Make your own free website on

Association of the Italian Libertarians

Latest News
Middle East
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
War on Terror
United States
Europe and Transatlantic Relations
Islam and the West
The United Nations
Promotion of Democracy
Latin America
Media Watch
How to Get Involved
Calendar of Events
Contact Us


Fire Set to Khomeini's Premises

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Aug 2, 2004

A huge fire dammaged heavily one of the two towers of Khomeini's commemorative premises in the Iranian Capital. Hundreds of firefighters and security forces were sent, yesterday, in order to close the area and extinguish what seems to be an arson as this is the 2nd time, in the last two years, that such incident is happening.

The fire was seen from miles away as the tower is one of the highest buildings of Tehran and resulted in the joy of many Tehranis.

Rouh Ollha Khomenini was the founder of the Islamic regime and a dogmatic man who brought devastation for Iran and its people.

Governmental TV echoes terror policy

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Jul 27, 2004

The Islamic regime's governmental TV has started to echo the official terror policy in order to increase the fear among Iranians on the consequences of opposing the Islamic State. Programs have started to be broadcasted showing footages of public executions, floggings and groups of enchained youth arrested by the security forces and forced to circulate in the streets.

This new repressive propaganda indicates the growing fear of the Mullahcracy of the increasing popular hate and opposition to the Islamic regime while it shows the final choice of the Islamic republic's leaders for a stand off against the absolute majority of Iranians who are looking for Regime Change.

At least, one Iranian is executed each week under false labels, such as, "Drug Trafficker", "Rapist", "Spy", "Bandit", "Hooligan" or "Murderer", while the public flogging of Iranians have re-started again.

It's to note that while most Iranians are well aware that these victims are mostly those who have somehow retaliated to the militiamen's brutalities, the use of such false labels is intending to help the European and Japanese collaborators of the Islamic regime to avoid a protest, by their public opinions, on the continuation of their economic relations with a tyrannical and terrorist regime.

Another Public Execution in Iran
SMCCDI (Information Service)
Jul 26, 2004

Another public execution has been made in the Iranian capital as reported by regime's official sources.

The name of this new victim of the Mullhacracy has been anounced as Kazem, aged 23, accused to have shot Mehdi Atiedan, a 22-year-old so-called university student, in October 2003 and stolen his car.

While the regime claims that the execution had lead to "popular joy", on Sunday, other confirmed reports are stating about sporadic clashes as many south residents of Tehran tried to save the victim from execution.

It's to note that the Islamic regime uses often false labels for qualifying its armed opponents and especially those who have retaliated against the brutality of the young Bassij force involved in Iranian universities and acting as student.

Other qualifications, such as, "Bandit", "Hooligan", "Spy", "Drug Trafficker" or "Rapist" are used as well and which help the regime's European and Japanese collaborators to justify the continuation of their business relations with a repressive regime.

Iran's Growing Threat
By Rachel Ehrenfeld
Front Page Magazine| July 23, 2004

Recent events have made it clear that the threat posed by Iran should be dealt with sooner rather than later.  Today's 9/11 Commission report documents extensive ties between Iran and terrorism, and the mullahs' drive to create a nuclear weapon is well known.  In recent days, Iranian officials and clerics have increased the incitement for violence against American and Coalition forces in Iraq.  However, ending the real threat this fundamentalist Islamic theocracy poses to the United States and the West may be impossible, thanks to the Left’s and the pro-Islamists non-stop assault on the president's credibility.

The case against Iran should be air-tight. The Bush administration is now armed  with:

[1] The 9/11 Commission’s report, documenting the  logistical, operational and material support from Iran and Hezbollah (Iran’s  international terrorist arm) to al-Qaeda;

[2] Iran’s  own admission of its intention to develop nuclear weapons;  

[3] Iran’s increasing anti-American rhetoric;  and

[4] Iran’s growing support of terrorism in Iraq.

According to the just-released 9/11 Commission Report,  Iran’s support of al-Qaeda dates back to 1991, when operatives from both  sides met in Sudan and agreed “to cooperate in providing support—even if  only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the  United States.”

By 1993, “al-Qaeda received advice and training from Hezbollah” in intelligence, security and explosives, especially in “how to use truck bombs.” The training took place in the Bekaa Valley, Hezbollah’s stronghold in Lebanon.

The commission further reports that “at least 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi ‘muscle’ operatives traveled into and out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001,” and that Iran facilitated “the travel of al-Qaeda members through Iran on their way to and from Afghanistan.” Yet in an ostrich-like move, the commission refrained from accusing Iran of supporting al-Qaeda.

This is how the commission phrased it: “There is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9-11 hijackers…however, we cannot rule out the possibility of a remarkable coincidence...[and] we found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was  aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.”

Indeed, the commission recommends that further investigations should be carried out, but looking at the body of evidence about Iran’s leadership role in worldwide terrorism and the war against the U.S., one can only hope that we can act in time to restrain it.  

"Iran is closer to nuclear capability that it was two years  ago," said Dr. Ephraim Kam, deputy director of the Jaffee Center for  Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv, earlier this week. And U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, R-KS, also added that Iran is clearly developing nuclear weapons.  Pakistan, as we found out earlier this year, provided Iran with information on how to build an atomic bomb.

Iran’s admission that they are working on developing nuclear capabilities was made in November 2003 by a member of the Iranian Parliament, Ahmad Shirzad. He made reference to the existence of a then-unknown essential nuclear facility, at a time when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iranian opposition had identified at least 8 different nuclear facilities in Iran. Despite all the evidence, it is unlikely that the international community will take steps to disarm Iran any time soon – indeed, the
IAEA and EU Overtures have been disastrous. And undoubtedly, China and Russia will block any real disarmament efforts.  

Iran denies that it is developing nuclear weapons; however on July 6, 2004, the Iranian daily, Kayhan’s editorial warned that, "The entire Islamic Middle East is now a volatile and tangled trap, and will be set off by the smallest bit of silliness – and will reap many victims of the sinful adventurers…Indeed, the White House's 80 years of exclusive rule are likely to become 80 seconds of hell  that will burn to ashes everything that has been built.” Earlier, according to reports in the Kuwaiti, Al-Siyassah, Hashemi Rafsanjani, the head of the Expediency Council stated, "The present situation in Iraq represents a threat as well as an opportunity... It is a threat because the wounded American beast can take enraged actions, but it is also an opportunity to teach this beast a lesson so it won't attack another country.” He ended his speech calling for "Death to America, Death to Israel.”

Iran’s support of the growing terrorist activities in Iraq and its attempts to destabilize the interim government resulted in warnings issued this week by the Defense and Interior Ministers of Iraq in an interview for the London based Arabic-daily, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.  The Defense Minister, Hazem Al-Sha’lan, after accusing Iran of supporting terrorism on Iraqi soil, warned, “We have the capability to move the assault into their country[ies].”

If you think that Iran has its hands full with terrorist activities already, think again. Last month, according to Reuters, the Islamic Republic of Iran – through the proxy known as the Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign – launched a new campaign calling for volunteers to carry out suicide attacks against U.S and Coalition forces inside Iraq, as well as missions targeting Israel and author Salman Rushdie. Since the 10,000 volunteers already registered are not enough, they distributed a “Preliminary Registration for Martyrdom Operations” application for the position of “martyr.” Announcing this new campaign, the cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati urged the public that "It is the duty of every Muslim to threaten U.S. and British interests anywhere.”  

So, what are we waiting for? The president's  impaired credibility, a dividend of the perpetual partisan assaults of the  political Left, most elements of the Democratic Party in general, and the pro-Islamists anti-American elements in Europe and elsewhere now poses a grave danger to our security at home and abroad. Since the Democratic Party has embraced its activist core, its politicians have denounced the war in Iraq as unjustified and immoral, each American and Iraq death the intended by-product of President Bush's wilful lies. Ted Kennedy  claimed the war was "cooked up in Texas" months or years before it was  launched; Al Gore screeches that President Bush "betrayed us!"; and the Left  at large has claimed the president massaged intelligence to manipulate the  public into attacking the benign despot of Iraq. The 9/11 Commission’s and Lord Butler’s report debunked the Left’s and the pro- Islamists’ allegations, but the damage was already done. Having tarnished the president's veracity specifically on the War on Terror for political advantage, the Democrats hope is to render us impotent to respond to the genuine threat posed by Tehran. If the damage they have caused cannot be reversed, their self-seeking rhetoric may prove to have mortal consequences.

*Rachel Ehrenfeld is the author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It and is the Director of the American Center for Democracy.

The Hawks and the Doves Are Aflutter over U.S. Iran Policy

July 23, 2004
Danielle Pletka

Every few years, with soothing regularity, a prominent research institution comes along to recommend that the United States reengage with Iran. The gist of such reports usually follows the same line: Isolation just isn't working; reformists (or sometimes they're called moderates or pragmatists) need Washington's help in the battle against hard-liners; the country is not (nor will it ever be) on the verge of a new revolution; and only relations with the U.S. will provide incentives for better behavior.

This week, it was the Council on Foreign Relations that sounded the call in a 79-page report from a task force chaired by former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA Director Robert M. Gates.

Given the seriousness of the threat Iran poses, fresh ideas from the Council on Foreign Relations and elsewhere are, of course, welcome. Iran, after all, is Terror Central: It has become an operational headquarters for parts of Al Qaeda, continues to sponsor Hezbollah and Hamas, and senior officials remain under indictment in U.S. court for masterminding the 1996 bombing in Saudi Arabia of the Khobar Towers military housing complex, in which 19 Americans died. According to U.S. and European officials, the regime also remains bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and is well down the road to doing so.

Clearly, U.S. policy in Iran has been a failure. Its problems have persisted notwithstanding four years of tough talk from the Bush administration, a continued embargo on U.S. investment and virtual diplomatic radio silence. It's time to try something new; on that much, we can agree with the pro-engagement groups.

But that's where our agreement ends. They insist, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that dialogue and trade would succeed where a hard line has failed. Yet dialogue and trade are the hallmarks of Europe's fruitless engagement of Iran. Neither European diplomatic outreach nor cordial trading relations have achieved results. Carrot-and-stick offers, like a proffered "trade and cooperation agreement" in exchange for a stand-down on nuclear proliferation, have also failed. Engagement is a proven bust.

The fact is, neither tough love nor tough talk will achieve results in Iran because decision-makers in the government--not just the so-called hard-liners but the "moderates" and "pragmatists" as well--are committed to supporting terrorism, developing nuclear weapons and annihilating Israel. Any opening from the U.S. will only lend credibility to that government and forever dash the hopes of a population that, according to reliable polls, despises its own leadership.

So what to do? President Bush has taken the first step by making clear that the Iranian clerical regime is anathema to the U.S. national security. But we're not likely to invade for a variety of practical reasons, among them a shortage of troops and an absence of targeting information about Iran's nuclear sites. Nor can we count on Iran's weary and miserable population to rise up unaided and overthrow its oppressors; virtually all analysts agree that's not about to happen.

Instead, a new three-part policy is needed.

First, the administration must ante up promised support for the Iranian people. Just as we supported Soviet dissidents, we must use the diplomatic and economic tools at our disposal to embarrass the regime for its abysmal human rights abuses, rally behind dissident student groups and unions and let them know that the U.S. supports their desire for a secular democratic state in Iran.

Second, the administration must persuade the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency to stand firm in their confrontation over Iran's nuclear program. Iran has made commitments to end the production and assembly of nuclear centrifuges. It has reneged on those promises, and the next step is for the IAEA to refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council. There is quiet talk of economic sanctions in European capitals; the EU must know that a failure to follow through would mean an Iranian nuclear weapon within a few years.

Finally, the U.S. must lead in the containment of Iran. Iranian weapons imports and exports should be interdicted; financial transfers to terrorists must be identified and confiscated; terrorists traveling into and out of Iran should be aggressively pursued and eliminated.

These steps would not deliver quick solutions, but they are the only rational course available to the U.S. and its allies. We have seen that engagement with the current leadership of Iran would not achieve policy change; all it would do is buy an evil regime the time it needs to perfect its nuclear weapons and to build a network of terrorists to deliver them.

Danielle Pletka is vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.


US Sets Sights on Toppling  Iran Regime

July 16, 2004
The Times
Michael Binyon and Bronwen Maddox

THE US will mount a concerted attempt to overturn the regime in Iran if President Bush is elected for a second term. It would work strenuously to foment a revolt against the ruling theocracy by Iran's 'hugely dissatisfied' population, a senior official has told The Times.

The United States would not use military force, as in Iraq, but if "Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran", declared the official, who is determined that there should be no let-up in the Administration's War on Terror.

To what extent the official, known to be hawkish, was speaking for the White House was unclear, but his remarks are nevertheless likely to cause alarm in Europe. He hinted at a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that there was a window of opportunity for destroying Iran's main nuclear complex at Bushehr next year that would close if Russia delivered crucial fuel rods. To destroy Bushehr after the delivery would cause huge environmental damage. The rods would allow the Iranians to obtain enough plutonium for many dozens of nuclear weapons, he said.

The official also stepped up the pressure on Britain, France and Germany to take a tougher line on Iran, voicing the disdain within the Administration for the Europeans' attempt to defuse the Iranian nuclear threat through diplomacy. Britain had joined the effort in order to demonstrate its European credentials, he said. France and Germany had teamed up with Britain because they realised that the pair of them could no longer run Europe alone.

Washington believes that the trio has been embarrassed by Iran's failure to hold good to a deal it struck with the Iranian regime last October. Iran pledged to give UN inspectors the freedom to make snap inspections, and also to suspend uranium enrichment.

Since then, some members of the Administration have begun referring in private to Britain, France and Germany as 'the Tehran three', and to Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, as 'Jack of Tehran'.

If the Europeans fail to get Iran to back down at a meeting this month, the US wants to close the gap between the rival diplomatic approaches and refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council.

Russia is due to deliver the first shipment of nuclear fuel to Iran early next year for insertion into the reactor at Bushehr before the end of the year.

Despite that, the official believes that it is not impossible to get Russia to see it our way and back a UN resolution that would 'raise the international saliency' of Iran's nuclear ambitions. He is convinced that Iran is afraid of a 'conveyor belt' that would lead inexorably to sanctions and even military action.

Iran is one of the three members of President Bush's 'axis of evil' and has further angered Washington with its covert interference in Iraq since the end of last year's war to topple Saddam Hussein.

The official dismissed suggestions that Washington would hesitate to seek regime change in Iran, given the problems it has encountered in Iraq, and Colin Powell, a restraining influence as Secretary of State, will not be serving a second term. It is less clear how the Administration could foment a revolution without uniting Iranians against 'the Great Satan'.

The official claimed that more than its dislike of the mullahs, the Iranian population was dissatisfied with an economy that did not have jobs for the young: 60 per cent of the population is under 24.

There is little organised opposition inside the country and financing it directly or through front organisations would probably play into the hands of the mullahs anyway.

At present the US relies on about a dozen Farsi satellite television and radio channels in the San Fernando Valley, California. They beam pirate broadcasts to the estimated seven million Iranians with illegal satellite dishes.

Last year Washington also set up a Persian-language Voice of America programme that is broacast into Iraq. The internet offers another channel for US propaganda, but efforts to impose stiff sanctions or fund anti-Government exile groups have been frustrated by a Republican split over the relative merits of confrontation or engagement.

Despite the US threats one of Iran's top ruling clerics vowed yesterday that the Islamic republic would continue to pursue its controversial nuclear programme. "We are resolute. It is worth achieving it at any cost," Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of the Guardians Council, said.