| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 10:36 pm Post subject: United States' Policy Toward Iran |
| The Bush-Bolton Plan to Bomb Bushehr (for Israel)
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/05/15/the-bush-bolton-plan-to-bomb-bushehr-for-israel.php
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Ritter: Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/03/30/scott-ritter-sleepwalking-to-disaster-in-iran.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States' Policy Toward Iran
R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC
May 19, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Biden and distinguished
Members of
the
Committee, for the opportunity to discuss with you today United
States'
policy
toward Iran.
Iran remains a serious foreign policy challenge for our country and
the
democratic world at large. For nearly a quarter century the United
States
and
Iran have been without diplomatic relations. With the images of our
Embassy
hostages seared so deeply into our collective consciousness, it is
easy to
forget that our countries once enjoyed excellent relations and, only
a
generation ago, 200,000 Iranians were studying in the U.S. The United
States is
proud to be home to a large community of extremely talented Iranian
immigrants
who preserve a cultural and personal bridge to Iran where diplomatic
contact
long ago broke off.
It is not with the Iranian people, but with the Iranian regime's
threatening
and often irresponsible behavior, that our concerns rest. We have
repeatedly
made clear our grave concerns regarding the Iranian government's
pursuit
of
weapons of mass destruction and long-range delivery systems; its
sponsorship of
terrorism including its direct support to Hizballah and Palestinian
rejectionist groups; its appalling human rights and democracy record;
its
support for violent opposition to efforts to achieve peace in the
Middle
East;
and its interference in the affairs of its neighbors -- especially
Afghanistan
and Iraq.
Each of these issues is of vital concern to the United States and, in
each
and
every case, Iran has a position inimical to that of the United States
and
the
international community. At a time when countries across the region
are
moving
towards greater openness, political participation and economic
freedom,
Iran
stands in stark contrast.
Our concerns with Iran are not merely historical; they do not simply
reflect
the pain felt, real as that pain is, over the storming of our Embassy
more
than
two and a half decades ago. It is Iran's actions and policies today
that
drive
our policy. Iranian government policies, loosely grouped into three
broad
categories that I will discuss briefly today, directly threaten U.S.
interests
in the region and beyond.
In each of these three areas, Iran has a demonstrated track record of
moving
backwards against the tide of world events. I will start with Iran's
freedom
deficit, appropriate given the recent election of democratic
governments
in two
of Iran's neighbors and the upcoming June 17 Presidential elections
in
Iran.
IRAN'S DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD
Iran is a great country with a unique history and culture. The
Iranian
people
have made extraordinary contributions in many fields for thousands of
years.
Modern Iran will undoubtedly remain a significant country in the
future of
the
broader Middle East.
The United States believes the future of Iran should be democratic
and
pluralistic. We support those who wish to see Iran transformed from a
rigid,
intolerant theocracy to a modern state. A peaceful, democratic Iran
would
be a
key feature in a reformed, more democratic Middle East. We believe
Iran is
a
country in the process of change. Some two-thirds of its people are
below
the
age of thirty-five. Many young Iranians support the need for a more
positive
relationship with the U.S. In fact, the U.S. may have a more positive
public
image in Iran than in other countries of the region. We sense that
the
sentiment among ordinary Iranians for change for reform and
democracy
is
strong. But that sentiment is ignored by the ruling clique.
Iran suffers from a deficit of freedom. The regime's human rights
record
remains abysmal and the government continues to commit numerous,
serious
abuses, including summary executions, disappearances, torture and
other
inhumane treatment. In the late 1990s, elements of Iran's secret
services
murdered a number of intellectuals and oppositionists. In 2000, a
courageous
journalist named Akbar Ganji was imprisoned for uncovering the truth
and
reporting it in his newspaper. Since Ganji was imprisoned, many
journalists and
even webloggers have been taken into prison where they have been
abused
and
threatened. The Iranian government's actions have essentially
eliminated
the
free press in Iran. In 2003, an Iranian Canadian photojournalist,
Zahra
Kazemi,
was beaten to death in detention. The investigation and trial have
been a
farce
and the Canadian government has taken steps to scale back its
relations
with
Iran.
During student protests in June 2003, 4,000 demonstrators were
arrested; a
few
are still held. In December 2003, Parliamentarian Mohsen Mirdamadi
was
beaten
by vigilantes as he started a speech in Yazd. Before the 2004
elections,
when
reformist members of parliament signed a petition to the Supreme
leader
asking
for more democracy, they were threatened with arrest and arbitrarily
stripped
of their parliamentary immunity.
In fall 2004, for a second year in a row, the United States
co-sponsored
and
actively supported a Canadian resolution at the UN General Assembly
condemning
the human rights situation in Iran. The Iran human rights resolution
passed in
the UN General Assembly's 59th Plenary, sending an important signal
to the
Iranian people that the international community recognized their
suffering
and
to the Iranian Government that dialogue on human rights was no
substitute
for
concrete action to improve its record, and that the serious concern
about
Iran's overall international behavior would not blunt the
international
community's focus on the internal human rights situation.
On the surface, the Iranian government points to a picture of an
active
democracy in which Iranians participate regularly in national and
local
elections. But this is a veneer behind which lies a perverted process
whose
integrity is severely compromised by the oppressive oversight
exercised by
hard-line clerical bodies. One of the most egregious recent examples
of
this
extraordinary system was the rigging of the February 2004 Majles
elections, in
which the Guardian Council disqualified thousands of reformist
candidates,
including more than 85 sitting members of the Majles. We commend the
bravery
and dedication of the many ordinary Iranians who put their
livelihoods at
risk
to advance the principles of democracy, religious tolerance, and the
accountability of the government to its own people.
We are similarly very concerned that the upcoming June 17
Presidential
elections will represent another setback for the democratic hopes of
the
Iranian people. Candidate registration started Tuesday, May 10 in
Iran and
ended May 15. At the end of the registration period, the names of the
Presidential candidates will be forwarded to the 12-member Guardian
Council,
which then has up to 10 days to assess the eligibility of the
candidates.
There
is every indication the June election will not result in a meaningful
expression of the popular will, because the political process and the
media are
controlled and manipulated by an unelected few the clerical elite
and
their
associates. These unelected leaders dominate Iran's political system,
have
the
power to intimidate and disqualify candidates, and through the
exercise of
that
power have stymied popular demands for freedom. Of the over 1,000
Iranians
who
have registered to run in the upcoming elections, the Guardian
Council is
likely to approve less than a dozen candidates. Indeed, in 2001, only
10
of the
814 registered candidates were allowed to run. The diminished role of
women in
Iranian political life since the February 2004 Majles elections is
another
clear indicator of the regime's effectiveness in stymieing free
popular
will
and of its anti-democratic beliefs.
In November 2003 at the National Endowment for Democracy, President
Bush
outlined a forward strategy for freedom in the Middle East. He said
that
"sixty
years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of
freedom in
the
Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run,
stability
cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." In his 2005 Inaugural
Address,
the President reiterated America's support for the people of the
broader
Middle
East and North Africa in their fight for freedom. "We will
persistently
clarify
the choice before every ruler in every nation: The moral choice
between
oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally
right."
President Bush spoke directly to the Iranian people in his February
2,
2005,
State of the Union Address, saying: "As you stand for your own
liberty,
America
stands with you."
The Administration is deeply appreciative of Congress' and this
Committee's
support for the resources that enable us to implement the President's
Freedom
agenda and reach out to the Iranian people. A few examples:
-- Since May 2003 we have funded a Persian language website that
serves as
a
"virtual embassy" by providing the only channel for both U.S. policy
statements
in Persian as well as a range of information about democracy,
American
society
and values, and consular information.
-- We are also funding political discussion in Persian on television
and
radio
broadcasts into Iran under the auspices of the Voice of America.
Recently
VOA
announced that it was increasing the duration of these broadcasts.
The
U.S.
government also funds news and music broadcasts into Iran on Radio
Farda.
This
service is specifically targeted at the large population of younger
people
in
Iran.
-- The FY2005 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs
Appropriations Act doubled to three million dollars the funds
available to
our
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Bureau to support the advancement
of
human
rights and democracy in Iran. We are currently reviewing applications
for
FY2005; in 2004 we provided one million dollars to document human
rights
abuses
inside Iran and $500,000 for National Endowment for Democracy
programming.
-- We have also recently established, with European and Canadian
allies, a
Human Rights Working Group that will convene quarterly to share
information and
coordinate our approach to the issue.
These initiatives and programs require resources. Our commitment of
funds
to
support freedom in Iran is tangible evidence of the United States'
support
for
a better future for the Iranian people, and we appreciate
Congressional
support
for our programs and efforts.
The freedom deficit and the severe restriction on free expression and
fair
elections is the first of our concerns with Iranian government
policy.
COUNTERING IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS
A second and critical U.S. concern is our strong and resolute
opposition
to
Iran acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Iran's desire to acquire
a
nuclear
weapon threatens the peace and security of the United States, our
friends
and
allies, and the stability of the entire region. Iran's demonstrated
track
record of nuclear deception and denial is troubling, including an
18-year
history of trying to hide from the world a clandestine enrichment
program,
undeclared plutonium separation experiments, and other suspicious
activities,
as reported by IAEA Director General El Baradei. Iran failed to
report the
irradiation of uranium targets and subsequent processing of those
targets
to
separate plutonium. Iran failed to report the use of imported natural
UF6
for
the testing of centrifuges at the Kalaye Electric company. Iran
failed to
declare the pilot enrichment facility at Kalaye Electric, the laser
enrichment
plant at the Tehran Nuclear Research Center, and the pilot uranium
laser
enrichment plant at Lashkar Ab'ad. The list of Iran's failures goes
on and
on
and represents not mere administrative failures but, in our view,
the
foundation pillars of a clandestine nuclear weapons development
program.
We see no sign Iran has made the necessary strategic decision to
abandon
what
we conclude is an active nuclear weapons program. Iran's repeated
brinksmanship
in its negotiations with the "European Union Three" or EU3, of
France,
Germany
and the United Kingdom, is part of Iran's continuing effort to divide
the
international community, weaken our resolve and avoid adhering to its
international obligations.
On this issue, though, let there be no misunderstanding in Tehran.
The
international community stands united: Iran must not be permitted to
develop
the capacity to build or deliver a nuclear weapon. Many in the United
States
were skeptical of the chances of success for the EU3 diplomatic
effort,
given
Iran's track record. But President Bush, on his recent visits to
Europe
and
Moscow, heard a clear commitment from our friends and Allies: we
share the
goal
of denying Iran a nuclear weapon and recognize that there must be
consequences
should Tehran fail to adhere to its international commitments. Our
partners
made clear that Iran must provide objective guarantees to demonstrate
that
it
is not pursuing a clandestine weapons program under the cover of a
civilian
nuclear energy program. On this point, the bar for Iran must be set
high:
its
history of deception of the IAEA and the world has undermined the
international
community's trust. To paraphrase a great American President: if we
don't
trust,
then we really must verify.
During his visit to Europe in February, the President heard from our
friends of
the importance of United States' support for the EU3 diplomatic
process,
in
order to reinforce to the world that the ball lies squarely in Iran's
court to
adhere to its agreements. On March 11, Secretary Rice announced that
the
U.S.
was prepared to take tangible, practical steps in support of the EU3
diplomatic
track, and would no longer block Iran's application to join the WTO
and
would
consider licensing the export of spare parts for civilian passenger
aircraft to
Iran. Since that time, we have maintained a near constant dialogue
with
the
EU3. For example, the Secretary saw UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
on
Tuesday,
and I speak on a daily basis with my UK, French and German
counterparts to
reinforce our utmost support for their leadership on this incredibly
vital
issue to our shared security interests.
The EU3 deserves our appreciation for its efforts to resolve Iran's
nuclear
challenge through patient, principled diplomacy. Iran appears to have
maintained its suspension pledge since November 22, 2004 but has
asserted
several times in recent weeks that it intends to resume uranium
conversion
activities at Isfahan which are covered by its November 2004
agreement
with the
EU3, and would require the breaking of IAEA seals in place to monitor
that
suspension. The Europeans have made plain their deep concern with
this
possibility and reaffirmed that these activities would constitute an
Iranian
breach of the agreement, ending the negotiation process and requiring
action by
the international community. We support the EU3 in their commitment
to the
Paris Agreement signed in November and believe that, if it is
breached,
the
United States and the EU3 must support a resolution in the IAEA Board
of
Governors reporting Iran to the UN Security Council.
President Bush and Secretary Rice have made clear publicly that we
support
a
peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Iranian nuclear problem. That
is
why we
support the EU3 process. Our message to Tehran today is: adhere to
the
Paris
Agreement, maintain suspension of all nuclear-related activities, and
negotiate
in good faith the eventual cessation and dismantling of all sensitive
nuclear
fuel cycle activities.
The spotlight must remain on the Iranian government and on the
requirement
that
the Iranian government adhere to its international commitments.
Unfortunately,
we see no sign of a strategic decision to abandon nuclear weapons
efforts,
and,
particularly in the light of recent threats by Tehran to resume
enrichment, we
remain deeply skeptical of Iran's intentions. U.S. policy toward Iran
on
this
urgent issue is resolute. As President Bush noted on September 27,
2004:
"We've
made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear
weapon."
IRAN'S DESTABILIZING IMPACT ON THE REGION AND BEYOND
Iran has already used another unconventional weapon terrorism
against
innocent Americans, Europeans, Arabs, Israelis and others. Iran
remains
the
most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world. The State
Department's
2004 Country Reports on Terrorism notes that "its Islamic
Revolutionary
Guard
Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security were involved in the
planning
and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of
groups
to
use terrorism in pursuit of their goals." Iran's extensive
involvement in
supporting terrorism truly puts it in a class by itself.
We are deeply concerned about Iran's connections to numerous
terrorist
groups,
including those that violently object to the right of Israel to exist
or
to any
negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians. For example, Iran
provides
money, weapons, and training to HAMAS, Hizballah, and Palestinian
rejectionist
groups. These are some of the world's most deadly terrorist
organizations,
responsible for the killing of thousands of innocents, including
Americans.
Hizballah, for example, has been responsible for more American deaths
than
any
other terrorist organization in the world apart from al-Qaida.
Furthermore,
Iran's support for these groups fuels terrorist violence in Israel
and the
Occupied Territories, seeking to undermine the prospects for Middle
East
peace
at this moment of historic opportunity.
Iran continues to hold senior al-Qaida leaders who are wanted for
murdering
Americans and others in the 1998 East Africa Embassy bombings and for
plotting
to kill countless others. Iran has refused to identify those
individuals
in its
custody.
We have sanctioned Iran as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, and called
for
the
regime to abide by the requirements of U.N. Security Council
Resolution
1373 to
deny safe haven to those who plan, support, or commit terrorist acts
and
to
affirmatively take steps to prevent terrorist acts by providing early
warning
to other states by exchange of information. Iran should immediately
turn
over
to face justice all al-Qaida related terrorists in its custody or on
Iranian
soil to appropriate jurisdictions.
We are also working closely with the UN and our key allies,
particularly
France, to fully implement UNSCR 1559, which calls for the
dismantling of
all
armed militias in Lebanon, including Lebanese Hizballah. Iran has
provided
Lebanese Hizballah with funding, safe haven, training and weapons. We
all
remember that Lebanese Hizballah was responsible for the death of
hundreds
of
Americans in Beirut in the 1980s.
As we meet with our allies from around the world, we take every
opportunity to
express our concerns about Iran's support for terrorism and our
concerns
about
Iranian interference in the efforts to secure a lasting, just peace
between the
Israelis and Palestinians. We actively seek the involvement of the
international community to reflect those concerns in their dealings
with
the
regime, diplomatically as well as commercially.
Iran must also live up to its commitments to develop productive
relationships
with its neighbors, support the new Iraqi government, and renounce in
word
and
deed any relationship to individuals or groups that support
instability
and
engage in terrorism.
Iran is not meeting these commitments with regard to Iraq. Iran made
commitments to Iraq and the international community at the November
2004
Ministerial Conference in Sharm El Sheikh to assist Iraq in its
security
(including border control), to support the political process, and to
practice
non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs. Unfortunately, we see
little
evidence of Iranian assistance, and continuing troubling indications
of
Iranian
interference in Iraqi internal affairs.
We will continue to work closely with the new Iraqi government to
address
all
issues related to Iraq's stability and security. In our dealings
throughout the
region we continue to stress the importance of protecting Iraqi
sovereignty.
CONCLUSION
Notwithstanding the success of the worst regime elements in
reasserting
control
over parliament, Iranian society is moving in its own positive
direction.
Iranians are unhappy about the Guardian Council's heavy-handed
exclusion
of
reformist candidates from elections, the government's curtailment of
press
freedoms, and the deteriorating human rights situation. In addition,
they
are
frustrated by the country's chronic unemployment and their
government's
failure
to provide jobs for the thousands of young Iranians entering the work
force
each year. Structural flaws in the economy can be papered over with
extraordinarily high oil revenues, but they don't go away. Iran is a
great
nation which has given the entire world a powerful cultural legacy
and the
Iranians have much yet to offer in the years ahead.
It is our hope that U.S. relations with Iran will change for the
better;
but
that cannot happen without a change in Iran's policies in the areas I
have
discussed. The pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and delivery
systems
makes Iran less secure and the region more unstable. The regime must
end
its
sponsorship of terrorism, including its direct support to Hizballah
and
Palestinian rejectionist groups and begin to help build a better life
for
all
parties involved. American citizens hear about Iranians who have gone
to
jail
or have been murdered. How can we be silent when we see individual
Iranians
risking everything to achieve the democratic freedoms we ourselves
treasure?
How can we turn our backs when the Iranian regime attempts to subvert
the
newborn democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan?
We have had no diplomatic relations with Tehran for more than 25
years,
through
five Presidential administrations from both political parties. While
we
are
optimistic about Iran's future, the onus to improve its relationship
with
the
rest of the world is squarely on Tehran and will be found in concrete
actions
in the three broad areas I discussed briefly today. For all the lack
of
diplomatic contact, there is no lack of communication about what is
necessary
to transform this relationship. The government in Tehran knows what
is
expected
of it, and must act if it wishes to rejoin the community of civilized
nations.
Released on May 19, 2005
Last edited by Alpha on Fri May 20, 2005 6:38 am; edited 3 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 6:35 am Post subject: |
| Mik wrote:
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 20:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mik"
Subject: Re: Iran State Department Policy
There's several flaws and double standards in the State Department Policy paper on Iran.
Frankly, the State Department paper sounds as if it were written in Tel Aviv by Israeli's looking for excuses to attack Iran, which of course we know they've been doing since shortly after the second Temple was destroyed.
1. This policy paper ignores the human rights abuses and "lack of Democracy" that was present during the last America sponsored Iranian leader, the Shah. During the rule
of the Shah there were plenty of "Summary executions", disappearances, and the rest
of the wide assortment of abuse and lack of freedom that goes with a totalarian ruler.
2. It complains about the lack of Democracy and freedom under the current Islamic rulers while ignoring the lack of Democracy and presonal freedoms that were experienced by Iranian during the rule of the Shah who was American backed.
3. Issues of "National Soverignity". Nations may acquire whatever weapons necessary for self defense and to guarantee freedom.
4. The "Double standard" in addressing WMD issues when it comes to Israel as opposed to how such matters are addressed with in regard to other Arab or Persian countries.
5. The "Double Standard" when it comes to following UN Mandates when it comes to Israel,
as opposed to how such matters are dealt with when it comes to other, Arab or Persian countries.
6. The problems involved in implying Iranian support for "Terrorism" while America continues support for Israel while Israel continues to ignore International law and UN Mandates in general.
7. Implying Iranian sponsorship of Hezbollah
I'm sure there's other "double standard" and "Hypocrisy" issues involved, as well as other
problems with the State Department policy paper as well. If anyone notices them, please let me know what you're seeing.
There's no reason Iran or anyone need accept such an attack from these people.
Mik | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
