Rooyesh

On May 13 of this year Iran declared its readiness to hold talks with the United States over the security of Iraq. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the leader of the Islamic Republic declared Iran will participate in the Baghdad Conference because of request from Iraqi government officials to improve security in Iraq. He stated in this meeting the Iranian government will remind “the occupying power of its responsibility”. The approval of Iranian supreme leader has surprised many political observers.

The United States and Iran will hold their first official face-to-face meeting on May 28, 2007 in Baghdad in the ambassador level. According to the news reports, Hassan Kazemi-Quomi the Iranian ambassador to the Iraq will be heading the Iranian delegation and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador in Iraq, will represent the U.S. in this conference. Both countries have place the Iraqi security as their main agenda and have not shown interest in discussing their own disagreements. Many political observers believe the Baghdad conference can be a starting point which will lead to further discussion on other conflicting issues between both sides. The question is whether this conference will open a new diplomatic opportunity or will escalate the tensions between both countries in the future. The Iranian revolution of 1979 and occupation of the U.S. embassy by the Iranian students broke the direct diplomatic relationship between both countries in April 1980. Although, it is not the first time Iranian and American officials have met since breaking diplomatic relationship, this meeting has unprecedented aspects because of the willingness of both sides to openly discuss Iraq’s security and blessing of Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei. The negotiation over releasing the U.S. hostages in Iran in 1980, selling arms to Iran and traveling of Robert McFarlane a member of U.S. National Security Council to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war which is known as Iran-Contra, and the positive participation of Iranian government to set up a new government in Afghanistan after the collapse of Taliban in 2001 are some of the indirect contacts between both countries in the last three decades. This negotiation is taking place at the time that five Iranian citizens are still under the U.S. custody. In January of 2007 the U.S. army raided a building in Irbil, Iraq and arrested Iranian citizens. The U.S. claimed the five citizens were agents of Qudes Army who were training Iraqi insurgents. The Iranian government has rejected this allegation and has claimed they are Iranian diplomats who have been performing their diplomatic tasks in Iraq with Iraqi government’s knowledge. As continuous pressure on Iran, one week before the approval of negotiation by Supreme Leader, U.S. Vice President, Dick Cheney, on the U.S. Naval Ship, USS John C. Stennis, only 240 km from the Iranian shores gave a threaten message to the Iranian government, “the United States would join allies to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons and dominating the region.” On other hand, Iran’s continued influence on the region through the collapse of its two arch enemies of Tehran by Washington and its persisting enriching of uranium have worried the countries of the region. Hence, the American government through an international consensus, successfully, has put unprecedented pressure on the Iranian regime. It seems that flexibility of the Iranian government for the readiness of negotiation is the result of the international pressures. The escalation of the conflict in Iraq and danger of a civil war compelled the U.S. administration to appoint a panel to examine the situation in Iraq on March 15, 2006 and find a better strategy for reducing violence. This panel was headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton. One of the recommendations from the Baker-Hamilton Commission was for the U.S. to negotiate with Iraq’ neighbors including Iran and Syria regarding Iraqi security. This recommendation as well as Democrats taking power both in U.S. houses on November 7, 2006 pressured the administration to consider talking with both Syria and Iran. September 11, 2001 was a turning point in the history; it propelled the United States to find a new approach to the Middle East in order to fight radical Islamism. This policy is known as “Greater Middle East”; it suggests that the current repressive governments provide a fertile ground for the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. As part of this plan, the United States and its allies invaded Iraq to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein and set up a democratic and pro-western government as a model for the rest of the Muslim world. The continuous escalation of the violence in Iraq is a fundamental challenge for the America’s “Greater Middle East” policy. To rescue the “Greater Middle East” policy, the American government has no choice except to find a viable and urgent solution for Iraqi security. One of the objectives for the United States at this conference will be to give a stern warning to Iran, a country the U.S. alleges frequently is an obstacle to Iraqi security, and to stop its destructive intervention in Iraq. In general, the Iraq issue is a matter of life and death for the United State’s policy toward the Middle East. Iran has declared it is attending this conference because of the Iraqi government’s request. Tehran has been the big winner in this conflict the United States overthrew one of its arch enemies Saddam Hussein and subsequently a Shiite government that is closed to the Iranian government has taken the power. Although Iran has declared that the conference is limited to Iraq security issue, it seems Iran’s objectives goes beyond the security of Iraq. One of the issues that exists between both countries is the suspicious by the Iranian that the U.S. wants to overthrow the government. The recent arrest of Iranian-American scholars, Haleh Esfandiari, Kian Tajbakhsh, and Ali Shakari as well as Radio Farda reporter, Parinaz Aziama is not a coincidence on the eve of the conference because the Iranian government wants to indicate America’s intervention in its internal affair. Another issue is Iran’s demand of five Iranian citizens arrested in Irbil be released. Iran’s quest for nuclear technology as well as Tehran’s desire to be recognized as a regional power in the Middle East are some of the other objectives for Tehran. It seems Tehran wants to use the conference as a scene to address its own concerns with the Americans. Although Iran has repeatedly said that it wants the “occupy forces” to leave Iraq, its true intention might be otherwise. The U.S. forces leaving Iraq at this time can create a chaotic situation and put the Shiite government in danger of collapse which will harm Iran’s interest in Iraq. Furthermore, the vacuum of the withdrawal of the U.S. forces can be filled by the Sunni forces which are backed from Saudi Arabia and it can put Shiites under pressure and diminish the power of Iran in the region. The May 28 conference in Baghdad between Tehran and Washington is unprecedented event. But it is not a manifestation of changing strategies by both countries. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran is continuing with its enriching uranium for nuclear technology and it is continuing its support of Shiite elements in Iraq and Hezbollah. The United States is also continuing with its past policies; according to ABC news, President Bush has authorized a CIA a covert operation against Iran; the U.S. and its allies also have called for tougher sanction against Iran because of Tehran’s refusal to halt its nuclear program. Iran does not want to stop its nuclear program. There is no sign to indicate the Iranian government has stopped its support of fundamentalist groups in the region. On the other hand the United States can not accept Iran’s nuclear activities while it will try to cease Iran’s support of the fundamentalist group. In fact, the progress of “Greater Middle East” policy contradicts with the foundation of Iran’s political behavior in the international and internal realm. Thus, we can not be very optimistic about the Baghdad conference as a starting point to open an official relationship between two countries. It is not far from reality that the Baghdad conference could turn to a scene of mutual accusations instead of finding a practical solution to the security of Iraq. The beginning of official relationship with the Untied States means a fundamental failure for the ideology of the government which one of its components is anti-Americanism. Furthermore, the failure of this conference can add another layer on the thick wall of suspicious which exists between both countries, the suspicious that can escalate tensions between both countries in the future. The failure of this conference can lead to an unpredictable event.

Rooyesh.blog.com

Guardian reports the US ambassador in Baghdad said today he had warned Iran against supporting insurgents in Iraq during the first official bilateral talks between Washington and Tehran in almost three decades. Ryan Crocker said the four hours of talks in Baghdad with his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, had been businesslike and positive, despite his words on Iranian backing for militias. Tehran vehemently denies it is aiding insurgents. “The talks proceeded positively.

What we need to see is Iranian action on the ground,” Mr Crocker told reporters after the talks at the office of the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, inside the sealed-off Green Zone compound in Baghdad. “I laid out before the Iranians a number of direct, specific concerns about their behaviour in Iraq - their support for militias that are fighting both the Iraqi security forces and the coalition forces. “The fact [is] that a lot of explosives and ammunitions used by these groups are coming from Iran … The Iranians did not respond directly to that, they did again emphasise that their policy is support of the [Iraqi] government,” he said. Iranian officials wanted to request a second session of discussions, Mr Crocker said, adding: “We will consider that when we receive it.” Iran also proposed setting up a “trilateral security mechanism” that would include the US, Iraq and Iran, the ambassador said, adding that any move on this would need study in Washington. The talks - the first such public contact between the US and Iran since they broke off diplomatic relations in 1980 - deliberately ignored the vexed issue of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and were aimed solely at discussing ways to improve the appalling security situation inside Iraq. As the men talked, a suicide car bomber struck in the Sinak commercial district of central Baghdad, killing at least 21 people and wounding 66, police and hospital officials said.

Despite its concerns about Iran, the US is trying to enlist the country to help stem the sectarian violence in Iraq between Sunnis and Shias that threatens to spiral into all-out civil war. Direct contact with Iran was recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report, commissioned by the US Congress and released late last year. Hopes of any real advance in today’s talks diminished even before they began as Tehran formally complained last night about alleged American and British spying in Iran. A top Iranian foreign ministry official summoned the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, who represents US interests, to launch a formal protest about what he called “espionage networks”. Iranian state television reported that the official, Ahmad Sobhani, demanded an explanation for groups he said were committing “infiltration and sabotage in western, central and south-western areas of the country”. Iran has repeatedly complained of US and British attempts to stir up its ethnic minorities as a way of putting pressure on the leadership. The US has repeated accusations that Iran is sending explosives and other material to insurgents in Iraq. Speaking today in Tehran, Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, argued that the talks could only lead to future meetings if Washington admitted its Middle East policy had been mistaken. “We are hopeful that Washington’s realistic approach to the current issues of Iraq by confessing its failed policy in Iraq and the region and by showing a determination to changing the policy guarantees success of the talks and possible further talks,” he said. Despite the deliberately narrow focus of the discussions, many other sources of tension remain, not least intense US-led pressure on Iran over its nuclear enrichment programme. Washington and others claim Iran wants nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists it is purely a civil energy scheme. Iran’s government also remains deeply suspicious that the Bush administration harbours plans for regime change in Tehran.

The United States ambassador in Baghdad said he and his Iranian counterpart agreed broadly on policy toward Iraq during four-hour groundbreaking talks on Monday, but insisted that Iran end its support for militants. The Iranian ambassador later said the two sides would meet again in less than a month.

 Hassan Kazemi Qomi, the Iranian envoy, also said that he told the Americans that his government was ready to train and equip the Iraqi army and police to create “a new military and security structure.” Kazemi did not elaborate nor would he say how U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker responded. The Baghdad talks were the first of their kind and a small sign that Washington thinks rapprochement with Iran is possible after more than a quarter-century of diplomatic estrangement that began with the 1979 Islamic revolution. “The next meeting will occur in Iraq in less than one month,” Kazemi told an Associated Press reporter after his news conference at the Iranian Embassy. Crocker earlier said the Iraqis planned to propose a second session and that the United States would decide upon a follow-on meeting when the invitation was issued. “We will consider that when we receive it,” Crocker told reporters in the U.S.-controlled Green Zone. “The purpose of this meeting was not to arrange other meetings.” Crocker described the session as businesslike and said Iran proposed setting up a “trilateral security mechanism” that would include the U.S., Iraq and Iran, an idea he said would require study in Washington. The U.S. envoy also said he told the Iranians their country needed to stop arming, funding and training the militants. The Iranians laid out their policy toward Iraq, Crocker said, describing it as “very similar to our own policy and what the Iraqi government have set out as their own guiding principles.” He added: “This is about actions not just principles, and I laid out to the Iranians direct, specific concerns about their behavior in Iraq and their support for militias that are fighting Iraqi and coalition forces.” Kazemi did not raise the subject of seven Iranians now in American custody in Iran, Crocker said: “The focus of our discussions were Iraq and Iraq only.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), who was criticized by the White House for her trip to Syria — also a U.S. rival — praised the Bush administration for holding Monday’s talks. “I think it’s very important, and at the end of the day we want to know that every remedy, every diplomatic remedy has been exhausted,” she said in Berlin. The talks were held at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Green Zone office. Al-Maliki did not attend the meeting, but the prime minister greeted the two ambassadors, who shook hands, and led them into a conference room, where the ambassadors sat across from each other. Before leaving, al-Maliki told both sides that Iraqis wanted a stable country free of foreign forces and regional interference. The country should not be turned into a base for terrorist groups, he said. He also said that the U.S.-led forces in Iraq were only here to help build up the army and police and the country would not be used as a launching ground for a U.S. attack on a neighbor, a clear reference to Iran. “We are sure that securing progress in this meeting would, without doubt, enhance the bridges of trust between the two countries and create a positive atmosphere” that would help them deal with other issues, he said. Speaking in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the United States should admit its Middle East policy has failed. “We are hopeful that Washington’s realistic approach to the current issues of Iraq by confessing its failed policy in Iraq and the region and by showing a determination to changing the policy guarantees success of the talks and possible further talks,” Mottaki said. Monday’s talks, as predicted, had a pinpoint focus: What Washington and Iran — separately or together — could do to contain the sectarian conflagration in Iraq. “The American side has accusations against Iran and the Iranian side has some remarks on the presence of the American forces on Iraqi lands, which they see as a threat to their government,” said Ali al-Dabagh, an Iraqi government spokesman. But much more encumbered the narrow agenda — primarily Iran’s nuclear program and Iranian fears that the Bush administration will seek regime change in Tehran as it did against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Washington and its Sunni Arab allies, on their side, are deeply unnerved by growing Iranian influence in the Middle East and the spread of increasingly radical Islam. Compounding all that is Iran’s open hostility to Israel. Other issues clouding the talks included U.S. Navy exercises in the Persian Gulf last week and tough talk from President Bush about new U.N. penalties over the Iranian nuclear program. The United States says Iran is trying to build a bomb; Iran says it needs nuclear technology for energy production. Further complicating the talks, Iran said Saturday it had uncovered spy rings organized by the United States and its Western allies.

Source: Associated Press

When representatives of the U.S. and Iran meet in Baghdad on Monday, it will mark the first substantive encounter between the two sides since before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Officially, the agenda is supposed to include security in Iraq, avoiding the nuclear standoff between Iran and the West, and other contentious issues. But the talks are occurring in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion, in which confrontational invective is growing.

Just days after the U.S.-Iran meeting, a group of powerful neo-conservatives —including some of those who were most active in promoting the invasion of Iraq — plan to gather for an all-expenses-paid conference entitled “Confronting The Iranian Threat: The Way Forward” at a luxurious resort in the Bahamas. Many of the 30 or so invited guests have been strident critics of Iran and hard-liners on maintaining the U.S. presence in Iraq. They include six current Bush Administration officials — among them U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad and his wife, Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky — as well as think-tank academics, conservative opinion columnists and Uri Lubrani, the top adviser on Iran to Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Though it is not clear how many will actually attend the conference, a spokesman for the organizers, the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the meeting was intended “to bring together a wide range of experts to examine all options for dealing with Iran.” President Bush himself identified some of those options this week in response to reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran is expanding its uranium enrichment capabilities in defiance of U.N. Security Council demands that it freeze that activity. IAEA chief Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei also noted that Iran was three to eight years away from having the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. “My view is that we need to strengthen our sanction regime,” Bush said, adding that he and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had discussed plans to beef up punitive U.N. measures. [TIME's Joe Klein also reports that Vice President Cheney is actively promoting military action against Iran, despite such a course of action being unanimously opposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a meeting with President Bush last December.] Meanwhile, two longtime Bush supporters among the neo-conservatives — an ideological pressure group with advocates in and out of government — have revived public calls for military action against Iran. Norman Podhoretz, editor of the journal Commentary, authored an article in the magazine’s June 2007 issue, “The Case for Bombing Iran.” And former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told Fox News this week that “the only recourse is to dramatically ratchet up the economic and political pressure on Iran and keep open the option of regime change or even military force.” The US put on a major show of that military force this week, as a U.S. Navy flotilla carrying 17,000 sailors and Marines moved into the Persian Gulf. Carrier strike groups led by the U.S.S. John C. Stennis and the U.S.S. Nimitz were joined by the amphibious assault ship U.S.S. Bonhomme Richard and its strike group. Planes from the two carriers and the assault ship are to carry out exercises, while ships run submarine, mine and other maneuvers. Washington may also be moving to ratchet up covert pressure on Tehran. ABC News reported this week that President Bush has given the CIA a green light to conduct non-lethal covert operations against Iran using propaganda, disinformation and the squeezing of Iran’s international banking transactions. The Iranians, meanwhile, hold several U.S. citizens as undeclared hostages under various pretexts, including allegations of spying. And the U.S. continues to hold a group of Iranians seized by U.S. troops in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Erbil in January. The U.S. accuses them of being members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard engaging in subversion in Iraq; Tehran says they are diplomats detained without justification. Given these rising tensions, what hope is there for a successful diplomatic exchange between the U.S. and Iran next week in Baghdad? “There are powerful forces pushing the two parties into these talks,” says Dr. William Samii, a longtime Iran specialist currently with the Center for Naval Analyses, a federally funded non-profit. “But there may be even stronger pressures that will make agreement difficult to reach.” One of Iran’s top negotiators, Ali Larijani, also seemed to hedge carefully when asked if the talks would focus exclusively on Iraq, as called for by the U.S., or whether they might also include other points of contention. “Talking with the U.S. over issues related to Iran is not an impossible matter,” Iran’s state news agency, IRNA, quoted him as saying. “However, this depends on the subject matter.” “The talks will be held upon the request of our Iraqi friends and for the sake of assisting the people of Iraq,” Larjani added. “We will not spare any efforts to restore peace and stability to Iraq and support the country’s territorial integrity.” Regardless of the tensions that overshadow next week’s U.S.-Iran parley, there’s no question that each side stands to benefit from some kind of a deal. The new Iraq strategy developed by General David Petraeus, the American commander, and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker stresses political accomodation inside Iraq. That is based on their judgment that neither the Iraqi insurgents nor the powerful Shi’ite militias can be readily defeated by the U.S. on the battlefield. Iran’s active cooperation, or at least tacit support, appears crucial to that strategy. As for Iran, its leaders have said they would like to see the U.S. withdraw — perhaps not immediately, but in the relatively near future. The most obvious way to reconcile those U.S. and Iranian goals would be for both parties to work together at stabilizing security in Iraq long enough for President Bush or his successor to justify bringing the troops home.

Time Magazine

Iran, embroiled in a row with Washington over its nuclear program, has increased the amount of its oil export earnings in currencies other than U.S. dollars to about 70 percent, an Iranian official said on Saturday. The figure is up from 60 percent cited in March for Iran’s non-dollar oil export income and reflects the No. 2 OPEC producer’s policy of reducing exposure to the greenback.

“About 70 percent of our oil export income is now in currencies other than the U.S. dollar,” Hojjatollah Ghanimifard, international affairs director of the state-owned National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), told Reuters. “If the dollar gets weaker, we will increase that percentage,” said Ghanimifard, who in March had cited a figure of 60 percent for Iran’s oil export income in other currencies. Iranian officials have said they are seeking to limit dollar-denominated trade. The central bank governor has said Iran was seeking to “distance” itself from dollars and held just 20 percent of its foreign reserves in the U.S. currency. “We are following our government’s monetary policy not to depend on the weak U.S. dollar,” Ghanimifard said, speaking on the sidelines of a conference in Tehran organized by Iran’s Ravand Institute for Economic and International Studies. The United States has been leading efforts to try to isolate Iran over its nuclear program, which Washington says involves a covert plan to make atomic bombs, a charge Tehran denies. Washington has slapped sanctions on two Iranian banks, a move that unnerved some international banks working with Iranian businesses and prompted many to halt dollar transactions. U.N. sanctions have added to worries by targeting an Iranian bank. “The U.S. administration has tried to deprive NIOC of money. We have found other ways to compensate for the shortfall. Proof of that is that our oil production capacity and production of gas and petrochemical products have increased,” Ghanimifard said. “A chunk of money came from the Oil Stabilization Fund (OSF) and some from an additional budgetary hard currency allocation to NIOC,” he said. Iranian media said this week Iran planned to use foreign exchange reserves to finance a $2 billion development of parts of its South Pars gas field after a French bank pulled out. The OSF, a fund set up to save windfall oil earnings in times of need, forms part of the country’s foreign reserves. Industry sources say Iran now produces about 4 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil and exports about 2.4 million bpd. In the year to March, Iran earned about $53 billion from its oil exports, an oil official said. Ghanimifard said that figure could be higher in the current Iranian year to March if oil prices continued to rise. Benchmark Brent crude is now hovering around $70 a barrel, within sight of last year’s record highs. Iranian crude tends to trade several dollars below Brent prices.

Reuters

Asharq Alawsat reports about Iran’s underground music. “15 years ago, whoever purchased a cassette player would wrap it up and hide it in the car so that no one would discover it. The same thing applied to satellite dishes, but now it is normal to own one,” explained Armeni, a young middle class Iranian, as he commented on the changes that had been introduced gradually over the past ten years in Iranian society.

In Iran, items that are banned are readily available locally. These include satellite dishes, certain types of music, films, books and websites, in addition to certain types of clothing. For everything that is officially banned, there is an illegal alternative, for example, there are thousands of websites that have been blocked by the Iranian authorities; however, many young Iranians are technologically-savvy and can bypass the country’s censors. There are also many films that are subjected to censorship or are banned in some cases, but at the same time these films are available in Iran and uncut versions can be found. Also certain genres of music like Hip-Hop are prohibited but they are popular amongst the Iranian youth and can be heard from cars as youngsters drive around the city at night. There are two worlds in Iran that contradict each other yet exist side by side. Armeni owns a car and every summer, he travels to a European country to spend the holidays. Approximately 90% of Iranians have satellite receivers in their homes but this does not mean that official restrictions on buying satellite receivers have changed in Iran over the past few years. Arsh Ferhadi, a business journalist told Asharq Al Awsat, “Journalists, doctors, publishers, officials and university professors can easily obtain a license from the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance to install satellite receivers. As for other Iranians, they must give a plausible reason to want to buy a satellite dish. After this, the ministry considers the request and makes a decision. The majority of people prefer to avoid this procedure and purchase satellite dishes and install them without getting permission”. The overwhelming majority of Iranians, regardless of their economic or educational level or piousness, owns satellite dishes as it is the only alternative to official media in Iran. The official Iranian radio and television are subject to direct supervision from the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Besides the eight official stations in Iran that include a Quran channel, a news channel and a sports channel, there are foreign channels that are legally permitted such as Aljazeera, BBC channels and the EuroNews channel in French. Nevertheless, there are no private television channels in Iran. Due to Iranian television’s affiliation to the Supreme Guide, programs, films and series are subject to strict criteria, the majority of which are religious or social. Many young people regard these channels as traditional and conservative besides that they do not reflect the changes that take place in Iran. For example, neckties have been considered “taboo” since the Iranian revolution in 1979, based on the fact that they are western symbols and a reference to the “westernized” class of technocrats. Therefore, neckties are not worn today in Iran and do not appear in television programs or films except in reference to evil characters that in most cases are from the era of the Shah. But as part of everyday life, some Iranians who belong to the middle class wear neckties at weddings or in private parties generally. The former president of Iran, Mohamed Khatami, sought to expand the scope of social freedoms and allowed music concerts to be broadcast and the playing of traditional musical instruments such as the Sitar and Tambour to be aired during his term. This was considered a calm cultural revolution, taking into account that it was the first time that live concerts were broadcast and that musical instruments were shown on television since the Iranian Revolution. However, the steps taken during Khatami’s presidency began to recede; the current Iranian Minister of Guidance and Culture, Mohammed Hossien Saffar Harandi, has a negative opinion of music. When he assumed his post, he stated that one of the first issues that he would combat would be the types of music that are against the values of the Republic of Iran, including rock and rap. He called upon Iranian musicians to produce purposeful and meaningful music, thus some of them produced a “nuclear symphony” that supports Iran’s right to develop a nuclear program for peaceful purposes. Even though there is an opera house in Iran, its activities are limited to hosting foreign groups that play classical music or Spanish musicians owing to the great popularity of Spanish music in Iran. However, such events take place only every now and again. Many young people, such as Armeni, have solved the problem of music. Armeni now spends a lot of his free time watching and listening to music and music videos on his personal computer in his room. Such is the black market for music, which makes significant profits and the popularity of which increased during the presidency of Khatami, who was unable to grant music a fully legal status but at the same time allowed it to spread freely. Armeni told Asharq Al Awsat, “Music that is sold openly in stores does not represent the music business in Iran. The real music business is underground, the products of which are discretely manufactured. The transactions of this kind of music outnumber the number of transactions of legal music.” Owing to the fact that television does not broadcast concerts, songs or music video clips, underground music (or Zir Zamin in Persian) has become the way of entertainment that is not subject to supervision. Armeni added, “Those who produce and write this music are very talented artists. They want to say things and express their thoughts and ideas on issues through banned music. What do they do? They sit together and produce music and then they copy the tape and either do not put names on them or they use an alias. The tapes are then sent to be sold illegally. We promote the music amongst ourselves by telling other people about the song and where it is available. There are Iranians living in Los Angeles who try to produce music and sell it here but it is not as good or as moving as music that is made in Iran.” In Iran today, there are many young bands, some of which use classical poetry mixed with rock music. Modern Iranian music is now a mixture of a western style and a local flavor through the use of Iranian instruments such as the Tanbur and Sitar. Some popular acts for this style of music include Reza Yazdani, Ali Lohrasbi and Zir Khat Fajr, a rap group whose latest album is called ‘Poverty Line’. Themes of songs include love, poverty, frustration and loneliness. O-Hum is another popular Iranian band, specializing in rock music, who were allowed to stage a concert (non-segregated) for the Christian minority in Iran during Christmas celebrations. The band calls its style “Persian Rock” because it mixes classical Iranian music (using the Tambour and Sitar) with rock music. O-Hum was formed in 1999 by Shahram Sharbaf, Babak Riahipour and Shahrokh Izadkhah. Their plan was to record a few demos at Shahram’s house but the first song that was recorded was circulated until it reached a music company in Tehran that then signed the band to a record contract. After the album was recorded, it was sent to the Iranian Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance to be cleared for release. However, the ministry refused this and said that the album is nothing but “tacky western music” that conflicts with Islamic principles and values. This led to the record company cancelling the contract and dropping the band. O-Hum decided to launch its own website and uploaded all its songs on to the internet to be downloaded by the public free. A few months after the launch of the website, the band became one of the most popular underground groups in Iran. The group encouraged other musicians to produce music and sell it over the Internet that is not subjected to government supervision. The internet made O-Hum and other groups famous in Iran and among Iranians abroad as well as among foreigners interested in Iranian music. a track by the band titled “Hafez in Love” was downloaded 15,000 times in its first week of release. In addition, “underground” music video are also being produced and are enjoying increasing popularity. Only a moderate budget is needed to produce an underground music video as many of them are filmed in the homes of the music artists where the singer will dance to his/her music. In concerts that are permitted by the authorities, singers and spectators are not allowed to dance to music. The internet has led to a revolution in the Iranian music industry and despite the numerous websites that have been blocked by Iranian authorities, especially pornographic sites or websites of opponents to the regime who reside outside of the country; Iran has approximately 10 million internet users. This number could rise to 25 million by 2009 from 1 million users in 1993. Many internet users have knowledge on how to decipher these prohibited websites, but what is notable is that they are not primarily interested in politics as much as they are interested in music, films and books. As much as official music is subject to restrictions by the Iranian Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, the same applies to films. From the beginning stage, the concept of a film must be approved by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. In this regard Iranian filmmaker Saifullah Dad, who was the adviser in charge of cinema during Khatami’s term, told Asharq Al Awsat, “I heard that over the past few years, since the new government came into power, the issue of the film industry is a little more challenging. During Khatami’s presidency, we would give permission to directors without even reading the plot of the film. This has changed now as restrictive procedures have been reintroduced within the ministry. If you want to make a film you have to go to the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance with a brief plot of about ten pages. If it is approved, then you hand them the final script in full. If they agree to it, then you can get permission to start filming. These initial steps do not necessarily mean that the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance will delete or disapprove of parts of the film, but it implies that the ministry is inevitably informed about the films that are currently produced”. Today and for reasons related to production and censorship, the works of many Iranian directors, such as Abbas Kariostami, have decreased significantly. However, some people do not consider this a big problem and they believe that censorship exists in varying degrees in all societies and that there are benefits to it. They argue that Iranian directors who are financed from abroad can exaggerate and present incorrect information about the conditions in Iran and rather reflect the perspectives that Western states that fund them want to focus on. An Iranian university professor, who spoke to Asharq Al Awsat on condition of anonymity told Asharq Al Awsat, “Do not think that directors such as Mohsen Makhmalbaf and his daughter Samira Makhmalbaf enjoy any kind of popularity in Iran as some may imagine. They have not lived in Iran for a while now. They direct films that defame the country at a very critical time. Who funds their films? The French and other Western parties fund them. I do not think that this is the enlightening or educational role of cinema. There are other Iranian directors living in Iran and directing films under the current circumstances and they are much better.” As for foreign films showing in Iran, whether in cinemas or on television, these are usually social or “action” films that are imported from China, Japan and Malaysia and all of them are dubbed into Farsi. All of these films should first be presented to the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, to ensure their compatibility with the Islamic standards of Iran (only foreign women are allowed to appear without head scarves). Iranian television sometimes airs American films but they are not publicized as American films, according to an Iranian activist who told Asharq Al Awsat, “Sometimes the story is changed, for example, if the story is about a co-habiting couple, in the Persian translation, the couple would be married.” A number of Iranian cinemas, including Bahman and Farhang are located near Tehran University, however the films that are screened there are not diverse enough according to many young people. Action films and films based on comics are the most popular films in Iran. The markets for videos and DVDs that are smuggled into Iran are the alternative [to cinema] and offer all newly released films from all over the world, especially America. However these films are not subject to censorship, like the other films that are examined by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. This is a great advantage that is appreciated only after comparing a censored version of a film. These shops that sell DVD’s do not fail in obtaining copies of any films from ‘Schindler’s List’ that follows the tragedies of the Jews during the Holocaust to ‘The Nativity Story’. Prices of films range from one to two dollars. Mohammed Biran, a young Iranian working in one of the DVD shops in northern Tehran, said that the majority of banned films come from Malaysia and are smuggled into Pakistan and cross the border into Iran via Zahedan. In addition to music and movies, books enjoy widespread popularity in Iran. There are over 40,000 titles printed in Iran each year, most of which are literature and poetry. The majority of these books are translations of major western writers and poets. As one walks around Inqilab Square, the square of libraries in Tehran, one will find the library shelves stacked with the works of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Trotsky, Che Guevara, William Shakespeare, Samuel Beckett, Virginia Woolf, Kafka, Dstowski, Mario Vargas, Argun, Goethe, Sigmund Freud and Henrik Ibsen. Ilham, a young Iranian woman who lived in Canada for a while before returning to Tehran said, “Iran is an open and diverse society but this is not portrayed in the media. Iranian society is like a watermelon, it looks dry on the surface but on the inside there is richness and diversity.” In Iran, amidst the thousands of images of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, one would find the face of Nasser al Din Shah Qajar, one of the most important rulers of the Qajari era (nomadic tribes of Iranian Turkmen that unified and ruled Iran between 1779 and 1925 when the then Prime Minister Reza Khan Pahlavi ousted the last ruler of the Qajari Dynasty, Ahmed Mirza, and named himself the Shah of Iran). Images of Nasser al Din Shah (16th July 1831 – 1st of May 1896) occupy almost all traditional tea and coffee cups and on other traditional items. Nasser al-Din Shah was the first Iranian to be photographed and was so impressed with photography that he imported many cameras and took thousands of pictures of himself. His name and the names of his wives are still present in everyday life in Iran. In Shemiran, which means the ‘cold region’ in north Tehran, where most foreign embassies are located, there is also the house of Khomeini, the Saadabad and Niarfan palaces that belonged to the Shah and areas such as Zafraniyah, Alihah, Vermaneh, Aqdaissyah, Ikhtiaria, Ajwadaniyah, Sahbaqraniyah, which are all named after the wives of Nasser al-Din Shah. The names of these places did not change after the Iranian Revolution. Nasser Shah was known for his domineering manner but also for his openness to modern thought and the West. He was the first Iranian Shah to visit Europe in 1871 and was the first Iranian Shah to write his memoirs. He had introduced many European inventions, including the modern postal system, railways and the modern banking system. In his era, the first Iranian newspaper was issued in Iran. There are many Iranian series and films that were produced after the revolution, depicting the life of Nasser al Din Shah and his Prime Minister, Amir Kabir. After the revolution, the Amir Kabir University of Technology was named in honor of the prime minister. Iranians say that the revolution wanted victory for the Iranian-Turkmen family [Qajar], which played a significant role in taking Iran into the modern era and that was later overthrown by the Pahlavi family.

Iran says it has uncovered several spy networks run by the US and its allies - the occupying forces in Iraq. The intelligence ministry said it had “succeeded in uncovering, identifying and striking blows” at infiltrators organised by those forces.

The statement said the networks had been detected in western, south-western and central parts of Iran. The allegations come two days before the Iran and US ambassadors meet in Baghdad to discuss the crisis in Iraq. The statement, which was broadcast on state-run television, gave no further details. “These spy networks were operating under the guidance of the occupiers’ intelligence services and with the support of some influential Iraqi groups and factions,” it said. The White House said it did not confirm or deny allegations about intelligence matters. “We urge Iran to play a positive role in Iraq… and stop blaming everyone else for problems they are only bringing on themselves,” a White House spokeswoman is quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

BBC News

Steve Clemons of the Washington Note reports there is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy. On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney’s team and acolytes — who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice’s efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel. However, the Department of Defense and national intelligence sector are also preparing for hot conflict. They believe that they need to in order to convince Iran’s various power centers that the military option does exist. But this is worrisome. The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well — as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging. Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney’s national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush’s tack towards Condoleezza Rice’s diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously. This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an “end run strategy” around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument. The thinking on Cheney’s team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran’s nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles). This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf — which just became significantly larger — as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war. There are many other components of the complex game plan that this Cheney official has been kicking around Washington. The official has offered this commentary to senior staff at AEI and in lunch and dinner gatherings which were to be considered strictly off-the-record, but there can be little doubt that the official actually hopes that hawkish conservatives and neoconservatives share this information and then rally to this point of view. This official is beating the brush and doing what Joshua Muravchik has previously suggested — which is to help establish the policy and political pathway to bombing Iran. The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted. According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the “right decision” when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President’s hands. On Tuesday evening, i spoke with a former top national intelligence official in this Bush administration who told me that what I was investigating and planned to report on regarding Cheney and the commentary of his aide was “potentially criminal insubordination” against the President. I don’t believe that the White House would take official action against Cheney for this agenda-mongering around Washington — but I do believe that the White House must either shut Cheney and his team down and give them all garden view offices so that they can spend their days staring out their windows with not much to do or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President. It is not that Cheney wants to bomb Iran and Bush doesn’t, it is that Cheney is saying that Bush is making a mistake and thus needs to have the choices before him narrowed.

JAVAD ZARIF has appeared at universities, public policy forums and social and political clubs so often that Lisa Anderson, dean of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, recently asked him wryly if he was thinking of running for office. Mr. Zarif is the United Nations ambassador from Iran, a country that has had no diplomatic relations with the United States since 1980, and he is confined by the American authorities within a 25-mile radius of Columbus Circle.

Punctuating the point, a map in the Iranian Mission shows the boundaries as Parsippany, N.J., the New York-Connecticut border and Exit 40 on the Long Island Expressway. State Department demarcations? he was asked. “No,” he said, smiling beneath a Koranic inscription in his ambassadorial office. “Everything here in the U.S. is private, isn’t it? We had Hagstrom’s do it.” Brand names, local geography and American customs come easily to Mr. Zarif, 47, who has spent most of his adult life in this country and speaks colloquial English with an American accent. His ability to strike cordial relations with many American leaders and with the crowds of Americans he frequently addresses, while defending a country whose leadership they have no sympathy for, is being much commented on as his five years of service come to an end. He has degrees from San Francisco State University and a doctorate from the University of Denver, and his American-born son and daughter now study in the United States. Though he dresses in austere Iranian style, with a high-buttoned collarless shirt and no necktie, and follows the Iranian practice of not shaking hands with women, he is disarmingly informal and punctuates his comments with chuckles and grins. He has combined this beguiling ease with communication tools like video- and telephone-conferencing and Web postings (www.zarif.net) to influence the American-Iranian relationship. YET Mr. Zarif also represents a country that is locked in a contentious standoff with the West over its nuclear program, has harassed and recently jailed three Iranian-American intellectuals, and is led by a president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has declared that Israel should be “wiped off the map” and that the Holocaust should be questioned. “It’s a dilemma for any diplomat to bring the right balance between defending his government and not defending the indefensible,” said Dimitri K. Simes, president of the Nixon Center, which studies national security issues. “I think he was able to find such a balance.” Mr. Zarif became Iran’s chief representative in the United States by an accident that he traces back to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He was born into a well-to-do family with textile and trade interests in Tehran, and his wife’s family had extensive real estate holdings, some of which it lost in the 1979 revolution. But neither family was politically involved, he said, so there were no further consequences. When he came to this country on a student visa in 1976, he was preparing for a teaching career in Iran. But just after he passed his comprehensive tests for his Ph.D. in Denver in 1985, the Immigration and Naturalization Service withdrew his visa, dooming his chances to pursue the degree. Still wanting to remain here legally, he went to New York and took a job in the Iranian Mission. He fulfilled his degree requirements long distance over the next three years, and by then he had proven his worth to the government, which asked him to join the foreign service. “So I’m a diplomat both by default and by the decision of the I.N.S,” he said. Mr. Zarif lives in an elegant French neo-Classical Fifth Avenue townhouse built in 1912, which Iran purchased in the 1960s and which was the site of lavish parties during the shah’s time. “We may not serve champagne anymore,” he said, “but we make up for it with very good Iranian food.” One of his dinner guests there last year was James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state and co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, which soon after recommended establishing direct communication with Iran. DURING his years in New York, he says, he has been so busy making addresses that he has had little time to experience the city or join the diplomatic party circuit. “Also, however I am seen here in New York, I am a religious person, and my wife and I have certain religious limitations on the food we can eat, on the company we can entertain, and we observe those, both personally and officially,” he said. On weekends, he does grocery shopping with his wife and takes walks through Central Park. “If I want relaxation, that’s how I get it,” he said. In his public appearances he is listened to respectfully and often applauded warmly. “I know that what I am saying is not exactly what they want to hear, but I do not see any problem in establishing genuine communication with a whole lot of Americans,” he said. Part of his appeal is the tantalizing suspicion that he contests the extreme views of Mr. Ahmadinejad. “I was in his office in April, and I told him, ‘I don’t know any ambassador who is as derisive of his president as you,’ ” said Ray Takeyh, an expert on Iran at the Council on Foreign Relations. In his speeches and interviews, however, Mr. Zarif is a tough advocate for Iran. On the Holocaust, Mr. Zarif argues that Mr. Ahmadinejad was not questioning whether it had occurred but merely saying that the Palestinians wrongly bore the consequences of it. “The Palestinians had nothing to do with this crime — and it was a crime, it must be condemned, it should never be repeated,” he said. “This is what I say to audiences here.” He also says he believes that the United States is fabricating evidence to back up its accusation that Iran is sending bombs and weapons into Iraq. As for the nuclear impasse, he says that the West refused to negotiate during the two years that Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment, and that Iran has lost faith in negotiations. Asked if he would also fault the Iranian approach, Mr. Zarif acknowledged only, “We might have contributed to the misunderstanding by not explaining our case in the best possible way.” Critics of Iran, like John R. Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, say Mr. Zarif’s charm is an unreliable barometer of Tehran’s true intentions. “The Foreign Ministry of Iran is the last place that is going to know, and it makes it easier for Zarif to tell untruths with a completely straight face because he doesn’t know,” Mr. Bolton said. As for reports that hard-liners view him suspiciously at home, Mr. Zarif said, “Some people would consider that my vocabulary is inappropriate, and they attack me for my tone and say I try to be too accommodating.” As he heads off to realize his original wish to be a teacher at Tehran University, does he think his effort here to bridge the gap has been successful? “I would be satisfied if I have helped in the creation of just a dent in the misunderstanding,” he said. “And I think I have.”

New York Times

The Los Angeles Times reporting regarding Ali Shakeri, an Iranian-American citizen missing in Iran. Ali Shakeri is admired for diplomacy through wit. He has a knack, said fellow board members at UC Irvine’s Center for Citizen Peacebuilding, for cutting through tension with a well-timed joke. He has kidded tirelessly to knit together Orange County’s large Iranian American community and has taken his lessons home, sharing meals with another board member who is Jewish.

In March, Shakeri told colleagues he was flying to Tehran; his mother was ailing. But when former President Carter spoke at UCI this month, and Shakeri was oddly absent from the event, board members began to wonder whether he was coming home. This week, the group Human Rights Watch said the Iranian government probably detained Shakeri, 59, at a Tehran airport and might be interrogating him in an isolated location. He was scheduled to leave Iran and fly to Europe on May 13 but never arrived at his destination. Instead, his ticket had been canceled and his luggage taken from the airline’s possession, the group said. “It’s a disaster,” said John Graham of the UC Irvine center, “that this voice of peace has been potentially silenced.” Iranian officials have not commented publicly on Shakeri’s whereabouts. In recent weeks, two Iranian American scholars with dual citizenship have been imprisoned while visiting the country. A reporter, also a dual national, had her passport confiscated and is unable to leave Iran. The detention of one of those scholars, Haleh Esfandiari, bears close parallels to Shakeri’s apparent disappearance. Esfandiari, a researcher based at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, traveled to Iran late last year to visit her 93-year-old mother. When she headed to the airport to leave Iran on Dec. 30, she was stopped by knife-wielding men in masks, according to center officials. She was interrogated extensively and, earlier this month, imprisoned. The Iranian government this week announced she was being charged with setting up a network to overthrow the Islamic establishment. Her husband, Shaul Bakhash, denied the allegations as “totally without foundation.” Javad Payam, a friend of Shakeri’s who edits a Persian magazine in Laguna Hills, is anxious. He has interviewed former detainees who have described being locked in cells without windows, air-conditioning or radio and forced to sleep on the floor. “When you look at the history of the regime for the past 25 years, whoever has a voice lands in jail, is killed or disappears. It’s nothing new,” said Payam, who met Shakeri at a rally in Los Angeles. “We pray and hope nothing happens to him.” In Orange County, where immigrant groups estimate about 250,000 Iranians live, Shakeri moved in political circles but did not dominate them, friends said. He gave speeches and radio interviews and periodically wrote about politics for Payam-E-Ashena, Payam’s magazine. Shakeri’s biography on the UCI center’s website describes him as “an Iranian American activist who advocates democracy in Iran and peace in the world.” Hossein Hosseini, a member of the Network of Iranian-American Professionals of Orange County, said Shakeri advocated changing Iran’s leadership but maintained that the Iranian people would bring about that change only over time. “He was only controversial depending on your point of view,” Hosseini said. “To those who wanted to up and overthrow the regime, he’s a sympathizer. He wasn’t a big thing. He wasn’t well-known across the world. He was a harmless local guy.” Shakeri was born in Iran but spent much of the last three decades in the United States. He earned a business administration degree from the University of Texas in 1979, according to the biography, and briefly returned to Iran after the revolution that overthrew the late shah. “He had a false hope that there would be real dialogue between the civilizations, but it didn’t work,” said Ahmad Mesbah, who helped found the local Iranian American professionals network. Shakeri then moved to Orange County and opened a mortgage company, Global Estate Funding, in Irvine. He and his wife live in Lake Forest and have two adult sons, both of whom attended UCI, friends said. A short, mustached man who favored dress suits, Shakeri helped found the Center for Citizen Peacebuilding, which examines how people can promote peace in divided societies, said co-director Paula Garb, an anthropology professor. Shakeri’s mother died during his visit to Iran and, after attending her funeral, Shakeri had planned to meet friends in Europe, said Hadi Ghaemi, an Iran analyst for Human Rights Watch, the New York-based nongovernmental organization. He never showed up. Two days later, Shakeri called family members and said “there was some misunderstanding, it wasn’t a big deal and he will be OK,” Ghaemi said. It appears no one has heard from him since.