Good Place for Updated News of Iran: Iran News - Latest Iran News and Iranian news Tehran Persian news farsi newspaper
Printable View
Good Place for Updated News of Iran: Iran News - Latest Iran News and Iranian news Tehran Persian news farsi newspaper
thanks neno. Lots of news there.
regards
admin
Latest hot news.... that Sheikh, the radical Shi'ite leader Al Sadr is said to be on the run and in hiding!!! Possibly in Iran by now...possibly!
Only Allah will know where to fish him out... I'm sure, he's not going to squat under a bunker, waiting for the all-clear like Saddam...:rolleyes:
Iran denies aiding Iraq militia groups
Feb 13, 2007
UPI
Iran denies aiding Iraq militia groups - Persian Journal Iran news, Latest iran news Iranian newspaper women zan
Iran Monday claimed it was not giving aid to anti-American insurgents in Iraq. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini denied U.S. government statements that Iran had been providing weapons and weapons-making expertise expertise to militia groups operating in Iraq. He claimed Washington had "good experience in fabricating evidence" and described the accusations as groundless and inadmissible, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.
RIA Novosti noted that senior American officials have stated that at least 170 U.S. troops serving in Iraq had been killed since June 2004 by improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, that were made in Iran or with Iranian help. Some of the devices have been powerful enough to destroy M-1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks, the RIA Novosti report said.
U.S. relations with Iran have steadily grown more tense in recent months, especially over Iran's refusal to heed United Nations Resolution 1737 passed on Dec. 23, and abandon its nuclear ambitions. U.S. President George W. Bush has given approval to American forces in Iraq "to kill or capture Iranian agents suspected of abetting the insurgency there," the news agency said.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated that Washington has documented Iran's significant weapons supplies and other support to Shiite militias in Iraq.
© Iranian.ws
Iran says it's ready for new nuke talks
Feb 13, 2007
Iran says it's ready for new nuke talks - Persian Journal Iran news, Latest iran news Iranian newspaper women zan
Iran said it was ready to hold new talks on halting its controversial nuclear program. "mullahs' regime has consistently stated its readiness to discuss various issues through negotiations, even the issue of suspending work on uranium enrichment," Foreign Ministry's spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said.
However, Hosseini's comments appeared unlikely to impress the U.S. government. They echoed remarks Sunday by Iran's maverick president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Tehran was prepared to participate in fair negotiations on its uranium enrichment without preconditions. But Ahmadinejad also pledged that Iran would publicly proclaim a major step forward in its nuclear program by April 9.
Many experts believe (that) could be the construction of new centrifuges at a nuclear facility at Natanz.
Iran launched a second experimental chain of 164 centrifuges at Natanz in October 2006, and earlier said it will have a total of 3,000 centrifuges there by end of March 2007. The long-term target is 60,000, enough to advance to industrial-scale enrichment.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last week that another session of the Iran-6 mediation group on Tehran's controversial nuclear program could take place before the international nuclear watchdog submits a report to the U.N. Security Council.
The Iran-6 group is comprised of Russia, the United States, Britain, France, Germany and China.
© Iranian.ws
Austrian arms 'smuggled into Iraq from Iran'
Feb 13, 2007
Austrian arms 'smuggled into Iraq from Iran' - Persian Journal Iran news, Latest iran news Iranian newspaper women zan
Sophisticated rifles supplied to Iran by an Austrian arms company in 2006 are finding their way into the hands of Iraqi insurgents.
American troops have recovered more than 100 "Steyr .50 HS" rifles in Iraq, part of an Austrian consignment of 800 such weapons delivered to Iran over American protests that they could be given to insurgents, the Daily Telegraph reported.
The Austrian government approved the sale of the rifles, made by precision weapons maker Steyr Mannlicher GmbH, after it concluded in 2004 that they would be used to fight narcotics smugglers.
"We checked the proposal very thoroughly," Austrian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Astrid Harz said, noting that the situation in Iraq and the region in 2003-2004 was very different then than it is today.
"What happened to the weapons then is the responsibility of the Iranians," Harz said.
The 12.7 x 99 mm rifles are about 1.2m long, weigh more than 12kg and count as an anti-armour weapon among experts because of the high punch of its projectile.
© Iranian.ws
Questions arise about Iran bomb claims
Feb 13, 2007
Associated Press
Questions arise about Iran bomb claims - Persian Journal Iran news, Latest iran news Iranian newspaper women zan
The Bush administration struggled Tuesday to explain what it knows about alleged Iranian interference in Iraq after the Pentagon's top general appeared to contradict a recently released military dossier on the subject.
At issue was a weekend briefing in Baghdad at which three senior U.S. military officials said that the "highest levels" of the Iranian government had ordered the smuggling into Iraq of high-tech roadside bombs that have been killing American soldiers.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, that U.S. forces have arrested Iranians in Iraq and some of the materials used in roadside bombs had been made in Iran.
"That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this," Pace said.
The assertion of Tehran's involvement, made by U.S. officers who spoke on condition of anonymity Sunday in Baghdad, had already drawn skeptical responses from some lawmakers and other critics still wary of an administration that based the invasion of Iraq on faulty intelligence.
Those doubts increased Tuesday after Pace said the link between the bomb materials and the government had not been definitively proven.
Defense experts said Pace's comments � and the way the dossier had been presented to reporters anonymously � cast doubt on how solid the administration case is against Iran. Some suggested the apparent mixed messages were meant to keep Tehran off guard.
Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst with the Brookings Institution, a liberal-leaning think tank, called Pace's comments "close to a contradiction" of what briefers said Sunday in Baghdad.
"Obviously, they can talk their way around it ... but these guys are not naive about how words are interpreted, and the guys in Baghdad knew what impression they wanted to leave listeners with," O'Hanlon said.
John Hutson, a retired former Navy judge advocate general and dean of the Franklin Pierce Law School, said, "I think we have to take away from it a huge dose of caution."
"If we have disagreement within the military about the role of the Iranians, we have to proceed very cautiously," he added.
Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday he could not explain the apparent contradiction and referred questions to Pace's office and to American forces in Baghdad.
A military official on Pace's staff said the general stands by his comments. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Asked if Pace had vetted the information that went into Sunday's briefing, the official said that Pace was aware of what was going to be presented in Baghdad but that the comment about involvement at the highest levels of Iranian government was not included in the material Pace was given.
Asked in a CNN interview whether he believed Iranians were shipping weapons to Iraq, the top commander in the Middle East said Tuesday he didn't know. "I have no idea who may be actually with hands-on in this stuff, but I do know that this is not helpful to the situation in Iraq," said Navy Adm. William Fallon.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said that he had phoned Pace on Tuesday and that there was no disagreement.
He said Pace agreed with the basic scenario spelled out by U.S. military officials on Sunday and then backed up by the White House � that weapons are moving into Iraq through the Iran's Revolutionary Guards elite Quds Force.
"The Quds Force is, in fact, an official arm of the Iranian government and, as such, the government bears responsibility and accountability for its actions, as you would expect of any sovereign government," Snow told White House reporters.
"I think a lot of people are trying to whomp up a fight here that doesn't exist," Snow said.
U.S. officials have claimed for years that weapons were entering the country from Iran but had stopped short of alleging involvement by top Iranian leaders.
Sunday's briefing had been some time in the making. The administration moved to put together its information after Tehran demanded the United States present evidence of its allegations. Defense officials in Baghdad had first put together a larger dossier, but it was rejected by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other administration officials who questioned some of the information in it.
"Questions remain, questions have not been answered," said Christopher Preble, an analyst at the CATO Institute, a libertarian research group, also noting the unidentified sources at Sunday's briefing. "At some level, that just seems not very credible to me."
© Iranian.ws
Iran president 'ready for talks'
Feb 13, 2007
Iran president 'ready for talks' - Persian Journal Iran news, Latest iran news Iranian newspaper women zan
Mullahs' President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has insisted that Tehran is open to talks on its nuclear programme.
Speaking to US TV network ABC, he said he opposed any increased nuclear proliferation, but said Iran's rights must be safeguarded.
He denied suggestions he sought conflict with the US, saying Iran was "trying to find ways to love people".
On Monday, Mr Ahmadinejad said Iran would defend itself against any US attack on its nuclear facilities.
He was speaking after US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Shia militias in Iraq who were attacking the US military.
But President George Bush dismissed any suggestion that an attack was imminent, describing such speculation as "noise" by critics of his administration.
Iran has insisted it will continue to enrich uranium, in defiance of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Tehran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, but the US suspects Iran of secretly developing nuclear weapons.
© Iranian.ws
He is always ready for talks... thats the usual stance threy take while playing for time with misschief in the making....and hoping the other sidde gets battered on home grounds... :nunu:
See how the Dems and all those wackin /freakin' demonstrators demanding US soldiers to pull out... but also wished damn hell that they get MIGHTY rich too with Dinar RV's.... :biggrin:
Two most divided world of greedy voters we see so far....hahaaa
YB. - :beer:
Bush Declares Iran’s Arms Role in Iraq Is Certain
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — President Bush said Wednesday that he was certain that factions within the Iranian government had supplied Shiite militants in Iraq with deadly roadside bombs that had killed American troops. But he said he did not know whether Iran’s highest officials had directed the attacks.
Why Accuse Iran of Meddling Now? U.S. Officials Explain (February 15, 2007) Mr. Bush’s remarks amounted to his most specific accusation to date that Iran was undermining security in Iraq. They appeared to be part of a concerted effort by the White House to present a clearer, more direct case that Iran was supplying the potent weapons — and to push back against criticism that the intelligence used in reaching the conclusions was not credible.
Speaking at a news conference in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Bush dismissed as “preposterous” the contention by some skeptics that the United States was drawing unwarranted conclusions about Iran’s role. He publicly endorsed assertions that had until now been presented only by anonymous military and intelligence officials, who have said that an elite branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps known as the Quds Force has provided Shiite militias in Iraq with the sophisticated weapons that have been responsible for killing at least 170 American soldiers and wounding more than 600.
“I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated I.E.D.’s that have harmed our troops,” Mr. Bush said, using the abbreviation for improvised explosive device. “And I’d like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of the government. But my point is, what’s worse, them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and its happening?”
The House of Representatives is debating a resolution disapproving of Mr. Bush’s plan to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. And so Mr. Bush used his appearance to defend that decision as necessary in the face of deteriorating security in Baghdad. Asked about a possible American response to Iranian interference, he said, “We will continue to protect our troops.” With skeptics asking why the intelligence about Iran’s meddling is coming to light now, a number of possibilities have been raised, including the increase in attacks and American casualties in recent months.
American intelligence officials have said they think that top leaders in Iran must have approved of the attacks on the American forces, in part because the Quds Force has historically reported to the country’s top religious leaders. But aides to Mr. Bush, mindful of the criticism about its use of intelligence before the Iraq war, said the White House wanted to be careful not to make that kind of accusation without hard proof.
As Mr. Bush discussed Iran in Washington, the chief American military spokesman in Baghdad provided a more detailed, on-the-record account of how the administration believed the weapons, particularly lethal explosive devices known as explosively formed penetrators, or E.F.P.’s, got to Iraq. The spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, was also careful not to link the actions of the Quds Force directly to Iran’s top leaders. He said American assertions about a link between the weapons and the force were based on information obtained from people, including Iranians, detained in Iraq in the past 60 days.
“They in fact have told us that the Quds Force provides support to extremist groups here in Iraq in the forms of both money and weaponry,” General Caldwell said. He added: “They have talked about how there are extremist elements that are given this material in Iran and then it is smuggled into Iraq. We have in fact stopped some at the border and discovered it there, coming from Iran into Iraq.”
The coordinated messages out of Baghdad and Washington were an effort by the White House to tamp down reports of divisions within the American government about who in Iran should be held responsible for the weapons shipments. A senior Defense analyst said at a briefing in Baghdad over the weekend that the effort was being directed “from the highest levels of the Iranian government.” But Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered a contradictory account this week, telling The Associated Press that while some bomb materials were made in Iran, “that does not translate that the Iranian government, per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this.”
At Wednesday’s news conference, Mr. Bush suggested that it did not matter whether senior leaders were involved. “What matters is, is that we’re responding,” Mr. Bush said. He said that if the United States found either networks or individuals “who are moving these devices into Iraq, we will deal with them.”
Some experts said the question of Iran’s responsibility remained important. “There’s a big difference between saying that there is a rogue element doing things and then asking the Iranian government to rein it in, as opposed to saying this is a calculated deliberate strategy of the Iranian government,” said Vali Nasr, a Middle East scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. “That has very different implications in terms of how do you hold Iran culpable.”
The administration’s claims about Iran have been met with intense skepticism, from Democrats in Congress and from experts like David Kay, who led the search for illicit weapons in Iraq. Some critics have said the White House is using Iran as a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq, and some have suggested that the administration, which has been trying to pressure Iran into abandoning its nuclear program, is laying the foundation for another war.
On Wednesday, a leading contender for the Democratic nomination for president, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, took to the Senate floor to call on Mr. Bush to seek authorization for any military action against Iran. “We cannot and we must not allow recent history to repeat itself,” she said.
Mr. Bush has said that he has no intention of invading Iran and that any suggestion that he was trying to provoke Iran “is just a wrong way to characterize the commander in chief’s decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm’s way.” But experts say that the ratcheting up of accusations could provoke a confrontation. Gary Sick, an expert on Iran at Columbia University, said there was a “danger of accidental war.” He said, “If anything goes wrong, if something happens, there’s an unexplained explosion and we kidnap an Iranian, and the Iranians respond to that somehow, this could get out of control.”
Mr. Bush has also refused to meet with Iran’s leaders, and he said Wednesday that he did not believe that it would be an effective way of persuading the Iranians to give up their nuclear goals. “This is a world in which people say, ‘Meet! Sit down and meet!’ ” he said. “And my answer is, if it yields results, that’s what I’m interested in.”
Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported from Washington, and Marc Santora from Baghdad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/wo...html?th&emc=th
Neno, what is your take on Iran?
Leann
Its kind of a two fold-I would be very sad if we went to war with Iran, but it would make the dinar more valuable. Please do not get me wrong- this is very hard for me - my brother is graduating marine boot camp this coming week and I really do not want to see him go to Iraq nor Iran. He is also invested in the Dinar, but I know he understands what I'm saying. The dinar would go up in value, in the event of either UN sanctions or war, is that correct?
Leann
Going to war with Iran will make the dinar more valuable? :wacko: How do you come to that conclusion? Going to war with Iran has the potential of destabilizing the whole region. Then the potential of Russia and China siding with Iran. Going to war with Iran would/will be a very bad thing for Iraq's stability. You think it is bad for US soldiers in Iraq now an air raid on Iranian targets would initiate missle launches on US forces in Iraq.
Letting Iran continue its potential for nuclear weapons development is already having a destabilizing affect in the region. It's a major concern. Just imagine the day that Iran does have nuclear weapons capability. Talk about destabilization! You think Iran's neighbors could care less if Iran becomes nuke capable? Of course they care. Every oil producing nation region would be threatened which most certainly would result in serious world wide implications. Russia and China may or may not side with Iran if some intervention takes place however, if they do side with Iran they would'nt dare enter in any direct military conflict. Besides, if any action were taken, it would be only to halt Iran's nuclear weapons development, not an all out war with them. That would be their choice and they would be foolish to do so.
Absolute fact....With all the time Israel has been attacked she has never once chosen the nuclear option........she has never been the aggressor.....outside of taking action to prevent more costly attacks for her IE the bombing of Saddam nuclear site back in the early eighties.....which we all know was a weapons program designed for use against Israel...the first gulf war proves this when the mad man tried to pull Israel into the war with Scud attacks.
Iran having the same capability is even more dangerous than when Iraq was persuing them. I have articles where Iranian officials have threatened Europe with missile attack. I would do all I could to prevent her from proceeding. She intends to destabilize the region and dominate it. A very bad scenario for our investment. By stopping her we can avert a major war in the future.
Exactly,
No matter which side of the issue you are on, it will be more than destabilzing if Iran moves forward on nuclear front, this you can count on. U.S. needs to sit at table with Iran, period, not go to war, but negotiate an agreement before it gets worse. Bush and his axis of evil BS does no good at all at eliminating this problem, talks with all concerned will.
No one wins in the region if Iran has nuclear weapons, as mentioned above, it would destabilize the whole world as the region starts picking sides hoping for protection from the other side, just like the cold war all over again. The fear of nuclear attacks will destabilize the whole world, not just the middle east region.
Good luck to all, Mike
Interesting,
The region has many problems, this we know, but think about it, would Israel even exist if not aligned with U.S. Heck, it is spot on the map surrounded by enemies, so in my opinion, Israel is the only reason we have seen even a touch of stability in region. If not for the fire power compliments of U.S., Israel would have been wiped out decades ago.
Always interesting debating the issues in middle east, and I am sure most of us hear have gotten a far better education on these issues here than anywhere else. Funny, my history teachers are probably rolling over in their graves. LOL
Good luck to all, Mike
You can't negotiate with rogue states because any agreement you come to is only as good as the paper it's written on (which maybe be a few pennies worth). Look at the Clinton administrations negotiations with North Korea and China. North Korea said it needed help with its nuclear power aspirations so that it could provide power for its country and in exchange they wouldn't pursue nuclear arms. Instead, their country is still predominately dark and they have recently tested their first nuke. China was promoting its space program to launch satellites into space for Europe and the US but after 3 consecutive failures resulting in some very expensive satellites being lost, Clinton shifted missle/rocket technology from under the supervision of the Defense department to the Commerce dept. Martin Marietta assisted China with solving their guidance/stability problems and now China has a handful of missles tipped with nuclear warheads pointed at Western countries; primarily the US.
As long as Iran is a "radical" Islamist republic, you can't take the word of its leaders. Signing an agreement with them simply takes the pressure off and they'll finish their nuclear ambitions sooner rather than later...
Peace is a noble endeavor but it typically only holds water as long as one of the parties involved holds all the cards and some very big "sticks"...
First off, only one other country in the middle east is on good terms with Iran, thats Syria. Second, Iran has a huge reputation for being overt and covert aggressors. There is not one person in the world that does not believe or know the Iran sponsors terrorists. Finally, Israel has a very good reputation as being a not firing first nation. If they did not have this reputation every country in the middle east would be on the door step on the UN begging them to do something about it. But thats not the case, they all know Israel will only fire when fired upon. The one exception is when they took out Saddam's nuke plant, before it came on line. And they did that with conventional weapons. But everyone in the middle east wanted it done. Israel having the nuke actually does stabilize the region. Not one country has tried to go to war with Israel since it has been known they have the nuke. Not One.
THANK YOU ---Everwiser and retmil for the common sense of posts
# 322 and 324.
Good point,
But you are missing mine. You have to appear to want to negotiate whether there is a positive outcome or not, that is the main reason to go to the table, to try and negotiate an agreeement. If the agreements are broken down the road, then so be it, we tried. This is world politics now, but it only hurts the U.S. not to demonstrate its willingness to talk. Just look at the credibility of U.S. now, imagine what it would be if we didn't try to resolve Iran issues first.
The point is, you cannot solve nuclear issues after the fact. You must demonstrate every alternative first if you ever hope to have the world stand behind the more difficult decisions later if agreements are later broken. If U.S. never had talks, and dropped a nuke on Iran, the world would never stand for it. If all else was exhausted first, then the world would have to accept it.
Peace, Mike
I do agree with a lot of what you are saying but however we are so quick to jump on iran and yet we forget where the terorist that perpetrated 911 came from and we forget convieniantly and turn a blind eye to who is supporting the sunni side in iraq in which i might add is where most of the violence in iraq is comming from as well as most of our troops are dying in iraq from the sunni millitias.there is an obvious power struggle going on in the middle east and at least from where i sit there is plenty of blame to go around.I just am not so quick to jump on this administrations latest attempt to create the boogie man of the month without looking at all the facts,we seem to have a habit of making friends one day and destroying them or attacking them the next depending on our latest motives instead of judging on truth and justice,right and wrong wherever it may be or whoever it may be against
And in the meantime, they develop the weapons they need to throw the entire world into chaos. It's like drawing a line in the sand...How many times do you redraw it after they step over it before you have to punch them in the face? If it weren't for those that are willing to stand firm and occasionally enforce law, there would be no venue for those who proclaim "Peace First" or "Negotiate" because they would already be enslaved. Negotiations for negotiations sake mean nothing because there is no resolve behind them or even implied.
Various US administrations and world governments have negotiated in the past and each previous agreement has been broken. When does one "draw the line" that they will not let be stepped over? People proclaim that the UN should be the lead in these types of negotiations. Who is the UN? A party of tin-pot dictators that when push comes to shove they issue another "piece of paper" that is meaningless. If it weren't for the US, the UN has no backbone and no enforcement.
The only reason the US will be there is that it was called by Iraq and a successful outcome in Iraq is what's needed. Anything "discussed" or "postured" for the world's cameras will be meaningless fluff on both sides. Iran wants what Iraq has and with a 60% shiite population, they think they can destabilize Iraq and then step in to help "their shiite brothers in arms" pick up the pieces just like Iran and Syria have been doing in Lebonan for the last 20 years...
I would venture to say that there is just as much trouble from the Shiites in Iraq as the Sunnis thanks to Iran and Syria's meddling. You are correct about where the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from and although there has been little about it in any news following 9/11, a lot has changed with the way the US deals with SA. We pulled our base(s) to Qatar and basically put them on notice to "play along". If you've not noticed, everytime OPEC anounces a cut in production to increase prices, SA announces they will increase production to compensate. This is only because of the relationship between the Saudi royal family and the government of the US. Without the money that the Western world and primarily the US spends on Saudi oil, the royal family would likely have been deposed by those same Sunni radicals that have been the backbone of Al Quaida's recruitment.
What is going on in the Middle East goes back in time a long way. Look at who was aligned with whom during WW2. You will find a lot of the same "divisions" even today. Iran simply changes the word "Jew" to "Zionist" and "Israel"...This is not to say that these animosities only go back to WW2; many go back to the beginnings of Christianity and Islam and will not ever be resolved because while spirituality can unite us, religion will always divide us...
terrorists and communists only understand one thing --
SUPERIOR FIREPOWER .
tes my friend i agree again with a lot of what you are saying but here is another one for you everytime we attempt to reighn in iran through sanctions or what not who allways comes to thier aid,is it not china and russia but yet bush said he looked into puttins eyes and seen a good man,and china continues to violate copy rights ,practice unfair trade,keep and maintain a devalued currency,and on top of all this it to violates human rights and is now beefing up its military.I say all this to point out that we are told and made to believe that these are our friends when indeed i see them as not only a threat but an out right enemy to any american who cares about the future of this country and i see china and russia as a bigger threat than iran will ever be but because china buys a large portion of our debt we dont dare say anything bad because they might pull the rug out from under us and we would fall economically.but yet these our are friends so we are told and trade with china is good so we are told and so on and so on
No argument from me on that front. There is always more going on than is right in front of us. People keep their friends close and their enemies closer. Are there problems with Putin and Russia? Absolutely. They want to return to the "glory" days of the old Soviet Union; it's the only thing those in charge know. If anything, Russia is using China as the "communist model". Allow just enough capitalism to bring in the money you need to build/rebuild your military and turn all other businesses into "state-controlled shells".
Are there problems with China? Absolutely. There are "dependcy" issues at work. Are Russia and China and all of their "surrogates" the US's enemies? No doubt. However, at the moment, they need the money that the US spends with them. Don't believe that China decided against dumping the US dollar out of the goodness of their hearts. I'm sure the US played financial hardball and threatened either tarriffs or an outright cessation of trade. If it weren't for the consumer economy of the US, China would not be making 1/100th of what they do now and, as such, would be starving like North Korea...
Okay. Nevermind...This is about Iran, yes, but it is about Iran as it concerns Iraq and as such shouldn't have been put in a speculation thread about the Rial...
I agree again with much of what you say however i dont think it is a matter of if china will dump the dollar as much as it is when,they have no reason to do anything right now as they are haveing thier cake and eating it to however at such time that we make serious demands on china or we get in thier way of furthering thier power as i believe they are buildin up thier military to begin to extend thier power throughout asia and will probably start with tiawan then we will see if they are indeed fearful of dumping the dollar as they could virtualy criple this nation without fireing a shot,imight add that they are more and more dumping the dollar for the euro as we speak they are deversifieing so again not if but when,russia with its nuklear ability is a threat as well and we have seen more and more they are willing to use oil as a weopon as well and they have the might to back it up as well,however iran is another issue as it could easily be transformed and is ripe for democracy,more and more they are the youth rebelling and crying out for our help to overthrow akmadenajad and as of yet they have no nuclear weapons,and they have an oil supply that is dwindleling in which they depend to maintain influence and power,i believe whith the proper incentives and diplomacy we could avert futher trouble with iran i wish i could say the same for russia and china
Updated: 9:31 a.m. PT April 29, 2007
TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian police have warned barbers against offering Western-style hair cuts or plucking the eyebrows of their male customers, Iranian media said on Sunday.
The report by a reformist daily, later confirmed by an Iranian news agency, appeared to be another sign of the authorities cracking down on clothing and other fashion deemed to be against Islamic values.
"Western hair styles ... have been banned," the newspaper Etemad said in a frontpage headline.
It came a week after police launched a crackdown against the growing numbers of young women testing the limits of the law with shorter, brighter and skimpier clothing ahead of the summer months.
Under Iran's Islamic Sharia law, imposed after the 1979 revolution, women are obliged to cover their hair and wear long, loose-fitting clothes to disguise their figures.
Violators can receive lashes, fines and imprisonment.
The student news agency ISNA quoted a police statement as saying: "In an official order to barber shops, they have been warned to avoid using Western hair styles and doing men's eyebrows."
Iranian young men have in recent years started paying more attention to the way they look and dress, especially in affluent parts of the capital Tehran. Spiked up hair, by using gel, is known as the Khorusi (Rooster) style and some also use make-up.
Several hairdressers for men in Tehran offer cuts in the style of Hollywood movie stars and other Western celebrities. Clients can also have their eyebrows plucked.
Barbers could face losing their permits
The head of the barbers' union, Mohammad Eftekharifard, said police had instructed it to "exercise specific regulations in barber shops that work under its supervision."
Barbers who do not follow these rules might be closed down for a month and even lose their permits to operate, Etemad quoted him as saying.
"Currently some barber shops apply make-up and use (hair) styles that are in line with those in European countries and America," Eftekharifard said.
He added: "An official order has been sent to the union ... not to apply make-up on men's faces (or) do eyebrows ... and hence the barbers are not allowed to do these things."
Since hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the presidency in 2005 promising a return to the values of the revolution, hardliners have pressed for tighter controls on what they consider immoral behavior.
see susie's post 342 in the dinar news thread - Iran pres condoning killing of Christians, and vowing to stop Christianity in Iran. More backwards progress, and more to add to their alienation from the global community.
God bless USA where You even please muslins and even give them a place for doing their prayers .
jrod
Yes, whenever practical Muslims have been given a fair amount of freedom for prayer. Also, they have their own places of worship and that is just the way things are done here. But, the Freedoms end when they step on the toes of others; so they can not expect to have their way all the time.
There have been complaints that employers are not allowing prayer during the work schedules and since the employer has the right to expect time for pay, this is just.
Life does not always give us what we want, but if we bend a little with the wind and walk in the same direction, life is so much simpler.
Freedom is a blessings for all here in the USA and I would hope more and more people who have arrived here realize that this is the USA and their freedoms are guaranteed by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Without these documents, there would be no freedoms for anyone; to include religious freedom.
With all our problems and growing concerns this is still the greatest country on our beautiful planet. Those lucky enough to have been born here or arrive here legally should feel those blessings and have the desire to keep them safe. Freedom is not Free.
Iran pres condoning killing of Christians, and vowing to stop Christianity in Iran. More backwards progress, and more to add to their alienation from the global community.
sure is heartbreaking to hear this kind of thing. Seems like we will be going up against them sooner or later.
LIT
Bush to Urge Putin to Aid in Pressuring Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/us...html?th&emc=th
By JIM RUTENBERG and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: July 1, 2007
KENNEBUNKPORT, Me., June 30 — President Bush, seeking to change the tone of an increasingly caustic, fraught relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, will urge him on Sunday to support a major escalation of pressure on Iran, administration officials said.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Kennebunkport Journal: Little Odessa? Maybe Not, but Bush-Putin Talks Lend This Resort a Russian Flavor (June 30, 2007) On Friday, just 48 hours before Mr. Putin was to arrive at the Bush family compound on the edge of this historic seaside town swelled with summer residents, the administration discussed for the first time with Russia and other members of the United Nations Security Council a proposal to require all nations to inspect cargo to or from Iran for illicit nuclear-related material or arms.
The meeting took place by telephone, and the United States was represented by R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs. The proposal was cast as preventive, but American officials know that, like a proposed asset freeze on some Iranian banks, the effect could be to slow Iran’s economy.
Two successive resolutions have resulted in less punitive actions against Iran, with modest economic effect. None has achieved the goal of forcing the country to suspend its enrichment of uranium.
While Mr. Bush is not expected to discuss the specifics of the American plan with Mr. Putin, a senior official, who would not speak for attribution because the conversations with Mr. Putin have yet to take place and will be surrounded in secrecy, said Mr. Bush was increasingly intent on stopping the Iranian nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency says it is progressing.
“He will make the point that this is the third set of sanctions against Iran, and now we have to make them really count,” the official said.
For the Americans, the effort to squeeze Iran is the most immediate issue on the table with Mr. Putin. Washington needs Russia’s support as it presses the Security Council to pass new sanctions, the third round this year, by mid-July.
But it is uncertain how Mr. Putin will react. He has sharply criticized the proposed new American missile defense system, which would include installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, former Soviet satellites, and made inflammatory characterizations of the United States as an unrestrained power.
American officials say he may be aiming those comments at a domestic audience and seeking to cement an influential role in Russian affairs after he leaves office in the spring.
Some proposals by Britain, which leaked out before Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair as prime minister on Wednesday, would deny Iranian airlines and ships permission to take off from, land in, or fly over the territory of other nations. A measure that harsh bears little chance of passage.
Mr. Bush has told aides he has doubts about how willing Mr. Putin would be to put his country’s trade with Iran at risk. Russia supplies much of the equipment and expertise for Iran’s main civilian nuclear reactor, and has other ties with Iran, including in the oil sector.
“We imagine that the Russians and the Chinese are going to play slowball here,” said a senior official involved in the sanctions talks. “They don’t want Iran to get nukes, but they worry what happens if the diplomacy here does not work.”
White House officials have portrayed Mr. Putin’s visit with Mr. Bush as a chance to rebuild their relationship. It now holds little of the warmth displayed after their first meeting in early 2001, when Mr. Bush said he had “looked the man in the eye” and gained “a sense of his soul.”
In fact, it may be the last chance for Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin to cement a common legacy, with Mr. Bush entering the last 19 months of his term and Russia preparing to choose Mr. Putin’s successor.
The agenda for the visit includes social encounters with the former president George H. W. Bush, including a dinner and possibly some fishing. American officials said that Mr. Putin would probably seek to avoid any public disagreements.
The American plan for a missile defense plan in Europe, which it says is largely to deter Iran’s growing missile forces, will certainly be under discussion here.
Speaking with reporters on Friday, Dmitri Peskov, a Putin spokesman, said the Russians were dissatisfied with the United States’ continued interest in building the system.
Mr. Peskov said a surprise Russian proposal to cooperate on a similar system in Azerbaijan two weeks ago was meant as an alternative to American plan, not, as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has suggested, a potential complement to it.
He portrayed the Russian plan as polite acquiescence with the overheated and questionable fears the United States has expressed over Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
But American officials dismissed that, and said there was in fact a coming together of American and Russian views on Iran.
A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity before the meetings, said Russia was coming to agree with the United States’ assessment of Iran.
“I do think we see the threat very much the same,” the official said. “It’s why we’ve been able to cooperate very well in terms of the nuclear issue, why we’ve had their support for two U.N. Security Council resolutions. I think when the time comes we’ll have their support for a third.”
Technical experts for both sides have quietly moved forward in seeking a compromise on the defense system, according to senior Defense Department officials.
Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, and senior aides held an unannounced meeting on Friday with Russian counterparts to begin preliminary technical discussions that included the Azerbaijani radar, according to an agency official.
Officials at the White House and at the Kremlin played down expectations of any breakthrough agreements on Iran or the defense system during Mr. Putin’s stay. Both sides said they considered it an unofficial visit, not a summit meeting.
Administration officials said it was Mr. Putin who had initially suggested the timing to meet in the United States, since he was heading to an Olympics committee meeting set in Guatemala. Mr. Bush decided upon his family compound here. Both sides portrayed that as a show of respect for Mr. Putin.
Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington.