Iranian-American journalist to be freed soon..

This is from antiwar.com via Reuters.

This is good news. The trial left a lot to be desired and whether she is guilty or not imprisoning her is not a bright idea in terms of improving Iran US relationships.

Iranian-American journalist to be freed soon
By Fredrik Dahl and Hashem Kalantari Fredrik Dahl And Hashem Kalantari
18 mins ago

TEHRAN (Reuters) – U.S.-born journalist Roxana Saberi is to be freed soon after an Iranian appeals court cut her eight-year jail sentence for spying to a suspended two-year term.

A judiciary source said Saberi, whose jailing on April 18 on charges of spying for the United States became a new source of tension between Tehran and Washington, had already been released and would be allowed to leave Iran.

But her father Reza said she had not yet walked free after more than three months in detention, saying he was waiting in front of Evin prison in northern Tehran.

"She will be freed today, hopefully. The papers are ready ... it is just a matter of time, a couple of hours," he told Reuters by telephone. "We are very happy."

Reza Saberi said he and his Japanese wife Akiko would "bring our daughter back home," apparently referring to the United States, where he moved in the early 1970s. "We will go back as soon as possible," he said.

The development came a day after an appeals court held a hearing on the case of Saberi, a 32-year-old journalist who has worked for the BBC and U.S. National Public Radio.

"The appeals court ... has reduced her jail sentence from eight years to two years of suspended sentence ... and she will soon be free," her defense lawyer Abdolsamad Khorramshahi said.

"In consideration of this ruling, naturally she will be freed," judiciary spokesman Alireza Jamshidi told the official IRNA news agency, without giving a date.

The lawyer said Saberi would be banned from doing any reporting work in Iran for five years.

"There are no obstacles for her leaving the country and she can leave Iran freely," said her other lawyer, Saleh Nikbakht.

Saberi looked thin and tired at Sunday's court session. Last week, her father said she had ended a two-week hunger strike and was "very weak." The judiciary denied she had refused food and said she was in good health.

MISS DAKOTA

Saberi, a citizen of both the United States and Iran, was arrested in late January for working in the Islamic Republic after her press credentials had expired. She was later charged with espionage, a charge that can carry the death sentence.

Her case created a new problem for Tehran and Washington at a time when the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is seeking to reach out to the Islamic state after three decades of mutual mistrust.

The United States said the espionage charges against Saberi, a former Miss Dakota who moved to Iran six years ago, were baseless and demanded her immediate release.

Tehran, which does not recognize dual nationality, said Washington should respect the independence of Iran's judiciary.

The two countries are locked in a dispute over nuclear work that the West fears is aimed at making weapons, an allegation that Iran denies.

Obama has offered a new beginning of engagement with Tehran if it "unclenches his fist." Iran says the United States must show real change in policy toward it.

Paris-based watchdog Reporters Without Borders last month said Saberi's conviction was a warning to foreign journalists working in Iran ahead of its presidential election in June.

It said seven journalists were imprisoned in Iran, which it said was ranked 166th out of 173 countries in its latest press freedom index.

Iran denies Western allegations it is seeking to stifle dissenting voices. The government says it welcomes constructive criticism and upholds the principle of free speech.

(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi and Hossein Jaseb; Editing by Peter Millership)

Copyright © 2009 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.


Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.Questions or CommentsPrivacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCopyright/IP Policy

U.S. needs to engage Tehran not order it around.

This is from the Star (Toronto) This article points out some obvious facts that almost no western media bother to point out. The US is in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has been for ages. The US says zilch about Israel's nuclear capabilities. Israel of course refuses even to acknowledge it has any weapons! The US rewards India and tolerates Pakistan's nuclear arsenal/ THe US adamantly refuses to envisage a non-nuclear Middle East since that would inclued Israel.

U.S. needs to engage Tehran, not order it around
TheStar.com - columnists - U.S. needs to engage Tehran, not order it around

December 20, 2007
Haroon Siddiqui


Russia delivers nuclear fuel to Iran. Russia and China sign multi-billion dollar contracts to develop Iran's oil and gas fields, the auto and telecommunications sectors.

Both do so within two weeks of the U.S. intelligence agencies announcing that Tehran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

After six years of sabre rattling, George W. Bush's Iran policy is in shambles. It is so for the same reason his Iraq policy has been. It's fundamentally dishonest.

The U.S. does not want Iran to develop a bomb but it won't reduce its own huge nuclear stockpile, as called for under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It bullies Iran for allegedly doing what Israel, India and Pakistan have done: develop nuclear bombs covertly. Far from penalizing them, Bush has been courting each for strategic reasons.

Nor would he support a call by the International Atomic Energy Agency for a nuclear-free Middle East, including Israel.

Do what I say, not what I do.

Iran's nuclear program was started by the pro-U.S. Shah in the 1970s, with Washington's full backing.

The power plant at Bushehr lay dormant after the 1979 Islamic revolution. Since the Russians resumed work on it in 1995, the IAEA has kept an eye and will monitor the fuel that Russia has just shipped.

This is all legit work.

It is at another plant, at Natanz, that Iran is enriching uranium. That, too, is legit, under the non-proliferation treaty, of which Iran is a member.

So what's the problem?

The U.S. and its allies do not want Iran to have the know-how to enrich uranium, which can also be used to make a bomb. But Iran says it is not making one and does not want to.

We don't believe you, says the U.S., because you've cheated in the past.

Iran was indeed not forthcoming about all its activities, as required by the non-proliferation treaty. It's now working with the IAEA to explain its 1988-2003 record.

The issue boils down to deciphering Iran's "intentions." Bush says: "They can play like they got a civilian program and pass the knowledge to a covert military program."

But all nuclear nations built their bombs that way. So, his stance becomes: Okay, we did it but you can't. And you can't because you hate Israel and the U.S., and help Hamas and Hezbollah. That's why we must stop you, never mind the IAEA.

Hence the parallel American track at the UN Security Council, which passed two resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran.

Bush was trying for a third when his own intelligence agencies pulled the rug from under him.

If Iran has no weapons program, as the IAEA also says, the basis for the UN resolutions is gone. And there's no basis to bomb Iran.

Enter the Russians with the fuel, and they and the Chinese with the contracts to sign.

We are seeing a repeat of a historic American mistake.

In the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower sent Egypt into the Soviet fold, from which it couldn't be pried for decades.

Bush needs to engage Tehran, not order it around. He wants to talk to Iran about Iraq but not Iran itself. You help us in Iraq but we won't help you anywhere.

The clerics in Tehran won't crumble under such coercion. But they do respond pragmatically, as they did against the Taliban, both pre- and post-9/11.

They want the U.S. to stop being belligerent, abandon its policy of regime change and respect Iran's territorial integrity. That's not a bad starting point to demand, in return, the suspension of the uranium enrichment program and a constructive Iranian role in Lebanon and in the peace talks in the Middle East.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haroon Siddiqui, the Star's editorial page editor emeritus, appears Thursday in World and Sunday in the A-section. Email: hsiddiq@thestar.ca

Clinton would use violence against Tehran

Maybe Clinton should adopt Cheney as her vice-presidential running mate. The more I hear about Hillary the less I like her, that she should be the front runner in the Democratic race is puke provoking at the least. She is fuzzy enough and unprincipled enough that she might get along with Stephen Harper our present prime minister.

Clinton would use violence against Tehran


Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Monday October 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited




Hillary Clinton today moved to secure her position as the most hawkish Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, saying she would consider the use of force to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear programme.

In an article for Foreign Affairs magazine intended as a blueprint for the foreign policy of a future Clinton White House, the Democratic frontrunner argues that Iran poses a long term strategic challenge to American and its allies, and that it must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons.




"If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table," Ms Clinton said.
Elsewhere, Ms Clinton took the edge off her steely posture by saying she would abandon the Bush administration's policy of isolating its enemies, and would deploy diplomacy.

"True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims."

She says she would even consider offering incentives to Iran in return for a pledge to disarm. However, she sets out a series of stringent conditions that are virtually identical to current White House policy.

"If Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons programme, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilising Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives," Ms Clinton wrote.

The article, the latest in a series of position papers from the leading Democratic and Republican contenders for the White House, offers a glimpse at Ms Clinton's efforts to appeal to Democrats seeking a repudiation of the current regime's world view when they begin voting in primaries next January, as well as to the broader electorate that will vote in November 2008.

It arrives only days after Ms Clinton was severely criticised by her Democratic rivals for backing a Senate resolution calling on the US government to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the elite division of Tehran's military, a terrorist entity.


The measure has been argued strenuously by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and other neocons, but such a sweeping designation does not appear to have the support of the state department.

Ms Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to support the resolution, and her rivals said her vote could help the Bush administration make a future case for war against Iran.

Unlike the five other candidates to sketch out their vision of foreign policy to date, Ms Clinton gave little indication of her comprehensive world view.

However, she pledged to avoid the "ideologically blinkered" policies of the current presidency. "Avoid false choices driven by ideology," she wrote.

On Iraq, Ms Clinton offered a small variation on her promises on the campaign trail, saying she would instruct her Pentagon chief and other military leaders to draw up a withdrawal plan within 60 days of her inauguration. However, she would consider leaving behind a residual force in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq.