Justice for All

The Motto of the Theology State in Iran

The Motto of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), it is better to be feared than to be loved. The IRI is using Iron Fist by utilizing Machiavelli doctrine of Fear, Fraud and Force to rule Iran.

Think Independently, and freely because you are a free person.




Thursday, April 26, 2007

Beating Freedom of Speech

April 25, 2007On Thursday, April 12, a gang of Somali thugs on a downtown Oslo street attacked Kadra, a Somali woman who now lives in Norway, and beat her senseless, breaking several of her ribs. They were enraged at her for her recent statement that the Qur’an’s views of women needed reevaluation. They also might have been angry because of her role in revealing the widespread support among imams in Norway for female genital mutilation; Kadra exposed their support for this horrific procedure using a hidden camera in a 2000 documentary for Norwegian television.

As they beat her, Kadra’s attackers shouted Allahu akbar – Allah is great – and recited verses from the Qur’an. “I was terrified,” she said. “While I lay on the pavement they kicked me and screamed that I had trampled on the Koran.”

The following Tuesday, two men in Mississauga, Ontario, attacked journalist Jawaad Faizi, who writes for the Pakistan Post, a newspaper based in Mississauga. The attackers told Faizi to stop “writing against Islam,” and particularly to stop criticizing an Islamic organization, Idara Minhaj-ul-Quran, and its leader, a Muslim cleric named Allama Tahir-Ul-Qadri.

Faizi, a native of Lahore, Pakistan, said, “I had so many problems back home as a journalist, but I’m shocked that this is happening here.”

Of course, “writing against Islam,” or being perceived as having done so, has always been dangerous, as Salman Rushdie and many others can attest. The New York Times reported in 2002 that a professor at the University of Nablus in the West Bank, Suliman Bashear, who “argued that Islam developed as a religion gradually rather than emerging fully formed from the mouth of the Prophet,” was for this novel and, from the point of view of traditional Islam, heretical teaching, thrown out of a second-story window by his students. In 1947, the Iranian lawyer Ahmad Kasravi was murdered in court by Islamic radicals; Kasravi was there to defend himself against charges that he had attacked Islam. Four years later, members of the same radical Muslim group, Fadayan-e Islam, assassinated Iranian Prime Minister Haji-Ali Razmara after a group of Muslim clerics issued a fatwa calling for his death. In 1992, the Egyptian writer Faraj Foda was murdered by Muslims enraged at his “apostasy” from Islam — another offense for which traditional Islamic law prescribes the death penalty. Foda’s countryman, the Nobel Prizewinning novelist Naguib Mahfouz, was stabbed in 1994 after accusations of blasphemy. Under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, many non-Muslims have been arrested, tortured, and sentenced to die on the slimmest of evidence.

But for such things to happen in Iran and Egypt, two countries where Islamic radicalism is widespread, is one thing; to have them happen in Oslo and Mississauga, Ontario is quite another. But this kind of thing has happened before in the West. On November 2, 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam when Mohammed Bouyeri, a Muslim wearing traditional Islamic clothing, began shooting at him. After Van Gogh fell off his bike, Bouyeri ran up to him and began slitting his throat, attempting to behead him. In his agony, van Gogh pleaded with his killer, “Can’t we talk about this?” Bouyeri replied by stabbing van Gogh repeatedly and leaving a note on a knife stabbed into the body. The note contained verses from the Qur’an and threats to other Dutch public figures who opposed the flood of Muslim immigrants into the Netherlands.

Bouyeri killed van Gogh because of the filmmaker’s twelve-minute video Submission, which had aired on Dutch TV a few weeks before the murder. A collaboration between van Gogh and the Somali ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was then a member of the Dutch Parliament, Submission decried the mistreatment of Muslim women — and even featured images of battered women wearing see-through robes that exposed their breasts, with verses from the Qur’an written on their bodies.

At his trial, Bouyeri was unrepentant -- and absolutely clear about why he murdered van Gogh. “I did what I did purely out my beliefs,” he explained, Qur’an in hand. “I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted….If I ever get free, I would do it again.” He was, he said, acting in accord with Islamic law: “What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet.”

The attacks on Kadra and Faizi show that there are many others in the West today who believe that they must likewise act upon Allah’s commands and victimize those whom they deem to have offended Islam.

This is a challenge to all Western governments, for it is a challenge to the freedom of speech that is rooted in the constitutions and laws of Western states, and ultimately is intimately connected with the freedom of conscience and the Judeo-Christian view of the dignity of the human being before God. Western leaders should move now to make it abundantly clear that attacks on “blasphemers” and “heretics” will not be tolerated; that those who believe that Sharia should be the highest law of the land are not welcome here; and that the West will defend our Judeo-Christian culture and heritage.

Otherwise, only one thing is certain: there will be many, many more such attacks.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Dr. Richard N. Frye

Dear readers:

The below is a weblink to one American Scholar in field of Iran. Kindly click on below weblink.

Sepas/Thank you.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2107592064891647273

Islam and the Presidency in Turkey

By ANDREW PURVIS

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul speaks in front of a giant Turkish flag in Ankara, Turkey April 25, 2007.

In Turkey, the choosing of a president is rarely the dramatic affair that it is in the United States. Turkey's president isn't even directly elected by the voters — he or she is chosen by the elected parliament — and the office carries limited powers. Still, the president does have the power to veto legislation, and is also considered an important symbol of the Turkish state. That's why the nomination for president this week by Turkey's ruling party of the country's Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, has reopened fierce debates about the place of Islam in the ferociously secular Turkish state.
Gul, 54, is an affable moderate and one of friendliest faces of the political party that has dominated Turkey's parliament for the past five years. But like most senior officials of his Justice and Development Party, or AKP, his roots are in an Islamic grouping that was banned in Turkey in the 1990s. His Arabic is better than his English, as secular Turks like to point out. And his wife wears a traditional Islamic headscarf. (In fact, she petitioned the European Court of Human Rights to declare unconstitutional Turkey's law banning headscarves in public buildings, although she later dropped the case.) If her husband is confirmed, Mrs. Gul would be the only Turkish First Lady ever to cover her hair in this way. By contrast, the incumbent, President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, a former judge and staunch secularist, has routinely wielded his veto to block AKP initiatives he deemed too Islamist.
Gul's election — parliament is to vote for a president in the coming weeks — would also give the ruling AKP control of Turkey's three top political posts: the Presidency, the Prime Minister's office and the Speaker of the Parliament. (In parliamentary elections later this year , the AKP is expected to be returned to power, albeit with a reduced mandate). The election to all three top positions of officials who "come from the same Islamic-rooted tree," writes columnist Metin Munir in the leading secularist daily Milliyet, augurs "the end of Turkey as we know it. "Turkey, he warned, is about to enter "a period of Islamicizing and conservatism: It is hard to tell where it will end."
Such fears may be exaggerated, however, since Turkey's institutions have potent safeguards against the introduction of political Islam. And the powerful Turkish military, self-appointed guardians of the secularist state, stands ready to intervene should those safeguards be breached. (It did so a decade ago by removing Gul's former party from government.) The AKP has so far been reluctant to introduce any changes that might provoke the wrath of the generals. At a rare press conference prior to this week's nomination of Gul, the hawkish army chief Yasar Buyukanit warned that a Turkish President must have secular values, "not only in words, but in essence."
The secularist backlash has already made itself felt: Gul is his party's second choice for president; for several months it has been assumed that the AKP's nomination would go to current Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose Islamist roots are more pronounced than Gul's, and who is widely distrusted by the Turkish military and secular establishment. At a huge secularist rally last weekend in Ankara, at least 300,000 people turned out to oppose Erdogan's candidacy, some saying they would prefer military rule to him being president. The AKP appears to have noted the warning.
Gul's selection removes a key institutional check on his party's agenda, which is likely to increase friction with the military. The choice also represents a broader shift in political power away from the secularist elite in Turkey's coastal cities and towards the conservative Islamic heartland. Gul himself hails from Central Anatolia, the Turkish equivalent of America's Bible Belt. His party's ascendance over the past five years poses a clear challenge not only to the military, but to Turkey's old secular establishment. It's a challenge based on a democratic mandate from the electorate. But in a country where the military retains an implicit veto over the actions of the democratically elected politicians, it remains to be seen how far the balance will be tipped.

The Iranian Clerics Assets in Canada

Dear Honorable Peter MacKay:

On Wednesday April 25th, 2007 BBC reported that “on Monday, the EU agreed a total arms embargo, and added further people to the travel ban list - they are banned from the EU and their assets are frozen”[1]. I would like to know like any other Canadian citizen in Canada , has Canada freeze the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Rafsanjani’s assets in Canada ?
Last, in past, I asked Honorable Peter MacKay please update Canadians on matter of Dr. Ramin JAHANBEGLOO’s fate, and still waiting for response from Honorable Peter MacKay.
Thank you,
Kind regards

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6590899.stm

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Anti-terror raids net 6 suspects

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British anti-terror police backed by local authorities arrested six people Tuesday in a series of raids, the Metropolitan Police said in a statement.
The suspects were arrested "in connection with inciting others to commit acts of terrorism overseas and terrorist fund raising."
"The men were arrested this morning by officers from the Met's Counter Terrorism Command, supported by local officers, at five addresses in London and one in Luton," the statement said.
Luton is located north of London. All six were arrested under Britain's Terrorism Act and are being held at a central London police station, according to Scotland Yard.
Police said searches are being carried out at a number of locations.
"The arrests form part of a long-term pro-active and complex investigation into alleged incitement and radicalization for the purposes of terrorism, as well as alleged provision of financial support for international terrorism," the statement said.

Street Justice is Legal in Iran


Group cleared over Iran murders
By Frances Harrison BBC News, Tehran
Iran's Supreme Court has acquitted a group of men charged over a series of gruesome killings in 2002, according to lawyers for the victims' families.
The vigilantes were not guilty because their victims were involved in un-Islamic activities, the court found.
The killers said they believed Islam let them spill the blood of anyone engaged in illicit activities if they issued two warnings to the victims.
The serial killings took place in 2002 in the south-eastern city of Kerman.
'Morally corrupt'
The case raises serious questions about vigilantes in Iran taking justice into their own hands and undermining the rule of law.
Up to 18 people were killed in just one year, but only five of the murders were tried in court.
According to their confessions, the killers put some of their victims in pits and stoned them to death. Others were suffocated. One man was even buried alive while others had their bodies dumped in the desert to be eaten by wild animals.
The accused, who were all members of an Islamic paramilitary force, told the court their understanding of the teachings of one Islamic cleric allowed them to kill immoral people if they had ignored two warnings to stop their bad behaviour.
But there was no judicial process to determine the guilt of the victims in these cases.
The group even killed a young couple they thought were involved in sex outside marriage, but media reports say the couple were either married or engaged to be married.
Lawyers for the victims' families say the Supreme Court has five times overturned the verdict of a lower court that found all the men guilty of murder.
Now the Supreme Court is reported to have acquitted all the killers of the charge of murder on the grounds that their victims were all morally corrupt.
Some of the group may, however, face prison sentences or have to pay financial compensation to their victims' families.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6557679.stmPublished: 2007/04/15 16:16:54 GMT© BBC MMVII

Thursday, April 19, 2007

West was defeated to the IRI, despite UN confirmation that the IRI is in progress of nuclear proliferation

Article One:
April 19, 2007, 5:13PMReid: U.S. can't win the war in Iraq

By ANNE FLAHERTY Associated Press Writer © 2007 The Associated Press
TOOLS

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is "lost," triggering an angry backlash by Republicans who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops.

The bleak assessment was the sharpest yet from Reid, who has vowed to send President Bush legislation calling for combat to end next year. Reid said he told Bush on Wednesday that he thought the war could not be won through military force and only through political, economic and diplomatic means.
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.
Republicans pounced on the comment as evidence, they said, that Democrats do not support the troops.
"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
The exchange came as the House headed toward a vote Thursday on whether to demand that troops leave Iraq next year. Last month, the House passed legislation that funded the war in Iraq but ordered combat missions to end by September 2008. The Senate passed similar, less-sweeping legislation that would set a nonbinding goal of bringing combat troops home by March 31, 2008.
Bush said he would veto either measure and warned that troops are being harmed by Congress' failure to deliver the funds quickly.
The Pentagon says it has enough money to pay for the Iraq war through June. The Army is taking "prudent measures" aimed at ensuring that delays in the bill financing the war do not harm troop readiness, according to instructions sent to Army commanders and budget officials April 14.
While $70 billion that Congress provided in September for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has mostly run out, the Army has told department officials to slow the purchase of nonessential repair parts and other supplies, restrict the use of government charge cards, and limit travel.
The Army also will delay contracts for facilities repair and environmental restoration, according to instructions from Army Comptroller Nelson Ford. He said the accounting moves are similar to those enacted last year when the Republican-led Congress did not deliver a war funding bill to Bush until mid-June.
More stringent steps would be taken in May, such as a hiring freeze and firing temporary employees, but exceptions are made for any war-related activities or anything that "would result immediately in the degradation of readiness standards" for troops in Iraq or those slated for deployment.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino called the Democrat's stance "disturbing" and all but dared Reid to cut off funding for the war.
"If this is his true feeling, then it makes one wonder if he has the courage of his convictions and therefore will decide to defund the war," she said.
Reid has left that possibility open. The majority leader supports separate legislation that would cut off funding for combat missions after March 2008. The proposal would allow money spent on
such efforts as counterterrorism efforts and training Iraqi security forces.
Reid and other Democrats were initially reluctant to discuss such draconian measures to end the war, but no longer.
"I'm not sure much is impossible legislatively," Reid said Thursday. "The American people have indicated . . . that they are fed up with what's going on."
___
Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this report.
Article Two:
US: Iranians Aid Iraqi Sunni Car Bombers
By Al Pessin Pentagon19 April 2007

A senior U.S. military officer says a renewed effort to break suicide bomb networks in Iraq has led, at least in part, to Iranian intelligence services. The statement came at the Pentagon Thursday, as U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was visiting Baghdad on the day on a day of continued bombings, after a particularly deadly series of bombings Wednesday. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.
At a Pentagon briefing, Major General Michael Barbero said Iran shares the goals of the Sunni insurgents, to destabilize Iraq and tie down U.S. forces. He said that appears to be the reason Iran is now helping the Sunni groups, as well as Shi'ite extremists.
Major General Michael Barbero"We are seeing some aid from the Iranian intelligence services to the Sunni insurgents," he said. "Detainees in American custody have indicated that Iranian intelligence operatives have given support to Sunni insurgents. And then we've discovered some munitions in Baghdad neighborhoods which are largely Sunni that were manufactured in Iran."
General Barbero, who is on the senior military staff, says U.S. forces have been focusing for some time on the networks that send out suicide bombers with huge bombs in their cars and trucks, such as those who struck Wednesday killing, according to the U.S. military, 150 Iraqi civilians. The U.S. military calls the large bombs, which mostly target Shi'ite neighborhoods Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIED).
"We've had a renewed focus on what we call 'the accelerants' for sectarian violence," he added. "And we've had success, some success with the extra-judicial killings. The murder rates are down. We've had some success with these VBIED networks. So it is a priority. And it has been a focus since before the start of this operation."
On Wednesday, Admiral William Fallon, the U.S. military officer commanding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, called the vehicle bombs the most important issue for his forces to address because their aim is to foment sectarian violence.
The bombings continued Thursday, with at least 12 people reported killed in one incident in Baghdad, less than a kilometer from the home of Iraq's president. Two Iraqi soldiers were among the dead, and coalition military officials reported two British soldiers were killed in a bombing in southern Iraq.
In a speech, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the insurgents are "targeting humanity," and that his government is engaged in what he called "an open battle…for the sake of the nation, dignity, honor and the people."
Also on Thursday, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said the Wednesday bombings were a setback that came just as he thought the new Baghdad Security Plan was starting to take hold.
Lt. Gen. David Petraeus"A day like that can have a real psychological impact," said General Petraeus. "And it came at a time where, frankly, [Lieutenant] General [Ray] Odierno [his deputy] and I, and a lot of the other leaders in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, have felt that we were getting a bit of traction. You know it's very, it's almost imperceptible at times, but that there was slow progress with the Baghdad security plan and in some other parts of the country as well."
General Petraeus said Iraqi and coalition leaders are taking action to respond to the challenge posed by the recent series of large-scale bombings.
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates in suit at Camp Falluja, IraqThe general spoke during a visit by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and some of the top U.S. military officers. Secretary Gates says he will press Iraqi leaders to make faster progress on reconciliation between the Sunni and Shi'ite communities, which U.S. officials believe is the key to long-term stability in Iraq.
At the Pentagon briefing, General Barbero said there has been some success in easing some types of violence in recent weeks, including a drop in sectarian murders and in the overall number of attacks on civilians in Baghdad and elsewhere. But he said those successes, like the continuing bombings, are just part of the story.
"We have to take a longer term view of this and not take a successful day and blow that out of proportion or take one of these tragic days like we had yesterday [Wednesday] and extrapolate that into a trend," said General Barbero.
In Iraq, General Petraeus said all the U.S. troops involved in the current surge of forces will not be in place until mid-June, and it will take some time after that to see the full impact of the security plan. Secretary Gates said how long the higher number of troops will stay will depend on progress in the security and political efforts.
Article Three:

Iran ‘months’ away from next nuclear phase
By Daniel Dombey in Brussels

Published: April 19 2007 09:48 Last updated: April 19 2007 16:45
Iran is a “matter of months” away from completing the next phase of its nuclear programme, diplomats said on Thursday, in response to a leaked letter from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog.
The letter, written by Olli Heinonen, IAEA deputy director general, indicates that Iran has installed up to 1,312 centrifuges at a facility in Natanz and is using them to enrich uranium - a process that could produce both nuclear fuel and weapons grade material.
“This certainly demonstrates complete defiance of the United Nations Security Council,” said a western diplomat, referring to a series of Security Council resolutions demanding that Tehran cease uranium enrichment. “It shows they are going full speed ahead.”
Iran, which insists its purposes are peaceful, is currently proceeding with plans to install 3,000 centrifuges – which in theory could produce enough uranium for a weapon within a year. But in practice, it could take many times that long to produce enough weapons material, and it would take still longer to engineer a bomb.
In February, Tehran told the IAEA that it had installed the first two 164-centrifuge “cascades” of the system and had nearly completed another two.
Mr Heinonen’s letter, dated April 18, said that Tehran had now installed eight cascades and had begun putting feedstock into them. Diplomats estimated this meant that Iran could expect to install all 3,000 centrifuges in “a matter of months” – in another three or four months.
In February, Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA director general, told the Financial Times that Tehran could install 3,000 centrifuges in six months to a year from that time.
“Where they are now is where you would expect them to be now in installing these machines, but it still leaves significant questions to what the capability is,” said a European official. “We don’t know how many machines they actually have and we don’t know how well they’re operating.”
Diplomats added that Mr Heinonen’s letter was partly intended to inform IAEA governments of the true status of Iran’s programme in the wake of claims last week by Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s president, that the country had reached “industrial” capacity. The letter also censured Tehran for limiting IAEA access to its facilities.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

CAIR’s Grievance Theater, the Flying Imams and 9/11

By Patrick PooleFrontPageMagazine.com April 18, 2007It’s a tale of two Novembers with the horror of September 11th sandwiched in between.

In November 2006, six imams on a US Airways Minneapolis to Phoenix flight begin engaging in bizarre behaviors eerily similar to those used by the 9/11 hijackers to takeover the planes used on that terrible day: shouting slogans in Arabic; leaving assigned seats to position themselves much like the 9/11 attackers; requesting seat belt extenders that they positioned on the floor, rather than used to secure themselves. Responding to the reasonable concerns of passengers and the flight crew, the imams were removed from the plane by authorities.

Seven years earlier in November 1999, two Saudi students on an America West flight from Phoenix to Columbus were detained after landing because they had made repeated attempts to enter the cockpit area of the plane during the flight.

In both cases, CAIR rose up to defend the offenders in question and engaged in their now standard grievance theater protest politics. In the most recent case, CAIR has tried to capitalize on the publicity surrounding the incident by backing the "Flying Imams" and supporting their lawsuit against the airlines and passengers for responding to their bizarre behavior. The lawsuit is being handled by a Muslim attorney associated with CAIR.

When it comes to the November 1999 incident, any mention of CAIR’s involvement or defense of the Saudi students has been scrubbed from the organization’s website. It’s no wonder, as the 9/11 Commission Report (page 521, footnote 60) explains that the FBI now considers the incident as a “dry run” for the 9/11 hijackings. And the two men involved? As the 9/11 Commission Report explains, Hamdan al-Shalawi was in Afghanistan in November 2000 training at an Al-Qaeda camp to launch “Khobar Tower”-type attacks against the US in Saudi Arabia, and Mohammad Al-Qadhaieen was arrested in June 2003 as a material witness in the 9/11 attacks. Both men were friends of Al-Qaeda recruiter, Zakaria Mustapha Soubra, who drove them to the airport that day in Qadhaieen’s car. Another friend of Shalawi is Ghassan al-Sharbi, another Al-Qaeda operative that would later be captured in Pakistan with high-level Al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida.

There is a connection between these two incidents, as the leader of the six “Flying Imams” this past November is none other than Omar Shahin, the former imam of the Islamic Center of Tucson, where the two Saudi students from the November 1999 incident attended. Counterterrorism expert Rita Katz told the Washington Post in September 2002 that the mosque served as “basically the first cell of Al-Qaeda in the United States; that is where it all started”. (Len Sherman’s Arizona Monthly November 2004 article, “Al Qaeda among Us”, provides greater detail about the connections between the Saudi pair involved in the November 1999 event and the Al-Qaeda cell that operated in Tucson and Phoenix.)

Their current silence and website purge notwithstanding, immediately after the November 1999 “dry run”, CAIR was not shy about publicly speaking on the incident. “It seems like they single out some individuals because of their name, the way they look or their national origin,” huffed current CAIR National Vice Chairman Ahmad Al-Akhras (who was then president of the CAIR Ohio chapter) in an interview with the Egyptian daily, Al-Ahram. That same article quoted Nihad Awad, Executive Director and Co-Founder of CAIR, who explained, “the hysteria around [the crash of] EgyptAir [Flight 990] has created a negative atmosphere that leads to such incidents.”

CAIR not only gave indirect support to the 9/11 “dry run” hijackers by launching an aggressive media defense and circulating their woeful tale of innocents victimized by the bigotry of non-Muslims, but as Katherine Kersten of the Minneapolis Star Tribune reminds us, in 2000 CAIR fronted a lawsuit for Shalawi and Qadhaieen against America West by hiring attorneys and calling for a boycott of the airline as a result of the incident. Again, two identical events eight years apart with CAIR playing the exact same role.

CAIR was unsuccessful in the lawsuit stemming from the November 1999 9/11 “dry run”, as the judge quickly dismissed the case, but they did succeed in creating an atmosphere of intimidation that was certainly aimed at stopping airline passengers from speaking up about suspicious behavior. Did CAIR’s campaign of intimidation silence any of the passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, or United Airlines Flight 93 who might have witnessed suspicious behavior of the 9/11 hijackers that day? Since all the passengers of those flights were silenced forever, we will never know.

But the horrific consequences of their previous defense of the 9/11 “dry run” has not prevented CAIR from using the exact same tactics and rhetoric in the current “Flying Imams” case. As Janet Levy recently explained in an article here at FrontPage (“The Minneapolis Six Sabotage Airline Security”), the CAIR-backed lawsuit by the six imams is being used as a propaganda device to advance CAIR’s legislative agenda for the passage of a bill through Congress that would prevent authorities from acting on suspicious behavior, much like what was seen in the November 1999 and November 2006 incidents, as well as 9/11.

As their current protest politics in the “Flying Imams” case demonstrates, CAIR shows no remorse for their complicity in providing cover for the 9/11 “dry run” operatives, though the purge of their website of any mention of their participation was clearly an attempt to try to wipe the public record clean of their involvement. But in light of their past actions and with their pursuit of the current lawsuit, it seems fair to ask: will thousands more Americans need to be murdered before CAIR brings the curtain down on their grievance theater road show? Tragically, we might have the opportunity to find out.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Documentry about Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-KdFMuo3vo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmihanyar%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-cqr7dMEP4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKN-gZuSH2o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkC-PYnm9lA

Canada needs to reconsider its position on the IRI

Dear Right Honorable Prime Minister Stephen HARPER:

The below are weblinks to two documentry video clips which illustrates kidnapping by the IRI and Iranian people are demanding justice.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5510072894320301873


http://azadibayan.ning.com/video/video/show?id=665135%3AVideo%3A242

Now, a person begins to wonder why Canada is willing to have an amicable relation with the IRI? This IRI from one hand is attacking at Canadian Arm Forces in Afghanistan, and from another hand the IRI is murdering innocent people in Iran. How can anyone justify the IRI's burtality? How can anyone shake hand with evil in Iran and for a second would think that Canada will be safe from harm? No one is safe.

Thank you,

Kind regards

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Iran-made weapons for Taliban are seized

It's the first sign that the nation has a role in Afghan war
By PETER SPIEGELLos Angeles Times


ATTACK A powerful remote-controlled bomb destroyed a U.N. vehicle in southern Afghanistan's main city on Tuesday, killing four Nepalese guards and an Afghan driver, officials said.

The attack on a three-vehicle U.N. convoy in Kandahar was the bloodiest in Afghanistan for the world body since the Taliban's 2001 ouster.

Associated Press -->
WASHINGTON — U.S.-led coalition forces in southern Afghanistan recently intercepted Iranian-made weapons that were being shipped to fighters for the Taliban, historically regional rivals of Tehran, the Pentagon's top general said Tuesday.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the munitions, which included mortars and C-4 explosives, were captured within the past month near Kandahar, which serves as the military and administrative capital for the restive south. That region has been under renewed Taliban assault in recent months.

The Bush administration repeatedly has accused Iran of supplying insurgents in Iraq with sophisticated weaponry. Pace's remarks were the first by a senior U.S. official to indicate similar activities in Afghani-stan.

Exact source unclearPace said it remained unclear who shipped the arms, but that markings on the explosives enabled U.S. intelligence to identify them as Iranian-made. "It is not as clear in Afghani-stan which Iranian entity is responsible," Pace said. In Iraq, U.S. officials have accused the Quds Force, the international arm of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, but have said it remained unclear whether Quds operatives were acting at the behest of senior Iranian officials in Tehran.
The Bush administration has acknowledged that Iran has been active inside Afghanistan, but officials have described the influence as benign.

Historically, the Shiite Muslim government in Tehran has viewed the Taliban as archrivals and nearly went to war with the Sunni-dominated Taliban in 1998, when the Kabul government captured and killed dozens of Iranians in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif during a rebellion.

Israel's Next War

By P. David HornikFrontPageMagazine.com April 17, 2007

Ze’ev Schiff—left-of-center, not a hawk, and considered by many to be Israel’s foremost military analyst—cites security sources as saying those Qassams that Islamic Jihad has been raining on Gaza-bordering communities during the “ceasefire” with Hamas are in fact supplied by Hamas.

Hamas, the sources said, while “maintaining a front of abiding by the ceasefire,” is actually “emerging as the lynchpin of Palestinian terrorist activities against Israel.” That is believed to include providing Islamic Jihad with Russian-made 16-kilometer-range Grad rockets, already used last year to target the town of Ashkelon with its strategic facilities.

An analysis last month already warned that Hamas is “improving its rocket capabilities” while “seeking to build anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems that will neutralize Israel’s current ability to easily penetrate Gaza.”

The deteriorating situation in the south led Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Tzvika Fogel, formerly chief of staff for Southern Command, to warn on Israel’s Channel 10 that Israel faces two choices: to “continue its ostrich-like stance” until the Gaza terror forces mount a surprise attack, or to launch a full-scale preemptive attack of its own.

Meanwhile, shifting the lens to the north, last week the head of Israeli Military Intelligence, Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin, reported to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Syria is “purchasing massive amounts of ground-to-ground and anti-tank missiles from Russia”—a country whose name tends to turn up in these contexts—and that, while “there is a low probability that Syria will initiate a war against Israel,” Syria could launch attacks in the Golan Heights even though it could lead to war.

Another report gave an even more ominous picture of an “unprecedented military buildup in Syria,” including the deployment of 300 home-manufactured Scud missiles just north of the Golan Heights, the establishment of new commando units, and a spike in training for urban and guerrilla warfare.

A source in IDF Northern Command said that “Syria saw the difficulty the IDF had during the fighting inside the southern Lebanese villages [last summer] and now . . . wants to draw us—in the event of a war—into battles in built-up areas where they think they will have the upper hand.”

And over in Lebanon itself, the fallout from last summer’s war is just as negative and the prognosis no better. In his same testimony to the Knesset committee last week, Maj.-Gen. Yadlin noted that up to several hundred Al Qaeda members have arrived in Lebanon with the aim of attacking UNIFIL and other Western targets; and that Hezbollah remains entrenched in southern Lebanon and keeps amassing large quantities of arms from Syria and Iran.

Rounding out the circle by returning to the south, Yadlin also said some Al Qaeda operatives have infiltrated Gaza as well, and that Hamas is gaining financial and political strength while its members receive training in Syria and Iran.

Overall, “the MI chief stressed that Iran continues to provide funding and weapons to Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, and has close military and intelligence coordination with Syria.” Add Russia to the mix and the picture is complete: a Shiite-Sunni-Russian terror-military axis seeking to surround, pressure, and harass Israel and ultimately eradicate it.

Tragically, this is happening at a time when Israel has a government hobbled by incompetence, unpopularity, scandals, infighting, and delusory dovishness, and that, apart from stepped-up training for some IDF units, is essentially doing nothing about the growing threats. It does not help that Israel’s U.S. ally keeps obsessively choreographing diplomatic dances with the likes of PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas, the Saudis, and the Arab League with which Israel dutifully complies—achieving nothing except to further project weakness to Israel’s enemies and lull the parts of the Israeli public that are eager to be lulled.

As Schiff points out in another analysis, it was the reluctance to enter a two-front war that led Israel to allow Hezbollah’s major military buildup in southern Lebanon in the first place. After Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon in 2000 against the advice of most of the IDF top brass, Prime Minister Ehud Barak and then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon found themselves facing a Palestinian terror onslaught mounted from the West Bank and Gaza and did not want to further complicate matters by doing something about Hezbollah in Lebanon.

So Israel, Schiff notes, “never once struck at the convoys transferring the missiles to Lebanon, and never struck even one Hezbollah missile warehouse, or even the short-range rockets near the border.” The end result was that Israel found itself at war on two fronts anyway—when Hamas attacked from Gaza and kidnapped a soldier last June, and Hezbollah followed suit the next month with an attack and kidnapping from Lebanon; and now faces the prospect of a further two-front war against enemies with enhanced capabilities.

Hope resides mainly in the interim report later this month of the Winograd Committee, set up to investigate the failures in last summer’s war and also expected to address the whole period of 2000-2006. Sufficiently harsh conclusions against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could lead him to resign or cause other political ferment leading to new elections. As time goes on and Israel, aside from antiterror policing work in the West Bank, remains almost entirely passive against the growing threats, it does not appear that Olmert’s government has the will or ability to do anything about them, and its continued tenure appears to spell disaster.

If there is a chance—apart from a strike on Iran that would alter the region’s strategic balance—for Israel to avoid another two-front entanglement, it lies mainly in regaining its deterrence by making an effective move in Gaza. A hard-enough blow to Hamas and its friends there could make Hezbollah and Syria think twice about starting more trouble in the north. But there may be little time left, and such an outcome requires a functioning government in Jerusalem. It also calls for a Washington able to look past short-term diplomatic concerns and give Israel the backing it needs.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

It's The Oil, Stupid

By Victor Davis HansonThe Washington Times April 16, 2007

It is usually silly to offer a single solution to complex problems. But it's hard not to when looking at the serial savagery in Iran and the Arab world.
Oil -- the huge profits it provides and the insidious influence it gives those selling it -- explains most of the world's worries over the Middle East.

No, that does not mean the United States is fighting in Iraq to get control of its petroleum. For all the charges of "No blood for oil," the American occupation has neither been able to reverse a decline in oil production in Iraq nor alleviate skyrocketing oil prices worldwide. And, recently, the first new contracts of the now-transparent Iraqi oil ministry went to non-American companies.

What it does mean, though, is that the vast, imported petroleum needs of the West, India and China, and the resulting huge profits that pour into oil-exporting states, have super-sized the Middle East's problems.

Much of the Islamic world is struggling to come to grips with modernity and globalization. While the West pays little attention to disenchanted Muslims in India, Indochina or Malaysia, we focus our attention on Iranian and Arab radicals. They alone, thanks to oil, have the cash to fund jihadists and hate-filled madrassas.

The Palestinian problem is illustrative. Since Israel's occupation of land taken after the 1967 war, much of the world has seen this issue as a threat to regional and global peace.

Such old territorial disputes are, of course, common -- and go relatively unnoticed -- throughout the world. Japan's Kurile Islands are still held by Russia. Tibet has been absorbed by China. Nuclear Pakistan and nuclear India fight over Kashmir. The list goes on.

Yet it's the anger over the tiny West Bank that in the past caused the Arab patrons of the Palestinians to embargo oil to the West and create long gas lines in Europe and America. As a result, a single suicide bomber from Jericho earns more press than anonymous thousands slaughtered in Darfur.

Today, terrorists operate from East Timor to Peru. But global anxiety has been continually focused on Middle Eastern terrorists, from the Palestinian assassins and hijackers of the 1970s to al Qaeda's suicide bombers. These killers alone have had the means to disrupt the Western way of life. Take away Hezbollah's Iranian petrodollars and it could never afford weapons and foot soldiers to slaughter Westerners in the Middle East and beyond.

An oil-rich Saddam Hussein was a threat only because he had purchased more military hardware than most European powers own -- and used it to attack oil-exporting neighbors in a bid to control more of the world's petroleum reserves.

In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is confident that powerful nations abroad will overlook his thuggery in hopes of getting a chance to buy his country's oil -- or in worry that any tension would send world prices even higher. Mr. Ahmadinejad also knows -- and fears -- that without supporting terrorists or trying to acquire a nuclear bomb he would be just another tinhorn loudmouth like Cuba's Fidel Castro or Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.

Yet vast oil profits do little to help -- and probably much to harm -- Middle Eastern countries. Unlike in places where economic achievement is the result of savvy business leaders, a hardworking labor force and a literate public, tribal hierarchies in the Middle East simply metamorphosed into billion-dollar nations by virtue of sitting atop crude oil.

One result is a big inferiority complex in the Middle East. There is always the fear the gas and oil reserves will dry up, leaving a Libya, Iran or Saudi Arabia with as much global attention as a Chad or Bulgaria.

Another result is unstable societies. When nations acquire collective wealth gradually through their own industry, a middle class can arise. But in the Middle East, a few tribal and religious sects with oil are fabulously wealthy; almost everyone else is abjectly poor. Illegitimate monarchies and jittery dictatorships -- always in fear of coups, terrorists and revolutions -- depend upon oil-needy foreigners, trading scarce oil and endless petrodollars for export goods and protection.

If the U.S. could curb its voracious foreign oil purchases by using conservation, additional petroleum production, nuclear power, alternate fuels, coal gasification and new technologies, the world price might return to below $40 a barrel.

That decline would dry up the oil profits of those in the Middle East who now so desperately use them to ensure that their own problems must also be the world's.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Iran’s Oil Mafia

By Hassan DaioleslamFrontPageMagazine.com April 16, 2007
Robert William (Bob) Ney is a current federal prisoner and a former Ohio Congressman from 1995 until November 3, 2006. On October 13, 2006 Ney pled guilty to charges of conspiracy and making false statements in relation to the Jack Abramoff lobbying and bribery scandal. Ney reportedly received bribes from Abramoff, other lobbyists, and two foreign businessmen - a felon and an arms dealer - in exchange for using his position to advance their interests.
Conspicuously missing from this dossier of disservice to the country was Ney’s assistance in the creation of a Washington-based lobbying enterprise for the Iranian theocratic regime, The National Iranian-American Council (NIAC). NIAC is part of an extensive US lobbying web that objectively furthers the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This article will address the creation of NIAC, Tehran’s role, NIAC’s connection to Iran’s oil mafia, and NIAC attempts to penetrate US political system.

Creation of NIAC

The National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) was founded thanks to the efforts of four non Iranian-Americans: Roy Coffee, Dave DiStefano, Rep. Bob Ney, and Trita Parsi. Coffee and DiStefano, both Washington lobbyists, were investigated by the Justice Department for arranging a trip to London for Bob Ney, where he met a Syrian arms dealer and convicted felon involved in a conspiracy to circumvent sanctions to sell US-made aircraft parts to Tehran.
Roy Coffee sent a letter to the Dallas Morning News in February 2006 to justify his relationship with the two London-based felons. Part of the letter discussed the founding of NIAC:
“Back in the spring or summer of 2002, a good friend of mine from law school, Darius Baghai, had just returned from visiting relatives in Iran for the first time since his family left before the revolution. He spoke with me about how the economy of Iran was humming …….From this, I took Darius in to visit with Mr. Ney. What was to be a 15 minute meeting became a 1 1/2 hour meeting as they spoke passionately about their hopes for the Iranian people. They also spoke in Farsi a great deal - I'm sure talking smack about me. From that meeting, Darius, Dave and I began to work with Trita Parsi, another Iranian-American to try to form a political action committee of Iranian-Americans to pursue a strategy of normalization of relations between the two countries…. The 4 of us worked very hard for about 9 months to form this committee.”
At the time, Trita Parsi was a Swedish-Iranian graduate student in his early twenties, best known for ties to Iran’s ambassador in Sweden. A successful self-promoter, he soon attached himself as a part-time aide to Congressman Ney before he was appointed president of NIAC.
The New Lobby
NIAC’s predecessor, the American-Iranian Council (AIC), was established in the 1990s with backing from multinational oil companies. For many years, it spear-headed pro-Tehran lobbying effort in the US.
AIC president Houshang Amirahmadi had been an active pro-Tehran player since early 1980s. While residing in US, he was also a presidential candidate in Iran’s elections, and officially collaborated with different Iranian institutions and notably the foreign ministry. In 1999 and 2000 Trita Parsi was helping Amirahmadi to organize lobbying events in Washington.
In 2001, the pro-Iran lobby in the United States became intensely active to prevent the renewal of the Iran Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), and to lift U.S. sanctions on Iran. Despite extraordinary pressure from the lobby, ILSA passed overwhelmingly.
Prior to his imprisonment in March 2007, Bob Ney led Congressional efforts to defeat ILSA and initiate Tehran-friendly policies in concert with AIC. Disappointed and angered by the ILSA vote, Ney began to plan for the next battle of the war.
“The ILSA vote doesn’t look very promising, but that doesn’t mean the struggle should stop on this entire issue. It is a matter of education and re-education and people getting together and forming a citizen’s lobby to make sure that members of Congress and their offices are educated on this issue,” Ney told AIC in a June 2001 speech.
While Ney was hard at work “forming a citizen’s lobby,” Trita Parsi claimed that the majority of lawmakers voted against their true wills. In a tone apologetic to Tehran, he expressed his hope that the Iranian regime understood that he and his colleagues had worked hard to prevent this result:
“Hopefully, Tehran will recognize that an honest attempt was made to defeat or at least weaken the sanctions. The call for a review and Speaker Hastert's pledge to insist on Congressional action based on the review must also be interpreted by Tehran as a step in the right direction” (Iran Analysis July 2001 Peyvand Iran News)
This failure to block the renewal of ILSA in 2001 marked the start of a new era for the pro-Iran lobby in the United States. The lobbyists recognized that they must broadly reach out to Iranian-Americans.NIAC was created to put those plans in motion.

Trita Parsi was the regime’s trusted man within the new network. Tehran’s faith in Parsi was so profound that in 2003 when Iran decided to send a highly secret proposal for negotiations to the White House, Parsi was called on to arrange the delivery of the message through Bob Ney to Karl Rove. Parsi, moreover, was among the few chosen men (along with Mahallati, Iran’s former ambassador to UN) to present the results of a shady Tehran-friendly poll of the Iranian population which indicated the popularity of Iran’s nuclear program.
Trita Parsi and the Regime’s Inner Circle
During the eight years of Rafsanjani’s presidency, which ended in 1997, the Iranian regime had attempted without success to attract the Iranian Diaspora to its cause. Khatami’s presidency recharged Tehran’s efforts. With the Supreme Leader’s direct involvement, the High Council for Iranian Compatriots Overseas was created in 2000. The President heads the Council, and the Foreign Minister serves as its deputy director. The Ministry of Intelligence and the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance collaborate to implement the decisions of the council.
The objective was to create a network of organizations to infiltrate and seemingly represent the Iranian community abroad, and promote policies favorable to the Iranian government. Tehran anticipated that this strategy would neutralize opposition activities abroad and legitimize the new lobby.
State-sanctioned Iranian newspapers started a campaign to promote Trita Parsi and NIAC. Pro-government publications outside Iran followed suit. The former head of the Iran interest in Washington, Ambassador Faramarze Fathnejad, was thrilled with the efforts of Trita Parsi and NIAC, and underlined “the importance of relation with Iranian organizations in the U.S. and specially pointed to NIAC and his young leader who is a consultant to CNN and has been very successful in his efforts.” The Iran Ambassador even claimed 20,000 strong membership for NIAC (while only 150 is claimed by NIAC itself)!
But token rhetorical support would not alone turn an inexperienced graduate student and a corrupt Washington politician into a lobbying enterprise. Entities with ample financial resources and direct access to Iran’s top leaders had to enter the scene. This is where Siamak Namazi, an important figures of this new lobbying enterprise and a prominent member of the Iranian oil Mafia, enters the scene.
Trita Parsi and Namazi worked closely on developing the details of a grand plan to create an Iranian-American “Citizen’s Lobby.” They traveled to Iran together They organized joint conferences and meetings. In 1999, they co-authored a seminal paper, that provided the roadmap for the organization that later became NIAC. 24
Namazi, along with his sister Pari and brother Babak, control the Atieh enterprise in Iran and its three sister companies Atieh Roshan, Atieh Bahar and Atieh Associates, as well as numerous other direct and indirect partnerships, including Azar Energy, Menas companies in England, Atieh Dadeh Pardaz, FTZ Corporate services and MES Middle East Strategies.. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Baquer Namazi (their father) is the Chairman of Hamyaran, identified by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars as a “resource center” in Tehran for Iranian non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Atieh claims to be a “fully private strategic consulting firm that assists companies better understand the Iranian market, develop business and stay ahead of [the] competition.” People familiar with the oil industry in Iran understand the coded language, After all, rulers in every country in the Middle East use outside consultants to negotiate the discrete terms of lucrative oil contracts.
Atieh’s customers include the foreign corporations who wish to do business in Iran. One Atieh Bahar customer, Norway’s Statoil, has been publicly identified as a participant in a scheme to bribe Iranian government officials by the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice. A number of high officials in the company were fired and the company had to pay tens of millions of dollars in penalties to the US and Norwegian governments for “payments to an Iranian official in 2002 and 2003 in order to induce him to use his influence to obtain the award to Statoil of a contract to develop phases 6, 7 and 8 of the Iranian South Pars gas field.”
The most recent debacle of Atieh enterprise was in March 2007 when the CEO of the French oil company Total SA was charged with having bribed senior Iranian officials to secure contracts. Total is a major customer of the Namazi’s Atieh enterprise.
Tehran’s trust in Namazi is further evidenced by the fact that his company provides the network and computer services for almost all Iranian banks, the Majles (parliament), and other important institutions. Namazi’s groups monitor nearly all Iranian economic or political activities and have access to the country’s most sensitive data. This is a clear indication of his prominent place inside the inner circle of power in Tehran.
While representing Tehran, Namazi, disguised as a scholar travels to the US to seemingly pursue academic activities . He succeeded so well that the Congressionally-funded National Endowment for Democracy awarded him a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellowship in 2005.
This link between the Iranian oil Mafia and “scholarly” pursuits in the US is hardly isolated. Three former Iranian deputy foreign ministers currently live in Boston posing as “scholars”: Mohammad Mahallati who was also the Iranian ambassador to the UN in the late 1980s, Farhad Atai and, Abbas Maleki. In addition to his diplomatic past, Maleki has been one of the most important figures within the Iranian oil Mafia.
The Roadmap
In 1999, Parsi and Namazi presented a joint paper titled “Iranian-Americans: The bridge between two nations” at a conference organized by the Iranian government in Cypress. This report contains the manifesto and the roadmap for the new Iranian lobby in the US. The authors argue that “an Iranian-American lobby is needed in order to create a balance between the competing Middle Eastern lobbies. Without it, Iran-bashing may become popular in Congress again.”
The “competing lobby” was AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee). The pillars of the road map were:
· To have the appearance of a citizen’s lobby
· To mimic the Jewish lobby in the US
· To impede Iranian opposition activities
· To infiltrate the US political system
· To break the taboo of working with the Iran’s cleric rulers for the Iranian Diaspora
· To improve the image of the Iran’s government abroad24.
In their report, Namazi and Parsi acknowledged that problems of organizing a pro-regime lobby within the Iranian-American community:
“This group’s role has not been utilized any where close to its potential, however, for several reasons: A good portion of them were against the IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran], therefore would not do anything to help.”

“The point is, [Iranian Americans] were not about to form a lobby group that would benefit the establishment in Tehran, or benefit the Iranian-Americans themselves as a community, nor was it for the most part interested in forming a pressure group against the Islamic Republic.”
This was also underlined by Roy Coffee, one of the NIAC’s founders:
“We [NIAC’s founders] found that most Iranians do not want to get involved in politics because of their experiences in Iran during and after the revolution. They have come to this country to make a better life for themselves and their children and don't want to get involved.”
The lack of participation by the Iranian American community in this lobby has been overcome with a sophisticated machine of professional lobbyists and “friendly” circles who favor a rapprochement with the Iranian regime.
Tehran’s Advice: Mimic Jewish Lobby in Washington
One of the hallmarks of the new lobby was its desire to rival the “Israeli Lobby” in the United States. This aspiration led to the creation of the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC), loosely modeled after similar organizations created by AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee). Three of IAPAC’s board members came from the AIC’s leadership.
In their 1999 paper, Parsi and Namazi analyzed at length the techniques used by AIPAC, and suggested that the same approach should be taken to create an Iranian lobby in Washington:
“Creating similar types of seminars and intern opportunities to Iranian-American youth may not improve Iran-US relations in the short run, but it will help integrate the Iranian-American community into the political life of America. In the long run, a strong and active Iranian- American lobby, partly established through these seminars and by the participants of these programs, may serve to ensure that the US and Iran never find themselves in violent opposition to each other again.”
Trita Parsi has been reciting this comparison to the Israeli lobby since the late 1990’s, about the time that the High Council was formed in Tehran. At the beginning his tone was more contentious and resembled the mullah’s usual rhetoric, but more recently he has toned down his anti-Israeli remarks, at least in English.
The government-owned newspaper Aftab published an interview with Trita Parsi on December 28, 2006 that underscores Parsi’s efforts on behalf of the Iranian regime..
Translation: “The conflict between Iran and the West on Iran’s nuclear file has entered a critical state. The government must now utilize all the possible resources to defend the national interest. In this, we have not paid enough attention to the potentially significant influence of the Iranian American society in moderating the extremist policies of the White House. In comparison of this untouched potential to the influence of the Jewish lobby in directing the policies of Washington in supporting Israel, we see the difference between what is and what could be.”
Siamak Namazi began sounding similar themes.:
“I propose that we should start showing up to the leadership training seminars and other events organized by the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) for their youth. Not only will this create an opportunity to learn the fine skills of community organization and grassroots lobbying, but it also takes away from AIPAC's ability to spread misinformation about Iran through a deliberate campaign to further its own political agenda.”
Not Lobbyists?
As Ney’s criminal bribery and lobbying fiasco became more public, NIAC’s president Trita Parsi began to downplay NIAC’s lobbying activities. (NIAC is registered as a 501 c3, to which certain legal restrictions apply.) Furthermore, being lobbied by a former aid would have added to Ney’s already complicated situation. Asked in 2005 whether his group lobbied the US Congress, Trita Parsi told an interviewer:
“Our group does not do any lobbying at all. We do not contact the Congressmen to support or oppose a bill.”
Since its creation, however, NIAC has strived to penetrate the US political system in accordance with the roadmap Namazi and Parsi established in 1999. As the Washington Post reported on June 25, 2006:
“The NIAC helped persuade a dozen conservative House members to sign a letter to President Bush earlier this month calling for unconditional negotiations with Iran's regime.”
The external communications of Parsi and other NIAC leaders shed further light on NIAC’s lobbying activities.
“The NIAC members have educational and experimental knowledge on the lobbying process and politics in America.”
“.. we must establish connections on Capitol Hill to establish early-warning systems about proposed votes or bills that may oppose the best interests of Iranian-Americans.”
Bob Ney, Roy Coffee, and Dave DiStefano arranged numerous workshops, training classes, seminars and speeches in which they themselves and others with experience prepared members and affiliates of NIAC to lobby and influence Congress. Parsi, Namazi and Ney organized public gatherings and discrete and exclusive $1,000 per plate fundraiser events. They even developed a training manual for lobbyists, a copy of which was sent to this writer by a former NIAC member.
NIAC itself admits that “In 2002, Congressman Ney benefited from letters sent by Iranian-Americans through NIAC's Legislative Action Center in support of his resolution on US-Iran relations.”
Infiltrating Congress
Trita Parsi, Namazi and their backers fully intended to infiltrate the US Congress. One of the methods they boast of involves recruiting young Iranian Americans to serve as Congressional interns or pages by offering room, board and financial incentives. NIAC’s website brags of success stories in this venture.
NIAC claims to have drafted the young Iranian American Press Secretary for Rep. Marcy Kaptur to help in improving the lobbying skills of NIAC members and affiliates. Similarly, an Iranian American student in the University of Minnesota received a financial scholarship in his senior year and becomes an intern in Senator Norm Coleman’s (R-MN) Washington office. Another intern, a graduate of University of South Florida, was placed in Congressman Jim Davis’ (D-FL) Washington, D.C. office. Expanding the operation to penetrate the US political system, NIAC has now formally implemented a paid trainee program and is actively in search for unwary Iranian American youth.
Conclusion
Since the early 1990’s, Tehran has embarked on developing a sophisticated lobbying enterprise in the United States. Iran’s government has devoted significant manpower and financial resources to this cause. This lobbying enterprise consists of a complex, intermingled web of entities and organizations with significant overlap of leadership, and heavy involvement of the notoriously mafia-like inner circles of the Iranian regime. Disguised as scholars, many of the former Iranian government officials reside in the US and constitute an important piece of the lobby machine. NIAC and its major figures, such as Bob Ney and Trita Parsi are effective nodes of Tehran’s efforts to manipulate US policy toward self-serving ends.
Hassan Daioleslam is an independent researcher and writer who has worked closely with two experienced investigative reporters inside Iran to explore and expose Iran lobbying enterprise in the United States.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

In Iran , Feeling the Heat


By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, April 15, 2007; Page B07

Dying from cancer a quarter-century ago, the deposed shah of Iran pressed on me a fundamental point about his nation that has become even more vivid over the past two weeks. What the shah said, and almost said, then sheds light on the confrontation occurring between Iran and the world's great powers. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi died weeks after our 1980 conversation in Cairo . It has taken the ayatollahs and other Islamic radicals who followed him to reveal how far backward, and forward, stretched the deeper meanings of the words he spoke, which had to be condensed into a conventional news story on that May day. Iran is after all a place where reality usually comes not in words but in meaningful details that underlie -- and often belie -- the words. Fooling foreigners and adversaries is an ancient Persian art form. Saying exactly what you mean is a crude and dangerous way to talk, or to negotiate. Such a telling detail lay beneath the shah's descriptions to me of how the British and American governments deliberately helped Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini bring down his regime in 1979. His bitter Anglophobia came to mind again the other day as I watched film of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blustering his way through the histrionic release of 15 British military captives and then, in the days that followed, defying the world anew over Iran 's nuclear ambitions. The detail was that the shah blamed London much more than he blamed Washington for his fate. The Americans had been children playing at complicated games of power and espionage, while imperial Britain purposely mounted the plot to win favor with the ayatollahs. Or so the shah asserted. The 15 captives grabbed by Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Iraqi waters on March 23 simply may have been targets of opportunity. But I doubt it. They were almost certainly seized as bargaining chips. In any event, Ahmadinejad played up their nationality in ways that suggest the imprint of the colonial era has not faded much from the Iranian political subconscious since the days of the shah. It still pays to twist the British lion's tail, even in nations where imperial control was largely indirect and economic. Cultural history also plays an important role in the confrontation over Iran 's determination to control uranium enrichment on its own soil despite international fears that Iran 's secret goal is to develop nuclear weapons. Every discussion I have had with Iranian officials on the nuclear program has included a pointed reminder that it was the shah -- with American and French encouragement -- who started the nuclear energy program that Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs are carrying forward. These officials leave hanging unspoken this political fact of Iranian life: Their giving up control of the enrichment of uranium would open them to charges of being less nationalistic than was the shah. The historical force of past intervention in Iran 's affairs is obviously no justification for kidnapping British sailors and marines, for pursuing nuclear weapons, or for supporting terrorism in Iraq , Israel and elsewhere. But it is important for Americans to recognize how deep is the imprint of the past and how demagogues exploit it when they are in trouble. It will take broad and sustained campaigns of political and economic pressures to force change in the behavior of any Iranian regime. Consider the bombast of Ahmadinejad and his aides in grabbing hostages again, in threatening to pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and in saying they will cut off negotiations if the United Nations continues to condemn Iran 's nuclear program. The meaningful detail in Iranian threats not to talk to the West is that the Iranians are still talking to the West, however theatrically and unconvincingly. They stall, but they remain engaged, trying to fend off impending isolation. This demonstrates that the financial and diplomatic pressures orchestrated by the Treasury and State departments are taking their toll on Ahmadinejad's regime. They should be continued and intensified where possible. Among those voting against Tehran on the latest Security Council censure were South Africa, which often breaks with the West on political issues to bolster its nonaligned credentials, and Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation. Those votes were body blows to Tehran 's pretense that the nuclear dispute reflects a continuing victimization of Third World peoples and resources by the rapacious British and other Westerners. So is the visible irritation of Russia 's Vladimir Putin with Iran 's refusal to consider his offers to guarantee Iran access to peaceful nuclear energy. The diplomatic effort to assemble a united international front against Iran is paying off. One sign: President Bush displays no sense of urgency about having to decide on military action against Iran , recent visitors to the White House report. History, ancient and recent, shows that his best option is to continue on the high road of multilateral, peaceful pressures. jimhoagland@washpost.com

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Be Aware of Islamic Republic of Iran Territorial Expansion.

On Wednesday April 11th, 2007 Canada.com reported that US Major-General William Caldwell made a public statement and accused the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a culprit for providing military training to Iraqi insurgents on Iran’s soil, and forming death squads with deadly mission. Once, these death squads are ready and acquired knowledge on how to murder US soldiers and/or innocent Iraqi civilians, the death squads are deployed and supplied to Iraq territory with deadly agendas, as well as, ammunitions to carry out their atrocities in Iraq[1].

On Thursday April 12th, 2007 Canada.com reported that in Iraq there was an explosion which occurred close by Iraqi parliament and claimed 8 civilian lives. This explosion made head line because this particular suicide bomber was able pass through on heavy US security force and walked in secure zone and the suicide bomber carried his deadly agenda. Consequently, the suicide bomber proved that no where was safe any more to anyone[2]. Most likely this type of act of undermining authority’s rule, it has psychological effect on authority itself because as the authority observers before their own eyes that their rulers are under mind by others and authority is in progress of losing battle ground to other party.

According to Iran’s history, there was a ruler in Iran with name of Hassan Sabbah, who had well train assassins with only one intention which was to eliminate Iran’s enemy, and the assailants would carry their deadly assaults on their targets and these targets were powerful entities in Iran, and once, the perpetrators eliminated their targets with their knives in close range, the perpetrators would try to flee the scene of crime. In case, the perpetrators failed to flee the scene of crime, the perpetrators would execute plan b that they already had one high concentrate of opium capsule in their mouths and would crack the opium capsule with their teeth, once the opium was release in their mouth, the perpetrators would eliminate themselves too. Thus, no one could apprehend the perpetrators. Learning from someone’s history is important because history illustrates that the clerics in Iran will do anything to oust the US force in Iraq as well as Canadian Arm Forces in Afghanistan.

On Thursday April 12th, 2007 CTV reported that Canadian Arm Forces have begun to face increase insurgent assaults from Taliban, and CTV stated that Taliban is trying to capture Kandahar, and Canadian Army Forces strategist are contemplating to launch preemptive military strike on Taliban headquarter which is located at Helman[3]. The good news for Taliban that now the Taliban knows that Canadian Arm Forces are coming to Helman and the Taliban is going to evict the Helman. The bad news, Canadian Arm Forces will face deadly assault and not knowing what is hitting the Canadian Arm Forces.

At last, it is crystal and clear that the IRI is supporting insurgents in Iraq and causing turmoil in Iraq. There is a question that who is supporting Taliban in Afghanistan? There is no doubt that the IRI is assisting the Taliban to combat Canadian Arm Forces because when Afghan people were at war with Russia, the IRI was assisting Afghan people to wage war against Russia, and now the IRI is providing means to Taliban to wage war against Canadian Arm Forces. Furthermore, the IRI is using this golden opportunity of causing war in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep US and Canada off their back on matter of nuclear issues, and occasionally the IRI is introducing idea of dialogue of civilization to the West and the IRI is on fishing expedition when it says dialogue of civilization which is paying off because people are caught on their hook like Nancy Polise who travel to terrorist states and rely messages on their own behalf to terrorist leaders and while everyone is occupied with the IRI deception the IRI is building their nuclear bombs.

Predicting near future, the IRI will raise flag of Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan and at this time Khameini is ready to pass away. Khameini won’t die because Michael Ledeen wants to.

President of US George W. BUSH and Right Honorable Prime Minister of Canada Stephen HARPER, please in future do not say that we did not know and made a mistake for making a backroom deal with the IRI and/or had to listen to Iranian dissident otherwise we would win the war on terror.

Thank you,

Kind regards

Signed


c.c. Crown Prince Reza PAHALVI Heir to Throne of Iran.
c.c. To other citizens.

End Note
[1] http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=cbb96fa7-4a3f-419c-9d2b-271202fa4d71&k=95744
[2] http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=2014b399-cd21-42cf-aba4-5b088a556226&k=58338
[3]http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070412/spring_offensive_070412/20070412/

What ordinary American like Mr. Caesar Warrington think about Shah of Iran.

As I said, I think the book is in dire need of editing. I also noticed that Mossadegh get's hardly any mention, that should never be when discussing the problems of modern-day Iran. However, the meat of the book is excellent, and the author's delivery and writing is strong with exposition and incite.

Americans are too ignorant of the origins and history of Iran. This author shows the reader that there was Iran/Persia way before there was a Muhammed, or even a Caesar. I admire this man and all Iranians who who will never surrender their heritage. Furthermore, very few books are out there which discuss the positive work that was being done by the Shah. And the Rafsanjani family investments in Canada should be big news. That Rafsanjani is one of the most corrupt and hypocritical mullahs in iran today. He and his son and daughter (this daughter who, by the way, gave an interview in a London apartment wearing stiletto-high heels and sheer stockings when innocent Iranian omen were being harassed and beaten by the morals police for their dress code...See what I mean by hypocrites?) have been taking money out of Iran for years. Yet the Western media loves posing Rafsanjani as a "moderate."

I'll be leaving a review for this book on Amazon.

Although the book is in dire need of an editor I am still enjoying and learning from it. The author writes with an urgent passion and a slick sense of humor. What he is saying are many of the things I noticed myself about what Iran used to be and what it has become; what the Shah wanted for his nation and the things he did and the exaggerations and lies that have been told about him since 1979. this man was no despot or evil tyrant. Rather if anything he considered hitting back too harshly. I remember hearing that Saddam offered to have Khomeini killed and the Shah refused it. Another example was when his generals wanted to step up the crack down on dissidents and other anti-government factions, again the Shah wouldn't allow any increased actions against these people. Mohammed Reza Shah has had quite an injustice done to him by the historians. It's a shame. One other thing I noticed is hardly any mention of Mossadegh (by the way thanks for the CIA/Iran Connection email) in this book.

as you say about God... i couldn't agree with you more! i always felt here we are all believing in the basics: In One All-Loving God (Be He called Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Ahura Mazda/Ormazd) and pray and swear to fight the Evil one (Satan, Iblis, Angra Manyu/Ahriman) and what do we do? We instead insult, hurt and kill each other in the Name of God and foolishly do what the Evil one desires from us. Do you understand what I mean?

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

How Iranian responded to Honorable MacKay.

Person one:
Dear Mr. Mackay

Thank you very much for answering Mr. Peyman Dousti on behalf of The Office of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister . As an Iranian I can assure you that this letter concerns me as well.
The fact that "Canada believes it is up to the Iranian people to choose for themselves" is duty of Canada not only to Canadian but also to people of the world.
And the fact that Canada believe in "The Government of Canada does not support a policy of regime change in Iran and, therefore, does not support any movement to overthrow the regime or to see parts of Iran secede" is respectable.
However please understand that between " regime change policy " which it is not your business and will of Iranian people which is again not your business, "including its nuclear program and human rights situation" and again not your business!!!, Zahra Kazemi, A Canadian citizen who was murdered in Iran , which it was not your business, I have to ask you questions.
Of course it is in your benefit and your business to allow Iranian Capitol to flourish in Canada. Such as Mr. Rafsanjanis money and capitol does not show herself only in the form of money. Example: Iranians who had to leave their country because their lives was in danger in IRAN but they turn out to be among the most successful immigrants in the world and history specially in North America.
They were Iranian capitol.
But again when it comes to Canadian benefit they should think of Canada first. here is my questions.
Do you realize that there are a lot of those fanatic Muslims and supporters of terrorists that are living in Canada? Do you think you can stand safe on side and watch? And you are imagining that Canadians are safe?
And
Do you really think that we, IRANIANS, are willing to forget which Governments had economic ties with Islamic regime of terrorists or set quiet and benefited while IRANIANS suffered inside of IRAN?
Government of Canada should know this: To day cause of IRANIANS are as same as the peaceful people of the world. You are either with us, IRANIANS or with Islamic regime of terrorists. There is no middle ground and no gray area.
Pbehmand.
Person two:
The Honorable Peter Mackay,
The Foreign Minister –
Ottawa- Canada


Your reply to Mr. Peyman Dousti, was carbon copied to me and a few other Iranians living around the world. Every word you said concerns every Iranian that has family members living (Suffering) in Iran .

If one thinks that absolute peace is possible on the planet earth it is a huge mistaken, each country, each individual, specie has its own agenda and goal therefore even a tree in your backyard is in war with you, “survival of the fittest”. Even the mildew in your bathroom is fighting against you, it is growing fungus because wants to live takes over your bathroom. If it is not fought the fungus will take over your house. Have you ever thought about it… its weapon is Winger spray after every shower, it makes Acidic environment so the mildew is not growing. That is life.

Every business, including nuclear, territorial integrity, sovereignty, building a road or buying a jet fighter or creating Canada Arm for peaceful or aggressive mean, as it is sole decision of Canadians it remains for the Iranian to choose themselves or change their government or topple the regime.

But, when it comes to the security of Canadian citizens, allowing immigrants bringing their home issues to the Canadian Home, growing their issues like of that Mildew /Fungus in the Canadian House suddenly becomes Canadian affair.

For last 28 years Canada and many other countries in order to benefit from the “brain drain” following “Mass Mess” created by the same international community (they have interfered in the internal affairs of Iran – all documented and proven) also allowed many thousands other immigrants from Palestine, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Africa, Lebanon etc.. Every new immigrant brought their own culture and “religion” willing to practice their culture in the Canadian sole dishonoring the Canadian law and values. That includes but not limited to the veil wearing, erecting nest of growing terrorism in the name of religion, asking for the “Sharia Law” overriding the Canadian Family Law. Unless Canada abandons its law of the land, such practice in the sovereign countries like of USA , Germany as well as Canada should not be permitted. If these people want to live under such law and regulation they should not have became immigrant in the first place.

Mr. Mackay, I live in Canada , I have written similar letters to my MP and told to the local councilors and other authorities, the sanctuary that good immigrants have chosen by living in this country has been invaded because Canadian Government is after New Immigrants/ Money closing eyes on their activities… Canada is growing its own mildew in the every Canadian Bathroom. (please contact my MP for the details I have suggested)

Truly the line between defeat and victory has been erased, and the western governments do not have any clue what “Extremist Islam” is going to do in their backyard.

Mr. Mackay, please not; Our children are playing in this backyard; its safety is a must.

HC.
Person three:
Author of the blog Responses to Canada.
Remember when Nazis went before International Tribunal after World War Two. The Nazis claimed that they followed order from high ranking officers and could not disobey direct order from high ranking officers and were not aware of atrocity which was committed by the Nazis. Nobody bought their defense. The same story can be applied to Canadian Politicians. One day will come, and that day will be ours.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Canada's respond on matter of IRI

The Office of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, hasforwarded to me your email and attached articles concerning the Iraniangovernment. I regret the delay in replying to you.The Government of Canada does not support a policy of regime change inIran and, therefore, does not support any movement to overthrow theregime or to see parts of Iran secede. Canada believes it is up to theIranian people to choose for themselves, through democratic means, howthey wish to be governed. However, you may be assured that the Canadiangovernment will continue its diplomatic efforts until all concerns aboutIran, including its nuclear program and human rights situation, havebeen satisfactorily addressed.
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Sincerely,
Peter G. MacKayMinister of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Ramin JAHANBEGLOO

Honorable MP Peter Gordon MacKayMinister of Foreign AffairsHouse of CommonsOttawa, ON K1A 06A
Via: E-Mail: Mackay.P@parl.gc.ca

Dear Honorable MP MacKay:

Sometimes in late April 2006 news began to circulate, in this global village, that Dr. Ramin JAHANBEGLOO, who holds Iranian, as well as, Canadian citizenships that he was apprehended by secret police of the theology state in Iran. The theology state charged Dr. JAHANABEGLOO for espionage, and according to the clerics in Iran, Dr. JAHANBEGLOO confessed to his crimes {also 15 Britain sailors confessed to their crimes, and trespassing Persian Gulf boundary of water on Iranian territory}.

Certainly, there are individuals who are concern about well being of Dr. JAHANBEGLOO and would like to know what has happen to Dr. JAHANBEGLOO’s legal preceding? And what Canada has done so far for Dr. JAHANBEGLOO?

Kindly, in your convenient time to respond to above questions and I am looking forward to read your respond.


Thank you,

Kind regards

Friday, April 06, 2007

Crown Prince Reza PAHLAVI and CNN

BECK: Now for perspective of what`s going on inside the country of Iran, who`s pulling the strings, this is the former crown prince of Iran, Reza Pahlavi. Reza, this has got to be perceived as a victory for our enemies in the region, but the average person on the street of Iran, it`s my understanding, they like us. They hate their own government as much as we hate their government. Is this something today that if you were in your home in Iran thinking, oh, boy, this guy is even more powerful now? REZA PAHLAVI, FORMER CROWN PRINCE OF IRAN: Glenn, let`s first understand that when you have a regime that`s losing its legitimacy day by day even more, the only way it can compensate for that is to create a constant atmosphere of crisis, whether it is domestically or abroad. Also, let`s understand that, in order to keep the glue that gells their security apparatus together, it has to show its manhood somehow. This is a classic case of playing to that audience within the regime itself. But I don`t think it is fazing any of my compatriots on the streets, because for them it`s a matter of rejoining this world, having the better life, having the freedom to travel and the only obstacle between them and the free world is this regime. So... BECK: But this regime, you know better than I do, I don`t think that they really care about people at all. They use -- I mean, they`ll throw them into -- into the gear shaft to keep that thing moving at the drop of a hat. And you`ve got to believe, watching what`s happening in the Middle East with everybody going soft, Pelosi over in Syria, of all places, meeting with them. You`ve got to think that the dissidents are going, "Oh, come on, we thought we had a glimmer of hope here." Is nobody going to stand up to these guys? PAHLAVI: The point is absolutely correct and indeed. The question that has to be asked all along is for a regime that has had a track record of criminal behavior from day one, is any rewarding of that behavior in the interest of Iranians or, for that matter, the free world? How long are we going to go on about this game? Is it any time for the world to decide once and for all that the only solution that remains, because we don`t want to go the road of conflict and war and that kind of things. But instead, empowerment of the Iranian people who are the best ally of the free world ready to fight that fight, except for they feel abandoned, they feel ignored, and that perception certainly doesn`t help the people of Iran. It perhaps helps the regime, the regime that is creating all these problems in the first place. BECK: You have had to have spent time at night, because I know I have, and I`m not an Iranian, you must have spent time and thought what is it going to take for the mainstream media to start saying, "Wait a minute. These guys are torturing people. They`re slaughtering people. They`re stoning women." Have you come up with any kind of answer that makes any sense? PAHLAVI: Well, Glenn, some people like yourself who pick up the right arguments and understand, beyond whatever theatrics or facade that this regime is putting to the world, that the real people that are concerned here, the majority of my compatriots, are suffering under this system, and they can`t wait to come out. BECK: Yes.PAHLAVI: However, let me say what the good news is. I think, well beyond this little incidents here and there, I think overall the world has reacted in a better way than ever before. BECK: Yes. PAHLAVI: For instance, we have more and more targeted sanctions. BECK: Yes. PAHLAVI: We have a certain initiative taken, for instance, from the state of California. BECK: Right. PAHLAVI: And divestment of tension (ph) from businesses doing -- operating in Iran, namely something that ends up in the region. BECK: Reza, I`ve got to cut you off. But you`re exactly right. And we are going to cover some of the good news. There is good news, but a lot more needs to be done. Reza, thank you very much. PAHLAVI: Sure. Thank you.