Doc's Talk: Spotlight on Iran

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Spotlight on Iran

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

Highlights of the week

* Following the Geneva talks: conservatives say talks are a “victory”; the government’s opponents emphasize reports on Iran’s willingness to compromise

* Fordo—from a tiny village to a nuclear enrichment facility: the reason for the name selection of the new recently-exposed enrichment facility
*

Ongoing structural changes in the Revolutionary Guards: a new commander chosen for the Basij militia, which has been subjected to the land forces of the Revolutionary Guards
*

What has Khaled Mash’al done to anger the Iranians?
*

Picture of the week: the Supreme Leader on a visit to Mazandaran Province in the north of Iran

Following the Geneva talks: conservatives say talks are a “victory”; the government’s opponents emphasize reports on Iran’s willingness to compromise

Early last week, Iran’s conservative media defined the first round of Iran-G5+1 talks held a week earlier in Geneva as a victory for the Iranian foreign policy. In an editorial published on October 2, the daily Keyhan claimed that the six countries had to recognize Iran’s right to nuclear energy thanks to Iran’s fierce opposition to the terms offered by the Western powers and its refusal to give in to their threats. The Geneva talks, says the article, are proof that Iran is able to move the negotiations into the areas it is interested in despite Western anti-Iranian propaganda. The West was forced to hold talks with Iran without any ability to step up the sanctions or exercise a military option. The economic crisis and recession in the West, coupled with Iran’s major, influential role in the Middle Eastern and global balance of power, forced the West to enter talks with Iran without any preconditions, going as far as to agree that the talks be held on the basis of the package of proposals delivered by Iran last month.

The Geneva talks

Resalat, yet another conservative daily, also claimed the Geneva talks were an achievement for Iran’s foreign policy, saying that, after many years, the West was finally forced to recognize Iran’s power. The Geneva talks reflected the victory of the Iranian behavior model over the Western behavior model. While in recent years the West has adopted a policy based on economic, political, and military threats against Iran, the latter persisted with its nuclear activity while ignoring those threats and adopting a foreign policy based on its Islamic and national values. Tehran is therefore the ultimate winner in the Geneva talks. The secret of Iran’s international position lies in its unswerving adherence to the principles of the Islamic revolution and reliance on its offensive foreign policy (Resalat, October 2).

The pro-government conservative media completely ignored reports which appeared on Western media following the Geneva talks about Iran supposedly agreeing to transfer low-enriched uranium from the new facility recently exposed near Qom for further enrichment and transformation into nuclear fuel in a third country, such as Russia. While Iranian spokesmen denied those reports, those denials appeared mostly on English-language Iranian news websites. Citing Iranian diplomats, the Press TV website and the English edition of Mehr News Agency’s website reported that no agreement had been reached during the Geneva talks about transferring enriched uranium outside of Iran (Press TV; Mehr, October 3).

In an editorial published by the daily Keyhan on Tuesday, October 6, editor-in-chief Hossein Shariatmadari wrote that Western countries, which had earlier objected to the installation of only twenty centrifuges in Iran, agreed to let Iran enrich uranium to five percent and then transfer it to a third country for further enrichment to twenty percent. According to Shariatmadari, Iran has yet to agree to that offer, but even if it does, it would mean that the West backed down from its previous position regarding the suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran, letting Iran enrich uranium to five percent in its territory, which would mean the recognition of Iran as a nuclear state.

In contrast, several reformist websites have emphasized reports on Iran’s willingness to compromise on the issue of uranium enrichment, portraying them as a reflection of Iran’s government backing down from its position. For example, Rah-e Sabz, a website affiliated with the supporters of reformist leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi, cited Western media reports that Iran agreed to transfer uranium for enrichment in a third country. In an article titled “The Geneva talks: Iran backing down, West optimistic”, the website stressed the discrepancy between the reports on pro-government media, saying the Geneva talks were a success and claiming that Iran would never give up its nuclear rights, and Western reports about Iran’s willingness to reach a compromise regarding the enrichment of uranium (Rah-e Sabz, October 2).

Tabnak, a website affiliated with the pragmatic conservative bloc, criticized the pro-government media’s dismissal of reports about Iran’s supposed agreement to compromise on the issue of uranium enrichment. According to Tabnak, that dismissal by senior Iranian officials and by official media has forced the public to rely solely on Western media reports on that issue, allowing Western media and governments to swing Iranian public opinion according to their goals. It is not right, says Tabnak, to deny the Iranian public access to information on foreign policy issues which directly affect their lives while, at the same time, that public is called upon to express support of Iran’s right to nuclear technology (Tabnak, October 3).

Fordo—from a tiny village to a nuclear enrichment facility

Last week, Iranian media provided some details about the small village of Fordo near the city of Qom, which became renowned a week earlier when the nuclear facility named after it was exposed.

The village is situated about 30 miles south of Qom; however, the enrichment facility which, according to Iranian media reports, is located north of Qom, was still named after that village. Several Iranian websites reported that Iran’s authorities had decided to name the enrichment facility “Frodo” not necessarily due to its proximity to the village but rather due to symbolic reasons.

In relative terms, that mountainous village ranked first in the number of casualties during the Iran-Iraq War. According to information published on Iranian websites last week, 151 out of the village’s 1000 residents had died during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). The village name is based on the word Ferdows (Persian for “paradise”) (Alef, October 5).

Even though it is a small village, Fordo has its own website (www.fordo.ir). The well-known slogan appeared last week on the website’s homepage: “Nuclear energy is our indisputable right”.

Nuclear energy is our indisputable right

Ongoing structural changes in the Revolutionary Guards: the Basij militia will be subjected to the land forces of the Revolutionary Guards

Iranian media reported last week that according to instructions issued by Revolutionary Guards chief Mohammad Ali Jafari, the Basij force (the popular volunteer-based militia of the Revolutionary Guards) will be incorporated into the land forces of the Revolutionary Guards. The united wing will be called “The Revolutionary Guards’ Land Resistance Forces”. The decision to incorporate the Basij force into the land force is meant to improve the coordination between the two organizations (various news agencies, October 2).

Incorporating the Basij into the land force of the Revolutionary Guards is yet another step in a series of structural changes undergone by the Revolutionary Guards, implemented by the current Revolutionary Guards chief since he assumed his position in September 2007. Shortly after that, Jafari issued an instruction to subject the Basij directly to the Revolutionary Guards chief. Furthermore, last year Jafari announced the establishment of 31 regional Revolutionary Guards units across Iran in order to improve the Revolutionary Guards’ military capabilities, increase communication and coordination between the Revolutionary Guards land force and the Basij force, and to expand the Revolutionary Guards’ authority in the various provinces.

The structural changes in the Revolutionary Guards are designed to improve Iran’s readiness for a potential American military attack. According to Jafari, who prior to his appointment as the Revolutionary Guards chief served as that organization’s chief of strategic studies, the new organizational structure is intended to improve coordination between the parallel military bodies operating on separate paths, and strengthen the Revolutionary Guards’ ability to cope with outside threats. In the past, Jafari claimed that the Revolutionary Guards must be flexible enough to cope with the threats facing Iran, requiring it to adopt a new strategy and modify the structure of the Revolutionary Guards according to the existing conditions.

The Revolutionary Guards

It should be noted that the Basij force plays a key role in Iran’s defense program, being part of its emergency plan for a potential military attack. Within the context of that plan, the Iranian regime delegates considerable authority to the Basij force, both on the battlefield and in managing the home front in emergency scenarios.

Meanwhile, last week Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei appointed Mohammed Reza Naqdi (see photograph below), who had previously served in various positions in the Revolutionary Guards and in the internal security forces, as the new Basij commander instead of Hossein Taeb, who was appointed the chief of intelligence division in the Revolutionary Guards (Fars, October 4; E’temad, October 3).

Mohammed Reza Naqdi

What has Khaled Mash’al done to anger the Iranians?

The speech given by Hamas Political Bureau chief Khaled Mash’al in Damascus last Friday on the occasion of the anniversary of the conquest of Jerusalem by Saladin triggered angry reactions by some of Iran’s media, after Mash’al used the term “Arab Gulf” to refer to the Persian Gulf.

Iranian media quoted Mash’al saying that he hoped all Muslim countries “from North Africa, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Arab Gulf, Iran, Indonesia, to Malaysia” would form one line to face the enemy. The headline chosen by reformist website Fararo for the report on Mash’al speech was “Khaled Mash’al repays Iran for its love” (Fararo, October 3).

Qodratollah Alikhani, a member of the Majles National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, also strongly criticized Mash’al’s statement, saying that Iran expected the Hamas Political Bureau chief to reconsider his position and to avoid using the term “Arab Gulf” in his speeches and declarations. The world’s key personalities should know, Alikhani said, that Iran’s people and authorities are extremely sensitive about the Persian Gulf (Ayandeh, October 5).

It should be noted that the name of the Persian Gulf has been a bone of contention between Iran and the Arabs since the 1950s, with Iran taking an aggressive stance against anyone in the Arab world and on the international scene making use of the term “Arab Gulf”. In recent years Iran has been waging a media campaign against the use of that term, including boycotting international organizations and publications making use of it, Google bombing (attempting to influence a website’s ranking in the search results) the term “Persian Gulf”, and even hacking various websites which employ the term “Arab Gulf”.

Persian Gulf

Several months ago, a crisis broke out between Iran and the Islamic Solidarity Games, which were supposed to be held in Tehran in October, after Iran refused to comply with Saudi Arabia’s demand to remove the name “Persian Gulf” from all the medals and flyers to be distributed in the games. During the crisis, Iranian news websites claimed that the term “Persian Gulf” was used by the world’s nations for over 2500 years and that there was no reason for Arab countries to use the distorted term “Arab Gulf”, which appeared in the time of former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser as part of his struggle against the Persian Shah in the 1950s and 1960s.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk