Iran

Iran is America’s best hope for stability in the Gulf

Iran is ready to help the US stabilise both Iraq and Afghanistan, but only for a price: a gradual accommodation between Washington and Tehran, starting with the complete cessation of CIA and Pentagon covert operations designed to promote "regime change". "The United States is like a fox caught in a trap" in Iraq, said Amir Mahebian, editor of the conservative daily Reselat, in a recent Tehran conversation. "Why should we free the fox so he can make a dinner out of us?"

In the most widely reported covert operations under way in Iran, the US is smuggling weapons and money to disaffected non-Persian ethnic minority factions. But at the recent Iran-US talks in Baghdad, Iranian delegates focused on less publicized sabotage and espionage missions in the Persian heartland of Iran by a US-backed militia of Persian exiles known as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). The MEK backed Saddam Hussein in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and its 3,600 fighters stayed on in Iraq afterwards. Since the invasion of Iraq, US intelligence agencies have disarmed the fighters but have kept the base camps intact and have used MEK operatives for missions in Iran, even though the State Department lists it as a terrorist organisation.

In the Baghdad talks, Iran rejected a US offer to transfer the camps to Morocco, aides to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, told me. What Tehran wants is a complete dismantling of MEK paramilitary forces, starting with a screening process in which the Red Cross would arrange reunions between MEK members and their families. Members opting to return to Iran would get an amnesty.

Dismantling the MEK would be the best way to signal US readiness for an accommodation with Tehran, since it is the only militarised exile group seeking to overthrow the Islamic Republic and is the darling of the Washington "regime change" lobby. Alireza Jafarzadeh, chairman of an MEK front group,the National Council of Resistance of Iran, appears regularly on Fox News and is playing a role like that of Ahmad Chalabi in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, rallying congressional and media support for bombing the Natanz nuclear site.

The dominant impression emerging from a week of high-level conversations in Tehran cutting across the ideological spectrum is that Ayatollah Khamenei and the pragmatists in his National Security Council, not the fire-breathing president, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, control foreign and defence policy; and that most outstanding issues, including the nuclear issue, can be defused over time if the US moves towards recognition of the Islamic Republic and keeps out of the internal Iranian struggle between hardliners and moderates.

It was a naive blunder for George W. Bush, US president, to announce that $75m was being funnelled to Iranians "seeking to promote openness and freedom for the Iranian people". This gave hardliners their excuse for the unconscionable recent arrests of four Iranian-American dual citizens. Similarly, hardline elements are strengthened by pressure tactics on the nuclear issue, such as United Nations sanctions, harassing Iranian banks and stationing two aircraft carriers equipped with nuclear-capable aircraft off Iran’s coast.

What, specifically, is Iran prepared to do in Iraq and Afghanistan? The quickest pay-off would come in intelligence-sharing, help in training security forces and reconstruction assistance. In Iraq, Iranian officials say, they would help in breaking up Sunni terrorist networks and, as relations with Washington improved, in moderating the role of the Shia militias. Iran agrees with the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, they say, that a timetable for the departure of US combat forces is necessary to calm the nationalist passions that fuel insurgent activity. In Afghanistan, said Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Majlis (parliament) foreign affairs commission, Iran is ready to expand its economic aid, accelerate anti-narcotics operations and intensify co-operation against the Taliban. What he did not say is that, if US covert operations continue, Iran can retaliate by helping the Taliban.

Even with Iranian help, the future in both Baghdad and Kabul is likely to be tempestuous, but co-operation between Washington and Tehran offers the best hope for damage limitation. This is especially true in Iraq, where the destruction of the Sunni-dominated Saddam regime predictably set the stage for an Iran-tilted Shia majority regime and has made the search for a US-Iranian accommodation throughout the Persian Gulf region an increasingly unavoidable geopolitical necessity.

The writer is director of the Asia programme at the Center for International Policy in Washington

THE FINANCIAL TIMES – By Selig Harrison – June 20, 2007

June 26, 2007 0 comments

Iran

Iran-US Talks

Talks between Iran and the US were covered widely by the media. BBC wrote:

"Al-Hayat and Asharq Al-Awsat, two major Arab international newspapers, also published in Iraq, have both given their headlines to the issue.

Among Iraqi newspapers, Al-Sabah newspaper, which is close to the government and is considered to be the most influential newspaper in Iraq, has discussed the issue with a big headline on the first page reading: ‘Three sides, a case and ambiguous talks’.

In its editorial, Al-Sabah wrote that observers believe that Iran-US talks on the issue of Iraq could lead to success if Iran stopped supporting the groups that attack US forces; in return, Americans should lift threats against Iranian political system. On of these threats is the presence of MKO in Iraq."

IranDidban – 2007/05/29

May 31, 2007 0 comments

Iran

Ambassador: We raised our concerns transparently in Baghdad meeting

Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi homi said Iran’s concerns were brought up in a transparent way in the trilateral meeting in Baghdad between Iran, US and Iraq.

Speaking in a press conference after the meeting, Kazemi Ghomi said, "We made clear the role of occupiers in Iraq and reminded them their mistakes in running the affairs in Iraq."

"We also told the Americans explicitly that the problems of Iraqi people will increase if the US continues its occupation of Iraq." "Our main reason for taking part in the negotiation was supporting the government of Prime Minister al-Maliki in Iraq and we are ready to offer any kind of assistance to Iraq Government to increase its ability in running the country," Ambassador Kazemi said.

On the accusations raised by the US delegation about Iran’s intervention in Iraq, the ambassador said,"This is not the first time that Americans raise that accusation and we gave appropriate responses to them in the meeting."

He said the three sides agreed on helping the government of Iraq that it can restore national sovereignty.

Stressing that the lack of security was the most serious problem in Iraq, the participants underlined the necessity of helping the legitimate government of Iraq to achieve the ability for establishing security in the country.

The ambassador said the establishment of a trilateral security committee to strengthen the military and defensive abilities of Iraqi government was discussed in the meeting.

Kazemi said today’s talks were the first step of a process and the Iraqi government has proposed the resumption of them in near future which should be examined in Tehran.

On the issue of Iranian diplomats captured in Iraq by US forces, Kazemi said that issue was not raised in the talks because "we believe the Iraqi government is responsible for it and should take the required steps in this regard."

On the terrorist group of MKO, Kazemi said based on the decisions taken by the government of Iraq, the members of the group must leave Iraq and Baghdad is determined to implement its decisions

IRNA – May 29,

May 31, 2007 0 comments

Iran

Hardliners, hard options

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sanctioned the meeting set for May 28 between Iran and the United States in Baghdad over the security of Iraq "to relieve the pain of the Iraqi people, to support the government and to reinforce security in Iraq".

The administration of US President George W Bush also cites the reason for the meeting as exclusively about security in Iraq. White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters, "The president authorized this channel because we must take every step possible to stabilize Iraq and reduce the risk to our troops even as our military continues to act against hostile Iranian-backed activity in Iraq."

The emphasis from both sides that Iraq and only Iraq will be discussed is evidence of their deep mutual mistrust and enmity. Keeping each other at arm’s length, each side is skirting carefully around the elephant in the room, that is, the deeply divisive issues that have poisoned Iran-US relations for nearly three decades. Clearly neither side would have agreed to meet unless forced by necessity. But has that necessity forced the beginning of a new phase in relations, or should we accept that the talks will start and end with Iraq?

So intractable are the divisions that many are already predicting devastating fallout just from the talks on Iraq. This is because President Mahmud Ahmadinejad flaunts Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas in the face of US fury; the United States is accused by Iran of providing support for seedy terrorist groups – Jondolah in the south of Iran, Pejak in Kurdistan and the Mujahideen Khalq Organization (MKO), which the US protects in the unlikely circumstances of Iraq.

"The talks may backfire if Iraq’s Sunnis and the region’s Arab states perceive that the US is conceding Iraq to Iran’s sphere of influence," said Mustafa al-Ani of the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center. "It’s going to be civil war, and not just an Iraqi civil war – a regional civil war."

The show of teeth and claws just before the start of serious dialogue may seem surprising but it is arguable that this is what has made the meeting possible at all.

Democracy – especially in the Middle East – does not come about through democrats lecturing the antagonistic heads of state and other parties. The histories of such countries as Sudan, Algeria and Turkey show that while democrats are the ones who advocate "dialogue, negotiation and treaties", it is only when the most extremely opposed forces sit down to talk that true negotiations toward disengagement can be achieved. India and Pakistan and Northern Ireland are examples of such political disengagement through – albeit protracted – dialogue.

In these cases, democracy is born painfully from desperation in which every other alternative has been tried by both sides and has failed. Such failure inevitably wakes up the warring parties to the conclusion that the slogan "winner takes all" can also be interpreted as "all or nothing", and that if they are not the winner they will get nothing. Even worse, both sides – in this case the hardliners in Iran and the neo-conservatives in the US – may conclude that because of external factors – in this case Iraq – both sides will lose everything and there will be no winner.

To avoid losing everything, both sides have no alternative but to reach out to the other from the precipice of looming disaster in a bid to find a compromise solution: a summit, an agreement, a deal, or even a preliminary ceasefire – anything to stop the collapse of both sides.

Neither Iran nor the United States can be considered to have had a change of heart. But having tried and failed for 30 years, every other possible scenario and theory except to recognize each other and engage in dialogue, both sides have been forced to give negotiation and dialogue a limited chance. Both sides want this to be as limited as possible and finish as soon as possible. Both sides perhaps see in it a short-term opportunity to save their rapidly sinking ships and buy time to prepare for a new game of "winner takes all".

Curiously, so open is the antagonism on both sides that many question whether there is a deliberate effort to gift the other side with political ammunition.

In Iran, a recent crackdown on journalists, female activists and students as well as the imposition of political hardliners into society under the pretext of a "dress code for women" are being openly legitimized by the fact that the US Congress has approved a further US$75 million for America’s "democracy fund". This is to be spent on "supporting civil society, democracy and human rights in Iran" with new offices in London, Frankfurt and Dubai.

Emadaldin Baghi, human-rights activist and winner of the Civil Courage Prize in 2004, wrote last week to human-rights organizations from inside Iran complaining about the US budget. He pointed out, "The allocation of yearly funds has led to the Iranian government’s widespread concern and suspicion towards civil-society organizations and human-rights activists, clearly exacerbating in a significant way pressures on them and the number of arrests."

Similarly, US constraints imposed on Iranian financial institutions and trade recently could not have been possible if the Iranian regime had not openly threatened the West, at least verbally, at every opportunity possible.

But for Iranian opposition groups, particularly those inside Iran, history has arrived at a crossroads. For 30 years the platform for "peace and dialogue" has been in the hands of reformists – or moderates – inside Iran and exiled opposition groups. In this they have been supported by Western liberals, human-rights organizations and anti-war campaigners, who have in turn vigorously argued against the use of confrontation, sanctions and military solutions.

However, certainly as far as Iran is concerned, the reformists of the Mohammad Khatami era faced stiff resistance from hardliners and would no doubt have reached total deadlock had they chosen to push any harder to begin direct dialogue between Iran and the US. Instead, it has been necessary for the most ideologically antagonistic elements of both the Iranian regime and the US administration to sit down at the table and negotiate. In this way, perhaps it is only under the "fanatic" leadership of Ahmadinejad that such talks could have come about. After all, what is the point of negotiation if the parties who agree with each other are present without the presence of the hostile parties?

Whether next week’s meeting will lead to future rapprochement remains to be seen but the steps that are being taken both by Iran and the US are certainly irreversible, and the impact on the variety of opposition groups and factions inside and outside Iran will be as profound as it is inevitable.

At such turning points it is most likely to be the advocates of democracy themselves who are absent from the negotiating table. And in many examples once a thaw in relations begins, an ensuing crackdown on the democrats creates the focus for a joint initiative by both the parties now accepting to give and take.

A wave of political change can easily sweep aside the very same people who have been struggling for years for democracy, freedom and peace. They can find themselves in denial. The phrase "a snake will never give birth to a dove" is too comforting and familiar for them. Losing their slogans to the antagonistic heads meeting around the negotiation table can push them to staunchly resist the change that is now unfolding before their eyes but without their participation.

The liberal press and moderate voices in both countries that predict failure simply because of the internecine nature of the enmity also read as an expression of alarm. Iranian website Roozonline reported on May 17, "Some students demonstrated against the meeting in various cities claiming that while the US has ratified a budget for interference in Iran, the two sides should not have meetings."

As the gap between Iran and the US closes, Iranian opposition groups will feel the pinch more than anyone else. While opposition groups that have support from among the Iranian people have nothing to fear from this rapprochement, those that have lost their contact with the people and have relied totally on exploiting the West’s grievances with Iran are clearly going to face a seriously uphill battle.

The MKO, which lost popular support by working under the Saddam Hussein regime during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, has tried to tuck itself under the protective umbrella of US neo-conservatives since the fall of Saddam, but is already facing the possibility of being "spent" as a bargaining chip over Iraq.

In the latest review of the list of terrorist organizations, the US State Department upgraded the MKO to a "terrorist cult". The MKO’s representative in Iraq, Abbass Darvari, condemned the talks.

In contrast, Iranian lawyer and human-rights activist Shirin Ebadi – winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 – has maintained links with the Iranian people under extreme conditions inside Iran. She told the Washington Post that she "personally welcomes the talks".

"These negotiations must not be limited to foreign ministers of the two countries or even the presidents," she said. "The key point is the need for exchange between civil society in Iran and the United States."

Ebadi is capable of playing the regime on its own field.

——–

Massoud Khodabandeh is a former member of the Mujahideen-e Khalq, and mainly served in the organization’s intelligence/security department. Khodabandeh left the Mujahideen in 1996 and currently lives in the north of England, where he works as a security consultant. He has been active in Iranian opposition politics for more than 25 years. He works closely with the Centre de Recherche sur la Terrorisme in Paris as an expert on Iran

By Massoud Khodabandeh, Asia Times, May 21, 2007

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IE22Ak02.html

May 24, 2007 0 comments

Iran

FT interview with Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy FM for legal and international affairs

Gareth Smyth, the FT’s Tehran correspondent, interviewed Mr Araghchi at the foreign ministry in Tehran on Tuesday May 8 2007. The interview was conducted in English.

Financial Times: What is the big obstacle to Iran and the US talking to each other?

Abbas Araghchi: We had no plan to do so, although the Americans were obviously interested … We didn’t think the theatrical behaviour would help with this very complicated situation, and the difficult relationship between the two sides … We need understanding of each other, and understanding of the situation in Iraq. If the US wants to solve their problems in Iraq, they should understand their mistakes so far.

Their invasion was a disaster – let there not be a double disaster with a disastrous withdrawal. If they have the good will to solve problems, they should introduce an exist strategy, and then there can be a face-saving withdrawal.

FT: So Iraq is the first step to wider progress?

AA: We want to bring stability back to Iraq – this is very important. We are interested in the peace and security of Iraq, its unity, its territorial integrity, that it be at peace with its neighbours. We consider peace and security in Iraq [to be] our own peace and security.

It is very important for us to see that the Iraqi government and prime minister [Nouri] Maliki are successful, because …the only alternative is absolute chaos, maybe civil war or the breaking of Iraq into different pieces.

Iran would be the first to benefit from the return of peace and security in Iraq.

FT: And peace and security cannot come without a US withdrawal from Iraq?

AA: This is what we understand. Iraq is suffering a vicious cycle. There are foreign forces who have occupied Iraq, and justify their presence on the pretext of the ‘war on terror’ and terrorists who claim they are fighting occupiers …Each is justified by the other.

The only solution is to end occupation, and this means a well-planned strategy.

In his speech at Sharm el-Shiekh, Mr [Manouchehr] Mottaki [the Iranian foreign minister] tried to give some guiding principles … First of all, the government of Iraq should be supported and strengthened, it needs to be helped, and not only the government, but the whole political establishment, which is the result of a democratic process …

Second, the government should be given more responsibility – political, economic and especially in security matters. The security file should be given to the Iraqi government. It is not acceptable, not useful, for the Americans to continue to manage security by themselves ….The Iraqi government should have authority and responsibility, and then it can be held accountable.

Thirdly, enough facilities, equipment and training should be given to the Iraqi armed forces and police, to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities ….

Fourthly, help for reconstruction in Iraq. Without improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis, we cannot expect the return of peace and security. Why, for example, in Baghdad, is there only two or three hours of electricity a day? Why is there not enough safe water, or enough schools?

An exit strategy should include these principles, these guidelines. Together Iraq’s neighbouring countries and foreign forces, we can help the Iraqi government and have a clear prospect for the future, a bright horizon … Iran is completely ready to help in that direction. There should be good will on the other side, and a road-map and sense of co-operation.

FT: The US would say they agree with these principles. But their disagreement would be over their withdrawal. They do not seem to want to accept a timetable for a withdrawal.

AA: This is why I’m talking about an exit strategy. They think it’s premature to talk about a timetable, they are afraid of ‘premature’ withdrawal. But this should not mean we have nothing, and continue like this … We should clear the prospects and talk about co-operation, and America should encourage the same approach by other countries in the region. To some extent, this happened in Sharm el-Sheikh. We saw more support for Iraq’s government and its political establishment. The final statement … has expressed and emphasised full support for prime minister Maliki, and the government and the political establishment. That was good.

We can continue our efforts, to build more support, to remove the concerns of some other parties in the region, to convince some Sunni groups and their supporters that in a democratic process they can achieve what they want …If they are not happy, there are mechanisms in the constitution they can use.

We need good-will first of all, and the Americans should stop accusing others for mistakes they have made themselves. It is useless to accuse Iran of supporting foreign fighters or sending arms. Why should we do that? We have the same interests in Iraq? Why should we undermine the Iraqi government?

Terrorist groups are against Iran as well. Al-Qaeda, for example, is a sworn enemy of Iran …. We are the first victim of terrorism ourselves.

FT: You said the US was afraid of withdrawal. What do you think they are afraid of?

AA: You should ask them.

I think there should be no place for being afraid of their withdrawal. Yes, immediate withdrawal could lead to chaos, civil war, could turn Iraq into a failed state. This is a fact. No-one is asking for immediate withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq. But there should be a plan … if we continue like this, there will be more excuses for terrorists …

I don’t think they are afraid of withdrawal, they just don’t know how to do it … The whole world, the region, expect the Americans, just as they had a military plan for the invasion, to have a political plan for withdrawal from Iraq. This is a reasonable, legitimate expectation, and if they fail to introduce an exit strategy, there will be a double failure.

Their invasion was a disaster – let there not be a double disaster with a disastrous withdrawal … If they have the good will to solve problems, then there can be a face-saving withdrawal.

FT: There was a report in al-Hayat [London-based, Saudi-owned Arabic newspaper] the other day that Iran was unhappy that the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, had met Condoleezza Rice …

AA: Syria has its own interests and policies. We are neither encouraging nor discouraging them from meeting Americans or anybody else. When they met Ms Rice at Sharm el-Sheikh, they briefed us what happened between the two ministers. We had no objection.

FT: Would you say the Syrians agree with the process you have outlined for the future of Iraq?

AA: They have their own concerns and interests, each country does. We advise the Americans to acknowledge these …. In the case of Iran, we had eight years of war [with Iraq, 1980-8], and we have suffered from the dictator in Iraq [Saddam Hussein]… We have a long boundary with Iraq, and a shared history … We share religion and culture.

So we have legitimate concerns and interests. The same is true for other neighbours – Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey. There is no way other than including all these countries’ concerns.

This is why we insisted the meeting of Iran’s neighbouring countries should stay as it is. We don’t think the addition of more countries to this institution can help … the P5 or G8. We have no problems with these countries, but we should keep this institution of neighboring countries so as not to complicate the decision-making process …

On reconstruction, we can have a large number of countries, as we did at Sharm el-Sheikh on the first day for the International Compact on Iraq. We had something about 70 countries. Yes, they can express their wishes to help Iraq, Iraqi reconstruction, their pledges for help, loans, grants, things like that … but when it comes to the question of security, to the question of political issues, I don’t know that countries who are thousands of kilometers far from Iraq how they can help.

So we shouldn’t complicate the process. We should keep the neighbouring countries’ meeting as it is. In Sharm el-Shiekh, more and more neighbours understood the points we have said before: that we need closer contact among each other … we should have our own [foreign] ministerial meetings for neighbouring countries, and [also meetings of] ministers of interior …

FT: How do you assess the Saudi role in Iraq, particularly their relationship with some Sunni militants?

AA: The Saudis are trying to be constructive. We acknowledge that they also have their own concerns, and I think we should find a way to accommodate the concerns of all countries in the region. With the Saudis, we have always good and close consultation, and they know our concerns, and we try and develop understanding among each other – on the question of Iraq, on the question of Lebanon we have had good consultations. On other issues – security issues in the Persian Gulf region – we are in close contact ….

We hope that a positive climate can be developed among all countries in the region, based on which we can develop a security arrangement for the region in which there would be no need for foreign forces. We think that the security of the region should be provided by the countries of the same region – I’m talking about the Persian Gulf.

FT: Do you think Saudi Arabia – and all significant forces in Saudi Arabia – are reconciled to a Shia-led Iraq?

AA: I think we should all accept a democratic process in Iraq…. We should respect the will of Iraqis … because otherwise we would have fighting and clashes between different tribes, sects, between Shi-ites and Sunnis, between Kurds and others. There is one solution – to have a democratic structure for Iraq, and there have been good achievements so far: a general assembly, a constitution, then a constitutional-based government … so we have to admire these achievements, we shouldn’t try to undermine them….

Of course there is always place for the improvement of everything. Iraq has a federal system now, and it should remain as it is. We shouldn’t consider it as a Shi-ite-led government. It is a federal one, and the political structure is based on proportional representation. The prime minister is Shi-ite, the president is a Kurd, and the head of parliament is a Sunni. It’s a very good combination of different parties in Iraq, we should respect this.

If we think there is something wrong with that, we have to go though democratic processes to correct it …

FT: What do you know about the Americans’ relationship with Pejak, the so-called Iranian wing of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party)?

AA: We have some information, and some indication, that contrary to what the Americans claim, there has been some contact with some terrorist groups.

This is why I talked about good will at the beginning. One of the bad policies of the United States is this double standard towards terrorism, to divide terrorists into good and bad terrorists. This is the source of so many problems.

You named one of those groups. We may name others as well – the MKO [the Mujahedin-e Khalq], for example, which is based in Iraq under the protection of the Americans. They are terrorists, recognised by the European Union, by the United States, and they should be sent to trial.

FT: Where do you think [Massoud] Rajavi [the MKO leader] is?

AA: I don’t know. He is either in Iraq or somewhere in western countries, I don’t know, I have no information, no intelligence. But the kind of MKO terrorists we know are either in Iraq or in European countries, and in the US. This is very bad. We see they are doing whatever they want in European countries, in Britain, in France, in Germany. Of course, under the cover of different names, but everyone knows they are the same group.

They killed Americans before the Revolution in Iran, they have killed so many Iranian officials after the Revolution, Iranian people, and they are proud of that. Then they went to Iraq, helping Saddam Hussein in fighting with Iran during the war, then fighting with Shi-ities and Kurds during the 1991 uprising, giving Saddam Hussein intelligence and every assistance. Now they are in Iraq. A good number of them have already been transferred to Europe, but some foot-soldiers – worthless in the current situation – have remained in camp Ashraf.

We have tried hard – from a humanitarian point of view – to help those people in Ashraf camp. We have given them an amnesty if they return to Iran. A group – 500 all together – has already returned to Iran, and they have joined their families. The Red Cross has their records, they know they have started a new life …

If they come back to Iran, they are welcomed by their families … If they have done a crime inside Iran, they should be sent to trial, but we know that most of them have done nothing ….

FT: Do the Americans have relationships with other groups that have carried out violent acts in Iran – Baluchi groups, or Arab groups in Ahvaz?

AA: Well, we have some indications. Our intelligence ministry has said they have some indications of contacts between both American and British soldiers in Iraq with this kind of group …

FT: Have you made any estimation of the amount of arms that have come in Iran from Iraq since the 2003 invasion?

AA: I don’t have any figures, but the number is high, as you can see by reading the page of incidents [crime page] of Iranian newspapers … in almost all of them where a person has killed someone, he says he bought the gun from Iraq …‘it was so cheap, I got one’.

So we have a problem with the number of individuals who buy guns from Iraq.. Terrorist groups as well as criminals see Iraq as an opportunity.

FT: The Americans accuse Iran of supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq, particular kinds of weapons [armour-piercing explosive devices]. Why don’t you counter that by pointing out the amount of weapons coming the other way?

AA: Their claim that Iran is sending arms to Iraq is baseless. They have never been able to present any acceptable documents, valid proof that Iran has sent arms to Iraq. Even some of their own officials have questioned publicly the validity of these claims. The only things they have presented so far is that some arms, munitions they have found in Iraq are manufactured in Iran. This cannot prove anything, it cannot prove the involvement of any agency from Iran.

If governments were to be held responsible for the use by terrorists of all the weapons manufactured in their country, the Americans should be blamed first.

They haven’t been able to provide any valid proof – and there is also no reason. Why should we help them? Why should we arm them? We are suffering from the same problem [“terrorism”]. Both us and other groups [countries], both us and Turkey and others. This is why in the statement of the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting [paragraph 4], it is said that the transit of arms to and from Iraq should be stopped. This recognises that there is a problem for neighbouring countries, that arms are coming from Iraq into their countries as well.

FT: Again on good will. What is the latest on the ‘Arbil Five’, the five Iranians arrested in Arbil in January?

AA: We have just received a good will sign, that the Americans have [agreed to] let their families meet them. This will be done perhaps by the end of this Iranian week. We arranged that with the help of the Red Cross.

They have been able to send letters to their families, and even telephone calls .. in at least one case I know …

There are also some indications by Iraqi officials they have received promises they might be released soon. Certainly, their release is very important for us, and it would be considered a good step forward. Their abduction is against international conventions, it is against the sovereignty of the Iraqi government, it undermines the government …. And very importantly, it discourages other countries from having diplomatic missions in Iraq, something the Iraqis are encouraging …

FT: How do you explain the confusion over whether the Iranian ‘consulate’ in Arbil was or was not a consulate?

AA: We have passed from that question, it is already solved. Our mission, our office in Arbil has been there since 15-16 years, after 1991. It has worked with the permission of Kurdish officials there. It didn’t have the condition of other diplomatic missions because of the special environment in Kurdistan, but even that problem has been solved. Just a couple of months before the American invasion of our consulate [in January] …unintelligible… were exchanged between the two countries, between the Iraqi and Iranian foreign ministers, and they accepted the diplomatic status of our office in Arbil.

FT: So the Iraqi government did accept this was a consulate?

AA: Yes. In the meeting in Baghdad, in March this year, when I raised the issue in the meeting, and Mr [Zilmay] Khalilzad [then the US ambassador in Iraq CHECK] claimed they were not diplomats, Mr [Hoshyar] Zebari [the Iraqi foreign minister] intervened himself and said no, the Iraqi government recognised their status as diplomats, and the Iranians consulate in Arbil as an official diplomatic mission.

The Iraqis have asked the Americans to show good will, and tell us they insist …on their release.

It was a very unreasonable act by the Americans. Why did they abduct them? What is it good for?

FT: They say the five were involved in organising insurgents.

AA: We already talked about that. The whole idea is unreasonable. Why should we do that? Why should we undermine a government in Iraq that we support more than anybody else?

FT: They would say you want to encourage the Americans to withdraw.

AA: This is not a good excuse. There are other ways, we are always encouraging the Americans to do that. They know themselves that they should withdraw.

FT: Can I ask you about the American who disappeared in Kish, Mr Levinson? Do you have information about him, whether he has left Iran?

AA: We have heard rumours, but we have no information about him, and this is what our intelligence ministry and other relevant organisations have said. We have tried hard to help investigate the case in Kish, and we have let the Americans know we are trying our best to find the gentleman, if he is in Iran, but we haven’t found anything yet.

FT: He was in Iran, wasn’t he?

AA: Apparently, he has been in Iran.

FT: Well, then you would know [from entry-exit information] whether he has left.

AA: We have no information.

FT: Turning to the nuclear programme, are the talks with Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, going anywhere? They seem to be turning in a big circle.

AA:They [Mr Solana, and Ali Larijani, Iran’s leading security official] met in Ankara and decided to continue. That itself was good news. Some new ideas and initiatives were raised in their meeting, and they preferred to have more talks, more thinking on those ideas, and to meet each other at a later time.

The western side should find a more logical and reasonable way to deal with this issue. They tried [UN security council] resolutions, and it proved unhelpful. There are two paths, two options – confrontation and co-operation. Each one has its own requirements.

If they prefer confrontation, okay. Let’s go together. But they cannot sanction us, adopt resolutions against us, add pressure on us, and expect co-operation from us. The two options cannot go side by side – there is either co-operation or confrontation.

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 co-operation with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], of course within the framework of the NPT and Safeguards, so [there is] less transparency, and less confidence and trust. Because the core of this problem is trust, and trust is a two-way road. They don’t trust us, we don’t trust them either. We cannot solve this problem unless we build confidence and trust between the two sides. Resolutions have not helped, they have worsened the case …

They can continue. They could adopt a new resolution, more sanctions, and they know what would be Iran’s reaction. We have no way to react but to reduce our co-operation with the agency, we may decide to go out of our relations ….

FT: Which relations?

AA: … Safeguards, and international rules and regulations, because our people would ask: ‘They are sanctioning you, what is the use of co-operating?’

FT: Are you talking about leaving the NPT?

AA: Well, we are not talking about this. But you know there are serious debates, in the parliament, among some political people … what is the good of remaining in the NPT? …When you cannot enjoy the benefits of NPT, why have you remained there? We hope not to find ourselves in a position where we cannot answer that question.

Another resolution, harsher reactions by Iran, which would lead to another resolution and more sanctions. There is action and reaction. Step by step, we would reach the point where we have few options on the table … This can go on, but the result is escalation of the crisis whose end result will be a ‘lose-lose’ situation.

There are other ways. The line of co-operation is not closed. What we want is only our rights, and the materialisation of our rights… We are confident about the peaceful nature of our programme and we are prepared to share that confidence. They cannot ask us to give up our rights, but they can ask us for clarification, for asking their questions about diversion.

They have concerns that the Iranian programme might be diverted into non-peaceful purposes in the future. Let’s find a solution. Why are they sanctioning us because they think maybe in the future, Iran would go for military purposes ..? They have doubts about our intentions, they have found nothing in the ground. So they are punishing us for crimes we have not committed yet! This is not fair, the resolutions are not fair.

They want to be ensured about the peaceful nature of our programme. Okay, let’s work together … let’s concentrate on the question of non-diversion, which can be a good subject for negotiations …There are different ideas and initiatives [on] how we can ensure the peaceful nature of Iran’s programme in the future. A good one is the idea of consortium, we may go for consortium based on the proposal of our president in the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2005. If they want to be assured about our programme, okay, they can be a part of it, they can be present in a joint venture …

There might be other ideas, how we can have enough guarantees that Iran’s programme would remain peaceful. We are prepared to talk about that, to negotiate that. They should not ask to give up our rights, to stop our programme, but they are entitled to ask anything else.

But we will pay the price for [continuing] our nuclear programme. We know it may be a costly way, but this is an important juncture in our history.

The British went to the UN security council over Iran’s nationalization of oil [in 1951] – saying it was a threat to the peace of the world …

The Iranian people resisted …and paid a price. There was a [US engineered] coup [in 1953] …and 26 years of dictatorship [under Shah Mohammad Reza, overthrown in 1979]. But if we had not paid that price, people would still be buying Iranian oil from BP.

Interview transcript: Abbas Araghchi – May 10 2007

May 21, 2007 0 comments

Iran

Iran criticizes Western war against terrorism

Vienna – Iran sharply criticized the Western powers’ approach to fighting terrorism Saturday as superficial and biased.

Iran’s Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told delegates participating in a UN-sponsored counter-terrorism symposium in Vienna that the West’s actions only led to an increase in violence.

‘The unsuccessful experience of major powers in their superficial, improper and biased approach to combating terrorism has been ineffective in decreasing terrorist threats,’ he was quoted as saying by the Iranian IRNA news agency.

At the two-day meeting which concluded on Friday, Soltanieh, who represents his country at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, denounced the attempt to establish a connection between terrorism and religion.

‘Worst of all are the attempts made to associate terrorism with a certain religion and culture,’ he said.

The reasons behind terrorism were foreign occupation, discrimination, the West’s double standards in politics and economy, and so-called ‘state terrorism,’ Soltanieh argued.

The ambassador also belaboured Western support for the exiled anti-Iranian People’s Mujaheddin (MEK), whom Iran regards as a terrorist organization, formerly under the protection of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

The Vienna counter-terrorism symposium was aimed at propelling forward the UN-strategy for fighting terrorism.

The participants from approximately 100 UN member states were asked to present their issues and discuss strategies.

dpa – Deutsche Presse-Agentur – May 19, 2007

May 21, 2007 0 comments

Iran

Iran offers to help US find Iraq exit

Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian deputy foreign minister who attended last week’s conference on Iraq’s future at Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, has offered Tehran’s co-operation to the US in developing an “exit strategy” from Iraq.

Mr Araghchi on Tuesday said America and Iran had the “same interests” in a stable Iraq and that direct talks leading to a “face-saving withdrawal” were possible with Washington’s goodwill.

He dismissed as “theatrical behaviour” the comings and goings at Sharm el Sheikh – when Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki left a dinner when he was reportedly placed opposite Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state. But Mr Araghchi insisted Iran wanted to develop a common approach to Iraq’s future with Iraq’s other neighbours and “foreign forces”.

“Their invasion was a disaster – let there not be a disastrous withdrawal,” he said in an interview. “Yes, immediate withdrawal could lead to chaos, civil war. No one is asking for immediate withdrawal of foreign forces. But there should be a plan.”

Mr Araghchi, a career diplomat seen as a potential interlocutor with Washington, insisted the US presence was part of Iraq’s problem.

“Iraq is suffering a vicious cycle. There are foreign forces who have occupied Iraq and justify their presence under the pretext of the ‘war on terror’ and there are terrorists who claim they are fighting occupiers.”

Mr Araghchi welcomed the outcome of Sharm el Sheikh, identifying four principles emerging as acceptable to Iraq’s neighbours: support for the elected government in Baghdad; greater authority for the government in “politics, economics and especially security”; boosting the Iraqi army and police; and help for reconstruction.

The deputy foreign minister dismissed US claims that Iran had supplied Iraqi insurgents. “They should stop blaming others for problems they have themselves created.

“In fact, the number of weapons that have come into Iran from Iraq is high, as you can see by reading the crime pages of [Iranian] newspapers. Terrorist groups as well as criminals see Iraq as an opportunity.”

Mr Araghchi said Washington’s relationship with “terrorist” groups hostile to Iran made Tehran sceptical of its intentions.

He cited the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, the Iranian group under US “protection” in Iraq, and Pejak, an Iranian Kurdish faction linked to the Kurdistan Workers party, based in northern Iraq.

He said Iran also believed the US and Britain had links to militants responsible for killing officials and civilians in Iran’s south-east province of Sistan-Baluchestan and in Khuzestan in the south-west.

But no pressure would lead Iran to give up its nuclear programme, for which it was prepared to “pay the price”, Mr Araghchi said.

“There are two options – confrontation and co-operation. If they [the west] prefer confrontation, then let’s go together . . . .

“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 co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency . . . This can go on, but the result is an escalation of the crisis.”

Financial Times, May 08, 2007

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f9f7f8fe-fd95-11db-8d62-000b5df10621.html

May 10, 2007 0 comments

Iran

Dual standards in approaching terrorism

The Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mohammadi, in a speech delivered at the international conference on the culture of resistance held in Tehran said that “given that Iran has been a victim of terrorism more than any other country, it is quite sensitive to it”. It is the first international conference of the kind opened on the anniversary of Morteza Motahhari’s assassination, a victim of the wave of terrors triggered by MKO following the Islamic revolution.

He urged that the United Nations should define state terrorism within the framework of international terrorism and severely condemn it. He said that no comprehensive definition has been presented by the UN for terrorism.

He added that difference of views on terrorism is the most important obstacle facing the UN General Assembly towards campaign against it after 2001.

"Today terrorism has been divided into two types, including good and bad. The present activities of the terrorist MKO group is a clear example of the West’s dual standards in approaching terrorism," he said.

Urging the need for a broad-based definition of terrorism, he said that it should be defined in such a way as to include governments’ use of force (state terrorism).

IRNA – 02/05/2007

May 3, 2007 0 comments

Iran

Iranian Foreign Ministry summons German and Belgian envoys

TEHRAN, March 10 (Mehr News Agency) — The Foreign Ministry on Friday summoned German Ambassador Herbert Honsowitz and the Belgian charge’ d’affaires Paul De Vos to receive Iran’s protest over a terrorist group’s conference in Brussels.

Foreign Ministry Director for Western European Affairs Ebrahim Rahimpur expressed surprise over the permission given to the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) to hold a conference in Belgium.

"Belgium has allowed a group that is in the European Union’s list of terrorists to hold a conference" while the Belgian Ambassador to Tehran Herve’ Goyens is on a Middle East tour to hold talks on fighting international terrorism, Rahimpur told the envoys in separate meetings.

MKO is listed by both the European Union and the United States as a terrorist organization.

The German and the Belgian envoys stated that they will deliver the message to their respective governments and the EU.

Germany is the president of the Council of the European Union in the first half of 2007.

Payvand’s Iran News – 3/10/07

March 19, 2007 0 comments

Iran

Case on Saddam’s crimes against Iran open

Prosecutor general: Case on Saddam’s crimes against Iran open

Prosecutor General Ghorban-Ali Dorri Najafabadi on Thursday said that dossier concerning Saddam Hossein’s atrocities against Iranians is still open and should be investigated.

He told IRNA that the file includes two aspects: one involves all individuals who committed or advocated crimes such as Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) and another includes the losses that Iranians suffered during the eight-year imposed war.

"The UN has put the amount of losses inflicted on Iran at more than dlrs 100 billion, while Iran has estimated them at dlrs 1,000 billion," he added.

The provisions of the Resolution 598 should be implemented by the Iraqi government, he noted.

Pointing out that the goal behind lodging Iran’s complaint before Saddam’s trial was to following up the Iranian nation’s rights, he said Tehran did not have any hope to witness the hearing of Saddam’s crimes against Iranians from the beginning of the court.

Elsewhere in his remarks, he referred to the efforts made by the judiciary and government to create 800,000-1,000,000 new jobs annually nationwide.

Attending Semnan province’ administrative council session, he underlined that people’s massive presence in the Bahman 22 rallies (marking the victory of the Islamic Revolution of Iran on February 11) will show the power of the Islamic system, and make its enemies disappointed.

Touching on the critical condition of the region, he expressed hope that stronger presence of people in the event will send a clear message to the West, particularly the US to recognize Iran’s legitimate right to access peaceful nuclear technology.

He also recommended all countries involved in Iran’s nuclear case to resume negotiations and avoid setting any precondition in this respect.

Referring to the US warmongering policy in the region, he called on the American people to prevent their leaders from continuing their bullying policies worldwide

Feb 1, IRNA

February 5, 2007 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts