Author: Vanyan Gary

US official’s remarks not aimed at Karabakh authorities, US diplomat says
Mediamax news agency
19 Jan 05
YEREVAN
The recent statement by US Assistant State Secretary for European and
Eurasian Affairs Elizabeth Jones had to do with Russia’s policy and
was not intended to criticize the Nagornyy Karabakh authorities.
This statement was made by the assistant to the US co-chairman of the
OSCE Minsk Group, (?Elizabeth Ruth), in a telephone conversation with
the permanent representative of the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic in the
USA, Vardan Barsegyan, on 18 January, the press service of the
Nagornyy Karabakh Republic told Mediamax today.
The Foreign Ministry’s press service said that on 14 January The
Moscow Times newspaper published Elizabeth Jones’s comments concerning
the role and interests of Russia in resolving conflicts in post-Soviet
republics.
“In those comments, Mrs Jones made ambiguous statements about Nagornyy
Karabakh,” the Foreign Ministry’s press service said.
[Jones said: “It is in Russia’s interests that Dniester, South
Ossetia, Abkhazia and Nagornyy Karabakh are stable and incorrupt and
that the criminal separatist regimes ruling there are brought down.”]

Global Politician, NY
Jan 13 2005
Iran and Osama: Match Made In Hell
1/16/2005
By Ryan Mauro
While the world remains fixated on the situation in Iraq, the Bush
Administration seems equally concerned with Iran. As the world’s most
intense (in quantity and quality) sponsor of international terrorism,
and a rogue state in search of weapons of mass destruction, including
nuclear weapons, the specter of an alliance between Al-Qaeda
terrorists and the fundamentalist Iran is indeed a scary one.
Accusations by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and President
Bush show that this is indeed the case. This article will examine if
the evidence has been stretched or even falsified.
Iran in the past has been responsible for attacks on Americans.
Beginning with the hostage crisis of 1979, through the 1980s Lebanon
bombings that forced the withdrawal of American troops, and to the
recent war in Afghanistan. As the primary sponsor of terrorist groups
including the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades (terrorist wing of Fatah which
is a branch of the PLO), The Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine, The PFLP-General Command, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic
Jihad, Hezbollah, and a wide range of other anti-Israeli
organizations, there is a realistic possibility of the forging of an
alliance with Al-Qaeda. Beginning in the 1980s, Iran’s openly
proclaimed goal through sponsoring militants was to remove Western
influence from the region so as to encircle Israel. The linkage the
extremists see from the Jewish state of Israel to the United States
is that the U.S. is `Big Satan’, while Israel is `Little Satan’,
cooperating hand-in-hand on a campaign of genocide against Islam.
Such thinking began with the Islamic revolution in 1979, after which
the new Islamist government of Iran called for striking out upon its
enemies as a religious duty. These callings would increase throughout
the decade, particularly because the extremists saw victories in
Lebanon, Somalia, and other places which resulted in the withdrawal
of Israeli and/or American forces. Some analysts feel that do to the
inability of the Western countries to see the `hidden hands’ involved
in major terrorist attacks, has encouraged state sponsors to continue
using proxies for their war, as it covers their fingerprints.
By the end of 1990, Iran and other state sponsors saw the world in a
very simplistic manner, particularly in the Middle East. Any
government in the world, whether it hold a Moslem majority or not,
decided its fate by their relationship to the United States and the
United Kingdom, even if that relationship was different than the
relationship they had with Israel. Thus, any country assisting the US
in any manner was thought to be a `puppet government’ of the West
used in its War on Islam. To this end, the Iranians, Sudanese,
Iraqis, and other state sponsors felt the first step in fighting the
West and moving towards the destruction of Israel was the promotion
of radicalism so as to topple `infidel’ governments in the region
`serving’ America, and terrorism was seen as a way to intimidate the
West, a bargaining chip, a way to radicalize Moslems and inspire
Moslems that through the power of jihad, they could prosper. The
state-controlled media blamed their poverty and despair on the West,
so as to draw a link between the `glory of jihad’ and the pursuit of
happiness. Manipulating religious teachings served as another tactic
to magnify the campaign.
The radical states had little fear of Western retaliation as they saw
several encouraging signs:
A. The United Nations leaving Saddam Hussein in power after the Gulf
War
B. The West forcing Israel into limiting retaliation against
Palestinian militants
C. The lack of retaliation for the 1980s episodes in Lebanon
D. The failure of the Americans to rescue the hostages at the embassy
in Tehran
E. The withdrawal from Sudan
F. The toleration of Yasser Arafat’s militants while simultaneously
pressuring Israel into giving concessions
G. The growing impact of extremism on the Moslem youth and the
growing anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism grew do to state
propaganda, the lack of confidence in the West after these episodes,
and American support for regimes such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia which
committed serious human rights violations, while going unpunished do
to their cooperation with the American forces.
H. A reoccurring belief that any major Israeli or American
retaliation not seen as justified would arouse pan-Arabism and
pan-Islamism, resulting in a unified Islamic or Arab world holding
all the major oil deposits.
As Islamic religious sects united against their common enemies
beginning with the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and
later Israel and the West, their theological differences were removed
for the time being. Soon after the Gulf War, the dozens of branches
of militants, the strongest being the `Afghans’ (those who fought
against the Soviets), formed a common front known as the Armed
Islamic Movement, or the `International Legion of Islam’. Seeing
confidence in this union, the sponsoring states of Sudan, Iran,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and to a lesser degree, Syria and Iraq, began
cooperation with the legion as a form of proxy warfare. This is
similar to what we are seeing today in Iraq, where the Saddam
Fedayeen guerillas have united with the foreign terrorists.
Seeking leaders, Osama Bin Laden rised to the top of this union do to
his experience in Afghanistan, his financial power and his lengthy
international connections. Inside the Armed Islamic Movement were
still intact branches of militants, and Osama Bin Laden recruited
only the best for his organization, Al-Qaeda, or `The Base’. Al-Qaeda
then would cooperate with a closely fitting ring of similar
organizations such as the Armed Islamic Group (rebels in Algeria) so
as they would all form a network, with Al-Qaeda as the nexus.
The network depended heavily upon state sponsors, so the network
would be careful not to upset their state sponsors in order to keep
the delicate alliance alive. The state sponsors initially began their
own terrorist groups, as Iran did with Hezbollah, but as these groups
grew closer to the branches of the Armed Islamic Movement, the
sponsorship would extend to AIA so as to:
A. Enhance the deception and denial strategy
B. Enhance the overall terrorist legion
C. Enhance the capabilities of their closest terrorist allies that
served directly under them
D. Remove ideological and theological barriers preventing the
accomplishment of the primary objectives of the extremists.
E. Change the competitive nature of rival groups into a productive
catalyst for the cause.
F. Increase influence over the elements of other Islamic sects they
did not approve of.
In 1991, Sudan (in close cooperation with Iran) took a further step
to unify the various branches of terrorists into a single front. The
Islamic Arab Peoples’ Conference was formed while Sudan and Iran
simultaneously created the Popular International Organization, an
allied front of Sunni Moslem extremists that would take part in the
driving power for the Islamic Arab People’s Conference. This began
the setting up of Sudan as a terrorist harbor, and the placement of
Iranian forces in Sudan to facilitate this infrastructure.
As a result of the meetings and conferences, the Egyptian Islamic
Jihad led by Ayman Al-Zawahiri, now Al-Qaeda’s main operational
branch became deeply involved in the various Islamic movements. On
October 18, 1991, the group went to the International Conference in
Support of the Islamic Revolution of the People o Palestine, with
over 400 representatives. The meeting also managed to unify the
branches despite their theological differences although Sudan and
Iran secretly hoped that their Popular International Organization
would take the lead in the efforts. Subsequently, Osama Bin Laden saw
the gathering movement and began concentrating his major efforts
towards that movement, landing him a spot at the top of the movement,
and as a result, assistance from Iran and the various state sponsors
of terrorism.
In July of 1992, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, now Al-Qaeda’s #2 leader, went to
Tehran after consulting with Sudan. Zawahiri had already become a
huge figure in the Islamist movement, serving as a conduit for
coordination between many branches of organizations. His prestige and
theological beliefs drew Osama Bin Laden to him, later resulting in
the fusion of Egyptian Islamic Jihad into Al-Qaeda and tightening of
the overall Islamic coalition, all under the union sponsored by that
of Iran and other state sponsors.
The Alliance
Beginning in 1992, an agreement was reached. In return for Zawahiri’s
efforts in the movement led by Iran, the Iranians agreed to provide a
safe harbor and training camp for about 800 of the Egyptian Islamic
Jihad terrorists in Mashhad. Iranian proxy forces like Hezbollah, and
the Pasdaran division of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps based
in Sudan would assist in virtually all areas of Zawahiri’s
contributions to the movement. Zawahiri subsequently agreed to join a
faction of the overall movement, called the Arab Liberation
Battalions which was headed by the Revolutionary Guard’s intelligence
community. By the end of the year, Al-Zawahiri’s alliance with
Hezbollah became complete. It also set the stage for the battle of
Mogadishu, Somalia which accelerated the prestige of the various
Islamist movements banned into one union. This is why after 9-11,
President Bush had to make it clear the War on Terrorism was required
to fight all terrorist organizations.
In 1992, 12,000 Arab volunteers who had fought into Afghanistan
transferred into the terrorist organizations involved in the
movement. The leading force in Afghanistan of extremist volunteers
was Hizb-i-Islami, led by Gulbaddin Hekmatiyar, the force behind the
recent guerilla warfare in Afghanistan in alliance with the Taliban
and Al-Qaeda. This same year, Osama Bin Laden sent 3,000 Yemenis he
had recruited back to their homeland from Pakistan to help expand the
terrorist network in Arabia. The bases were reportedly in the
al-Maraqishah Mountains. But by mid-1993, with the movement’s new
focus on East Africa, many of these Yemeni forces were moved to
Somalia, which he claimed cost him $3 million. These forces later
took part in the Mogadishu battle.
The alliances continued into October 1994, accelerating with the
Iranian-sponsored meeting in Khartoum, Sudan with Iranian
intelligence delegates, Osama Bin Laden, Hezbollah, and the various
branches of Muslim Brotherhood. The focus returned to the Arabian
Peninsula. Another meeting with the same groups occurred in November
1994 in Cyprus, to discuss operations in the United States. There
were even more people at the meeting, including Sudanese, Syrian, and
Iranian intelligence, and various other terrorist organizations
including Hamas, Hezbollah, PFLP-GC, Islamic Action Front, etc.
In early 1996, Iran formed the Hezbollah International, which
cooperated closely with Osama Bin Laden. Hezbollah International
picked up from where Iran-sponsored terrorism in the Middle East in
1995 left off. The new Hezbollah International worked to facilitate
attacks by financing and training, while very often, Bin Laden and
Zawahiri led and commanded the terrorist forces. To oversee such
activities, the President of Iran, Ali Akbatrr Hashem Rafsanjani
created the Supreme Council for Intelligence Affairs. Dr. Mahdi
Chamran Savehi led the External Intelligence branch which was
responsible for sponsoring terrorism, often through hiring the
al-Quds Forces of the Iranian military. Also in 1996, there was a new
turn towards the Balkans, particularly in Bosnia where the state
sponsors send forces, alongside Bin Laden to the region to assist the
Moslems in their war with Serbia.
As part of the new campaign, groups which were not part of Hizballah
International did decide to cooperate and form an alliance to
coordinate their activities with the Iranian-sponsored movement. This
included Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Lebanese
Hezbollah, Osama Bin Laden’s forces, Popular Front for the Liberation
of Palestine-General Command, Hamas, The Turkish Islamic Party,
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Kurdish People’s
Party. The Islamic Change Movement, a group of organizations, also
joined the alliance. Iran’s main instruments in the non-Hezbollah
forces inside the alliance were Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas
which work very closely with Iran. Efforts to assist operations in
Saudi Arabia and East Africa continued, as a way to reduce American
and Israeli power.
The alliance members held a meeting on September 20-23, 1997. The
meeting included Ayman al-Zawahiri and an Al-Qaeda commander, where
they all agreed to escalate the terrorist campaign. Plans were to
begin for attacks on Turkey, Israel, and the USA.
Bin Laden decided the next month to begin preparing a base of
operations more centrally located in Afghanistan to facilitate the
coming offensives. Bin Laden intended to preserve his prestige and
power in the revolution. Most of the Al-Qaeda forces went from Sudan
into Pakistan and Afghanistan with the assistance of Pakistani
intelligence, while at the same time coordinating the upgrading of
capabilities with the anti-Indian militant forces backed by Pakistan
in Kashmir, who were simultaneously planning for a new campaign. Bin
Laden and Zawahiri soon held a meeting in Kandahar, Afghanistan to
talk about a new campaign to counter American influence all over the
world, and Zawahiri became the leader of the major operational
elements of Al-Qaeda, particularly the efforts against Egypt.
Meanwhile, forces from the various terrorist organizations spread out
into the Balkans, India, and Western Europe.
Later in 1997, Iran had a breakthrough in their planning for the
Islamic revolutions. At the final meeting to prepare the details of
the next campaign, about 20-30 organizations, or terrorist `unions’
took part including non-Moslems! Al-Jamaah al-Islamiyah joined, as
did the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, The Algerian
Armed Islamic Group, various extremist factions from all over the
world, the Armenian Secret Army, 17th of November based in Greece,
and Latin American groups. Immediately after, Zawahiri issued a call
for jihad on the United States and our allies in the Middle East if
we did not withdraw from the areas of Islam. On November 17, 1997,
Zawahiri’s forces attacked Luxor, Egypt and killed nearly 70 West
European civilians. The campaign had shot off.
In February 1998, Egyptian Islamic Jihad (already close to Bin Laden)
joined the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders,
an umbrella over Al-Qaeda and all their associated groups. This new
umbrella cooperated side-by-side with the Armed Islamic Movement – some
analysts even suggest they are the same thing, as most of the groups
were members of both umbrella organizations. Nevertheless, the
world’s radical Islamic terrorist groups had united under the
supervision of the several state sponsors of terrorism.
Yossef Bodansky’s book, `Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on
America’ goes much further into details of how Iran may have been
behind the major Al-Qaeda attacks, particularly the operations in
Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Tanzania and Kenya. It shows how Iran
works behind the various extremist unions, issuing restrictions and
permits on terrorist entities depending on how they fit Iran’s
interest. If you are interested, I suggest buying the book. Since I
am unable to prove and verify Iran’s role in these acts, it will not
be discussed here. However, what can be proven is how Iran has
provided aid to Al-Qaeda.
Pre-9/11
In the mid-1990s, Iran began to diversify the types of terror
sponsorship it would pursue. Rather than regular assassination and
guerilla warfare-type training, new methods of attacks were expanded
upon, a trend also seen in Iraq. Much of this upgrading would be seen
later in the Palestinian Intifada uprising against Israel and by
militants around the world in the late 1990s and the new millennium.
According to one of Yossef Bodansky’s books, hijacking airliners was
involved in the training. The book however, was written in 1993. He
is currently the US Congress’ Director of the Joint Task Force on
Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. There were two training
facilities set up in Iran for advanced warfare involving aerial
platforms. One was at Wakilabad, the other near Mashhad (where
Al-Qaeda forces currently reside). Several former Iran Air pilots and
Air Force pilots, including ones trained in the United States, served
as instructors under the Revolutionary Guards and intelligence
community. At the airfield at Wakilabad were a Boeing 707, Boeing 727
and a Boeing 747. Selected pilots were sent to train at the Won San
Air Force Base in North Korea, where Korean pilots gave training over
the course of one year. Military training for the air force and navy
in North Korea traditionally teaches the tactics of the kamikazes. By
1995, at Salman Pak in Iraq, a similar training site was set up with
a Boeing jet used for hijacking training, which witnesses confirm
consisted of foreigners.
The former highest ranking CIA operative in Iraq, Robert Baer, says
that in December of 1995, one of Osama Bin Laden’s associates went to
Tehran, for a meeting with several officers of the Ministry of
Intelligence and Security. The following July, Bin Laden met with an
Iranian intelligence officer whom was sent to Afghanistan to make the
anti-American alliance stronger in coordination and trust. The
cooperation soon extended to all `sections’ of Al-Qaeda, including
the Egyptian Gami’at group, whom established contact with Iran
through Imad Mughniyah and Hezbollah. By late 1997, the CIA knew that
Bin Laden had discussed coordination efforts with Iran and the
prospect of destabilizing central Asia as part of the war against the
West was brought up.
Most of the Iranian-Bin Laden cooperation was done through Ayman
Al-Zawahiri. The efforts described above were the result of meetings
with this man. Over the past decade, Zawahiri could often be spotted
in Iran meeting with high-level government officials including the
Minister of Intelligence and Security, Ali Fallahian and Ahmad
Vahidi, the leader of the al-Quds forces, which consist of special
forces operatives whom assist terrorists or carry out terrorist acts
themselves. These forces are responsible for supervising covert
support to militants.
Beginning in the summer of 2000, Osama Bin Laden alongside Syria and
Iran began working to upgrade the militant capabilities in Lebanon
and the areas of Palestinian resistance against Israel. New stages of
Arab cooperation in the extremist realm led to reestablished ties
between Syria and the Syrian branch of Muslim Brotherhood, which was
tied to Al-Qaeda, and with Iraq by July 2000. The various Palestinian
terrorist organizations and Hezbollah also began a ground-breaking
chapter of cooperation. Iran even managed to build trust between Bin
Laden’s group and Syria by showing that they intended not to topple
the Bashar Assad regime, but rather to work together.
In mid-July, Iran called for a meeting in Afghanistan between the
head of Bin Laden’s bases in Lebanon and representatives of other
Palestinian groups. They agreed to coordinate activities, and that
Al-Qaeda would receive safe harbor at Ein Hilweh, Nahr al-Bard,
Hezballah-dominated areas in the Bekka Valley and the Palestinian
refugee camp of Tripoli. In the Bekka Valley, Iran’s Hezbollah
organization began training and arming the Al-Qaeda forces based
there to integrate the forces into an anti-Israeli militant
infrastructure. Keep in mind, any activities of Hezballah should be
under the direct responsibility of Iran and sometimes, Syria, as the
group is founded by, trained by, armed by, directed by, and
accompanied by Iranian Revolutionary Guards and intelligence.
As the new network was build, Al-Qaeda contributed dozens of fighters
to join the Palestinian militants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, to
work alongside Hamas and Islamic Jihad, more groups sponsored by
Iran. Arafat’s forces took no action against Al-Qaeda’s movements
once they were seen as non-threatening to the Palestinian Authority,
which was promised by Iran. This resulted in Arafat giving permission
to Syria, Iran, and radical Palestinian groups to facilitate Al-Qaeda
escapes to the harbors made available by the Palestinian groups.
In Tehran on June 1, 2002, there was another terrorist conference to
coordinate plans for the war on Israel. It involved most Iranian
leaders, the founder of Hezballah, senior Iranian Pasadaran
commanders from Lebanon, Syrian intelligence officials, Imad
Mughniyah and an Al-Qaeda commander, alongside the Palestinian
radical forces of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and PFLP-GC.
Before we go any further, one must understand the cycle of Iranian
terrorism, regarding the United States, particularly in the Gulf.
While some terrorist acts occur at a timely moment at the leaders’
wishes, the separate campaigns Iran launches go on a cycle. Beginning
in March 1990, Iran began the three-phase terror escalation strategy:
1) Terrorism using local capabilities, loss of which would not hinder
the movement for Islamic movement. 2) More advanced attacks using
sleeper cells that depend upon sleeper networks, so as to avoid
detection and enhance the capabilities of the attacks. 3)
`Spectacular strikes’, usually with suicide bombers, and
top-of-the-line trained militants that aim to incite the Muslim world
and usually take place far away from Iran.
After each phase, a new terrorist sleeper network is planted so that
any intelligence the West gains from the investigations into the
operations does not hinder the subsequent plans of the Iranian
regime. The Iranian-directed coordinated campaign, for the more
decisive attacks (as opposed to small-scale bombings like that in
Israel carried out by mediocre Palestinian groups with Iranian
permission or support) utilize the manpower of Hezballah, sleeper
cells consisting of `Afghans’ (volunteers of the mujahideen in
Afghanistan during the war against the Soviets, this is where
Al-Qaeda associated branches come into play) and Sunni networks far
away with local capabilities whose elimination does not affect the
separate networks.
Regarding the `Afghans’, Iran’s contact with them, particularly
through Ayman Al-Zawahiri began in May 1986 with a meeting at Ben
Bella to unify the branches, as we discussed before. The initial
components of the giant union of Islamic radicals included Muslim
Brotherhood, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and intelligence, Syrian
Muslim Brotherhood, the forces behind the Islamic Conferences in
Europe, Hezballah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, operational branch of
Al-Qaeda today, which were represented by Sheikh Umar Abdel-Rahman,
mufti of the organization. Iran’s links to the inner circle of
Al-Qaeda go back for over a decade. Beginning that summer, Iranian
intelligence began funding Egyptian Islamic Jihad and providing
technical assistance.
According to Ali Mohammed, a former Al-Qaeda security chief whom
testified during the trials after the 1998 embassy bombings, the
organization’s financial manager, Muhmud Salim met with Imad
Mughniyah, an associate of the Iranian intelligence community,
government, and Revolutionary Guards (and `employee’ of Iran to take
part in the business of terrorism sponsorship) in Sudan several times
between 1992 and 1996, laying the foundation for tight cooperation
between the two groups of extremists. Insight Magazine also has
provided details from the court case that raise much worry.
`The federal grand jury that indicted bin Laden in 1998 for the
embassy bombings described the operational support al-Qaeda received
from governments in explicit terms: “Al-Qaeda also forged alliances
with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government
of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose
of working together against their perceived common enemies in the
West, particularly the United States,” the indictment says. Mohamed
testified that “much of this type of training is actually carried out
at a training camp there, in Iran, run by the Iranian Ministry of
Information and Security.” Even more damning comments were made by
Mohamed under seal, because James Owens, one of the victims of the
U.S. Embassy bombings in Tanzania, told the court at a sentencing
hearing last month for the convicted bombers that “Iran provided the
explosives for the bombings which have brought us here today.”
Despite this evidence of operational ties between Iran and the
network that blew up the U.S. embassies, no Iranian official has yet
been publicly indicted for the bombing.’
Ali Mohammed goes on to say that as of October of 2000, he knew that
representatives of Iran, Hezballah, Al-Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad,
along with Imad Mughniyah himself were holding several meetings. At
these meetings, shipments of arms to Egyptian Islamic Jihad (and thus
Al-Qaeda, as E.I.J. is the group’s operational arm) were discussed,
and at one particular meeting, the Iranian representatives
specifically pointed out they intended to use Hezballah as a proxy
force for the cooperation. The meetings concluded with Hezballah
agreeing to pass on their tactics used in Lebanon to the new Armed
Islamic Movement (more specifically Bin Laden’s forces, although they
didn’t have the widely known name of Al-Qaeda just yet) for use
against `Big Satan’ and `Little Satan’, particularly in the countries
with their influence, specifically pointing out Saudi Arabia.
These contacts continued throughout the decade, mostly unnoticed,
until the 1998 bombings of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
According to captured documents during the investigation and trial
testimony, Hezballah forces, Iranian government and intelligence
officials and members of the Special Revolutionary Guard forces all
had contact with high-ranking Al-Qaeda forces, and enjoyed at least
one visit from Osama Bin Laden himself. At the meeting mentioned,
Iran directed its Hezballah forces near Al-Qaeda safe havens to arm
and train Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Al-Qaeda, which had recently
joined forces. At the meeting, Osama Bin Laden stressed that the
organization needed to push aside differences with Shiite militants,
specifically Iran and Hezballah, in order to pursue a common war
against a common enemy.
Even when the Al-Qaeda and associated Islamic militant branches
centralized into Afghanistan under Taliban rule, Iran assisted them.
During the war in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance identified two
instructors at an Al-Qaeda training camp at Shomali as Iranians, both
of which previously had experience with Hezballah. Documents seized
at the camp showed blueprints to seize an American embassy, run
assassination missions, and formulas for enriched uranium.
The days prior to 911 also show Iran had an alliance with terrorists.
Over the summer of 2001, the bulk of Egyptian Jihad forces that we
would fight in Afghanistan began entering the country through Iran,
crossing at Mashhad. But in the first week of September, Iran stopped
the immigration to Afghanistan. Some in US intelligence suspect this
means Iran had some idea of a major terrorist attack that was
imminent, which could potentially incriminate the Iranian regime.
On September 11, 2001, immediately before or after the first attack,
a senior Iranian government official called relatives in Los Angeles
saying he was hoping to flee to the United States. The official
explained that Iran’s media/propaganda machine hoped to blame the
attacks on the Japanese Red Army, providing details of elements of
the disinformation operations that did not play out until weeks
later. What is known though is that immediately following 9/11, the
government-controlled media (broadcasting into Lebanon) did in fact
try to spin the facts to make it appear it was the Japanese Red Army.
And so we go back to the Insight Magazine report on November 9, 2001.
In the investigation, they write:
`A former Iranian-government intelligence officer who has defected to
the West tells Insight during telephone interviews from Germany that
he personally informed the FBI at the beginning of September of a
plot by Iran to crash civilian jumbo jets into the World Trade Center
and government buildings in Washington. A key element of the plot,
which was code-named Shaitan der artash (Devil in the Fire), was the
use of Arab “muscle men” to hijack the airliners. “Only the men
leading the cells were Iranians,” he says, “and they were recruited
from among Iran’s Arab-speaking population” in the southwest province
of Khouzistan, bordering Iraq…..
The former intelligence officer says he received a coded message from
inside Iran one week before the Sept. 11 attacks, signaling that the
Shaitan der artash plan had been reactivated. He says he contacted
the German intelligence agency, the BND, and the legal attaché at the
U.S. Embassy in Berlin. U.S. government officials tell Insight that
the FBI now claims it didn’t receive the defector’s warning until
after Sept. 11.
To carry out the plan, a private company connected to the Iranian
government purchased a Boeing 757 simulator through the European
Airbus consortium 18 months before the attacks, the defector tells
Insight. One of the individuals who purchased the simulator in Paris
was in the United States on Sept. 11, he adds. `
Hamid Reza Zakeri
Insight Magazine ran another amazing investigation on June 10, 2003.
It was about Hamid Reza Zakeri, whom defected from the Supreme
Leader’s intelligence directorate, bringing along with him classified
intelligence documents. Zakeri has testified to being in charge of
the security apparatus surrounding at least two meetings inside Iran
between Al-Qaeda and Iranian officials prior to 9/11. The secret
document he gave to US intelligence was dated May 14, 2001, signed by
the Minister for Information and Security, and quoted Khomeini in
regards to how to handle the cooperation with Osama Bin Laden.
In the document written less than four months before the attack,
Khomeini says to `strike at [American] economic structure, their
reputation – and their internal peace and security….We should be very
careful and very clever, so as not to leave behind any evidence that
could negatively impact our future standing or policies.’
At the end of the document, the Minister of Information and Security
writes to his ministry to `…improve our plans, especially in
coordination with fighters of Al-Qaeda and Hezballah to find one
objective that is beneficial to both sides…The Leader [Khomeini]
mentioned that we should limit our relations with Al-Qaeda to just
two people, as before – Imad Mughniyeh and Ayman Al-Zawahiri – and deal
only with them.’
Zakeri says the first meeting he was present at was held in January
2001 when Al-Zawahiri arrived in Iran (from Afghanistan) alongside 29
other Al-Qaeda officials for a meeting that would go on for four
days. `Zawahiri told my boss, Mustafa Hadadian, that they were
planning a `major operation’ against the United States and Israel.’
Zakeri says the meeting was at Varamin, just outside of Tehran. He
testifies, `After the meeting, 12 of them [Al-Qaeda officials] stayed
in Iran. They were talking about their `plans for the future’, and
that they had the `same enemy’ as the Iranians. They said they were
trying to build up one movement to cooperate together, and were
asking Iran for operational support, equipment and money-laundering
help in Dubai, as well as assistance with travel documents to help
them travel from Iran to Europe. Ayman Al-Zawahiri told my boss that
Al-Qaeda was `very soon’ going to make a major operation against the
United States.’
Zakeri says Naleq-Nouri, former speaker of Iranian parliament and top
aide to Khomeini, led the Iranian delegation and was assisted by Ali
Akbar Parvaresh, former education minister and member of Section 43,
the planning unit of the intelligence ministry. The success of the
meeting led to Osama’s sending of Saad Bin Laden to Iran on May 4,
2001. Flying from the Talebat border of Afghanistan, to the Damavand
airfield near Tehran, he and three Al-Qaeda officials began their
three-week stay, which would include at least one meeting with
Iranian government officials.
At Khomeini’s meeting house in Jamaran at the slopes of Elburz
Mountains (just north of Tehran), the five members of the Leadership
Council (the ayatollahs, Khomeini, and ex-president Rafsanjani) began
discussing operations with Al-Qaeda representatives. Not long after,
in the main hallway of the Ministry of Information and Security
headquarters in Tehran was a new exhibit with models of the World
Trade Center, the Pentagon and Camp David. Zakeri says: `From the
ceiling, a missile was suspended as if to strike the buildings.
`Death to America’ was written on its side in Arabic, not Farsi.’
Zakeri says that the same hallway often had pictures of dissidents
targeted by Iranian intelligence, whom would die or disappear soon
after their pictures were posted. Zakeri went to the US embassy in
Azerbaijan on July 26, 2001, met with the CIA station chief, and
warned of a something occurring on or around September 10th. Insight
Magazine was unable to confirm if he really did make that prediction,
but was able to confirm that the meeting took place.
Worldwide Expansion
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Iran even helped forces that were
part of the growing Armed Islamic Movement to expand worldwide into
the menace we see today. Apart from helping Pakistan in the training
and equipping of Kashmir-based militants, Iran often took a
unilateral approach in these efforts. Even Pakistan often played only
a minor role. From 1990 to 1991, Iran began helping Islamic radicals
in the Philippines, particularly present-day Abu Sayyaf (one of
Al-Qaeda’s Pacific branches) to build camps and general
self-sustaining infrastructure. Often this was done through Iranian
intelligence agents accompanying Hezballah. Present-day Moro Islamic
Liberation Front also got help from Iran (and Pakistan) in making a
network of camps, and establishing lines of supply and communication.
By 1994, the rebels numbered over 120,000 organized into 6 divisions,
with an elite division of 6,000 veterans including Afghan mujahideen.
Throughout the fall of 1994, reaching the height in October, Iran
send huge amounts of experts (embedded into Hezballah) and supply to
the radicals in the Philippines, landing on Mindanao. Even a few
American-designed Stinger missiles are suspected of being shipped. By
the end of the year, nearly 180,000 people had joined the rebellion.
Do to differences with a commander in the Moro Islamic Liberation
Front, Abu Sayyaf split apart (but did not fight with the MLF), now
being led by a graduate from an Iranian training camp. In 1995, Abu
Sayyaf formed back the alliance with MLF, and the militants became a
crucial part of Al-Qaeda’s network of terrorism. The next year, Iran
withdrew most forces from the Philippines including Hezballah to
avoid the political ramifications. Iran had successfully covered up
their role, and instead of risking being caught in the act, withdrew
as the new terrorist infrastructure had already reached
self-sustaining capabilities. Nevertheless, Hezballah still often
helped recruiting efforts overseas, and graduates from Iranian and
Hezballah camps were encouraged to join the group.
In fact, many of the Latin American recruits for Al-Qaeda were
initially recruited by Hezballah. This is certainly the case in 1996
and afterwards when new Hezballah networks were propped up in
Uruguay, Chile and Argentina that expanded as time went on. Using its
connections in the Pacific, Hezballah networks expanded in Thailand,
Australia and Indonesia (possibly contributing to the current
Al-Qaeda branch there, known as Jeemah Islamiyya). Even today, the
representatives of the various terrorist groups belonging to the
Armed Islamic Movement meet at the Triple Border where Paraguay,
Brazil, and Argentina meet, to coordinate terrorism. Mughniyah
himself has met with Al-Qaeda representatives here. According to
intelligence, this is where Western Hemisphere-based terrorism was
planned and coordinated between several groups including Islamic
Jihad, Hezballah, Al-Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, etc., for during
and after the war in Iraq.
Other Assistance
By early May, the US was pressuring Iran to hand over Al-Qaeda and
extremist forces being harbored in their territory, with the
knowledge of the government. It has been reported that Iran demanded
that members of the opposition forces, Mujahideen-e-Khalq be handed
to them first, which the US refused to do. According to some
reporting, one of those harbored in Iran was Saadoon Mohammed Abdul
Latif, also known as Abu Wail, who was an Iraqi intelligence officer
who served as Iraqi liaison with Bin Laden by visiting in Afghanistan
in 1999. Also hidden in Iran was Ayub Afghani, an Al-Qaeda explosives
expert and senior leaders of Ansar al-Islam, an Al-Qaeda branch
formerly in northern Iraq. Also from Iraq was Al-Qaeda associate Abu
Mussab al-Zarqawi, head of a terrorist poisons network and weapons of
mass destruction efforts, and who also has been given the
responsibility of finding safety for hundreds of Taliban and Al-Qaeda
fighters using his expertise in false documentation and escaping the
authorities.
Iran has become a major base for Al-Qaeda operations. In fact, the
military commander of the group and the #3 ranking leader, Seif
al-Adel, organized the May 12th bombing attacks on Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia in Iran. The head of logistics, Saad Bin Laden, Osama’s oldest
son, as well as the head of training, Abu Mohammed Masri, are also in
Iran forming this command group.
Seif al-Adel has coordinated Al-Qaeda’s cooperation with local
extremist groups including those in Morocco and Pakistan to launch
attacks. He also oversees the security of the organization and
distributes money and propaganda to Afghanistan-based forces from
Iran. Working alongside Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi (whom escaped to Iran
between March 19th and 29th from Iraq) and Saad Bin Laden, Saif
al-Adel coordinates his actions wtih the Iranian Revolutionary Guards
and the Intelligence Ministry. It is believed at least 500 Al-Qaeda
connected or associated persons are in Iran despite their claims of
expelling them. The strategy behind this is to use the group’s
profound influence to launch terrorist attacks that cannot be traced
back to Iran, and to promote Iranian influence in Afghanistan and
Iraq. The most dangerous detail not mentioned yet is that Seif
Al-Adel is currently in the process of activating sleeper cells in
Western Europe and the United States.
Iran enjoys a tremendous advantage do to this. According to Ali Nouri
Zadeh of the Arabic paper, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, if any attacks or
militant circles are traced to Iran, they simply remove them from
their territory. Iran is careful not to reveal their role in
terrorism (unless it is Palestinian resistance). Immediately after
the May 12th Riyadh attacks, Seif al-Adel and Saad Bin Laden left
Iran (but returned later). Other forces of Al-Qaeda and Ansar
al-Islam began moving back into northern Iraq, Afghanistan, or the
triple border between Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. An
investigation in February revealed an Al-Qaeda network centered in
Tehran, Mashhad and Zahedan. Saad Bin Laden, al-Adel, and Abu Khaled
at the time were all living in a safehouse under the ownership of the
Special Revolutionary Guards in the Bamk Abroad district.
Israeli intelligence says that the reason for a heightened alert in
Saudi Arabia which occurred about a week before the May 12th attacks
on Riyadh, was that Western intelligence had picked up suspicious
amounts of electronic `chatter’ among Al-Qaeda cells around Saudi
Arabia, and simultaneous movement of operatives from the
Pakistani-Afghani tribal areas to Abu Dhabi, Yemen and Qatar through
Iran. Saad Bin Laden, Seif al-Adel, Abu al-Walid, and Al-Masri were
all supervising the movement from Iran.
The command centers for Al-Qaeda and associated militants such as
Ansar al-Islam in Iran were said to be in four areas. Up to 600
operatives and associates were in the province of Khorasan at Tayebat
(12 miles from the border of Afghanistan) and near Garmab (60 miles
away from Mashhad). In the province of Baluchistan there were two
locations for cells at Zabul and Zahedan, where Revolutionary Guards
forces were stationed. The week after the attack, the United States
cut off diplomatic contacts with Iran and demanded the extradition of
terrorists and cooperation with the Riyadh investigation.
This could also be do to the suspicion that Iran may be at times
harboring Osama Bin Laden. The most common view held right now is
that the he and Ayman Al-Zawahiri often find harbor in the southern
Assir province of Saudi Arabia in the Empty Quarter Desert (which is
not controlled by the Saudi government), and the area which extends
onto the Yemeni border. From here, it is believed they very often
travel to the Pakistani tribal areas, sometimes slipping into
Afghanistan, and sometimes slipping into Iran where the borders of
the three countries meet. Other people hold that they are always in
the Pakistani and Afghani tribal areas, where some have even said
they are often at the Hindu Kush Mountains.
Nevertheless, the suspicion towards Iran in regards to their location
is justified. According to Italian intelligence, Osama Bin Laden
often meets with his oldest son, Saad in Iran, traveling freely
throughout Iran to consult with his group’s leadership. In early May,
it is said that Osama and seven senior aides including Al-Zawahiri
went to Iran, and were spotted in Tehran, where they are believed to
have authorized the May 12th Riyadh attacks (and the other attacks
throughout the spring) putting Seif al-Adel in charge. Attacks on
Turkey, Pakistan and Italy were reportedly discussed. The reports
finish with saying that the delegation carried Iranian passports,
identifying themselves as businessmen.
In the face of US threats, Iran claimed it had detained senior
Al-Qaeda in the country but would not hand them over to the United
States, but rather would send them to their homelands after being
identified. Even today, in the second week of July, there is still
`identification’ going on and the militants are still `detained’. The
definition of `detained’ appears to be loose, as it can mean they are
under `arrest’, but really in police possession while being allowed
to continue their work. Iranian authorities have said there are some
350 Al-Qaeda in their possession.
The Al-Qaeda spokesman, Suleiman Abu Ghaith, was leaked to the press
(probably on purpose) to be among those detained. Immediately, Egypt
began contacting Iran about sending Egyptian nationals home for
prosecution. At least 14 Egyptian terrorists are believed to be given
safe haven in Iran, particularly those involved in the 1998 embassy
bombings.
Among those harbored: Mustafa Hamza, conspirator in a plot to kill
Egyptian president Mubarak in 1995; Abdul Rahman Khader, leader of
Egyptian Islamic Jihad and conspirator in the bombing of the Egyptian
embassy in Pakistan in 1995; leading members of Gamiat Islamiya
including members of the Shura Council like Muhammed Shawqi
Islambuli, the brother of the assassin of Anwar Sadat.
The War in Afghanistan
Around the first week of October 2001, Imad Mughniyah, a senior
intelligence official from Iran, and an Iraqi intelligence official
close to Saddam Hussein met in Mashhad. Knowing the American
onslaught was near; it is likely this had to do with preparations for
the import of militant forces.
Ever since winter 2001-2002, when the American forces toppled the
Taliban government in Afghanistan, these forces have been welcomed in
Iran, for the proper amount of money. Most of the forces that escaped
to Iran are in northern training camps, while more important
officials moved to Tehran, Qom, and Mashhid. Upon significant
pressure, Iran would transfer selected militants to northern Iraq
and/or Syria and Lebanon to bolster the Hezballah forces. By December
2001, Israeli intelligence reported that hundreds, possibly thousands
of foreigners harbored in Afghanistan had escaped a very large
portion of which escaping through Iran. It was said that they escaped
using drug trafficking routes in Baluchistan, with full awareness of
Iranian intelligence. Most of those escaping were Saudis, which makes
the observer question the significance of the Saudi-Iranian alliance
(as it relates to terrorism investigations, as we saw when the Saudis
covered up incriminating evidence against Hezballah and Iran in the
investigation into the Dhalan bombings and Khobar Tower bombings).
Iran also traditionally interferes in Afghan relations to sway
factors in the politics in their favor. Such covert operations
dramatically increased before 9/11 (it is reported that Iran assisted
Al-Qaeda in killing the Northern Alliance commander just days before
9/11 by providing transportation and security) and had another
acceleration once Western forces attacked Afghanistan. According to
an American special ops officer, the Iranian-modified AK-47 flooded
Afghanistan in increasing numbers during the fighting. Press reports
also indicate that three officers from the Revolutionary Guards were
killed in the bombing raids at Herat on Taliban and Al-Qaeda sites.
Herat has always been a site for Iran’s `active measures’, and today
is ruled by Ismail Khan, a man who openly admits ties to the
government of Iran. According to an Insight Magazine investigation,
Khan has ten Iranian generals serving under him whom are suspected of
being involved with resistance forces against the new post-war
government. One of the generals, General Blokian of the Revolutionary
Guard, previously assisted Hezballah based in southern Lebanon, and
now trains resistance forces loyal to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. On
the other hand, to manipulate the forces consisting of the Northern
Alliance, Iran supported ethnic Tajik factions in the Alliance.
Today Iran still supports the Hekmatyar forces allied to the Taliban
and Al-Qaeda whom lead a rebellion against the Western forces in
Afghanistan, as well as the new government there. Even the former
deputy chief of finance for the Taliban, and the former Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of the Taliban have said that Iran is supporting
Hekmatyar and the regrouping terrorist forces, allowing them to have
just as much funding as they did before 9/11.
The fact that Iran has assisted Al-Qaeda’s campaign of terrorism
during the war in Afghanistan should be a sign that the hope that
Iran will quit the business is faint. It appears that Iran’s very
foundation as a radical Islamist government depends upon serving the
forces of evil, even if it means confrontation with American forces.
Iran, immediately after the war in Afghanistan began, provided safe
haven for militants from a wide range of groups to assemble across
the border in eastern Iran, where a militant camp was detected by US
spy satellites. An obstacle course and rifle training (primarily used
for guerilla warfare and targeted killings) have been seen from the
bird’s eye.
Iraq War
Iran originally intended to, if possible, ignite a regional war with
Israel if Iraq was attacked, feeling that their regime would be in
peril if such a war was successful. As war came close, seeing how
this was not the route to take as conditions was not ripe (including
the fact that Palestinian militants were unable or unwilling to
launch spectacular attacks to provoke Israel), Iran with Syria’s help
chose another tactic. The Iranian regime cooperated with Saddam
Hussein’s Iraqi regime in the past few years but of course, a more
trustworthy regime would be more favorable. Iran aimed to keep the
Coalition forces bogged down in Iraq as long as possible while
assisting radical Shiites in winning the government over, through
democratic means or by coup.
As early as February, the Iranian-backed force called the Badr
Brigades (more like an extension of the Revolutionary Guards) crossed
into northern Iraq. This group consists of 5,000 Shiites used to
expand Iran’s influence in the post-war environment. At the exact
same time, Iran began shipping light and medium weapons to Ansar
al-Islam, the Kurdish branch of Al-Qaeda based in northern Iraq (and
sponsored by Saddam Hussein’s regime as a way to persecute the
rebellious Kurdish forces). Not long after, their northern offensive
meant to hinder cooperation between Coalition forces and Kurdish
rebels was launched. This can be seen as a forced bargaining tactic,
as it was reported that Iran promised the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistan and other Kurdish forces that Iran would assist against
Ansar forces in return for a promise of extended Shiite influence in
Iraq.
It was decided in March that paramilitary units would be sent to five
Shiite cities to begin sporadic resistance once Saddam Hussein’s fate
was sealed. The five cities initially targeted for Shiite upheaval
was Baghdad, Najaf, Karbala, Basra, and Kirkuk. It is interesting to
note these were the same sites of fighting with volunteer foreign
terrorists, as well as Al-Qaeda cells. As part of this effort, Iran
purchased Kuwaiti and Saudi military uniforms. If the Shiites were
rejected the representation they deserved in the government (so Iran
would have great influence in Iraq) or the Americans were preparing
to confront Iran in any way, the plans were to cooperate with
Baathist remnants and foreign volunteers for the resistance. A branch
of Hezballah was established in northern Iraq specifically for this
purpose, and according to Israeli intelligence, there was evidence
that truck bombings were part of the contingency planes.
During the beginning of the campaign, Iran donated $2 million to
their agents in the Shiite communities in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to
incite the peoples. Part of that money was shifted to build a
`command center’ at Ahuaz in Kohzestan province to oversee the covert
warfare. After learning that portions of Iraq’s Republican Guards
planned to merge in with the population and fight from the
underground, Iran sold communications equipment, as well as agreed to
temporarily harbor senior commanders if they were in transit.
Within one week, efforts to recruit and distribute militants in Umm
Qasr, al-Amara, the Faw Peninsula and Basra began. Shiite extremists
temporarily got public eye and power as the lack of control allowed
their pour to source in central and southern Iraq, particularly
around the oil fields. Not long after, six Hezballah insurgents were
captured along the Syrian border, planning some form of an explosives
attack on American soldiers.
By April 22, especially in the time up to the annual Shiite
pilgrimage in Iraq, thousands of Badr Brigades had entered Iraq as an
Iranian proxy force. Entering from Kurdistan, they established base
in areas of Baqubah in the Diyala region near Baghdad, while a second
force established base in Nasariya, Najef and Karbala. Iran also
ordered Hezballah, while Arafat ordered certain extremists under the
supervision of the Palestinian Authority to enter Iraq so as to
recruit and incite people amongst the crowds. Fortunately, there were
only a few violent protests and minor bloodshed, and the plot to
incite the Shiites into either bribing for overwhelming power in the
government or to begin anti-American revolution had failed. This led
to the beginning of the end of the power of the Supreme Assembly for
the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which had hoped to win by democratic
means.
Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a terrorist group that opposes the Iranian
regime, which disarmed and surrendered to the US and provided
valuable intelligence, has confirmed all this. The group (which has
not targeted civilians for many years) claims to have captured four
of the commanders of the Revolutionary Guards in Nandalr, Iraq which
had infiltrated with the goal to cooperate with the Badr Brigades to
incite revolution. Immediately after, American officials confirmed
that thousands of Iranian agents had been organizing anti-American
demonstrations in Shiite towns, and had been assisting Hezballah
political activities in the country.
The failure to incite revolution led to, while still capitalizing on
anti-American sentiment, Iranian forces to try to destabilize any
type of post-war government. Beginning April 8th but continuing for
the next few months, religious edicts were issued in Iran and in Iraq
by clerics and mullahs on the extremist payroll, calling for Shiites
to use all efforts to seize administrational jobs or to incite others
to peacefully remove the American presence. Clerics in Najaf began
funding and appointing clerics to cities, who are given
responsibility to appoint officials that run everything from civil
defense forces to civilian infrastructure construction. This even
resulted in Coalition forces arresting a Shiite self-proclaimed
mayor.
Parts of this effort aim to have pro-Iran Shiites take power over
pro-American Shiites and then to gain higher power, as the Shiites is
the majority in Iraq. To do this, assassinations and intimidation of
`unhelpful’ Shiite leaders must occur to frighten the rivals. This
tactic began on April 10th, with the assassination of Ayatollah Abdel
Majid el-Khoei, believed to have been done by Iranian special agents.
Disappointed with the incitement campaign, efforts resumed to win
politically, by having favorable Shiites in critical centers of power
in Iraq. During the first two weeks of May, approximately 2,000
Iranian elite troops expanded the infiltration campaign to include 11
Iraqi cities. In cooperation with the Badr Brigades, the extremists
hoped to appoint mayors and governors in power to undermine US rule.
The cities targeted included Karbala, Najef, Hillah, Kufah,
Diwaniyah, Kut, Nasariya, and Amarah.
Soon after, Iran set up four Arabic radio stations, hired hundreds of
indoctrinated mullahs to go into major mosques, and began preparing
for a sequel to the Lebanon episodes of the 1980s. Now, in July, Iran
is using eight radio stations to incite attacks, while moving
selected Hezballah and Al-Qaeda experts into northern Iraq to work
alongside the Baathist militant resistance. Israeli intelligence has
reported that Iran even sometimes does surveillance activities for
these terrorists, including sending intelligence officers to
investigate potential attacks on American command-and-control sites
in the Gulf and warships. At Iran’s disposal is said to be at least 5
senior commanders of Al-Qaeda located in Tehran and Mashhad, and
according to the unconfirmed report, about 1240 low and mid-ranking
operatives associated with Bin Laden’s forces.
It is easy to mistake Iranian-backed Shiite attacks on Coalition
forces for Baathist militants. It has been alleged this was the case
in the killing of 6 British soldiers in Iraq, in a Shiite-dominated
town said to have been infiltrated by Iranian agents, and occupied by
the Shiite forces known as Badr Brigades and also the Supreme Council
for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, an Iranian-backed umbrella
organization of Shiite extremists.
Like in Afghanistan, we see Iran overtly and covertly assisting
elements loyal to terrorist forces of all kinds (Al-Qaeda,
miscellaneous groups and foreign volunteer batches, even Baathist
loyalists which have formed alliances with the Islamic radicals and
terrorists). As presented, there seems to be a pattern with a cycle
that is unlikely to be broken. The motive for Iran’s government,
Islamic revolution and the perceived threat of the United States in
the region and in the world is one that will drive terrorism for a
time to come. The only option to make is either to succumb to Iran’s
wishes, which would throw the USA out of the region, result in the
destruction of Israel, and in further expansion of hostile elements,
or to confront this threat in escalating fashion.
Ryan Mauro has been a geopolitical analyst for Tactical Defense
Concepts (), a maritime-associated security
company, since 2002. In 2003, Mr. Mauro joined the Northeast
Intelligence Network (), which specializes
in tracking and assessing terrorist threats. He has been published in
WorldNetDaily.com, Newsmax.com, StrategyPage.com, WorldTribune.com,
HomelandSecurityUS.com, JRNyquist.com and in the Turkistan Newsletter
(Turkistan Bulteni). He is a frequent writer for Milnet.com as well.
He has appeared on radio shows including The Al Rantel Show, WIBG
Radio, WorldNetDaily Radioactive with Joseph Farah, Jeff Nyquist
Program, Kevin McCullough Show, Laurie Roth Show, Tovia Singer Show,
Stan Major Show, and Preparedness Now. His book “Death to America:
The Unreported Battle of Iraq” is scheduled to be published in the
coming months. He publishes his own web site called World Threats.
Mr. Mauro may be reached at [email protected]
;t=Iran+and+Osama%3A+Match+Made+In+Hell

Newsday, NY
Jan 12 2005
Dangerous Alliance
by SELCUK GULTASLI
What the decision reached at the December 17 European Union (EU)
summit means will be clarified in the upcoming months. We will see in
a short time what kind of direction the Cyprus issue will take,
whether the screening process will begin before or after October 3,
and whether or not surprises like the so-called “Armenian Genocide”
will be included in the negotiations framework document or in the
updated accession partnership document that will be prepared by the
EU Commission.
We will be able to check how much Turkey will come to the agenda, and
how much opposition parties will exploit possible membership during a
referendum process on the EU’s Constitution approval, that will start
in Spain on February 20.
We will grasp them in time. As a matter of fact, a “constructive
ambiguity,” one of the consistent EU attitudes towards Turkey,
strongly marked the December 17 summit. It is “ambiguous” because the
summit produced a result that it could constantly find alternative
ways among several layers of ambiguity and does not bind itself to
any concrete target. It is “constructive” because Turkey was not
offended, and the ground for it to draw closer to European standards
with the goal of possible EU membership, was strengthened. It is
because of this ambiguity that the Turkey issue sometimes will be
seriously debated with good intentions on several fronts in Europe,
and sometimes it will be a source of populist altercations. These
signs have become immediately observable in Europe, which has
awakened to a new year.
For example, British Minister of State for Energy Mike O’Brien last
week criticized Michael Howard, the Jewish leader of the Conservative
Party, for not allowing British Muslims to support the party, and was
he immediately bombarded with a barrage anti-Semitic criticisms.
O’Brien sought the votes of British Muslims through the support for
Turkey’s EU membership by the Labor Party, of which he is a member,
in an article that he wrote to a Muslim weekly newspaper, and was
harshly criticized as a result of this.
Thank God there are no serious problems in Britain and the
conservative leader did not make any concessions on his support for
Turkey while lambasting O’Brien. As a matter of fact, all political
parties in Britain agree on Turkey’s future membership. On the other
hand, it is difficult to say the same for the two locomotives of the
EU, Germany and France.
If Cyprus will be an important front in EU-Turkish relations in 2005,
another front, where perhaps a long-term struggle will take place,
will be a dangerous alliance of the German Christian Democrats and
French conservatives. The alliance that they might call a “holy”
alliance is of a dissolute character in terms of Turkish and EU
values.
Nicolas Sarkozy, who is the new boss of French President Jacques
Chirac’s party, the Union for the People’s Movement (UMP), declared
last week that he is ” in complete agreement” with German Christian
Social Union Party leader Edmund Stoiber, who has turned his
anti-Turkey EU membership stance into one of the main principles of
his policy, that is, to block Turkey’s possible membership. News
agencies reported that French and German conservative leaders have
signed a memorandum of understanding, that is to say, they are bound
to cooperate on issues they agreed upon through their signatures.
Chirac, implying last week that he might run in the 2007 presidential
elections, increases the importance of the French front on Turkey
even more. Despite several drawbacks, the 2007 presidential race,
that most likely will be a contest between Chirac, who supports
Turkey’s future membership, and Sarkozy, who wants to halt Ankara’s
march towards the EU, is the harbinger of an intensive French debate
on the Turkey issue in the short and the medium term. When the fact
that a large part of the French people oppose Turkey’s membership is
taken into consideration, it could be foreseen that Sarkozy will use
this issue frequently against Chirac.
If Sarkozy comes to power in France in 2007 and the Christian
Democrats in Germany in 2006, Ankara might come up against a very
strong alliance. What is worse is that the alliance will easily find
the nucleus of a privileged partnership formula it demanded in the
final resolution at the December 17 summit.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Islam Online, UK
Jan 11 2005
Jewish Group Says US `Soft’ on Arabs

Bush signed in October into law a controversial bill on combating the
so-called global `anti-Semitism.’ (Reuters)

By Adam Wild Aba, IOL Correspondent
WASHINGTON, January 11 (IslamOnline.net) – A US Jewish organization
has criticized the State Department’s first annual report on
anti-Semitism, saying it has taken a soft line with `anti-Semitic’
Arab governments.
The Philadelphia-based Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies said in
a press release that the US report only concentrated on anti-Semitic
practices in South America and Europe while it turned a blind eye to
the `anti-Semitism sponsored by some Arab governments.’
`It is encouraging that the report includes Israel-Nazi analogies in
its definition of anti-Semitism, but it is disappointing that the
report says so little about some Arab governments which promote such
analogies and other types of anti- Semitism,’ the institute said in a
press release on its website.
The US State Department issued on January 5 its first annual report
on anti-Semitism around the globe.
The 37-page report claimed that anti-Jewish practices were mounting
in Europe and other parts of the world since the outbreak of the
second Palestinian Intifada four years ago.
On October 17, US President George W. Bush signed into law a
controversial bill on combating the so-called global anti-Semitism.
The law commits the US State Department to documenting acts of
physical violence against Jews, their property, cemeteries and places
of worship abroad, as well as local governments’ responses to them
and take note of instances of anti-Jewish propaganda and governments’
readiness to promote unbiased school curricula.
`Soft’
The institute claimed that the US report was `soft’ on addressing
`anti-Semitic’ practices in the Arab world.
`The section about Iceland, for instance, is 387 words long, even
though the report notes only one instance of anti-Semitic harassment
and one hostile cartoon there.
`By contrast, Saudi Arabia is given just 182 words, including the
apparently contradictory statements that `Anti-Semitic
sentiments…were present in the print and electronic media. The
local press rarely printed articles or commentaries disparaging other
religions,” the institute said.
It said the report only mentioned 86 words about the Palestinian
Authority, more than half of which cited a sermon broadcast by the
Palestinian television pressing for tolerance `but without mentioning
Jews.’
`That sermon unfortunately was not typical of sermons that are
broadcast on PA TV and radio, which often contain anti-Semitic
themes, including denial of the Holocaust. Additionally, the State
Department report does not mention instances of anti-Semitism in the
PA-controlled press,’ the institute added.
The press release further alleged that the government-sponsored
anti-Semitic practices in countries such as Armenia (194 words),
Brazil (149) and Azerbaijan (142) were given more space in the report
rather than anti-Semitic practices of some Arab countries.
`Anti-Semitism’
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, anti-Semitism is hostility
toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group.
It was coined in 1879 by German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate
the anti-Jewish campaigns underway in central Europe at that time.
However, Richard Levy, a professor of History in Chicago, had told
IslamOnline.net the term was often misused when Jews and others
`refuse to see any difference between criticism of Israeli policies
and anti-Semitism’.
Pundits and linguists also believe that Israeli officials and US
neo-conservatives are using now `anti-Semitism’ to stifle any
criticism of the aggressive Israeli practices against the Palestinian
people.
Former Israeli immigration minister Natan Sharansky had said that the
`specious line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism has now become
completely blurred.’
Norman Podhoretz, a prominent US neo-conservative writer, agreed that
anti-Zionism was not the other side of the coin.
`Anti-Zionism has become the main and most relevant form of
anti-Semitism,’ he had said.
A leading American civil rights organization kept pressure on the
publishers of an edition of a Merriam Webster’s dictionary for
linking anti-Semitism to Zionism and Israel.

Glendale News Press
LATimes.com
Jan 11 2005
Event draws heated debate
Armenian Council of America alleges Manoukian biased in giving seats
on Week of Remembrance board.
By Josh Kleinbaum, News-Press and Leader
GLENDALE CITY HALL – Councilman Rafi Manoukian and members of the
Armenian Council of America accused each other of politicizing an
event that was designed to bring the community together in memory of
a tragedy.
As community leaders planned the city’s annual Armenian Genocide
Remembrance activities, including an April 24 ceremony, arguments
broke out over who will serve on the Week of Remembrance Committee
that plans the events.
Vasken Khodanian, chairman of the Armenian Council of America, claims
Manoukian excluded all but one representative of his group from the
committee and filled it with members who have ties to the Armenian
National Committee.
“When the city came out with the Week of Remembrance events, it was a
way to unite the Glendale community,” Khodanian said. “It’s a little
bit disturbing for us when we see they’re trying to isolate certain
organizations or individuals.”
Manoukian, chairman of the committee, dismissed the allegation,
saying he simply put people he trusted on the committee.
“What I did, I invited one individual from each organization, and I
invited people that I’ve worked with in the past,” Manoukian said.
“If they happened to be [Armenian National Committee]-affiliated,
that’s fine. Some of my friends are affiliated with the [Armenian
National Committee], but that’s the way it is. They’re some of the
people I rely on when I’m on committees.”
The Armenian National Committee and the Armenian Council of America
are organizations with ties to competing political parties in
Armenia.
Khodanian and other members of the Armenian Council of America said
the organizations should have equal representation on the committee.
“Once again, Rafi has used the power instilled in him by the people
to pursue the [Armenian National Committee] agenda,” said Garry
Sinanian, a member of the Armenian Council of America and a City
Council candidate. “It’s really disgusting how he’s become a puppet.”
Khodanian called on Manoukian to appoint four Armenian Council of
America members who served on the Week of Remembrance committee in
the past – Sinanian, Peter Darakjian, Mike Khatchadourian and Razmig
Dertavitian. Manoukian refused.
“It’s unfortunate they feel they have to go this route,” Manoukian
said. “I don’t know what they’re trying to do by making it
political.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Radio Free Europe, Czech Rep.
Jan 10 2005
Russia/Georgia: Opening Of Ferry Link Expected To Impact Regional
Trade
By Jean-Christophe Peuch

Russia and Georgia were expected to sign an agreement today on
opening a direct railway ferry between the Black Sea ports of Poti
and Kavkaz. Direct railway connections between the two countries have
been halted since 1992 amid a dispute over the secessionist region of
Abkhazia. The Poti-Kavkaz ferry is not only important for Russia and
Georgia. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Central Asian countries are expected
to benefit from the new link.
Prague, 10 January 2005 (RFE/RL) — Addressing reporters upon his
arrival in Tbilisi early today, Russian Transportation Minister Igor
Levitin said he would sign three documents during his two-day visit
to the Georgian capital.
“We will today sign three documents — an agreement on the ferry
crossing, a regulation covering the transport of goods, and a
temporary exploitation regulation. This temporary regulation will be
effective until all countries that take part in the railway
transportation [process] meet in February,” Levitin said.
The ferry connection stretches between the Georgian port of Poti and
Russia’s industrial terminal of Kavkaz. Georgian Economic Development
Minister Aleksi Aleksishvili said today the line would officially
come into service in 10 days.
Kavkaz is a main export outlet for crude oil, oil products, and
fertilizers. Its location on the Kerch Strait that links the Black
Sea to the Sea of Azov makes it a major hub for goods meant to
countries of the Mediterranean Sea basin. Russia sees the Poti-Kavkaz
agreement as part of a long-term, larger project to resume railway
transportation throughout the South Caucasus region.
The agreement to be signed today will give a major impetus to direct
Russian-Georgian trade. It is also expected to boost transit of goods
from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Central Asian countries — in
particular Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, which trade with Russia
through the Caucasus region.
Armenian Transportation Minister Andranik Manukian, who is also in
Tbilisi, said yesterday that his country expects direct economic
benefit from the Poti-Kavkaz ferry link. “Economically, it is very
profitable,” he said. “This link is very short. Today we are using
the [Ukrainian] port of Illichivsk, [south of Odesa]. But, the
distance between Illichivsk and Poti is very long. [By contrast], the
distance between Kavkaz and Poti is very short. Secondly, Armenia,
Georgia, and Azerbaijan will now have a direct link with Russia.”
In a phone interview with RFE/RL’s Armenian Service today, Manukian
elaborated further on the impact Yerevan expects from the
Russian-Georgian deal. “It will reduce by 30 percent the costs of
transportation [of Armenian goods],” he said. “In addition, it will
de facto establish a direct link with Russia and, consequently, help
increase the volume of trade with Russia and other CIS countries.”
Russia sees the Poti-Kavkaz agreement as part of a long-term, larger
project to resume railway transportation throughout the South
Caucasus region.
Russian Transportation Minister Levitin unveiled the plan in late
November during a tour of the South Caucasus capitals. Addressing
journalists in Tbilisi after signing a memorandum with the Georgian
government, Levitin said the project will revive a major north-south
railway corridor that has been idle since the 1992-93 war in
Georgia’s separatist republic of Abkhazia.
“Prior to my visit to Georgia I was in Armenia and Azerbaijan, where
I received the support of my colleagues transportation ministers, as
well as that of the presidents. I am happy to announce that Georgia
equally supports the idea of having a trans-regional railway
connection. [The Georgians] believe renovating the former
Transcaucasus railway link will seriously help revive long distance
traffic across our [respective] countries. I am really happy to say
that we have reached a mutual understanding with Georgia,” Levitin
said.
Plans to revive overland traffic between eastern Turkey and southern
Russia through Georgia and Abkhazia have been thwarted by the
unsettled separatist conflict. For more than a decade, Tbilisi has
been insisting that all ethnic Georgians who have been displaced by
the 1992-93 war be allowed to return to Abkhazia before any deal is
signed.
Georgian Economic Development Minister Aleksishvili said today that
no agreement has been reached yet. “No concrete decision is expected
[soon],” he said. “We must still assess the technical feasibility of
the project and there is also a political aspect to that issue.
Consequently, we do not expect any breakthrough.”
Levitin said today that although no substantial progress had been
noted recently, the reopening of a direct railway link between
Georgia and Abkhazia was still on the agenda. “In the memorandum we
signed [with Georgia] on 1 November, there were two issues,” he said.
“One was the opening of a ferry connection, which we will be signing
today. The second was the resumption of through traffic. We’re still
examining the railway section that links [the Abkhaz capital] Sukhum
to the [Georgian-Abkhaz] border on the Inguri River, where there is
no bridge.”
Levitin said he would discuss the possible reopening of the
Sukhum-Tbilisi railway link with Georgian Prime Minister Zurab
Zhvania and State Minister Kakha Bendukidze later today.
Tomorrow Levitin will visit Poti to symbolically inaugurate the ferry
line with Kavkaz.
(RFE/RL Armenian Service correspondent Ruzanna Stepanian contributed
to this report)

Family and Friends Mourn the Loss of a Loved One
KSL.Com
News On Demand 5
Jan. 9, 2005
“I STILL THINK THAT HE WALKS OUT OF THE RUBBLE, BUT IT’S THE FACT THAT
I HAVE TO FACE FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.”
Friends and family are mourning the loss of a former University of
Utah professor who died in a house fire…
Fire investigators haven’t been able to determine how the fire
started…but most of the damage was in the basement and main floor.
Leonardo Alishan lived in the duplex.
He slept in the basement…and that’s where the body was recovered.
Tonya Papanikolas joins us from the house…
At 2:30 a-m…firefighters responded to a fire at this duplex.
The neighbor on the other side of the duplex had woken up to the sound
of banging pipes and a campfire smell. He says he went outside and
only saw smoke coming from the chimney.
He felt his neighbors’ front window…and it was hot.
So he called police.
Dozens of firefighters responded to the three-alarm call in Cottonwood
Heights.
They heard a person was possibly in the basement…but they discovered
the house was unstable.
“Capt. Greg Reynolds, Unified Fire Authority: “THEY DID HAVE A
COMPLETE FLOOR COLLAPSE, FROM THE FIRST FLOOR DOWN INTO THE BASEMENT
AREA.”
“Capt. Mike Ulibarri, Unified Fire Authority: THE ENTIRE FLOOR IS DOWN
ON TOP. WE HAVE A LOT OF DEBRIS.”
Fire crews then moved on the defensive…attacking the flames from the
air.
Meanwhile, no one saw the resident of the home…Leonardo Alishan.
His family lives in California…when they were notified of the
fire…they started calling friends in Utah to check on the house.
Debby Stone heard from Alishan’s nephew.
“Debby Stone, Family Friend: I GOT A CALL THIS MORNING AT 6;30, AND HE
ASKED ME TO COME UP HERE AND SEE IF HIS UNCLE WAS OKAY, WHAT WAS GOING
ON.”
“Debby Stone: I’M WAITING TO SEE IF HE WAS IN THERE.”
A good friend kept in touch with Alishan’s ex-wife.
“Hamid Aminian, Friend: IT’S TOO MUCH, ESPECIALLY FOR HIS YOUNGEST
DAUGHTER, WHICH HE LOVED DEARLY.”
Around 11:00…those friends learned a man had died in the fire.
They knew it had to be Alishan.
“Hamid Aminian: I STILL CAN’T BELIEVE IT.”
Alishan taught Middle Eastern Studies and Persian languages at the U
for 20 years.
He had 3 children and acted like an older brother to Aminian.
“Hamid Aminian: HE WAS A WONDERFUL MAN, VERY CARING PERSON. AND IT’S
TOO HARD TO BELIEVE THAT HE’S GONE.”
Aminian says he can’t forget the good times he shared with his friend.
“Hamid Aminian: IT’S JUST LIKE A MOVIE, YOU KNOW. I CAN’T GET OVER
IT. I CAN’T GET OVER IT. I DEARLY MISS HIM.”
His friends say he has a lot of former students who will miss him a
lot.
Lately, he was devoting much of his time to writing poetry and short
stories.

Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada)
January 6, 2005 Thursday Final Edition
Council’s nickel-and-dime response is a crying shame
by Bill Dunphy
Reach into your pocket — or purse if you’re so inclined — and see
if you can find yourself a nickel.
Pull it out. Hold it in your hand. Roll it between your fingers. Flip
it up in the air and catch it again.
Have a good look at it, it’s probably been a while since you’ve even
noticed one.
A long time ago, nickels weren’t round, they were 12-sided. An even
longer time ago, you used to be able to buy things with a five-cent
piece — a loaf of bread. A haircut. A bus ride.
These days, you’d be hard pressed to find anything you can buy with
that nickel except for a piece of pink bubble gum or a grand total of
two minutes on the parking meters behind City Hall.
It took city council 20 times that two minutes yesterday to decide
that five cents — one nickel — per Hamiltonian is just the right
amount of money to donate to the southern Asian tsunami relief
effort.
Five cents apiece. A nickel from each of us to all of them. A total
of $25,000.
That averages out to about 16 cents per victim of the devastating
tsunami waves that swept 150,000 people to their deaths on Boxing
Day.
Councillor Tom Jackson praised the mayor, city manager Glen Peace and
city staff for moving so swiftly in developing a response to the
10-day-old disaster.
And he heartily approved of the nickel-a-person donation.
Recalling his very first week on council, back in 1988, Jackson noted
they’d voted to send $5,000 to aid victims of an earthquake that
killed up to 40,000 Armenians.
“I think $25,000 is very commensurate with what councils have done in
the past,” Jackson said.
Councillor Bill Kelly defended the donation as appropriate.
“I would dearly like (the city) to donate 10 times — 100 times! —
this amount, but you have to deal with reality … Our job is to get
people to rally behind this, to act as a funnel, as it were, for
donations.”
In the nine days prior to having this $25,000 donation to rally
behind, Hamiltonians have been donating at an average well above
$50,000 a day.
Still, Councillor Sam Merulla echoed the notion that the city
donation would act as some kind of goad or spur for others to give.
“It’s a challenge to the business community to not only match what we
are doing as a city on the backs of the taxpayer, but also (to)
exceed that,” Merulla said.
Yesterday, Dofasco and its employees announced $110,000 in donations
to relief efforts.
It’s doubtful they knew of the city’s efforts prior to organizing
their donation.
In addition to the $25,000 donation, city staff recommended allowing
the Red Cross to set up a fundraising booth at this Sunday’s Mayor’s
New Year’s levee, that the city lend its name to a CHtv fundraising
event slated for next Tuesday, and that staff draw up a list of
resources (skilled people and equipment) that might be made available
for relief work, should anyone ask for it.
A few councillors expressed reservations about the staff’s
recommendations, suggesting that the donation was a pittance or a
token.
Several raised the notion of adding $1 per person to the property tax
bill to fund a $500,000 donation — but that idea failed to catch on.
One idea did seem to pique the councillors’ interest, although it was
not included in the staff report and not championed by Mayor Larry Di
Ianni, who mentioned it in passing as an idea that would be the
subject of “more discussions in the coming weeks.”
The idea — to adopt or twin with a specific Sri Lankan village and
offer it short- and long-term aid — came not from staff, or from a
councillor, but from Noor Nazim, a member of the city’s Strengthening
Hamilton’s Community Initiative. Nazim has been tirelessly struggling
to organize relief since the day the tsunamis first hit.
Councillor Bob Bratina — the fifth speaker at the emergency session
and the first to pronounce the word tsunami correctly — plucked the
idea from obscurity, and suggested setting up a task force to
investigate that idea as well as several other useful suggestions
that arose on the council floor. He carried the day.
After the meeting, the mayor said he welcomed the task force and
promised his office would take responsibility for kick-starting its
work. And he offered cautious encouragement for Nazim’s idea.
“His suggestion isn’t to be dismissed, that’s why I’m happy it was
referred to this task force … it may just be a project that people
in this city can rally around.”
How do you put a price on leadership like that?

THIS YEAR WAS SUCCESSFUL FOR AGRICULTURE, – RA MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
STATES
YEREVAN, December 30 (Noyan Tapan). The year 2004 has been successful
for Armenia’s agriculture: the gross product growth made 13.2%, while
the specific weight of agriculture in the RA GDP was 21%. David
Lokian, the RA Minister of Agriculture, stated this at the December 30
press conference. According to the minister, the year 2005 will be
favorable for the sphere of agricultire in terms of investments: in
particular it is envisaged to carry out the work of 120 million
dollars within the framework of the Millennium Challenges program (the
US), as well as to do the work of 200 million dollars by resources
provided by the Lincy Foundation. It was also noted that under the
terms of two credit programs implemented in the sphere of agriculture,
medium-term credits to be given to Armenian farms in 2005 will be
provided for 1-3 years, while long-term ones – for 7 years. Crediting
of farms will be implemented through banks, and the interest rate of
credit resources provided to banks will be reduced almost twice and
will make 1.5-3%. The minister expressed the view the extension of
credit repayment term and the reduction of interest rate will
contribute to updating agricultural equipment and increasing the
production volume. D. Lokian stated that in 2004, farms were leased
about 272 units of agricultural equipment, including 36 tractors. 51
Chinese tractors complete with all necessary farm tools were also sold
to farms at reduced prices. It was noted that 12 tons of nitric
fertilizer has been stored. In the spring of 2005, the ferilizer will
be sold to farms at a discount – 50 kilogrames for 3,700 drams (about
7 dollars). According to D. Lokian, 3 thousand tons of fertilizer was
provided to farms this autumn on the same conditions.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ArmenPress
Dec 28 2004
OFFICIALS PROMISE IMPROVED TAX COLLECTION NEXT YEAR
YEREVAN, DECEMBER 28, ARMENPRESS: Senior Armenian tax officials
promised Monday to collect all taxes, which were projected by 2004
budget. Armen Alaverdian, a deputy head of state taxation service,
told a news conference that the tax service will collect 142 billion
drams in taxes before the end of the year, 4 billion drams more than
set by the 2004 budget.
He said the outgoing year will see, for the first time, more
collected profit and income taxes than projected. The main focus of
the news conference was on the new order of collection of obligatory
social payments, which is to be carried out beginning next year by
tax service, which the authorities say has a bigger arsenal of means
to collect more than the Social Security Fund that used to do it. For
comparison, next year tax services are supposed to collect 65 billion
drams in obligatory social payments against 48 billion drams, set for
the Fund this year.
According to officials, there are around 60,000 economic and other
entities which have to pay obligatory social payments, but they also
say that a significant portion of them, mainly trade outlets and
firms, specializing in delivery of various services, pay less than
stipulated by the law, hindering a tangible rise in retired age
pensions. They underreport their profits, show lower wages of their
employees and avoid social payments.
According to officials, around half of 60,000 entities show that
their employees’ monthly wage does no exceed 13,000-20,000 drams a
month, though these wages are at least twice higher.
The deputy of the chief taxman also said they will publish the
names of 300 big taxpayers once in three months, beginning next year,
as stipulated by changes in the law on tax service.