WarSclerotic

Iran unveils more advanced centrifuge machines.

The Associated Press
Friday, April 9, 2010; 1:07 PM

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran unveiled a third generation of domestically built centrifuges Friday as the Islamic Republic accelerates a uranium enrichment program that has alarmed world powers fearful of the nuclear program’s aims.

Column One: Israel the strong horse.

By CAROLINE GLICK
09/04/2010 18:16

To survive and thrive, Israel needs to rebuild the faith of the likes of Jordan’s Abdullah that it is the strong horse in the region.

What does Jordan’s King Abdullah want from Israel?

This week, Abdullah gave a long and much cited interview to The Wall Street Journal. There he appeared to be begging US President Barack Obama to turn up the heat still further on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. As he has on a number of occasions, Abdullah argued that the Palestinian conflict with Israel is the cause or the justification of all the violence and emerging threats in the region.

By his telling, all of these threats, including Iran’s nuclear threat, will all but disappear if Israel accepts all of the Palestinian, (and Syrian), demands for land.

Abdullah’s criticism of Netanyahu dominated the news in Israel for much of the week. Commentators and reporters piled on, attacking Netanyahu for destroying whatever remains of Israel’s good name. In their rush to attack the premier, none of them stopped to consider that perhaps they were missing something fundamental about Abdullah’s interview.

But they were missing something. For there is another way to interpret Abdullah’s complaints. To understand it, however, it is necessary to consider the strategic constraints under which Abdullah operates. And the Israeli media, like the Western media as a whole, are incapable of recognizing that Abdullah has constraints that make it impossible for him to say what he means directly.

Abdullah is a Hashemite who leads a predominantly Palestinian country. His country was carved out by the British as a consolation prize for his great-grandfather after the Hashemites lost Syria to the French. As a demographic minority and ethnic transplant, the Hashemites have never been in a position to defend themselves or their kingdom against either their domestic or foreign foes. Consequently they have always been dependent out outside powers – first Britain, and then Israel, and to a lesser degree the US – for their survival.

When Abdullah’s strategic predicament is borne
in mind, his statements to the Journal begin
to sound less like a diatribe against Israel and more like a plea to Israel to be strong. For instance, his statement, “In a way, I think North Korea has better international relations than Israel,” can be interpreted as a lament.

Abdullah fears war and he recognizes that the Iranian axis – which includes Syria, Lebanon, elements of the Palestinian Authority and elements of Iraq – is the biggest threat to his regime. Syria, which dispatched the al-Qaida bombers who blew up the hotels in Amman in 2005, threatens Jordan today almost as menacingly as it did in 1970, when it supported the PLO in its bid to overthrow Abdullah’s father. Back then, Israel stepped in and saved the Hashemites.

Abdullah’s preoccupation with Iran was clear throughout the interview. Indeed, much of his criticism of Israel needs to be viewed through the prism of his obvious fear that Teheran’s race to regional dominance will not be thwarted.

The reason that Israel’s media – like the
American and European media – failed to consider what was motivating Abdullah to speak as he did is because both Israelis and Westerners suffer from an acute narcissism that prevents them from noticing anything but themselves. So rather than view events from Abdullah’s perspective and consider what might be motivating him to speak, they interpret his statements to serve their own ideological purposes. In the case of the leftist-dominated media, Abdullah’s statements were pounced upon as further proof that Israel, and particularly Netanyahu, are to blame for all the pathologies of the Arabs and all the threats in the Middle East. If Israel could only be coerced into giving up land, everything would be fine.

MUCH OF what the West misses about the
Arab world is spelled out for us in a new and
masterful book. The Strong Horse: Power,
Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations, by
Lee Smith, is a unique and vital addition to the
current debate on the Middle East because rather than interpret the Arabs through the ideological lenses of the West, Smith describes them, their cultural and political motivations as the Arabs – in all their ethnic, religious, ideological, national and tribal variations – themselves perceive these things.

Smith, a native New Yorker, was the literary editor of The Village Voice when Arab hijackers brought down the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Propelled by the attacks, he headed to the Middle East to try to understand what had just hit his city. Smith moved to Cairo, where he studied Arabic and drank in the cultural and political forces surrounding him. After a year, he moved to Beirut, where he remained for another three years.

The Strong Horse speaks to two Western audiences, the Left, or the self-proclaimed “realists,” who ascribe to the belief that the Arabs have no particular interests but are rather all motivated to act by external forces and specifically by the US and Israel; and the neo-conservatives, who believe that at heart, the Arabs all yearn for Western-style liberal democracy.

Smith rejects both these notions out of hand. Instead, by recounting the stories of men and women he met during his sojourn in the region, and weaving them into the tales of Arab cultural, religious and political leaders who have risen and fallen since the dawn of Islam 1,400 years ago, Smith presents a few basic understandings of the Arab world that place the actions of everyone from Osama bin Laden to Jordan’s King Abdullah in regional and local contexts. The localization of these understandings in turn opens up a whole new set of options for Westerners and particularly for Israelis in seeking ways to contend with the region’s pathologies that involve policies less sweeping than grand, yet futile designs of peace-making, or fundamental restructuring of the social compacts of Arab societies.

Smith develops six central insights in his book.

• Arab political history is a history of the powerful ruling the weak through violence.

• Islamic terror and governmental tyranny are the two sides of the coin of Arab political pathology.

• Liberal democratic principles are unattractive to the vast majority of Arabs, who believe that politics is and by rights ought to remain a violent enterprise and prefer the narrative of resistance to the narrative of liberty.

• Liberal Arab reformers are unwilling to fight for their principles.

• The 1,400-year period of Sunni dominance over non-Sunni minorities is now threatened seriously for the first time by the Iranian-controlled Shi’ite alliance which includes Syria, Lebanon, and Hamas.

• And finally, that it is intra-Arab rivalries and the
desire to rule and be recognized as the strong horse that motivates jihadists to wage continuous wars against Israel and the West and against regimes in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia alike.

As Smith explains, today Arab leaders view Israel as a possible strong horse that could defeat the rising Shi’ite axis that threatens them. And now, as the US under Obama abdicates its leadership role in world affairs by turning on its allies and attempting to appease its foes while scaling back America’s own military strength, Israel is the Sunnis’ only hope for beating back the Shi’ite alliance. If Israel does not prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, then the likes of Kings Abdullah of Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak are going to be forced to accept Iran as the regional hegemon.

WHEN SEEN against the backdrop of Smith’s analysis, it is clear that as his father did when he supported Saddam Hussein against Saudi Arabia in the lead-up to the 1991 Gulf War, Abdullah was hedging his bets in his interview with the Journal. If Israel fails to act, he wants to be on record expressing his animosity towards the Jewish state and blaming it for all the region’s problems. On the other hand, he used the interview as an opportunity to again send a message to anyone willing to listen that he wants Israel to assert itself and continue to protect his kingdom.

The recognition that a strong Israel is the most stabilizing force in the region is perhaps the main casualty of the Left’s land-for-peace narrative and the two-state solution paradigm which wrongly promote the weakness of Israel as the foremost potential contributor to stability in the region. Because Israel is everyone’s convenient bogeyman, it cannot form permanent alliances with any of its neighbors and as a consequence, it cannot gang up against another state. Because it will always be the first target of the most radical actors in the region, Israel has a permanent interest in defeating them or, at a minimum denying those actors the means to cause catastrophic harm.

Finally, although no one will admit it, everyone
knows that Israel has neither the ability nor the desire to acquire and rule over Arab lands, and therefore there is no reason for anyone to fear its strength. For the past 62 years, Israel has only used force to protect itself when it was convinced it had no other option, and it holds only territories designated for the Jewish homeland by the League of Nations 90 years ago and lands vital to its self-defense.

Smith was living in Beirut when Hizbullah launched its war against Israel in July 2006. As he tells the story, “When the government of Ehud Olmert decided to make war against Hizbullah in the summer of 2006, all of Washington’s Arab allies… were overjoyed. With the Americans having taken down a Sunni security pillar – Saddam – and then getting tied down in Iraq, Riyadh, Cairo and the rest sensed the Iranians were gaining ground and that they were vulnerable. Even though they were incapable of doing anything about it themselves, the Sunni powers… wanted to see the [Iranian] bloc rolled back.”

Unfortunately for them, Olmert and his government were incompetent to lead Israel in war and within weeks showed that they had no idea how to accomplish their stated aim of crushing Hizbullah. When this reality sunk in, and the Arab masses rallied behind Iran, Hizbullah and Syria against their own governments, “the Sunni regimes could abide no longer and demanded the United States move to a cease-fire immediately.”

No doubt, in part as a consequence of their disappointment with Israel’s military performance in Lebanon and subsequently in Gaza, today leaders like Abdullah of Jordan are pessimistic about the future. But there is also no doubt who they are rooting for. And this has profound significance for Israel, not only as it prepares its plans to contend with Iran but also as it considers it national priorities.

For too long, Israel’s leaders have believed that to thrive regionally, it needs to convince the West to support it politically. But the fact is that Israel is in Asia, not in Europe or North America. To survive and thrive, Israel needs to rebuild the faith of the likes of Jordan’s Abdullah that it is the strong horse in the region. And once it does that, with or without formal peace treaties, and with or without democracies flourishing region-wide, Israel will facilitate regional peace and stability for the benefit of all.

Iran to Display New Centrifuges For Nuclear Work – NYTimes.com.

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran announced Friday it had developed faster centrifuges for uranium enrichment, signalling determination to press on with its nuclear work despite possible new U.N. sanctions sought by U.S. President Barack Obama.

Obama acknowledged that sanctions would not necessarily shift Iran’s behaviour, but said sustained world pressure could eventually prompt it to revise its nuclear calculations.

The head of the Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would unveil the new “third generation” centrifuges later Friday.

“Iran will demonstrate third generation centrifuges today which have a separation power 10 times that of the first generation,” Ali Akbar Salehi said at a speech marking Iran’s annual national nuclear day, according to a text of his speech given to Reuters in advance.

The centrifuges Iran is using now are adapted from a 1970s design and have been prone to breakdowns. Tehran is known to have been testing various new models for years.

It was not immediately clear when the new machines would be introduced into full-scale enrichment, something analysts say would be a significant step.

Western powers are seeking the support of Russia and China for a fourth round of U.N. sanctions against Tehran.

Obama, who hosts a nuclear security summit next week, wants them to back further measures to deter Iran from pursuing what the West believes is a covert drive to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran says its program has only peaceful purposes.

Obama said there was no guarantee the sanctions that could be instituted now would automatically alter Iranian behaviour.

“The history of the Iranian regime, like the North Korean regime is that you know, you apply international pressure on these countries, sometimes they choose to change behaviour, sometimes they don’t,” he told ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Obama spoke to ABC Thursday after signing a landmark nuclear treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

The two men also pledged greater cooperation to persuade Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program.

MOSCOW HARDENS LINE

Russia, along with China, long resisted calls for tougher sanctions on Iran, but now chides Tehran for ignoring offers made by world powers aimed at defusing the nuclear issue.

“I think it’s an enormous shift and a signal that Russia, like the United States, recognizes that unless we can get all countries to start abiding by certain rules of the road, and right now, our biggest concerns are obviously Iran and North Korea,” the U.S. president said.

“If we are consistent and steady in applying international pressure … over time, Iran, which is not a stupid regime, which is very attentive and watching what’s happening in the international community, will start making a different set of cost-benefit analyses about whether or not pursuing nuclear weapons makes sense for them,” Obama said.

Iran has shown few signs so far of bending to international calls for it to curb its nuclear program.

A hardline cleric said the Islamic Republic was counting on its “allies around the globe” to retaliate against any military strike by the United States on its nuclear sites.

Ahmad Khatami, an Ahmadinejad loyalist, said Washington would run into a quagmire if it attacked — an option Obama has not ruled out to stop Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb.

“If America makes a crazy move, its interests will be endangered by Iran’s allies around the globe,” Khatami, a member of Iran’s powerful Assembly of Experts, said at Friday prayers.

The United States and Israel say Iran finances militant groups such as the Palestinian Islamist Hamas movement and Lebanon’s Hezbollah guerrillas, as well as militias in Iraq.

A Hezbollah official told Reuters last month: “Any attack on Iran could ignite the whole region.”

Iran’s military commander Thursday threatened reprisals against U.S. troops in the Middle East if America attacked.

The same day, Ahmadinejad said he would rather see sanctions imposed than have to beg to avoid them. He was responding after Obama said he expected an early agreement on “tough” sanctions.

(Additional reporting by Hashem Kalantari and Robin Pomeroy in Tehran, David Morgan in Washington and Silvia Westall in Vienna; writing by Alistair Lyon; editing by Myra MacDonald)

Obama: Iran sanctions don’t guarantee change – Haaretz – Israel News.
United States President Barack Obama said in an interview aired on Friday that there is no guarantee sanctions will change Iran’s behavior but he believes steady international pressure could alter Tehran’s nuclear calculations over time.

“If the question is, do we have a guarantee as to the sanctions we are able to institute at this stage are automatically going to change Iranian behavior, of course we don’t,” Obama told ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

“The history of the Iranian regime, like the North Korean regime is that you know, you apply international pressure on these countries, sometimes they choose to change behavior, sometimes they don’t.”

Obama spoke to ABC on Thursday after signing a landmark nuclear treaty with Russia that provided the U.S. administration with a much-needed diplomatic achievement and a step toward better ties with Moscow.

Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev also pledged greater cooperation to persuade Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program, which the United States views as a covert effort to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the accusation and says its nuclear activity is an energy program aimed at generating electric power.

“I think it’s an enormous shift and a signal that Russia, like the United States, recognizes that unless we can get all countries to start abiding by certain rules of the road, and right now, our biggest concerns are obviously Iran and North Korea,” the U.S. president said.

“If we are consistent and steady in applying international pressure … over time, Iran, which is not a stupid regime, which is very attentive and watching what’s happening in the international community, will start making a different set of cost-benefit analyses about whether or not pursuing nuclear weapons makes sense for them,” he said.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled Friday his planned trip to a nuclear conference in Washington next week hosted by Obama, to which more than 40 countries have been invited. The conference will deal with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

The breach remains

The Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s decision to cancel his attendance at the US-sponsored summit on nuclear terror, opening in Washington Monday, April 11, marks a new nadir in relations between the two governments. They have gone from bad to worse since the flare-up between US president Barack Obama and the Israeli prime minister when they met at the White House on March 23.
The cancellation was announced in Jerusalem Thursday, April 8, shortly after the US and Russian presidents signed a treaty in Prague to reduce their warheads by 30 percent.
debkafile‘s Washington sources report White House officials are furious over Netanyahu’s last-minute withdrawal and his decision to be represented at the summit of some 40 world leaders by intelligence and atomic energy minister Dan Meridor.
Washington took his action as a message that Netanyahu would no longer cooperate with the US on security matters so long as the Obama administration pursued a policy Israel regarded as detrimental to its security interests.
The word reaching debkafile from Jerusalem is that the prime minister acted out of two motives:
1.  Israeli government circles were advised to read two reports leaked to US newspapers ( Washington Post: Obama weighs new peace plan for the Middle East and the New York Times: Should US design Mideast peace plan?) which appeared to herald the White House’s intention to impose a peace settlement on Israel.

Our sources in Washington and Jerusalem named National Security Adviser James Jones as the source of the leaks.
One senior source said the leaked reports were serious because “President Obama has his mind set on getting the borders of Israel and the future Palestinian state negotiated and settled in four months. This process leaves no room for any discussion on the security frontiers promised Israel for decades, yet the US president expects the Netanyahu government to accept Washington’s borders-cum-Palestinian state package without demur. His planners have shaped a Palestinian state within borders that make no provision for Israeli security. That is something the Netanyahu government will never accept.”
2.  At the end of their stormy conversation in the White House, Obama handed Netanyahu a list of 11 issues on which he asked Jerusalem to respond. The prime minister continues to withhold his replies having been convinced from close study of the issues/queries that they were clever formulations designed to trick him into endorsing the new American plan for the Middle East.
This episode alone illustrates the depth of discord and mistrust clouding relations between the two governments, originating on Israel’s side from disappointment over the Obama administration’s failure to make good on his high-sounding pledges of tangible steps to abort Iran’s nuclear arms program.
Without answers to Obama’s eleven puzzles, Netanyahu does not feel his trip to Washington is necessary, especially when the only promises he expects to be kept are those of Egyptian, Turkish and other Muslim rulers to slam Israel for its presumed atomic arsenal.
Equally unnecessary is the US Middle East envoy George Mitchell’s umpteenth shuttle between Jerusalem and Ramallah. His next trip scheduled for April 11 was also called off.

FOXNews.com – After Treaty, U.S. Confronts Threat of Terrorists Acquiring Nuke Materials.

FOXNews.com

As President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev basked in the glow of their newly signed landmark treaty that commits their nations to slashing their nuclear arsenals, looming large over Thursday’s celebration in Prague was the challenge of stopping the threat of nuclear materials from disarmament falling into the hands of terror groups like Al Qaeda or rogue states like Iran who don’t respect any treaties.

AP

Apr. 8: President Obama signs the New START treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the Prague Castle.

As President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev basked in the glow of their newly signed landmark treaty that commits their nations to slashing their nuclear arsenals, looming large over Thursday’s celebration in Prague was the challenge of stopping the threat of nuclear materials from disarmament falling into the hands of terror groups like Al Qaeda or rogue states like Iran that don’t respect any treaties.

“I think it is a serious threat,” said Kingston Reif, deputy director of non-proliferation at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “It’s a low probability with a very high consequence. And because of that, we need to be doing all that we can to make it very difficult and next to impossible that terrorists can get their hands on materials that will allow them to wreak unparalleled destruction.”

The country with perhaps the most nuclear ambition is Iran, which in the face of international pressures continues to assert that its uranium enrichment program is for peaceful purposes, not weapons. Six powers — the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, Germany and now China — are in talks in New York about a fourth set of United Nations sanctions to pressure Iran into compliance.

Next week, leaders from more than 40 countries will gather in Washington to discuss improvements in securing nuclear materials.

At a panel discussion on nuclear reduction, former CIA agent Valerie Plame said Thursday that “draining the swamp” is the only way to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists.

Former U.S. Ambassador Richard Burt noted that the treaty only takes a “very small step toward further reductions.”

“I think the importance of the treaty is broader in terms of putting the U.S.-Russian arms control process on track again, and it’s been off track for nearly a decade,” he said. “It’s important because it could lead then to a much more profound set of agreements following this treaty.”

Burt said the U.S. should not completely rid itself of its nuclear weapons because of the possibility of Iran getting its hands on nuclear weapons and sparking a nuclear arms race.

If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, he said, there’s likely to be a “cascade effect” in which others in the region, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, think they need a nuclear weapon.

“That would be show-stopper,” he said.

The pact between the U.S. and Russia commits the nations to slash the number of strategic nuclear warheads by one-third and more than halve the number of missiles, submarines and bombers carrying them.

The pact will shrink the nuclear warhead limit to 1,550 per country over seven years, about a third less than the 2,200 currently permitted.

That still leaves the two countries with enough nuclear firepower to ensure mutual destruction several times over, but the move sets a foundation for deeper reductions, which both sides are already pursuing.

The White House plans to lead calls for disarmament in May at the United Nations during an international conference on strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The new pact is only part of the Obama administration’s new nuclear strategy. It was signed only days after the White House announced a fundamental shift in policy on the use of nuclear weapons, calling the acquisition of atomic arms by terrorists or rogue states a worse menace than the Cold War threat of mutual annihilation.

At the treaty signing Thursday, Obama said nations that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and their non-proliferation obligations “will not be threatened by America’s nuclear arsenal.”

“Those nations that follow the rules will find greater security and opportunity,” he said. “Those nations that refuse to meet their obligations will be isolated, and denied the opportunity that comes with international integration.”

Ivan Olelirch, vice president of the strategic security program at the Federation of American Scientists, said reducing the nukes is the only way to reduce the threat, saying there have been cases with large quantities of uranium being traced back to Russia.

“Having these nuclear weapons provides a reservoir people can tap into,” he said. “Making them fewer and secure not only helps us and Russia but the whole world.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

6 powers agree to further Iran sanctions talks – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Envoys of Britain, China, France, Russia, US, Germany, mull draft resolution on fourth round of sanctions against Revolutionary Guards over nuclear program. US envoy says, ‘We look forward to continuing discussions in days to come’, while Russian representative says, ‘We heard some constructive proposals’

Sanctioning Iran: If not now, when?.

The Return of “Kick Me” Foreign Policy – HUMAN EVENTS.

Man with alleged ties to Iran martyrs’ group can’t be deported.

Stewart Bell, National Post Published: Thursday, April 08, 2010

TORONTO — Iran is refusing to allow Canada to deport a member of an Iranian terrorist group who was arrested at Toronto’s Pearson airport while carrying a recruitment letter from the “Martyrdom Lovers’ Headquarters” in Tehran.

Gholam Reza Ameli has been held in Canadian custody since he arrived in Toronto more than three years ago; the Immigration and Refugee Board says he is a commander of an Iranian terrorist organization and a danger to the public.

The IRB ordered the government to deport Mr. Ameli but immigration officials have been unable to remove him because, while Iran admits he is an Iranian citizen, it refuses to cooperate with the Canada Border Services Agency on the case.

The source of the problem is Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, according to a memo by Brock Mitchell, an immigration enforcement officer in Toronto. “They will not give permission for the embassy in Ottawa to issue a travel document for Mr. Ameli,” he wrote. “They did not provide a reason for the refusal.”

The CBSA headquarters has asked the Department of Foreign Affairs to negotiate with the Iranian government over the matter. Because Mr. Ameli does not have a passport, he cannot be deported until Iran gives him a travel document.

Christine Csversko, spokeswoman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, would not comment on the case but said it was “deeply troubling anytime a foreign government refuses to issue travel documents to one of its citizens deemed inadmissible to Canada.” The Iranian embassy did not respond to interview requests.

“It’s concerning,” said Mark Holland, the Liberal public safety critic. “Canada shouldn’t be placed in that position, obviously. Tehran should be taking this individual back.

“We shouldn’t have to assume this responsibility for somebody who seems to have very clear links to a terrorist organization. It’s grossly unfair that that situation be dumped on our lap, so we’ve got to find a way for Tehran to take responsibility for their citizen.”

Ottawa and Tehran have been openly at odds in recent years over Iran’s nuclear program, support for terrorism and human rights issues such as the crackdown on reformist demonstrators and the killing of Canadian Zahra Kazemi in an Iranian prison.

This latest diplomatic dispute has not been publicly reported until now. It concerns the fate of a 40-year-old Iranian who flew to Canada in October 2006 and made a refugee claim while carrying a letter from “Martyrdom Lovers’ Headquarters” in Tehran.

Under a logo of a raised rifle, the letter was addressed to Mr. Ameli and assigned him a “martyrdom code.” It advised him to read what the Koran says about martyrdom, conduct physical training, study “the enemies of Islam” and “submit your plan of actions for neutralizing and repelling them.” The return address was a Tehran postal box.

“By registration in the Martyrdom Armies, you proved that you could be a genuine crusader of God and, in fact, you have taken your first strong step in the battlefields of the friends of our dear leader for the sake of God,” it read. “Therefore, to join the Martyrdom Lovers’ Headquarters means registering for martyrdom and from now on, your heroic name is registered in the organization of the martyrdom army of the province of your residence.”

The BBC and Agence France Presse reported in 2005 that an advertisement in a conservative Iranian publication had called for volunteers to join Martyrdom Lovers. The group’s commander was Mohammad Reza Jafari, the AFP reported. The letter seized in Canada was signed by a man of the same name.

In the 2007 book, Iran’s Military Forces and Warfighting Capability, authors Anthony Cordesman and Martin Kleiber, quoted Mr. Jafari saying that: “members of the martyrdom-seeking garrisons across the world have been put on alert so that if the Islamic Republic of Iran receives the smallest threat, the American and Israeli strategic interests will be burnt down everywhere.”

Several experts who examined the Martyrdom Lovers letter at the request of the National Post said Iran’s martyrdom armies were largely propaganda tools meant to deter the West from attacking Iran. The experts were uncertain of the letter’s significance or even whether it was genuine.

“It can be authentic,” said Mohsen Sazegara, a former high-ranking Iranian official and a founder of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps who is now a pro-democracy activist in the United States.

“It can be from a small group,” he said. “The ideas and suggestions in this letter are very childish but it can be from some of these groups because some of them, they have very childish ideas.”

He said while a small radical group might have been seeking martyrs, they would not have had the official sanction of the government of Iran, which recognizes the dire consequences it would face over such actions. He said if Iran wanted to conduct terrorist attacks abroad, it would not use such volunteers but would hire or recruit locals.

“Especially now, five years after this letter, I’m sure that the people who have written this letter, or the group who thought like that, I’m sure that they are not in this business anymore.”

Ali Alfoneh, the author of a Middle East Forum paper on Iran’s suicide brigades, said such groups are mostly a deterrent meant to chasten both the West and domestic reformers.

He said the letter could also be a fraud circulated by the Mujahedin-e Khalq, the armed Iranian group that has been fighting to overthrow the government, said Mr. Alfoneh, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute.

“The letter could be genuine, but the entire affair is most likely psy-ops, either of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which tries to intimidate the Western public and change calculation of Western military planners, or psy-ops of Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization which tries to depict the Islamic Republic in the worst imaginable light.”

Before arriving in Canada, Mr. Ameli was a commander of a group called Mahdaviyat, which in 1999 car-bombed Ali Razini, a senior judicial officer in Tehran, leaving him paralyzed and killing his bodyguard.

Mr. Ameli said he was not involved in the attack but that he later fled to the United Arab Emirates. When he returned to Iran, he said he was arrested, convicted and sentenced to death for his activities.

The sentence was later reduced to life imprisonment, he said. He said he was tortured “extensively” while in Iranian custody but that 30 months into his sentence, he was issued a temporary pass and escaped to Turkey, where he was again arrested.

“When I was deported back to Iran, I came to Tehran clandestinely and I contacted my wife, and my wife said that, ‘We have received a letter from this place and it’s very important,'” he testified at his immigration hearing. “So I received it from her and then I had it on me when I fled to Turkey and later to this country.”

He said he gave the Martyrdom Lovers letter to Canadian immigration officers voluntarily. The CBSA subsequently filed it as evidence to bolster their deportation case against him, but Mr. Ameli denied he was a member of the Martyrdom group.

“No individual with a sound mind will travel with such a document with the purpose of coming here and submitting and saying, ‘Here I am. I’m a terrorist, please accept it,'” Mr. Ameli argued.

“Since at the time I was a fugitive, this meant to serve as a trap that could get me back or lure me back, and they had simply told my mother that, ‘Have him accept this document and then we make sure that he gets his amnesty and he will get released.’ This is what I and my family believe. We believe that this was meant to serve as an encouragement, a way to entrap me.”

At his immigration hearing, the CBSA argued that Mr. Ameli belonged to both Mahdaviyat and Martyrdom Lovers. “The nature of this organization is clear,” the CBSA official said of Martyrdom Lovers. “It exists to defend Islam and to destroy Israel by making use of martyrs.”

According to transcripts of the hearings, the CBSA was puzzled over why Mr. Ameli would travel with such a “damaging” document but suggested it was because it “had great meaning” to him.

The IRB ruled that Martyrdom Lovers existed “and is apparently an organization that was created by the president of Iran. The goal is the training of individuals of [sic] suicide attacks and to promote the Islamic religion through terror.”

That view was repeated last October, when the IRB ruled that, “After Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in 2005 he formed the Lovers of Martyrdom. And while Mr. Ameli was away, a recruiting letter went to his home.” It added that Martyrdom Lovers was “an agent of the state, and that the president was presumably sending these recruiting notices to a large number of people.”

The IRB was not satisfied that Mr. Ameli was a “member” of Martyrdom Lovers but it ruled he was a “key member” of Mahdaviyat and ordered his deportation for belonging to an organization that had engaged in terrorism.

“You have signed a death sentence. Thank you,” Mr. Ameli responded.

He initially refused to cooperate with his removal but last August he said he would willingly return to Iran. He is being held northeast of Toronto at the Central East Correctional Centre. Hearings to decide whether he should remain in custody were scheduled to begin in Toronto next Friday.

National Post