Borderless friendship will save world: Khatami IRNA-London 1 Nov 06 The world should wake up and question the reasons for the current violence across the globe and the re-emergence of religious wars, says Mohammed Khatami, former Iranian president and founder of the International Institute for Dialogue among Civilizations and Cultures (IIDCC). "We should get to know how come we talk of crusades at the beginning of the third millennium and in the name of civilization and human rights," Khatami said on Tuesday evening. "We should learn why seven centuries after nonsense bickering and debates we are reckoning that 'our religion' is the faith of Logos and compassion and 'their religion' is one of violence and insanity," he said in an address to Scotland's oldest university. The IIDCC director was speaking after being conferred an honorary doctor of laws at St Andrews University on the northeast coast of the British Isles and east coast of Scotland in recognition of "his efforts to encourage inter-faith dialogue." He said that the world was being threatened by all kinds of conflicts, but warned that the calamity of human suffering will not be solved "by reducing religion to a social institution or through simplistic individualist assertions." "We get to know and delineate the world by discovering the relationship between cause and effect, by realizing the mechanism of activity and by understanding the relationship between objects and the way they affect one another," Khatami said. "Borderless friendship will save the world," he suggested in repeating his call for dialogue between civilizations to bring about peace and stability. "Numerous generations to come should take unrelenting efforts in order to increase the possibility of diluting the thick walls that separate the different worlds of humans, and help sounds and messages to pass through this thick and condensed wall," he said. It was while he was president of Iran that Khatami launched his Dialogue among Civilizations in 1999 that was adopted by the United Nations. Since then he has established the Foundation for Dialogue among Civilizations based in Geneva and Tehran with outreach offices in Paris and Vienna. In an interview with the university's student newspaper 'The Saint', Khatami spoke further about the importance of establishing dialogue between the East and West. "This century has seen suffering for both the East and West, which experienced two world wars in the first half of the century and a couple of decades of the Cold War, which was, in my opinion, even much more disastrous than the world wars themselves," he said. In the last years of the century and the past decade, Khatami added, there had been a "bitter experience with terrorism and extremism" and this showed tht the current paradigm in human life is "not a proper one" and needed to be changed. "If the paradigm instead of dialogue is pushing forward to have force and violence, we must replace misunderstanding with understanding, collaboration, and cooperation rather than face each other as opposites," he suggested. Presenting the honorary doctorate, Vice-Chancellor of St Andrews University Professor Michael Bentley said the career and intellect of Khatami "offer hope that trans-cultural communication should not be seen as an idle aspiration." "What we can and should offer is acknowledgement of a courageous stand against insularity and congratulations on real and persistent efforts to reach out and engage with nations of the West who often cleave to aspirations very different from his," the professor said. "In a world racked by fear, suspicion and terrorism it becomes more important, not less, to discover dialogue and to recognize the achievement," he said. Prior to his speech, Khatami was invited to inaugurate a new Centre for Iranian Studies at the university, which was established in 1410 and is the third oldest in Britain after Oxford and Cambridge. During his five-day visit to the UK, Khatami will also be addressing the Royal Institute of International Relations at Chatham House in London and St Anthony's College at Oxford University. Meetings are also being scheduled with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and other bishops in the House of Lords amongst other discussions on inter-faith dialogue. Before leaving, Khatami will also hold discussions with British Muslim leaders at the London Islamic Centre in Whitechapel, east London, as well as meetings with members of the Iranian community.

Russian, U.S. military chiefs of staff sign plan for military cooperation Associated Press October 30, 2006 "I came to listen and learn about ways we can do good military-to-military for both Russia and the United States," Pace said before the delegations began their meeting in an ornate room at the Defense Ministry. MOSCOW The top Russian and U.S. military officers met in Moscow on Monday to discuss bilateral military ties and signed a plan for cooperation in the coming year. It was U.S. Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace's first visit to Russia since being named chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last year. "I came to listen and learn about ways we can do good military-to-military for both Russia and the United States," Pace said before the delegations began their meeting in an ornate room at the Defense Ministry. Russian-U.S. military cooperation is "good and getting better," Pace told Vesti-24 television after the talks. He said he and his Russian counterpart, Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, signed a document laying out plans for joint activities in 2007, saying it provided for a series of exercises that should further boost cooperation. No details of the cooperation plan were made available. Earlier, Pace lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier, and he called the experience "a very poignant reminder to me of the very special relationship our two nations have had for many years." Baluyevsky quoted a proverb he said he had heard during a trip to Japan. "The strong one never unsheathes the sword." "We represent the militaries of the two strongest nations of the world: Russia and the United States," Baluyevsky said. "I hope we will resolve all problems with this good proverb in mind." Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the Cold War foes bear the brunt of responsibility for 'supporting strategic security in the world. "This is a unique responsibility, and other countries look to us with the hope that we will continue to support it," Russian news agencies quoted him as saying after meeting with Pace. Baluyevsky said the Russian and U.S. analysis of many issues was "very close" but he also said the two top military officers would discuss "problems to which ... we must find solutions and adopt these solutions as quickly as possible." Neither Baluyevsky nor Pace would elaborate on those problems in front of reporters but the American general said he had no doubt that "together we can find proper solutions." "I am anxious for military-to-military cooperation to show through its transparency the potential for our two nations to walk into the future hand in hand," Pace said. Russia has been highly critical of the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq, while the United States has criticized Russia's cooperation with Iran despite that country's alleged nuclear weapons program. Russia has also objected vociferously to U.S. plans to deploy missile defenses in NATO nations in Eastern Europe. Comment: Hmmm... not too long ago the U.S. was quite at loggerheads with Russia because Russia was supporting Iran and rejecting sanctions demanded by Israel. At the same time, we notice that Neocon sources report that Condi Rice has backed down on her attacks on Iran and Chavez. Then, there was Amadinejad's chat with the CFR back in September... Looks like something is up.

Flashback: Hold the Boos for Khatami Council on Foreign Relations Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies 17 June 2005 "Employing his electoral mandate, Khatami compelled the all-powerful supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and an influential segment of the conservative bloc to support his progressive foreign policy initiatives." June 17, 2005 International Herald Tribune As President Mohammad Khatami of Iran prepares to leave office, his tenure is routinely being described as an utter failure. Khatami neither realized his goal of ushering in an Islamic democracy, nor did he succeed in normalizing relations with the United States. As with most things in Iran, however, the reality is much more complex than a cursory look would indicate. A judicious assessment of Khatami's tenure would give him credit for some major accomplishments. Despite the power of hard-line clerics and Iran's factionalized politics, Khatami managed to engineer a transformation that no previous politician or movement had achieved. The reformers' electoral triumphs realigned Iran's politics by making the public the indispensable actor of the nation's future. The hard-liners may have imprisoned reformers and shuttered newspapers, but they could not prevent the Iranian people from asserting their rights and demanding a voice in the deliberations of the state. They could send vigilantes to break up student demonstrations, but they could not long constrain the restive ambitions of Iran's post-revolutionary generation, who make up 85 percent of its population. Khatami's advocacy of civil society and rule of law led the Iranians to believe that they have rights that cannot be infringed. Should the political process remain unresponsive, this sentiment is likely to assert itself through protest and defiance. Whatever the shortcomings of Khatami's strategy, he has ensured that the Islamic Republic cannot sustain itself by relying on stale dogma and coercion. In foreign relations, Khatami's accomplishments were even more momentous. For Washington, the only essential barometer of change in Iran seems to be the extent of its support for Hezbollah. Moving beyond American parochialism, however, one sees that it was during Khatami's tenure that Iran normalized relations with key international actors, namely the European community and Saudi Arabia. Employing his electoral mandate, Khatami compelled the all-powerful supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and an influential segment of the conservative bloc to support his progressive foreign policy initiatives. It is important to recall that when Khatami assumed the presidency in 1997, there were almost no European Union ambassadors still in Iran. The European policy of "critical engagement" had turned much more critical after the death sentence imposed on Salman Rushdie in 1989 and the sporadic killing of Iranian dissidents. It was Khatami who finally revoked the fatwa against Rushdie and ended the assassinations of Iranian exiles in Europe. Although today Tehran is engaged in delicate negotiations with Berlin, London and Paris over its nuclear status, the nature of relationship between the two parties has fundamentally improved. European trade delegations, diplomats, scholars and tourists are now routine sights in Iran. Beyond Europe, Khatami instituted a significant shift in Iran's Gulf policy. Although many have often focused on Iran's hostility toward the United States and Israel, during the first two decades of the revolution, the state that was subject to most pernicious of Iran's machinations was Saudi Arabia. Khatami keenly appreciated that Iran could not harmonize relations with the Gulf sheikdoms so long as it did not come to terms with the most important of the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia. In a reversal of two decades of animosity, Khatami managed to reconcile with the House of Saud shortly after assuming power. After much backroom negotiation and pressure, Khatami once more secured Khamenei's essential backing for his "good neighbor" diplomacy, ending Iran's debilitating isolation in a region critical to its strategic and economic vitality. During his tenure, Khatami ushered in a foreign policy that focused expanding trade, cooperative security measures and diplomatic dialogue. Ideological dogma and propagation of revolutionary Islam were not only seen as inconsistent with the reformist perspective but of limited use in an age of globalization. After his eight years as president, Khatami is leaving an Iran fundamentally different from the one he inherited. As the famed dissident journalist Akbar Ganji conceded, "The genies are out of the bottles and the bottles that once contained them are cracked." And it was Khatami who first broke the bottles. Comment: Another Neocon source that suggests something is going on behind the curtain...

Flashback: The Rising might of the Middle East super power Council on Foreign Relations Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies 11 Sept 2006 Today, as Iran's leaders gaze across the Middle East, they see a crestfallen American imperium eager to exit its Arab predicament, an Iraq preoccupied with its simmering sectarian conflicts and a Gulf princely class eager to appease Iranian power. As with China, Iran sees itself as a leading regional power that is key to the Middle East's conflicts. There can be a solution to neither Iraq's civil war nor the chaos in Lebanon without active Iranian participation. As such, the guardians of the theocracy no longer feel compelled to offer concessions for the sake of US participation or European munificence. As the cycle of United Nations Security Council conclaves begins, Iran's nuclear ambitions seem to be surging without restraint-no longer subject to either diplomatic mediation or coercive resolution. And a unique confluence of events ensures that Iran will sustain its defiant posture. The calls from Washington and European capitals for suspension of Tehran's nuclear activities may seem reasonable but miss the remarkable changes in Iran in the past year. A combination of bitter experience and Islamist ideology animates the country's new regime. More than any other factor, it is Iran's own war with Iraq that continues to condition the strategic assumptions of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran's president, and his allies. A pronounced suspicion of the US and the international community that tolerated Saddam Hussein's war crimes against Iran characterises the perspective of those who fought on the frontlines of that war. The lesson for these veterans was that Iran's independence and territorial integrity could not be safeguarded by international legal compacts and western benevolence. After decades of tension with America, Iran's reactionaries perceive that a nuclear capability may be the only way to safeguard Iran's interests. However, it is too simplistic to suggest that fear of America is driving Tehran to acquire the bomb. The Ahmadi-Nejad regime seemingly believes that nuclear weapons are critical for consolidating Iranian hegemony in the Gulf region. Moreover, the unfolding external changes have only reinforced Iran's defiance. Since the US invasion of Iraq, the Middle East has undergone a steady transformation. Among the unintended consequences of the war is Iran's emerging empowerment. The traditional alliances and rivalries that have balanced and contained Iran's influence simply no longer exist. Iraq is a broken country while the Gulf monarchies are eager to accommodate-as opposed to confront-Iran's power. In the meantime, Washington's missionary zeal to promote democratic change in the Middle East is only empowering Islamist parties. In spite of the baffling claim by George W. Bush, US president, that the conflict in the Middle East is between forces of freedom and agents of tyranny, elections in places as varied as the Palestinian Authority and Iraq are bringing to power Islamists with long-standing ties to Tehran. Lebanon's recent tribulations have furthered Iran's claims to regional leadership. When the incumbent Sunni Muslim regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt initially criticised Hizbollah's daring raids, Iran stood by its protégé. The crisis only unfolded to Iran's advantage, as its client managed to reverse decades of Arab military humiliation, surviving the Israeli onslaught. Hizbollah defended its villages far better than lions of Arab nationalism such as Gamal Abdul Nasser and Mr Hussein defended Cairo or Baghdad-the seats of Islamic civilisation. In a region accustomed to military capitulation, Hizbollah has captured the public imagination. Iran, which created and nurtured the lethal Lebanese party, is basking in its glory. Western leaders can be forgiven for insisting that Iran suspends its programme before negotiations can begin. After all, Iran did cease its nuclear activities before as a price for talks with European powers. However, the Islamic republic that acquiesced to such arrangements was a state ruled by reformers eager for integration into global society. It was also an Iran negotiating from a position of vulnerability, as it feared growing US power. Today, as Iran's leaders gaze across the Middle East, they see a crestfallen American imperium eager to exit its Arab predicament, an Iraq preoccupied with its simmering sectarian conflicts and a Gulf princely class eager to appease Iranian power. As with China, Iran sees itself as a leading regional power that is key to the Middle East's conflicts. There can be a solution to neither Iraq's civil war nor the chaos in Lebanon without active Iranian participation. As such, the guardians of the theocracy no longer feel compelled to offer concessions for the sake of US participation or European munificence. In coming weeks, the UN will issue further invocations condemning Iran, sanctions may be contemplated and the US will issue its veiled threats of military strike. Iran's nuclear plans will meanwhile continue apace, as the theocratic regime is impressed with neither America's crass military intimidation nor European offers of inducements. Comment: Coming from a Neocon think-tank, this almost sounds like they are getting cold feet about playing "Chicken" with Iran.

Flashback: Ahmadinejad Talks to U.S. Think Tank he Associated Press September 21, 2006 NEW YORK -- Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad broke away from events at the U.N. General Assembly to hold an informal question-and-answer session with high-powered members of America's most prestigious foreign policy think tank _ despite objections from some Jewish groups and the Bush administration. The Council on Foreign Relations said afterward that Ahmadinejad had engaged in a "protracted punch and counter-punch" with 19 members for about 90 minutes in the conference room of a New York City hotel late Wednesday. But it said the controversial Iranian leader had offered no new policies or opinions other than those he has aired widely on issues raging from his country's disputed nuclear program to the Holocaust. "I'm not sure we learned anything new," CFR president Richard Haass said in a statement after the meeting. But Haass added that the Iranian leader may have learned about American attitudes from those who he sparred with _ some of them Jewish panelists who had visited former concentration camps in Poland. Ahmadinejad has engaged in a media blitz during his trip to New York to attend the General Assembly _ giving interviews to Time magazine and CNN, among others. But the trip to the think tank was controversial, provoking protests from Jewish groups and the Bush administration. The New York Times, which had a reporter who is a CFR member at the private meeting, said Ahmadinejad spoke "with a tone that oozed polite hostility." He entered with "a jaunty smile, a wave and an air of supreme confidence" and ended the evening by asking Council members "whether they were simply shills for the Bush administration," the newspaper reported. It said there were no introductory handshakes before the talk began. The newspaper also reported that the group's invitation to Ahmadinejad to talk had stirred objections from Bush administration figures and prominent Jewish leaders. It did not specify if the Bush administration had actively sought to stop the meeting. Some Jewish leaders responded to invitations to the event by asking whether the council would have invited Hitler in the 1930s, and considered resigning from the group en masse, the Times reported. They decided not to resign after the event was changed from a dinner to a meeting, it said. "It is more offensive to break bread with the guy," Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told the Times. "I thought dinner was crossing the line." Ahmadinejad has frequently called the Holocaust a "myth" and has demanded more research to determine whether six million Jews really perished in World War II. CFR chairman Peter G. Peterson told him Wednesday that the majority of Americans _ Jews and non-Jews alike _ were "horrified" by his assertions, CFR said in a statement. Ahmadinejad replied that he doubted that was the case for all Americans, it said. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told the General Assembly session that the international community must stand up against Iran, which she claimed is pursuing nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. "There is no greater challenge to our values than that posed by the leaders of Iran," Livni said Wednesday. "They deny and mock the Holocaust. They speak proudly and openly of their desire to wipe Israel off the map. And now, by their actions, they pursue the weapons to achieve this objective, to imperil the region and to threaten the world." The United States is embroiled in a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. Tehran claims its goal is to generate electricity, but the U.S. says Iran aims to produce nuclear weapons. The U.S. was required to grant Ahmadinejad a visa to travel to the General Assembly in New York this week, under an agreement with the United Nations. The foreign policy group is filled with the country's government elite: Haass worked at the State Department under President Bush's first term while member Brent Scowcroft served as national security adviser under Bush's father, and Robert D. Blackwill directed Iraq policy at the White House. All attended the event, the Times said. Comment: Even though the CFR here says that Amadinejad had nothing of interest to say, some of the other events on the global stage suggest otherwise.

Flashback: Rice Retreats on Iran/Osama/Chavez by Scott Sullivan The Conservative Voice September 29, 2006 Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in an unprecedented series of interviews with the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post signaled US defeatism, retreat, and appeasement as the main guidelines for the US "war" on terrorism. These interviews clearly establish that overall control of the terrorism policy has passed from the Pentagon to the State Department, especially to the Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns. Secretary Rice's favorite line is that the Middle East is in a "Transformational Era" (never defined beyond this vacuous slogan) and the US should therefore not look for "quick victories" in the war on terrorism. Madam Secretary, the US has had troops in Iraq longer than it had troops in the field against Hitler. Quick victories over Iran and Osama, and more than a few, are precisely what the US needs! Instead, Osama and Iran are making dramatic gains, beginning in Iraq, where the US holds the overwhelming military advantage. In brief, Iran is taking Shiastan (essentially southeastern Iraq) and the port city of Basra from Iraq, which will provide Iran with effective control over the supply lines for US troops in Iraq. Iran is taking Shiastan via Iraqi parliamentary action, so far encouraged by the US, permitting southeastern Iraq and Basra to secede from the Baghdad government. Meanwhile Osama is taking Iraq's Anbar province, which constitutes 30% of Iraqi territory and borders on Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria, and which is connected to Baghdad. Osama intends to use Anbar province to mount attacks on US troops in Iraq and to spread terrorism into Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria. Osama's victory in Iraq is in addition to Osama's victory in Pakistan, where the Musharraf government has just turned the province of Waziristan over to pro-Taliban warlords, who intend to use the province to mount attacks on US and NATO troops in Afghanistan. If you are looking for clues on how the US could recoup in Iraq and against Osama, don't waste time on Rice's breezy interviews, which are permeated with defeatism, especially on sanctions (i.e. a western gasoline embargo on Iran "won't work"). To take another example -- Rice pays lip service to the idea of containing Iran but never mentions the visas granted to Khatami and Ahmadinejad which provided a propaganda windfall for Iran. Also, Rice does not mention President Bush's extensive interview with the Washington Post's David Ignatius that favored a US-Iran strategic partnership. This is containment? Instead, if you want to learn how to stop Osama and Iran in Iraq, look up the interview with Syria's President Bashar al Assad in the current issue of Der Spiegel ("America Must Listen"). Assad is attentive to threats from Iraq because Osama and Ahmadinejad intend to finish off his secular socialist regime once they consolidate in Iraq, with at least passive US support. Assad presents a detailed rationale for shoring up Iraq's central government to limit inroads by Osama in Anbar province and Iranian access to Shiastan. That's right. Syria's President Assad is more attentive to US security requirements in Iraq than Secretary Rice, who mentions Iraq only in passing, and who fails to mention Osama and Iran as threats in Iraq. Secretary Rice also downplays the threat posed by Hugo Chavez, which is already substantial and growing. Chavez is making a major bid for power in Ecuador, which hosts at Manta the core of US counter-narcotics programs in South America. A Chavez-supported candidate is now favored to win Ecuador's presidential election in October. Chavez is also making a major bid for power in Bolivia, where Evo Morales is imposing a personal dictatorship. From Bolivia, Chavez and Morales would be able to export revolution directly to Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, and Paraguay. Fortunately, Bolivia has a strong opposition, although the State bureaucracy is pro-Morales and Chavez. Moreover, Chavez is making a major power play in the UN by prevailing over Guatemala for one of the 15 rotating seats of the UN Security Council, where he could vote in support of Iran. The odds now favor Chavez. Despite her criticism of Chavez, Rice fails to mention the Ahmadinejad-Chavez-Castro Axis, which is becoming active in South America and the Caribbean. Rice also ignores Chavez's arms buildup, which is a threat to regional stability. The bottom line is that Rice and the State Department do not have a strategy for winning on the issues of Ecuador, Bolivia, and the UN seat. By the way, State also gave Chavez a visa for the UN propaganda session against the US. In short, Osama, Ahmadinejad, and Chavez have the US on the run. The fault lies with State and with Secretary Rice personally, who has pushed Secretary Rumsfeld out of the loop on terrorism issues. In fact, the word is that DoD is no longer consulted on Iran policy, which is monopolized by State (Nicholas Burns and other State Department bureaucrats) and NSC. This is no way to win a war. Comment: This is a Neocon source, which makes the report of Rice's retreat on these issues all the more interesting. What are they hiding now?