Chirac Strays From Assailing a Nuclear Iran by Elaine Sciolino and Katrin Bennhold

President Jacques Chirac said this week that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a big danger, and that if Iran were to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.

The remarks, made in an interview on Monday with The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune and Le Nouvel Observateur, a weekly magazine, were vastly different from stated French policy and what Mr. Chirac has often said.

On Tuesday, Mr. Chirac summoned the same journalists back to Élysée Palace to retract many of his remarks.

Mr. Chirac said repeatedly during the second interview that he had spoken casually and quickly the day before because he believed he had been talking about Iran off the record.

“I should rather have paid attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on the record,” he said.

The tape-recorded, on-the-record interview was conducted under an agreement that it would not be published until Thursday, when Le Nouvel Observateur appears on newsstands.

On Monday, Mr. Chirac began by describing as “very dangerous” Iran’s refusal to stop producing enriched uranium, which can be used to produce electricity or to make nuclear weapons. Then he made his remarks about a nuclear-armed Iran.

“I would say that what is dangerous about this situation is not the fact of having a nuclear bomb,” he said. “Having one or perhaps a second bomb a little later, well, that’s not very dangerous."

“But what is very dangerous is proliferation. This means that if Iran continues in the direction it has taken and totally masters nuclear-generated electricity, the danger does not lie in the bomb it will have, and which will be of no use to it.”

Mr. Chirac said it would be an act of self-destruction for Iran to use a nuclear weapon against another country.

“Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?” Mr. Chirac asked. “It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.”

It was unclear whether Mr. Chirac’s initial remarks reflected what he truly believes. If so, it suggests a growing divide with American policy, which places the highest priority on stopping Iran from gaining the capacity to produce nuclear weapons.

Mr. Chirac has privately expressed the view occasionally in the past year that a nuclear-armed Iran might be inevitable and that it could try to sell the technology to other countries. But publicly the policy has been very different. In fact, Élysée Palace prepared a heavily edited 19-page transcript of the Monday interview that excluded Mr. Chirac’s assessment of a nuclear-armed Iran.

The transcript even inserted a line that Mr. Chirac had not said that read, “I do not see what type of scenario could justify Iran’s recourse to an atomic bomb.”

There are divisions within the French government — and between Europe and the United States — about how much Iran should be punished for behavior that the outside world might not be able to change. Some French officials worry that the more aggressive course of action by the United States toward Iran will lead to a confrontation like the Iraq war, which France opposed.

In noting the sanctions against Iran that were imposed last month by the Security Council, Mr. Chirac warned Tuesday that escalation of the conflict by both sides was unwise. “Of course we can go further and further, or higher and higher up the scale in the reactions from both sides,” he said. “This is certainly not our thinking nor our intention.”

In the Monday interview, Mr. Chirac argued that Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon was less important than the arms race that would ensue.

“It is really very tempting for other countries in the region that have large financial resources to say: ‘Well, we too are going to do that; we’re going to help others do it,’ ” he said. “Why wouldn’t Saudi Arabia do it? Why wouldn’t it help Egypt to do so as well? That is the real danger.”

Earlier this month, Mr. Chirac had planned to send his foreign minister to Iran to help resolve the crisis in Lebanon. The venture collapsed after Saudi Arabia and Egypt opposed the trip and members of his own government said it would fail.

Mr. Chirac, who is 74 and months away from ending his second term as president, suffered a neurological episode in 2005 and is said by French officials to have become much less precise in conversation.

Mr. Chirac spent much of the second interview refining his remarks of the previous day.

He retracted, for example, his comment that Tehran would be destroyed if Iran launched a nuclear weapon. “I retract it, of course, when I said, ‘One is going to raze Tehran,’ ” he said.

He added that any number of third countries would stop an Iranian bomb from ever reaching its target. “It is obvious that this bomb, at the moment it was launched, obviously would be destroyed immediately,” Mr. Chirac said. “We have the means — several countries have the means to destroy a bomb.”

Mr. Chirac also retracted his prediction that a nuclear Iran could encourage Saudi Arabia and Egypt to follow suit.

“I drifted — because I thought we were off the record — to say that, for example, Saudi Arabia or Egypt could be tempted to follow this example,” he said. “I retract it, of course, since neither Saudi Arabia nor Egypt has made the slightest declaration on these subjects, so it is not up to me to make them.”

As for his suggestion in the first interview that Israel could be a target of an Iranian attack and could retaliate, Mr. Chirac said: “I don’t think I spoke about Israel yesterday. Maybe I did so but I don’t think so. I have no recollection of that.”

There were other clarifications. In the initial interview, for example, Mr. Chirac referred to the Iranian Islamic Republic as “a bit fragile.” In the subsequent interview, he called Iran “a great country” with a “very old culture” that “has an important role to play in the region” as a force for stability.

Mr. Chirac’s initial comments contradicted long-held French policy, which holds that Iran must not go nuclear. The thinking is that a nuclear-armed Iran would give Iran the ability to project power throughout the region and threaten its neighbors — as well as encourage others in the region to seek the bomb.

Under Mr. Chirac’s presidency, France has joined the United States and other countries in moving to punish Iran for refusing to stop enriching uranium, as demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council.

Iran insists that the purpose of its uranium enrichment program is to produce energy; France, along with many other countries, including the United States, is convinced that the program is part of a nuclear weapons project.

The purpose of the initial interview was for Mr. Chirac to talk about climate change and an international conference in Paris later this week that parallels a United Nations conference on the global environment.

The question about Iran followed a comment by Mr. Chirac on the importance of developing nuclear energy programs that are transparent, safe and secure.

In the midst of his initial remarks on Iran, Mr. Chirac’s spokesman passed him a handwritten note, which Mr. Chirac read aloud. “Yes, he’s telling me that we have to go back to the environment,” Mr. Chirac said. He then continued a discussion of Shiite Muslims, who are by far the majority in Iran but a minority in the Muslim world.

“Shiites do not have the reaction of the Sunnis or of Europeans,” said Mr. Chirac, who over the years in private meetings has expressed distrust of Shiite Muslims.

The president had a different demeanor during the two encounters.

In the first interview, which took place in the late morning, he appeared distracted at times, grasping for names and dates and relying on advisers to fill in the blanks. His hands shook slightly. When he spoke about climate change, he read from prepared talking points printed in large letters and highlighted in yellow and pink.

By contrast, in the second interview, which came just after lunch, he appeared both confident and comfortable with the subject matter.

The attempt by Élysée Palace to change the president’s remarks in a formal text is not unusual. It is a long-held tradition in French journalism for interview subjects — from the president to business and cultural figures — to be given the opportunity to edit the texts of question-and-answer interviews before publication.

Cramer Forms Anti-Terrorism Caucus by Office of Congressman Bud Cramer (5th District of Alabama)

U.S. Representatives Bud Cramer (Ala.-05), Sue Myrick (N.C.-09), Ben Chandler (Ky.-06), and Kay Granger (Texas-12) held a news conference today to announce the formation of the bipartisan House Anti-Terrorism Congressional Caucus.

The House Anti-Terrorism Caucus was formed to provide Members of Congress detailed information about the threat to our country from terrorism. This caucus will provide background information, historical perspectives, and analysis to Members of Congress about radical philosophies around the world that threaten national security.

"We formed this Caucus to help increase awareness about the different facets of the war on terrorism," said Cramer. "It's clear that many Members who do not serve on military, homeland security, or intelligence committees want to be more engaged on this important issue, and we're giving them that opportunity. With a better understanding of the factors surrounding Islamic terrorism, Congress will be able to provide better oversight on the broader War on Terror, and make more informed decisions on how our nation should proceed."

Representative Cramer is a co-chairman of the Anti-Terrorism Caucus with Reps. Myrick, Chandler, and Granger. The Caucus currently has 67 members. Earlier this month, the Caucus held its first event with John Hopkins' School of Advance International Studies professor Mary Habeck. Dr. Habeck is also the author of "Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror."

Representative Cramer is a member of the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Defense, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel. He is the only member of Congress to serve on all three panels.

'Global War Curriculum' seen in Iran's schools by Gareth Harding

The Iranian education system is preparing its students for a global war against the West in the name of Islam, according to an independent study of 115 textbooks and teachers guides released today.

With Tehran accused of seeking to develop a nuclear weapons arsenal and the United States dispatching a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf, the report by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace highlights the uphill task Washington faces trying to persuade Iranian youth to distance themselves from the hard-line Islamist regime.

The study, which claims to be the first of its kind, catalogs how pupils as young as 9 are conditioned to take part in a global jihad against such "infidel oppressors" as Israel and the United States.

"Hate indoctrination is a professed goal of Iranian textbooks," said the report's author, Arnon Groiss, a Princeton and Harvard educated journalist who also has written critical studies of the Israeli, Palestinian, Syrian, Saudi, and Egyptian education systems.

According to Mr. Groiss, Iranian pupils learn from an early age that the Islamic republic is in mortal combat with Western powers bent on its destruction.

One 11th-grade textbook, quoting former spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, refers to the United States and its allies as "the World Devourers" and says that if they "wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all of them."

Students are drilled for battle from age 12, when they are obliged to take defense-readiness classes, according to the study by the Israel-based nongovernmental organization. Some also are drafted into the Revolutionary Guard and other elite combat units, where they are taught how to handle shoulder-propelled rocket launchers, the study says.

Through stories, poems, wills and exercises, martyrdom is glorified as a means of defending the Islamic republic and attaining eternal happiness, the report says. A Grade 10 textbook on "defense readiness" boasts that during the eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s, half a million students were sent to the front and "36,000 martyrs ... were offered to the Islamic Revolution."

Describing Iran's school system as a "global war curriculum," Mr. Groiss said the emphasis on military training from such a young age instilled a "siege mentality" among many students.

"It is a form of child abuse to install such notions in children's minds," he told journalists at a briefing in the European Parliament in Brussels.

Israel, which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly has said should be "wiped off the map," is not recognized in atlases and is portrayed as a danger to Islamic states.

"Another problem [faced by Muslim countries] is the regime that occupies Jerusalem, which has been created in this area ... for America and other aggressive powers, with the aim of taking over the Muslim lands," says a geography textbook for Grade 11 students that is quoted in the study.

Anti-Semitism is also rife, according to the report, which analyzed textbooks published before Mr. Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005. In one cartoon for third-graders, the inhabitants of a clean and tidy town discover a trail of garbage left by a ghoulish creature with the Star of David on his right arm. The contaminator is chased out of town and the mess cleaned up after him.

The United States, which is commonly referred to as the "Great Satan" and the "Arch-Oppressor Worldwide," fares little better.

"America is known as an imperialist country, which embarks on military intervention wherever it sees that its interests are in danger," says a sociology textbook for Grade 11 students, according to the study.

"It does not refrain from massacring people, from burying alive the soldiers of the opposite side and from using mass destruction weapons."

Speaking at the release of the report today, the vice chairman of the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee, Geoffrey Van Orden, said: "Young people are being indoctrinated in hatred and intolerance to other religions and cultures. This is not only very disturbing in terms of the education and upbringing of those young people, but in terms of international stability."

The Iranian Embassy in Brussels was asked to respond to the claims in the report but failed to comment.

PAKISTAN: Controversial Clerics Receive Death Threats from Authorities by Syed Saleem Shahzad

Following last week's deadly bomb blasts in the Pakistani cities of Islamabad and Peshawar, well-placed sources in the capital told Adnkronos International (AKI) that president General Pervez Musharraf asked the Pakistani Air Force to carry out an air strike on the largest Islamic seminary or madrassa in Islamabad where two of leading ideologues of the Pakistani Taliban, Ghazi Abdul Rasheed and Maulana Abdul Aziz, are holed up after attempts to flush them out turned into a fiasco.

Pakistan conducted an air strike on a suspected militant training camp in South Waziristan on 16 January - after intense US pressure - putting an end to a peace deal between the two Waziristans and the Pakistani government. The revenge promised by local pro-Taliban militants came quickly, with an apparent sucide attack on 22 January in North Waziristan, killing at least three members of Pakistan's security forces.

The clerics who appear to have riled president Musharraf, are brothers Ghazi Abdul Rasheed and Maulana Abdul Aziz, the sons of the slain Maulana Abdullah, one of the oligarchs of the resistance against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Both are controversial religious figures and there have been direct requests from Washington and London for their arrests. They are both wanted by Pakistan's interior ministry and cannot leave the premises of the Lal Masjid, the central mosque in Islamabad, as there are warrants for their arrest.

However Pakistani security agencies' efforts to arrest them on a number of occasion have failed - in part because of resistance within the political establishment and of fear of the popular reaction in Islamabad and beyond.

This time though, sources told AKI that Musharraf reportedly told a gathering of senior officials at a meeting in Rawalpindi: "I don’t want them in federal capital. If you are unable to arrest them…shoot them."

Those attending reportedly disagreed categorically with the idea of an air strike in the capital city, and pointed out that the students of the influential clerics have already staged a powerful protest in the past few days against the demolition of two mosques in Islamabad and they are a force to be reckoned with.

"Yes, I confirm that we have received direct threats from high-level authorities within the military establishment that General Pervez Musharraf is personally very disgruntled with our seminaries in the federal capital and since the authorities failed to take any action against us…he wants to kill us both," said Ghazi Abdul Rasheed, in a telephone interview with Adnkronos International (AKI) from Islamabad.

Soon after 7 July 2005 bomb blasts on the London transport system which killed 56 people, Pakistani security forces carried out a massive crackdown on madrassas including those in Islamabad run by Maulana Abdul Aziz and Maulana Ghazi Abdul Rasheed.

However the female students at the seminary for girls not only resisted the crackdown but the entire operation also turned out to be very embarrassing for the Pakistani government. Many female students were seriously injured by policemen and several police officers were wounded by the girls.

The authorities opted to avoid a direct clash with those running the seminaries. However, Pakistan's interior ministry issued a warrant for the arrest of both brothers who were then forced to take refuge inside the seminary and the mosque.

Ghazi Abdul Rasheed and Maulana Abdul Aziz first made headlines when they issued a religious decree in 2004 against Pakistani armed forces personnel fighting against al-Qaeda militants in South Waziristan. The decree stated that Pakistani soldiers fighting South Waziristan did not deserve a Muslim funeral or burial at Muslim cemeteries in the event that they were killed while fighting in the tribal region which lies on the Pakistan-Afghan border.

The religious decree was well-received in extremist circles and 500 other religious scholars signed the edict. The decree turned out to be a major reason why many officers and soldiers in the Pakistani army refused to fight militants in Waziristan.

"We trust in Allah. We always abide by the law," Abdul Rasheed told AKI. "We will not retaliate even though we know the designs of General Pervez Musharraf.