Rooyesh

Qum is not usually thought of as a fun place. It is a gray, sun-baked city that serves as the center of learning for Shiite Islam. Its personality is solemn, its shops tend to be old, low-rise and rundown, and it is full of clergy members and police officers.

But on Tuesday, Qum felt festive — for Qum, at least. Bright lights and flags decorated the city. It was the start of celebrations surrounding the birthday of Imam Mahdi, the savior of the Shiite faith. The birthday offers Shiites a chance to welcome a birth, rather than to mourn a death, which tends to be the focus of holy days here. Shiites believe that Imam Mahdi, the 12th imam in a direct bloodline from the Prophet Muhammad, is alive but has remained invisible since the late ninth century, and that he will reappear only when corruption and injustice reach their zenith.

This year, in keeping with the government effort to promote and enforce religious values under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the celebration is receiving plenty of attention from the state, even to the point of being extended an extra day. In any society, religion and culture are essential components of national identity, each contributing to the society’s bedrock principles. Throughout Iranian history, Islamic faith and Persian culture have been intimately merged. Yet, successive leaders have tried to promote one or the other in a constant competition for the national soul, usually with the goal of buttressing their own authority. Each effort, however, has ultimately fallen short. Under the Pahlavis, the goal was to elevate Iranian nationalism over Islamic identity.

Today, the opposite is true, especially since the election of Mr. Ahmadinejad, who campaigned on a platform of returning Iran to its Shiite revolutionary values. But the chances of success now seem no greater than in the past, clerics and political analysts said. “I think there are some scholars and sectors of the government that have such intentions,” said Fazel Meybodi, a cleric who teaches at Mofid University in Qum, speaking carefully, to avoid offending the authorities. “I think they will not succeed.” Islam split into two major sects, Sunnis and Shiites, after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. The core dispute was over who would serve as Muhammad’s successor. Shiites believed in following the Prophet’s family line, and took as their guide the 12 Imams. Because of this minority belief, the Shiites were historically subjugated and persecuted by the Sunnis, so they looked to their imams as fighters for justice and against oppression. These are crucial ideas that inform Iran’s political class to this day.

Following the Shiite emphasis on oppression and justice, people here say, Mr. Ahmadinejad has labeled the United States “the great oppressor,” as opposed to the previously popular “great Satan.” But his fervor has also made him a mark for those who are not quite so religious, and even those who are. “Mr. Ahmadinejad, his knowledge of Islam is little,” said Ali Akhbar Dashdy, a spokesman for Mofid University. “He is not a clergyman. He only knows what he hears people say.” Some of the president’s critics abroad have said he is so devoted to the idea of the return that he is inclined to spark Armageddon to precipitate it. No one here seems to buy that view, at least publicly. And some have mocked the president saying, for example, that he has spent money to pave a special highway to expedite the return — another rumor that seems to have no basis in reality. So how are people celebrating this birthday? In many different ways, despite Mr. Ahmadinejad’s efforts to promote Islamic identity.

It is a mélange — like Iran itself — of culture and religion. People hand out food, often tossing juice containers and candy into passing cars. They picnic and enjoy fireworks displays. There are even outdoor concerts. And in Qum, the government organized an exhibition beneath the Masumeh Shrine, a popular site of pilgrimage. Booths were set up, like at a convention. There was a spot for people blogging about Imam Mahdi. The Bright Future News Agency occupied a booth. Another had clerics offering personal advice. And there was the booth set up to warn people about “Satan worshipers.” There was a Jewish star at the entrance, posted atop a replica of what was supposed to be the Washington Monument (which also was described as a satanic symbol because it is shaped as an obelisk). There was also a movie concerning “perverted cults,” which focused on the Bahai faith. Outside, there were lines of men and women heading to Jamkaran Mosque, on the outskirts of the city. And here was another example of what divides and drives Iranians. Many see the mosque as a site where they can leave messages for Imam Mahdi and have their wishes answered. Others see it as nonsense.

The mosque was built after a villager dreamed in the year 974 that Imam Mahdi told him where he would return and showed him the site, which is where the mosque now stands. There is a well there for visitors to leave their letters of request, and the crowds were thick on Tuesday as people packed so tightly into buses they could not shut the doors. And that, perhaps, illustrates another Iranian trait — a pre-Islamic affinity for waiting. When Iranians practiced Zoroastrianism, they were also awaiting a savior, called Saoshyant. They say that helped cope with the stress of one heavyhanded government after another. That fit well with Shiite Islam, academics said. “Iranians are comfortable as Shias,” said Dr. Muhammad Sanati, a social psychologist in Tehran. “They feel at home with a prophet coming. They are comfortable waiting, waiting for salvation, waiting to be saved, waiting for good days.”

The George W. Bush administration has seemingly taken advantage of the Congressional recess to escalate tensions with Iran. Earlier in August, the State Department revealed plans to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a global terrorist organisation.

On Tuesday, in a speech to U.S. war veterans in Nevada, President Bush raised the temperature further by declaring his intent to “confront Tehran’s murderous activities” in Iraq.

But what on the surface may appear as business as usual in the war of words between Tehran and Washington may in reality repeat an earlier pattern widely suspected to have been aimed at provoking war with Iran.

With Congress gearing up for a fight with the White House on the surge policy in Iraq, President Bush has arguably many reasons to talk up tensions with Iran. Focusing on Iran may help deflect attention away from the surge strategy’s failure to turn the tide in Iraq. It can also help convince Congress that Iran is responsible for U.S. misfortunes in Iraq and that cutting the funds for the war would embolden the clergy in Tehran.

Iran’s radical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is certainly not making the work of the administration more difficult. Shortly before Bush’s address to the Nevada war veterans, Ahmadinejad did his part in ratcheting up tensions.

“Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region,” he predicted at a press conference. “Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbours and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation,” he continued in a clear reference to the United States’s declining position in the Middle East and Iran’s bid to reclaim a regional leadership role.

Still, the nature and implications of the Bush administration’s recent moves do not have the characteristics of a customary rhetorical deflection exercise. Accusing Iran of seeking to put an already unstable Middle East under “the shadow of a nuclear holocaust” and promising to confront Tehran — whose actions “threaten the security of nations everywhere” — before it is too late echo statements made by the Bush White House about Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein prior to the invasion of Iraq.

In fact, Bush’s speech to the veterans in Nevada has several similarities to his address to the nation on Jan. 10. That was also slated as a major speech on Iraq, though it spelled out little new about Washington’s strategy except to call for staying the course. Instead, it revealed key elements of the U.S.’s new aggressive posture on Iran.

For the first time, the president accused Iran of “providing material support for attacks on American troops” while promising to “disrupt the attacks on our forces” and “seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Moments after the president’s speech in January, U.S. Special Forces stormed an Iranian consulate in Erbil in northern Iraq, arresting five Iranians who Tehran said were diplomats. Washington described the detained Iranians as agents and members of the IRGC. Later that day, U.S. forces almost clashed with Kurdish peshmerga militia forces when seeking to arrest more Iranians at Erbil’s airport.

The U.S. move drew stark criticism from the Iraqi government. “What happened… was very annoying because there has been an Iranian liaison office there for years and it provides services to the citizens,” Iraq’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoshiyar Zebari told Al-Arabiya television.

Similarly, Bush’s harsh words for Iran in Nevada were promptly followed by a raid at the Sheraton Ishtar Hotel in Baghdad where eight Iranian nationals were arrested. The group included two diplomats and six members of a delegation from Iran’s Electricity Ministry. A U.S.-funded radio station reported that the Iranian delegation was in Baghdad to negotiate contracts on electric power stations.

While the eight Iranians were later released — unlike the five taken in Erbil who still remain in U.S. custody — actions of this kind combined with the intensified war of words can, intentionally or by accident, trigger a larger crisis. (A U.S. official later called the Sheraton incident “regrettable” and denied that it was related to President Bush’s remarks in Nevada).

In January, the president’s allegations against Iran were widely seen as preparing the grounds for war. Key lawmakers in the newly elected Democratic Congress moved swiftly to challenge the administration and demand evidence for its claims.

At a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a day after the president’s Jan. 10 address, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska drew parallels with the Richard Nixon administration’s attempt to deceive the public regarding the U.S. government’s efforts to expand the Vietnam War into Cambodia.

“[O]ur government lied to the American people and said we didn’t cross the border going into Cambodia. In fact we did,” he told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out. I will resist it,” Hagel continued.

Other lawmakers publicly questioned the veracity of the president’s allegations regarding Iranian involvement in Iraq. All in all, the pushback from Congress in January is believed to have played a key role in preventing hawks in the administration from forcing the U.S. into a military confrontation with Iran.

But with Congress preparing for a fight over Iraq — not Iran — and with key lawmakers planning to pass legislation imposing harsh new sanctions on Tehran, Congress’ ability and willingness to simultaneously contain deliberate or unintentional escalation with Iran may be limited. If so, there may be little business as usual about Washington and Tehran’s intensified war of words.

By: Dr. Trita Parsi, IPS

Western news agencies have quoted a confidential report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as saying that Iran is cooperating with IAEA inspectors to resolve outstanding issues.

A group of eight Iranians, including two diplomats, were released by U.S. forces Wednesday after being detained because unauthorized weapons were found in their cars, the U.S. military said.

Four cars carrying the Iranians, as well as seven Iraqis, were stopped at a checkpoint Tuesday evening and then allowed to proceed to the nearby Sheraton Ishtar hotel, where they were later taken into custody and questioned, the military said.

Troops seized three weapons from the cars — an AK-47 assault rifle and two 9mm pistols that had been in the possession of the Iraqis in the group. The Iraqis were serving as a protective detail but had no weapons permits, the U.S. military said.

At the hotel later, U.S. troops confiscated a laptop, cell phones and a briefcase full of Iranian and American money in the hotel, the military said.

“Following the brief room search the group was taken to a coalition facility for questioning,” the U.S. military said in a statement. “The Iranian nationals had passports. It was later determined that two of the Iranian individuals were carrying diplomatic credentials.”

Details unclear
All the Iranians were released Wednesday to Iraqi officials, the military said. The fate of the Iraqis — who identified themselves with Iraqi Ministry of Electricity badges — was not immediately clear, and the military did not say whether the confiscated items were returned.

An Iranian diplomat, who refused to give his name, told The Associated Press that one of those released contacted the embassy Wednesday morning to say that they had been handed over to Iraqi authorities.

“At 7 a.m. today, a member of the delegation called the embassy and said they are now at the prime minister’s office,” the diplomat said. “The Americans released them. They held them until seven this morning.”

The Iranian embassy said the Iranians included two embassy staffers and six members of a delegation from Iran’s Energy Ministry. The diplomat had earlier said there were seven Iranians held and one diplomat.

The embassy said the men had not yet been in to explain in full what happened, and that it was not sure whether their belongings had been returned.

5 other Iranians held since January
The incident came as tensions between Washington and Tehran were already strained by the detention of each other’s citizens as well as U.S. accusations of Iranian involvement in Iraq’s violence and alleged Iranian efforts to develop nuclear bombs.

Iran has constantly complained about the U.S. detention since Jan. 11 of five Iranians who were in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil. U.S. officials say the five include the operations chief and other members of Iran’s elite Quds Force, which is accused of arming and training Iraqi militants.

The Iranian regime denies any involvement in the violence wracking its neighbor.

On Tuesday, President Bush lashed out at Iran for meddling in Iraq’s affairs and fomenting instability in its neighbor. Bush made his remarks in a speech to the American Legion convention in Reno, Nevada, in which he presented a ringing defense of the unpopular Iraq war effort.

“I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities,” said Bush, whose administration has accused Iran of arming Shiite militias in Iraq. “The Iranian regime must halt these actions.”

Tehran holds American-Iranians

U.S. authorities are unhappy about Iran’s arrest of four people with dual American-Iranian citizenship for allegedly seeking to undermine the Islamic republic’s security. Two are imprisoned in Iran, while two are free but barred from leaving the country.

Relations also are edgy over the suspicions of the United States and its allies that Tehran is using its civilian nuclear power program as a screen to develop atomic weapons. Iran denies that, saying the program only has the peaceful aim of generating electricity.

The strains have many people in the region worried about the possibility of fighting between the U.S. and Iran.

But while making his latest defense of Iran’s nuclear program earlier Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the possibility of any U.S. military action against Iran, saying Washington has no plan and is not in a position to take such action.

Ahmadinejad declared that U.S. political influence in Iraq is “collapsing rapidly” and that Tehran is ready to help fill any power vacuum.

Source: the Associated Press

Israeli officials warned the George W. Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would be destabilising to the region and urged the United States to instead target Iran as the primary enemy, according to former administration official Lawrence Wilkerson.

Wilkerson, then a member of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff and later chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, recalled in an interview with IPS that the Israelis reacted immediately to indications that the Bush administration was thinking of war against Iraq. After the Israeli government picked up the first signs of that intention, Wilkerson says, “The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy — Iran is the enemy.”

Wilkerson describes the Israeli message to the Bush administration in early 2002 as being, “If you are going to destabilise the balance of power, do it against the main enemy.”

The warning against an invasion of Iraq was “pervasive” in Israeli communications with the administration, Wilkerson recalls. It was conveyed to the administration by a wide range of Israeli sources, including political figures, intelligence and private citizens.

Wilkerson notes that the main point of their communications was not that the United States should immediately attack Iran, but that “it should not be distracted by Iraq and Saddam Hussein” from a focus on the threat from Iran.

The Israeli advice against using military force against Iraq was apparently triggered by reports reaching Israeli officials in December 2001 that the Bush administration was beginning serious planning for an attack on Iraq. Journalist Bob Woodward revealed in “Plan of Attack” that on Dec. 1, 2001, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld had ordered the Central Command chief Gen. Tommy Franks to come up with the first formal briefing on a new war plan for Iraq on Dec. 4. That started a period of intense discussions of war planning between Rumsfeld and Franks.

Soon after Israeli officials got wind of that planning, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asked for a meeting with Bush primarily to discuss U.S. intentions to invade Iraq. In the weeks preceding Sharon’s meeting with Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, a procession of Israeli officials conveyed the message to the Bush administration that Iran represented a greater threat, according to a Washington Post report on the eve of the meeting.

Israeli Defence Minister Fouad Ben-Eliezer, who was visiting Washington with Sharon, revealed the essence of the strategic differences between Tel Aviv and Washington over military force. He was quoted by the Post as saying, “Today, everybody is busy with Iraq. Iraq is a problem…But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq.”

Sharon never revealed publicly what he said to Bush in the Feb. 7 meeting. But Yossi Alpher, a former adviser to Prime Minister Ehud Barak, wrote in an article in the Forward last January that Sharon advised Bush not to occupy Iraq, according to a knowledgeable source. Alpher wrote that Sharon also assured Bush that Israel would not “push one way or another” regarding his plan to take down Saddam Hussein.

Alpher noted that Washington did not want public support by Israel and in fact requested that Israel refrain from openly supporting the invasion in order to avoid an automatic negative reaction from Iraq’s Arab neighbours.

After that meeting, the Sharon government generally remained silent on the issue of an invasion of Iraq. A notable exception, however, was a statement on Aug. 16, 2002 by Ranaan Gissin, an aide to Sharon. Ranaan declared, “Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose. It will only give [Hussein] more of an opportunity to accelerate his programme of weapons of mass destruction.”

As late as October 2002, however, there were still signs of continuing Israeli grumbling about the Bush administration’s obsession with taking over Iraq. Both the Israeli Defence Forces’ chief of staff and its chief of military intelligence made public statements that month implicitly dismissing the Bush administration’s position that Saddam Hussein’s alleged quest for nuclear weapons made him the main threat. Both officials suggested that Israel’s military advantage over Iraq had continued to increase over the decade since the Gulf War as Iraq had grown weaker.

The Israeli chief of military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Aharon Farkash, said Iraq had not deployed any missiles that could strike Israel directly and challenged the Bush administration’s argument that Iraq could obtain nuclear weapons within a relatively short time. He gave an interview to Israeli television in which he said army intelligence had concluded that Iraq could not have nuclear weapons in less than four years. He insisted that Iran was as much of a nuclear threat as Iraq.

Israeli strategists generally believed that taking down the Hussein regime could further upset an Iran-Iraq power balance that had already tilted in favour of Iran after the U.S. defeat of Hussein’s army in the 1991 Gulf War. By 1996, however, neoconservatives with ties to the Likud Party were beginning to argue for a more aggressive joint U.S.-Israeli strategy aimed at a “rollback” of all of Israel’s enemies in the region, including Iran, but beginning by taking down Hussein and putting a pro-Israeli regime in power there.

That was the thrust of the 1996 report of a task force led by Richard Perle for the right-wing Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies and aimed at the Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

But most strategists in the Israeli government and the Likud Party — including Sharon himself — did not share that viewpoint. Despite agreement between neoconservatives and Israeli officials on many issues, the dominant Israeli strategic judgment on the issue of invading Iraq diverged from that of U.S. neoconservatives because of differing political-military interests.

Israel was more concerned with the relative military threat posed by Iran and Iraq, whereas neoconservatives in the Bush administration were focused on regime change in Iraq as a low-cost way of leveraging more ambitious changes in the region. From the neoconservative perspective, the very military weakness of Hussein’s Iraq made it the logical target for the use of U.S. military power.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in June 2005.

Source: IPS

George Bush yesterday ramped up the war of words between the US and Iran, accusing Tehran of threatening to place the Middle East under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust and revealing that he had authorised US military commanders in Iraq to “confront Tehran’s murderous activities”.

In a speech designed to shore up US public opinion behind his unpopular strategy in Iraq, the president reserved his strongest words for the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which he accused of openly supporting violent forces within Iraq. Iran, he said, was responsible for training extremist Shia factions in Iraq, supplying them with weapons, including sophisticated roadside bombs. Iran has denied all these accusations. George Bush yesterday ramped up the war of words between the US and Iran, accusing Tehran of threatening to place the Middle East under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust and revealing that he had authorised US military commanders in Iraq to “confront Tehran’s murderous activities”.

In a speech designed to shore up US public opinion behind his unpopular strategy in Iraq, the president reserved his strongest words for the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which he accused of openly supporting violent forces within Iraq. Iran, he said, was responsible for training extremist Shia factions in Iraq, supplying them with weapons, including sophisticated roadside bombs. Iran has denied all these accusations.

“Iran has long been a source of trouble in the region,” he said.” Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.”

The blunt terms in which Mr Bush portrayed the Iranian threat, and his threat of military confrontation with Tehran involving US troops based in Iraq, elevated the tense standoff between Washington and Tehran to a new level.

The speech also contained the implicit desire on Mr Bush’s part for regime change, calling for “an Iran whose government is accountable to its people, instead of to leaders who promote terror and pursue the technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons”.

Equally menacing words emanated from Tehran yesterday, where Mr Ahmadinejad said US influence in the region was collapsing so fast that a power vacuum would soon be created. “Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap,” he said.

Though the Iranian president said he backed the leadership of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, and welcomed the involvement of Saudi Arabia, his offer to occupy the space the Americans might leave behind is unlikely to cool emotions in Washington.

He went on to deride the possibility of the US pursuing military action in Iran, saying it was in no position to do so and claimed that Iran had already acquired enriched nuclear fuels, though they would only be used for peaceful purposes.

In a further cause of tension, Mr Bush accused the Quds force within Iran’s revolutionary guards of leading the supply chain to Iraqi extremist groups. As the Guardian revealed earlier this month, the Bush administration is preparing to declare the 125,000-strong Revolutionary Guard Corps a “global terrorist organisation” - a move that would be seen as provocative within Tehran.

According to reports from Baghdad last night, a group of Iranians were detained last night in a raid by US troops on a hotel in the city. Of 10 people arrested, seven were said to be Iranian, including an employee of the Iranian embassy and six members of Iran’s electricity ministry in Iraq to discuss contracts for electric power stations. It was not immediately clear why the men had been arrested, or where they had been taken. The US military would only say the action was part of an on-going operation.

Mr Bush’s bullish talk of his determination to “take the fight to the enemy” in the carefully choreographed setting of a veterans’ convention in Reno, Nevada, was the second of a two-part appeal by him to shore up public support for his flagging strategy on Iraq. In the first speech, made last week, he invoked Vietnam to argue that quitting Iraq now could put the lives of millions of innocent civilians at risk.

Mr Bush yesterday vowed to persevere with his controversial military policy in Iraq, insisting that political and security progress was being made, despite a rising tide of dissent even from high up within his Republican party.

“Our strategy is this: every day we work to protect the American people. We will fight them over there so that we don’t have to fight them in the United States of America,” he said.

The twin speeches were intended as preparation for a crucial series of debates on Iraq that will dominate Washington for the next few weeks.

In a fortnight the senior general in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and American ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, will give two days of testimony in which they are likely to argue that the troop “surge” is having some beneficial impact on security levels, though political progress lags behind.

Under the current policy, US troop numbers in Iraq have risen by 30,000 to about 165,000.

As the climax of these intense hearings, Mr Bush himself will present his latest assessment.

Yesterday’s speech was the latest clear indication that he will resist any attempt to change course in the prosecution of the war.

Mr Bush’s latest attempt to reassure the American people that the war is moving in the right direction came on another tumultuous day in Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims attending a Shia festival in Kerbala, 68 miles south-west of Baghdad, were ordered to leave the city after intense fighting broke out, reportedly between warring Shia factions. At least 52 people have been killed since Monday, mostly police officers engaging in the battle.

Source: Guardian

University lecturers in Iran are to be forced to tell security authorities of all foreign trips in advance in a move aimed at preventing them from being recruited as western spies.

The restriction will extend to private tourist journeys and pilgrimages, as well as academic trips funded by foreign institutions. It follows official accusations that the west is trying to exploit Iranian academics for espionage purposes.

The new rule - set out in a government circular disclosed by the officially-linked Baztab website - toughens existing regulations requiring scholars to give university security services prior notice of academic trips being paid for by their own institutions. The move is the latest in a series of measures intensifying scrutiny of Iran’s academics, who have been identified by the country’s Islamic rulers as a potential fifth column in alleged US-backed plots to foment a “soft revolution”.

 Last year Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, urged fundamentalist students to demand the sacking of liberal or pro-western lecturers.

In May a senior intelligence official publicly warned academics that they would come under suspicion if they maintained contacts with foreigners or travelled abroad to conferences and seminars. The official accused western intelligence agencies of trying to recruit Iranian scholars under the guise of forging scientific or academic links.

Scholars at Iranian universities say the warnings have already had the effect of drying up contacts with the outside world. “In the light of how things are developing, many people just aren’t attending seminars abroad any more. There is just too much risk involved,” one lecturer told the Guardian. “Foreign academics are no longer coming to Iran either. It’s more difficult for students of Iranian studies to get visas to come, either as part of their courses or when applying for conferences.”

Iran has recently accused three Iranian-American academics and one journalist of espionage and acting against national security. One of them, Haleh Esfandiari, Middle East director at the Woodrow Wilson Centre, a Washington thinktank, was released on bail last week after three and a half months in prison.

The suspicion has also extended to students. Iran’s intelligence minister, Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ezhei, warned at the weekend that students who made contact with the US and foreigners would be “confronted”.

“We will confront those who are currently studying in universities under the guise of being students and have contact with foreigners and White House statesmen,” he said. “They will be confronted because we believe they are not university students but are seeking to destroy the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

His comments follow the arrests of several student activists in recent months.

Source: Guardian

American troops raided a Baghdad hotel Tuesday night and took away a group of about 10 people that a U.S.-funded radio station said included six members of an Iranian delegation here to negotiate contracts with Iraq’s government. The Iranian Embassy did not confirm the report.

But it said seven Iranians — an embassy employee and six members of a delegation from Iran’s Electricity Ministry — were staying at the Sheraton Ishtar Hotel, which was the one raided by U.S. soldiers. An arrest of Iranian officials would add to tensions between Washington and Tehran already strained by the detention of each other’s citizens as well as U.S. accusations of Iranian involvement in Iraq’s violence and alleged Iranian efforts to develop nuclear bombs. Videotape shot Tuesday night by Associated Press Television News showed U.S. troops leading about 10 blindfolded and handcuffed men out of the hotel in central Baghdad.

Other soldiers carried out what appeared to be luggage and at least one briefcase and a laptop computer bag. A U.S. military spokesman, Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, declined to comment, saying the action was part of an operation that had not been completed. The Internet site of Radio Sawa, an Arabic language station financed by the United States, said Iranian officials were detained and taken to an unknown location. It said the Iranian delegation was in Baghdad to negotiate contracts on electric power stations. An Iranian diplomat told The Associated Press that the Iranian Embassy had notified Iraqi authorities about the Radio Sawa report. The diplomat refused to give his name.

Iran has constantly complained about the U.S. detention since Jan. 11 of five Iranians who were in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil. U.S. officials say the five include the operations chief and other members of Iran’s elite Quds Force, which is accused of arming and training Iraqi militants. The Iranian regime denies any involvement in the violence wracking its neighbor. U.S. authorities are unhappy about Iran’s arrest of four people with dual American-Iranian citizenship for allegedly seeking to undermine the Islamic republic’s security. Two are imprisoned in Iran, while two are free but barred from leaving the country. Relations also are edgy over the suspicions of the U.S. and its allies that Tehran is using its civilian nuclear power program as a screen to develop atomic weapons.

Iran denies that, saying the program only has the peaceful aim of generating electricity. The strains have many people in the region worried about the possibility of fighting between the U.S. and Iran. But while making his latest defense of Iran’s nuclear program earlier Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the possibility of any U.S. military action against Iran, saying Washington has no plan and is not in a position to take such action.

Source: The Associated Press

The lawyer for RFE/RL journalist Parnaz Azima, who has been prevented from leaving Iran since January, says she is now facing a charge of acting against national security. Mohammad Hossein Aqasi says no date has been set for a trial  Azima already faces charges of spreading propaganda against the Iranian state and has had to post bail in Tehran equivalent to some $550,000.

She is one of four Iranian Americans who are either detained or being kept from leaving Iran. Aqasi spoke to Radio Farda’s Mosaddegh Katouzian.