Only Threat of Force Can Stop Iran, Israeli Lawmaker Says
By Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
December 15, 2005

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Threatening Iran with the use of "brute force" is the only way to force Tehran to back down from its pursuit of nuclear weapons, an Israeli lawmaker said.

Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said he told officials in Washington recently that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons can still be stopped without using force, but only if the West makes it clear to Iran that it will "consider brute force."

"It's the only chance [to make them back down]," Steinitz told Cybercast News Service. "If Iran becomes a nuclear power, it will become a global nuclear superpower," he warned.

Steinitz spoke to Cybercast News Service one day after the Israeli Army, in an unusual move, issued a statement clarifying the "Iranian nuclear issue" - specifically, comments made earlier by the head of the Israeli Army.

"Reports stating that in March 2006 Iran will reach the point of no return and will then produce a nuclear bomb are incorrect," the army said on Tuesday evening.

Earlier on Tuesday, Army Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz told Israeli lawmakers that Iran will have the technological capability to produce nuclear weapons within three months - "the point of no return" - although it won't produce an actual bomb for a number of years.

"Iran is determined to obtain the technological capability that will allow it to produce a nuclear bomb, but numerous obstacles remain in its path," Halutz told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. "Even if the Iranians pass the uranium-enrichment stage, they are still a number of years away from building the bomb," he added.

Numerous press reports picked up Halutz' "point of no return" remark, prompting Steinitz to criticize the term.

"I prefer not to use the term 'point of no return' because in the process of the development of nuclear weapons, there is no such point," Steinitz told Cybercast News Service.

Steinitz said it is possible to halt or dismantle Iran's nuclear development at any stage, and he said the term "point of no return" was "ambiguous and undefined."

He said when he challenged Halutz about the term, Halutz agreed to stop using the phrase.

In the past, Israel has indicated that the "point of no return" in Iran's nuclear program would be the point at which Iran starting enriching uranium, Steinitz said. But he noted that Libya had already started enriching uranium when it finally dismantled its nuclear program.

According to the Israeli Army's "clarification," the importance of March 2006 is that the International Atomic Energy Agency will meet then. "The expectation is that this meeting will lead to the prevention of Iranian progress in the research and development" of nuclear weapons, the statement said.

"Through this research and development program, Iran is attaining the technological knowledge necessary for the production of nuclear capabilities. Should this process be completed, Iran will be able to achieve independence in the development of a nuclear capability, in the near or far future," the Army said.

"For this reason, it is important to stop the process."

Despite his objection to the term of "point of no return," Steinitz said it is clear that "time is running out" to stop the Iranians, and only the threat of military action would deter the Iranian regime from its nuclear goals.

"The moment they start uranium enrichment it will take them one to three years to produce nuclear weapons. Time is running out for the world to prevent that," he said.

The last process the Iranians need is enrichment. They have already finished the conversion process whereby they have turned natural uranium into about 40 tons of UF6 gas, Steinitz explained.

The next step is to take that gas and to enrich it in a centrifuge. Four percent enrichment is enough for nuclear fuel, but if it is enriched to 90 percent, then it can be used for nuclear weapons, he said.

Russia Blasts Iranian Remarks on Holocaust, Israel
By Sergei Blagov
CNSNews.com Correspondent
December 15, 2005

Moscow (CNSNews.com) - Russia spoke out Thursday against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks denying the Holocaust, which came as an embarrassment for Moscow given its deepening ties with Tehran.

"Following statements by President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials on Holocaust and Israel ... we view attempts to review well known historical facts of the Second World War, including those connected with the Holocaust, as unacceptable," Russia's foreign ministry said in a statement.

"Speculation on these issues contradicts the United Nations Charter and views of the international community," it added.

Russian officials also warned of possible consequences for Iran.

Ahmadinejad's remarks could drive Iran into international isolation, said Mikhail Marguelov, head of the international affairs committee of Russia's upper house of parliament, the Federation Council.

"The Iranian president's xenophobia discredits the co-sponsors of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, including Russia," Marguelov told the Ekho Moskvy radio station Thursday.

"There is a feeling that Iran has taken upon itself the mission of stirring up the Middle East conflict and doing services to all sorts of extremists, and it may lead to the international isolation of Iran," Marguelov said.

Isolation would damage the interests of the Iranian people and hamper the country's economic development "in which Russian firms are actively involved," he added.

Echoing Ahmadinejad's remarks, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, Gholamali Haddad-Adel, accused "Zionists," the West and the U.S. of violating freedom of speech in connection with the Holocaust.

Addressing a gathering of Iranian expatriates during a visit to Moscow on Wednesday, he claimed that they "do not even permit anyone to express a single sentence against their claims about the Holocaust during World War II."

During his Dec. 11-13 visit to Russia, Haddad-Adel met with the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Alexeiy II, the head of the National Security Council, Igor Ivanov, and top lawmakers.

The Russian Orthodox Church said Russia and Iran should join efforts to oppose a unilateralist world order, a clear reference to the U.S. role in global affairs.

Haddad-Adel told journalists in Moscow he had discussed Russia's continuing cooperation with the Muslim world.

"I said that Iran would use its influence and promote the interaction process between Russia and the Islamic world both in Russia itself and abroad," Haddad-Adel said.

President Vladimir Putin earlier this week said during a visit to Chechnya that Russia was the Islamic world's most reliable partner.

Moscow has protested before about Tehran's controversial rhetoric.

Earlier this month, Russian special envoy to the Middle East Alexander Kalugin said Ahmadinejad's suggestion that Germany and Austria give up some of their territory to make room for Israel contradicted the international community's perception of Israel as a sovereign state.

"The proposal is unacceptable," Kalugin said.

Moscow and Tehran have drawn closer together economically in recent years, and Russia is building a controversial nuclear power plant at Bushehr.

Iran is embroiled in a dispute with the international community over a nuclear program it says is designed for power-generation, but the West suspects it is a cover for attempts to build atomic weapons.

Iran's interior min.: Holocaust remarks 'misunderstood'

By Arnon Regular, Haaretz Correspondent, and News Agencies

Iran's interior minister on Friday said widely condemned remarks by the Iranian president on Israel and the Holocaust had been "misunderstood" by Western governments.

"Actually the case has been misunderstood," Mostafa Pur Mohammadi told The Associated Press, on the sidelines of an Athens conference on immigration. "He wanted to say that if certain people have created troubles for the Jewish community they should bear the expenses, and it is not others who should pay for that," he said.

"A historical incident has occurred. Correct or not correct. We don't want to launch research or carry out historical investigation about it," he added.
European leaders warned Tehran on Friday in a draft summit statement that the Iranian president's recent remarks denying the Holocaust could be grounds for sanctions against Iran.

EU leaders will tell Tehran they will keep their "diplomatic options under close review" for possible sanctions against Iran, diplomats said.

German lawmakers on Friday unanimously condemned the Iranian president's verbal attacks on Israel and denial of the Holocaust, while urging the Berlin government to keep pressing Tehran to change course.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments were "completely unacceptable," according to a motion adopted by lawmakers from all six parties in the German parliament. The motion urged the government to "counter any policy that disputes Israel's right to exist and denies the Holocaust."

German leaders have called for the United Nations to join many countries in condemning Ahmadinejad, who in October called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and on Wednesday called the Holocaust a "myth" used to create a Jewish state in the Middle East.

Denying the Holocaust is a crime in Germany.

German officials are considering imposing some form of travel restriction on Ahmadinejad after his denials that the Holocaust happened, a senior foreign ministry official said on Thursday.

Some German lawmakers have urged their government to consider excluding Iran from the World Cup soccer tournament to take place in Germany next year.

Leaders across Europe strongly condemned Ahmadinejad's statements earlier this week.

A summit statement drafted Thursday by EU foreign ministers said of Ahmadinejad's statement that the Holocaust was a myth, "These comments are wholly unacceptable and have no place in civilized political debate."

It also voiced grave concern at Iran's failure to remove suspicions about its nuclear intentions and said: "The window of opportunity will not remain open indefinitely."

Iranian Defence Minister Mohammad Najjar said that "Iran's response will be swift, strong and devastating," when asked how Iran would respond to a potential Israeli military attack, the official IRNA news agency reported on Friday.

Also Friday, French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has been convicted several times of making anti-Semitic remarks, said that he was shocked by Ahmadinejad's comments.

"I find this shocking and I do not share at all the declarations of the Iranian president," Le Pen told French radio France-Inter.

Khaled Meshal, the head of Hamas's political bureau, praised the Iranian president for his comments on the Holocaust.

Meshal, who is currently visiting Iran, was quoted by Iranian news agencies as having told a press conference: "It seems that the president's words did not find favor with regional and international leaders. But despite this, the Muslim public supported Iran on this issue in the past and will also support it in the future."

Referring to recent statements by Ahmadinejad that Israel should either be "wiped off the map" or be relocated to Europe, Meshal added: "The Iranian government's position on Palestine fills Muslim hearts with pride."

He also said that Hamas would step up terror attacks against Israel should Israel take military action against Iran's nuclear program.

International condemnation
Russia responded on Thursday to Ahmadinejad's latest remarks on the Holocaust and Israel by reaffirming its condemnation of revisionist attempts to deny the Holocaust and reiterating its support for Israel's right to a peaceful and secure existence.

The statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry did not directly condemn Ahmadinejad but said it was necessary to restate Moscow's "principled position."

"Speculation on these themes runs contrary to the principles of the UN Charter and the opinion of the world community," the statement said.

A top Vatican cardinal said Thursday that it was shocking and unacceptable for the Iranian president to have said the Holocaust was a myth.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, a German who heads the Vatican's office for relations with Jews, spoke at a luncheon by the Anti-Defamation League as he received an award for his efforts to improve Catholic-Jewish relations.

"It is shocking to hear from the mouth of the president of a nation with an ancient and venerable culture, as the Iranian nation is, expressions of anti-Semitism which for every human being are unacceptable," Kasper said. "To call the Holocaust a myth is a new injustice to the victims of this unprecedented genocide."

Kasper's comments were the strongest to date by a Vatican official on the Iranian president's statements. In October, the Vatican deemed such statements as "unacceptable" but did not mention Iran by name.

Military chief says Iran prepared for war with the West Mon. 12 Dec 2005



Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Dec. 12 – The Supreme Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi called for all Islamic nations to unite under one flag.

According to a statement released by Safavi’s office on Sunday, the ranking commander of the elite force told a gathering of IRGC officers and female combatants that Iran was ready to face all foreign threats.

“In parallel with threats posed, the IRGC will upgrade its structure, courses, utilities, and equipment with today’s technological advancements. The IRGC’s forces are ready to face any foreign and domestic threat in accordance with this doctrine”, Safavi said.

The military chief said that there was good unity among Iran’s government, Majlis (Parliament), and judiciary to counter foreign threats. “Domestic and foreign enemies are worried of unity and steadfastness inside the country and try to create ethnic strife in various regions [in Iran], especially in the border regions, using various excuses including underdevelopment”, he said.

Safavi went on to say that the theory for a uni-polar globe had met defeat. “Taking into consideration the existence of power poles, including Europe and certain Asian countries, nations of the Islamic world can be defined as a world power pole. They can even create a Union of Islamic States that can defend their religious identity and supremacy”.

“There has been an increase of Islamic awakening following the victory of the [1979] Islamic revolution in Iran. The world’s Muslims have experienced an example of a religious democracy in the Islamic Republic.

“The United States was after control of the world’ political, economic, and cultural leadership, but the Islamic revolution, Islamic awakening, and the events in Iraq and Afghanistan have helped in brining about America’s defeat in its goals.

“At present, America’s foreign policy boat has gotten stuck in mud in Iraq. This country’s leaders in Iraq neither have a plan to move forward nor a plan to move back. If in Iraq’s parliamentary elections America’s opponents come to power, the occupiers must accept their defeat and leave Iraq”.

Earlier this month, the IRGC chief declared that the U.S. would suffer a greater defeat in Iraq than it did in its war in Vietnam.

Safavi told a gathering of senior military commanders in the north-eastern city of Mashad that a future Iraq would be in the hands of Muslims.

“America’s uni-polar domination of the world has failed”, Safavi said.

Referring to the Thursday’s parliamentary elections in Iraq, he said, “More than 50 percent of Iraq’s parliament will be comprised of committed and Islamic forces. The future of Iraq will be in the hands of Muslims”.


Copyright Iranfocus.com © 2005 All rights reserved.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad says world 'on verge of change'

"Present unstable order breaking down"

12 December 2005

TEHRAN, Dec 12 (AFP) - Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday stood by his latest controversial attack against Israel and boldly asserted the world was "on the verge of change".

The outspoken president said Western powers "know that any change in Palestine will change the world's political, economic and cultural arrangement, and therefore they support the Zionist regime's most wicked deeds."

"The world is on the verge of change, and more than before we can hear the sound of this present unstable order breaking down," the student news agency ISNA quoted him as telling a conference entitled "Supporting the Islamic Revolution of Palestine".

If the massacre of the Jews in Europe is true and used as an excuse to support Zionists, why should the Palestinians pay the price?" he added, repeating a comment that has widely been interpreted as support for deniers of the Holocaust.

Ahmadinejad, who in October said arch-enemy Israel should be "wiped off the map", said last last week that if Germany and Austria believed Jews were massacred during World War II, a state of Israel should be established on their soil.

His comments again drew widespread international condemnation, and the UN Security Council also issued a statement to "condemn the remarks about Israel and the denial of the Holocaust attributed to Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

But Ahmadinejad said "Western policy in regards to Palestine has always been in favour of the Zionist regime and harmed the Islamic world, and they cannot be the mediators and judges on the issue."

"All Islamic countries must strive to change the Islamic world's stance after 60 or 70 years in a passive state," he said.

Elected on an platform of restoring the "purity" of the Islamic revolution, Ahmadinejad's hardline stance has already worried European countries seeking to strike a deal over Tehran's controversial nuclear programme.

Despite its fiery rhetoric, the Iranian regime says its nuclear programme is merely designed to meet domestic energy needs.

Iran warns Israel of swift retaliation


Friday 16 December 2005, 18:11 Makka Time, 15:11 GMT


Defence Minister Najjar says Iran will retaliate if attacked



Related:
EU to discuss Ahmadinejad remarks
Ahmadinejad: Courting controversy
US rules out security pledge for Iran
Israel slams 'dangerous' Ahmadinejad



Tools:
Email Article
Print Article
Send Your Feedback




Rhetorical hostilities between Iran and Israel have grown sharper with Iran's defence minister warning that any Israeli attack would provoke a "swift and destructive" response.



"The policy of the Islamic republic of Iran is completely defensive, but if we are attacked, the answer of the armed forces will be swift, firm and destructive," Mostafa Mohammad Najjar was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency on Friday.

He was responding to a question about Iran's reaction in case of an attack on its nuclear facilities, already under scrutiny as international unease grows over the Islamic republic's nuclear intentions.

"The doomed fate of (Iraqi ex-president) Saddam (Hussein) must be a lesson for officials of the usurping Zionist regime," Najjar added in a reference to the Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988 in which around a million people were killed.

Angry rhetoric


President Ahmadinejad has
recently strongly criticised Israel


A heated verbal exchange has intensified between the Jewish state and Iran over a series of anti-Israel outbursts by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.

In October the President Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and this week he described the Jewish Holocaust as a "myth".

European leaders warned in a draft statement on Friday that Ahmadinejad's statements could be grounds for sanctions against Iran.

"The EU condemns unreservedly President Ahmadinejad's call for the eradication of Israel and his denial of the Holocaust and the European Council is gravely concerned at Iran's failure to build confidence that its nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful."

Israeli officials and politicians, meanwhile, have openly discussed the possibility of an attack on Iran, either alone or with other countries, that would aim to cripple Iran's nuclear development capabilities. Defence Ministry official Amos Gilad said on Sunday that Israel has not ruled out a military strike against Iran if it advances further toward nuclear weapons.

Israeli plans

Israel is also acquiring dozens of US warplanes with long-range fuel tanks that would allow them to reach Tehran and return without refuelling.

"The policy of Iran is completely defensive, but if we are attacked, the answer of the armed forces will be swift, firm and destructive"

Mostafa Mohammad Najjar,
Iranian defence minister





Israel, whose warplanes destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, maintains a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East.

While it neither admits nor denies nuclear arms, Israel is thought to harbour about 200 nuclear warheads deployed on ballistic missiles, aircraft and submarines, according to the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

There are also concerns that a US attack on Iran is possible, since top US officials have repeatedly declined to rule out such action should Tehran acquire nuclear weapons.

Iran denies that it seeks nuclear bombs, saying its programme is confined to electricity generation. But the UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has said it cannot give Iran a clean bill of health because of incomplete data.


Agencies

Iran warns Israel of 'destructive' response Aljazeera.net
Rhetorical hostilities between Iran and Israel have grown sharper with Iran's defence minister warning that any Israeli attack would provoke a "swift and destructive" response. "The policy of the Islamic republic of Iran is completely defensive, but if we are attacked, the answer of the armed forces will be swift, firm and destructive," Mostafa Mohammad Najjar was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency on Friday. He was responding to a question about Iran's reaction in case of an attack on its nuclear facilities, already under scrutiny as international unease grows over the Islamic republic's nuclear intentions.
Iran leader's remarks may mar nuclear talks Chicago Tribune
Anti-Israel remarks 'misunderstood,' says Iranian official CBC News
Bloomberg - AKI - Seattle Times - Forbes - all 1,485 related »

In Iran, Arming for Armageddon

By Charles Krauthammer

Lest you get carried away with today's good news from Iraq, consider what's happening next door in Iran. The wild pronouncements of the new Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have gotten sporadic press ever since he called for Israel to be wiped off the map. He subsequently amended himself to say that Israel should simply be extirpated from the Middle East map and moved to some German or Austrian province. Perhaps near the site of an old extermination camp?

Except that there were no such camps, indeed no Holocaust at all, says Ahmadinejad. Nothing but "myth," a "legend" that was "fabricated . . . under the name 'Massacre of the Jews.' " This brought the usual reaction from European and American officials, who, with Churchillian rage and power, called these statements unacceptable. That something serious might accrue to Iran for this -- say, expulsion from the United Nations for violating its most basic principle by advocating the outright eradication of a member state -- is, of course, out of the question.

To be sure, Holocaust denial and calls for Israel's destruction are commonplace in the Middle East. They can be seen every day on Hezbollah TV, in Syrian media, in Egyptian editorials appearing in semiofficial newspapers. But none of these aspiring mass murderers are on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons that could do in one afternoon what it took Hitler six years to do: destroy an entire Jewish civilization and extinguish 6 million souls.

Everyone knows where Iran's nuclear weapons will be aimed. Everyone knows they will be put on Shahab rockets, which have been modified so that they can reach Israel. And everyone knows that if the button is ever pushed, it will be the end of Israel.

But it gets worse. The president of a country about to go nuclear is a confirmed believer in the coming apocalypse. Like Judaism and Christianity, Shiite Islam has its own version of the messianic return -- the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. The more devout believers in Iran pray at the Jamkaran mosque, which houses a well from which, some believe, he will emerge.

When Ahmadinejad unexpectedly won the presidential elections, he immediately gave $17 million of government funds to the shrine. Last month Ahmadinejad said publicly that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam.

And as in some versions of fundamentalist Christianity, the second coming will be accompanied by the usual trials and tribulations, death and destruction. Iranian journalist Hossein Bastani reported Ahmadinejad saying in official meetings that the hidden imam will reappear in two years.

So a Holocaust-denying, virulently anti-Semitic, aspiring genocidist, on the verge of acquiring weapons of the apocalypse, believes that the end is not only near but nearer than the next American presidential election. (Pity the Democrats. They cannot catch a break.) This kind of man would have, to put it gently, less inhibition about starting Armageddon than a normal person. Indeed, with millennial bliss pending, he would have positive incentive to, as they say in Jewish eschatology, hasten the end.

To be sure, there are such madmen among the other monotheisms. The Temple Mount Faithful in Israel would like the al-Aqsa mosque on Jerusalem's Temple Mount destroyed to make way for the third Jewish Temple and the messianic era. The difference with Iran, however, is that there are all of about 50 of these nuts in Israel, and none of them is president.

The closest we've come to a messianically inclined leader in America was a secretary of the interior who 24 years ago, when asked about his stewardship of the environment, told Congress: "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns; whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations." But James Watt's domain was the forest, and his weapon of choice was the chainsaw. He was not in charge of nuclear weapons to be placed on missiles that are paraded through the streets with, literally, Israel's name on them. (They are adorned with banners reading "Israel must be wiped off the map.") It gets worse. After his U.N. speech in September, Ahmadinejad was caught on videotape telling a cleric that during the speech an aura, a halo, appeared around his head right on the podium of the General Assembly. "I felt the atmosphere suddenly change. And for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. . . . It seemed as if a hand was holding them there, and it opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic Republic."

Negotiations to deny this certifiable lunatic genocidal weapons have been going nowhere. Everyone knows they will go nowhere. And no one will do anything about it.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com


Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/e...er=emailarticle

EU summit condemns Iranian leader over remarks on Israel People's Daily Online
The European Union (EU) summit on Friday condemned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over his controversial remarks on Israel, said a declaration issued by the summit. "The European Council condemns unreservedly President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for the eradication of Israel and his denial of the holocaust," said the declaration obtained by Xinhua on Friday from an EU source. "These comments are wholly unacceptable and have no place in civilized political debate," said the document.
Growing Concern Over Iran's Nuclear Ambitions Voice of America
Iran Could Be Sanctioned for Riling Israel ABC News
Payvand - AKI - CNN International - Terra España - all 1,532 related »

Purple haze Guardian Unlimited
Opponents of the war in Iraq may be irritated at the triumphal notes emanating from Washington and London after Thursday's peaceful election. George Bush - who mentioned the word "victory" no less than 15 times in a recent speech - called the event "historic". Tony Blair went for "extraordinary and inspiring". The adjectives are not incorrect. But they need context - and a health warning. If the estimated 70% turnout and the mass participation of the Sunni minority can help construct a stable and workable political system it will be more by good luck and the resilience of ordinary Iraqis than the good judgment of the governments which went to war in 2003. And that "if" remains formidably big. The election itself solves nothing. It is not a turning point in the sense that from now on everything will suddenly be different. It would be naive not to expect the insurgency to resume once the security lockdown has ended. Thousands of purple fingers - stained in indelible proof of a cast ballot - point the way ahead. But Iraq's future remains deeply uncertain.
IRAQI POLL HAILED A SUCCESS Special Broadcasting Service
Sunni wants coalition Los Angeles Daily News
Lincoln Journal Star - Denver Post - Forbes - CNN International - all 2,828 related »

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20051217/...RAN-USA-DC.html


US, Europe step up planning on Iran


By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Faced with an increasingly hard line from Iran, the United States and Europe have stepped up planning for tougher diplomatic action should Tehran follow through on threats to resume critical nuclear activities, according to U.S. officials and European diplomats.

The U.S. and its European allies are seeking agreement among themselves on precisely when Iran's nuclear program will have progressed to the point that the matter should be taken to the U.N. Security Council and what kinds of sanctions might be pursued there, the officials and diplomats said.

Tehran insists it only aims to produce civilian nuclear energy. Allies say the program is to produce weapons.

Russia, which is building Iran's nuclear power plant at Bushehr in southern Iran, remains a serious impediment. The United States fears that weapons grade plutonium could be extracted from the Bushehr reactor once it goes on line.

The United States and major European nations -- Britain, France and Germany -- have long threatened to bring the issue to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

But negotiations appear at an impasse and new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has alarmed the world with aggressive calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

"Increasingly, we feel the Iranians are just not interested in any sort of privately negotiated solution to this problem, that what they are interested in is a political confrontation over it," one European diplomat told Reuters.

Under the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which Iran signed, member states are guaranteed the right to develop a full nuclear fuel cycle but are banned from making weapons.

The Bush administration is under growing pressure from Congress and pro-Israel groups to soften its stance toward Tehran. They want the nuclear issue referred to the U.N. Security Council, where sanctions could be imposed.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Robert Joseph, who oversees nonproliferation issues, was in Europe this week for meetings that included discussions on Iran.

U.S. and European experts are to meet Iran next week to see if negotiations can resume, but the outlook is pessimistic.

"I think there are a lot of different pieces moving toward an interesting point on Iran, especially the nuclear piece," a U.S. official said.

A pro-Israel advocate said administration officials "are considering harder approaches. Things are moving on a faster track."

A second European diplomat said while there was a U.S. trend to "toughen the position" on Iran, some Europeans preferred to keeping trying to draw Russia into a unified position.

Efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program would suffer if the issue was moved to the Security Council and the council was too divided to take action, some analysts said.

U.S. officials say if the Security Council discussed Iran's nuclear program, sanctions would not be imposed immediately, while the council tried other diplomatic pressures.

WHERE IS THE 'RED LINE'?

Also under discussion is what the United States and other states would consider their "red line" -- the point at which Iran has crossed into a dangerous activity that cannot be tolerated.

"We cannot achieve anything until we are certain we see things the same way," the second European diplomat said.

Iran froze work at its Isfahan nuclear facility in late 2004 under a deal with Britain, France and Germany but resumed uranium conversion in August 2005.

Tehran has threatened to go further and begin uranium enrichment, the most sensitive part of the nuclear cycle. The United States, Britain, France and Germany generally agree any further steps would be unacceptable but Russia is more lenient, officials said.

IRAN NUKES

- Iran Vows Destructive Response To Any Israeli Attack
http://www.spacewar.com/news/nuclear-doctrine-05zzze.html

Tehran (AFP) Dec 16, 2005 - Iran on Friday warned its response to any attack by arch-enemy Israel would be "swift and destructive," amid rising tensions over Iran's stance toward the Jewish state.

- GCC Leaders Meet Amid Calls On Iran To Drop Nucleur Plans
http://www.spacewar.com/news/iran-05zzzzzzzq.html

- Israeli president accuses EU of 'weakness' towards Iran
http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051218122840.h53vpw22.html

- Iran Cannot Be Trusted With Nuclear Technology Says Rice
http://www.spacewar.com/news/nuclear-doctrine-05zzzd.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GL20Ak01.html

Iran wins big in Iraq's elections
By M K Bhadrakumar

"We knew ever since the beginning [of the Iraq war] that the Americans would become trapped in a quagmire ... Iraq has become a turning point in the history of the Middle East. If the Americans had succeeded in subjugating Iraq, our region would have suffered once again from colonialism, but if Iraq becomes a democratic country that can stand on its own feet, the Americans will face the greatest loss. In such an eventuality, Iran and other regional states will be able to play an important role in world issues since they provide a huge share of the world's energy needs. We see now that the United States has been defeated."

Such a statement has to have come out of Iran, and without a
doubt President George W Bush would attribute it to that "odd guy", as he referred to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in a recent PBS TV interview.

But, as with just about anything else these days concerning the Middle East, Bush would be dead wrong, as would be many others who have misread Iran at this momentous juncture in the region. The excerpts are from a speech at Friday prayers at Tehran University, made by someone whom the Western world has come to regard as the consummate "pragmatic conservative" (whatever that might mean) of Iranian politics, former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

There is one thing for which Rafsanjani is famous - he seldom mixes illusions with reality. And the reality is that the Middle East's political compass shifted last week.

As the trends became available regarding the Iraqi elections of last Thursday, what has emerged is that contrary to all pre-poll projections, the Shi'ite religious coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), not only held together, but also can be expected to dominate the new 275-member National Assembly for the next four years.

More importantly, the "secular" candidates who were believed to enjoy links with the US security agencies would seem to have been routed. Former premier Iyad Allawi's prospects of leading the new government seem virtually nil. And Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Accord suffered a shattering defeat.

The prognosis that Sunnis would flock to Allawi or that Shi'ite constituents were disillusioned with the "fundamentalist" UIA and would be drawn to Allawi's secular platform has also proved to be highly faulty.

All indications are that in the Shi'ite provinces such as Najaf, Karbala, Qadisiyah, Maysan, Diwaniya, Amara, Nasiriyah and Samawa, anywhere between 70% to 90% of the votes may have gone to the UIA, and that even in the mixed Babil, Diyala and Baghdad provinces the UIA may well secure the most number of seats. Some reports indicate the UIA as getting probably as high as 70% of the votes in Babil - a magnificent performance in a mixed Shi'ite-Sunni province.

According to reports, early returns show a strong performance by the followers of the outspoken Shi'ite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, on the UIA slate. Some reports estimate Muqtada's nominees winning almost one third of the UIA slate.

Worse still for the US, the "Sunni factor" choreographed by the American viceroys also seems to have come up with surprises. Al-Hayat newspaper commented that the two Sunni politicians who would appear to have done extremely well were Islamist leader Adnan Dulaimi and Ba'athist leader Salih al-Mutlak. (The latter is already being billed as the "Gerry Adams of Iraq", a reference to the mercurial Sinn Fein leader.)

Moreover, former members of the Ba'ath Party and other militia leaders have lost no time asserting that despite the Sunni participation in the elections, their armed resistance to the American military occupation would be resumed. (Since the elections, 10 Iraqis, including five police officers and an American, have been killed.)

Al-Hayat quoted a Ba'ath communique condemning the elections as an American plot to divide Iraq along ethnic and religious lines and vowing that resistance would not end until US troops left Iraqi soil. So much for the delicate distinction that American spokesmen were making between "Ba'athists" and "Saddamists".

With the ascendancy of Muqtada and Mutlak in the fragmented political spectrum, the calls for American troops to leave Iraq can be expected to become more strident. In the new climate, the incoming parliament itself may well make such a formal demand on the Americans. The hurried visit by US Vice President Dick Cheney to Baghdad on Sunday, his first ever since the US invasion in 2003, underscores the disarray surfacing in Washington.

Iran has, therefore, every reason to be pleased with the outcome of the election. Tehran sees that Iraq is now irreversibly on the verge of profound change, and transition is already in the air. The US is increasingly finding that it must come up with a clear plan to withdraw its troops from Iraq. As prominent Lebanese political observer Rami Khouri wrote on Saturday, "Starting the American military retreat from Iraq is important because American troops will continue to be a divisive and destabilizing force, just as the American military presence in Saudi Arabia after the 1991 war was a major provocation leading to Osama bin Laden-type resistance and terror."

Khouri (who cannot be described even remotely as "anti-American" on the intellectual plane) suggested 18 months as a "target date" for Washington to pull out its troops from Iraq. Tehran is conscious that any American withdrawal from Iraq cannot be summarily done. It will have to be preceded by a broader regional understanding over Iraq's stability and cohesion, which inevitably involves Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Equally so, new regional security arrangements also become necessary.

No less important for Tehran were the local Palestinian elections last week in West Bank cities. According to the preliminary results, the Islamic militant group Hamas won resounding victories. Coming as it does barely six weeks ahead of crucial parliamentary elections (scheduled for January 25), this development significantly impacts on the Palestinian problem and also alters the scope and dimensions of Middle East politics as a whole.

Hamas remains committed to the destruction of Israel, and is considered a terrorist group by Israel, the US and the European Union. The implications for the tepid peace process with Israel are bound to be serious. An existential dilemma forthwith arises for the "international community": can it any longer remain myopic and exclude Hamas from the the Middle East's political landscape?

But, more importantly, along with the significant showing by the Muslim Brotherhood in last month's elections in Egypt and the incremental "Islamization" of Iraq that is unmistakably under way (and that will get a fillip from the Iraqi elections), Hamas' emergence at the forefront of Palestinian politics signifies a huge eruption of popular disenchantment with the prevailing governance systems. Simply put, Islamism has placed itself in the vanguard of the Middle East's democratization - like "liberation theology" did at one time in Latin America.

There was a great deal of political symbolism in the fact that Hamas' chief, Khaled Meshaal, happened to be visiting Tehran as the results of the Palestinian elections became known. (Interestingly, Rafsanjani was among those in the top echelons of the Iranian leadership who received Meshaal.)

The Hamas leader seized the opportunity to hold a press conference, during which he said: "If Israel attacks Iran, then Hamas will widen and step up its confrontation of Israelis inside Palestine ... Hamas and other Islamic groups will stand by Iran's side. We are defenders of Iran's obvious right [to have a nuclear program] ... Iran is our source of pride."

Britain has done well by scheduling exploratory talks between the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) and Iran at the official level on Wednesday. The political geography of the Middle East is transforming so rapidly that the protagonists cannot but factor in an entirely new matrix of regional security and stability. The time for indulging in sophistries and vacuous rhetoric over Iran's nuclear issue is running out.

The challenge facing the EU-3 lies in breaking the deadlock by advancing its offer to Iran made in August under the terms of the Paris Agreement. As the former International Atomic Energy Agency head (1981-1997) and UN chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, said last week, "I am not convinced that the EU has offered sufficiently interesting things to the Iranians ... when you compare these things that have been offered to Iran with what has been offered to North Korea, I am not sure that one is at the negotiations' end."

Blix was caustic that up to now, the EU-3 remained "constrained by the backseat driver whom they have in the car, the Americans".

M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001).

(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing .)

IRAN NUKES

- Policy Watch: Iran's Atomic Offer
http://www.spacewar.com/news/iran-05zzzzzzzr.html

Washington (UPI) Dec 19, 2005 - Something odd occurred earlier this month in Tehran. In the midst of several belligerent statements made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about America and Israel came something of an olive branch from the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

- No Evidence Of Iran Nuclear Weapons Program Says Russian Spy Chief
http://www.spacewar.com/news/iran-05zzzzzzzs.html

- Diplomats Say Iran Laying Groundwork For Uranium Enrichment
http://www.spacewar.com/news/iran-05zzzzzzzt.html

Iranians Shrug Off Ban on Western Music Forbes
A young woman driving through the Iranian capital blared the Eagles' "Hotel California" from her car speakers - an act that would have gotten her pulled over by police, and possibly arrested, 20 years ago during the frenzy of the Islamic Revolution. To Pari Mahmoudi, who grew up in an era when many of the 1979 revolution's restrictions have been dropped or ignored, a new ban on Western music ordered this week by Iran's hard-line president seems too ludicrous to be real. "Don't take this man seriously," the 25-year-old scoffed Tuesday, referring to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But some fear the ban that Ahmadinejad enacted Monday is a sign of more to come. The order affects only state-run television and radio, which occasionally play Western music - without lyrics - in the background of newscasts or other programs.
Iran declares ban on western music Guardian Unlimited
Iran to pull plug on West's music Houston Chronicle
Los Angeles Times - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty - Indianapolis Star - Melbourne Herald Sun - all 434 related »

CIA's Goss Reportedly Warned Ankra Of Iranian Threat:

During his recent visit to Ankara, CIA Director Porter Goss reportedly brought three dossiers on Iran to Ankara. Goss also asked Ankara to be ready for a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria.
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=89033

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria has signed a pact for the storage of Ian’s nuclear weapons and missiles – Jane’s Defense Weekly

December 21, 2005, 1:29 PM (GMT+02:00)

The Damascus-Tehran strategic accord is meant to protect both countries from international pressure over their banned weapons programs. Syria commits to allow Iran to “safely store weapons, sensitive equipment or even hazardous materials on Syrian soil, should Iran need such help in time of crisis” – namely UN sanctions. In January, 2003, DEBKAfile revealed that Syria provided a similar clandestine storage service for Saddam Hussein’s WMD.

The pact obliges Syria to continue to supply the Iranian-sponsored Hizballah with weapons, ammunition and communications. Iran has been the Hizballah’s leading arms supplier, filling out the 15,000 missiles and rockets the Shiite terrorist group has deployed along the Lebanese-Israeli border.

Copyright 2000-2005 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=20586

Iran's Interference in Iraq
By Daniel M. Zucker
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 20, 2005

The Islamic Republic of Iran has desired to dominate its neighbor ever since the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War in September 1980. Indeed the late Ayatollah Ruhoallah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic, declared his desire to conquer Qods that is Jerusalem, by way of Kerbala, the Shiite holy city in south central Iraq. Although the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988 in a stalemate after eight long, hard years, Khomeini's dream was not forgotten by his followers. It has taken Iran some seventeen years to achieve its goal, but with the unintentional help of America and our allies, Saddam Hussein having been removed from power, the Iranian regime and her proxies have succeeded in filling the power vacuum. Iran has become the de facto ruler of much of Iraq. How has Teheran done this?



When Saddam Hussein went after the Shiite marsh Arabs in 1991, following the First Gulf War, Iran opened its borders and allowed their fellow Shiite Iraqis to find safe haven. Iran also began to support these Iraqis and through providing social services indoctrinated them in its fundamentalist approach to Islam. The roots of a Khomeini type of Islamic outlook were planted in the Shia Iraqis living in Iran at that point. Leaders were cultivated and organizations like the Supreme Islamic Council for the Revolution in Iraq (SICRI), led by Ayatollah Bakir Al Hakim, were encouraged and supported. As long as Saddam remained in power, the Iranians bided their time, content to cause Saddam an occasional headache. But once their old nemesis was neutralized, the ayatollahs saw that they had a perfect opportunity to fill the vacuum. Iran also has given support and encouragement to Muqtada al Sadr, leader of the 'al-Mahdi Army", another Shiite resistance group in Iraq.



SICRI organized the Badr Corps as its militia, with the direct help of the Pasdaran, Iran's 'Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps", Khomeini's and Khámenei's theological army. It is the Badr Organization which has been involved in running the secret prisons for the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior.


Since the American invasion of Iraq, Iran began to forge political ties with a variety of Iraqi political parties and ethnic groups. Both ethnicities and religious factions were wooed and/or seduced with money and power, as were some secularists. If you are getting confused about changing alliances in Iraq, welcome to the Middle-East; check you watch and the calendar to see who is aligned with whom.



Along with the political ties that Teheran began to fertilize (everyone present understands what type of fertilizer the Iranians use? Hint: it's not Tohmins, but it's green) the regime set its proxies such as the Ansar es-Islam terrorist group to spread chaos in the northeast, and with the Badr Organization, to support insurrection in the Shia south and Baghdad regions.



The Iranian support for insurrection became crystal clear this past July when munitions with Iranian manufacture signatures were discovered by our British allies to be used by Iraqi insurrectionists against the British tanks in the Basra region. Subsequently, our forces have encountered special armor piercing Iranian mines as well, with deadly consequences. The Iraqi-Iranian border having become exceedingly porous, trucks from Iran are reported to cross regularly, loaded with arms and munitions for use against the Allied forces. Our military has become very familiar with Iranian manufactured hardware (i.e., arms and munitions), the hard way.



Of late, Iranian importations into Iran have included huge amounts of propaganda materials concerning the December 15th elections of tomorrow. The Iranian regime wants to have a slate elected that is close to it and will accept an Islamic state similar to the Iranian model. Iran is backing SICRI in order to produce a clone of itself. All the while Teheran keeps on claiming that it is not interfering in Iraqi affairs. Believe that--and since I'm from New York--I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, cheap!



If Iran were only sending propaganda materials into Iraq—around here we'd call it 'lobbying"—it would not be so bad, although it definitely is a form of interference. But Iran is not content to allow the Iraqi public to vote on its own for its choice. No, in typical regime fashion, it has sent teams of Vevak agents (agents of the dreaded Ministry of Intelligence and Security, MOIS) to harass, intimidate and assassinate rival candidates as well as elections' observers so as to influence the outcome. Not content with these criminal activities, Iranian agents also have bribed individuals, smeared rivals with the Baathist label, invented fictitious voters, imported Iranians to vote, and resurrected the dead to vote (just like in Iran this last June) and arranged to have ballot boxes disappear.



There are documentations and testimonies of the Iranian-organized, trained, and sponsored Badr organization's involvement in the several Iraqi Ministry of the Interior torture-center/prisons, a new one uncovered with some 625 Sunni detainees just one week ago. While Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr Solagh has denied the allegation of torture, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates otherwise. Sunni Arab detainees haven't acquired strange tattoos while in his prisons; they have acquired the classic signs of those who have suffered torture.



Along with all these misdeeds, the Iranian regime has used its influence on the new Shiite Iraqi government to threaten and pressure the Iranian resistance organization, (Mujahedin-e- Khalq) MeK, arranging to have the Interior Ministry cut off water and food supplies to Camp Ashraf in Diyalah Province where nearly four thousand Iranian resistance members are housed under the provisions of Article Four of the Geneva Conventions and the protection of the US Army. The Interior Ministry has threatened to revoke the Mek members' protected status and their welcome in Iraq--a status confirmed by 2.8 million Iraqi signatures on a petition of support for the MeK—and to require them to repatriate to Iran by the end of October, 2006, which would amount to a certain death sentence for every one. Iran has also arranged the kidnapping of two MeK members in Baghdad last August; to date, nothing has been heard of either of them.



Now, what can we do to curb Iranian influence and interference in Iraq? I believe that it's time for us to recognize that our long term enemy are the Islamic fundamentalists, whether Sunni or Shia. Of nation states, it is Iran that poses the greatest threat to us today. It is time for us to recognize that presently we are supporting the wrong groups in Iraq, groups that are closely allied with Iran and are acting as Iran's proxies. It is time for us to say: 'Stop; we're changing sides in order to support those forces that oppose Iran and also believe in democracy."



We need to realize that so far, we have given Iraq to the Iranians. This also means that in this not so nice, nor so perfect neighborhood, we don't have the luxury of having that many friends in the region. Problems in Iraq are not going to be solved in a day or two; we need to realize that we are in this for quite some time to come. At the same time, we need to be more sophisticated in our comprehension of with whom and with what we are dealing.



Now what about Iran itself? It's time for our government to realize that the MeK is not a terrorist organization, never was, and never will be, unless our government, God forbid, were to be taken over by the mullahs. It is the regime in Teheran that rightly fears the MeK and the larger political coalition of NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), because both oppose the cruel, despotic, theocratic rule of the ayatollahs, and both are sworn to overthrow the regime in order to end Islamic rule in Iran and to turn Iran into a secular democracy, at peace with the world.



So what are our policy options? Clearly change in regime is essential. After eight years it should be clear that appeasement does not work. It did not work with Hitler; it has not worked with the ayatollahs.



Option number two, the military option is a non-starter for two reasons. First, we do not have the same situation as Israel had with the Osirak reactor in 1981. The Iranian nuclear project is much better hidden and along with not knowing all the sites, too many are in urban centers where collateral damage is unacceptable.



Second, Iranians--as much as they hate the regime, and some 90+% do hate it—Iranians are patriotic and would rally behind the flag to expel any foreign invader, even one who came to 'liberate" them from despotic rule. So, as strong as our military is, it does not help us here, and most of us here realize that we already are stretched somewhat thinly with our commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq.



This brings us to option number three: regime change by the Iranian people itself. As Bruce McColm of Iran Policy Committee indicates, the principal opposition group is the MeK/NCRI; Iran is more concerned about this group than all other groups combined. But because of a failed policy of appeasement and the regime's successful disinformation campaign this group remains on the State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list. As many in Washington have said, it is time to take them off of the list and re-empower the Iranian people to throw off the tyranny of the ayatollahs.

Iran Policy Committee's White Papers # 3 indicates why the MeK and the NCRI should be taken off the FTO list. Read the white paper yourself and judge the facts. I trust any objective reader will come to the right conclusions, because the truth is that only the MeK is popular enough, and thank God, democratic enough to lead the Iranian people in a successful democratic revolution against the mullah regime of Ali Khámenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That is the reason that the regime regards the MeK as its only real enemy. Our trust should lay with the MeK, which has been our sole source of accurate and reliable information about both Iran's nuclear and missile programs. It is time to realize who our real friends are and who aren't. A critical step in supporting Iranian freedom movement requires the immediate removal of Iran's main opposition group, the MeK and the NCRI off of the FTO list. More than anyone, this is a signal to Teheran's regime that America stands with those who can finish the job of changing the regime there and bring freedom and democracy to Iran.

Professor Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker is founder and chairman of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East, a New York based organization dedicated to teaching the public and our elected officials, especially at the federal level, of the need to establish democracy in the middle-east region and the dangers posed by those opposed to democracy and freedom of thought. The son of refugee from Nazi Germany, Rabbi Zucker has been active in human rights issues for more than thirty years. Active in the Soviet Jewry movement, the Syrian Jewry movement and a leader in the rescue of Ethiopian Jewry, Rabbi Zucker has traveled to the Horn of Africa and the Middle-East to negotiate rescues and release of those held hostage by tyrannical regime. Through work with Iranian Jews and contacts with Iranian Muslims Rabbi Zucker has become active on behalf of regime change in Iran. Rabbi Zucker is also active in the movement to stop the genocide in Darfur.

Top Diplomat says Europe Must Concede Iran's Right to Nuclear Fuel Cycle
By VOA News
21 December 2005




Manouchehr Motakki
Iran is insisting that European negotiators meeting in Vienna acknowledge Tehran's right to develop a full nuclear fuel cycle.

The comment from Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Motakki was made Wednesday in Tehran, as European envoys met with their Iranian counterparts to explore the possibility of a new round of nuclear talks in January.

Diplomats from Britain, France and Germany are seeking guarantees that Iran will continue its suspension of its suspect uranium enrichment program. For its part, Tehran says Wednesday's talks should lead to the establishment of a timetable for the full resumption of nuclear fuel cycle work.

Wednesday's talks are the first contact between the two sides since August.

The United States alleges Iran's nuclear work is a cover for secret efforts to develop an atomic bomb. Tehran says its research is aimed at developing sources of electricity.

Some information for this report provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.

Iran, EU agree to hold more nuclear talks Aljazeera.com
Iran and the European Union agreed today in Vienna to meet again next month to set terms for their nuclear talks, BBC reported. "We agreed to continue our talks in January," Iranian Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Deputy for International Affairs Javad Vaidi said. "Regarding the location, we have agreed on Vienna," he added. French foreign ministry political director Stanislas de Laboulaye told AFP that the Iranian and the EU "positions are not the same. We repeated our positions and the Iranians repeated theirs."
Iran-EU talks end, further meeting in Jan -Iran Malaysia Star
Iran and EU resume nuclear talks Guardian Unlimited
ABC News - EUobserver.com - Ireland Online - AKI - all 400 related »

IRAN NUKES

- EU and Iran restart nuclear talks and agree to more
http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051221230151.7l9k66qe.html

- US backs European diplomacy on Iran
http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051221222207.x9yhduqx.html

- Hopes slim as Iran and EU resume nuclear talks
http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051221205246.r3afwov8.html

- Atmosphere 'good' at EU-Iran nuclear talks
http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051221130204.70bwhrcc.html

- Iran talks tough on nuclear rights
http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051221120732.u6gnkjbk.html

Talks With Iran on Nuclear Plans Resume; Little Progress Is Seen
(Richard Bernstein, New York Times)

Thursday, December 22
Representatives of three European countries and Iran met Wednesday for the first time since negotiations over Iran's nuclear development program were suspended four months ago in bitterness. After five hours of closed-door meetings in Vienna, the delegates said the two sides had agreed to hold further talks in January.

The purpose of what European diplomats were calling "talks about talks" was to see if enough common ground existed for the stalled negotiations to resume next year.

US finds a communist ally against Iran:

The United States, which used Islamic fundamentalists against communism in Afghanistan in the 1980s, has embarked on an operation to use communists to bring about the end of the Islamic regime in Iran.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF21Ak03.html

Iran to buy Russian missiles:

Iran has signed a $700 million contract with Russia for the purchase of Tor M-1 (SA-15 Gauntlet) air-defence missile systems, say Russian officials quoted in Russian business daily Vedomosti.
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/dec/1234548.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria has signed a pact for the storage of Iran’s nuclear weapons and missiles – Jane’s Defense Weekly

December 21, 2005, 1:29 PM (GMT+02:00)

The Damascus-Tehran strategic accord is meant to protect both countries from international pressure over their banned weapons programs. Syria commits to allow Iran to “safely store weapons, sensitive equipment or even hazardous materials on Syrian soil, should Iran need such help in time of crisis” – namely UN sanctions. In January, 2003, DEBKAfile revealed that Syria provided a similar clandestine storage service for Saddam Hussein’s WMD.

The pact obliges Syria to continue to supply the Iranian-sponsored Hizballah with weapons, ammunition and communications. Iran has been the Hizballah’s leading arms supplier, filling out the 15,000 missiles and rockets the Shiite terrorist group has deployed along the Lebanese-Israeli border.

Copyright 2000-2005 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

Analysis: EU-Iran talks hold little hope
By Roland Flamini
UPI Chief International Correspondent
Published December 22, 2005


WASHINGTON -- Officials from three European Union countries resumed talks with Iran over Tehran's nuclear ambitions Wednesday, with little likelihood of a breakthrough and with both sides having different motives for returning to the conference table.

For Britain, France, and Germany, negotiating on behalf of the European Union and the United States, the aim is to have done everything diplomatically possible to dissuade the ruling ayatollahs from restarting their program to manufacture fuel suitable for possible use in nuclear bombs. Tehran wants to keep periodic negotiating sessions going in an attempt to delay being referred to the U.N. Security Council by the world body's nuclear regulatory agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and told to stop.


To date, the Iranians have insisted on their right to manufacture their own nuclear fuel, which they insist will be used exclusively for civilian purposes. The assurance was not believed by the West, particularly the United States, and fierce anti-Israeli rhetoric by Iran's newly elected president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done little to improve Tehran's credibility. Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust "a myth", and Israel a "tumor" that must be "wiped off the face of the earth" -- or be moved out of the Middle East and re-planted in Germany or Austria.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manoushehr Mottaki was quoted as saying Wednesday that the talks would consist of two sessions in Vienna, and would focus on two themes: "not directing Iran's nuclear activity towards a military purpose, and guarantees from the (European) side that they recognize Iran's right to develop its civilian nuclear technology."

Iran maintains that it has an inalienable right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop a nuclear fuel cycle, but U.S. suspicion of the ruling ayatollahs' real intentions was initially aroused because the Iranians began their nuclear program in secret. Sites in Arak and Natanz were revealed by satellite photographs. A year ago, in Nov 2004, Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment program while it was negotiating with the EU3, but re-started work at their Isfahan plant after rejecting a European offer of help with nuclear technology in return for a commitment to halt operations.

Tehran also turned down a compromise Russian offer that would have allowed the Iranians to take the process as far as they can do at present -- convert uranium ore first into refined "yellowcake" and then into a gas ready for enrichment. The Russians would then take over the actual enrichment at a plant to be constructed for the purpose. It is the enrichment technology that can be used for both military and peaceful uses. The deal would have saved Iranian face because Tehran would not have been seen to give in to Western pressure, and at the same time both the West and Russia could have said that a potential danger had been averted.

In September, a meeting of the IAEA council voted to report Iran to the Security Council for possible further action, but held off doing so pending the next round of talks. The three European countries coordinate their actions with Washington, though the Bush administration continues to maintain its distance from Tehran. The French newspaper Le Monde quoted a European official as saying that the chances of seeing Iran abandon its enrichment program "are not very great...We have to be realistic and to distinguish between what is desirable and what's possible."

The Security Council could impose economic sanctions on Iran, if there was a consensus among its members -- a big "if" at the moment because Russia, with the prospect of selling nuclear technology to Iran if the West remains alienated, would need persuading not to go along with any hard line action; and China's view remains well, inscrutable.

Meanwhile, the voices from Tehran become increasingly obdurate. Former Iranian president Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, still a political heavyweight in Iran, recently accused the IAEA of harassing Tehran. "We will never accept being bullied," he said.


Copyright © 2005 News World Communications Inc.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=5006

Iran hails “first Islamist Arab state” in Iraq Fri. 23 Dec 2005



Iran Focus

24 December 2005

Tehran, Iran, Dec. 23 – The editorial of Iran’s leading hard-line daily hailed the outcome of Iraq’s parliamentary elections as “the creation of the first Islamist state in the Arab world”, and warned against “American plots” to prevent the formation of the new Iraqi government by Iranian-backed Shiite groups.

“Of the 275 seats in Iraq’s new parliament, 140 will belong to pious Islamists, 60 will be occupied by Kurds with excellent ties with Iran, and 40 will belong to Sunni Arabs, most of whom want a sovereign, Islamist state”, the daily Kayhan’s Saturday editorial noted. “The new government – including the President, the Prime Minister, the cabinet, the armed forces and the judiciary – will emerge from this new assembly”.

Kayhan said the election outcome will “increase pressures, both inside and outside the U.S., on [President George W.] Bush to withdraw American troops from Iraq”. “Bush will have to give in and withdraw the bulk of his forces from Iraq in the next few months”, the daily, which reflects the views of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, wrote.

The paper listed the consequences of American withdrawal from Iraq, describing the current situation in Iraq as “the biggest crisis America has faced in recent decades”.

“The American defeat and withdrawal from Iraq will forever bury the Neoconservative current in the U.S.,…while the formation of an Islamist state in Iraq, which will be a natural ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran and will form a contiguous link between Iran and Palestine through Syria and Lebanon, will bring about a sea change in the geo-strategic balance in the region in favour of Iran and to America’s detriment. This new alliance with its huge size will directly influence all developments in the Arab and Muslim Middle East”.

Kayhan’s editorial said American officials’ recent statements on election irregularities in Iraq were aimed at forcing the pro-Iranian Shiite groups to give concessions. “They [the Iranian-backed Shiites] will not accept this”, the paper wrote.

“The Americans have no choice but to leave Iraq and this must happen in the next few months”, Kayhan wrote. “Today’s Iraq shows the two sides of the Middle Eastern coin: the victory of Islamism, and the defeat and flight of the West”.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran accused of rigging Iraqi general election

December 23, 2005, 5:43 PM (GMT+02:00)

Thousands of Sunni secular Shiite and Kurdish protesters took to the streets of Iraq Friday, Dec. 23, over what they called “the biggest election fraud in Middle East history.” Their umbrella group Maram alleges the UIA’s commanding lead in preliminary results of the Dec. 15 poll and was rigged and is calling for a new election.

DEBKAfile’s sources reveal that the announcement by former prime minister Iyad Allawi, head of the Iraqi List and a key American ally, that he and the Sunni bloc of 30 lists were boycotting the elections, brought US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld dashing over to Baghdad Thursday night.

Allawi alleges that convoys of trucks carrying sealed ballot boxes stuffed with forged voting slips and other documents went round polling stations on election-day and packed the ballot boxes with pro-Shiite votes. Between 10 and 15 of those trucks were intercepted by Iraqi security forces at the southern Iraqi towns of Qut, Al Amara and Basra. An investigation disclosed that they trucks were organized by Iranian intelligence agents to falsely boost the Iranian majority.

Rumsfeld will do his best to talk Allawi round in order to rescue one of the Bush administration’s greatest feats from collapse. Meanwhile Iraqi and UN officials are examining Allawi’s allegations.

Copyright 2000-2005 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

Russia formally offers to host Iran’s uranium enrichment program Khaleej Times
Russia formally proposed to Iran that it move its uranium enrichment facilities to Russian territory, raising pressure on the Teheran regime to accept the Western-backed plan for restraining its nuclear program. Iran insists the program has the sole aim of making fuel for atomic reactors that would generate electricity and denies US charges it is trying to develop nuclear weapons in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Washington is pushing for Teheran to be brought before the United Nations Security Council, where it could face economic sanctions over the dispute.
Iran denies receiving Russian enrichment proposal Reuters.uk
Iranian parl't speaker says seek substantial nuclear negotiations People's Daily Online
ABC Online - Daily Times - Hindustan Times - Jerusalem Post - all 271 related »

Moscow's Uranium Enrichment Proposal Only Partially Suits Iran - MP
(RIA Novosti)

Tuesday, December 27
Russia's proposal on joint uranium enrichment is only partially acceptable to Iran, a member of the Iranian parliament said Tuesday. Ala'eddin Borujerdi, head of the Majlis national security and foreign relations committee, said Iran was willing to cooperate with Russia and other countries in the nuclear sector, but could not accept Russia's offer to host Iranian uranium enrichment facilities.

Borujerdi suggested that Tehran should try to convince Moscow that Natanz and other enrichment facilities across Iran were the best sites for collaborative projects.

On December 24, Moscow, which is assisting Iran in building a nuclear reactor at Bushehr, formally proposed to Tehran that the latter move its uranium enrichment facilities to Russian territory.

U.S. Puts Sanctions on Chinese Firms for Aiding Tehran
(Bill Gertz, Washington Times)

Tuesday, December 27
Several Chinese companies involved in selling missile goods and chemical-arms materials to Iran have been hit with U.S. sanctions, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The sanctions cover six Chinese government-run companies, two Indian firms and one Austrian company, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The penalties have been under consideration since April and were approved by Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick within the past several weeks. The sanctions were imposed under the Iran Nonproliferation Act, which Congress passed in 2000 to deter international support for Iran's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and missile-delivery systems.

Democracy and Iran Tension to Test Russia's G8 Lead
(Reuters)

Tuesday, December 27
Moscow's tensions with the West over Iran's nuclear programme and its patchy record on democracy will test Russia's year at the helm of the G8 club of rich nations starting on Sunday.

With Tehran heading for a showdown with Western powers over their suspicions it is seeking nuclear arms, the Iran issue may also test the cohesion of the G8 under Russian chairmanship. Unconvinced by Western arguments, Moscow is still helping build Iran's first nuclear reactor and has blocked European Union moves to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8312

December 28, 2005
Nuking Iran With
the UN's Blessing
Only the American people can stop it
by Jorge Hirsch
In the "global war on terror," Iran is the next target, having been designated by the U.S. State Department [.pdf] as "the most active state sponsor of terrorism" in the world. The United Nations has given its blessing, and the U.S. will fill in the blanks.

Before we analyze this, however, let us ask ourselves: why not Florida instead? In fact, Florida should be way ahead on the list. Family considerations should not play a role in U.S. policy decisions.

Let's compare the cases. For Florida:


At least 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers had Florida connections.
Thirteen of the 19 were in Florida before Sept.11.
Eight of the hijackers took flying lessons in Venice, Fla.
Five of the hijackers trained in Florida gyms.
Two of the hijackers got drunk in a Hollywood, Fla. bar a few days before the attack.
Instead, the connections between 9/11 and Iran are much more tenuous, according to the 9/11 Commission:


"Senior al-Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives" in 1993.
"Iran facilitated the transit of al-Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and some of these were future 9/11 hijackers."
"We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack."
The 9/11 hijackers used planes, not explosives. So I very much hope that the Pentagon is revising its Nuclear Strike Plan. A precision-guided missile with a nuclear warhead – or a low-yield nuclear gravity bomb – should be effective in vaporizing both aboveground and underground facilities of Huffman Aviation School in Venice, Fla., with minimal collateral damage.

The fact is, terrorists do not need "state sponsors" to do their job. The 9/11 hijackers lived in the U.S., rented apartments, opened bank accounts, got drivers licenses, rented cars, took English lessons, had jobs, joined gyms, learned the needed flying skills, bought their box-cutter knives, and blew themselves up in the good old United States. And so will the next terrorists who strike us.

Furthermore, some of the 9/11 hijackers lived and studied in Hamburg, Germany. And they met in Madrid. So are Hamburg and Madrid next on the strike list?

Does anybody really believe that the "training camps" in Afghanistan played any significant role in 9/11? Can somebody please explain what exactly the 9/11 hijackers learned at those training camps that they couldn't learn elsewhere?

Does anybody really believe that the purported meeting, which in fact never took place, of Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague would have played a significant role even if it had taken place?

Yet we are embarked in a "global war of terror" in response to the 9/11 attacks that has led to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and is about to lead to a U.S. nuclear attack against Iran.

Because make no mistake, an aerial attack on Iran that will include low-yield nuclear bombs is the next step in the "global war on terror," unless something extraordinary happens to derail it.

The "Legal" Framework

The United States invaded Iraq under the pretext of enforcing UN Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 1441. Bush stated in his address to the nation on March 17, 2003,

"On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm."

Given that the U.S. was unable, despite strenuous efforts, to obtain a new resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force, Bush continued:

"These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. … The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."

The role of UNSCR 1441 for Iraq will be played by UNSCR 1540 for Iran.

UNSCR 1540

In preparation for the Iran strike, the U.S. in April 2004 proposed and the Security Council unanimously adopted this resolution against "the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and their means of delivery." The resolution was adopted under Chapter VII of the UN charter, which envisages the use of force to enforce resolutions (unlike resolutions adopted under Chapter VI, which deals with "pacific resolution of disputes"). "Affirming [the Security Council's] resolve to take appropriate and effective actions against any threat to international peace and security caused by the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and their means of delivery," the resolution "decides that all States shall refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer, or use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and their means of delivery."

The United States accuses Iran of having a covert program to develop nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. It states,

"Iran has an offensive biological weapons program in violation of the BWC."
"Iran is acting to retain and modernize key elements of its CW infrastructure to include an offensive CW R&D capability."
And

"Iran continues its extensive efforts to develop the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction."
The U.S. further accuses Iran of being the principal sponsor of terrorism in the world, of harboring al-Qaeda members, and of possible links to 9/11. The United States claims for itself the right to act preemptively ("[T]he United States cannot remain idle while danger gathers") and did so in invading Iraq. Well then?

You got it. The U.S. will claim the right under Chapter VII of the UN to enforce UNSCR 1540 by aerial bombing of Iran's nuclear and missile facilities ("means of delivery"), once negotiations between Iran and the European Union on Iran's nuclear program reach a stalemate.

This time, the U.S. will not even try to obtain explicit UN authorization to act, since it knows it is not in the cards. It didn't matter last time, so why bother now?

A supporting role will be provided by UNSC "anti-terrorism" resolution 1373, adopted after Sept. 11, also under UN Chapter VII. According to UNSCR 1373, "all States should prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other countries and their citizens." It also decides that all states shall "[r]efrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists."

The United States and Israel accuse Iran of supporting and supplying weapons to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah.

There is, of course, a minor point to observe. Iran denies all these accusations, and the U.S. has not supplied proof for any of them. In a full-page ad published in the New York Times, Iran explains rather convincingly why it wants to enrich uranium and why it is not interested in pursuing nuclear weapons. In its report to the United Nations pursuant to UN resolution 1373 it details its efforts and laws to combat terrorism, and in its report for UN resolution 1455 (on al-Qaeda) it denies any connection with al-Qaeda. In its report to the UN pursuant to resolution 1540, it describes in detail its efforts for nonproliferation and reminds that it is a signatory to all international nonproliferation treaties and party to all international instruments banning WMD. Iran denies that it supports any terrorist activities anywhere and says that it only gives "moral support" to Hezbollah. While the United States and the European Union have labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization, the United Nations has not, and it is certainly not regarded as such in the Muslim word. All of Iran's statements to the UN are ignored by the U.S., which states (without proof), that "Iran's pursuit of these deadly weapons, despite its adherence to treaties that ban them marks it as a rogue state, and it will remain so until it completely, verifiably, and irreversibly dismantles its WMD-related programs." Remember Iraq?

The fact is, resolutions 1540 and 1373 together with baseless accusations do not give the U.S. a right to attack Iran. However, bombing Iran under these resolutions is no different from invading Iraq under resolution 1441. Since the UN did not condemn the Iraq invasion after it happened (and even "blessed it" with resolutions 1483, 1500, 1511, and 1546), the U.S. can safely assume that it will do the same in this case.

Concerning the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, as discussed in an earlier column, it is technically "legal" for the United States to do so. As stressed in U.S. documents [.pdf], "no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict." (This of course ignores an "Advisory Opinion" from the International Court of Justice). Since Iran was declared in "noncompliance" with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty on Sept. 24, 2005, the "negative security assurance" issued by the U.S. to the UN in 1995 (UNSCR 984) promising to refrain from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states no longer applies to Iran.

The Practical Framework

Even if it is not "more illegal" to nuke Iran than it was to invade Iraq, we may still ask: (a) can it happen?, ( will it happen?, and © how will it all get started?

As discussed in previous columns, all the elements are in place so that it can happen. The main points:


The president alone (without consulting Congress) has authority to initiate an aerial attack against Iran's facilities under the War Powers Resolution and Senate Joint Resolution 23 of 2001.
The president has sole authority to initiate the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict, or to delegate that authority to others. This has always been U.S. policy.
There appears to be no one in the upper echelons of the Bush administration who would have any qualms about a preemptive aerial attack against Iran. In addition, among these top officials there are several who have a history of advocating the offensive use of nuclear weapons, and there is not a single one known to hold the opposing point of view.
So it is clear that it can happen. The answer to "will it happen?" is equally clear. There is a reason Iran was included in the "axis of evil" speech of 2001, and why there is so much administration rhetoric against Iran. Such talk has prepared the public for an attack. Very recent developments in relation with Turkey suggest that the time is drawing near. Turkey played an important role in the preparations for war against Iraq, and it appears to be playing a role again in the preparations for an Iran offensive.

Furthermore, the United States' stance with respect to Iran's nuclear ambitions is clearly designed to bring about a diplomatic impasse. The U.S. is not negotiating with Iran directly, and it emphasizes that it is not part of any possible compromise. Once a diplomatic stalemate is reached, does anybody believe that the U.S. will just sit back and watch Iran start to enrich uranium, or even continue reprocessing, after all the statements it has made that this is unacceptable? Can't you already hear the future words of our fearless leader on announcing the attack on Iran?

"I believe a president must confront problems and not pass them on to future presidents and future generations. I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch."

As for how it will all get started, there is room for speculation. One possibility is that Israel will pull the trigger, with a surprise (conventional) bombing of Bushehr and other facilities, which could "force" the U.S. to join in to protect Israel and U.S. forces in Iraq from Iranian retaliation. Recent statements by Israeli officials hint at this possibility, but it could be a smokescreen. Alternatively, Israel and the U.S. could attack jointly, or the U.S. could attack alone. This could be triggered by Iran resuming enrichment activities, or just by a Russian veto on measures against Iran at the Security Council. It is likely to be accompanied with some new U.S. "revelation" about Iran's alleged chemical/biological weapons programs and its alleged connections to terrorists. If the U.S. participates in the initial attack, it is likely to first give some kind of ultimatum to Iran, just as it gave an unacceptable ultimatum to Iraq. Unlike Israel, the U.S. still pretends to abide by some international norms of conduct and would not launch a surprise attack.

The ultimatum could be that Iran not only stop all uranium reprocessing and enrichment activities, but that it also destroy all its nuclear installations and missiles under U.S. and international supervision or face the possibility of an attack "at a time of our choosing." And even if Iran were to accept, the attack would not be averted, because disarmament is not the issue any more than it was in the case of Iraq. Recall that Iraq was not spared even after agreeing to destroy its missiles and doing so. It didn't help one bit.

Other possible scenarios that could get the process going include a terrorist act against Americans that the U.S. can blame on Iran; some major unrest in Iraq that the U.S. can blame on Iran; some new revelation of "classified information" that Iran is "threatening" the U.S.; or a Tonkin-Gulf-like incident.

Why Nukes Will Be Used

As discussed in previous columns, over the past several years the Bush administration has laid out a new Nuclear Posture for the United States that essentially guarantees that low-yield nuclear weapons will be used in the upcoming conflict with Iran. The essence can be summarized in the following statement in the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations [.pdf]:

"Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force and provide U.S. leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation."

In other words, the new Nuclear Posture has completely erased the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are now "integrated" with conventional weapons and will be used if they are militarily expedient. Given that there are a large number of underground targets in Iran to be destroyed, and that using nuclear bombs will be expected to deter Iran from responding with missiles and conventional forces to the U.S. attack, it is almost inconceivable that nuclear bombs would not be used.

Why isn't America worried sick about this possibility? There are three reasons.


People think that if the U.S. planned to do something as drastic as using nuclear bombs, there would be some advance warning. In fact, there has been, but it is subtle enough that it will only become clear after the fact. The code words are all our options. They have been used by the administration in connection with resolving the Iran situation, in connection with using nuclear weapons in response to WMD, and in connection with predicting future attacks on a state suspected of having WMD.
Most people associate nuclear bombs with enormous destruction, on the scale of Hiroshima or larger. Hence they find it inconceivable that the U.S. would use nuclear bombs against Iran or other non-nuclear nations. They don't realize that there are low-yield nuclear weapons (with yields as small as 1/1,000 of Hiroshima) and that the "nuclear hitmen" in the administration expect to use such "small" nuclear bombs against Iranian underground installations, causing little "collateral damage."
The few people who do realize that this may happen are not worried because they consider it to be in the best interests of the United States, as the nuclear hitmen do.
Why the Nuclear Hitmen Are Doing This

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the other nuclear hitmen are not completely irrational nuts, nor are they completely stupid nor even completely evil. They sincerely believe that nuking Iran is in the best long-term interests of the United States and of the world, for the following reasons:

The New American Century

This vision of American's preeminent role in the world holds that "we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise." They realize there will be some "costs" in nuking Iran, but regard those costs as worth paying as part of achieving "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

No Nuclear Threshold

In the minds of the nuclear hitmen, there seems to be no "threshold" for the use of nuclear weapons. This is evident from various documents and speeches. If a nuclear bomb will kill the same or a smaller number of people than a conventional bomb, it is equally usable or even preferable "[f]or rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms." There is absolutely no consideration given to the fact that nukes are a qualitatively different kind of weapon. "Use of nuclear weapons within a theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible."

Nuclear Deterrent

On the other hand, the nuclear hitmen do realize that for much of the rest of the world there is a qualitative difference between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. Much of the world regards nuclear weapons as unusable except in the most extreme circumstances. This, however, presents a contradiction to the stated main goal of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal: to influence an adversary's actions. As the Nuclear Posture Review states:

"U.S. nuclear forces will now be used to dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends. …Desired capabilities for nuclear weapons systems in flexible, adaptable strike plans include options for variable and reduced yields, high accuracy, and timely employment. These capabilities would help deter enemy use of WMD or limit collateral damage, should the United States have to defeat enemy WMD capabilities."

However, to "dissuade" and "deter," the nuclear option has to be credible, and if most people believe there is a sharp nuclear threshold and nuclear weapons are unusable, it follows that nuclear weapons are useless to dissuade and deter. The value of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to dissuade and deter adversary actions that do not involve an existential threat to the United States needs to be established, since it has no credibility. That is what nuking Iran will achieve, and that is why the nuclear hitmen believe it is a worthy goal.

The Bush Legacy

Every president naturally longs to leave a worthy and lasting legacy. None of Bush's actions so far is likely to be regarded as worthwhile in the future: quite the opposite. History is likely to judge his performance harshly and in particular significantly worse than his father's, especially if the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate. However, there is no question that crossing the nuclear threshold for the first time in 60 years will change the world and overshadow all the other actions of this administration. To the extent that Bush believes such an action to be in the long-term interests of the United States, for the reasons outlined above, it is unlikely he would want to defer this "honor" to a future president, and particularly not to his kid brother.

The Consequences of Nuking Iran

It is arguably possible that the nuclear hitmen's most optimistic expectations will be realized: the U.S. will succeed in crossing the nuclear threshold by using a few low-yield nuclear bombs against Iranian installations, without resulting in significant escalation, and achieve its goals of destroying Iran's military capabilities and establishing the value of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. It is also certainly possible, and in my view much more likely, that the results will be disastrous, as follows:


(1) A very large number of people will die.
For most of the world, the use of nuclear weapons is a major qualitative step, even if the yield and destruction of the nuclear weapons used is the same or less than that of conventional weapons. As a consequence, this action is likely to bring about an "irrational" reaction from Iran. No U.S. threat will deter Iran from retaliating any way it can – by firing all its missiles and launching a massive invasion of Iraq with millions of poorly armed but determined Basij militia. The U.S. will "have to" respond with large-scale bombing, including with nuclear bombs, causing potentially hundreds of thousands of Iranian casualties. This is likely to cause an immediate, large upheaval in the Middle East, with unforeseeable consequences. These events are not likely to be forgotten by the 1 billion-large worldwide Muslim community.

(2) America will be a pariah state.
The administration hopes that the use of nuclear bombs in this conflict will be viewed as "unavoidable" to save lives, ours and theirs. The world will not buy that interpretation. A cursory search on the Internet today makes it clear that it is already widely believed that the upcoming nuking of Iran is an event planned by the Bush administration (e.g., the Philip Giraldi story). Disclosures that will surely come after the fact will make this premeditation even more evident (like the Downing Street memos in the case of Iraq). The planned use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state in the name of nuclear nonproliferation, based on false accusations and concocted scenarios, will not be condoned by the world.
In the case of Iraq, the realization that the invasion had been planned in advance and Americans had been lied to has led to public disenchantment with the Bush administration, yet it has not led to universal condemnation. Attacking Iran will be different, because the use of nukes will affect every man, woman, and child in the world. The world will regard the Bush administration as criminal. Because Americans elected Bush for a second term and did nothing to impede his actions, all Americans will share responsibility in the eyes of the world. Each of us could have done more to prevent this from happening.

This is likely to result in a worldwide shunning of everything American. A tidal wave of boycott America fervor is likely to result, and no matter how powerful America is today, the rest of the world acting together can bring America to its knees and spell the end of all dreams of a "New American Century."

(3) Anti-Semitism will surge worldwide.
Israel will be regarded as having played a key role in these events, whether or not it participates in the military action. Israeli politicians have made it abundantly clear that Iran's nuclear ambitions represent an "existential threat" to Israel, so Israel will be regarded as instigator, given the strength of the Israeli lobby in America. Jewish organizations around the world have been supportive of the Israeli stance and will be regarded as complicit.
As a consequence, a resurgence of worldwide anti-Semitism will occur, even in America. The old charges that Jews have a divided allegiance to their home country and to Israel will resurface, and Jewish communities in every country will face hostility and aggression.

Just like Bush's invasion of Iraq erased the world's feelings of sympathy to America after the 9/11 attacks, so will the nuking of Iran erase any remaining feelings of sympathy for the state of Israel.

(4) Nuclear terrorism against America will become more likely.
The incentive for terrorist groups to use a nuclear weapon against America will be enormous after America uses nuclear weapons, even if only "small" ones, against Iran. No matter how much "counterproliferation" America undertakes, eventually a terrorist group will obtain or manufacture a nuclear bomb. And no matter how large a "deterrent" the American nuclear arsenal is, a single nuclear bombing in an American city will have devastating consequences.
Those who argue that nuclear terrorism will happen regardless of whether the U.S. nukes Iran or not should consider the fact that there has never been a chemical terrorist attack against America, despite the fact that chemical weapons have existed for a long time and shouldn't be too hard for terrorist groups to obtain. Could it be related to the fact that America does not use chemical weapons against others?

(5) Nuclear proliferation and global nuclear war may ensue.
The main reason why nuking Iran will affect every human being is that it will spell the end of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and lead to widespread nuclear proliferation. It will not matter how many eloquent speeches Bush gives afterwards explaining why it was "necessary." It will not matter if the next American president is a pacifist who vows never to do it again. It will not matter if think tanks and scientists and politicians and arms-control organizations and NGOs deplore it as a unique aberration of the Bush administration. The fact is, the entire American system will be seen as having conspired to let this happen.
After America has used a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear country, all the speeches and studies and documents and excuses and promises will not change the facts. All countries will strive to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. America will prevent some from doing so by military force, but many others will succeed. With no remaining nuclear taboo, and many more countries with nuclear weapons (with a total power of 1 million Hiroshima bombs, hence the potential to destroy humanity many times over), does anybody doubt the outcome?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mossad chief: Failing urgent outside intervention, Iran will in 3-6 months have all it needs to make a nuclear bomb

December 27, 2005, 8:54 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tuesday, Dec. 27, Mossad director Meir Dagan joined the list of Israeli officials sounding the alarm on the imminence of Iran’s nuclear threat.

In his briefing to the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee, Dagan stressed Tehran will not be satisfied with a single nuclear weapon but plans a stockpile. This is Israel’s working assumption.

This week too, pro-Israeli Washington lobbying group AIPAC warned that Bush administration’s Iran policies are dangerous, disturbing and actually helping Tehran acquire nuclear weapons

In its first open criticism of the Bush White House, AIPAC rapped its recent decision to delay the referral of Iran’s nuclear case to the UN Security Council and instead endorse Moscow’s offer to enrich uranium in Russia. This disturbing shift in administration policy, said AIPAC, “poses a danger to the US and our allies.”

Copyright 2000-2005 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

Mossad: 1 nuclear bomb won’t suffice Iran :

Mossad Chief Meir Dagan says during Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting, ‘Iranian strategic decision to reach nuclear independence exists; they won't stop when they reach the level which would supply one bomb, but will continue and create more fissionable material’
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3190940,00.html

===
Nuking Iran With the UN's Blessing :

Only the American people can stop it
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8312

===
Iran to study Russian nuclear offer:

Iran has said it will "seriously and enthusiastically" study a Russian proposal aimed at reducing international fears about its nuclear programme.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/35A...E9ECC5E1C0B.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 29, 2005
New Twist in Iran on Plan for Nuclear Fuel
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN and DAVID E. SANGER
BERLIN, Dec. 28 - In what may herald a sharp reversal of previous statements, a senior Iranian official said Wednesday that Iran would "seriously and enthusiastically" study a Russian proposal aimed at breaking the deadlock on efforts to block Iran from enriching nuclear fuel.

The official, Javad Vaeedi, deputy head of the Supreme National Security Council, was referring to a proposal made by Russia several weeks ago under which Iranian-produced uranium gas would be processed into fuel in Russia and returned to Iran.

The circuitous route would ensure that Iran would be able to produce fuel only for nuclear power, and could not enrich the uranium into a form that could be used in weapons. It would also slow Iran's ability to obtain enrichment technology.

Last week in Vienna, Mohammad Mehdi Akhondzadeh, the leader of the delegation that has been conducting talks with British, German and French negotiators, rejected the same proposal, saying that Iran had told the Europeans to "act on the proposition that enrichment will be conducted inside" Iran, and that any other option was "unacceptable" and "an insult."

It is difficult to ascertain Iraq's true position on the issue. There have been some hints of a struggle within the new government over nuclear policy, American and European officials say, but a senior American official said last week, "We're not clear who is calling the shots."

Iran has insisted on many occasions that it has the right to develop the technology to produce nuclear fuel on its own territory. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has responded that the issue is not one of rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed, but rather a question of whether Iran can be trusted, after repeatedly deceiving the International Atomic Energy Agency about its facilities and abilities.

Iran claims that its nuclear program, parts of which it carried out clandestinely for 18 years before it was discovered by United Nations inspectors, is only to generate power, but the United States and Europe believe the true goal is to develop nuclear weapons.

Mr. Vaeedi's statement indicating a more welcoming attitude toward the Russian proposal was reported Wednesday by the Iranian Student News Service, which has been used in the past to make policy declarations to the world.

One interpretation is that Iran, faced with the possibility that the Europeans will halt the talks once and for all and refer Iran's violations of the nonproliferation accord to the United Nations Security Council for a vote on sanctions, has decided that the Russian proposal is an acceptable compromise.

But it seemed equally likely that Iran was not so much making a policy change as it was continuing the jockeying for international support that has been taking place over the past several months. The United States and the three European nations have been simultaneously trying to convince Russia and China that Iran is seeking a weapon, and pressing them to tell Tehran that neither would block action at the Security Council.

"The trouble is that when they say they'll give it serious study, it doesn't mean they'll accept it," David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a nonpartisan research group that follows developments in Iran, said of Mr. Vaeedi's statement. "Iran's problem is that just to turn down the Russian proposal adds a lot of support to those who want to bring the matter to the Security Council."

The Europeans suspended the talks with Iran in August when Iran, breaking an agreement to cease all uranium processing activities while the talks were under way, began converting uranium into gas at a plant in Isfahan, an activity that it has vowed to continue