Iran brands US ‘nuclear criminal’
April 17th, 2010
No comments
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calls the US an “atomic criminal” at a nuclear summit in Tehran.
Go to Source
Archive
Posts Tagged ‘supreme leader ayatollah ali khamenei’
Iran leader rebukes US ‘plotting’
March 21st, 2010
No comments
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei uses his new year message to accuse the US of plotting against his country.
Go to Source
Iran has defeated ‘enemy plots,’ – Khamenei
March 20th, 2010
No comments
Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says in new year message that Iran has defeated ‘enemies’.
Go to Source
Ahmadinejad, dropping long- standing conditions, ready to send enriched uranium abroad …
February 3rd, 2010
No comments
“The president appeared for the first time to drop long- standing conditions Tehran had set, …. “We have no problem sending our enriched uranium abroad,” Ahmadinejad told state television. “We say: we will give you our 3.5 percent enriched uranium and will get the fuel. It may take 4 to 5 months until we get the fuel. “If we send our enriched uranium abroad and then they do not give us the 20 percent enriched fuel for our reactor, we are capable of producing it inside Iran,” he said….. The president offered to swap three detained U.S. citizens charged with spying for jailed Iranians in the United States…..
Ahmadinejad’s statement on the nuclear issue — on which Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has the last word — was apparently the first time a top official had publicly accepted exchanging low-enriched uranium for nuclear medicine fuel off Iranian soil.
The White House said if Iran’s offer was an “updated” one, Tehran should inform the Vienna-based IAEA….”
Beware cheap Reza Pahlavi propaganda …
January 4th, 2010
1 comment
Laura Rosen, in 
“With all the stories of continued Iranian unrest, human rights abuses, and the complications for western nuclear diplomacy, beware what seems a notable uptick too in very fishy stories of the Chalabi/US-soldiers-will-be-greeted-with-flowers type emerging as well.
For instance: take this piece today in the Bangkok Post by one Maximilian Wechsler, claiming to be an exclusive interview with a former Iran intelligence chief, Mohammad Reza Madhi, who the article says was supposedly Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s right hand man.
Problem is, there is nothing except this article, being circulated by Iranian monarchist exiles (Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah, has recently been traveling in Bangkok, the article notes and sources tell POLITICO) to show that Madhi is what he says he is. The article describes Madhi as “Iran’s intelligence chief,” while there are no other references that could be found to Madhi having any such position besides those generated by the article itself.
And a bit of digging shows that the writer of Sunday’s Bangkok Post “exclusive,” Maximilian Wechsler, is himself a former documented Czech-Australian double agent and informant who after he broke ranks with the Australian intelligence services, landed in Thailand and reportedly worked as an agent provocateur, among other gigs:
According to an intelligence officer, who knew Wechsler at that time and saw him at the Australian Embassy, he was also an agent provocateur. He established a connection with the Ananda Marga sect and was responsible for the arrest in Bangkok in 1978 of Ananda Marga members who were sold explosives by Wechsler. The three Ananda Marga—two Australians and one American—were charged with conspiring to blow up the Indian Embassy.
Wechsler, described as a freelancer by the Bangkok Post, has done several articles but has a history of working for various undercover, non-journalistic efforts. See this fascinating history of Wechsler by Victoria University professor Phillip Deery, based on records released by Australia’s security services and other interviews….
A dose of skepticism may be in order. It’s worth remembering that Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi conned an awful lot of the western press and public to believe some phony Iraqi National Congress “defector” Adnan Ihsan al-Haideri, he made available “exclusively” to gullible journalists in Bangkok before the Iraq invasion, with bogus tales designed to appeal to the western policy narrative. And to remember such moments are fraught with the risk of exploitation by opportunists of various stripes who have an agenda they would seek to impose including on those inside of Iran actually risking their lives, without outside support, interference or taint.”
Categories: Arab Blogs Ahmad Chalabi, article, Australia, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Bangkok, Ihsan, intelligence, Iran, Iraq, Laura Rosen, Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Madhi, Maximilian Wechsler, Mohammad Reza, Phillip Deery, supreme leader ayatollah, supreme leader ayatollah ali khamenei, Thailand, US
IS THERE A DOMESTIC RACE FOR IRAN?
January 1st, 2010
No comments
The Leveretts at the 
“It is hard to do serious political analysis of a contested political environment when one is, in effect, “rooting” for one of the contestants. In 1979, much of the public commentary in the United States about the Iranian revolution that overthrew the Shah was characterized by disbelief that a stalwart American ally could be swept away so quickly and unexpectedly. Today, much American commentary on Iranian domestic politics is characterized by varying degrees of eagerness to see the Islamic Republic go the way of the Pahlavi dynasty—or, in a formulation that some neoconservatives prefer, the way of the Soviet Union.
Although this blog is focused on Iran and its geopolitics, not on the Islamic Republic’s internal politics, analytic views of Iranian politics since the June 12 presidential election have important implications for the debate about U.S. and Western policy toward Tehran. A growing number of analysts are arguing that there is now, in effect, a domestic “race for Iran”, pitting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s administration against an increasingly emboldened “opposition” and a deeply disenchanted public. Under these circumstances, it is argued, the United States and its partners should not now engage with the Iranian government, lest they “legitimate” a regime that is falling apart. Some go even further, arguing that active encouragement of “regime change” in Iran should now take precedence over diplomatic efforts to deal with the nuclear issue.
At this point, we would note that much of the current discussion of Iranian affairs in the United States is disturbingly reminiscent of the shift in America’s Iraq policy, starting during President Bill Clinton’s tenure, to embrace regime change in Baghdad as Washington’s explicit and overriding goal. The futile pursuit of regime change in Iraq—which did not occur until a full-scale U.S. invasion in 2003—inflicted substantial damage on America’s strategic position in the Middle East. That damage was compounded by the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the myriad strategic consequences of those events for the regional strategic environment. The damage that would be done to U.S. interests in the Middle East and globally by failing to pursue serious, strategically-grounded engagement with the Islamic Republic, carrying out military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets, and enshrining regime change as the primary goal of America’s Iran policy would be even worse.
In an op-ed published in today’s Washington Post, Ray Takeyh offers a paradigmatic example of what is becoming conventional wisdom about Iranian politics among American foreign policy elites. Ray compares the Islamic Republic today to both the Shah’s regime and the Soviet Union in their final days. Strikingly, he argues that “the regime’s most momentous and disastrous decision was its refusal to offer any compromises to an angered nation” after the June 12 presidential election. In Ray’s view, relatively modest steps at that time would have assuaged popular resentment, but now “such concessions would be seen as a sign of weakness and would embolden the opposition. The regime no longer has a political path out of its predicament.”
This is factually incorrect. A week after the June 12 election, protests diminished to a small fraction of what they had been. The Iranian leadership took several important steps in the wake of the election, including replacing the unpopular Seyed Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi as head of the judiciary with Sadeq Larijani (brother of the Parliament Speaker) and the closing of Kahrizak prison, where abuse of detainees was clearly documented (earlier this month, 12 officers at Kahrizak were criminally charged over their involvement in the deaths of prisoners). These and other actions in fact worked to mitigate the political controversy generated by the June 12 election and, by October, Iran had the United States and the rest of the P-5+1 at the negotiating table.
Over the past weekend, protests flared again—largely because of the coincidence of the seven-day mourning observance for the late Grand Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri with the Shi’a holy day of Ashura. But, the protests have not been sustained and, yesterday, crowds at least as large as those on Ashura mobilized in Tehran to show support for the Islamic Republic.
Protests may flare again in Iran in coming months. But, drawing analogies between the Islamic Republic today and the Shah’s regime in 1978 or the Soviet Union in 1990 is profoundly misplaced. As we will argue next week, if one wants to draw an analogy between the Islamic Republic and another important country whose political order is grounded in a particular ideology and experiences periodic political conflict, a better analogue—and one much more useful as a guide for American policy—would be the People’s Republic of China. Tiananmen Square—where far more protestors were killed than have died in Iran since June 12—did not portend the collapse of the People’s Republic. It would have been foolhardy in the extreme for U.S. policymakers to act as if that were the case. Why are so many who should know better arguing that this weekend’s protests in Iran portend the demise of the Islamic Republic?
The inability of American diplomats, intelligence officers, and policymakers to understand what was happening in Iran in the late 1970s was one of the most colossal analytic failures in U.S. foreign policy since World War II, and did real damage to U.S. interests in the Middle East. It would be equally tragic if wishful thinking and a rush to judgment about Iranian politics diverted President Obama and his national security and foreign policy advisers from advancing U.S. interests in the region at a critical time through the pursuit of serious, strategically-grounded engagement with the Islamic Republic.”
Categories: Arab Blogs Ali Montazeri, America, Ashura, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ayatollah Hussein, Baghdad, China, election, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Republic, Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Middle East, policy, president bill clinton, president mahmoud ahmadinejad, Ray, Ray Takeyh, regime, Shah, supreme leader ayatollah ali khamenei, Tehran, Tiananmen Square, U.S., United States, Washington
‘Despite his image’, Ahmadinejad seen backing nuclear deal
November 18th, 2009
No comments
“……. he faces stiff opposition from rivals in Iran’s political and clerical elite who would hate to see the abrasive leader reap the credit for a breakthrough with the West.
“The president wants the deal to be sealed. He has redoubled efforts to defuse the nuclear dispute with the West,” said a senior Iranian official, who asked not to be named. “He thinks the deal is in line with Iran’s interests.”……..
“Ahmadinejad is ultimately cautious. He seeks to alleviate the crisis with the West to strengthen his position in Iran and abroad,” said Iranian political analyst Hashem Sedaghati….
“Larijani and other so-called conservatives are saying: ‘Why do we have to give up our uranium? What is the good experience we had with Russia and France to give them our uranium?’,” said Iran analyst Mahjoob Zweiri at Jordan University’s Center for Strategic Studies, highlighting the internal debate in Iran.
Public opinion also remains broadly supportive of Larijani, spurred on by local media which focus on the West’s perceived unfair treatment of Iran’s nuclear program….
It is not clear whether how much support Ahmadinejad’s new emphasis on “cooperation, not confrontation” enjoys from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but most analysts say the change could not have happened without a green light from above…”
Obama pwns Bush-Cheney on Iran; First day of Talks Yields Significant Confidence-Building Steps
October 2nd, 2009
No comments
For 8 years, Bush-Cheney practiced what I call “belligerent Ostrichism” toward Iran. They refused to talk to Tehran. They wanted to ratchet up sanctions on it. Bush sent 2 aircraft carriers to the Gulf to menace Iran. Bush’s spokesmen professed themselves afraid of Iran’s unarmed little speedboats in the Gulf. Aside from issuing threats to attack and destroy Iran the way they did Iraq, Bush-Cheney had nothing else to say on the matter. During the 8 years, Iran went from being able to enrich to .2% to being able to enrich to 3.8%, and increased its stock of centrifuges significantly. Bush-Cheney gesticulated and grimaced and fainted away at the horror of it all, but they accomplished diddly-squat.
Barack Obama pwned Bush-Cheney in one day, and got more concessions from Iran in 7 1/2 hours than the former administration got in 8 years of saber-rattling.
Delegates of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany met with representatives of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for 7 and a half hours on Thursday for talks on Iran’s nuclear research program.
Amazingly, there were signs of significant progress even on the first day, which most seasoned observers had not expected.
1. Iran agreed to allow inspectors from the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency to visit the newly announced facility near Qom within the next two months.
2. Iran agreed to meet again at the end of October.
3. Iran agreed to send “most” of its stock of low enriched uranium (3.5%) to Russia for processing to the roughly 20% degree of enrichment needed to run its small reactor producing medical isotopes. Iran has about 3200 pounds of low-enriched uranium, and is willing to send 2600 to Russia. That is a little over a ton, or about what a single Ford Focus weighs.
Iran does not anyway have the ability to enrich to more than about 4.8% at the moment, and the medical reactor will be out of fuel in a little over a year, so if they continued to want the medical isotopes they would be forced to take this step anyway.
The NYT report on all this adds in all kinds of extraneous and unproven allegations, of a network of secret enrichment plants or secret stores of low-enriched uranium or nefarious Iranian plans to make a bomb, or of Iran having enough nuclear material to make a bomb (irrelevant if they can’t enrich to 90%), and what Israel thinks of all this (since the Israelis really have thumbed their nose at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and made a whole arsenal of bombs, thus further destabilizing the Middle East, why they aren’t under UN sanctions I’ll never understand; but they certainly don’t have standing to dictate anything to other countries on the proliferation issue). It reminds me of all the NYT front page stories about aluminum tubes and Iraqi WMD of Judy Miller in 2002. Isn’t it bad journalism to report completely unproven allegations for which there is no evidence?
Back to the real world: The steps outlined above are only pledges on Iran’s part, of course, and we have to see if they are implemented.
President Obama made much the same points, demanding that Iran follow through on fuller IAEA inspections, a long-time demand of the US.
Presumably the regime is being so forthcoming because it needs a win on the international stage to shore up its flagging legitimacy at home, in the way of presidential elections widely viewed as fraudulent. It is possible that hard liners like the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps will attempt to torpedo these positive moves.
For further proof that Congress has numerous brain-dead people in it, its reaction to Iran’s being forthcoming in Geneva was to authorize legislation that would try to punish companies for supplying gasoline to Iran. Somehow I think someone will take the contract, and anyway Iran will up its petroleum refining capacity in the coming couple of years. Congress should worry how the US is going to fuel its transportation in coming years.
The USG Open Source Center translated the remarks of Khamenei’s secretary, Sa’id Jalili, on the Geneva negotiations:
“FYI — Iran Nuclear Negotiator Jalili Says 5+1 Talks Positive
Islamic Republic of Iran News Network Television (IRINN)
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Document Type: OSC Summary
Tehran Islamic Republic of Iran News Network Television (IRINN) in Persian at 1636 GMT began a live relay of a news conference by Iran’s Supreme Security Council secretary Sa’id Jalili in Geneva following the 5+1 nuclear talks. The news conference was also broadcast live by Press TV and Al-Alam TV.
Jalili said that today’s talks concentrated on security, international developments, economy, and regional issues. He added that these talks could be a platform to resolve the regional and global issues. Jalili said that one of the most important issues is global security. Jalili added that some media try to create terror within their audience. He called it “media terrorism.”
Jalili said: “One of the important issues we have proposed in the proposal package is to deal with some of the genuine threats which the human community suffers from and should be concerned about. One of these issues is the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). WMDs are a threat to the human community, which must definitely be dealt with through international cooperation. The issue of disarmament is the most important one.”
Iran’s nuclear negotiator asked for all nuclear arsenals to be destroyed. Jalili said that at the same time countries have the right to achieve peaceful nuclear technology. Jalili said that best method is to boost international regulations bodies, such as the IAEA and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Jalili then referred to the global financial crisis. He said that worldwide cooperation could be useful in resolving this matter. Jalili criticized the country’s that support sanctions and said sanctions will not help the global financial crisis.
Jalili then talked about terrorism, narcotics, and organized crime. He said that if the public are not scared then a basis for mutual cooperation will be created.
Jalili called the Geneva talks constructive. He said: “Today we have agreed to continue these talks with a positive thinking. Hopefully next month we can reach an agreement on how to continue these talks so that cooperation would become reality.”
Jalili then started answering questions.
In response to a question by an Egyptian correspondent, Jalili said: Worldwide and regional security is only possible through cooperation.
Jalili said that today’s talks mainly concentrated on how to take these talks forward.
An Israeli correspondent asked Jalili about Ahmadinezhad’s comments on Israel. Jalili refused to answer his question. Another correspondent asked the same question from Jalili. The Iranian official said that the Palestine problem is a 60 year-old issue. Jalili said that Iran wants a democratic solution to the Palestinian territories. He added that only a just solution could work for the people of this region.
A German correspondent asked if there are any unknown nuclear facilities in Iran. Jalili said that everything has to go through the IAEA. Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities are in full cooperation with IAEA, Jalili said.
One correspondent asked about the outcome of talks with William Burns, the US representative. Jalili said that he was aware that the 5+1 countries had a united stance against Iran, but that the talks were productive.
Fars news agency, affiliated to Iran Revolution Guards Corps, asked if the talks with the 5+1 countries would continue and Jalili’s response was positive.”
End/ (Not Continued)
Learn To Read And Write Arabic
Find out all about the revolutionary secret technique for learning to read and write Arabic. Read the article here.
Reader Reactions