Archive for April, 2008
By Robert Dreyfuss
At least 400 dissidents, activists and intellectuals-
In an interview with The Nation, Ebadi said that she has documentation for one-third of those killings, and that information about the rest comes from the personal testimony of a man who admitted his role in the November 1998 murders of Darioush and Parvaneh Forouhar, who were hacked to pieces in their Tehran home. The Forouhars, critics of the Iranian regime, were part of the coalition that supported Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, the nationalist leader who was toppled by a CIA-backed coup d’état in 1953.
Ebadi, a Tehran-based attorney and former judge who has battled the government over human-rights abuses for years, says that what she calls the pattern of “chain murders” has halted since then. But she warns that the human-rights situation in Iran remains grave. On April 2, Ebadi herself received an anonymous threat in a letter delivered to her office that read: “Your death is near.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Interesting perspective to keep in mind regarding peace with Iran and supporting the Human Rights Movement rather than hurting it by continuing to threaten the country militarily which would only yeild more blind protectionist patriotism for the current Fundamentalist-led government. Sums it up quite nicely. First published here: www.womensenews.
Run Date: 04/24/08
By Soheila Vahdati
Iranian activists are bravely pushing for women’s rights. But Soheila Vahdati warns that an outbreak of an Iran-Israeli war that involves the Bush White House would fan the flames of fundamentalism and destroy the cause.Editor’s Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women’s eNews.
(WOMENSENEWS)
“Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could ‘totally obliterate’ Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.”
While many American women may be measuring the next U.S. president for his or her policies on health care, gender pay equity and a struggling economy, women in Iran are looking for foreign policy approaches. More immediately, we’re also wary of what the remaining days of President Bush’s time in office might bring.
The possibility of U.S. military action against Iran has been rising this month along with the saber rattling between Israel and Iran.
Some analysts have speculated that Israel might attack Iran to stop its nuclear activities, which the West fears are a front for weapons development. Iran has responded by saying it will obliterate Israel if it comes under attack.
Amid this, female activists in Iran hope that war can be avoided, fearing the Iranian women’s movement would be among the first casualties.
An excellent article from truthdig.com relating to recent comment made by barbarian Hilary Clinton regarding Iran.
How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Sen. Clinton’s eminently sensible and centrist—to a fault—opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job.
On primary election day in Pennsylvania, even with polls showing her well ahead in that state, Hillary went lower in her grab for votes. Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, which doesn’t have nuclear weapons, on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to “totally obliterate them,” in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale.
Shouldn’t the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat? Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable, and to approve such collective punishment of innocents is to endorse terrorism. This from a candidate who attacked her opponent for suggesting targeted strikes against militants in Pakistan and derided his openness to negotiations with other national leaders as an irresponsible commitment on the part of a contender for the presidency.
|
Apr
23
|
Guest Essay in the Brighton-Pittsford Post by Lynda Howland :: Originally printed in the BRIGHTON-PITTSFORD POST
Lynda Howland of Pittsford traveled to Iran recently as part of the Fellowship of Reconciliation delegation along with singer/songwriter Ed Hale of the rock group Transcendence, Larry Beinhart of the Wag the Dog movie and Fog Facts book, and foreign affairs journalist Robert Dreyfuss.
The roots of distrust between the US and Iran were sown by several twentieth-century events. In 1953, the US overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, putting an end to their fledgling democracy. The US installed the Shah, supporting his brutal regime for 25 more years. In 1979, the Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah, and students took hostages in the US Embassy. In 1980 Iraq invaded Iran, and the US sold chemical materials to Iraq, which were used to kill tens of thousands of Iranians. In 1998, the US shot down an Iran Air commercial flight, killing 290. Deep resentments and suspicions remain on both sides.
In 2003, Iran presented an offer (through the Swiss Embassy) to President Bush for comprehensive negotiations on all issues, including recognition of Israel, support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and Iran’s nuclear program. Bush did not give Iran the courtesy of a reply, and reprimanded the Swiss for delivering the offer. Bush continues to rebuff other Iranian offers for negotiations. Even after acknowledging the significance of Iran’s help in overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush made his Axis of Evil speech.
We negotiated with Libya and North Korea. Why not Iran? Because Iran is the last stumbling block to US control of the Middle East. As US economic power wanes and its “moral†leadership is severely compromised, it is relying on military power to “protect American interests†around the world. Control of Middle East resources is essential to this goal. What means are we willing to use to achieve this goal? As we “conveniently†blame Iran for Iraqi resistance to US occupation a US fleet is stationed in the Persian Gulf, prepared to unleash the terror of nuclear weapons on Iran, a non-nuclear nation that has no history of invading other countries. US special-operations teams are waging a covert war within Iran to destabilize it. Would we tolerate such actions against us?
I recently traveled to Iran with a Fellowship of Reconciliation peace delegation. We met with religious and governmental leaders, including ex-president Khatami. Their messages were similar: “If there are to be constructive negotiations, the “demonizing†on both sides must end, and the US must treat Iran as an equal partner and respect its sovereignty. Sanctions, threats of attack and regime change, and intimidation are the tools the US has used in its dealings with Iran. These do not constitute “negotiations.†They are condescending, and meant to humiliate and bring Iran to its knees.”
The hostile rhetoric of the US has a very negative impact on the reform movement within Iran, alienating even Iranians who oppose their government, and hardening the position of conservatives. The arrogance shown by the US administration can only incite more violence and extremism throughout the Middle East. Iran views nuclear power as a symbol of independence and progress. Their present peaceful nuclear program is legal, and neither the National Intelligence Estimate nor the United Nation’s IAEA has found evidence that Iran intends to begin a nuclear weapons program. Still, the world is justified in being concerned about Iran and other nations developing nuclear weapons. Likewise, we should be concerned about the existing nuclear weapons of nine other countries, including Israel and the US (the only country to use nuclear weapons). Five additional countries are enriching uranium. As we passed the Natanz nuclear power plant, guarded by a few anti-aircraft guns, I thought about the carpet maker, the geology teacher, the seven insightful young Iranian professionals with whom we shared a vibrant conversation, the smiling school children who surrounded us wherever we went in nearby Esfahan. If the US bombs Natanz, they could all die.
Their lives depend on Americans opposing an attack on Iran and supporting a peaceful negotiated solution to our differences. Iran is no match for a nation that spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined. As our government attempts to increase our fear of Iran with misleading rhetoric, and make it into our next enemy, we must protest the buildup to the destruction of yet another country.
The travelling lecture “THE HUMAN COST OF WAR AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS” focuses On Iran is coming to New York City and to Washington DC in the month of May.
WHEN: Thursday May 1, 2008 7pm
WHERE: All Souls Church; Reidy Friendship Hall
1157 Lexington Ave, @ 79th St. New York, NY USA
212-535-5530
SPEAKERS: Dr. Shahriar Khateri and Dr. Mohammad Soroush, founders of the Society for
Chemical Weapons Victims Support www.scwvs.org
On tour in the U.S. from Iran, Dr. Shahriar Khateri and Dr. Mohammad Soroush, have
many years experience treating victims of chemical weapons used in the Iran/Iraq war of
the 1980s. Speaking to both medical professionals and to the general public, they address
the short and long term medical consequences of chemical warfare hoping to heighten the
awareness of the devastation of weapons of mass destruction and to remind us that we
must work to abolish these weapons.
Tour Sponsored by Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) www.psr.org and the
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII)
www.campaigniran.
The tour sponsors hope this tour will increase efforts for diplomacy to between U.S. and
Iran and bring us closer to peace.
Co-sponsors: Peace Task Force of All Souls Church and Action For Justice of Community
Church NYC Info: russellbranca@
April 16, 2008
What do Iranians really think about Americans?
Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, offers an answer based on focus groups in 30 different Iranian provinces.
www.npr.org/
From the National Iranian American Council
There is new momentum on Capitol Hill to pursue a shift in US policy towards Iran. Most recently, Senator Feinstein of California added her powerful voice to this debate, calling for direct, unconditional dialogue between the US and Iran. (Watch video) The support of the Iranian American community in California for her position was an important factor in her decision.
For other Senators to follow her lead, it is crucial that they hear from the Iranian-American community. In order for Senator Feinstein’s efforts to succeed, she needs likeminded Senators to stand by her, so that the new administration—
At NIAC’s April 8 conference she re-iterated her support for an alternative to sanctions and war. The proposal, recently put forth by former senior American officials and nuclear experts, suggests a multinational fuel enrichment facility inside Iran under extensive international supervision.
Please take a moment to send the letter below to your members of the Senate. With your input and involvement, your Senators can play an important role in shaping an effective and constructive policy towards Iran.
| Send letter now! |
“Monologe”-is the collection of DENA art group , in which we present the concept, images, painting,and setting. The material that I am sending you is scheduled to be presented at the 5th of September 2008 in Art and Artist Gallery in Washington.D.
If you are interested to present the art of Iranian professional women artists in your area, logically in a professional museum or a prominent Gallery, or you are interested to enhance the knowledge about Iranian culture and professional art in USA, I will be delighted to cooperate with you. I can give your email to the art and artist organization so they can work with you to organize the travel of the exhibition around USA. The executive details can be discussed later.
Best Regards,
Farah ossouli
Artist, Director of DENA art group.
|
Apr
16
|
US and Iran holding ’secret’ talks on nuclear programme
By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Monday, 14 April 2008
Iran and the United States have been engaged in secret “back channel” discussions for the past five years on Iran’s nuclear programme and the broader relationship between the two sworn enemies, The Independent can reveal.
One of the participants, former senior US diplomat Thomas Pickering, explained that a group of former American diplomats and experts had been meeting with Iranian academics and policy advisers “in a lot of different places, although not in the US or Iran”.
“Some of the Iranians were connected to official institutions inside Iran,” he said in a telephone interview from Washington. The group was organised by the UN Association of the USA, a pro-UN organisation. Its work was facilitated by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a government-funded think-tank chaired by the former chief UN weapons inspector for Iraq, Rolf Ekeus.
While the nuclear issue was “prominent”, Mr Pickering said, “we discussed what’s going on domestically in both countries and wide-ranging issues” affecting the US-Iran relationship. Although none of the group members was from the US or Iranian governments, he said that “each side kept their officials informed”. The Bush administration “did not discourage us,” he added.
Mr Pickering declined to go into greater detail for fear of jeopardising future meetings of the group of about a dozen Americans and Iranians, although the number of participants varies. Back- channel talks have often provided crucial impetus in solving the world’s most intractable disputes. They usually only become public in case of agreement, as seen with Northern Ireland and the Oslo accords on the Middle East, or failure, as in the case of an Israeli-Syrian informal channel.
The revelation about the existence of an Iran-US back channel coincides with the recent publication by three of its American members, including Mr Pickering, of proposals aimed at overcoming the deadlock between Iran and the West over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. The initiative addresses the crunch issue of Iran’s right to enrich uranium on its own soil while providing guarantees that the nuclear fuel will not be diverted for military purposes.
Mr Pickering spoke of a “rather positive” reaction to the plan, which provides for an international consortium to jointly manage and run uranium enrichment on Iranian soil.
However, the Bush administration has not responded, and remains wedded to its current policy of sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to halt uranium enrichment in line with UN demands, while offering the opportunity to enrich uranium outside the country through a Russian consortium. A Foreign Office spokesman said Britain was “aware” of the proposals but did not have an official response. The Iranian government, according to Mr Pickering, has let it be known that “they would not respond unless it was offered officially”.
In arms-control circles the plan has gained traction “because he’s so respected,” said George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, referring to Mr Pickering, who is a former US undersecretary of state. The initiative, co-signed by the UNA-USA president William Luers, a former diplomat, and Jim Walsh, a nuclear expert from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was first aired at the end of February in The New York Review of Books where it has generated further discussion.
Mr Pickering says that he and his colleagues decided to act now because US policy was “stuck”, in the light of Iran’s refusal to bow to the UN demand to halt uranium enrichment, despite the imposition of economic sanctions. Prospects for face-to-face US-Iran talks are therefore blocked, he says, arguing that the case is urgent because Iran is continuing to install centrifuges at its main enrichment plant in Natanz.
But other experts point out that with the 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz spinning at only 20 percent of capacity because of technical problems, there is time for the West to play a waiting game.
James Acton, a nuclear specialist at King’s College London Department of War Studies, said the challenge would be to prevent Iran obtaining a clandestine route to a nuclear weapon thanks to the technical know-how that would be obtained from foreign partners.
Mr Pickering said: “It can be feasible if governments wish to make it so, technically and financially. But it will take a lot of negotiation.”
Some analysts pointed out that a breakthrough was unlikely so long as George Bush was in the White House and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad holds the presidency of Iran, where elections are scheduled for next year. “Why would Iran go for it now? They feel like they’ve won, there are not enough sanctions, and there is no threat of war,” said Mr Perkovich.
Calling Iran’s bluff?
The Luers-Pickering-
*a UN Security Council resolution authorising the arrangement and specifying that if Iran breaks the agreement, member states would be authorised to take punitive action;
*Iran would be barred from producing highly enriched uranium, which is weapons grade fuel, or reprocessed plutonium, which can be an alternative route to producing a bomb;
*Iran would implement the stringent inspection measures in the Additional Protocol to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
*Iran would commit itself to building only “safe” light-water reactors.
Read original article from The Independent here
