوتیوب منتشر شد
نیویورک تایمز

گزارشگر نیویورک تایمز نوشته که این ابراز خشم از حضور زلمی خلیلزاد در نشستی با حضور مقام های ارشد ایران نشاندهنده اختلاف نظرها و درگیری های درون دولت جورج بوش بر سر نحوه رفتار با ایران است.

به نوشته این روزنامه، بسیاری از مقام های وزارت خارجه آمریکا بر این باورند که آمریکا باید به صورت مستقیم و بدون پیش شرط وارد تعامل با ایران شود اما این رویکرد در کاخ سفید چندان مورد پسند نیست.

در نشست مورد نظر در داوس سوئیس، زلمی خلیلزاد در کنار آقای متکی نشسته بود و در سخنان خود تاکید کرد که فشارها بر ایران تا زمانی که این کشور، فعالیت های غنی سازی اورانیوم را متوقف نکرده، باید ادامه یابد.

روزنامه لس آنجلس تایمز نیز در گزارشی به قلم پل ریختر و مگی فرلی نوشته است که آقای خلیلزاد، بدون تائید مقام های بالاتر در این نشست شرکت کرده است.

این روزنامه نوشته که آقای خلیلزاد در این نشست مواضع دولت بوش را تکرار کرده اما مقررات و قوانین دولت این کشور در مورد محدود بودن دیدار با مقام های ایرانی را نقض کرده است.

یک سخنگوی وزارت خارجه آمریکا که هویت او فاش نشده به این روزنامه گفته است که حضور آقای خلیلزاد در این نشست بدون مجوز و هماهنگی بوده است.

زلمی خلیلزاد در فهرست مهمانان نشست داوس حضور نداشت و به نظر در لحظات آخر به آن اضافه شده است
لس آنجلس تایمز

به گفته این سخنگو، مقام های وزارت خارجه آمریکا در مورد این مساله با آقای خلیلزاد صحبت خواهند کرد.

لس آنجلس تایمز نوشته که زلمی خلیلزاد در فهرست مهمانان این نشست حضور نداشت و به نظر در لحظات آخر به آن اضافه شده است.

زلمی خلیلزاد پیش از عهده دار شدن نمایندگی آمریکا در سازمان ملل، سفیر آمریکا در افغانستان و عراق بود و در این سمت های خود با مقام های ایرانی ارتباط داشت


.




۱۳۸۶ دی ۱۳, پنجشنبه

Iran no longer aids Iraq militants

By Sara A. Carter
January 3, 2008

Iran's leaders are no longer supplying weapons or training to Islamic militants in Iraq, the spokesman for the top U.S. commander in Iraq told The Washington Times.


Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, sees Iran as following through on assurances it made to Iraqi and U.S. officials last fall not to assist extremists in Iraq, spokesman Col. Steven Boylan said, adding that other U.S. officials have noted declines in Iranian weapons and funds to Iraqi insurgents.


"We are ready to confirm the excellence of the senior Iranian leadership in their pledge to stop the funding, training, equipment and resourcing of the militia special groups," Col. Boylan said. "We have seen a downward trend in the signature-type attacks using weapons provided by Iran."


In October, U.S. military officials began noticing a decrease in the supply of Iranian weapons and assistance, Col. Boylan added.


The disclosure comes just weeks after a National Intelligence Estimate pruned back its assessment of Iran's nuclear program, saying "with high confidence" that the Islamic republic had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in the wake of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Tehran's aid for Islamic militias in Iraq and its nuclear program have resulted in calls from some in Washington for military action against Iran, and these two developments are likely to dampen such calls.


Some outside analysts have argued, though, that Iran-based aid may be getting to Iraqi insurgents without the approval of the government in Tehran.


But the colonel cautioned that while Iran's efforts are promising, U.S. military officials remain wary, partly over some contrary events on the ground in Iraq.


For example, he disclosed that U.S. troops "recently captured individuals who have been in Iran, training, as short as 45-60 days ago." He did not elaborate on the circumstances surrounding the captured individuals or the possible investigation.

Iran 'could restore ties with US'


Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - 3/1/2007
Ayatollah Khamenei maintained a hard line on uranium production
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said relations with the US could be restored in the future.

In a speech to students, he said the time was not right to restore ties, but if it were ever in Iran's interests he would endorse such a move.

The US and Iran cut their diplomatic ties after the 1979 Islamic revolution and the subsequent takeover of the US embassy by militants in Tehran.

Relations have been further strained by the row over Iran's nuclear programme.

"We have never said these relations should be suspended indefinitely," said Ayatollah Khamenei.

But he said now was not the right time because it would be harmful to Iran.

Restored diplomatic ties would provide "an opportunity for US infiltration, traffic of their intelligence agents and espionage of Iran".

Final word

Last month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Washington was open to better relations with Tehran if it stopped enriching uranium.

Ayatollah Khamenei maintained his country's uncompromising line on the nuclear programme, saying his country would not halt enriching uranium.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful electricity generation only, but the US and several European allies fear Tehran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

The Ayatollah's words are unlikely to appear conciliatory in Washington and London says the BBC's Middle East analyst Roger Hardy.

Rather, they were probably directed at a domestic audience ahead of parliamentary elections in March.

The Ayatollah was also underlining the fact that he, and he alone, has the final word on foreign policy, says our analyst.

۱۳۸۶ مرداد ۲۴, چهارشنبه

Iranian guards are terrorists, US to declare

Move aimed at increasing pressure on Tehran over its nuclear programme

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Thursday August 16, 2007
The Guardian


The Bush administration is preparing to ramp up its confrontation with Iran by declaring part or all of the country's Revolutionary Guard a "global terrorist" organisation and targeting its extensive financial interests.

The move is extremely provocative, given that the 125,000-strong Revolutionary Guard Corps is an integral part of the state rather than a group outside the law. It has its own navy, air force, and ground troops, as well as specialist wings.

The Bush administration is trying to force Iran to abandon what the US claims is its ambition to build a nuclear bomb, and to end its support for Hizbullah, Hamas and other groups in the Middle East. "We are confronting Iranian behaviour across a variety of different fronts, on a number of different battlefields, if you will," said Sean McCormack, the state department spokesman. He would not comment on the Revolutionary Guard because he did not want to give them a heads-up, or advance notice, on any sanctions.

The plan is the first concrete illustration of a shift in balance from the "doves" in the Bush administration - Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, and Robert Gates, the defence secretary - to the "hawks" around Dick Cheney, the vice-president, who has expressed frustration over a lack of progress by diplomats and supports eventual military action. The labelling of the Revolutionary Guard is a concession by Ms Rice and Mr Gates to Mr Cheney.

The plan is at an advanced stage: Ms Rice has informed the foreign secretary, David Miliband, of the US intention.

White House, state department and Treasury officials refused to comment publicly yesterday. The Iranian foreign ministry dismissed the suggestion of sanctions as "propaganda and psychological operations".

Throughout the year the Bush administration has been intensifying its pressure on Iran, a policy that included the dispatch of a second carrier group to the Gulf. Iran's commander-in-chief, Yahya Rahim Safavi, shrugged off the US build-up yesterday, saying: "Our coast-to-sea missile systems can now reach the breadth and length of the Gulf and Oman Sea, and no warships can pass in the Gulf without being in range of our coast-to-sea missiles."

The Revolutionary Guard has an economic portfolio which includes ownership, or part-ownership, of oil companies, hotels, and other businesses.

The White House claims the Revolutionary Guard has been sending sophisticated explosives and other weapons to Iraq, and arming the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Ms Rice has still to formally approve the labelling of part or all the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation. The label could be applied solely to the Revolutionary Guard special unit, the Quds (Jerusalem) Force, which has been accused by Washington of involvement in Iraq, rather than the whole organisation.

The designation would mean the US regarding the Revolutionary Guard as having "committed" or posing "a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of US nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or the economy of the United States".

As well as putting pressure on Iran, the plan is aimed at influencing the United Nations security council, where China and to a lesser extent Russia are resisting further sanctions against Iran.

The Bush administration is warning the security council that, if it is not prepared to shift, then the US is prepared to act unilaterally. Ms Rice's delay in labelling the Revolutionary Guard is partly to give the security council an opportunity in which to act.

۱۳۸۶ مرداد ۲۲, دوشنبه

Cheney urging strikes on Iran

By Warren P. Strobel, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers Thu Aug 9 2007

WASHINGTON — President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq , and he threatened action if that continues.

At a news conference Thursday, Bush said Iran had been warned of unspecified consequences if it continued its alleged support for anti-American forces in Iraq . U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had conveyed the warning in meetings with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad , the president said.

Bush wasn't specific, and a State Department official refused to elaborate on the warning.

Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iran run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps , according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy.

The debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq from U.S. military officers, administration officials and administration allies outside government and in the news media. It isn't clear whether the media campaign is intended to build support for limited military action against Iran , to pressure the Iranians to curb their support for Shiite groups in Iraq or both.

Nor is it clear from the evidence the administration has presented whether Iran , which has long-standing ties to several Iraqi Shiite groups, including the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr and the Badr Organization , which is allied with the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki , is a major cause of the anti-American and sectarian violence in Iraq or merely one of many. At other times, administration officials have blamed the Sunni Muslim group al Qaida in Iraq for much of the violence.

For now, however, the president appears to have settled on a policy of stepped-up military operations in Iraq aimed at the suspected Iranian networks there, combined with direct American-Iranian talks in Baghdad to try to persuade Tehran to halt its alleged meddling.

The U.S. military launched one such raid Wednesday in Baghdad's predominantly Shiite Sadr City district.

But so far that course has failed to halt what American military officials say is a flow of sophisticated roadside bombs, known as explosively formed penetrators, into Iraq . Last month they accounted for a third of the combat deaths among U.S.-led forces, according to the military.

Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran , argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq ; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran , one official said.

The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about internal government deliberations.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposes this idea, the officials said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated publicly that "we think we can handle this inside the borders of Iraq ."

Lea Anne McBride , a Cheney spokeswoman, said only that "the vice president is right where the president is" on Iran policy.

Bush left no doubt at his news conference that he intended to get tough with Iran .

"One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for . . . people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs (improvised explosive devices), that kill Americans in Iraq ," he said.

He also appeared to call on the Iranian people to change their government.

"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential."

The Bush administration has launched what appears to be a coordinated campaign to pin more of Iraq's security troubles on Iran .

Last week, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno , the No. 2 U.S. military commander in Iraq , said Shiite militiamen had launched 73 percent of the attacks that had killed or wounded American troops in July. U.S. officials think that majority Shiite Iran is providing militiamen with EFPs, which pierce armored vehicles and explode once inside.

Last month, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner , a multinational force spokesman, said members of the Quds force had helped plan a January attack in the holy Shiite city of Karbala , which lead to the deaths of five American soldiers. Bergner said the military had evidence that some of the attackers had trained at Quds camps near Tehran .

Bush's efforts to pressure Iran are complicated by the fact that the leaders of U.S.-supported governments in Iraq and Afghanistan have a more nuanced view of their neighbor.

Maliki is on a three-day visit to Tehran , during which he was photographed Wednesday hand in hand with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad . Unconfirmed media reports said Maliki had told Iranian officials they'd played a constructive role in the region.

Asked about that, Bush said he hadn't been briefed on the meeting. "Now if the signal is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a heart-to-heart with my friend the prime minister, because I don't believe they are constructive. I don't think he in his heart of hearts thinks they're constructive either," he said.

Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai differed on Iran's role when they met last weekend, with Karzai saying in a TV interview that Iran was "a helper" and Bush challenging that view.

The toughening U.S. position on Iran puts Karzai and Iraqi leaders such as Maliki in a difficult spot between Iran , their longtime ally, and the United States , which is spending lives and treasure to secure their newly formed government.

A senior Iraqi official in Baghdad said the Iraqi government received regular intelligence briefings from the United States about suspected Iranian activities. He refused to discuss details, but said the American position worried him.

The United States is "becoming more focused on Iranian influence inside Iraq ," said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss private talks with the Americans. "And we don't want Iraq to become a zone of conflict between Iran and the U.S."

Proposals to use force against Iran over its actions in Iraq mark a new phase in the Bush administration's long internal war over Iran policy.

Until now, some hawks within the administration— including Cheney— are said to have favored military strikes to stop Iran from furthering its suspected ambitions for nuclear weapons.

Rice has championed a diplomatic strategy, but that, too, has failed to deter Iran so far.

Patrick Clawson , an Iran specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy , said a strike on the Quds camps in Iran could make the nuclear diplomacy more difficult.

Before launching such a strike, "We better be prepared to go public with very detailed and very convincing intelligence," Clawson said.

(e-mail: wstrobel(at)mcclatchydc.com, jwalcott(at)mcclatchydc.com, nyoussef(at)mcclatchydc.com)

۱۳۸۶ مرداد ۷, یکشنبه

Third of Iraqis 'need urgent aid'

Iraqis try to get the attention of a US soldier giving out boxes of food and blankets in Baghdad
Oxfam say basic services cannot meet the needs of the Iraqi people
Nearly a third of the population of Iraq is in need of immediate emergency aid, according to a new report from Oxfam and a coalition of Iraqi NGOs.

The report said the Iraqi government was failing to provide basic essentials such as water, sanitation, food, and shelter to up to eight million people.

It warned the continuing violence was masking a humanitarian crisis that had grown worse since the invasion in 2003.

It also found that four million Iraqis had been uprooted by the violence.

More than two million people have been displaced inside the country, while a further two million have fled to neighbouring countries, according to the report.

On Thursday, an international conference in Jordan pledged to help the refugees with their difficulties.

'Dire poverty'

The BBC's Nicholas Witchell in Baghdad says the report by the UK-based charity and the NGO Co-ordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI) makes alarming reading.

OXFAM/NCCI REPORT IN FULL
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.

The survey recognises that armed conflict is the greatest problem facing Iraqis, but finds a population "increasingly threatened by disease and malnutrition".

It suggests that 70% of Iraq's 26.5m population are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50% percent prior to the invasion. Only 20% have access to effective sanitation.

Nearly 30% of children are malnourished, a sharp increase on the situation four years ago. Some 15% of Iraqis regularly cannot afford to eat.

The report also said 92% of Iraq's children suffered from learning problems.

Displaced Iraqi family
Millions of Iraqis have been forced to flee the violence, either to another part of Iraq or abroad - many of those are living in dire poverty
Jeremy Hobbs
Director of Oxfam International

"Basic services, ruined by years of war and sanctions, cannot meet the needs of the Iraqi people," the director of Oxfam International, Jeremy Hobbs, said.

"Millions of Iraqis have been forced to flee the violence, either to another part of Iraq or abroad. Many of those are living in dire poverty."

Mr Hobbs said that despite the violence, the Iraqi government and the international community could do more to meet people's needs.

"The Iraqi government must commit to helping Iraq's poorest citizens, including the internally displaced, by extending food parcel distribution and cash payments to the vulnerable," he said.

"Western donors must work through Iraqi and international aid organisations and develop more flexible systems to ensure these organisations operate effectively and efficiently."

Oxfam has not operated in Iraq since 2003 for security reasons.

Israel backs U.S. arms sale to Saudis

By STEVE WEIZMAN, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM - In a break from historic Israeli opposition to U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday his country understands Washington's plan to supply state-of-the-art weapons to Riyadh as a counterweight to Iranian influence.

The United States, knowing that Israel is sensitive about such arms sales, is also offering a sharp increase in defense aid to Israel and has assured the Jewish state it will retain a fighting edge over other countries in the region, he added.

"We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran," Olmert told a weekly Cabinet meeting.

The rare agreement reflects shared U.S. and Israeli concern over the potential threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

The proposed arms deal would include advanced weaponry and air systems that would greatly enhance the striking ability of Saudi warplanes, alarming the Israeli right. One leading hard-liner warned that Saudi Arabia, although not belligerent now, could be taken over by extremists.

Israel's southern tip is 10 miles from Saudi Arabia across the Gulf of Aqaba.

The proposed package comes with a serious sweetener for Israel: a 25 percent rise in U.S. military aid, from an annual $2.4 billion at present to $3 billion a year and guaranteed for 10 years.

Olmert said the increase in military aid to Israel would guarantee its strategic superiority, irrespective of upgrades to Arab forces in the region. Olmert said the rise was pledged by President Bush during his visit to Washington last year and finalized in White House talks in June.

"In my last meeting with him, we decided that the assistance would be $30 billion for 10 years, about $3 billion a a year. This is more than a 25 percent increase ... and it is very significant for the safety of Israel," Olmert said.

The U.S. has long-standing commitments to Israel and to Egypt, which in 1979 became the first Arab state to make peace with Israel. At the same time, the U.S. is seeking to strengthen other moderate Mideast allies, largely as a counterweight to Iran's growing influence.

The United States and Israel accuse Iran of developing nuclear bombs, a charge Tehran denies. Iran, whose leader has repeatedly called for Israel to be to wiped off the map, is viewed by Israel as its main enemy. Shiite Muslim Iran also worries the Saudis and other Sunni-led Arab allies of the United States.

The Haaretz daily on Sunday cited U.S. officials saying Saudi Arabia has asked that Congress be notified in advance of the planned sale, while the Pentagon is asking the Saudis to accept restrictions on the range, size and location of the satellite-guided bombs, including a commitment not to store the weapons near Israeli territory.

Although the Israeli right voiced worries about the latest plan, it stopped short of outright calls to block it.

"I am very concerned," Yuval Steinitz, a key hawk on parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, told The Associated Press. "I can understand the need to support moderate states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but on the other hand we have to remember that governments can be toppled, as in Iran."

Senior administration officials said Friday that Bush would seek congressional approval for additional military aid to Israel and also to Egypt, which currently gets $1.3 billion a year.

The officials said before beginning her Mideast tour on Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would announce those proposals, along with the plan to sell at least $5 billion in sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf states.

(This version CORRECTS Corrects in final graf that Rice trip begins, sted ends, on Monday; minor EDITS throughout)

کمک نظامي ۳۰ ميليارد دلاري آمريکا به اسرائيل

اين تحليلگر مي‌گويد: معامله‌اي که آمريکا براساس آن، ده‌ها فروند جنگنده جديد، ناوچه‌هاي سريع السير و بمب‌هاي هدايت شونده با ماهواره به عربستان خواهد فروخت، موجب ايجاد يک سپر دفاعي نظامي ميان بنيادگرايان با ميانه‌روهاي منطقه خواهد شد

دولت اسرائيل روز يکشنبه اعلام کرد که از آمريکا تضمين‌هاي امنيتي لازم را براي حفظ برتري نظامي اسرائيل در خاورميانه دريافت کرده و ايالات متحده کمک‌هاي نظامي به اسرائيل را در ده سال آينده ۲۵ درصد افزايش خواهد داد.

اين اعلام دولت اسرائيل پس از آن صورت گرفت که روزنامه آمريکايي نيويورک تايمز از معاملات جديد تسليحاتي ۲۰ ميليارد دلاري ميان آمريکا با عربستان سعودي و ساير اميرنشين‌هاي خليج فارس، براي مقابله با «خطرات احتمالي ناشي ازجمهوري اسلامي ايران» خبرداد.

انتشار گزارش مشروح معاملات تازه تسليحاتي ميان آمريکا با عربستان سعودي و ديگر شيخ نشين‌هاي خليج فارس مانند هميشه حساسيت‌هاي دولت اسرائيل را نسبت به معاملات تسليحاتي ميان کشورهاي غربي با ارتش‌هاي عربي در پي آورده است.

توافق‌هاي اسرائيل و آمريکا به تل آويو اين اطمينان خاطر را مي‌دهد که حتي در پي فروش مدرنترين جنگ افزارها به عربستان و ساير اميرنشين ها، در هر حال، اسرائيل همچنان قدرت برتر نظامي منطقه بماند و اين برتري را با فاصله زياد از ساير کشورهاي عربي حفظ کند.

اسرائيل که تا چندي پيش با فروش هواپيماهاي جنگي و راداري مدرن آمريکا به عربستان سعودي مخالفت مي‌کرد و در اين رابطه نيز هياتي را به واشينگتن اعزام کرده بود، اين بار اعلام کرد که با قصد آمريکا براي تقويت نظامي عربستان و ساير اميرنشين‌ها مخالفت نخواهد کرد، زيرا سخن از معاملاتي است که قرار است حکومت‌هاي ميانه رو عربي را در برابر آنچه که آمريکا و اسرائيل «کشورهاي عضو محور شرارت» مي‌نامند، تقويت کند.

اهود اولمرت، نخست وزير اسرائيل روز يکشنبه در نشست هفتگي دولت گفت: تل آويو درک مي‌کند که حکومت‌هاي ميانه روي عربي که هم پيمان آمريکا هستند به تقويت نظامي خود نياز دارند.

اولمرت افزود: «اين کشورها با قرارگرفتن در کنار آمريکا، در مقابله با رژيم ايران عملا دوشادوش اسرائيل ايستاده‌اند.»

نخست وزير اسرائيل همچنين گفت: در آخرين ديدار با جورج بوش، رييس جمهوري آمريکا متعهد شد که برتري نظامي اسرائيل در خاورميانه نسبت به ساير کشورهاي منطقه ادامه يابد، و در اين راستا، آمريکا ۲۵ درصد بر سطح کمک‌هاي نظامي ساليانه خود به اسرائيل در طول ده سال آينده خواهد افزود و در مجموع اين دهه، سي ميليارد دلار کمک تسليحاتي و نظامي در اختيار تل آويو قرارخواهد گرفت.

روزنامه آمريکايي «واشينگتن پست» نيز روز شنبه نوشته بود: هدف رييس جمهوري آمريکا از اعزام وزيران امور خارجه و دفاع دولت خود به منطقه، براي تقويت ديواره حائل ميان افراطيون خاورميانه با ميانه روهاست و طبق اين طرح، بايد تلاش شود تا در آستانه بيرون رفتن نيروهاي آمريکا از عراق، آن کشور نيز به بخشي از سپر دفاعي ميانه روها در برابر عوامل و حکومت‌هاي افراطي مانند جمهوري اسلامي ايران تبديل شده باشد.

حفظ برتري نظامي اسرائيل
اهود اولمرت درنشست کابينه اسرائيل در بيت المقدس گفت: « توافق‌هاي اسرائيل و آمريکا به تل آويو اين اطمينان خاطر را مي‌دهد که حتي در پي فروش مدرنترين جنگ افزارها به عربستان و ساير اميرنشين ها، در هر حال، اسرائيل همچنان قدرت برتر نظامي منطقه بماند و اين برتري را با فاصله زياد از ساير کشورهاي عربي حفظ کند.»

نخست وزير اسرائيل فاش ساخت، تعهداتي که وي از آن سخن مي‌گويد، در بخشي از مذاکرات اخير وي در سفرش به واشنگتن، در حالي که هيچيک از دستياران وي و جورج بوش در آن شرکت نداشته‌اند، از سوي رييس جمهوري آمريکا به شخص او داده شده است.

حساسيت‌هايي که اين کشور (اسرائيل) در مورد معاملات تسليحاتي آمريکا با کشورهاي عربي نشان مي‌دهد، اين بار به جا نيست زيرا تقويت نظامي عربستان و ساير اميرنشين‌هايي که حکومت‌هاي ميانه رو دارند، دقيقا با اهداف اسرائيل که خواهان جلوگيري از قدرت يابي جمهوري اسلامي ايران و ساير اعضاي محورشرارت است، همخواني دارد.

اولمرت افزود: در آن ديدار، که بيستم ماه ژوئن انجام شد، بوش متعهد گرديد که تضمين‌هاي امنيتي تازه‌اي نيز در اختيار اسرائيل قرار دهد.
وي گفت: مفهوم اين تعهد اين است که اسرائيل در ده سال آينده، هر سال مي‌تواند تا سه ميليارد دلار از کمک‌هاي نظامي آمريکا بهره مند شود.

کمک بلاعوض يا خريد تسليحات؟
در همين حال، وزير کشور دولت اسرائيل، که عضو حزب حاکم کاديما است، به روزنامه يديعوت آخرونوت گفت: «سخن از کمک‌هاي بلاعوض نيست بلکه اسرائيل بايد در برابر آن پول بپردازد همان گونه که عربستان سعودي و اميرنشين‌هاي خليج فارس براي برخوردارشدن از تجهيزات نظامي جديد بايد به خريد اقدام کنند.»

اين وزير اسرائيلي، اين ارزيابي‌ها را که اين تحولات، موجب شتاب سرسام آور در مسابقه تسليحاتي در خاورميانه خواهد شد را رد کرد .

حاميان اسرائيل در کنگره آمريکا که در هر دو حزب جمهوريخواه و دمکرات قدرت بزرگي محسوب مي‌شوند، معاملات تسليحاتي اخير آمريکا با اميرنشين‌هاي عربي حاشيه خليج فارس بويژه عربستان را به زيان منافع اسرائيل دانسته‌اند.

لابي اسرائيل به اين احتمال اشاره کرده‌اند که با سقوط حکومت پادشاهي عربستان و قدرت يابي احتمالي افراطيون اسلامي، يک ارتش پرقدرت دراختيار بنيادگرايان قرار گيرد در حالي که خاک عربستان با اسرائيل فاصله‌اي بسيار اندک دارد .

اما طرح صلح سران اتحاديه عرب که با پيشنهاد و فشار پادشاه عربستان سعودي اخيرا دوباره به تصويب رهبران ۲۲ کشورعربي عضو اتحاديه رسيد، اسرائيل و آمريکا را در مورد نزديک شدن عربستان به اسرائيل خوش بين کرده است.

اين طرح با شرط هايي، برقراري صلح کامل ميان دنياي عرب با اسرائيل را پيشنهاد مي‌کند.

هفته گذشته، پس از آنکه وزيران امور خارجه مصر و اردن به اسرائيل سفر کردند، رسانه‌هاي اسرائيل اعلام کردند، تماس‌هايي که تاکنون توسط يک کشور سوم ميان اسرائيل و عربستان صورت گرفته، علني خواهد شد.


۱۳۸۶ تیر ۲۰, چهارشنبه

Lieberman : We are winning in Iraq

CNN’s Ware: ‘Lieberman Has Taken An Excursion Into Fantasy’ »

After returning from a recent visit to Iraq, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has embarked on a campaign to give cheery reports about the Iraq war. His latest line: “We are winning.” Yesterday, Lieberman alleged that U.S. troops had successfully “chased out” the “enemy”:

[W]e’ve got the enemy, Al Qaeda, on the run. We’ve chased them out of Anbar province, where they were going to create the capital for the Islamist Republic of Iraq. We’ve chased them now to Diyala. All of this is possible because of the surge.

Last night, CNN Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware, who has been in Iraq for four years, mocked Lieberman’s claims, emphasizing that the U.S. now faces “a whole multitude” of threats that are becoming stronger:

COOPER: Is the enemy on the run in Iraq, Michael?

WARE: No, certainly not. And I think we need to be aware that it’s enemies. I mean, America doesn’t face just one opponent in this country, but a whole multitude, many of whom are becoming stronger the longer the U.S. occupation here, or presence here, in Iraq continues. So, unfortunately, I’m afraid that Senator Lieberman has taken an excursion into fantasy.

Watch it:

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) said yesterday: “I don’t know where Lieberman gets his opinions” on Iraq. Last weekend, violence around the country claimed 220 lives. Yesterday, the formerly secure Green Zone saw its “most intense mortar attack to date,” according to a statement from the U.S. embassy.

۱۳۸۶ تیر ۷, پنجشنبه

CODEPINKer Fasting for Peace in Iran Passes Out in Senator Lieberman's Office




Leslie Angeline of CODEPINK, has been fasting for over 10 days in an effort to meet with Senator Joseph Lieberman. She wants to meet with him to ask him not to bomb Iran. She visited Iran a few weeks ago and wanted to tell the senator about her visit and tell him not to kill innocent people. He agreed to meet with her but broke the appointment. Leslie has tried to meet with Lieberman several more times but he has chosen not to meet with her. Today, Leslie went to his office to ask to meet with the senator but to no avail. Leslie was feeling weak and ask the senator's staff if she could lay on the floor. They told her no and if she wanted to lay down she had to go into hallway to lay down. Leslie sat down on the floor in his office and rested her head on the chair. Capital medical help was called and they allowed Leslie to lay on the floor in his office. The campus police were there too. The police would not allow any CODEPINK people near Leslie. They kept her separated from us which was a bit scary. All we could see was Leslie laying on the floor with 12 to 14 medical and police staff standing around her. They finally rolled her out in a wheel chair downstairs into the medical center in the building. It was scary because Lieberman's staff seemed unconcerned and unaffected by Leslie laying on the floor. It was heart breaking to see someone you care about that has such a strong passion about peace laying out on the floor when it could have been avoided if the senator had met with her for just a few minutes to discuss peaceful efforts in Iran. I am very disappointed in Senator Lieberman and the constituents of Connecticut should be outraged as well.

Check out this video interview with Leslie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoshR3Qepa4






Hersh: ‘Bush And Cheney’s Wet Dream Is Hitting Iran’

In February, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh wrote a piece in The New Yorker revealing that the Bush administration was setting its sights heavily on Iran, planning for a “possible bombing attack“:

Still, the Pentagon is continuing intensive planning for a possible bombing attack on Iran, a process that began last year, at the direction of the President. In recent months, the former intelligence official told me, a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours.

On Tuesday, Hersh spoke more on the Bush administration’s focus on Iran at the Campus Progress National Conference. He said that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are ignoring the actual intelligence on Iran. The “intelligence community keeps on saying, ‘There’s no bomb there.’ And Cheney keeps on saying to the young briefing officers, ‘Thank you son, I don’t buy that.’” Hersh added, “George Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s wet dream is hitting Iran.” Watch it:

Hersh also stated that Bush likes to compare himself to Winston Churchill. Sources close to the President have heard him “say things like, ‘It’ll be 20 years before they appreciate me. … Yes, I may be at 30 percent in the polls, but in 20 or 30 years, they’ll appreciate what I’ve done.’”

۱۳۸۶ خرداد ۳۰, چهارشنبه

‘Bomb Iran’ Podhoretz: War Would ‘Unleash A Wave’ Of Global Anti-Americanism

The current issue of Commentary magazine — “widely regarded as the leading outlet for neoconservative writing” — features a controversial cover story by Norman Podhoretz titled “The Case For Bombing Iran.”

Podhoretz’s article appeals to President Bush, “a man who knows evil when he sees it” and who has been “battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory,” to carry out military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. U.S. diplomats are now pointing to the essay to pressure foreign diplomats to increase pressure on Iran.

In a new interview, Podhoretz was asked to comment on the possible fallout of the military strikes he advocates. “Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will,” Podhoretz says, “we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.”

Watch it (6:20):

Podhoretz qualified his statement about anti-Americanism, saying it was only a “worst case scenario.” It’s “entirely possible,” he claimed, that “many countries, particularly in the Middle East” would “at least secretly applaud us.”

But even global anti-Americanism is worth it, he argues, to slow Iran’s nuclear program “for five or 10 years or more.” In fact, American Progress senior fellow Joseph Cirincione has argued that such a strike “would not, as is often said, delay the Iranian program. It would almost certainly speed it up. That is what happened when the Israelis struck at the Iraq program in 1981.”





June 2007

Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what September 11, 2001 did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the cold war was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the cold war, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of Communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.

What follows from this way of looking at the last five years is that the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be understood if they are regarded as self-contained wars in their own right. Instead we have to see them as fronts or theaters that have been opened up in the early stages of a protracted global struggle. The same thing is true of Iran. As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department’s latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism’s weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.

The Iranians, of course, never cease denying that they intend to build a nuclear arsenal, and yet in the same breath they openly tell us what they intend to do with it. Their first priority, as repeatedly and unequivocally announced by their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is to “wipe Israel off the map”—a feat that could not be accomplished by conventional weapons alone.

But Ahmadinejad’s ambitions are not confined to the destruction of Israel. He also wishes to dominate the greater Middle East, and thereby to control the oilfields of the region and the flow of oil out of it through the Persian Gulf. If he acquired a nuclear capability, he would not even have to use it in order to put all this within his reach. Intimidation and blackmail by themselves would do the trick.

Nor are Ahmadinejad’s ambitions merely regional in scope. He has a larger dream of extending the power and influence of Islam throughout Europe, and this too he hopes to accomplish by playing on the fear that resistance to Iran would lead to a nuclear war. And then, finally, comes the largest dream of all: what Ahmadinejad does not shrink from describing as “a world without America.” Demented though he may be, I doubt that Ahmadinejad is so crazy as to imagine that he could wipe America off the map even if he had nuclear weapons. But what he probably does envisage is a diminution of the American will to oppose him: that is, if not a world without America, he will settle, at least in the short run, for a world without much American influence.

Not surprisingly, the old American foreign-policy establishment and many others say that these dreams are nothing more than the fantasies of a madman. They also dismiss those who think otherwise as neoconservative alarmists trying to drag this country into another senseless war that is in the interest not of the United States but only of Israel. But the irony is that Ahmadinejad’s dreams are more realistic than the dismissal of those dreams as merely insane delusions. To understand why, an analogy with World War III may help.

_____________


At certain points in that earlier war, some of us feared that the Soviets might seize control of the oil fields of the Middle East, and that the West, faced with a choice between surrendering to their dominance or trying to stop them at the risk of a nuclear exchange, would choose surrender. In that case, we thought, the result would be what in those days went by the name of Finlandization.

In Europe, where there were large Communist parties, Finlandization would take the form of bringing these parties to power so that they could establish “Red Vichy” regimes like the one already in place in Finland—regimes whose subservience to the Soviet will in all things, domestic and foreign alike, would make military occupation unnecessary and would therefore preserve a minimal degree of national independence.

In the United States, where there was no Communist party to speak of, we speculated that Finlandization would take a subtler form. In the realm of foreign affairs, politicians and pundits would arise to celebrate the arrival of a new era of peace and friendship in which the cold-war policy of containment would be scrapped, thus giving the Soviets complete freedom to expand without encountering any significant obstacles. And in the realm of domestic affairs, Finlandization would mean that the only candidates running for office with a prayer of being elected would be those who promised to work toward a sociopolitical system more in harmony with the Soviet model than the unjust capitalist plutocracy under which we had been living.

Of course, by the grace of God, the dissidents behind the Iron Curtain, and Ronald Reagan, we won World War III and were therefore spared the depredations that Finlandization would have brought. Alas, we are far from knowing what the outcome of World War IV will be. But in the meantime, looking at Europe today, we already see the unfolding of a process analogous to Finlandization: it has been called, rightly, Islamization. Consider, for example, what happened when, only a few weeks ago, the Iranians captured fifteen British sailors and marines and held them hostage. Did the Royal Navy, which once boasted that it ruled the waves, immediately retaliate against this blatant act of aggression, or even threaten to do so unless the captives were immediately released? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, using force was the last thing in the world the British contemplated doing, as they made sure to announce. Instead they relied on the “soft power” so beloved of “sophisticated” Europeans and their American fellow travelers.

But then, as if this show of impotence were not humiliating enough, the British were unable even to mobilize any of that soft power. The European Union, of which they are a member, turned down their request to threaten Iran with a freeze of imports. As for the UN, under whose very auspices they were patrolling the international waters in which the sailors were kidnapped, it once again showed its true colors by refusing even to condemn the Iranians. The most the Security Council could bring itself to do was to express “grave concern.” Meanwhile, a member of the British cabinet was going the Security Council one better. While registering no objection to propaganda pictures of the one woman hostage, who had been forced to shed her uniform and dress for the cameras in Muslim clothing, Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt pronounced it “deplorable” that she should have permitted herself to be photographed with a cigarette in her mouth. “This,” said Hewitt, “sends completely the wrong message to our young people.”

According to John Bolton, our former ambassador to the UN, the Iranians were testing the British to see if there would be any price to pay for committing what would once have been considered an act of war. Having received his answer, Ahmadinejad could now reap the additional benefit of, as the British commentator Daniel Johnson puts it, “posing as a benefactor” by releasing the hostages, even while ordering more attacks in Iraq and even while continuing to arm terrorist organizations, whether Shiite (Hizballah) or Sunni (Hamas). For fanatical Shiites though Ahmadinejad and his ilk assuredly are, they are obviously willing to set sectarian differences aside when it comes to forging jihadist alliances against the infidels.

If, then, under present circumstances Ahmadinejad could bring about the extraordinary degree of kowtowing that resulted from the kidnapping of the British sailors, what might he not accomplish with a nuclear arsenal behind him—nuclear bombs that could be fitted on missiles capable of reaching Europe? As to such a capability, Robert G. Joseph, the U.S. Special Envoy for Nuclear Non-Proliferation, tells us that Iran is “expanding what is already the largest offensive missile force in the region. Moreover, it is reported to be working closely with North Korea, the world’s number-one missile proliferator, to develop even more capable ballistic missiles.” This, Joseph goes on, is why “analysts agree that in the foreseeable future Iran will be armed with medium- and long-range ballistic missiles,” and it is also why “we could wake up one morning to find that Iran is holding Berlin, Paris or London hostage to whatever its demands are then.”



Norman Podhoretz wants to bomb Iran!

۱۳۸۶ خرداد ۲۷, یکشنبه

PGCC: no base for US attack on Iran

Sun, 17 Jun 2007

Saudi Arabia's Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz
Saudi Arabia's interior minister has vowed that the Persian Gulf states would never be used as a launch pad for any military attack on Iran.

Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz made the remarks on Sunday according to SPA news agency.

"I think the brothers in Iran are totally aware that ... Iran will not be a source of harm for their neighbors and brothers ... These countries will not be a source of harm for Iran," he added.

"Respect and consideration are mutual. I speak for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia … and the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council [PGCC]," he said.

سناتور دموکرات جوزف بايدن ايران را در حال جنگ عليه ایالات متحده آمريکا دانست

سناتور بایدن
سناتور بایدن یکی از منتقدان اصلی سیاست خارجی جورج بوش است
سناتور دموکرات جوزف بايدن، رئيس کميته روابط امور خارجه مجلس سنای آمريکا، ايران را در حال جنگ عليه ایالات متحده آمريکا دانست.

سناتور بايدن يکی از نامزدهای رياست جمهوری آمريکا از حزب دموکرات است.

او روز يکشنبه، ۱۷ ماه ژوئيه، در مصاحبه ای با شبکه تلويزيونی "ای بی سی" حمايت ايران از گروه های حزب الله لبنان و جنبش حماس را دليل ادعای خود عنوان کرد.

اين سناتور دموکرات گفت: "ايران مانند دوران جنگ سرد که شوروی عليه منافع آمريکا و متحدانش در آفريقا و آمريکای لاتين جنگ افروزی می کرد، عمل می کند."

مقام های ایرانی همواره یک چنین ادعاهایی را بی اساس دانسته اند.

سناتور بايدن يکی از منتقدان سرسخت سياست خارجی کاخ سفيد است. او در گذشته نسبت به هرگونه حمله نظامی عليه ايران هشدار داده است.



سناتور لیبرمن
سناتور لیبرمن گفته است آمریکا باید برای بمباران تأسیسات هسته ای ایران آماده باشد

به گفته آقای بايدن، آمريکا بايد در برابر ايران طوری عمل کند که خود را در سطح بين المللی منزوی نکند و به همکاری کشورهای ديگر در اين زمينه لطمه نزند.

به گفته وی: "دربرابر ايران نبايد طوری عمل کنيم که اگر زمانی نياز به اقدام سياسی يا نظامی عليه اين کشور بود، مجبور شويم به تنهايی عمل کنيم. بايد اروپايی ها را همراهی کنيم و از اقدام نظامی عليه ايران در وضع کنونی پرهيز کنيم و به تشديد تحريم های ايران ادامه دهيم."

سناتور بايدن همچنين از سخنان سناتور دموکرات جو ليبرمن که خواستار آمادگی کشورش برای بمباران تاسيسات اتمی ايران شده است انتقاد کرد.

وی گفت: "وقتی آمريکا نمی تواند مشکلاتش را در عراق ۲۷ ميليونی حل کند، چطور می تواند به يک کشور ۷۲ ميليون نفری حمله کند و شاهد افزايش مشکلاتش در خاورميانه نباشد؟"

به گفته جوزف بايدن آمريکا بهتر است به جای حمله به ايران و متحد کردن مردمان آن با عراقی ها در برابر آمريکا، به اختلاف های مردم اين کشور و حکومت آن توجه و در جهت جلب حمايت مردم ايران تلاش کند.

بودجه دولت آمریکا برای گسترش دمکراسی در ایران

دفتر سخنگوی وزارت امور خارجه دولت آمریکا روز گذشته (۴ ژوئن) در گزارشی که در اختیار خبرنگاران قرار داد، اقلام مخارج مربوط به پروژه‌های گسترش دمکراسی در دو کشور ایران و سوریه را در سال مالی ۲۰۰۶ به اطلاع عموم رسانید.

طبق این اطلاعیه، در سال مالی گذشته، کنگره آمریکا در وهله اول مبلغ شش میلیون و پانصدهزار دلار را به عنوان «صندوق دمکراسی» (Democracy Funds) برای ایران و سوریه اختصاص داد. سپس در مرحله بعد تقاضاکرد که مبلغ ده میلیون دلار دیگر توسط وزارت امور خارجه صرف برنامه‌های مربوط به دمکراسی و حقوق بشر در ایران گردد.

جدا از این دو مورد، خانم کاندولیزا رایس وزیر امورخارجه آمریکا از کنگره مبلغ ۷۵ ملیون دلار به عنوان «متمم اضطراری» (Emergency Supplement) برای ایران تقاضا کرد. در پاسخ، کنگره آمریکا تنها مبلغ ۶۶ میلیون و صدهزار دلار را برای این منظور تصویب کرد. این مبلغ شامل اقلام زیر می شود:

  • ۳۶ میلیون و صدهزار دلار برای هیأت کارفرمایان پخش [رادیو تلویزیونی] (Broadcasting Board of Governors) یا BBG . این بودجه شامل هزینه‌های صدای آمریکا به فارسی، رادیو فردا و رادیو اروپای آزاد / رادیو آزادی (PFE/RL) می گردد.
  • ۲۰ میلیون دلار برای برنامه‌های دمکراسی در ایران از طریق برنامه «اقدام برای همکاری در خاور میانه» (Middle East Partnership Initiative) در «دفتر امور خاورنزدیک».

این مبلغ شامل تلاش در پشتیبانی از فعالانی است که در ایران خواهان آزادی‌های ابتدایی مدنی نظیر حق بیشتر بیان و حقوق بیشتر برای زنان هستند:

  • ۵ میلیون دلار برای فعالیت های اینترنتی و نظایر آنها.
  • ۵ میلیون دلار برای اقدامات آموزشی و مراودات فرهنگی، از طریق «دفتر امور آموزشی و فرهنگی».

تقاضای رئیس جمهور از کنگره برای سال مالی ۲۰۰۸ مبلغ ۱۰۸ میلیون و بیست و یک هزار دلار است. این بودجه دربرگیرنده ۷۵ میلیون دلار کمک اقتصادی (Economic Support Funds) است که قرار است صرف گسترش برنامه‌های دمکراسی در ایران بشود.

۲۸ میلیون و بیست و یکهزار دلار به برنامه‌های رادیو تلویزیونی (BBG) یعنی صدای آمریکا به فارسی و رادیو فردا اختصاص دارد. پنج میلیون دلار باقیمانده برای «برنامه دیپلوماتیک و سفارتخانه ای» (Diplomatic and Consular Program) صرف خواهد شد. کنگره آمریکا تا این تاریخ هنوز این بودجه را تصویب نکرده است.

عبدی کلانتری، گزارشگر صدای آلمان در نیویورک

Military mental health disorders spike.

Military mental health disorders spike

“Mental health disorders are snowballing as more and more soldiers and Marines are sent back for repeat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan,” CBS News reports.

According to the Pentagon’s latest mental health survey, 31 percent of Marines, 38 percent of soldiers and 49 percent of the National Guard reported psychological symptoms such as anger, depression or alcohol abuse after returning home. As the director of the survey said, combat stress is not something you just get over.

Iran Strategy Stirs Debate at White House

Published: June 16, 2007

WASHINGTON, June 15 — A year after President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced a new strategy toward Iran, a behind-the-scenes debate has broken out within the administration over whether the approach has any hope of reining in Iran’s nuclear program, according to senior administration officials.

The debate has pitted Ms. Rice and her deputies, who appear to be winning so far, against the few remaining hawks inside the administration, especially those in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office who, according to some people familiar with the discussions, are pressing for greater consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

In the year since Ms. Rice announced the new strategy for the United States to join forces with Europe, Russia and China to press Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, Iran has installed more than a thousand centrifuges to enrich uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency predicts that 8,000 or so could be spinning by the end of the year, if Iran surmounts its technical problems.

Those hard numbers are at the core of the debate within the administration over whether Mr. Bush should warn Iran’s leaders that he will not allow them to get beyond some yet-undefined milestones, leaving the implication that a military strike on the country’s facilities is still an option.

Even beyond its nuclear program, Iran is emerging as an increasing source of trouble for the Bush administration by inflaming the insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and in Gaza, where it has provided military and financial support to the militant Islamic group Hamas, which now controls the Gaza Strip.

Even so, friends and associates of Ms. Rice who have talked with her recently say she has increasingly moved toward the European position that the diplomatic path she has laid out is the only real option for Mr. Bush, even though it has so far failed to deter Iran from enriching uranium, and that a military strike would be disastrous.

The accounts were provided by officials at the State Department, White House and the Pentagon who are on both sides of the debate, as well as people who have spoken with members of Mr. Cheney’s staff and with Ms. Rice. The officials said they were willing to explain the thinking behind their positions, but would do so only on condition of anonymity.

Mr. Bush has publicly vowed that he would never “tolerate” a nuclear Iran, and the question at the core of the debate within the administration is when and whether it makes sense to shift course.

The issue was raised at a closed-door White House meeting recently when the departing deputy national security adviser, J. D. Crouch, told senior officials that President Bush needed an assessment of how the stalemate over Iran’s nuclear program was likely to play out over the next 18 months, said officials briefed on the meeting.

In response, R. Nicholas Burns, an under secretary of state who is the chief American strategist on Iran, told the group that negotiations with Tehran could still be going on when Mr. Bush leaves office in January 2009. The hawks in the room reported later that they were deeply unhappy — but not surprised — by Mr. Burns’s assessment, which they interpreted as a tacit acknowledgment that the Bush administration had no “red line” beyond which Iran would not be permitted to step.

But conservatives inside the administration have continued in private to press for a tougher line, making arguments that their allies outside government are voicing publicly. “Regime change or the use of force are the only available options to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapons capability, if they want it,” said John R. Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations.

Only a few weeks ago, one of Mr. Cheney’s top aides, David Wurmser, told conservative research groups and consulting firms in Washington that Mr. Cheney believed that Ms. Rice’s diplomatic strategy was failing, and that by next spring Mr. Bush might have to decide whether to take military action.

The vice president’s office has declined to talk about Mr. Wurmser’s statements, and says Mr. Cheney is fully on board with the president’s strategy. In a June 1 article for Commentary magazine, the neoconservative editor Norman Podhoretz laid out what a headline described as “The Case for Bombing Iran.”

“In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force — any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938,” Mr. Podhoretz wrote.

Mr. Burns and officials from the Treasury Department have been trying to use the mounting conservative calls for a military strike to press Europe and Russia to expand economic sanctions against Iran. Just last week, Israel’s transportation minister and former defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, visited Washington and told Ms. Rice that sanctions must be strong enough to get the Iranians to stop enriching uranium by the end of 2007.

While Mr. Mofaz did not threaten a military strike, Israeli officials said he told Ms. Rice that by the end of the year, Israel “would have to reassess where we are.”

The State Department and Treasury officials are pushing for a stronger set of United Nations Security Council sanctions against members of Iran’s government, including an extensive travel ban and further moves to restrict the ability of Iran’s financial institutions to do business outside of Iran. Beyond that, American officials have been trying to get European and Asian banks to take additional steps, outside of the Security Council, against Iran.

“We’re saying to them, ‘Look, you need to help us make the diplomacy succeed, and you guys need to stop business as usual with Iran,’ ” an administration official said. “We’re not just sitting here ignoring reality.”

But the fallout from the Iraq war has severely limited the Bush administration’s ability to maneuver on the Iran nuclear issue and has left many in the administration, and certainly America’s allies and critics in Europe, firmly against military strikes on Iran. On Thursday, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the international nuclear watchdog agency, warned anew that military action against Iran would “be an act of madness.”

The debate over “red lines” is a familiar one inside the Bush White House that last arose in 2002 over North Korea. When the North Koreans threw out international inspectors on the last day of that year and soon declared that they planned to reprocess 8,000 rods of spent fuel into weapons-grade plutonium, President Bush had to decide whether to declare that if North Korea moved toward weapons, it could face a military strike on its facilities.

The Pentagon had drawn up an extensive plan for taking out those facilities, though with little enthusiasm, because it feared it could not control North Korea’s response, and the administration chose not to delivery any ultimatum. North Korea tested a nuclear weapon last October, and American intelligence officials estimate it now has the fuel for eight or more weapons.

Iran is far behind the North Koreans; it is believed to be three to eight years away from its first weapon, American intelligence officials have told Congress. Conservatives argue that if the administration fails to establish a line over which Iran must not step, the enrichment of uranium will go ahead, eventually giving the Iranians fuel that, with additional enrichment out of the sight of inspectors, it could use for weapons.

To date, however, the administration has been hesitant about saying that it will not permit Iran to produce more than a given amount of fuel, out of concern that Iran’s hard-liners would simply see that figure as a goal.

In the year since the United States made its last offer to Iran, the Iranians have gone from having a few dozen centrifuges in operation to building a facility that at last count, a month ago, had more than 1,300. “The pace of negotiations have lagged behind the pace of the Iranian nuclear program,” said Robert Joseph, the former under secretary of state for international security, who left his post partly over his opposition to the administration’s recent deal with North Korea.

۱۳۸۶ خرداد ۲۵, جمعه

Treasury freezes US assets of 2 Iranians

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
Fri Jun 15,

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration took action Friday against two Iranians suspected of connections to Iran's nuclear program. The Treasury Department action, part of efforts to tighten the financial vise on Tehran, is against Mohammad Qannadi and Ali Hajinia Leilabadi. Any bank accounts or other financial assets belonging to these two men found in the United States must be frozen. In addition, American are forbidden from doing business with them.

It marked the department's latest move to use targeted financial measures against Iran, a country the United States accused of fostering terrorism and whose nuclear ambitions have drawn international rebuke.

"Even individuals who are active in Iran's nuclear program are going to be held to account for their conduct and isolated by the international financial community," said Stuart Levey, the department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.

Iran's defiance of U.N. Security Council demands that it stop uranium enrichment and construction of a plutonium-producing reactor has led to two sets of economic sanctions against Iran. The stage has been set for a third round of U.N. Security Council penalties.

The Treasury Department alleged that Qannadi acts on behalf of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, or AEOI, which managed Iran's overall nuclear program and reports directly to Iran's president.

The government accused Leilabadi of acting on behalf of the Mesbah Energy Co., which is affiliated with the AEOI. Mesbah has been used to procure products for Iran's heavy water project, the department alleged. Heavy water is essential for Iran's heavy-water moderated reactor project, which would provide Iran with a potential source of plutonium suited for nuclear weapons, the department said.

The department said Iran's president awarded both men government medals in 2006 for their contributions in the field of nuclear technology.

Separately, the department financially clamped down on three Libyans accused of being members of terrorist organizations al-Qaida and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Those three are: Nur al-Din al-Dibiski, Said Yusif Ali Abu Azizah and Ali Sulayman Mas'ud Abd al-Sayyid.