Thursday, September 23, 2004

Turks.US - Turkey's Turkcell signs Iran mobile deal

Turks.US - Turkey's Turkcell signs Iran mobile deal: "Turkey's Turkcell signs Iran mobile deal

Turkey's largest mobile phone operator has signed a contract to build a network in Iran. The deal, which Turkcell announced on Thursday, could be worth as much as $3bn (£1.7bn).

Turkcell, having more than 20 million subscribers only in Turkey, refused to comment beyond a short statement confirming the signing of the deal by Irancell, its 51%-owned subsidiary.

The majority ownership puts it within the reach of the proposed law, which as currently written backdates the parliamentary veto over firms with more than 49% control by foreigners to 20 March this year.

Turkcell has yet to finalise the deal with a 300m euro ($370m; £205m) payment which will put the mobile licence in Irancell's hands."

Ayoon wa Azan (Neo-Con Spies III) (Mossad's Michael Ledeen)

Dar Al Hayat: "Ayoon wa Azan (Neo-Con Spies III)
Jihad Al Khazen Al-Hayat 2004/09/23

I will continue today with the neo-conservatives and their spying for Israel. I have known the neo-cons since Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle used to work for Democratic Senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson. The neo-cons are neither Democrats nor Republicans, but shift from one party to the other for the service of Israel, on the account of America. After the United States was the most popular among Arabs, the constant American question has become today: why do they hate us?

To go back to the spying issue, we would see that Wolfowitz, the companion of Perle and the rest of the Israeli cabal, was not exempt from being subject to investigations. In 1978, he was investigated after being accused of giving documents of an American weapons deal with Saudi Arabia to an Israeli government official, via an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) mediator again and again.

In 1990, after 10 years of working at the State Department in Washington and outside it, Wolfowitz moved to the Department of Defense (DoD) to work as Cheney's (who was Secretary of Defense) Under Secretary for Policy. Two years went by when an investigation started about Israel transmitting to China the technology of American Patriot Missiles. It turned out that Wolfowitz's office was promoting the selling of M-9 Missiles to Israel, in an incident that resembles the attempt of Stephen Bryen to sell Israel spare parts for the Arrow Missile.

Wolfowitz left the DoD during Bill Clinton's term, and kept working for Israel from abroad. In 1998, Wolfowitz was a co-signer of a public letter to the President organized by the "Project for the New American Century." The letter, citing Saddam Hussein's continued possession of "weapons of mass destruction," argued for military action to achieve regime change and demilitarization of Iraq.

Clinton was too intelligent to be fooled, but the neo-cons pushed the Bush administration into an unjustified war that killed American youth for the protection of Israel, despite the fact that Iraq never presented a real threat to the security of Israel. When the terrorism of 9/11 occurred, it was first believed that 10,000 people were killed; nevertheless, on the second day after the terrorism of Al-Qaeda, Wolfowitz did not ask about the blood of the innocent victims, and his first suggestion was to attack Iraq.

My study will not be complete without talking about Michael Ledeen, one of the most dangerous neo-con preachers, and the defender of Sharon's Nazi government.

In 1983, on the recommendation of Richard Perle, Ledeen was hired at the
DoD as Consultant on Terrorism. His immediate supervisor was the Principle Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs, Noel Koch. Early in their work together, Koch noticed with concern Ledeen's habit of stopping by in his (Koch's) outer office to read classified materials. When the two of them took a trip to Italy, Koch learned from the CIA station there that when Ledeen had lived in Rome previously, as correspondent for The New Republic, he was carried in Agency files as an agent of influence of a foreign government: Israel. Some time after their return from the trip, Ledeen approached his boss with a request for his assistance in obtaining two highly classified CIA reports which he said were held by the FBI. He had hand written on a piece of paper the identifying "alpha numeric designators". These identifiers were as highly classified as the reports themselves, which raised in Koch's mind the question of who had provided them to Ledeen if he did not have the clearances to obtain them himself.

When Ledeen moved to work as a consultant for the National Security Council (NSC), Koch warned the FBI about his record of spying for Israel, without being accused, despite the fact that in early 1986, the Justice Department was in fact already engaged in several on-going, concurrent investigations of Israeli espionage and theft of American military technology. It seems that all high-ranking officials doubted Ledeen's behaviors; in 1985, National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane banned him from accessing operational information about the crisis with Iran; also, Secretary of State George Shultz asked for stopping Ledeen's offer for intelligence cooperation with Israel, as he found that Israel's agenda differs from that of American. On the same year, he decreased Ledeen's security authorization, in order to ban him from seeing top secret documents. On 16 January, 1986, staff member Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North recommended to the new head of the NSC John Poindexter that Ledeen be asked to take periodic polygraph examinations.

Ledeen clearly collapsed during the scandal of Iran-Contra, but I find his political ideas to be more dangerous than his direct work for Israel. After one month of the war on Iraq, he asked for launching a war on Iran. He wrote on April 30, 2003 an article for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), where he uncovered himself by saying "It is time to focus on Iran, the mother of modern terrorism... The time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon," meaning it is time for America to launch a war on these countries, for the service of Israel.

Did the reader notice that what Ledeen wrote 18 months ago, is the issue of the moment for the U.S. administration, or the Israeli cabal within and around the administration? Throughout the 1990s, Ledeen wrote inciting to war against Iraq; he is now writing in demand of a war against Iran, and later Syria. He said in the Toronto Globe and Mail last year: nobody I know wants a war on Iran or Syria, but I think that we must defend ourselves.

I will stop here to say that Ledeen is defending the Israeli crimes, a thing that makes of him a partner in them; he also covers up for the Israeli daily terrorism, and talks about the terrorism of others instead. It is certain that the extension for President Emile Lahoud, the Syrian role in it, and the resolution of the Security Council, would provide a new substance for the likes of Ledeen, in order to ask for war on every country they see as a security threat on Israel; knowing that Iraq was just a beginning for them. This was one of the reasons for my objection to the extension for President Emile Lahoud, as this represented a weapon for the most dangerous enemy, to use against Syria and Lebanon. However, this is another issue, as I only ask the Syrian officials to be extremely cautious, as every extremist stance taken by the neo-cons, eventually becomes a policy for Dubya' s administration. I continue tomorrow."

Nixon's letter to er... JFK - SEPT 24, 2004

Nixon's letter to er... JFK - SEPT 24, 2004: "Nixon's letter to er... JFK
TO: President-elect John Forbes Kerry
FROM: Richard Nixon (deceased)
DATE: Nov 3, 2004
RE: JFK, beware the ghost of RN

Mr President-elect,

History may not repeat itself exactly, but it has a nasty habit of rhyming.

You first burst on the national scene in 1971 when you returned from Vietnam as a war protester. 'How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake,' you famously asked in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I was president then.

But guess what, you are now the Democrats' Dick Nixon. Just as I inherited a war initiated by my predecessor, Lyndon Johnson, you have inherited one initiated by yours, Mr George W. Bush. Just as Lyndon's Vietnam became my albatross, so too will George's Iraq become yours. 'How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?' Well, Mr President-elect JFK, you are about to find out how it felt to be RN.

There are only two options before you: One, you can say Iraq is a distraction from the war on terrorism, wash your hands off George Bush's war and withdraw from Iraq.

Or two, you can try to beef up United States forces in the country, plead with or threaten allies and friends to contribute forces, wage a bitter urban war to flush out jihadists holed up in towns and cities across the Sunni triangle, and leave only after you have stabilised the country.

As tempting as it might be to adopt the first option, you can't. I couldn't withdraw from Vietnam and neither can you from Iraq. In fact, you are probably in a worse position than I ever was in Vietnam. For one thing, there is no entity on the other side with whom you can negotiate a face-saving 'peace treaty' before you begin scuttling out of the country. There is no Vietcong or North Vietnam in Iraq, and no Soviet Union or China before which you can dangle carrots, as I did, to entice them to rein in a client state.

For another, failure in Iraq will have far worse consequences than failure in Vietnam did. Firstly, when the US abandoned South Vietnam, there was a viable state to inherit it - North Vietnam. If the US abandons Iraq, there will be no state to inherit the mess, only a terrifying vacuum. Imagine Taleban-run Afghanistan - but a hundred times worse.

Secondly, the dominoes didn't fall after Saigon fell, but they most certainly will if you bug out from Baghdad. My friend, Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, once told me South-east Asian dominoes might well have fallen if the US had not taken a stand in Vietnam in the early 1960s. Our presence bought Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia valuable time, and they became strong enough to stand on their own by the time we left Vietnam ignominiously. The US debacle in Vietnam was containable because Asean was no longer a basket case by 1975.

A US debacle in Iraq will not be containable because the Middle East in 2004 is worse than a basket case, it is a seething cauldron of religious fervour. An Iraq riven by civil war - with Shi'ite and Sunni Arabs butchering each other and both butchering the non-Arab Kurds - is a scary enough possibility, but it is not the scariest. Scarier still is a nuclear-armed Iran gobbling up oil-rich southern Iraq (with its Shi'ite majority), and Turkey gobbling up oil-rich northern Iraq (with its Kurdish majority). And scarier yet is Sunni Iraq, or all of Iraq, becoming a base camp for Terrorist Internationale.

You can be sure the dominoes will totter then - and not just in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and the Greater Middle East. The dominoes will totter in Western Europe, too, with its sizeable Muslim minorities, as well as in South Asia and South-east Asia.

America is bound to be attacked again too, and this time not by planes flying into buildings but with dirty bombs set off in downtown Manhattan or vials of anthrax sprinkled across the Washington Mall. 'How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?' I'm afraid you must. Unlike Vietnam, this is a mistake that cannot be contained and will continue spawning new horrors unless it is fixed.

Which brings me to Option Two: Forget about bringing the troops home soon. Instead, you've got to send more there. Forget about being the most popular American in Europe. Tell them to haul their asses to Iraq fast, or the US will rethink its commitments to Nato. You have no alternative but to finish the job that George botched, and perhaps should not have embarked on in the first place.

If you succeed, the Democrats will finally be trusted again on defence. If you don't, you guys will be out of the White House for another generation.

Come to think of it, it might have been better for Democrats in the long run if you had lost. Bush's war would have remained Bush's war then, and the Republicans would have been saddled with the consequences of his policies on everything from taxes to the war.

But you asked for this. JFK has now no alternative but to metamorphose into his eternal opposite, RN."

Bombs or bribes no answer to Iran nuke threat - SEPT 24, 2004

Bombs or bribes no answer to Iran nuke threat - SEPT 24, 2004: "Bombs or bribes no answer to Iran nuke threat
By Henry Sokolski

LAST weekend, the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency called on Teheran to freeze its efforts to produce nuclear fuel, since this will enable Iran to come within days of having a nuclear arsenal. On Wednesday, however, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said the world must recognise Iran's right to enrich uranium to fuel its power stations.

Iran says 'no' to nuke freeze: President Khatami says world must recognise Iran's right to enrich uranium to fuel its power stations despite calls by the United nations for a freeze. -- REUTERS
At stake is the future of any hope of keeping the Middle East from following Iran's nuclear example.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Iran's nuclear ambition, everyone, both hawks and doves, Europeans and Americans, still believes there is some way to keep Iran from coming within a few weeks of having a nuclear bomb. Iran, however, is no more than 12 to 36 months from acquiring nuclear arms and seems dead set on securing an option to do so.

Still, most experts don't perceive the urgency. President George W. Bush's detractors insist that by simply dealing directly with Teheran, the United States can resolve it by offering it a reliable supply of fresh reactor fuel in exchange for a pledge to refrain from making its own (and thereby coming within days of making a bomb). Never mind Iran's defiance of a year-old nuclear enrichment freeze agreement that has humiliated Britain, France and Germany. A new US president, according to Mr Bush's opponents, can reverse these trends.

White House officials, meanwhile, insist Iran, having repeatedly violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), should be hauled before the Security Council to make sure it doesn't get the bomb. Judging from the Security Council's inability to ensure Saddam Hussein's compliance with international weapons inspections, one can't be too hopeful.

This, then, gives rise to the hawkish solution: bombing (with or without UN approval). Israeli or US attack on Iran's nuclear plants, this group insists, is the only hope. This will at least delay its programme a few years. However, lasting results will require overthrowing the current regime - an endeavour still under way in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If there is no sure way to stop Iran, what should the international community do? The answer: Tackle the most worrisome preventable problems. This would clearly exclude getting Iran to keep its nuclear materials and capabilities out of the hands of terrorists. This scenario is not only unlikely (Teheran's mullahs are unlikely to allow it), but clearly beyond the scope of international powers.

What, then, deserves greater attention? The one thing even worse than a nuclear-ready Iran: an entire Middle East cast in Iran's nuclear mould. Earlier this year, senior Saudi officials announced their interest in acquiring or 'leasing' nuclear weapons from China or Pakistan - a legal move under the NPT, so long as the weapons remain under Chinese or Pakistani 'control'. Egypt, having revealed plans to develop a large nuclear desalination plant, also recently received sensitive nuclear technology from Libya. Syria, meanwhile, is believed to be experimenting with uranium enrichment centrifuges. Algeria is in the midst of upgrading its second large research reactor facility.

If these states continue to pursue their nuclear dreams (spurred by Iran's example), can Iraq, with its considerable number of nuclear scientists and engineers, be expected to stand by? And what of Turkey, whose private sector was recently revealed to be part of Pakistani proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan's network? Will nuclear agitation in its south and its repeated rejection by the European Union cause Turkey to reconsider its non-nuclear status? What can be done?

First, the international community must challenge Iran's claim that its nuclear activities are peaceful and protected under the NPT. No nation that sits on as much oil and gas as Iran has a legitimate need to generate nuclear electricity. Consider: Had Iran openly solicited proposals to provide electrical generating capacity, all the non-nuclear bids would have come in at a fraction of the cost of building nuclear power reactors and fuel production plants.

Second, the US and its allies should build on France's recent proposal that the UN Security Council adopt country-neutral rules for dealing with NPT violators. These rules should stipulate that countries which reject inspections and withdraw from the NPT (something Iran has threatened to do) without first addressing their previous violations must surrender and dismantle their nuclear capabilities (especially large research and power reactors and bulk handling facilities) to come back into compliance.

They would also stipulate that nations not found to be in full compliance will no longer receive nuclear assistance from any other country (for example, Russian assistance to Iran to complete its reactor at Bushehr, which has been the 'peaceful' justification of Iran's most dangerous nuclear activities) until the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors unanimously issues a clean bill of health.

Surely, if France can support such rules, so can Europe, the US and its allies. If these nations unite, Russia will likely follow, particularly if it receives a reward. (One might start with the cost-free nuclear cooperative agreement Moscow has sought for so many years from the US.)

Finally, the US and its allies need to pace themselves. In the end, the only sure path to non-proliferation is more moderate self-rule and increased arms restraint backed by US and allied military resolve and economic cooperation. Iran's current rulers will have to go. Until then, bombing or bribing Teheran should be put aside in favour of tightening and enforcing the rules to keep others from following Iran's example.

The writer is executive director of the Non-Proliferation Policy Education Centre in Washington, DC. Rights: YaleGlobal Online"

Rare Rug Theft Kicks off Huge Hunt in Iran Persian Journal

Rare Rug Theft Kicks off Huge Hunt in Iran Persian Journal Latest Iran News, news Tehran Iranian News persian news web : "Rare Rug Theft Kicks off Huge Hunt in Iran
Sep 23, 2004, 17:34
Email this article
Printer friendly page

A precious and rare carpet has been stolen from the Iranian Carpet Museum in Tehran, kicking off a massive hunt.
The carpet, measuring 2.03 by 1.24 meters, had been woven in 1928 in the southern province of Kerman and featured an asymmetrical intricate design of a tree.

Made of natural wool, it was considered one of Iran’s historical carpets.

Security officers told CHN that they had found out about the theft on Tuesday, but they are not sure when the carpet was stolen. Iranian police commanders have, meanwhile, asked for help from Interpol and they have adopted security measures to foil any possible plan for smuggling the stolen rug out of the country."