Iran Must Not Depend on Russia

The is the translated text of an interview by Dana Shahsavari with Dr. Alaheh Kulai, former Majles deputy and spokeswoman for Mostafa Moin's spring 2005 presidential campaign. The interview was published on 29 March in the Iranian exile Persian newspaper Rooz.

Dr. Kulai is another informed observer who believes Russian work on Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant has been suspended indefinitely. Amir Taheri said the same thing about ten days ago.

Dr. Kulai has said publicly that she does not believe the Iranian government served Iran's interests well in the negotiations over the Caspian Sea legal regime. In this interview she was less critical of her own government and discussed the realities as she sees them in Iran's political relations with Russia and the rest of the world in the context of the nuclear enrichment issue.

*************************************

Dr. Alaheh Kulai, professor at Tehran University's College of Political Science, is one of a small number of experts on Russia and the former Soviet republics. She has written several books on the Soviet Union and the Caucasus. Her latest book is siyasat va hokumat dar federasion-e rusieh [Policy and Government in the Russian Federation].

In a situation where on the one hand Russia is considered a friend and on the other an enemy of Iran on the nuclear case, we did an interview with Alaheh Kulai, which follows.

Q: You have previously announced that the Russians are not going to complete the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. In view of the diplomatic issues and the fact that according to official statments more than 96 percent of this plant's fixtures have been installed by the Russians, why do you believe the Russians will not complete the Bushehr plant?

A: A point that exists in the type of cooperation between Iran and the Russians is the very direct relationship between Russian considerations and interests in ordering this type of relationship.

In reality, it is unrealistic to think Russia will be face-to-face with the world and especially with America for the entire Bushehr project. My position on Bushehr goes back to this point.

Assuming the existing situation remains stable, the Russians will not complete the Bushehr project. If the nature of our cooperation and interaction with the international community changes, we will also be able to hope for a change in Russia's behavior.

The Russians began cooperating with Iran on completing the Bushehr project at a time when the Western nations were not willing to cooperate with Iran. In 1995, when this cooperation began, the economic benefits of this cooperation were exceptionally important because the Russians were having acute economic problems.

Today however, Russia has become a 21st Century energy superpower and the prices of oil and gas have also increased. Therefore the economic benefits of continued cooperation with Iran in Bushehr do not have that much priority. In the present circumstances what matters is the political benefits and the gains Russia can make in dealing with the West and especially with America. We must therefore take into account this difference in time and priorities.

On the other hand we must take into consideration the prevailing atmosphere in Russian foreign policy in the 12 years since this treaty was signed. At the time this treaty was signed, in Russia there was an extremist leaning towards Eurasia and a view that Russia's geography was expanding. Today however, this leaning towards Eurasia has more or less become Eurasian realism.

In other words, in the Putin era the Russians are not simply pursuing the interests that arose in the second Yeltsin era due to domestic pressures and the frustrations of Russian foreign policy.

If we take note of this and make as a basis for our studies this change in Russian behavior towards Iran and the world's other nations, we will then realize that the atmosphere of nuclear cooperation with Iran which at one time was based mostly on economic considerations, has now changed, especially since the issuance of UN Security Council 1737, for which the Russians also voted. It is very important to Moscow to adhere in the international community to a resolution that they signed themselves.

Although this resolution made an exception of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, in any case it includes steps and measures of which the Russians are acutely mindful.

Sometimes in our country the assumption is made that the Russians are cooperating with us to defend our interest. This assumption is completely wrong. Russia is not making any claim of defending our interest. We are the ones who must act with clever calculation so as to prevent others from benefiting from our interest without us benefiting ourselves.

In general, until Iran's relations with the international community are improved and existing suspicions and assumptions are overcome, the idea that the Russians will complete this project in confrontation with the world is naive.

Q: In other words you do not regard Russia as a friend of Iran?

A: I do not believe that any nation is our permanent friend, nor do I believe that any nation is our permanent enemy. The rule in international relations is that whatever is permanent for our country is whatever is really in their interest.

Therefore no nation, not Russia, not America, not Europe, not China nor any other nation can be our permanent friend, nor can they be our permanent enemy. Our permanent friend is our interests, which we must properly identify.

Likewise, we have no permanent enemies and in our relations with other nations our interests can juxtapose and interpenetrate.

Q: You mentioned political benefits for Russia. On this basis, while some political experts believe Russia has a kind of rivalry with the America. What is your assessment of the political interest in Russia's relationship with the West?

A: Russia is no longer America's rival. Today Russia basically does not have the ability to play a role as a world power. With its oil and gas energy leverage Russia can be a very effective international player and it can do a good job of defending its own interest, but we cannot view Russia as a player at America's level, because neither its economic power and infrastructure nor its political and military abilities are at this level.

However Russia is still the world's largest nation in terms of area and it still has some important regional and in some cases even international tools.

Russia is neighbor to Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Middle East and the Caspian Sea and it naturally has many kinds of leverage for influence in the region. International players such as America cannot ignore this.

My idea is that Russia's cooperation with Iran can serve the interest of both nations but one must not be optimistic or naive in evaluating this. These interests can be secured through expanded relations but it would be a mistake for us to think Russia will stand beside Iran to defend it against America.

Of course we can envision a series of encounters with America, but this will arise out of Russia's interests and not for Iran's interests.

Q: At the Munich Security Conference it appears that Putin's remarks represented a change in stance towards America, but this changed immediately with regard to Iran's nuclear case. Is this due to differing views in Russia's foreign policy?

A: I don't think so. When the Soviet Union first collapsed Russian foreign policy was exceptionally idealistic. At the beginning a kind of political romanticism prevailed in Russian foreign policy. This was due to the fact that Russia was able to be in solidarity with America and was able quickly to be absorbed into the international economy. In reality at the beginning the Russians had an unrealistic idea about their relations with the West and especially with America. The same was true of the Americans.

Q: Was this the view that existed in the time of Chernomyrdin?

A: It existed even before Chernomyrdin. It came to exist at the very beginning in the time of Kuzirov. However Russian politicans, in confronting domestic realities such as the pressure from the Russian nationalists, and also externally in the face of the failure to obtain appropriate responses to going along with the West on matters such as the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and on the other hand the West expanding NATO instead of dissolving it, moved gradually towards greater realism.

At the beginning this movement took the form of a new leaning towards Euroasia where Russia emphasized its own geopolitics and called for attention to its own needs and requirements.

This wave was a reaction to that extreme optimism towards the West in the first years after the collapse. By the end of the 1990s this wave became a kind of realistic Eurasian trend, which Putin was pursuing.

In reality Putin knows that Russia needs the West. He knows that Russia must pay more attention to constructive interaction with the West. Putin's Russia is not Yeltzin's Russia. In the Putin era this behavior forms based on Russia's special interest on the one hand and in reality ways to expand friendly and constructive relations with the West are also taken into consideration. In other words it is both a carrot and a stick.

Putin's remarks at the Munich Conference were made because before that George Bush had spoken of the threat of democracy in Russia. Accordingly in the relations between Russia and America the Russians acted cleverly and are trying to make good use of the opportunities and resources Iran can give them.

Q: Is there a strategic partner in contemporary Russian foreign policy?

A: One can see such a relationship at the level of the relationships some of the former Soviet republics have with Russia. In other words the relations with some of these republics can illuminate a strategic relationship.

However even with regard to China and Russia despite the signing of the Shanghai Pact, again due to areas of competition one cannot rely on the element of a strategic partnership. I think if a nation wants to consider itself one of Russia's strategic allies, in reality this gives Russia a good opportunity to take advantage.

Q: However doesn't it appear that America regards itself a strategic ally of Russia?

A: I don't think so. Several years ago there was talk in our country that Russia and Iran could be strategic allies. I think our foreign policy is now looking to the East. In a policy looking east Russia does not have that much of a place.

I believe our nation's officials have finally hit upon the reality that in the existing circumstances in view of the Islamic republic's essence and identity no nation can be a strategic ally of ours.

At least in the world in which we are living, even in the time when Mr. Khatami was promoting the idea of the unity of civilizations, for the Islamic republic, due to its very special circumstances, finding a strategic ally was an obvious problem.

In my view today our officials have also realized that in relation to Iran the Russians are pursuing their own very special interests. However in my view the evaluation of our nation's officials arises from the fact that they no longer have any option other than to have such a relationship with Russia.

Q: However doesn't Russia play a critical role in many areas, including military industries and even in our diplomacy?

A: Some of this goes back to the opportunities and resources that exist for us in the world for organizing relationships such as this for ourselves. In the time of the shah, in view of the fact that he had created a regime in the area affiliated with the West, we had extensive military relations with the government of the Soviet Union.

Accordingly it is beneficial for us to develop relations with Russia. However it is unrealistic to think developing relations with Russia will create security for us against pressure from the West or America.

Q: In your view, in evaluating relations between Russia and Iran over the last 100 years, were these relations mostly damaging or mostly beneficial to Iran?

A: In my view this issue should be seen from the Russian point of view. Whenever leaders in Iran acted correctly, relations with Russia benefited us. We must ask how to order our relations with Russia. Russia is a large neighbor at our northern borders by the Caspian Sea. We can have various ties with the Russian society, policy, culture and economy that are beneficial to us. One must not look at the issues as black and white or as all or nothing, but we must not lean on Russia or think that Russia will defend our interest.

Russia is a country like no other country in the world. It is essential and constructive for us to develop relations with Russia, and the usefulness of these relations is undeniable. However in my view it would be unrealistic for us to count on Russia in conditions of intensifying conflict with the West.

On 27 March the Iranian newspaper baztab reported that Iran leads the world in the number of public holidays, with 26. Including weekends, this means that Iranians get more than 1 day off for every 3 days of the year. Perhaps this helps explain how so many of them are able to work two jobs.

The article states that 16 of the 26 days are religious holidays, 6 are national holidays, 4 are government holidays, and that there is one national holiday that is not part of the annual New Year's celebration, which is called Oil Nationalization Day.

Wikipedia lists the names and dates of these holidays in an article titled Public Holidays in Iran. The Wikipedia article lists 15 religious holidays, while the baztab article says there are 16. The baztab article does not name the 16 so I am not sure which one is missing from the Wikipedia list.

In a New York Post article today Amir Taheri tells us that border incidents such as the one where Iranian guardsmen recently captured 15 British sailors are common in the Shatt al-Arab waterway, but rarely lead to any action being taken by either Iraq or Iran when a vessel crosses what is a disputed territorial marker. Taheri and many others believe this event was deliberately orchestrated by Tehran to give it leverage to solve other problems. As Taheri puts it, "when in doubt, take hostages." He notes that Iran has been involved in the taking of at least 1,000 hostages since the founding of the Islamic Republic. Read the article .

This is a translation of today's post on a Persian blog called Bluefuture. I do not know the author's real name (the posts are by "Noorinia") or location, but I do know this is a popular blogger who has been at this for a long time.

********************************************

It is intolerable to me to listen to Ahmadinejad's speeches and interviews. The content of his remarks, his way of speaking, his movements and pauses, his ridiculing, his denials and even his face have no appeal. For this reason I usually listen to narratives or read about it in the press. However the night before last I heard his latest interview on France 2. In just that few minutes he made three claims which must also have seemed strange to informed French journalists.

First, when a journalist asked about student opposition to him he said: Who said that? Out of 2000 students, 1900 of them were my supporters and there were 100 opponents making a fuss in the hall, which is a sign of freedom.

Ahmadinejad probably does not know or has forgotten that the day before his arrival the students at Amir Kabir University protested his presence, and fearing a spread of the student protest riot police lined up in front of the university. On the day of his speech they brought his supporters from other universities and tried to fill the hall with them. Of course they were not entirely successful and that small group who had imposed themselves on the event organizers showed Ahmadinejad's place at the university and among the students. The French journalist knew this very well and his denial does not change anything.

Second, when a journalist asked about his defeat in the city council elections he said: I do not have a political party when I run in elections. The journalist was chivalrous and did not challenge him about this. Everyone knows the Rayeheh-ye Khosh Khedmat [scent of service] Coalition is his political party, although he is not an official member [for more on this see today's International Affairs Forum Interview with Meir Javedanfar].

However after his election his father-in-law said Ahmadinejad opposed the revolution with the Principled Party [osulgarayan] (of course I do not consider this the appropriate word for them) and believed that the candidates who supported him would win (the image and understanding he has of the province trips have disrupted his calculations). We and the French journalists knew this very well and his denial changes nothing.

Third, when a journalist asked him about his own the failure to observe official presidential positions such as standards of attire he said: For minimum freedom I must choose my own clothing. He then continued: If I wore American clothing everything would be lost. We must be ourselves.

On what basis does he consider trousers to be American? If this were so--and of course it is not--is it only the coat that is American, while the trousers he wears are not? When he dresses does he become American? Wouldn't this be the funniest and most surprising answer for a French listener?

At the end of the interview I was reminded of a poem by the wise man of Iran [Ferdawsi]:

It was not a Turk, a villager or an Arab

These words were about performance

Yesterday (25 March) there was a large demonstration in Cairo's Tahrir Square protesting the sweeping new changes the Mobarak regime has made to the Egyptian Constitution. Journalist Hossam al-Hamalawy provided a detailed account with pictures and video on his blog. See it here.

Pierre Sioufi lives in a building overlooking Tahrir Square and provided some local perspective in his own blog here and here.

According to an ISNA report published in the 25 March edition of the online Persian newspaper baztab, Iran is the world's third largest consumer of American cigarettes, after Japan and Saudi Arabia.

The report said the World Health Organization has announced that cigarettes are the most important item authorized for export by American companies to Iran, and that at least half of the $100 million in goods exported by American companies to Iran in the year 2005 was cigarettes.

Cigarettes are not on the list of goods prohibited for export to Iran because the US Congress has removed drugs, food and agricultural products from the list of goods prohibited for export to Iran. Cigarettes are considered agricultural goods.

Matt Meyers, a smoking industry expert in Washington, said cigarettes are not considered a basic good, and at the insistence of tobacco companies Congress decided to exempt them from the list of prohibited goods.

The World Health Organization has obtained documents showing that American tobacco companies such as RJ Reynolds have always seen Iran as a thriving market for their products, and export them to Iran through intermediaries.

According to Meyers, cigarette use is on the decline in America and most developed countries, and the tobacco companies are obliged to sell their products elsewhere. It is for this reason that Iran is very important for the future of cigarette manufacturers.

For years, American tobacco companies have not had the right to advertise their products and have been compelled to pay billions of dollars in fines to plaintiffs who have accused them of concealing the harmful effects of cigarettes. Many experts believe that increased public awareness of the health hazards of smoking and the increased costs of smoking materials have helped bring about a 20 percent reduction in the number of smokers in America.

In a 24 March article in Persian the German newspaper Ayeneh-ye Rooz has suggested that Iran's capture of 15 British sailors in the Shatt al-Arab waterway may be the fulfillment of a suggestion made by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei in his latest public message that Iran will commit illegalities of its own if the West does anything illegal. The paper speculated that the capture may be related to the recent arrest of Iranian military and security officers.

A Persian article in today's edition of Mohsen Rezai's newspaper baztab reports that a member of the Iranian Majles principled faction [osulgara] has warned Iran's Foreign Ministry that it must not give in to international demands to release the captured sailors in light of the American capture of five Iranians in the Iraqi city of Irbil. The article says the deputy has cautioned that this is not the first time international pressure has been brought to bear on Iran on behalf of the United Kingdom.

Ali Nourizadeh cites a more detailed report in Al-Sharq al-Awsat.

Iranian politicians with a wish to negotiate with the USA have been at considerable risk since the inception of the Islamic Republic. In a 23 March article in the English edition of Al-Sharq al-Awsat Amir Taheri reviews the history of unpleasant consequences that have befallen almost every Iranian who has attempted this since 1979. As he observes, there is Iran the nation state, which is capable of engaging in productive diplomacy, and Iran the Khomeinist cause, which is not. Read the article here.

Amir Taheri said in an article published in the Gulf News Today: "Preserving the victory already achieved in Iraq means delivering a death blow to all the demons of the Middle East: the pan-Arab chauvinists, the Khomeinists, Al Qaida and other jihadis, Shiite and Sunni sectarians, obscurantists, and reactionary autocrats." His article asserts that significant achievements have been made in Iraq but that much remains to be done there. Read it here.

The Iran Press News has published a report today from the Kurdestan Human Rights Defense Organization stating that a Kurdish prisoner named Hasan Hekmat Dabir with the organizational name Gid Arufa, a member of a Kurdestan political party, who was arrested 20 days ago by police security forces in the city of Urmia, has been tortured in a solitary confinement cell to the point that he is now on the verge of death.

It is said that Hasan Hekmat Dabir has been severely tortured and is paralyzed from the waist down. In this condition he is still being kept in solitary confinement. It is reported that local judicial officials have prohibited aid or medical supervision of any kind for this tortured prisoner.

The Kurdistan Human Rights Defense Organization expresses regret and shame at torture in prisons and is very concerned about receiving such disgusting reports, despite the fact that human rights laws prohibit any kind of torment, torture, inhumane punishment or oppressive or degrading treatment, and despite the fact that according to Article 38 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran any kind of torture to obtain a confession or intelligence is forbidden while forcing someone to bear witness, confess or take an oath have been declared impermissible punishments; such confessions, testimonies and oaths have been declared inadmissible and without value.

Likewise, based on the "minimum standards for prisoner treatment" the corporeal punishment of a prisoner, confinement in a dark cell and all forms of oppressive, inhumane or humiliating punishment are prohibited, and sick prisoners must be afforded all the necessary medical supervision and treatment. If the prisoner is in need of specialist treatment he must be sent to a hospital. However it appears that judicial and security officials do not adhere to any of these principles or rules.

This organization condemns the use of torture to obtain confessions from prisoners, and it calls for an end to such abominable and inhumane practices.

The Kurdistan Human Rights Defense Organization declares that torture continues in the prisons of Kurdistan and directs the attention of human rights circles to this shameful situation; it calls upon judicial and security officials to end the use of torture at prisons and security and police centers.

Broadcast 19 March on PARS Satellite TV (Los Angeles)

This clip consists of two excerpts from Sirus Sarafshahi's weekly program "Point of View: A Study of the Week's Political Issues." His guest is anti-Islamic republic activist Dr. Rahnavardi.

Rahnavardi: It is true that I am active in two political organizations, but I have a personal account to settle with this regime.

People came from Iran and we had meetings there [Dubayy]. The news was very good, and that was that if something were to happen in the country this very nation would deal with this regime. The things you are seeing are all superficial, they are all things this regime has made up to say to to the world, things like the people are behind them, but it is not like this.

They have formed resistance cells in Iran. I have been in touch with them, I have been at gatherings, I have been among the people in the athletic class, they ones who come forward. We have had meetings. My meetings have been mostly in the nature of coordination.

Suggestions were made that were not acted upon. Before they realized I was there and before anything could be done I left Dubayy. This was entirely personal; it was for me. I had not told anyone I was going to be traveling.

As you know, we have pride; we have a sense of honor that we never neglect. We have never reached out to anyone. You yourself have seen that in 8 years here with that monthly $30 or $40 that we get from you we have kept the lamp burning for this solidarity conference. Our friends provide $50 monthly assistance.

We have not gotten to the point where I will go and get money from the Arabs. I do not accept Arabs at all! I do not accept Arabs. I do not accept their religion, nor do I accept the fact that they came and took my country by force! I am fighting them!

God willing my book will come out and you will see the truths I have told that have their roots in this devastation. Why has this day come for us? Why? It is this very nation of Islam!

Mr. Sarafshahi, it is this very nation of Islam that has brought our nation to the verge of obliteration. I'm telling you, 70 percent of the people are unhappy with this government, but they can't cry out because they will immediately suppress them.

[snip]

This Islamic Republic is mostly propaganda. They are nothing! They say whoever became wealthy made their money there, but that is not true. That is true to an extent, but it is not the way they are saying. They are not opening the purse and giving money to everybody. They exaggerate these things.

I told you, people have told me they are just waiting for a plan and then we will see what they will do. These people have names, homes, and programs. They are individuals who are waiting to take action there, but they don't do it because they are wondering what will happen once they start.

They are waiting for the right time. The nation of Iran will get its revenge from them! They get up in the morning and go to the mosque to pray and tell us we did or didn't pray. They are our problem!

But the real nation of Iran is something else. They are not Iranians, they are Muslims. The Muslims we have say they are Muslims first, then Iranians. We do not accept this! We say you have to be Iranian first, then you can have any religion. We have Jews, we have Iraqis, we have Syrians, all of these people are our best patriots. Why? Because they are Iranians first!

These Jews who are here are the best Iranian patriots, right? Therefore our problem is that nation of Islam! The nation of Iran has an account to settle with them. Then there are a lot of issues. Who are they? What are they doing here? That gentleman who comes here and establishes a foundation, this is the nation of Islam. This is not Iranian!

Sarafshahi: Yes, the threat felt by our nation and by all of us as the new year begins is that the representatives of America and the Islamic republic are meeting in Iraq and talking with each other about Iraq's security.

Mr. Khalilzad and Iran's representatives are exchanging harsh word, and it is evident that America, as we all expected, is absolutely unwilling to compromise with them. In other words the issues with them must be resolved. This is the demand of the people of Iran, as you have just been saying, and it is also the demand of the Americans who have suffered so much damage at the hands of the mullahs during these 29 years!

They have suffered a great deal of damage! They say that when Iran's delegation was in Baghdad Mr. Khalilzad had a box of documents about the things the Islamic republic is doing in Iraq! When the deputy secretary of defense was in this country, this box was filled with intelligence about this country. They made all of this available to them! This business about defectors is a story to tell.

Rahnavardi: Excuse me Mr. Sarafshahi, but they have come to their senses too slowly! We've been saying these things for years. What do you think this Mr. Vaez Tabasi does with all the revenue that comes into the Province of Qods-e Razavi [Khorasan]? Mr. Khatami said this would be added to the nation's budget!

Where does this money go? Not a cent of it goes into the government treasury; this money goes into classes for jihadis, for terrorist classes! It pays the expenses of the people of this very nation of Islam who spread themselves all over the world!

Anywhere in the world you see them stabbing somebody, cutting off his head or suffocating someone, this is the work of that nation of Islam! It is nothing other than this.

They have done this. I am talking about the damage this government has done since it first appeared. We have told the Americans this. We've said sir, keep your wits about you!

They brought this Mr. Mohammad Khatami and he deceived you for eight years. No one was able to vote for a referendum, but we should have known they brought this Mr. Mohammad Khatami so he could keep the regime going for another eight years!

Read their Koran! Read their Traditions! They say we are Muslims and we must govern the world. Non-Muslims, whoever they are, are unclean and they must be eliminated. What more do you want to say?

It has come to a point where they have taken a country and made it the center of their power; they want to use this to take over the entire world! To do this they can only do one thing. They have to brainwash the people and get the children to blow themselves up with bombs! They can't do anything else!

We knew from the beginning that these people, as the Americans say, are troublemakers. These people are not a government like the one where Khomeini promised freedom, welfare, greatness and knowledge. All of these things have turned out to be lies!

We knew these things from the beginning, but after seven or eight years Mr. Khalilzad finally came to his senses. We knew these things from the beginning and we told them to pay attention! What does dissimulation mean? You know this means public lying. All of their imams dissimulated! Meaning the eight imams after Imam Hossein, 11 imams dissimulated! They kissed the caliph's hand and sat in the court. Later he said sir, when you were the imam you promised not to make war, and he said I dissimulated!

Iran has no need to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. It won't have a power plant that can use it until Russia finishes the Bushehr plant, and that is postponed indefinitely. Amir Taheri lays out the details here. Domestically, this is more a matter of internal legitimacy for Iranians, with serious overtones for international security.

This is Manal Hassan, who with her husband Alaa Abdel-Fattah operates the Egyptian blog aggregator site Manal and Alaa's bit bucket. The site has blogs in both Arabic and English. I caught her working with her wireless notebook back in November during a visit to Cairo.

Alaa spent some time in prison last year in a widely reported episode, and while there scribbled blogs which Manal picked up at the prison and then retyped and published on their site.

Ahmadinejad speaking to a half-empty Martyr Nasiri Stadium in Yazd

Mohsen Rezai's online newspaper baztab reported yesterday that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad drew smaller crowds than expected when he appeared in the city of Yazd on a speaking tour.

The results were apparently so disappointing that the president's trip was canceled. The paper said he will not be visiting the cities of Baft and Khatam, as originally planned.

The report added that voter turnout in the Province of Yazd was one of the highest in the country in the presidential election.

In an article published 3 March in the Arab News Taheri says he does not agree with those who say US attendance at the Baghdad conference will amount to a reversal of its policy not to talk to Iran. He believes its significance is the stated purpose of the conference, to develop regional cooperation for solving Iraq's problems. Read it here.

Mr. Behrouz Souresrafil noticed the coverage's he's been getting on this site, along with the feeds from this site to other locations. He did not seem to realize that it all originated here, but he did seem pleased.

I won't translate anything he said this time, but all of his remarks, all of the sites he mentions and quotes, have to do with two previous posts I've done about him here and here.

There were also earlier ones that he missed, but I'm glad he finally noticed he's being watched attentively.