Broadcast 30 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

Female Announcer: Last Friday Iranian border guards arrested a number of English soldiers who had illegally trespassed in Iranian waters at the Arvand River. The English soldiers had illegally undertaken to search vessels when they were arrested by Iranian forces.

In protest against these measures in violation of internatinal convention by British soldiers, the English ambassador in Tehran was summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Iran's protest against their illegal entry into Iran was conveyed to him.

Male Announcer: The illegal entry by English soldiers into Iranian waters is the second instance of ignoring our nation's borders since the beginning of the occupation of Iraq. Three years ago also Iranian border guards arrested a number of English soldiers in the waters of the Arvand River and took them to our country. After several weeks of negotiations and London's promise not to repeat this mistake, they were turned over to the English government.

Female Announcer: The illegal and interventionist entry by English forces into the territorial waters of the Islamic Republic of Iran was a suspicious measure in violation of international laws and regulations that shows abnormal objectives in violation of international treaties on behalf of the English occupier forces.

Political Affairs Expert Jamshidi: In terms of international law these things are considered illegal aggression, trespassing on our national and independent sovereignty, especially since this trespass was done by English military elements.

This is not the first time they have carried out threatening and offensive actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran. I see this measure really as a kind of pressure against the Islamic Republic of Iran along with the pressure the international community is bringing to bear on Iran's nuclear program.

In really, in arresting these people the Islamic Republic of Iran showed that it will resist their bullying in all its forms and dimensions.

Broadcast29 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRIB2)

Announcer: English officials are claiming that this country's arrested soldiers were not in Iran's territory. However according to the Ervand Sea Border Patrol Station commander, the information on the GPS devices taken from these soldiers clearly proved their presence in Iranian territory.

Colonel Setareh, commander of the Ervand Sea Border Patrol Station: On Friday 3 Farvardin 1386 [23 March 2007] two English vessels trespassed on the Islamic Republic of Iran's maritime territory and ultimately these individuals were stopped and arrested at this point [shown with pointer on map].

After a review of the information on the GPS devices taken from them it became clear that they had trespassed onto the Islamic Republic of Iran's terrotory at these points you see on the map. They were finally stopped and arrested at this point [gestures with pointer].

Announcer: In a telephone conversation with the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Turkey's prime minister said England's change in its relationship with Iran was a mistake and asked that Turkey's ambassador to Iran be allowed to see the arrested English soldiers.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad referred to the illegal entry onto Iranian territory by the English soldiers and said: In the last few years English soldiers have repeatedly disregarded laws and international treaties and entered Iranian territory. The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran added that the English government, despite the official commitment not to repeat the illegal entry into Iran's territory, instead of apologizing has made a resolution difficult by creating a false climate of opinion and propaganda commotion.

The secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council questioned England's propaganda commotion about the arrest of its soldiers in Iran's territorial waters and said: The most logical way to resolve this problem is for Britain to present its technical and legal reasoning.

Interviewer to Ali Larijani: Why are the English insisting on portraying this issue in reverse?

Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council: The reason is first that there was a precedent for these incursions, which was repeated again and again. Once when they were stopped the members of the group even admitted they were in Iran's coastal waters. The second embassy official even signed a statement acknowledging that they were in our territorial waters and promised not to repeat it. Well, they do not want to admit that they have done this.

The second point is that they are now in this region on the pretext of inspecting ships bound for Iraq. They effectively want to establish the convention of trespassing in the territorial waters of other nations. They must know the price is not trivial! Iran is an important nation in the region. We want reasonable bilateral relations with all nations and we comply fully with international law. We are a nation that accepts responsibility.

However we will not allow anyone to trespass on the nation's sovereignty. If someone does this they must state the reason! The most logical thing is for Britain to use legal and technical reasoning and acknowledge where it has trespassed. However since they did not want to do this they began making things difficult.

This will produce no result! The Islamic republic is not a nation that will disregard its rights because of commotion or unconventional behavior.

Announcer: The spokesman for the Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected the interference of European officials in the arrest of English soldiers for trespassing on Iranian waters and said it was unacceptable. Mohammad Ali Hosseini mentioned the remarks by German Prime Minister Merkel, Solana, and NATO Secretary-General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer in taking sides on the trespass by English soldiers onto Iranian territory. He said: This is a bilaterial issue between Iran and England and interference with uninvolved parties will be of no help in resolving the matter.

Meanwhile on Thursday afternoon Geoffrey Adams, England's ambassador to Tehran, was summoned to our nation's Foreign Ministry for the fifth time because of the illegal entry of this nation's soldiers onto the waters of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

An informed official at Iran's Foreign Ministry said: At this summons it was emphasized again to the English ambassador that media and political controversy not only cannot help resolve this issue, indeed they make it more difficult.

Likewise on Thursday Faye Turney, the English sailor who was arrested last Friday along with 14 other soldiers from this nation for trespassing on Iran's territorial waters, in a letter to the representatives of the House of Commons requested an investigation of Tony Blair's Labor government.

In this letter, which was published in London, Faye Turney expressed satisfaction with the behavior of the Iranians towards the arrested group. She wrote: After the English government promised not to repeat incicidents such as this, I ask the representatives of the House of Commons why they allowed this to be repeated.

In another letter to her parents that was published yesterday, she apologized in writing to the people of Iran for illegally entering Iranian territory.

On Thursday morning a number of students from universities in Tehran held a protest gathering in front of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and demanded that the English soldiers be tried for illegally entering Iran's waters.

In view of the statement from the English Ministry of Foreign Affairs calling for the suspension of commercial and economic ties between the two nations, these students called for a complete severing of relations between Tehran and London because of the hostile positions England has taken against Iran.

Broadcast 31 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

Announcer: Shahreza has long been known as one of the nation's pottery and ceramics industry centers.

The art of pottery in Shahreza is 700 years old. In this period the potters have worked as artists and their handmade goods are being shown to the world today.

These are artists such as Master Ali Fakharbashi, Master Ali Akbar Farhad, Master Mohammad Baqer Soheyli and Master Hoseyn Bahari. The names of Masters Ali Abbas, Yahya and Rahmatollah Soheyli in Shahreza recall the innovations of these three brother artists in converting traditional pottery to ceramics. This innovation was made more than 40 years ago.

Master Rahmatollah Soheyli is the only survivor of these three creative artists in the field of pottery.

Soheyli: I began working in this occupation at the age of 12 after completing six years of elementary school. My occupation is my heritage. My father was a potter and our grandfather was also a potter. I had several brothers who have passed away. They worked in this occupation and now their sons are working in it. I have been doing this for 55 years

Announcer: Now in Shahreza in addition to the traditional manufacture of pottery and ceramics, three masters are teaching this art in the classical tradition. The most important problems of those seeking to teach this art are the lack of kilns for practical instruction, the lack of standard tables and chairs or sufficient space for practical activity and the lack of an adequate or appropriate program for visiting the city's factories.

Handicraft industries, especially pottery and ceramics provide form to national identity and are a part of cultural life; they require more attention from officials.

Broadcast 31 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

Broadcast 30 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

Part 1

Part 2

The subject of this London interview, Dr. Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, was quoted in an article on this topic today in the Los Angeles Times

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

Announcer Asgharian: The Western media controversy over the illegal trespass and entry of 15 English soldiers into Islamic Republic of Iran's territorial waters in the Arvand River area and their arrest has entered a new phase.

At this time our colleague Mr. Korani in London will study this issue in an interview with Mr. Mojtahedzadeh, senior international affairs expert. Greetings Mr. Korani!

Thank you Mr. Asgharian. I offer greetings to you and the dear viewers. As you said, it appears that the issue of the arrest of 15 English naval personnel in the territorial waters of the Islamic Republic of Iran has become an international political and propaganda uproar that goes beyond what is needed for a legal resolution of the issue. Beyond the efforts the British government is making and what we are able discuss in this area it appears that the British government is more interested in making political use of this issue than in finding a legal resolution.

In any case this issue can be examined and discussed from various perspectives. We have invited Dr. Mojtahedzadeh, a specialist in geopolitical issues who is fully aware of this issue, especially the issue of the Persian Gulf, and has done extensive research on it.

[White title at bottom reads "England's aggressive nature and the policy of fleeing forward"]

Hello and thank you for accepting our invitation Mr. Mojtahedzadeh! In the week since this incident occurred it appears that apart from the principle of the case, which is the arrest of a number of English soldiers who illegally entered Iranian waters, the issue has become very complicated in the context of the British government's propaganda and political commotion. What is your assessment of this situation?

Mojtahedzadeh: It was entirely predictable that such an incident would provide the necessary pretexts for Mr. Tony Blair personally--not so much the British government--to continue the military adventure against Iran, which began some time ago.

However recently the pressure of international public opinion against the war in Iraq has caused both Tony Blair and Mr. Bush to lose morale and control of the debate. In Britain Mr. Tony Blair has even been ridiculed by his own government and his political party!

This created a pretext for Mr. Tony Blair to rise up and put himself in charge again.

Korani: He covered his problems with a new issue!

Mojtahedzadeh: This tells us that we have to be careful not to permit conditions to arise that he will be able to abuse. In other words, we must not respond in kind. We must make the maximum effort to keep this issue from taking on political, international or retaliatory overtones or bringing in inadmissable and unwanted propaganda.

Suppose for example that the lady who was arrested writes a letter to a member of the British Parliament asking that America's army leave Iraq to resolve this issue. This would make the West infer that we are abusing the fact that a woman was one of the ones arrested. We must not permit this!

Korani: In any case comments by one of the 15 people who were arrested ...

Mojtahedzadeh: What I am sauing is that our government must be careful that it is the woman herself who is doing this and not make a political issue out of it.

Korani: Mr. Mojtahedzadeh, here a disagreement has really arisen over the determination of boundaries. The British government claims its forces were in Iraqi waters, but the evidence from the Islamic Republic's maritime border patrols present shows that they were in Iran's territorial waters. Under international law, is it the right of a nation whose waters have been entered to arrest the forces who have trespassed, or not?

Mojtahedzadeh: Without a doubt this is an issue where these international television studios are trying to portray what happened as a natural incident that is bound to happen in situations where the geographic situation is such as what we have seen; they want to say that we ought to restrain ourselves and not politicize what is really a technical issue, and focus instead on the technical side to resolve the problem.

Korani: Of course the other side is trying to politicize the issue!

Mojtahedzadeh: I said that, but we must not permit this exploitation to take place. In any case the issue here is that Mr. Tony Blair personally claimed on television that Iran came into Iraqi waters and arrested these people.

He is lying! I said it that clearly on English television!

Korani: You were interviewed last night on the popular program "News Night" and yesterday you were on the BBC.

Mojtahedzadeh: What Mr. Tony Bliar is saying is not right and it is not correct, because we have no border there at all! There is no border between Iran and Iraq in the area where this incident took place. The only border between Iran and Iraq that is near this area is the Shatt al-Arab border, which is a river that exists between Iran and Iraq, but this border ends at the end of this river. In the sea, Iraq has no border with us or with Kuwait.

Korani: These are really Iranian waters!

Mojtahedzadeh: This is a very complicated question here. It is very complicated technically. If we consider the boundary of the Shatt al-Arab Waterway we will have one kind of boundary there, and if we consider the old boundaries that Iraq claims we will have a different boundarty.

In other words, one part of the waters in this region is completely confused and complicated, and anything could happen here. Whatever happens is not necessarily political. It could be innocent and technical. It is possible that we made a mistake and it is possible that they made a mistake, but what I can say to you for sure with the knowledge I have of this region is that Britain made a mistake!

In my view it is a mistake and nothing was intended, because the chance of a mistake being made there is extraordinarily high! In other words the likelihood is 99 percent.

Korani: The British forces made a mistake.

Mojtahedzadeh: There are international regulations here. Those regulations tell us that if someone comes into our territory by mistake we must arrest them, talk with them and determine if they came intentionally or by mistake to solve the problem.

Korani: Mr. Mojtahedzadeh, this also happened in 2004, when 7 or 8 British sailors came into Iranian territory and in accordance with international regulations Iran arrested them. They were released after 3 or 4 days and the problem was solved with an apology from the British government and an admission that its forces had made a mistake.

Why is it that at that time the British government was willing to apologize and admit its mistake but this time they are complicating the issue and creating a media war like this?

Mojtahedzadeh: There is a profound political problem now between Iran and the West. The West, led by Bush and Blair, wants to impose a war on Iran. The world is not permitting them to do this and they are looking for a pretext. Three or 4 years ago such an atmosphere did not exist! Today this atmosphere exists.

This is why both sides must make the maximum effort to prevent the issue being politicized. The British government not only is not making this effort, but as I said on television it is exactly the opposite.

Yesterday morning the government of Iran announced that if Britain admits this mistake was made and that they came into Iranian waters, that would solve the problem and these individuals would be released.

Korani: That was a rational response.

Mojtahedzadeh: Indeed, truly. But how did Blair respond? He went to the UN and created this big uproar. Of course it ended up hurting him because the UN did not issue the statement he wanted and instead said a mistake was probably made and this problem could be corrected.

As you see, and you put it very well, these are very difficult conditions. Politically these conditions are very delicate. Both sides must pay careful attention! They must make an effort to prevent this issue from becoming the pretext that many other people want.

John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, whose hatred for Iran is well known and who is known to be a warmonger and one of those neoconservatives who want war with Iran, has been asking on British television since yesterday why Britain doesn't retaliate or take harsher measures.

I reminded the British government yesterday on Scottish television that John Bolton is the last person the British government ought to be listening to. He came here especially to take advantage of the confusion.

Korani: Apart from the positions of the British government, the British media and a lot of the Western media are exacerbating this problem. What is their real goal? What's behind this?

Mojtahedzadeh: You should also realize that all of the British media also want to broadcast what I am saying. They themselves said what I am saying is logical. They said sir, this is an accident and an accident must be resolved technically. This commotion not only will not solve the problem, it will make it worse.

Korani: We really have to say that even the British media are exacerbating the commotion the British government has created, and some analysts are even saying that the British government ought not to be influenced by the media.

Mojtahedzadeh: This is what I'm saying too and I repeat that Bolton is constantly beating the war drums. As far as we are concerned, we must try not to give them any excuses.

Korani: Thank you very much Mr. Mojtahedzadeh and good luck! Dear viewers, we also thank you. In the future we will have more interviews and reports with personalities and political analysts who can judge this issue impartially and provide the latest information and a reaction to the British media.

Thank you Mr. Asgharian and goodbye.

Broadcast 30 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

This is IRINN English newscaster Reza Mohajer's English version of Iran's side of the story of its abduction of 15 UK Sailors in the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

Broadcast 30 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN

Announcer: Another English soldier who was arrested for illegally entering Iranian waters announced in a television interview: "I regret entering Iranian waters and I hope this will not be repeated."

[English "confession" and "thanks to Iran" by UK sailor Nathan Thomas Summers]

Announcer narrates footage of Persian Gulf military activity: These images were made at the time of the arrest of the English sailors when they trespassed illegally on Iranian waters as an English helicopter flew overhead.

Broadcast 29 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

Announcer: The Esfahan-Tehran rail line will begin operating soon. The director of the Passenger Train Company said: With the launch of this line on 18 Farvardin [7 April] transit time on this route will be reduced from 7.5 hours to 4.5 hours.

Raiszadeh said the maximum speed of this train is 260 kilometers per hour. He added that initially this train will have a passenger capacity of 270, which can be increased to 600.

He also mentioned the laying of 120 kilometers of rail on the Esfahan-Shiraz line. He said: Based on planning in the Ministry of Roads and Transportation, this route will go into operation in the year 1387 [21 March 2008 - 20 March 2009].

Broadcast 29 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

All governments have methods in place for managing all or parts of the economy. When enterprising people try to exploit the artificial price differences between the managed environment and the rest of the world, they are called smugglers. Here's a report on the disruption in Iran of an elaborate operation designed to make some money on Iran's subsidized gasoil.

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

The Islamic Republic Police Force (NAJA) reported the seizure of a ship bearing smuggled fuel in the waters of the Persian Gulf.

Commander Jafari said this ship was carrying 380 tons of smuggled gasoil valued at 152 million tomans ($164,000). He said the ship's identity is unknown but 10 foreigners and a number of Iranians were arrested and turned over to the judicial authorities.

He added that based on the documents and evidence, to date this ship this ship has smuggled 15,000 tons of gasoil valued at 6 billion tomans ($6,491,278).

The police force intelligence chief said no arrangements have been made to deliver fuel at international prices to ships in need of foreign fuel and this difference in price has driven Persian Gulf shippers to fuel smuggling.

During the New Year holidays [21-26 March] this is the second ship seized in the waters of the Persian Gulf.

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.

Broadcast 28 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

Announcer: The favorable reception accorded by nations sucn as Russia, Algeria and Qatar to the Islamic Republic of Iran's proposal for the creation of an organization like OPEC for the sale of natural gas was followed by opposition from Westerners, who expressed doubt about the success of such a project.

Prior to this America and the West began extensive efforts to oppose treaties of cooperation such as the agreement for a pipeline between Iran, India and Pakistan.

Offscreen Announcer: While the implementation of agreements to sell oil and gas in Iran and neighboring nations continues through the efforts of responsible officials, Westerners have begun extensive efforts to prevent the spread of this trend.

Following the Islamic Republic of Iran's proposal to form an organization like OPEC for the sale of natural gas to consumer nations, cooperation among the world's gas producers has taken on a serious and official character.

This has produced a reaction by some Western institutions. An official from the International Energy Organization said the procurement and sale of the world's gas without Western dcooperation in the framework of a gas OPEC organization is neither scientific nor strategic. He said he hoped no one would nurture ideas about forming a gas OPEC.

Concurrent with the remarks by this official from the International Energy Organization, Western nations reacted with serious opposition to the plan to sell gas through a multinational and international organization, but so far they have not given a clear or logical reason for their opposition.

Based on official reports other nations besides Russia and Algeria have welcomed the proposal to form a gas OPEC and have set out to find a procedure for establishing such an organization.

Next month high-ranking energy officials from large gas-producing nations will meet in Qatar to analyze and study the plan to sell gas in the framework of an international organization.

Westerners have opposed any kind of gas cooperation agreement or treaty among the nations of the East. A prominent example of that is pressure by the American government not to implement the Peace Pipeline Project through Iran, India and Pakistan. Despite that, the governments of India and Pakistan have announced that they want to implement the gas pipeline project.

Interpreter translating remarks by Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukarji: We have made it clear to Iran that despite existing pressures we are interested in Iran's gas pipeline project, but price negotiations are continuing.

Announcer: India's minister of oil also announced in this regard (Interpreter's voice translating remarks by Indian Oil Minister Murli Deora): No nation can prevent India from going along with the project to transfer Iran's gas.

Interpreter translating remarks in English by Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz: The implementation of the project to transfer gas from Iran to the Indian subcontinent is in the interest of Iran, India and Pakistan and the three nations have the necessary will to implement this project.

Broadcast 28 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

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.

Broadcast 28 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

In a 27 March interview with Voice of America Persian Service Staffer Behruz Abbasi on the regular news feature "Under the Magnifying Glass," London-based journalist and political analyst Ali Reza Nourizadeh discussed the consequences of the 24 March UN Security Council Resolution 1747 against Iran. The full 27 March VOA Persian newcast can be heard with a RealPlayer plugin as a download from Nourizadeh's website here.

Abbasi began by observing that the US Treasury Department has obtained the cooperation of many international banks in denying banking services for exports to Iran. Nourizadeh noted that the resolution formally targets individuals in Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in addition to Iran's nuclear program and individuals who work for Iranian industrial complexes, but actually goes beyond what is evident in the formal stipulations.

The financial aspects of the resolution apply to other issues as well. As an example Nourizadeh cited an announcement by the Bank of England that it will also apply the sanctions to Iran's financial institutions. The Washington Post has also published a report about other international banks participating in the financial squeeze on Iran, helping to broaden the dimensions of the resolution.

Nourizadeh mentioned President Ahmadinejad's statement that the resolution is nothing but worthless paper and suggested this ignores the effects of the sanctions inside Iran. While the resolution is not aimed directly at the lives of the Iranian people, its ramifications will be evident in the lives of the people, since much of the equipment Iranian factories produce has both military and industrial uses.

These things will affect the market. In recent months inflation has risen rapidly in Iran and unemployment has also increased. Many small industrial units, which are directly connected to the large factories being subjected to the sanctions, will stop operating, which will add to unemployment.

Iran's international credibility both as a trading partner and as an important economic and political center will be severely damaged. It must be realized that foreign investment has reached a low point in Iran under Mr. Ahmadinejad's government. Under the sanctions, even the nations who are inclined to invest in Iran's oil and other industries will be hesitant.

Nourizadeh said it may be one of the effects of the resolution that contracts such as the one with the Total Company are being examined closely in connection with the individuals who were paid bribes. These people are being investigated.

Nourizadeh told Abbasi he does not think the resolution is worthless paper, contrary to what Mr. Ahmadinejad has said. Indeed, the resolution is so important that Iran's diplomacy, after months of trying to prevent its passage in the UN, has been decisively defeated. According to Nourizadeh, Iranian foreign minister Mottaki's remarks in the UN were not worthy of a foreign minister but were more in the character of the things Mr. Ahmadinejad has been saying.

Broadcast 27 March on PARS Satellite TV (Los Angeles)

I do not think there will be a war between Western forces and the Islamic republic. The Islamic republic likes to mark time, as it did in that episode with the war, the cup of poison and those things.

At the last minute the Islamic republic always surrenders because it knows that failure to surrender will mean the destruction of the regime--not the destruction of Iran but the destruction of the Islamic republic.

The preachers know how to keep the preacher system from being destroyed, and they have been practicing this for 300-400 years.

What was their mistake? Their mistake was--the Islamic republic has already said it would do this! Let's look at the clip where Mr. Khamenei said what he would do in his New Year's eve speech.

This taking of the soldiers comforms to what Khamenei said about doing illegal things. Let's watch this for 30 seconds, then we'll come back.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in clip of his 21 March Mashhad speech: We have no objections to being watched by the IAEA and we have no objections to being supervised by them!

Creating a commotion and pressuring our nation over this issue, making utilitarian use of the UN Security Council for the benefit of powers that are opposed to the Iranian nation will be harmful.

If they are going to make utilitarian use of the Security Council and if they want to ignore this indisputable right in this way--everything we have done until today has been in accordance with international law. If they want to break the law, we can break the law too and we will!

Souresrafil: You see? This is the stupidest thing in the world to say, as only this philistine could say it. As I said yesterday, the United Nations is itself the source of international law!

With regard to international law, you cannot tell the UN that it has broken the law. The law on international relations is determined in the UN, along with diplomatic exchanges and conventions.

The UN Security Council is the only place in the world whose word is law on issues exactly like the Iranian nuclear case. The UN Charter says this! Then this ignorant gentleman sits and says this is illegal!

When a person acts like an idiot with three sheets to the wind he will say things like this, but notice, he said we will start breaking the law too! Then the very next day they went and took those English sailors!

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.

Broadcast 25 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

Female announcer: The implementation of warlike Bush policies has been protested by most American citizens, even by this nation's famous film artists.

Male narrator: Bush never imagined that even an unpretentious low-budget film would become so connected to his political life or that his dreams would turn into cinematic nightmares.

The film is "Mystic River" made by Clint Eastwood in 2003, and was nominated for an Oscar for best director. Sean Penn and Tim Robbins won Oscars as Best actor and best supporting actor, and shortly afterwards all three of them became the first opponents of Bush's policies.

Clint Eastwood said American democracy in Iraq was broken. Tim Robbins said Bush's war had caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and called for his resignation.

However throughout these years Sean Penn has been the most vocal Bush opponent among his fellow cast members in "Mystic River." He has traveled to Iraq several times and went to Iran in the spring of 2005.

Film critic Seyyed Mostaghani: When he returned to America I went to my home at the hotel and saw they they had called me and said Sean Penn is in Iran, and all of these American media did not know that he had returned to America or how to convey the news to the world.

In his most recent remarks Penn said Bush and his colleagues are the perpetrators of innumerable crimes including treason, deception and conspiracy and he called for Bush to be put on trial.

The Mystic River is still flowing and making nightmares for Bush.

Michael Moore is a leading American film director and critic of the Bush group. He is a powerfula and controversial 53-year-old who won an Oscar for the film "Bowling for Columbine" and harshly attacked Bush in the film "Fahrenheit 9/11." He is very famous because of his highly critical view of the number one man in the White House.

In his most recent letter he wrote in a sarcastic tone "Mr. President, The only way you are going to beat a nation of 27 million -- Iraq -- is to send in at least 28 million! Here's how it would work:

"The first 27 million Americans go in and kill one Iraqi each. That will quickly take care of any insurgency. The other one million of us will stay and rebuild the country. Simple." [taken from michaelmoore.com]

Moore likewise said that to get the 28 million soldiers he could invite the all the neo-con viewers of the FOX Network, and in conclusion he promised he would write again.

Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Dustin Hoffman, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn and Michael Moore, for reasons that are very clear, will continue to work against the Bush group.

Reporter Modaqeq: Is this the end of Bush? He is opposed by all of the world's truth-seeking people.

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.

Broadcast 25 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

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.

Broadcast 23 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

Part 1

Part 2

In the early evenings (Iran time) IRINN news usually has an interview with a health professional who offers advice on diet, exercise or some other aspect of personal care.

Today's subject was "The Effect of Family Relations on Psychological Health," with guest Dr. Hossein Ibrahimi-Moqadam, a psychologist, family counselor and university faculty member.

Iranians are tribalistic people, who do not generally like being alone or living the solitary life. This helps explain how elected and non-elected government leaders and clerics in Iran are able to herd the population and control public thinking so effectively, using an orthodox playbook of codes and symbols along with religious and political narratives.

In this program a health professional discussed his own and other studies that support the idea that being alone or without social skills is bad for one's health.

This interview came in the midst of the traditional ten days of Iranian New Year Observances, when it is considered important to exchange visits with friends and family. The announcer said at the beginning that this practice has recently been on the wane and that the program would show how the tradition can help with the development of social skills.

Asked how being with a group affects one's temperament and disposition, Ibrahimi-Moqadam referred to a series of studies that attempted to isolate factors such as money, health and family relations to examine their effects on the well being of the subjects.

He observed that if an individual is deprived of money, health or family relations, he feels unhappy. He said if the subjects get their money and health back and correct their social activities, they do not necessarily feel happy unless they have good social relations. He said studies show that good social relations have a strong effect on psychological and even physical health, and that people who can have good family relations and can properly exchange visits with their kin are the ones who are in the best physical health.

Why is this so? It is because our lives are filled with stress which is sometimes harmful; prolonged exposure to day-to-day strees will gradually become a physical burden and corrupt one's outlook.

People who have a good sense of support and feel that others are beside them usualy have fewer problems. Ibrahimi-Moqadam cited a study of men who have lost their wives and concentrated their social relations on the social events of the New Year. The studies found fewer deaths among those who properly conducted the exchanges of visits, while those who lived solitary lives of isolation had higher rates of illness.

He cited a study of mice who were injected with cancerous cells. Some of the mice were kept in solitary cells, while others were kept with groups of other mice. All other factors such as climate and nutrition were the same for both groups. The study found that the mouse who were in a group with other mice lived much longer than the ones who were kept in isolation.

Ibrahimi-Moqadam concluded based on this that people who are in regular contact with other people will live 10-15 years longer than the ones who spend their time alone.

The announcer asked Ibrahimi-Moqadam about the effect of family relations according to today's science. Ibrahimi-Moqadam said this can be considered from several perspectives. He said social support, where the individual feels that he is not alone in the situations he is in, has a great effect.

He noted that for many viewers outside Iran general conditions are not bad, but if someone living abroad has lost a loved one the social pressure he experiences is much greater. However if someone loses a loved one in his own country others will surround him with sympathy and condolences and he will feel that he is not alone.

This is one of the effects of family relations. He cited the example of an individual who was alone in a boat on the Atlantic Ocean for 58 days until he was finally rescued. When asked what bothered him most, he said it was the fact that he had no one to talk to about his pain.

The announcer asked Ibrahimi-Moqadam who are the people who benefit most from family relations in improving their social relations. Without really answering this question, he said one should look at the people who form good family relations and those who do not, and he discussed some of the reasons for not doing so, including fear and a lack of social skills.

He then described some of the attributes of effective social skills and some of the findings by university researchers about these attributes.

The announcer asked Ibrahimi-Moqadam what people should do to increase their interest in exchanging visits and socializing.

Without recommending what to do to increase an interest in doing this, Ibrahimi-Moqadam listed effective attributes to employ when exchanging visits. He said successful exchanges of visits are made when people speak simply, openly and easily without pursuing objectives in what they say to people. He said it is not good to give advice because most people are not looking for advice. People prefer a calm smiling disposition, which is more important than what is said. This is more effective than giving advice, and when visiting a sick person, this conveys energy and peace more effectively than fear and anxiety.

He summarized by saying that a good relationship is created by avoiding negative subjects and creating empathy, conversing and being calm and happy.

When the announcer asked what factors will tend to make individuals disinterested in socializing, Ibrahimi-Moqadam said these might include social and individual factors. The individual factors might be in people who overeat, watch too much television, always want to keep to themselves or are addicted to work. Others may be depressed or feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are unable to establish social relations because they do not have a specific disposition.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad greets a member of an American Christian peace delegation in February

Last night I watched David Brancaccio's PBS "Now" program titled "Talking to Iran," about a visit to Iran in the third week of February by a 13-member American religious delegation. A link to a clip of the program is on this page:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/312/index.html

The trip had been organized by a coalition of Quakers and Mennonites. The program's thesis was that this group had gone to Iran in an effort by a non-government group to open dialogue with Iran and diffuse tensions. The "Now" website linked to a statement about the visit issued by the Mennonite Central Committee, which said in part:

"We believe it is possible for further dialogue and that there can be a new day in U.S.-Iranian relations. The Iranian government has already built a bridge toward the American people by inviting our delegation to come to Iran. We ask the U.S. government to welcome a similar delegation of Iranian religious leaders to the United States.

"As additional steps in building bridges between our nations, we call upon both the U.S. and Iranian governments to:

"* immediately engage in direct, face-to-face talks;

"* cease using language that defines the other using "enemy" images; and

"* promote more people-to-people exchanges including religious leaders, members of Parliament/Congress, and civil society.

"As people of faith, we are committed to working toward these and other confidence building measures, which we hope will move our two nations from the precipice of war to a more just and peaceful relationship."

In his 21 March New Year's address to a massive crowd in Mashhad, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei referred over and over to the United States as Iran's enemy, and as an accused party who must defend itself against accusations which he enumerated in detail. Evidently he was not moved by the Mennonite urging that he stop using "enemy" images.

"Talking To Iran" Producer Jamila Paksima

The delegation shown in the PBS video complied obediently with two key Iranian requirements of a Western peace mission:

(1) You must come to us as the apologetic supplicant. It will be more convincing if you actually do apologize for