NYTIMES:Iran’s Power Struggle Goes Beyond Personalities to Future of Presidency Itself

Iran’s Power Struggle Goes Beyond Personalities to Future of Presidency Itself

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/world/middleeast/in-iran-rivalry-khamenei-takes-on-presidency-itself.html

WASHINGTON — An unusual proposal by Iran’s supreme leader to eliminate the position of president has highlighted an increasingly bitter struggle within the country’s political elite, as the leader and his allies continue to try to undercut the powers of Iran’s ambitious president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told an academic gathering last week that “changing Iran into a parliamentary system” in which voters no longer elected a president would not be a problem. His words were widely seen as the latest blow in a battle that began in April when Mr. Ahmadinejad crossed a line by openly feuding with Ayatollah Khamenei — who has the final word in affairs of state — over cabinet appointments.

Some analysts see the power struggle as a legacy of the disputed 2009 presidential election, when accusations of rigging — and months of street protests — deepened rifts and reduced the supreme leader’s support among the public and the political elite. Although Mr. Ahmadinejad had the supreme leader’s support in both the 2009 and 2005 elections and the two men were long seen as ideological soul mates, the president has tried to build an independent power base, and many conservatives feel threatened by his vision of an Iran less dominated by clerics.

Ayatollah Khamenei’s veiled attack on the presidency has drawn sharply polarized responses. Ali Larijani, the speaker of Parliament and a rival to Mr. Ahmadinejad, endorsed the comments and called for a parliamentary system. A former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who has at times sparred with the supreme leader, warned on Tuesday that eliminating the presidency would “be contrary to the Constitution and would weaken the people’s power of choice,” according to the centrist newspaper Aftab News. Other partisans have gone further, with one pro-Ahmadinejad daily newspaper, Iran, seeming to mock the supreme leader’s comments. (That article was soon taken off the paper’s Web site.)

“The fighting in Iran is very serious now,” said Seyed Mojtaba Vahedi, a former editor of Aftab-e Yazd, an influential reformist newspaper. “The supreme leader has wanted more control over the presidency for a long time, but he never expected to have such problems with Ahmadinejad.”

Eliminating the presidency would enhance the power of Ayatollah Khamenei, who was installed for life in 1989, by leaving him with one institution to control instead of two, Mr. Vahedi said. Under the parliamentary system that Ayatollah Khamenei sketched out, legislators would elect a prime minister from their ranks.

The supreme leader might not want to risk more tumult and confrontation by eliminating the presidency while Mr. Ahmadinejad is in office, some analysts said, and it is even possible that his comments were more of a rhetorical slap, aimed at taming the president, than a serious proposal.

But other analysts said they viewed the elimination of the presidency as a possibility by 2013, when the next presidential election is to take place, or soon thereafter.

“One of the reasons why they may decide to eliminate the presidential system is precisely to avoid another presidential election and all of the political uncertainty and opportunities for popular unrest that come with it,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

Either way, Mr. Sadjadpour said, it seems clear that Ayatollah Khamenei will try to ensure that the next president or prime minister is a weak and trusted subordinate he can easily control. All three of Iran’s elected presidents since 1989 — Mr. Rafsanjani, Mohammad Khatami and Mr. Ahmadinejad — have had their own agendas and ambitions, and all became thorns in the supreme leader’s side to varying degrees.

In a sense, the current tensions can be traced to 1989, when Iran’s Constitution was modified to create a powerful presidency as a counterweight to the supreme leader. The last president before those changes was Ayatollah Khamenei himself, and the prime minister whose position was abolished at the same time was Mir Hussein Moussavi — the opposition leader who claimed the presidency had been stolen from him in 2009.

One measure of the struggle between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei is the banking scandal unfolding in Iran. The authorities have arrested dozens of people in what they call a wide-ranging $2.6 billion embezzlement scheme, and opponents of Mr. Ahmadinejad have repeatedly accused his close associates — including his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei — of being linked to the lead suspect.

Corruption is rampant in Iran, and analysts say the supreme leader and his team must have long known of (and possibly profited from) such a large movement of money. “They are unveiling this now simply to attack Ahmadinejad and his allies,” said Mr. Vahedi, the former editor.

The bank scandal appears to be at least partly an effort to undermine the campaign war chest of Mr. Ahmadinejad and his allies, who hope to maintain their power by electing candidates in the 2012 parliamentary elections and the 2013 presidential race, analysts said. The broader conflict is mostly about power, but it also has an ideological component. Although intensely devout, Mr. Ahmadinejad is dismissive of Iran’s traditional clergy, and has said Muslims do not need the intercession of clerics to contact the Hidden Imam, a messianic figure in Shiite Islam. Conservatives have lambasted the president’s circle — often singling out Mr. Mashaei — as a “deviant current.”

The constant friction has polarized the political elite, and appears to be undermining the supreme leader’s traditional role as a broker, analysts say. Although Ayatollah Khamenei crushed the reformists and the opposition movement that led massive street protests in 2009, that crisis ruptured his relationship with members of the Islamic Republic’s old guard of founders, notably Mr. Rafsanjani.

“The machinery of government is increasingly breaking down,” said Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Khamenei has lost the old guard, the economy is collapsing, and now he is more and more isolated internationally. Can he survive? It remains to be seen.”

WSJ:Iran Displays Divisions After Charge of U.S. Plot

Iran Displays Divisions After Charge of U.S. Plot

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203911804576650443418706556.html

Iranian officials have delivered conflicting responses to U.S. allegations that Tehran plotted to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador in Washington, in a new sign of a split among Iran's decision makers.

Washington has said all options are on the table to retaliate for the alleged plot, including military action and tougher sanctions on Iran's Central Bank—the only remaining conduit for the oil revenue that is the backbone of the Iranian regime's finances.

On Monday, a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen, Manssor Arbabsiar, pleaded not guilty in a U.S. District Court in Manhattan to criminal charges of hiring a U.S. undercover agent posing as a member of a Mexican drug cartel to murder the Saudi ambassador.

While senior Iranian officials have defiantly denied and ridiculed the U.S. allegations, Iranian diplomats have offered to help investigate, in a sign of concern that the fallout from the alleged plot could be worse for Tehran than longstanding accusations over its nuclear program.

How Iran weathers the allegations will depend in part on whether the faction advocating a confrontational tone wins over those supporting diplomacy.

Iran's conservatives, who now control the government, are divided between loyalists of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and supporters of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who favor less clerical control.

In the past, Iranian political factions have been able to unify against outside pressure, whereas internal cracks now make it difficult to present a consolidated front.

The first sign that Iran was struggling to devise an effective strategy to limit the damage from the accusation by U.S. officials on Oct. 11 came in the slow response by top officials.

It took six days for Iran's top two officials to comment on the alleged plot, an unusual lapse.

When they did respond, the two leaders ridiculed the charges with traditional revolutionary bombast.

Mr. Khamenei warned that Iran would respond harshly to any "illicit" actions by the U.S. Mr. Ahmadinejad, giggling and shrugging in an interview with al-Jazeera, refused any cooperation with U.S. investigators.

State-influenced Iranian news sources then followed the defensive effort by publishing accusations that the plot was cooked up by an opposition group.

But supporters of Mr. Ahmadinejad soon showed a more conciliatory tone. Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said Iran was prepared to carefully examine the U.S.'s evidence and would conduct a "serious and patient" investigation, even if the charges were fabricated.

The statement by Mr. Salehi, an Ahmadinejad ally, reflected a leaning by the president to show some willingness to negotiate—at odds with Mr. Khamenei.

Iran's judiciary chief, Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani, a critic of Mr. Ahmadinejad, said last week that he was appointing a special envoy to investigate alleged crimes against Muslims by the U.S.

This rupture is on display almost on a daily basis, in domestic and foreign policy. The conservative-dominated parliament voted on Sunday to impeach the finance minister, a close ally of Mr. Ahmadinejad, over a $2.6 billion bank fraud that has roiled Iranian politics. The president has denied any wrongdoing by himself or his administration.

That split has also been seen with regard to international pressure over Iran's nuclear program. Mr. Ahmadinejad offered publicly, while in New York for the United Nations General Assembly in September, to start talks with the U.S.

Mr. Khamenei immediately shot down the idea, according to Iranian news reports.

The contradiction in responses stems from disagreements over how to deal with the West, analysts said.

Now, the prospect that the U.S. could pursue sanctions at the U.N. Security Council against Iran's central bank is a particular concern, though China and Russia have opposed such action.

"Iran's response [to the plot allegations] shows that they are very worried," said Hossein Bastani, a political analyst based in France who worked for the administration of President Mohammad Khatami. "Many officials are secretly wondering, 'What if this true?' And even if it isn't, the damage is already done."

HUFFPOST:(Another) Act of War and What We Can Do About It

(Another) Act of War and What We Can Do About It

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-d-wallace/iran-nuclear-program_b_1063573.html

The revelation that Iran was planning to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States by blowing up a restaurant he frequented in Washington, D.C. should finally put to rest any hopes that the regime in Tehran is a credible partner for peace. This brazen attempt to carry out a terrorist act on American soil, potentially killing Americans in the process, represents a significant and dangerous escalation that demands a firm and determined response from the U.S. and its allies.

The plot fits squarely into an overall pattern of warlike escalation on the part of Tehran: for some time now, the regime has been increasing its direct assistance and material support to the Taliban in Afghanistan and Shia extremists in Iraq -- two groups directly responsible for killing U.S. and NATO forces. Even worse, this past summer the U.S. unveiled evidence that Iran is directly aiding al-Qaeda, an alliance once thought unlikely. That Shia-controlled Iran is now aiding the Sunni perpetrators of 9/11 signals just how radical and intransigent the current leadership in Tehran has become.

How should the U.S. respond? First and foremost, we must reject the outdated notion that we are in a 'cold' or proxy war with Iran that should be dealt with in a diplomatic vacuum. Iran is directly responsible for killing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is now plotting to kill Americans and foreign diplomats inside U.S. borders. That is the definition of a 'hot' war, and U.S. policymakers must accept that, particularly since Iran is aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. If Iran is a threat now, imagine it with the capability to launch a nuclear terror attack against the U.S. or its allies.

Second, the U.S. must aggressively pursue a strategy to isolate Iran further -- much further. Outrageously, a number of international companies like Nokia-Siemens, Fiat, Honeywell, and Daelim still do business in Iran, many of them in Iran's energy sector, which is dominated by known terrorist entities like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The hard currency these business activities provide Iran directly funds its ability to acquire and develop weapons of mass destruction, and pursue terrorist activities around the globe.

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) has worked hard at the grassroots level to pressure companies into ending their irresponsible business activities in Iran. Yet in the case of the many international companies that continue to do business there, it is necessary for governments to act. The U.S. and international community must make clear, through the imposition of much tougher sanctions, that doing business in Iran will no longer be tolerated. This requires serious action, including sanctioning Iran's Central Bank to sever the regime from the international financial system, imposing an asset freeze and travel ban on top Iranian officials, banning imports of Iranian oil, and passing legislation such as the Iran Transparency and Accountability Act, which would require companies that avail themselves of U.S. capital markets to publicly disclose their Iran business.

In the event the UN Security Council will be unwilling to adopt these sanctions given likely Chinese and Russian vetoes, the U.S., EU, Asian allies, and other like-minded nations should harmonize efforts and adopt coordinated multilateral sanctions that will give Iran no choice but to change course.

Third, the U.S. and other countries must work to actively support pro-democratic elements in Iran. It is no coincidence that Iran ramped up its efforts to aggressively crack down on internal protests earlier this year, as its neighbors were dealing with uprisings like those the regime faced in 2009 and 2010. Back then, the U.S. was reluctant to support the protestors due to the mistaken assumption that the current leadership in Tehran could be persuaded into peace. Now, it's time to get serious. As part of a strategy to support opposition groups in Iran, America should state clearly and unequivocally that it no longer bestows any legitimacy on the current regime in Iran, and U.S. policy should affirm that.

President Obama extended an olive branch to Iran within the first two months of his taking office in 2009. Yet since then, Iran has responded by killing U.S. forces, aiding al-Qaeda, and plotting to detonate an explosive device at an American restaurant. The Iranian regime has been emboldened by American inaction and reliance on diplomatic overtures, and the U.S. should now make clear that it is willing to respond to acts of war by Iran with swift and effective financial and military action.

Iran clearly sees itself as a nation at war with the U.S. It is time for America to recognize that grim reality, and act accordingly.

Ambassador Mark D. Wallace is President of United Against Nuclear Iran. He served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Representative for U.N. Management and Reform. Frances Townsend is a member of the United Against Nuclear Iran Advisory Board. She served as Assistant to President George W. Bush for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and chaired the Homeland Security Council.

HILLARY CLINTON IRAN INTERVIEW

Interview With Bahman Kalbasi of BBC Persia

Interview

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

October 26, 2011

http://www.implu.com/government_news/482/296189

CLINTON: Secondly, there is a sense of confusion about what seems like the most absurd plot. Why would this happen? And I think that from our perspective, we can’t possibly, sitting here, tell you all the reasons. But we have seen a pattern of increasingly reckless behavior by the Qods Force over the past years. And because we can link this plot with high-ranking members of the Qods Force in Tehran, we think it’s part of a broader pattern.

Now, you ask yourself, well what would they expect to get out of this plot? Well, I think a couple of things. First of all, the fact they use others to carry out their activities, whether it’s Hezbollah, or other terrorist groups, or in this case, trying to make an alliance with a ruthless bunch of killers, is nothing new. They have done that. The Qods Force and the Revolutionary Guard have done that in the past.

The Saudis are a – considered the main competitor to Iran in the Persian Gulf. We know that as well. And many people who are experts on this say because they’ve gotten more reckless, because this is not totally something new, never done before by their activities outside of Iran, they were trying to, in a sense, what we would say, kind of thumb their nose at the Americans. We got over your border. We came at you in a way that you didn’t expect. We went after someone you should’ve been protecting, and we, therefore, want you to know that we’re not going to in any way take a backseat to trying to cause problems for you.

Unfortunately, we know enough about some of their behavior – there is reason to believe that a Saudi diplomat was assassinated in Karachi as part of a plot emanating out of the Qods Force. So we know that they’ve done things like this before.

QUESTION: But, the skepticism is obviously not just there, here in the United States, you have former CIA members, it’s the national security advisor --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Because everybody’s sitting there saying, these guys, why would they do this? Well, I think we’re going to have to try to piece that together in the trial. But we have no doubt that this was ordered. Now, I cannot tell you how high up the chain it went, which actually bothers me in both ways. If it went up the chain to the supreme leader, for example, that’s really troubling, right? If it didn’t, if it was a plot hatched by military personnel, that should be troubling to the leadership in Iran.

So yes. I think people are right to ask questions. We believe in free and open debate. We have no trouble with that. Well, then why doesn’t Iran participate in a full, open debate and a full, open investigation? Let the Iranian regime come to the United Nations and say, we signed an international convention to protect diplomats, we don’t want to this soiling our good name, we want to get to the bottom of this – let them come and do it. We’d be happy to see that.

QUESTION: And so you’re confident this is not going to be this Administration’s Colin Powell moment, where he’s very confident that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and it doesn’t? A lot of people in Iran feel that you are – or this will inevitably unleash the force of war, that this will – this kind of heightened tensions will provide – lay the ground for another military attack.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, we disrupted the attack. So nothing happened, thank goodness. And we are not seeking conflict. We are not seeking to widen our disagreements with the Government of Iran. We want to create better relations first and foremost with the Iranian people, but then, with a government that is responsive to its own people that is not just giving lip service to democracy and then stealing elections, which is not saying they want to be friendly, but then going behind everyone’s back and causing all sort of problems.

No. We want to have a different relationship. In fact, by the end of this year, I will have a virtual embassy in Tehran. We’ll put it on the web because we get lots of questions that people don’t know where to get answers. How do I study in the United States? How do I travel to the United States? I’m trying to increase the number of visas for students so that we have more Iranian students coming to study here. We’re trying to reach out to the Iranian people, and we’ve tried to reach out to the government, just not very successfully.

QUESTION: We’re very short on time, so I’m going to play three questions together, which they are all about the theme of hypocrisy and double standards. And we’ll get the answers to that.

(Video clip played.) (Via interpreter) Hello, Secretary Clinton. Why was America so active about human rights violations in Libya and is now very vocal about human rights violations in Syria but was acting very differently when it came to Bahrain? Thank you. (End of video clip.)

(Video clip played.) (Via interpreter) Throughout the decades, your country has attacked many countries such as Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Somalia, and many other countries. Your country has defended a non-legal document setting up the Palestinian (inaudible) and is still supporting Israel. Your government has supported (inaudible) for years and defended dictatorships such as in Saudi Arabia. Iranians, too, have unpleasant memories from the U.S., the coup d’état against Mosaddegh, attacking the territory, supporting the Shah, instituting (inaudible) embargoes, and attacking an Iranian passenger plan. With all these double standards, how do you expect Iranian people to come to your (inaudible), your message, and feel supported by your country? (End of video clip.)

(Video clip played.) (Via interpreter) I want to ask Mrs. Clinton about the American policy that they always want to be present and in charge. And this presence is more often military in every region and area around the world. For example, why do they feel the need to have presence in the Persian Gulf or in Afghanistan and Iraq and other countries where they’ve always want to have a base? And if one day another country, such as Iran, decides to take their navy vessels to the American borders, the Gulf of Mexico or anywhere close to their turf lines, how would America react to that? Would they view another country the same ways or not? (End of video clip.)

QUESTION: Before you go to that, there has been saying – it’s not your first time you’re hearing that – the theme of double standards. MEK has been raised a lot – constantly by people inside and outside, on your – a terrorist group. Also politicians in the U.S. actually believes and publicly support them. There are talks of you even bringing them out of the list and whether that’s going to happen or not is another sign. From all these cases, Israel to Bahrain, military presence, are you worried that people in the Middle East look at America and see it as a hypocritical power as opposed to one that stands by principle?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think our history is one based on principle and on values that we believe are universal values. Now, we do not expect every country or every people to agree with everything we do. That’s why we are welcoming a vigorous debate. What we worry about is when regimes take over with an ideological or other approach that is threatening to neighbors and damaging to their own people. So we do speak out. We have consistently spoken out about Bahrain and we have pushed the government to do more, and we support the independent investigation. Let’s have the regime in Iran have an independent investigation where people may say some things that they don’t want to hear. We would be very supportive of that as well.

We know that everything we have done in the course of our 235-plus year history is going to appeal to or be supported by everyone, and we take our history seriously. So, for example, we’ve expressed regret about what was done in 1953. We’ve had high-ranking Americans say that that was a disruption of what could have and should’ve been a natural development of democracy with Iran. At the time, it was the Cold War. It was the Soviet Union which seemed to pose an existential threat to everyone, including Iran, Turkey, Greece, you name it. So we sometimes, in retrospect, look back and say, “Could we have done that a different way?” And so we have regretted what happened in 1953.

And then we also have tried to point out that the tragedy of the shooting down of the airline is something that we deeply are sorry for, and we have said that repeatedly. And so we don’t want there to be any increased tensions. We have tried, especially in the last two and a half years to try to lower those tensions.

And finally, when it comes to the whole question about who we are, what we stand for, I think I’ve lived long enough to say that probably every country, every country has hypocrisy because it’s difficult to be always transparent about what you’re doing and what you stand for. But I don’t know any country that has been more transparent, more self-corrective, more willing to say maybe we shouldn’t have done this, where we have elections and we swing from the right, we swing from the left, but within a stable constitutional system that respects the rights of individuals.

So when a country criticizes us, we say okay, let’s take a look at it. We’ll see whether there’s some legitimacy to that, and let’s see what we can do better. When a country that has no freedom inside of it is criticized, that’s viewed as a great insult, and the regime in charge tries to manipulate information in a way that prevents there being free debate. And when it comes to freedom of navigation, if an Iranian vessel wants to be in international waters in an appropriate position, that’s fine. I mean, that’s the rules.

We want a rules-based system, which is why we get so worried when Iran flaunts the rules. It’s the most heavily sanctioned and disapproved of government. Why? Because they have violated Security Council resolutions, and they have lied to the International Atomic Energy association, when everybody believes that if this current regime gets nuclear weapons, that will be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing.

So we look and we see not just the United States expressing worries; we see the entire world expressing worries about the current regime in Iran. Now, I think the great sweep of history should give us some comfort that eventually, the Iranian people will be free, they will have a right to express themselves, they will not be oppressed by the kind of totalitarian regime that currently rules Iran.

RFERL:To Help Or Not: Iranian Opposition Figures React To Clinton Remarks

To Help Or Not: Iranian Opposition Figures React To Clinton Remarks

http://www.rferl.org/content/to_help_or_not_iranian_opposition_figures_react_to_clinton_remarks/24375050.html

A debate about whether the United States should actively support Iran’s opposition movement appears to have been reignited following recent comments by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The country's top diplomat said earlier this week that Iranian opposition members should openly seek outside support as did rebels in Libya.

In reaction to the comments, Amir Ardeshir Arjomand, a close adviser to opposition leader Mir Hossein Musavi, rejected foreign interference and said Iranian people can achieve democracy without outside help.

In her October 26 interview with BBC’s Persian TV, Clinton suggested that it may have been a mistake for the opposition inside Iran to not have appealed for international support in the state crackdown that followed the disputed reelection of Mahmud Ahmadinejad in 2009.

The interviewer said that some of the BBC’s audience had criticized the U.S. for being slow to support the opposition movement. Others, however, had said that Washington‘s potential support would have given the Iranian establishment an excuse to pressure it.

“Why has the U.S. not supported [the] Green Movement in Iran?” asked an Iranian refugee in Turkey who had left Iran following the 2009 vote.

Clinton said the U.S. was torn at the time:

I will tell you it was a very tough time for us, because we wanted to be full-hearted in favor of what was going on inside Iran, and we kept being cautioned that we would put people’s lives in danger, we would discredit the movement, we would undermine their aspirations. I think if something were to happen again, it would be smart for the Green Movement or some other movement inside Iran to say, “We want the voices of the world. We want the support of the world behind us.”

That’s what the Libyan opposition figures did, as you remember. When they began their struggle against Qadhafi, and it seemed like such a hopeless uphill climb, they, from the very beginning said, “We want all the support we can get from the outside world. We want our Arab brothers, we want the region, and we want the United Nations, and we want everybody to help us.” And I think that maybe in retrospect it was an unfortunate mutual decision on the part of the leaders of the Green Movement and the supporters inside Iran and those of us on the outside, who very much hoped that that would spark reform.

In reaction to Clinton’s comments, Arjomand said that it is up to Iranian citizens to mobilize and fight the authoritarian force. Arjomand said he is expressing the position of the leaders of the Green Movement, Musavi and Mehdi Karrubi, who have been both under house arrest for more than seven months.

He described the independence of the Green Movement as its strength. “Intervention by foreign powers is not a viable solution for domestic issues and affairs of a sovereign nation,” he said in an interview with the BBC. Arjomand added that Iran is a proud nation and has always sought to resolve its problems independently.

(Although according to cables leaked by WikiLeaks, in January 2010 Arjomand asked U.S. diplomats in Turkey for help after having fled Iran. He apparently didn’t get the help he had asked for.)

While Arjomand, who is based in France, made it clear that the U.S. should stay away from the Iranian opposition movement, another opposition figure Mojatab Vahedi -- a close adviser to Karrubi -- said there are things the U.S. can do to help opposition members.

In a YouTube video from Washington, D.C. where he is based, Vahedi said the Obama administration owes the Iranian opposition movement for two major reasons.

“Right when the Green Movement was in full swing, [U.S. President Obama] said his country is ready to talk with the [Islamic Republic]. By doing so Washington morally supported the Iranian government, [which] was very fearful of domestic and international conditions,” Vahedi said.

Vahedi added that in his view the U.S. owes the Iranian opposition movement also for not pressuring allies that supported Iran in its crackdown, including by providing Tehran with surveillance technology.

Vahedi said there is no need for U.S. support if it can rectify these “mistakes.”

He said Karrubi had said in an interview two years ago that Western governments should help so that the voice of the Iranian people is heard by the world’s nations. Vahedi added this remains the demand of the opposition movement.

He also called on the United States to ask former President Jimmy Carter to travel to Iran to monitor the March 2012 parliamentary elections. He suggested the move would put the Iranian government in a difficult position. He noted that Tehran has expressed support and approval for Carter's supervision of the Palestinian and Tunisian votes.

AP:Iran parliament to question Ahmadinejad over fraud

Iran parliament to question Ahmadinejad over fraud

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAN_POLITICS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-30-15-56-03

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's parliament is set to summon President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for questioning over an economic scandal and his polices after the required number of lawmakers signed a petition Sunday, the latest salvo in a long battle between the president and his rivals.

Ahmadinejad would be the first president to be hauled before the Iranian parliament, a serious blow to his standing in a the conflict involving the president, lawmakers and Iran's powerful clerics.

At least 73 lawmakers signed the petition to question Ahmadinejad, just above one-quarter of the 290 members required by Iran's constitution to call in a president.

Earlier the parliament found Ahmadinejad's

economics minister guilty in relation to a $2.6 billion fraud case, considered the largest in Iran's history. This is just one of several economic misconduct cases that target Ahmadinejad allies, evidence that his political struggles are a factor. Ahmadinejad has been wrestling with the parliament and the clergy over in the run-up to parliamentary elections in March and a presidential election in 2013. Ahmadinejad has come under increasing attacks in recent months from the same hard-liners who brought him to power. Dozens of Ahmadinejad's political backers have been arrested or hounded out of the public eye by hard-line forces in recent months. His protege and top aide, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, has been effectively blackballed from his goal of succeeding Ahmadinejad in 2013 elections by a series of reputation-killing accusations. They include leading a "deviant current" that seeks to challenge the system of theocratic rule, and alleged links to the $2.6 billion bank fraud. The questioning, should it happen, would be a serious blow to Ahmadinejad, who has already been weakened after he publicly challenged Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in April over the choice of intelligence minister. The $2.6 billion fraud case involving top government officials has reinvigorated efforts by lawmakers to seriously bring Ahmadinejad before the house. "The petition to question the president has reached the minimum of signatures required. It was handed over to the presiding council," lawmaker Hossein Sobhaninia said. The parliament's presiding council acknowledged receiving the petition Sunday, clearing the way to bring the president before the house. At a session of parliament broadcast live on state radio Sunday, a report was read saying that a parliamentary investigation has found top government officials guilty in the case, described as the nation's biggest financial scam. Economy Minister Shamsoddin Hosseini is set to be impeached Tuesday over the case. Sobhaninia, a member of the presiding council, said a special parliamentary committee will question a representative of the president before Ahmadinejad himself is summoned before the house. Dozens of Iranian lawmakers signed a similar petition last year, but later, several lawmakers withdrew their signatures, killing the move. Ali Motahari, a conservative lawmaker behind the petition, resigned earlier this month to protest the parliament's failure to summon Ahmadinejad for questioning. He charged that he could no longer protect the rights of the people who elected him to parliament. On Sunday, Motahari said he will withdraw his resignation if the president is actually questioned. The $2.6 billion fraud case involved the use of forged documents to obtain credit from at least two Iranian state banks to purchase state-owned companies. Iranian businessman Mahafarid Amir Khosravi, also known as Amir Mansour Aria, has been accused of masterminding the scam, a scandal that broke in September. A long report on parliament's investigation found Hosseini, the economy minister, his deputies and managers of the Central Bank of Iran as well as managers of the banks involved in the fraud case guilty of failing to take action despite having knowledge of the offenses. © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Advertisement

Advertisement ©2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. Terms under which this site is provided. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

YAHOO:Iran leader says U.S. troop exit "golden" for Iraq

Iran leader says U.S. troop exit "golden" for Iraq

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/iran-leader-says-u-troop-exit-golden-iraq-140856761.html

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's supreme leader on Sunday hailed the coming withdrawal of troops from neighboring Iraq as a "golden" victory.

President Barack Obama plans to withdraw his 40,000 troops from Iraq by the end of the year after negotiations on keeping some forces there failed, a move some politicians say could give Tehran more room to assert its influence.

"The uniform stance of all tribes and religions in Iraq over America's pressure to get legal immunity for its occupying servicemen, and ultimately the coercion of America to exit Iraq, constitute a golden page in that country's history," Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said after a meeting with Iraqi Kurdistan President Masoud Barzani, the ISNA news agency reported.

The troops are leaving more than eight years after a U.S.-led invasion toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Tehran welcomed the fall of Saddam, a secular Sunni Muslim who took majority Shi'ite Iraq into a bloody 1980-88 war with Iran, but has always criticized U.S. military intervention.

While it has been rebuilding ties with post-Saddam Iraq, Iran's relations with the United States have worsened. Washington has warned Tehran not to underestimate its large military presence in other nearby countries.

The two nations broke ties after radical students seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran following the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's announcement on Wednesday of plans for a "virtual embassy" to reach out to Iranians was received in Tehran with derision.

"If America wants to open a virtual embassy in Iran, the young officers of soft war will occupy that as well," Mohammad Reza Kashefi, a member of the Basij student militia, told the semi-official Fars news agency.

"Ms Clinton has confused diplomacy with a toy," said parliament speaker Ali Larijani.

Clinton said the "virtual embassy" website would be open by the end of the year and it would provide Iranians with information on visas and other programs.

On Saturday, Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said Iran wanted ties with all countries except Israel, but that U.S. policy made any rapprochement with Washington impossible.

Obama has not ruled out military action if needed to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons, which Tehran denies seeking.

Washington is pressing for new sanctions on Iran after uncovering what it says was an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington.

PBS:Questions over Alleged Islamic Republic Assassination Plot in US

Questions over Alleged Islamic Republic Assassination Plot in US

by MUHAMMAD SAHIMI in Los Angeles

12 Oct 2011 05:00

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/10/post-6.html#ixzz1cJDCjkw5

[ comment ] On Tuesday afternoon, ABC News reported that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration had succeeding in disrupting a plot to commit a "significant terrorist act in the United States" tied to Iran. According to the report, the plot aimed to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir (pictured), with a bomb and then to carry out bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C. Bombings of the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires, the Argentinian capital, were also supposedly discussed.

The report soon became official when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder declared in a press conference that the plan was "conceived, sponsored and was directed from Iran" and called it a "flagrant" violation of U.S. and international law. "The U.S. is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions," Holder said, adding that the White House will be meeting with federal agencies before announcing "further action" in regards to Iran. FBI Director Robert Mueller said the arrest of a suspect in the plot demonstrates that the United States will "bring the full weight of law to bear on those responsible," and that any attempts to kill foreign officials "on American soil will not be tolerated."

That one suspect currently under arrest is Mansour Arbabsiar, an Iranian American who resides in Corpus Christi, Texas. Arbabsiar approached a DEA informant who he thought was a member of the Zetas Mexican drug organization to ask the cartel to carry out the assassination of the Saudi ambassador. Arbabsiar claimed he was being "directed by high-ranking members of the Iranian government," including a cousin who was "a member of the Iranian army but did not wear a uniform," who counter-terrorism officials believe may be part of the Quds force, the special operations unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Arbabsiar and Gohlam Shakuri, supposedly an Iranian official, were named in a five-count criminal complaint filed Tuesday afternoon in federal court in New York. Shakuri is in Iran. The indictment mentions another Iranian official, but his name has not been revealed.

Iran quickly rejected the claim. Ramin Mehmanparast, spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, said, "The false claim for the assassination of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S. [by Iranian agents] is devoid of any truth." Condemning all terrorist acts, Mehmanparast called the claim a "ridiculous show" that is intended to create divisions, "pursued by the enemies of Islam in the region," with the goal of "helping Israel to exit from its present isolation."

The question now is: Can the claim possibly be true?

Before addressing the question, let me first emphasize that there is almost nothing that the Tehran hardliners might do that could surprise me. This perspective is based on their long track record, both within and outside Iran. Therefore, if the claim turns out to be true -- if it is shown that Iranian agents did want to carry out the alleged plot -- I would not be deeply surprised.

Having said that, however, I must state that at this point, I am highly skeptical about the entire episode. In fact, the more I learn about the claim and the indictment, the more I think this may be a classic case of entrapment on the part of the FBI/DEA agents, of the kind that has happened too many times in the past in the United States to be ignored.

But let us analyze the claim carefully to see whether it is plausible at all. Hence, for the sake of argument, let us assume that the claim is true. The question is, What would the hardliners have gained, had they succeeded? As I see it, nothing but more trouble and intense international pressure, not to mention the further wrath of the United States and Saudi Arabia.

One may argue that such a line of thinking assumes that the hardliners are rational people, and what have done in Iran indicates that they are not. But, in fact, despite its repressive domestic policy, when it comes to dealing with the outside world, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has followed a pragmatic approach, based first and foremost on protecting itself from external physical attacks, and then on expanding its influence when and where possible. We can see this from how it dealt with and received weapons from Israel in the 1980s during the notorious Iran-Contra affair, from the pragmatic way it sat out the conflict when the U.S. and its allies attacked Iraq to expel it from Kuwait in 1990 (despite many internal voices demanding that Iran assist Saddam Hussein's regime against the Western forces), from its arming of the Bosnian Muslims with U.S. consent during the war with the Serbs, and from the significant assistance it provided to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Based on a purely cost-benefit analysis, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to imagine that the IRI could have benefited from such a plot as is alleged. At a time when (a) international pressure on Iran is mounting in response to its gross human rights violations, (b) the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran are showing signs of working, (c) the IRI is deeply worried about the fate of its strategic partner in Syria, the government of Bashar al-Assad, (d) tensions with Turkey are increasing over its hostile policy toward the Assad regime, and (e) a fierce power struggle is underway within Iran between the supporters of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it is essentially impossible to believe that the IRI would act in such a way as to open a major new front against itself.

Moreover, although the IRI has carried out assassination operations beyond Iranian borders, some of which I have described here and here, they targeted Iranian dissidents, not foreign diplomats. Even at the height of the assassination wave, the IRI did not go after non-Iranians. It is keenly aware that it is under the American microscope. It is thus hard to believe that the IRI would actually embark on such a useless assassination involving a low-level, non-player individual, dealing with people that they do not know.

Furthermore, the IRI ended its foreign assassinations in the mid-1990s. And, with a single exception more than 30 years ago, the IRI avoided carrying out any such plots on U.S. soil. The first and last such act occurred in July 1980, when Ali Tabatabaei was murdered at his home in Bethesda, Maryland, by Dawud Salahuddin, an American sympathetic to the 1979 Revolution. Tabatabaei, press attaché in the Iranian Embassy in the United States under the Shah, had joined the opposition after the Revolution. Salahuddin, who was paid $5,000 to kill Tabatabaei, currently lives in Iran.

One may argue that the targets of the operation were Saudi Arabia and Israel. But this seems even more absurd. If the IRI really intends to harm Saudi Arabia, due to the increasing tension with the Riyadh government, why should it try to do it here in the United States and in Washington? Why not attack the Saudis embassies in, for example, chaotic locations in the Middle East, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen? Why not carry out a sabotage operation against Saudi Arabia's oil fields in the eastern part of the country, where the Shia population is centered? That would increase the price of oil dramatically, which would benefit the IRI and hurt the fragile economies of the West. Aside from all such considerations, assassinating Saudi Arabia's ambassador just when the annual Haj pilgrimage is approaching makes no sense.

As for attacking the Israeli Embassy in Washington, that appears even more absurd, given the extent of the fortification and security measures that protect it. Would it not be easier, for example, to agitate a crowd in Egypt, Jordan, or Turkey to attack Israel's embassies there, rather than in Washington? It just happened in Egypt.

There are also other considerations. First, the indictment refers to Shakuri as an "Iranian official." I could not find any information on this "official," nor have I ever heard of him. Second, it would be only a minor exaggeration, if at all, to say that every Iranian who enters the United States is viewed suspiciously. Even grandmothers and grandfathers are finger-printed when they arrive here. Every time that I -- a U.S. citizen, academic, and a highly public person -- travel abroad, I am questioned and grilled thoroughly when I return home. So, how was it possible for Arbabsiar -- supposedly connected to the Quds force -- to repeatedly cross the border between the United States and Mexico without raising any suspicions? Have there not been mandatory passport scans at the Mexican border for several years now? That should have created a database of all the border crossings. A Revolutionary Guard operative, supposedly involved in such a plot, would surely not risk raising suspicion by repeated trips to Mexico coupled with travel to Iran. Call the Guard officers and operatives anything you want, but they have proven to be shrewd and smart. Despite years of work and numerous claims, the United States has not been able to trace Iran's fingerprint in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut, or in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia.

There is a small chance that some rogue elements in the Revolutionary Guards decided to carry out such a plot. There is precedence for such an operation. During Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's second term as president, rogue elements of the Ministry of Intelligence led by Saeed Emami -- leader of the gang that assassinated numerous dissidents in what is now known as the infamous Chain Murders -- tried to smuggle missiles out of Iran to Brussels to attack the NATO headquarters. The plot was discovered, and Rafsanjani later acknowledged it. Its discovery set back relations between Iran and the European Union for several years.

Given the power struggle pitting Khamenei and his supporters against Ahmadinejad and his camp, and given the extreme hostility that some former Ahmadinejad supporters have toward him and their fear that he might be able to establish some form of diplomatic relations with the United States, the possibility of such a rogue operation cannot be discarded. But the indictment against Arbabsiar and Shakuri claims that they are members of the Quds force, and given the discipline that the Quds force has demonstrated in its operations throughout the Middle East, I still find it difficult to believe that they would embark on what seems to be a useless, dangerous, and relatively easy-to-discover operation.

Thus, at this point, I find the claim that the IRI was involved in the plot highly unlikely. The more information that becomes available, the more it appears like a frame-up of Mansour Arbabsiar, a classic case of entrapment. But, once again, there is nothing the IRI might do that would surprise me.

Copyright © 2011 Tehran Bureau

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/10/post-6.html#ixzz1cJDH9CgZ

HUFFPOST:The "Come To Jesus" Moment In US-Iran Relations

The "Come To Jesus" Moment In US-Iran Relations

10/12/11

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reza-marashi/the-come-to-jesus-moment-_b_1006804.html

With news of an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, U.S.-Iran relations have reached a new low. If the allegations are true, this deplorable act should be strongly condemned. To that end, the Beltway is already buzzing with calls for a "robust response" that will "send a strong message to Iran." But how?

As policymakers, pundits and the American people process this alleged bombshell, it is important to remember that nations have often rushed into conflicts (see: Iraq circa 2003), and we would be wise to let the investigation run its course and gather all the facts.

Indeed, the Justice Department's accusations have been met with skepticism by some experts. Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer in the Middle East, said that the "Quds Force has never been this sloppy, using untested proxies, contracting with Mexican drug cartels, sending money through New York bank accounts, and putting its agents on U.S. soil where they risk being caught... The Quds Force is simply better than this." Max Fisher at the Atlantic questions what Iran possibly could get out of the terror plot. And Muhammad Sahimi at Tehran Bureau raises important questions about why a Quds force operative could enter U.S. soil in the first place.

There are still many details about the case that we don't know, but this crucial point is already on the verge of irrelevance. In Washington, allowing for time to collect all the facts rarely happens. And when it comes to politically toxic issues like Iran, it almost certainly will not happen.

By sending the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, to the podium to drop cataclysmic allegations, the stage has already been set. And you don't send the Attorney General there unless you have irrefutable evidence (which was not presented at the press conference), or if you seek to leverage this as fodder for further escalation.

Despite talking a good game, neither Washington nor Tehran looks ready, willing or able to pursue sustained diplomacy. After the abandonment of diplomacy in late 2009, the Obama administration has returned to a reflexive containment policy that has the domestic political benefit of portraying the Obama White House as tough, while still falling a step short of an actual confrontation.

But containment with Iran is not a stable policy. On the contrary, it's a policy that keeps both sides perpetually teetering on the verge of war. Containment with the Soviet Union proved to be stable for two key reasons. First, because even at the height of the Cold War, Washington and Moscow engaged in direct diplomacy -- that is, effective de-escalatory mechanisms were in place. The two countries could effectively communicate with each other and sort out misunderstandings before they escalated into military conflict.

Second, it was stable because there was ample awareness on both sides that a direct confrontation between the two super powers would lead to the end of mankind. This created a natural resistance against uncontrollable escalation.

Neither of these two factors is present in the U.S.-Iran relationship. There is no direct communication between the two sides (both recently ignored or rejected each other's proposals for direct communication). And their domestic political landscapes do not put a premium on restraint; rather, strong domestic constituencies in Washington and Tehran consistently push for escalation.

Simply put, U.S.-Iran tensions have long been a powder keg, overflowing with nuclear programs, human rights abuses, Stuxnet and secret assassinations. And the alleged terror plot against the Saudi Ambassador shows how easily a single incident can spark a wider conflict. Without serious efforts to defuse a crisis that is steadily spiraling out of control, we are on the precipice of a major war in the region.

This is why a containment policy can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Short of a government collapse in Tehran or strategic shift in Washington -- both unlikely in the short to medium term -- containment has created an environment in which adversaries repeatedly provoke one another, without having the ability to reverse any escalation.

The Obama administration must avoid falling further into this trap -- particularly if there are Iranian hardliners trying to bait the U.S. into a conflict.

In 2008, a war with Iran was considered devastating to U.S. interests. This outcome is no less disastrous today for an America with 9% unemployment, and still on the brink of economic catastrophe.

Hawks in Washington will use these new allegations to support their preconceived notions on why defusing the Iran crisis cannot be done -- the timing isn't right; we need to garner more leverage by escalating the pressure; this regime needs enmity with America for its survival and so forth. Ironically, their counterparts in Tehran will echo similar sentiments.

This is what we call a real "come to Jesus" moment -- some hard decisions on war and peace need to be made, in Washington and Tehran. Unfortunately, given the history and politics involved, all signs are pointing in the wrong direction. It is often forgotten that in crises like this, it takes greater courage to stand for restraint and de-escalation than to opt for war and confrontation.

presstv propaganda:20% of CIA analysts 'targeters'

20% of CIA analysts 'targeters'

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/207469.html

A recent report says that 20 percent of analysts working for the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) function as “targeters” tasked with picking people out for elimination.

A new report released by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) shows that the CIA budget has witnessed a USD 1 billion increase over the past year in a bid to step up covert operations in other countries, Antiwar.com, reported..

This is while the US military's intelligence budget has witnessed a 10 percent reduction during the same time period indicating that in future the armed forces will become more dependent on the CIA and other similar agencies for intelligence.

The exact amount of this budget shift is unclear as the US released its spying budget for the first time in 2010.

The shift has caused concerns because over the years, the CIA has become less engaged in intelligence gathering and more involved in drone strikes and assassinations.

Over the years, the CIA has also been involved in countless covert operations that have been kept secret from the US Congress.

The US has a history of handing presidential approval to the CIA and enabling it to carry out covert operations against different governments and people around the world, depending on Washington's agenda for the region. Unmanned US assassination drones are currently striking targets in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.

Leading academic Professor Noam Chomsky recently condemned the increasing use of unmanned drones by the US in foreign countries, saying that there is no justification for their "targeted assassinations," which amount to state terrorism.

Among the countries targeted by the US spy agencies is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Previously in 2007, the CIA received presidential approval to increase covert 'black' operations inside the country with the aim of paralyzing its religious government.

The CIA was given full power to carry out sabotaging activities against Iran, including propaganda campaigns, cyber attacks, and political assassinations.

Several Iranian scientists including Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, and Majid Shahriari were among the individuals targeted by the CIA.

The US has also provided minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchis and other opposition groups with its support, also calling for the opening of a consulate in the province of Baluchistan, which happens to be where the anti-Iran terrorist group, Jundullah, is most active. Directly funded by the US government, Jundullah is responsible for the gruesome killing of many Iranian civilians, including women and children.

foxnews:Assad Warns Against Intervention in Syria, Says Action Would 'Burn Region'

Assad Warns Against Intervention in Syria, Says Action Would 'Burn Region'

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/30/assad-warns-against-intervention-in-syria-says-action-would-burn-region/#ixzz1cIC6uAnMSyrian President Bashar Assad warned against Western intervention in his country's 7-month-old uprising, saying such action would trigger an "earthquake" that "would burn the whole region."

Assad comments, published in an interview with Britain's Sunday Telegraph, were made against a backdrop of growing calls from anti-regime protesters for a no-fly zone over Syria and increasingly frequent clashes between government troops and army defectors, the latest of which left at least 30 troops dead Saturday.

"Syria is the hub now in this region. It is the fault line, and if you play with the ground you will cause an earthquake," Assad said. "Do you want to see another Afghanistan, or tens of Afghanistans?"

Assad's remarks appeared to reflect his regime's increasing concern about foreign intervention in the country's crisis after the recent death of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, who was toppled by a popular uprising backed by NATO airstrikes.

Syrian opposition leaders have not called for an armed uprising like the one in Libya and have for the most part opposed foreign intervention, and the U.S. and its allies have shown little appetite for intervening in another Arab nation in turmoil. But with the 7-month-old revolt against Assad stalemated, some Syrian protesters have begun calling for a no-fly zone over the country because of fears the regime might use its air force now that army defectors are becoming more active in fighting the security forces.

The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said a clash Saturday night in the restive central city of Homs between soldiers and gunmen believed to be army defectors left at least 20 soldiers dead and 53 wounded. It also said gunmen ambushed a bus carrying security officers late Saturday in the northwestern province of Idlib, killing at least 10 security agents. One attacker was also killed.

The Associated Press could not verify the activists' accounts. Syria has banned most foreign media and restricted local coverage, making it impossible to get independent confirmation of the events on the ground. Syria's state-run news agency SANA, said seven members of the military and police, who were killed in Homs and the suburbs of Damascus were buried Sunday.

The Local Coordination Committees, another activist group, said Sunday that 343 people, including 20 children, have been killed in Syria since Oct. 16, when the Cairo-based Arab League gave Damascus a 15-day deadline to enact a cease-fire. A meeting was scheduled for later Sunday in Qatar between an Arab committee set up by the 22-member Arab League and a Syrian delegation expected to be headed by Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem.

The unrest in Syria could send unsettling ripples through the region, as Damascus' web of alliances extends to Lebanon's powerful Hezbollah movement, the militant Palestinian Hamas and Iran's Shiite theocracy.

Unlike Qaddafi, Assad enjoys a number of powerful allies that give him the means to push back against the outside pressure. A conflict in Syria risks touching off a wider Middle East conflict with arch foes Israel and Iran in the mix. Syria wouldn't have to look far for prime targets to strike, sharing a border with U.S.-backed Israel and NATO-member Turkey.

In case of an international intervention, Assad and his main Mideast backer, Iran, could launch retaliatory attacks on Israel or -- more likely -- unleash Hezbollah fighters or Palestinian militant allies for the job. To the north, Turkey has opened its doors to anti-Assad activists and breakaway military rebels, which also could bring Syrian reprisals.

Assad alluded to those concerns at home and abroad, saying "any problem in Syria will burn the whole region. If the plan is to divide Syria, that is to divide the whole region."

The uprising against the Syrian regime began during a wave of anti-government protests in the Arab world that toppled autocrats in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. The U.N. says that Assad's crackdown has left more than 3,000 people dead since the uprising began in mid-March.

Facing an unprecedented threat to his rule, Assad is desperate to show that only he can guarantee security in a troubled region where failed states abound.

In a show of support to Assad's regime, thousands of Syrians carrying the nation's flag and Assad posters rallied Sunday in a major square in the southern city of Sweida, some 70 miles (110 kilometers) south of Damascus, near the Jordanian border. There have been two similar massive pro-Assad demonstrations in recent days in the capital Damascus and the coastal city of Latakia.

Assad said that Western countries "are going to ratchet up the pressure, definitely." He was apparently referring to a wave of sanctions that were imposed by the European Union and the U.S.

"But Syria is different in every respect from Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen. The history is different. The politics is different," Assad said.

The Syrian president described the uprising as a "struggle between Islamism and pan-Arabism." He was referring to his ruling Baath party's secular ideology and the Muslim Brotherhood that was crushed by his regime in 1982.

"We've been fighting the Muslim Brotherhood since the 1950s and we are still fighting with them," Assad said.

Assad also spoke to Russia's state Channel One television, and in an interview broadcast Sunday hailed Moscow's veto of a European-backed U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria that aimed to impose sanctions on Damascus.

"We are relying on Russia as a country with which we have strong historic ties," Assad said.

The measure vetoed by Russia and China earlier this month would have been the first legally binding resolution against Syria since Assad's forces began attacking civilian protesters.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/30/assad-warns-against-intervention-in-syria-says-action-would-burn-region/#ixzz1cICvBsKL

courthousenews:Patriot Act Still Shrouded in Secrecy

Patriot Act Still Shrouded in Secrecy

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/27/40973.htm

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - On the 10th anniversary of the USA Patriot Act - Wednesday - a nonprofit watchdog sued the Department of Justice for its refusal to release documents on its interpretation and use of Section 215 of the law, which allows the FBI to obtain a court order for "any tangible thing'' that may be related to a counter-terrorism investigation.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation claims the Department of Justice and its creature, the FBI, have been using Section 215 to clandestinely collect information on people suspected of terrorism.
"Tangible things" the government may seize include Internet browsing records and driver's license numbers. People being watched under the Patriot Act may be prevented from learning about the order against them.
After DOJ attorneys disclosed in 2009 that the Section 215 orders were being used to support a "'sensitive collection program,'" several U.S. senators condemned the operation during legislative hearings, which are detailed in the EFF's complaint.
"'Congress is granting powers to the Executive Branch that lead to abuse, and frankly shield the Executive Branch from accountability,'" Sen. Mark Udall said in May 2011. "'I cannot believe that we are once again being rushed into rubber-stamp policies that threaten the liberty of the American people.'"
Former Sen. Russ Feingold said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in September 2009, "'before we decide whether and in what form to extend these authorities, Congress and the American people deserve to know at least basic information about how they have been used.'"
At an October 2009 Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on the legality of the government's broadened authority under the Patriot Act, Sen. Ronald Durbin said that the government's use of Section 215 "'is unfortunately cloaked in secrecy. Some day that cloak will be lifted, and future generations will ask whether our actions today meet the test of a democratic society: transparency, accountability and fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution.'"
The Electronic Frontier Foundation says that in June 2011 it sent a Freedom of Information Act request for all DOJ records from Jan. 1, 2004 onward, seeking the types of "tangible things" the FBI has been collecting, and documents related to any "'sensitive collection program.'"
The FBI acknowledged receipt of the request, but has yet to turn over the documents.
The EFF asks the court to order the government to release the records immediately. EFF staff attorney Jennifer Lynch was unavailable for comment, but said in a statement, "Senators have said publicly that the Justice Department is misleading the American people about the use of the Patriot Act, but the DOJ continues to hide this information from public scrutiny."
The ACLU filed a similar complaint against the Justice Department, also on Wednesday, Oct. 26, in Manhattan Federal Court.

cnn:Fareed's Take: Time to re-engage Iran

Fareed's Take: Time to re-engage Iran

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/30/time-to-re-engage-iran/?hpt=hp_c1

By Fareed Zakaria, CNN

Regular GPS watchers and readers will know that I was in Tehran last week to interview President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. You can watch excerpts of the interview here. But being in Iran made me think about our policy towards that country, which strikes me as stuck in a time warp.

You will remember that early in the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama signaled that he was going to have a different foreign policy than George Bush - and he chose as his example, Iran. He argued that simply pressuring the country was not a policy and Obama offered to talk to Iran's leaders. Well, two years into his presidency, Obama's Iran policy looks a lot like George W. Bush's - pressure and more pressure.

The punitive tactics have paid off in some measure. Iran faces economic problems. But they are also having a perverse impact on the country, as I witnessed last week. The sanctions are stifling growth, though not as much as one might imagine. So the basic effect has been to weaken civil society and strengthen the state - the opposite of what we should be trying to do in that country. By some estimates, Iran's Revolutionary Guard - the hard-line element of the armed forces, supported by the supreme leader – now controls 40% of the economy.

Is that the goal of our policy?

In fact, what is our goal? Is it to overthrow the Iranian regime? Is it to make it bleed until it gives up its nuclear program? A wholesale revolution continues to strike me as a distant prospect. The regime still has some domestic support, and it uses a mix of religious authority, patronage and force quite effectively.

And we keep forgetting the inconvenient fact that, even if the regime changed, the nuclear energy program - which is popular as an expression of Iranian nationalism and power - will continue. Even the leaders of the Green movement strongly support that program.

Obama should return to his original approach and test the Iranians to see if there is any room for dialogue and agreement. Engaging with Iran, putting its nuclear program under some kind of supervision and finding areas of common interest (such as Afghanistan) would all be important goals.

It might not work - the Iranian regime is divided and often paralyzed itself - but it's worth trying. Strategic engagement with an adversary can go hand in hand with a policy that encourages change in that country. That's how Washington dealt with the Soviet Union and China in the 1970s and 80s.

Iran is a country of 80 million people, educated and dynamic. It sits astride a crucial part of the world. It cannot be sanctioned and pressed down forever. It is the last great civilization to sit outside the global order. We need a strategy that combines pressure with a path to bring Iran in from the cold.

For more on this, read my column in The Washington Post. For more of my thoughts throughout the week, I invite you to follow me on Facebook and Twitter and to bookmark the Global Public Square. Also, for more of my takes, click here.

abcnews(2006):Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia

Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia

Nov. 30, 2006

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501

U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.

Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

Two senior U.S. defense officials confirmed to ABC News earlier reports that fighters from the Mahdi army have traveled to Lebanon to receive training from Hezbollah.

While the New York Times reported that as many as 2,000 Iraqi militia fighters had received training in Lebanon, one of the senior officials said he believed the number was "closer to 1,000." Officials say a much smaller number of Hezbollah fighters have also traveled through Syria and into Iraq to provide training.

U.S. intelligence officials believe the number of Al-Sadr's Mahdi army now includes 40,000 fighters, making it an especially formidable force.

reuters(2008):U.S. escalating covert operations against Iran: report

U.S. escalating covert operations against Iran: report

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/06/29/us-bush-iran-report-idUSB65580520080629

(Reuters) - U.S. congressional leaders agreed late last year to President George W. Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing its leadership, according to a report in The New Yorker magazine published online on Sunday.

The article by reporter Seymour Hersh, from the magazine's July 7 and 14 issue, centers on a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which by U.S. law must be made known to Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders and ranking members of the intelligence committees.

"The Finding was focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change," the article cited a person familiar with its contents as saying, and involved "working with opposition groups and passing money."

Hersh has written previously about possible administration plans to go to war to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including an April 2006 article in the New Yorker that suggested regime change in Iran, whether by diplomatic or military means, was Bush's ultimate goal.

Funding for the covert escalation, for which Bush requested up to $400 million, was approved by congressional leaders, according to the article, citing current and former military, intelligence and congressional sources.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. U.S. Special Operations Forces have been conducting crossborder operations from southern Iraq since last year, the article said.

These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of "high-value targets" in Bush's war on terrorism, who may be captured or killed, according to the article.

The U.S. ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, told CNN's "Late Edition" he had not read the article, but denied the allegations of cross-border operations.

"I'll tell you flatly that U.S. forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran, in the south or anywhere else," he said in an interview from Baghdad on Sunday.

The scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which include the Central Intelligence Agency, have now been significantly expanded, the New Yorker article said, citing current and former officials.

Many of these activities are not specified in the new finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature, it said.

Among groups inside Iran benefiting from U.S. support is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People's Resistance Movement, according to former CIA officer Robert Baer. Council on Foreign Relations analyst Vali Nasr described it to Hersh as a vicious organization suspected of links to al Qaeda.

The article said U.S. support for the dissident groups could prompt a violent crackdown by Iran, which could give the Bush administration a reason to intervene.

None of the Democratic leaders in Congress would comment on the finding, the article said. The White House, which has repeatedly denied preparing for military action against Iran, and the CIA also declined comment.

The United States is leading international efforts to rein in Iran's suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, although Washington concedes Iran has the right to develop nuclear power for civilian uses.

abcnews(2007):Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

May 22, 2007 6:29pm

Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/05/bush_authorizes/

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com. The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions. "I can’t confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region. Click Here to See Photos of the Players in Another Iran Operation — the Iran-Contra Affair: Where Are They Now? A National Security Council spokesperson, Gordon Johndroe, said, "The White House does not comment on intelligence matters." A CIA spokesperson said, "As a matter of course, we do not comment on allegations of covert activity." The sources say the CIA developed the covert plan over the last year and received approval from White House officials and other officials in the intelligence community. Officials say the covert plan is designed to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq. "There are some channels where the United States government may want to do things without its hand showing, and legally, therefore, the administration would, if it’s doing that, need an intelligence finding and would need to tell the Congress," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism official. Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran. THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS Blotter Crackdown on the Secret War Against Iran Blotter Pakistan Denounces ABC News Report on Backing Iran Radicals Blotter ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran Click Here to Check Out Brian Ross Slideshows "Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides." The covert action plan comes as U.S. officials have confirmed Iran had dramatically increased its ability to produce nuclear weapons material, at a pace that experts said would give them the ability to build a nuclear bomb in two years. Riedel says economic pressure on Iran may be the most effective tool available to the CIA, particularly in going after secret accounts used to fund the nuclear program. "The kind of dealings that the Iranian Revolution Guards are going to do, in terms of purchasing nuclear and missile components, are likely to be extremely secret, and you’re going to have to work very, very hard to find them, and that’s exactly the kind of thing the CIA’s nonproliferation center and others would be expert at trying to look into," Riedel said. Under the law, the CIA needs an official presidential finding to carry out such covert actions. The CIA is permitted to mount covert "collection" operations without a presidential finding.

"Presidential findings" are kept secret but reported to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other key congressional leaders. Check out the Brian Ross Webcast: More on CIA’s ‘Black’ Operation in Iran The "nonlethal" aspect of the presidential finding means CIA officers may not use deadly force in carrying out the secret operations against Iran. Still, some fear that even a nonlethal covert CIA program carries great risks. "I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran," said Vali Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. "And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow," Nasr said. Other "lethal" findings have authorized CIA covert actions against al Qaeda, terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams. "The entire plan has been blessed by Abrams, in particular," said one intelligence source familiar with the plan. "And Hadley had to put his chop on it." Abrams’ last involvement with attempting to destabilize a foreign government led to criminal charges.

He pleaded guilty in October 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about the Reagan administration’s ill-fated efforts to destabilize the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in Central America, known as the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush in December 1992.

In June 2001, Abrams was named by then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to head the National Security Council’s office for democracy, human rights and international operations. On Feb. 2, 2005, National Security Advisor Hadley appointed Abrams deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy, one of the nation’s most senior national security positions.

As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the United States has supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan "tri-border region."

U.S. officials deny any "direct funding" of Jundullah groups but say the leader of Jundullah was in regular contact with U.S. officials.

American intelligence sources say Jundullah has received money and weapons through the Afghanistan and Pakistan military and Pakistan’s intelligence service. Pakistan has officially denied any connection.

A report broadcast on Iranian TV last Sunday said Iranian authorities had captured 10 men crossing the border with $500,000 in cash along with "maps of sensitive areas" and "modern spy equipment."

A senior Pakistani official told ABCNews.com the 10 men were members of Jundullah. The leader of the Jundullah group, according to the Pakistani official, has been recruiting and training "hundreds of men" for "unspecified missions" across the border in Iran.

tehrantimes:‘Iran should file complaint against U.S. over assassination threat’

‘Iran should file complaint against U.S. over assassination threat’

http://tehrantimes.com/index.php/politics/4052-iran-should-file-complaint-against-us-over-assassination-threat

TEHRAN – MP Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh said on Saturday that Iran should file compliant against the United States with international organizations over the recent remarks by a retired U.S. general and a former CIA agent.

Retired U.S. Army general Jack Keane on Wednesday pointed to claims by the U.S. that Iran had plotted to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington and said, “Why are we permitting the Quds Force leaders who have been organizing this killing of us for 30 years to go around still walking around? Why don’t we kill them? We kill other people who are running terrorist organizations against the United States.”

Former CIA agent Reuel Marc Gerecht also said on Wednesday, “I don’t think that you are going to really intimidate these people, get their attention, unless you shoot somebody.”

Speaking to the Fars News Agency, Falahatpisheh, who is a member of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said that the threats of assassination of top Iranian officials reinforce the speculation that Washington had been involved in the assassinations of Iranian officials in the past.

He went on to say that basically U.S. officials adopt a policy of terrorism toward the countries or movements that are opposed to their approaches.

The lawmaker also said such remarks are not surprising because Iran has already witnessed many U.S.-backed terrorist actions by the White House.