| For continuing coverage follow us on Twitter and join our Facebook group.
Top Stories
AFP: "Iran's navy is going to deploy ships close to US territorial waters, its commander in chief was quoted as saying on Tuesday. 'As the global oppression (the US) is present not far from our maritime border ... our navy is going to have a strong presence not far from US territorial waters,' the Irna news agency quoted Admiral Habibollah Sayyari as saying. On July 19 Sayyari also said that Iran was going to send 'a flotilla into the Atlantic'. The remarks come as another high-ranking Iranian appeared to reject a recent US request to establish a 'red phone' link between the countries to avoid unwanted confrontation between their armed forces in the Gulf region. 'When we are in the Gulf of Mexico, we will establish direct contact with the United States,' Ali Fadavi, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, was quoted in press reports as saying. 'In the view of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the presence of the US in the Persian Gulf is illegitimate and makes no sense.'" http://t.uani.com/qtmlkr
ABC: "The terror group al Qaeda has found itself curiously in agreement with the 'Great Satan' -- which it calls the U.S. -- in issuing a stern message to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: stop spreading 9/11 conspiracy theories. In the latest issue of the al Qaeda English-language magazine 'Inspire', an author appears to take offense to the 'ridiculous' theory repeatedly spread by Ahmadinejad that the 9/11 terror attacks were actually carried out by the U.S. government in order to provide a pretext to invade the Middle East. 'The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the U.S. government,' an article reads. 'So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?' Though Iran was the first of the two to use the 'Great Satan' as a synonym for the U.S., the author claims that Iran sees itself as a rival for al Qaeda when it comes to anti-Americanism and was jealous of the 9/11 attacks." http://t.uani.com/pJjBDt
AFP: "France's UN envoy warned that Iran faces the risk of a military strike if it pursues its nuclear drive because certain countries would not accept it having an atomic weapon. In surprisingly frank comments at a New York panel discussion, Ambassador Gerard Araud on Tuesday followed up on President Nicolas Sarkozy's statement that there could be a 'preventive strike' against the Islamic republic. Asked what would happen if Iran reaches the threshold of a nuclear weapon, Araud said: 'Personally I am convinced that some countries won't accept this prospect.' The envoy said the danger of conflict was why France, Britain, Germany, the United States, Russia and China were trying to negotiate with Tehran. 'If we don't succeed today to reach a negotiation with the Iranians, there is a strong risk of military action,' according to Araud, who did not say who would be likely to carry out such action." http://t.uani.com/qLcKSJ
Nuclear Program & Sanctions
AP: "Iran says it's started large-scale production of a domestically-developed cruise missile designed for sea-based targets and capable of destroying warships. Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi says an unspecified number of samples of 'Ghader,' or 'Capable' as the missile is called in Farsi, were delivered to the Revolutionary Guard's navy, assigned to protect Iran's sea borders. His remarks were reported by state TV on Wednesday. The cruise missile has a range of 124 miles (200 kilometers). It can reportedly travel at low altitudes and has a lighter weight and smaller dimensions." http://t.uani.com/p8VfYX
Human Rights
UPI: "A sharp rise in the number of executions reported in Iran is raising suspicions that the Tehran regime has, in the words of a British newspaper, engaged in 'a judicial killing spree' to intimidate its opponents. Human rights organizations say this underlines the alarm within the regime that Iran could be infected by the wave of pro-democracy uprisings that have swept the Arab world since January and toppled three dictators... Amnesty International said there were 253 reported executions in the first six months of 2011, with another 300 people believed to have been killed. These included the first executions of juvenile offenders in the world this year... 'It's no coincidence that Iran's increased staging of public executions came at the same time protest movements were gaining steam throughout the Middle East,' Mark Wallace, a former U.S. ambassador wrote in the Los Angeles Times recently. 'What better way to keep Iranians from having dangerous ideas like those of their neighbors?'" http://t.uani.com/nMwn0N
Domestic Politics
Reuters: "A $2.6 billion financial fraud that has shaken the government of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saw the heads of three of the country's banks ousted on Tuesday as lawmakers threaten to impeach the economy minister. The biggest fraud in the 32-year history of the Islamic Republic could result in the death penalty for anyone found guilty of it and has become part of an increasingly ugly split in the conservative elite that runs Iran. Ahmadinejad has rejected claims from his hardline rivals that the investment company at the centre of the scandal has links to his key aide, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, the focus of fierce criticism by conservative politicians and clerics. But that has not satisfied members of parliament who have already threatened to impeach the president over other issues and critics who accuse him of being in the thrall of a 'deviant current' of advisors seeking to undermine the authority of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." http://t.uani.com/nFKKUg
Opinion & Analysis
WT Editorial Board: "Yousef Nadarkhani, a 34-year-old Christian cleric, is facing death for apostasy against a faith he never held. The Islamic Republic of Iran has accused Mr. Nadarkhani, a pastor of the evangelical Church of Iran, of the capital offense of forsaking Islam. Mr. Nadarkhani was arrested in his home city of Rasht in October 2009 after he questioned Islamic control over religious instruction of Iranian children. He was charged initially with illegal protest, but that was raised to the more serious crimes of apostasy and evangelizing Muslims. He was convicted and sentenced to death. Mr. Nadarkhani's wife was handed life in prison. His attorney, Iranian human rights lawyer Mohammed Ali Dadkhah, was convicted separately of 'actions and propaganda against the Islamic regime,' sentenced to nine years in prison and barred from practicing law for a decade. There are about 300,000 Christians in Iran, most of whom are Armenians. They trace their lineage back to the first century and the introduction of the faith by St. Jude the Apostle. St. Jude was martyred by the Romans in A.D. 65 and to Catholics is the patron saint of desperate cases and lost causes. In the fall of 2010, a Revolutionary Tribunal affirmed the death sentence, and the case was appealed to Iran's Supreme Court. In June, the high court asked the lower court in Rasht to review whether Mr. Nadarkhani had been a practicing Muslim at the age of maturity, which is 15 in Iran. Prosecutors acknowledged that he had never been a Muslim as an adult but said that the apostasy law still applies because he has 'Islamic ancestry.' Hearings are being held this week to give Mr. Nadarkhani the opportunity to recant his faith and avoid execution... Mr. Nadarkhani may face execution as early as Thursday." http://t.uani.com/obRPMG
James Kirchick in WSJ: "Imagine you are Shane Bauer, one of two American hikers released from Iranian captivity last week. On July 31, 2009, you're traversing a mountain trail in Iraqi Kurdistan, near the Iranian border. You're with one of your best friends and your girlfriend. Suddenly a group of Iranian border guards capture you, and the next thing you know you're in Tehran's infamous Evin prison accused of 'illegal entry' and 'espionage.' Your girlfriend is kept in solitary confinement and you can see her only for an hour each day. The Iranian government prevents you from contacting your family for almost a year, at which point they decide to let your mother visit you for two days at a Tehran hotel. While your captors treat you humanely and provide three square meals a day, your Iranian co-prisoners aren't so lucky. Every night you hear their screams. Evin is the world's most notorious torture dungeon, where political dissidents (men and women) are routinely raped, beaten and subjected to all manner of physical and psychological abuse. Ahmad Batebi, a student activist who spent 17 months in solitary confinement there, reports that guards kicked him in the teeth, dunked his head into a toilet 'stopped up with feces,' and whipped his back and testicles with a cable. When he tried to sleep, they slashed his arms with a knife and rubbed salt in the wounds. As you sit in this hellhole, no less than the president of the United States takes up your cause, insisting that you 'never worked for the United States government,' that you're 'simply open-minded and adventurous' and 'represent the best of America and of the human spirit.' Following two years of strenuous work on the part of committed American diplomats, you are freed on $500,000 bail, paid by the billionaire Sultan of Oman. And what is the first thing you say upon your release? 'Two years in prison is too long and we sincerely hope for the freedom of other political prisoners and other unjustly imprisoned people in America and Iran.' ... The American justice system is far from perfect. But it is transparent, offers the right of appeal, and is routinely challenged by a free press and active civil society. Moreover, it doesn't imprison people for their political beliefs. One would think that two years in Evin prison would instill this basic knowledge in Shane Bauer, whose mind, if not his body, is still being held hostage." http://t.uani.com/pVMfei
Meir Javedanfar & Matt Duss in FP: "Speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace earlier this month, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen stressed the need for the U.S. to maintain open channels of communication with the government of Iran. 'Even in the darkest days of the Cold War,' Mullen said, 'we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran, so we don't understand each other.' Asked whether he was 'specifically talking about military to military contact, or a broader set of engagement between the two countries,' Mullen replied, 'I'm talking about any channel that's open. We've not had a direct link of communication with Iran since 1979... Any channel would be terrific.' While President Obama made talking to Iran a central element of his foreign policy agenda upon taking office, no one expected that it would be easy. Over the last three years, Iran's leaders have done nothing to change that pessimism. Always skeptical of the prospect of negotiating with Iran, U.S. conservatives have criticized President Obama's engagement policy from the start. Most recently, in his first big foreign policy address last Tuesday, Texas Governor Rick Perry scolded President Obama for 'wasting precious time on a naïve policy of outreach' to Iran. Even some early supporters of Obama's engagement policy have lost hope. In a New York Times op-ed this summer, the Brookings Institution's Suzanne Maloney and Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote: 'Washington must appreciate that it is locked in a prolonged struggle for regional influence with one of its least predictable foes.' In order to prevail in this conflict, the authors continued, 'Washington must abandon any expectation that Tehran can be seduced or coerced to the negotiating table.' These sentiments are understandable. Almost two years have passed since the U.S. last held direct face-to-face talks with Iran in Vienna, a meeting which appeared to produce a deal in which Iran would transfer 75 percent of its Low Enriched Uranium stock for conversion to nuclear fuel. Brokered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with the backing of Russia and France, and supported by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the deal soon fell apart after the Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei rejected it, and was therefore abandoned. Iran has still not suspended its uranium enrichment program, as required by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1696. But while negotiations with Iran have not yet achieved their primary goal -- a solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program -- they have not been without important benefits. Since President Obama agreed to talk directly to Iran almost three years ago, he has done more to isolate the Iranian government than President George W. Bush did in eight years in office. By engaging with the Islamic Republic, President Obama called its leaders' bluff. The Iranian government could no longer say that the U.S. is only interested in threatening and attacking Iran. Much to the disappointment of Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei, President Obama recognized the Islamic Republic and its leaders, and the U.S. government sat down and talked to their representatives." http://t.uani.com/oOXEj1
Laura Rozen in The Envoy: "In late 2009, the Obama administration transferred 55 so-called bunker-buster bombs to Israel. The 5,000-pound bombs conceivably put Israel in the position to attack Iran's buried nuclear facilities--or to target Hezbollah's buried bunkers in Lebanon. The revelation, first reported by Newsweek's Eli Lake Friday, received independent confirmation via a sensitive U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks last month... American policymakers had--and indeed have--many reasons to be wary of Israel initiating a confrontation with Iran--chief among them the roughly 150,000 American troops the United States currently has deployed on either side of Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other forces and assets assigned to bases in Qatar, Bahrain and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region. So why has the Obama administration seemingly reversed that call? After all, the Obama White House has sought to curtail Iran's nuclear program through diplomatic and economic measures--and the export of 5,000-pound bunker buster bombs to Israel would seem to severely test Israeli patience for that slow and frustrating effort. And, secondly, why is the information emerging now--nearly two years after the administration carried out the deal? Some policy observers suggest that the U.S. military under Obama was trying to 'hug Israel close,' in order to increase its feeling of security and thus hopefully stave off the prospect that Israel might launch a surprise strike on Iran on its own, thereby wreaking all sorts of havoc with U.S. military and diplomatic initiatives in the region. The reported transfer may have been a 'gesture' by the Obama White House 'to assure the Israelis we love them,' one Washington Iran expert who insisted on anonymity told The Envoy via email... The simpler explanation may in this case be the more compelling one: American and Israeli officials initiated the disclosure of the information now to send a potent warning to Iran. Such a message would be well timed, in view of other recent developments in the Iranian nuclear effort. Last month, Tehran announced that it had started moving nuclear centrifuges to a buried underground facility in Qom. American officials have been concerned that as Iran proceeds with transferring its enrichment program from its current Natanz facility to the underground Qom facility, Israel might choose to launch a preventive strike aimed at thwarting Iran's nuclear initiative before it becomes harder to target at the buried Fordo facility near Qom." http://t.uani.com/orfxp2
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment