U.S. Wins Support In Iran Dispute
(Mary Jordan and Dafna Linzer, Washington Post)

Tuesday, January 17
China and Russia agreed with the United States, Britain, Germany and France on Monday that Iran must completely suspend its nuclear program, the British Foreign Office said. Although the countries failed to agree on whether Iran's case should be referred to the U.N. Security Council, the Europeans applied new pressure on the Iranian government by calling for an emergency meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency on Feb. 2.

With all six nations declaring that they sought a diplomatic solution to the escalating confrontation with Iran, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered a glimmer of hope for a compromise. Putin said the Iranian government was considering a proposal from Moscow that Russia would produce enriched uranium for Iran, to ensure the material could be used only for peaceful purposes.

Russia, China Want Talks Not Sanctions on Iran
(Oleg Shchedrov, Reuters)

Tuesday, January 17
Russia and China made clear on Tuesday they did not favour U.N. sanctions to induce Iran to scale back its nuclear programme, advocating more negotiations.

Their comments revealed a continuing lack of consensus among world powers over whether the U.N. Security Council should take up Iran's case and what action it should consider.

Washington and its European Union allies say EU-led talks with Iran have failed to quell suspicion that Tehran is seeking a nuclear bomb, despite its denials, and it is time the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency sent the case to the Security Council.

Diplomacy and Force
(Interview with Mohamed ElBaradei, Newsweek)

January 23 Issue
The man in the middle of the escalating tensions between Iran, Europe and the United States is Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency. ElBaradei and the IAEA, recipients of last year's Nobel Peace Prize, are charged with verifying Iran's compliance—or lack thereof—with international safeguards against nuclear-weapons proliferation. In his first interview since Iran broke the seals on nuclear research equipment last week, ElBaradei spoke bluntly at his Vienna headquarters with NEWSWEEK's Christopher Dickey about his frustrations with Tehran, and his ideas on how to avoid further escalation.

DICKEY: You've said you're running out of patience with Iran. What does that mean?

ELBARADEI: For the last three years we have been doing intensive verification in Iran, and even after three years I am not yet in a position to make a judgment on the peaceful nature of the [nuclear] program. We still need to assure ourselves through access to documents, individuals [and] locations that we have seen all that we ought to see and that there is nothing fishy, if you like, about the program.

And Now Iran: We Can't Rule Out the Use of Military Force
(William Kristol, Weekly Standard - opinion)

January 23 Issue
An unrepentant rogue state with a history of sponsoring terrorists seeks to develop weapons of mass destruction. The United States tries to work with European allies to deal with the problem peacefully, depending on International Atomic Energy Agency inspections and United Nations sanctions. The Europeans are generally hesitant and wishful. Russia and China are difficult and obstructive. Eventually the reality of the threat, the obduracy of the rogue state regime in power, becomes too obvious to be ignored.

This is not a history lesson about Iraq. These are today's headlines about Iran, where the regime is openly pursuing its ambition to become a nuclear power. "But this time diplomacy has to be given a chance to work," the doves coo. "Maybe this time Israel will take care of the problem," some hawks whisper. Both are being escapist.

Doves profess concern about Iran's nuclear program and endorse various diplomatic responses to it. But they don't want even to contemplate the threat of military action. Perhaps military action won't ultimately be necessary. But the only way diplomatic, political, and economic pressure has a chance to work over the next months is if the military option--or various military options--are kept on the table.

Tuesday, 17th January 2006
Iran's nuclear programme

Sun 15 Jan 2006

West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran
IAN MATHER DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT AND ALEX MASSIE IN WASHINGTON

WESTERN governments face defeat in their attempts to stop Iran from pursuing its drive to become a nuclear power.

Officials in London and Washington now privately admit that they must face the painful fact that there is nothing they can do, despite deep suspicions that Tehran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons under cover of researching nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.


Yesterday a defiant Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country would not be deflected from its right to develop nuclear technology by referral to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.

"If they want to destroy the Iranian nation's rights by that course, they will not succeed," he said, adding that Tehran did not need nuclear weapons because they are only used by nations who "want to solve everything through the use of force".

Publicly, the US and Britain, the two countries that have adopted the most hawkish stance, are pressing for international action to stop Iran. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last week that it was time for the UN to confront Iran's "defiance" over its nuclear programme, while British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that sanctions were now "on the table".

But behind the scenes there is no stomach for a fight. The US is the only country that could take military action. But with the US military already seriously overstretched in Iraq and with the mid-term congressional elections approaching there is no impetus in the White House or in Congress for another military adventure.

"Iran would be a far tougher country to try to attack than Iraq. It is three times as big and has highly motivated armed forces," a Foreign Office diplomat said yesterday.

With military action off the agenda, several senior European officials expressed the view last week that there is widespread pessimism that diplomatic attempts to persuade Tehran to dismantle its nuclear programme stand any chance of success.

Sanctions, too, are being dismissed by government officials. "Sanctions hardly ever work anyway and can harm the people rather than the government," a source close to the Foreign Office said. "Anything else we do is highly unlikely to divert Tehran away from developing nuclear technology."

The crisis over Iran came to a head last week when Iranian nuclear officials broke 52 seals that had ensured for 14 months that three uranium enrichment research facilities could not be used while Tehran negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Authority under an agreement brokered with the EU.

It was a bitter failure by the EU, which had taken the lead over the Americans and put its faith in a policy of "constructive engagement". Led by Britain, France and Germany, the Europeans had offered Iran economic and political inducements if it would abandon its nuclear efforts.

But the policy of trying to steer Iran towards a more moderate course backfired in June when Iranians elected as president the hardline Ahmadinejad. Since then he has outraged international opinion by describing the Holocaust as a myth, calling for the state of Israel to be "wiped off the map", and declaring that Iran would not back down "one iota" from the nuclear path.

The UN is unlikely to fare any better than the EU. The organisation has no armed forces and its structure lends itself to interminable delays.

Though Britain will host a meeting of senior officials from Russia, China, the US, France and Germany tomorrow to try to build a consensus, a board meeting of the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog, will not take place until early next month, even though it is billed as an "emergency" meeting.

EU officials say in public they hope the IAEA will report Iran to the Security Council to impose sanctions.

OPTIONS FOR ACTION

LAND INVASION

With UN approval out of the question, the US would probably have to go it alone, with even loyal ally Britain a non-starter. US forces are already overstretched in Iraq, and with Congressional mid-term elections approaching, there is no stomach in Washington for another foreign military adventure.

AIR STRIKES

More feasible than a land invasion, but the preferred option of only a small group of neo-conservatives in the US administration. The model would be Israel's successful air attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981. But the political fall-out in the Arab world would be immense.

SANCTIONS

The official preferred option of the US and the European Union. But likely to be stalled in the Security Council by Russia and China. Could be counter-productive since Iran would react by cutting off oil supplies to the West. Another option is limited sanctions against Iran's leaders, such as travel restrictions and the freezing of bank accounts.

SPORT

Iran could be banned from international sports events. Conservative MP Michael Ancram has called for the Iranian team to be expelled from this year's World Cup. Any such ban would create outrage among the football-crazy Iranians. FIFA, soccer's governing body, said last month that it would not expel Iran.

COMPROMISE

Still on the cards despite the bellicose noises coming from Tehran. The Iranians have a reputation for saying no when they mean maybe. A possible deal could involve Russia making nuclear fuel which could be used only for peaceful purposes on its own territory as part of a joint venture with Iran. Would need a face-saving formula to satisfy Iran's national pride.

Related topic

Iran's nuclear programme
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=900
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=900&id=68662006

Last updated: 15-Jan-06 00:18 GMT

NEWSWEEK Interview with Mohamed ElBaradei noticias.info
"The man in the middle of the escalating tensions between Iran, Europe and the United States is Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the United Nations´ International Atomic Energy Agency. ElBaradei and the IAEA, recipients of last year´s Nobel Peace Prize, are charged with verifying Iran´s compliance - or lack thereof - with international safeguards against nuclear-weapons proliferation. In his first interview since Iran broke the seals on nuclear research equipment last week, ElBaradei spoke bluntly at his Vienna headquarters with NEWSWEEK´s Christopher Dickey about his frustrations with Tehran, and his ideas on how to avoid further escalation.
DICKEY: You´ve said you´re running out of patience with Iran. What does that mean?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, IAEA: For the last three years we have been doing intensive verification in Iran, and even after three years I am not yet in a position to make a judgment on the peaceful nature of the [nuclear] program. We still need to assure ourselves through access to documents, individuals [and] locations that we have seen all that we ought to see and that there is nothing fishy, if you like, about the program.
DICKEY: At one site called Lavizan, facilities were bulldozed by Iran before you could look at them, and you weren´t allowed to run tests in the area.
ELBARADEI: We clearly need to take environmental samplings from some of the equipment that used to be in Lavizan. We need to interview some of the people who have been engaged in Lavizan. We have [also] gotten some information about some modification of their missiles that could have some relationship to the nuclear program. So, we need to clarify all these things. It is very specific. They know what we want to do, and they just have to go and do it. I´m making it very clear right now that I cannot extend the deadline, which is... March 6.
DICKEY: With all due respect, the Iranians don´t seem to care what you think.
ELBARADEI: Well, they might not seem to care. But if I say that I am not able to confirm the peaceful nature of that program after three years of intensive work, well, that´s a conclusion that´s going to reverberate, I think, around the world.
DICKEY: Do you have any indication that there is some other completely separate Iranian nuclear-weapons program?
ELBARADEI: No, we don´t. But I won´t exclude that possibility.
DICKEY: But there´s another problem. Even if the declared nuclear research is all that Iran has going, there´s nothing in the Non-Proliferation Treaty itself to prevent them from enriching uranium - which they say is their right. They could get to the point of producing their own nuclear fuel, or bomb material, then tell you, "We´re pulling out of the treaty."
ELBARADEI: Sure. And if they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponization program along the way, they are really not very far - a few months - from a weapon. We need to revisit the treaty, because that margin of security is unacceptable. But specifically on Iran, the board is saying, "You have a right under the treaty to enrich uranium, but because of the lack of confidence in your program and because the IAEA has not yet given you a clean bill of health, you should not exercise that right. In a way, you have to go through a probation period, to build confidence again, before you can exercise your full rights."
DICKEY: That was the basis of the European and Russian negotiations with Iran. But that´s been declared a dead end, and tensions are escalating. There´s probably going to be an emergency meeting of the IAEA Board in the next couple of weeks. Washington and now Europe have called for the U.N. Security Council to take up the issue.
ELBARADEI: I´ll tell you, nobody wants to go to the Security Council - if they can avoid that... [But] even if it goes to the Security Council, it will be a graduated approach. If [the Iranians] decide to go the confrontation route, everybody will be hurt, there is no question about it. But at the end of the day, in my view, they will hurt more because there is a more united international community.
DICKEY: Iran has been observing a protocol, which it didn´t actually sign, allowing your inspectors to visit many sites on very short notice. Now Tehran is threatening to stop that.
ELBARADEI: Of course that would be another escalation. It also would backfire on Iran, because at least if we are on the ground we... can see what´s going on. We are there on the ground and we are saying we don´t see a clear and present danger. If there is no inspection, people can have as wild an imagination as they want [about Iranian activities], and that will hurt Iran.
DICKEY: You talk about "confidence building," but at least since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to office last June, Iran´s activities have been mostly confidence destroying.
ELBARADEI: It is very frustrating because everybody invested a lot of time and effort in building this confidence. It´s a very slow process. You can have a crash overnight. I hope the Iranian authorities will understand, again, that if they lose this nascent confidence building it will become even more complicated in the future to [restore]. It is very frustrating. But if you are in a business like mine you have to be very, very patient.
DICKEY: What if the Iranians are just buying time for their bomb building?
ELBARADEI: That´s why I said we are coming to the litmus test in the next few weeks. Diplomacy is not just talking. Diplomacy has to be backed by pressure and, in extreme cases, by force. We have rules. We have to do everything possible to uphold the rules through conviction. If not, then you impose them. Of course, this has to be the last resort, but sometimes you have to do it.
DICKEY: You´re angry.
ELBARADEI: No, I´m not angry, but I´d like to make sure the process will not be abused. There´s a difference. I still would like to be able to avoid escalation, but at the same time I do not want the Agency to be cheated; I do not want the process to be abused. I think that is clear. I have a responsibility, and I would like to fulfill it with as good a conscience as I can."
Iran crisis a dilemma for China BBC News
Israel Sends Diplomatic Team to Persuade Moscow to Give Up Iran MOSNEWS
CNN International - Korea Herald (subscription) - Hindu - Monday Morning - all 1,910 related »

Israeli PM says Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons CNN International
As Israeli government officials departed for Russia on Tuesday to discuss deep concerns about Iran's nuclear facilities, acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the Jewish state cannot allow Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Iran's Islamic government recently broke seals on its nuclear facilities and said it will resume research for civilian nuclear power purposes. International leaders fear Iran will use its nuclear technology to develop weapons. "Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us [to] have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence," Olmert said at a Tuesday news conference. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." Israeli officials have said they hope to use diplomacy to diffuse any possible nuclear crisis with Iran, and only to use military force as a last resort. An Israeli attack ordered by Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1981 destroyed a nuclear reactor in Iraq. Olmert is acting as Israel's leader as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon remains hospitalized in a coma following a massive stroke January 4. Medical experts have said it is unlikely that he will be able to return to his duties, even if he survives. (Full story) Israeli conservative Likud party leader Benjamin Netanyahu, a possible political rival of Olmert's, said this month that Iranian nuclear weapons would be "dangerous to Israel and dangerous, in fact, to the world. And I think we have to find ways -- which could include diplomatic and other ways -- to prevent that from happening." President Bush, after discussing the situation Friday during a White House meeting with Germany's newly elected chancellor, said, "The current president of Iran has announced that the destruction of Israel is an important part of their agenda, and that's unacceptable. And the development of a nuclear weapon, it seems like to me, would make him a step closer to achieving that objective." Iran's announcement that it would restart its nuclear program has prompted Britain, France and Germany to call for an emergency meeting next month of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran had been following a two-year suspension while it conducted talks with the European countries. (Full story)

Changed landscape
Sharon's stroke has changed the political landscape of the Mideast, with elections set for the Palestinian legislature next week and Israeli's parliament on March 28. Olmert, who was named interim leader of Kadima in place of Sharon, said he hoped to resume peace talks with the Palestinians following the Israeli elections. Olmert said the Palestinian Authority must disarm terrorist groups as condition for a permanent peace agreement. The Islamic fundamentalist Palestinian group Hamas, which advocates the destruction of Israel, is expected to be the major challenger to the ruling Fatah Party in the upcoming Palestinian Authority legislative elections. On the issue of Jewish settlers in the West Bank, Olmert said that Israel will not allow "lawlessness" to continue in Hebron and said that settlers who violate the law will be dealt with "harshly." Israeli troops have battled rioters for the past four days in the Jewish enclave in Hebron. Rioters have tried to prevent Israeli troops from carrying out a court order to evacuate eight Jewish families who have been squatting in the city's wholesale market. Israel Defense Forces have declared the Jewish settlement in Hebron a "closed military zone" and have set up road blocks around the Hebron to prevent protesters from entering the city. Last week, Olmert worked quietly behind the scenes to consolidate the leadership of Kadima, the new centrist party that Sharon founded after leaving the right-wing Likud party he had belonged to for more than 30 years. Recent polls show that if elections were held now with an ailing Sharon, Kadima would win the majority of seats in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. The polls predicted that Kadima would control more seats than the left-wing Labor Party, headed by Amir Peretz, and Likud.
Israel, Hamas rewrite rules of engagement Seattle Post Intelligencer
Sharon's stand-in wants to talk peace Australian
Scotsman - Reuters - Reuters AlertNet - Financial Times - all 994 related »

Mideast Asks Cheney for Patience With Iran
By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer

The Arab world's two major powers urged Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday to give negotiations more time in the growing diplomatic conflict over Iran's nuclear program.

As Cheney wound up a meeting with Saudi King Abdullah at his ranch outside Riyadh late Tuesday, officials close to the talks said the monarch had spoken of "the necessity of giving negotiations a chance" before pressing for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

Cheney got a similar message from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when they met earlier Tuesday in Cairo. Neither spoke to reporters, but Mubarak's spokesman said Cairo would "wait and see whether there will be a consensus" on dealing with Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

"We call for Iran to show more flexibility and cooperation, and we call for a continuation of dialogue with Iran," presidential spokesman Suleiman Awad said.

He declared Egypt could not "ignore our long-standing principled position ... which refuses to put all this fuss and focus on the Iranian nuclear program without looking at Israel's nuclear arsenal. We cannot give support to a resolution unless it makes reference to the universality of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and unless it is free of double standards."

Israel neither denies nor confirms it has nuclear weapons, but is widely believed to have them.

Washington is lobbying the 35-member IAEA Board of Governors to refer Iran to the Security Council over its recent decision to break U.N. seals on nuclear equipment and resume small-scale enrichment of uranium — a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors as well as material for atomic bombs. Egypt is a member of the IAEA board.

The U.S. drive against Iran has met resistance from Russia and China, which hope for a compromise. They say Iran had not ruled out having its nuclear fuel processed in Russia, which would allow greater oversight. Russia and China are among the five permanent members of the Security Council who have veto power over any resolution.

While many Persian Gulf leaders are concerned over Iran's nuclear program, Saudi Arabia and Egypt in particular fear putting Iran before the Security Council could sharpen the confrontation, and both say the West should do more about Israel's nuclear arsenal.

Awad said Cheney and Mubarak did not discuss Egyptian domestic issues. The vice president had been expected to broach democratic reforms after Egypt's recent parliamentary elections, which were marred by violence and police blockades of polling stations in opposition strongholds.

The talks in Saudi Arabia were joined by intelligence chief Prince Mogrin bin Abdel Aziz, Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and the Saudi ambassador to Washington and former intelligence boss, Prince Turki bin al-Faisal.

The king and Cheney also discussed Iraq, ways to keep the Israeli-Palestinian peace process afloat after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke and the standoff with Syria over charges it was involved in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

The United States is demanding that Damascus show greater cooperation with a U.N. inquiry into Hariri's killing. Arab leaders worry Washington is using the probe to try to remove Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose security officials have been implicated in the death.

Arab diplomats said ahead of the Cheney-Abdullah meeting that the Saudis were expected to present Cheney with a deal in which Assad would end interference in Lebanon and extend cooperation with the U.N. investigation in exchange for an end to U.S.-led Western pressure on Assad's regime. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

On Iraq, Arab nations want to ensure a strong representation for the Sunni Arab minority in the new government after victories by the country's Shiite majority in Dec. 15 elections. Most of the Arab world outside of Iraq is dominated by Sunnis.

Late Tuesday, Cheney flew to Kuwait to pay his respects to the ruling family after the death Sunday of Emir Sheik Jaber Al Ahmed Al Sabah.




Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

On Iran, West looks for a Plan B
Iran may yet end up on the docket of the UN Security Council for
restarting its nuclear-fuel program. By Howard LaFranchi
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0118/p01s04-wome.html?s=hns

Egypt and Saudi Arabia ask Washington not to refer the Iranian nuclear question to the UN Security Council

January 17, 2006, 1:00 PM (GMT+02:00)

The request was put before the US vice president Dick Cheney in talks he held with president Hosni Mubarak in Cairo Monday, Jan. 17. Cheney’s response was not disclosed. Earlier, Russian FM Sergei Lavrov reported Moscow’s oppositions to sanctions against Iran. The UN nuclear watchdog’s director Mohammed ElBaradei was reported Tuesday as having secretly met Irans’ nuclear negotiator Ali Larajani.

DEBKAfile added earlier: Moscow is muscle-flexing ahead of EU-Russian negotiations due to take place with Iran over a formula for Iranian nuclear enrichment in Russia, mediated by Chancellor Angela Merkel and accepted for study by Tehran. When the talks yield a proposal, it will be brought before Washington. The Kremlin is saying the threat of UN sanctions is counter-productive if the next round of diplomacy is to succeed.

The five permanent UN Security Council members meeting in London failed to agree on a referral of the Iranian case to the Security Council.

DEBKAfile’s nuclear experts add: As the prospect of sanctions recedes, Tehran is winning extra time from this high-powered to-ing and fro-ing to push ahead with its nuclear bomb program.

Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

Putin: Iran Hasn't Ruled Out Uranium Enrichment In Russia : -

-Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday that Iran hasn't excluded the possibility of conducting its uranium enrichment in Russia - a proposal that could be a way out of escalating tensions over Iran's nuclear program.
http://tinyurl.com/bfhvy

===
Russian FM against Iranian sanctions :

"Sanctions are in no way the best, or the only way to solve the problem (with Iran). We remember the history of the sanctions regime against Iraq, and we know how it ended.
http://tinyurl.com/92m55

===
Iran crisis talks expose west's split with China :

The London meeting between senior officials from the US, Britain, France, China and Russia - the five permanent members of the UN security council - plus Germany, was held to try to avoid a repetition of the security council divisions that marked the run-up to the war in Iraq. The west's fear is that China could exercise its veto on Iran's behalf.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1687928,00.html

===
Israel Sends Diplomatic Team to Persuade Moscow to Give Up

Israel dispatched a diplomatic team to Russia on Tuesday in an effort to persuade Moscow that Iran should be referred to the United Nations Security Council, reports quoted by CNSNews website said.
http://mosnews.com/news/2006/01/17/israeldispatches.shtml

===
US senators say military strike on Iran must be option:

Republican and Democratic senators said on Sunday the United States may ultimately have to undertake a military strike to deter Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but that should be the last resort.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N15194172.htm

===
Gordon Prather: What noncompliance?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=48338

===
Iran's President lets CNN back in after apology:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has allowed CNN to resume operating in the country after the American cable news network apologised for mistakenly quoting him saying Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons, State radio reported on Tuesday
http://tinyurl.com/cxamv

===
Iran Has an 'Inalienable Right' to Nuclear Energy:

Iran has an "inalienable right" to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes such as the production of electric energy, and the enrichment of uranium for its nuclear reactors. Could it be that Iran's plan for an oil exchange trading in Euros is the real issue? Or is it Israel?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11589.htm

IRAN NUKES

- EU Calls For IAEA Action Over Iran Nuke Programme
http://www.spacewar.com/news/EU_Calls_For_..._Programme.html

London (AFP) Jan 16, 2006 - Europe's leading nations pressed Monday for an emergency meeting of the UN atomic watchdog in two weeks over Iran's nuclear programme, bringing the prospect of referral to the UN Security Council a step closer.

- Israel Will Not Allow Iran To Obtain WMDs
http://www.spacewar.com/news/Israel_Will_N...btain_WMDs.html

- World Powers Split Over Iran Nuclear Program
http://www.spacewar.com/news/World_Powers_...ar_Program.html

January 18, 2006
Iran Proposes New Talks With Europeans
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
PARIS, Jan. 17 - Apparently in an effort to win international support and avoid censure by the United Nations Security Council, Iran on Tuesday proposed a resumption of nuclear talks with the Europeans, a move that was immediately rejected by Britain as "vacuous."

The proposal came eight days after Iran resumed nuclear work at three sites in violation of an agreement 16 months ago with France, Germany and Britain that froze most of Iran's nuclear activities. The resumption prompted the European trio to declare the talks dead and call for the Security Council to pass judgment on Iran.

In a letter on Tuesday, Javad Vaeedi, deputy head of the Supreme National Security Council, emphasized Iran's determination to "continue its full cooperation" with the International Atomic Energy Agency, adding that Iran "spares no effort in removing any ambiguity on its peaceful nuclear activities through dialogue and negotiation," according to a copy of the letter obtained by The New York Times.

Expressing appreciation for the Europeans, it added that Iran "considers dialogue and negotiation as the best course of action" and "is prepared to make the process a success."

But the letter, addressed to the three foreign ministries and sent through their missions in Vienna, gave no indication that Iran would resume the freeze on its conversion, enrichment and reprocessing of uranium as required by the agreement.

"It is unacceptable," said a German official, who described the letter as "a lot of nice words without any concrete offer."

Indeed, Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's representative to the international nuclear agency in Vienna, said in a telephone interview from Vienna that Iran's decision to resume nuclear fuel research was "legal and irreversible."

He added: "We are ready to negotiate with the Europeans and the Russians. It is now their turn to understand us."

He called it unfair that Iran's scientists had not been able to conduct their nuclear research under the freeze, saying, "The philosophy of telling scientists not to think and research is contrary to human rights principles and the United Nations Charter."

The letter came on a day of intense diplomacy in several capitals.

The United States and the Europeans have begun a campaign to lobby some of the 35 nations that make up the decision-making board of the international nuclear agency to support their position that the Iranian nuclear crisis should be dealt with by the Security Council. The board will consider the issue in a special session starting Feb. 2.

France, Germany and Britain began drafting a resolution for consideration by the board that calls on Mohamed ElBaradei, the nuclear agency's director, to send a report about Iran's history of deception and lack of full cooperation with the agency to the Security Council, according to two European officials.

The officials described the outlines of the draft on condition of anonymity because of normal diplomatic rules.

In September, Iran was found in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty because of nearly two decades of deceiving the agency.

The draft resolution also expresses regret that Iran violated its voluntary freeze on sensitive nuclear activities. It asks the Security Council to urge Iran "to extend full and prompt cooperation" to the agency. It also requests that the Council inform Iran that "additional transparency measures are indispensable" if it hopes to prove that its nuclear program is peaceful and not intended to produce nuclear bombs.

The draft, which is in a very early stage, does not include a recommendation of punitive measures like sanctions, the officials said.

The strategy of both the United States and Europe is to slowly ratchet up the diplomatic pressure on Iran. A number of governments, including Britain, Germany, France and Japan, have said talk of sanctions is premature, and Russia and China, which wield veto power in the Security Council, oppose sanctions.

"We don't see this leading straight into sanctions," a senior British official told reporters under the condition that he not be identified, adding: "We want to build gradual sustained pressure over time. This is a long-term issue."

The official described Iran's call for a renewal of negotiations as "vacuous because the Iranians have created the conditions to make it impossible to talk."

China and Russia, meanwhile, have shown no willingness to take Iran's case to the Security Council.

Asked in a news briefing in Moscow when Russia would be willing to refer Iran to the Security Council, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was vague, saying: "This is a very schematic approach. Politics allow no such approach." He added, "I don't think the I.A.E.A. board of governors has run out of possibilities."

China on Tuesday called for a resumption of negotiations as the best way to defuse the crisis.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said Beijing favored diplomacy and urged all sides to "keep patient and make utmost efforts to resume negotiations" between the Europeans and Iran.

Russia is particularly keen on wresting the diplomatic initiative from the other Europeans by negotiating with Iran to accept its offer to allow Russia to enrich Iran's uranium on Russian soil and under strict Russian control to prevent diversion for a weapons program.

Iran's letter to the Europeans also stated Iran's desire to pursue negotiations with Russia as scheduled next month in the belief that they "will continue seriously and constructively."

Mr. Lavrov on Tuesday reiterated the offer to Iran to enrich Iran's uranium, but he also warned Iran to resume its freeze on all uranium work. "Talks presuppose an obligation," he said. "The Iranian obligation was to stick to the moratorium."

Iran, he said, "must do much more than what it has done already."

Underscoring Russia's opposition to sanctions, however, he said: "The question of sanctions against Iran puts the cart before the horse. Sanctions are in no way the best, or the only, way to solve the problem."

In London, the British official briefing reporters expressed skepticism that the Russian-Iranian talks showed promise.

"I think Iran is playing with the Russia proposal for tactical reasons," the official said.

Alan Cowell contributed reporting from London for this article, and Andrew E. Kramer from Moscow.



Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

The Iran Nuclear Dispute Deutsche Welle
Despite new talks between Iran and the European troika of Britain, France and Germany, on Jan. 10 Tehran announced it would resume sensitive nuclear research linked to uranium enrichment. Iran insists on its right to make fuel for nuclear reactors, which it says will only be used for peaceful means, but the West fears it could use the fuel to manufacture atomic bombs. The EU-3 have responded by calling for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Europeans and the United States are hopeful that the UN watchdog will refer Iran to the UN Security Council for breaching nuclear non-proliferation agreements and IAEA resolutions. However, Russia and China -- along with Britain, France, and the US permanent members of the Security Council -- have been more reluctant. Iran, for its part, has warned that referral to the Security Council would lead to serious consequences, such as it to cutting off all cooperation with the IAEA.
US Calls Iran 'Test' for Security Council; Russia, China Balk Voice of America
Insurmountable consequences Middle East North Africa Financial Network
Reuters.uk - Ha'aretz (subscription) - The Moscow Times - Xinhua - all 2,022 related »

Iran scorns EU trio's draft nuclear resolution:

European powers began circulating a draft resolution on Wednesday that asks the U.N. nuclear watchdog to report Iran to the Security Council, drawing a scornful response from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
http://tinyurl.com/dpzkv

===
China, Russia would fight Iran oil sanctions: experts:

U.N. Security Council heavyweights China and Russia have too much riding on Iran's energy sector to let the West slap sanctions on Tehran to punish its nuclear ambitions, experts say.
http://tinyurl.com/98xsu

===
Moscow Will Not Follow West’s Cue on Iran:

Moscow has signaled a change in its stance toward Tehran. In recent days, officials including Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov have indicated they would not block a Security Council referral, although they would likely still oppose sanctions
http://mosnews.com/interview/2006/01/17/westsque.shtml

===
The west has picked a fight with Iran that it cannot win :

Iran is a serious country, not another two-bit post-imperial rogue waiting to be slapped about the head by a white man. It is the fourth largest oil producer in the world. Its population is heading towards 80 million by 2010. Its capital, Tehran, is a mighty metropolis half as big again as London.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11604.htm

===

Noam Chomsky : Iran would be “crazy” not to develop nuclear weapons. :

U.S., Israel pushing Iran on nukes
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=955

===
Avoiding a War with Iran :

The toppling of Iran’s theocratic regime would consolidate dwindling resources under the stars and stripes and guarantee continued supremacy of US financial institutions, American energy giants, and the faltering greenback. Additionally, it would defang a potential rival to an emergent Israel, which sees itself as the prevailing power in the region.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11607.htm

===
India, Iran and the nuclear challenge :

Siding again with the U.S. and its allies in their illegal pressure on Iran will weaken India's hand on the civil nuclear cooperation and energy fronts
http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2006/01/i...-challenge.html

Experts see barriers to Iran sanctions Houston Chronicle
UN Security Council heavyweights China and Russia have too much riding on Iran's energy sector to let the West slap sanctions on Tehran to punish its nuclear ambitions, experts say. Fears of supply disruption from the world's fourth largest crude exporter, along with rising tensions in fellow OPEC member Nigeria, sent U.S. crude oil futures to a three-month high near $67 per barrel this week.
Europe rejects Iran nuclear talks Scotsman
Iran threatens to halt co-op with IAEA upon UN referral Xinhua
Washington Post - The Age - ABC News - Reuters.uk - all 2,365 related »

Europe Rejects Nuclear Talks With Iran By ANGELA CHARLTON, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jan 18, 4:36 PM ET

Europe, backed by the United States, on Wednesday rejected Iran's request for talks on its nuclear program, cranking up international pressure on Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said "there's not much to talk about" until Iran halts nuclear activity. But Iran's president accused the West of acting like the "lord of the world" in denying his country the peaceful use of the atom.

The quick dismissal of Iran's request for a ministerial-level meeting with French, British and German negotiators focused attention on the next step: the U.S. and European push to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose economic and political sanctions.

Russia and China, which have veto power on the council, appeared to remain the greatest obstacles. Both nations are opposed to sanctioning a country with which they have strong economic and strategic ties. In recent days, they have expressed reluctance even to the idea of referral.

The national security adviser of Israel, which strongly supports hauling Iran before the Security Council, was in Moscow on Wednesday to make his country's case, as was the French foreign minister. Tehran's ambassador to Russia urged the Kremlin to resist what he called pressure from other countries.

Even if there were consensus on sanctions, the five permanent Security Council members would be faced with a dilemma. Placing an embargo on Iran's oil exports would hurt Tehran, which earns most of its revenues from energy sales, but also roil world crude markets, spiking prices upward.

Europe halted talks after Iran resumed uranium enrichment research this month. The West fears the nuclear program will lead to nuclear weapons, though Iran insists it is only for civilian use.

"Iran must return to a complete suspension of these activities," said French Foreign Ministry spokesman Denis Simonneau. He said Iran's decision to resume the research "means that it is not possible for us to meet under satisfactory conditions to pursue these discussions."

Simonneau said discussions are not possible either among ministers or "at the level of civil servant" as long as Iran pursues nuclear activities.

In Washington, Rice and the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, also rejected any return to talks. France, Germany and Britain led the talks with Iran on behalf of the 25-member European bloc.

Rice condemned Iran's decision to resume its nuclear program, saying the international community is united in mistrusting Tehran and its present leadership with such technology.

Britain, too, refused to consider renewed talks.

"Iranian professions of continued interest in negotiations are ... not credible. The Iranians knew full well that resuming enrichment-related activity would trigger" a halt to talks, and did it anyway, a British Foreign Office spokesman said Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity in keeping with government policy.

In Vienna, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, announced Wednesday that a special meeting of its 35-nation board of governors would be held Feb. 2. The United States, France, Britain and Germany had requested the meeting to consider referring Iran to the Security Council.

Solana said that at a meeting in London on Monday, Russia proposed having the Security Council host a debate on Iran's nuclear activities.

The proposal would postpone referral by the IAEA to the council for possible action against Iran at least until the agency's meeting in March.

But Solana said "we have the votes" now to refer the dispute to the Security Council and that he did not support a delay.

Even so, European allies will concentrate in coming weeks on building support among countries with a vote on the IAEA board, another British Foreign Office official told reporters.

Egypt, which sits on the board, has balked at a formal referral, even after a direct request from Vice President Dick Cheney in talks Tuesday with President Hosni Mubarak.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier met in Cairo on Wednesday with his Egyptian counterpart and said the West's position met with "understanding" from Egypt.

For its part, Iran sent a senior official to Cairo to meet Wednesday with Amr Moussa of the Arab League.

The United States, Britain, France and Germany have drawn up a draft IAEA resolution that would ask the Security Council to press Tehran "to extend full and prompt cooperation to the agency" in its investigation of suspect nuclear activities — though it stops short of asking the council to impose sanctions.

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said the IAEA meeting will be a "very important moment."

Speaking in Berlin after talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Villepin said European nations are seeking the "greatest possible consensus to mark clearly the limit of what we can accept."

However, neither he nor Merkel would say exactly what steps might be taken against Tehran.

The German leader said Iran "in no way fulfilled expectations" during the two years of negotiations with Europe.

President Bush called Merkel on Wednesday to discuss developments in Iran, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. He said the world's patience with Iran has worn thin.

"I think we're long passed the point of talk," McClellan said. "We expect action from the regime in Iran. And the only action they have shown has run contrary to the demands of the international community."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shrugged off attempts to refer Iran to the council. "There isn't any problem. This is their endeavor," he told reporters.

He accused the West of trying to deprive Iran of peaceful nuclear technology.

"We are asking they step down from their ivory towers and act with a little logic," he said. "Who are you to deprive us from fulfilling our goals? You think you are the lord of the world and everybody should follow you. But that idea is a wrong idea."

___

Associated Press writers Beth Gardiner in London, Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Henry Meyer in Moscow, George Jahn in Vienna and Barry Schweid in Washington contributed to this report.



Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Iran dismisses threat of sanctions
U.S. and eU start circulating draft iaea resolution


Compiled by Daily Star staff
Thursday, January 19, 2006



Iran said Wednesday it was confident U.S.-European efforts to refer it to the UN Security Council will fail as it launched a diplomatic offensive to drum up Arab, Asian and African support in the face of international pressure. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to Syria on Wednesday, his oil minister is visiting India and other Iranian officials are already in Egypt, Libya and South Africa, all members of the UN atomic watchdog's board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

But Iran's attempts to resume negotiations on its nuclear program met rejection from Europe and the United States as European powers began circulating a draft resolution that asks the IAEA to report Iran to the Security Council.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that the likelihood of Iran being put before the Security Council was "weak."

"During the past 10 days we have tried to relay our message to all relevant parties, including the Europeans, about Iran's readiness to negotiate on the production of nuclear fuel," he told state-run Iran Radio.

Mottaki said he hoped European countries would avoid taking steps that could only worsen the current situation - an apparent reference to the talk of sanctions.

Reacting to Tehran's request Tuesday for a resumption of talks, France insisted Iran must first suspend its newly resumed uranium enrichment activities before any talks can be held.

"Iran must return to a complete suspension of these activities," Foreign Ministry spokes-man Denis Simonneau said.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, also rejected any return to talks, which Europe called off after Iran ended its freeze on enrichment research earlier this month.

"There's not much to talk about," Rice said during a photo session at the State Department with Solana.

Solana agreed that "there is not much point" in resuming talks if there is "nothing new on the table."

Ahmadinejad accused the West of trying to deprive Iran of peaceful technology.

"We are asking they step down from their ivory towers and act with a little logic," Ahmadinejad said. "Who are you to deprive us from fulfilling our goals? You think you are the lord of the world and everybody should follow you. But that idea is a wrong idea."

The United States, France, Britain and Germany are trying to overcome reluctance from Russia and China to referring Iran to the Security Council.

To try to overcome the Russian and Chinese resistance, the Europeans have put forward the draft resolution for the IAEA board to pass that stops short of asking the council to impose sanctions on Iran. Instead, it would ask the council to press Tehran "to extend full and prompt cooperation to the agency" in its investigation of suspect nuclear activities.

Washington and the European countries want the IAEA, to take the step during a February 2 emergency meeting of its Board of Governors.

Iran has launched its own campaign to lobby developing nations on the IAEA board ahead of any vote.

Iran contacted the Cairo-based Arab League, and the organization's head, Amr Moussa, who said Tehran was "ready to deal [with the issue] with complete transparency and place all its nuclear reactors under supervision by the IAEA."

Moussa said Iran expressed its backing for Arab initiatives to have the Middle East declared a nuclear weapons-free zone."

A high-level Iranian delegation arrived in Egypt after a similar trip to Libya.

However, Egyptian Cabinet

spokesman Magdy Rady said the Iranians had come only to invite the speaker of the Egyptian Parliament, Fathi Sorour, to a conference in Iran on the Palestinian issue.

The delegation, led by the Iranian vice-president for legal and parliamentary affairs, Ahmad Mousavi, had talks in Cairo with Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmad Nazif.

Rady said: "We were surprised that the Iranian vice-president did not talk about this matter. We were expecting him to bring it up."

Cairo airport sources said the Iranian delegation planned to travel on to Morocco, which is not on the IAEA board.

South Africa urged Western governments to seek dialogue with Iran. "We appeal to all parties to refrain from any action that could further increase tension and confrontation," the Foreign Ministry said after talks between Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad and his Iranian counterpart Mehdi Mostafavi.

South Africa has said Iran has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Mostafavi earlier briefed Pahad and other South African officials on Tehran's nuclear plans.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns visited London to coordinate a strategy with Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia on dealing with Iran. - Agencies

January 19, 2006
West Tells Russia It Won't Press to Penalize Iran Now
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 - The United States and Europe, seeking Russia's help in bringing Iran's nuclear activities before the United Nations Security Council for review, have assured Russian officials that they are not pressing for sanctions against Iran right now, American and European diplomats said Wednesday.

The diplomats said that instead they were pursuing a limited effort to convene a Security Council debate and send the matter back to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear monitor, for further efforts to get Iran to suspend uranium activities that the West suspects are part of a nuclear weapons program.

"We are not seeking a sanction mechanism at this moment," a European diplomat said. "We are pursuing a gradual approach. We are trying to tell Iran that what the I.A.E.A. is telling them is exactly what the Security Council thinks. It's an empowering process for the I.A.E.A."

European diplomats said the Council could act either by passing a resolution or by allowing its president to issue a declaration in its name.

The West's incremental approach is a response to Russian and Chinese reluctance to press for immediate sanctions, despite their concern that Iran has broken its commitment to suspend uranium enrichment activities. The Russians and Chinese say they do not want Iran to retaliate by breaking off talks and forcing international inspectors to leave the country.

On the other hand, some diplomats eager to press Iran on nuclear matters said they were concerned that the steps being contemplated might be too small to be taken seriously in Tehran.

The diplomats who described the situation, from several nations, spoke on the condition of anonymity so that they could speak more freely while the negotiations continue.

The Bush administration has said for two years that its ultimate objective is to bring Iran before the Security Council for possible censure or sanctions. But it has proceeded slowly, deferring to European efforts to negotiate. That deference is still part of the American approach despite Iran's recent actions.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, after meeting with Javier Solana, the chief European Union envoy, said Wednesday that "it is now important for the I.A.E.A. board of governors to act so that Iran knows that the international community will not tolerate its continued acting with impunity against the interests of the international community."

Afterward, Mr. Solana said the Europeans and the United States were considering a Russian proposal presented as an alternative to the possible referral of Iran's case to the Security Council by the atomic energy agency. The Russian proposal was to have the Security Council take up Iran, but without a formal "referral" from the agency.

Whether or not there is a formal referral from the agency is technical but significant, Mr. Solana said. Without a referral, the Security Council could debate the matter but not consider sanctions.

"A referral to the Security Council is in itself a very important decision," Mr. Solana said, suggesting that the Russian idea did not go far enough. He said that there was "nothing fundamentally wrong" with the Russian idea but that it implied too much of a delay.

"Referral means something which has legal consequences for the relationship of this dossier to the Security Council," he said.

The European and American approach has been codified in a draft resolution to be presented to the International Atomic Energy Agency for possible adoption at an emergency meeting on Feb. 2. The Western timetable is for Iran to be "referred" at that meeting and then considered at the Security Council and then referred back to the atomic agency.

The Russian proposal, by contrast, calls for no formal action by the atomic agency on Feb. 2, but some kind of debate at the Security Council in February, possibly with the agency director, Mohamed ElBaradei, taking part. Then the agency could take up the subject of Iran in March.

American and European officials said they did not feel comfortable putting off the entire matter until March. Iran, many Western experts say, is perhaps only a year or two away from developing the capacity to operate centrifuges that enrich uranium and take other steps enabling it to make a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Solana and Ms. Rice also reiterated Wednesday that they would not accept Iran's latest offer to talk about its nuclear program unless it returned to a full suspension of its uranium enrichment activities.

It was Iran that effectively cut off negotiations by breaking the moratorium on enrichment, Ms. Rice said, adding, "As that condition exists, I am sensing from the Europeans that there's not much to talk about."

Britain, France and Germany, also representing Europe, have engaged in talks for a year with the objective of persuading Iran to suspend and then shut down its uranium processing and suspected weapons-making activities in return for economic, political and security benefits from the West.



Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

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

January 19, 2006
Hillary Clinton Says White House Has Mishandled Iran
By JOHN O'NEIL
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last night criticized the Bush administration for its response to Iran's nuclear program, saying it had chosen to "downplay" the crisis over the past several years.

In a speech at Princeton University, Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, joined the Bush administration's call for sanctions against Iran, and also said that the threat of military action against nuclear sites should not be ruled out.

But she was critical of the administration for letting European nations take the lead in negotiations over the last several years.

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Ms. Clinton said, according to a transcript of the speech published by The Daily Princetonian. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."

Since 2002 Britain, France and Germany have led talks meant to assure that Tehran's nuclear program would not give it the capacity to build weapons. The three countries last week declared that Iran's decision to resume nuclear research had brought the talks to an end, and, with the United States in support, asked that the matter be sent to the United Nations Security Council for possible action.

The Bush administration has long favored sanctions, but had deferred action at the request of the European nations, who convinced Iran in 2003 to suspend its nuclear program. Mr. Bush last week said that he would pursue a vigorous diplomatic push to get as many countries as possible on board for possible United Nations action. On North Korea, the Bush administration has refused that nation's request for direct talks over its nuclear program and instead has worked in concert with China, South Korea, Russia and Japan.

Iran today continued to give mixed signals in reaction to the push for a United Nations referral. Its oil minister, Davoud Danesh-Jafari, told the official Iranian news agency that "in case of sanctions, other countries will suffer as well as Iran."

"One of the consequences will be the unleashing of a crisis in the oil sector and particularly a price hike," he said, according to Reuters.

At the same time, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told the BBC that his country wanted a compromise and hoped to resume the European talks.

"They should not ask a brave nation with very good scientists not to engage in nuclear research," he said. "If they want guarantees of no diversion of nuclear fuel we can reach a formula acceptable to both sides."

The United States and Europe have made clear that they will not accept any program that includes research that would give Tehran the know-how to develop weapons.

In her Princeton speech, Ms. Clinton spoke of the gravity of Iran's program in terms similar to those used by the Administration.

"Let's be clear about the threat we face," Ms. Clinton said. "A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond."

"We cannot and should not - must not - permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations."

The United States and the European nations have called for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Feb. 2, and have begun circulating a draft resolution that would refer Iran to the Security Council.

Russia and China have both expressed opposition to sanctions, at least at this point, and are reluctant even to support a Security Council referral. The United States and the European nations have sought to reassure Russia and China that, for now, referral to the Security Council will not necessarily lead to sanctions.

Last week, Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, said that the Bush administration was correct in not ruling out possible military action to block an Iranian nuclear weapons program, but stressed that force should only be used after every other measure had been exhausted.

In general, Democrats have been supportive of the administration decision to take a back seat to the Europeans in negotiations, and many have expressed alarm whenever the conservative Republicans engaged in a more aggressive posture toward Iran.

Ms. Clinton's speech last night laid out a markedly tougher approach. She has already been under fire from many liberal activists in the Democratic party for her support of the war in Iraq and refusal to call for an immediate American pullout.

Iraq also figured in Ms. Clinton's speech, as she so drew a link between the Iranian conflict and events there. Shiite parties with close links to Iran appear to have been the biggest winners in last month's Iraqi elections, whose final results are to be released soon.

"Part of the problem that we confront with Iran today is, of course, its involvement in and influence over Iraq," she said.

Ms. Clinton said she was against an immediate military pullout, but said the American military commitment should not be "open ended."

"If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities," she said.

"That will help us stabilize the new Iraqi government," Ms. Clinton said. "It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there."



Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

January 20, 2006
Dealing With Iran

by Alan Bock
With the announcement that Iran plans to resume its nuclear programs, that country has moved at least into the sights of the United States and European countries as a potential threat that should be dealt with. Unfortunately, the United States, like most "advanced" states, is mentally locked into certain modes of dealing with perceived threats that are likely not only to be ineffective, but to exacerbate tensions.

Just as a thought experiment, why not consider some radically different ways of dealing with Iran and the possibility (which the regime denies) that it is getting ready to produce nuclear weapons? I hope in suggesting such alternatives not to indulge in wishful thinking about the nature of the Iranian regime. But simply demonizing a regime – gratuitously declaring it part of the "axis of evil," for example – seldom adds much to understanding.

Acknowledging more complexity than simple evil or insanity in that regime should help us to understand what might be motivating Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to make the kind of outrageous statements he has indulged in recently, and whether they serve more cold-blooded, calculated objectives than simply being provocative. Then we might be ready to consider what seem, in the present context of how political states behave in relation to one another, like counterintuitive actions that might actually defuse the threat and serve genuine U.S. interests.

Standard Responses

The standard response to Iran is embodied in the recent call by Sen. Hillary Clinton for United Nations sanctions – the exact nature left a bit vague but presumably mainly economic sanctions, including cutting off trade – against Iran and her criticism of the Bush administration for "downplaying" the threat Iran's nuclear program poses. One can see the attraction of sanctions for the standard political mind. They are seen as a way of expressing disapproval yet are well short of war or even using the threat of military force. Proposing sanctions gives standard-issue politicians the ability to feel morally superior to heinous regimes, and moreover to be able to say that they have "done something" to punish a given regime.

You might think they would have noticed, after long experience, however, that sanctions hardly ever displace or even seriously threaten an entrenched regime. In the case of U.S. sanctions against Castro's Cuba, in fact, the sanctions have almost certainly helped to entrench the regime further, giving Castro an opportunity to identify a hostile external threat as being responsible for the unfortunate results for ordinary Cubans of his own misrule. Whether or not sanctions actually helped the Castro regime (while undoubtedly harming the economic prospects of ordinary Cubans), it would be hard to argue that almost 50 years of sanctions have proven the most effective way to dislodge or discredit the regime.

It is probably best to view sanctions, however, not as a serious tactic, but as a form of posturing, a symbolic gesture. Those who propose them are either ignorant of how sanctions work in the real world or not really concerned that the regime poses anything resembling an imminent threat, so it is safe to deal with them through symbolism rather than strategy.

In the case of Iran, economic sanctions perceived to have been instigated by the United States would almost certainly be welcomed by Tehran, especially if, as is likely to be the case, the sanctions would not be fully honored by Russia, China, and other countries that have significant economic ties to Iran. Indeed, smuggling and other ways of getting around sanctions would almost certainly be a source of unearned wealth for certain officials and functionaries. And any shortcomings in the Iranian economy that keep poor people poor or frustrate the ambitions of educated or middle-class people can be attributed to the "great Satan" that has imposed the sanctions.

Likely Purposes

In analysis for Stratfor.com, George Friedman has suggested that Ahmadinejad is not insane at all, but executing a strategy with fairly definable objectives:

"One of the ways to avoid thinking seriously about foreign policy," he writes, "is to dismiss as a nutcase anyone who does not behave as you yourself would. As such, he is unpredictable and, while scary, cannot be controlled. You are therefore relieved of the burden of doing anything about him. In foreign policy, it is sometimes useful to appear to be insane, as it is in poker. The less predictable you are, the more power you have – and insanity is a great tool of unpredictability. Some leaders cultivate an aura of insanity."

Why would appearing a bit unbalanced be a useful tool to Ahmadinejad? Friedman suggests several reasons. First, on a number of counts, the Iranians haven't quite gotten what they had hoped to get out of Iraq – a safe satellite or client state. However things turn out, Friedman suggests, "At best, Iraq will be influenced by Iran or neutral. At worst, it will drift back into opposition to Iran – which has been Iraq's traditional geopolitical position."

This unfortunate outcome (from Iran's perspective) is partly due, Friedman suggests, to Washington's manipulation of the Sunni-Shia split in the Muslim world. The U.S. has used the prospect of better relations with Iran, a Shia state, to exact accommodations from Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia.

Add another dimension, Friedman suggests. When the mullahs took power in 1979, Iran was the center of revolutionary, militantly anti-Western Islam. It had to make accommodations (even with Israel, as the Iran-Contra affair brought out) to survive during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, and became a more conservative state during the 1990s. With some two-thirds of Iranians having been born since 1979, the "revolutionary" mullahs are now widely seen by Iranians as the old guard holding down the aspirations of young Iranians, many of whom are surprisingly Internet-literate.

At the same time, the Iranians saw al-Qaeda, a mostly Sunni phenomenon with roots in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, move to the forefront as the most conspicuous Islamic revolutionary force. "It was time for the next phase," Friedman believes. "It had to reclaim its position as leader of the Islamic revolutionary movement for itself and for Shi'ism."

Results

Denouncing Israel and resuming nuclear research and production therefore announced that the policy of partial accommodation with Europe (partly designed to peel Europe away from the United States) was over. The intention of getting a nuclear weapon would make Iran the only real threat to Israel and a much more powerful regional player in a Middle East containing mostly Sunni states. And it suggested to other Muslims that "Iran was prepared to take risks that no other Muslim actor was prepared to take." Al-Qaeda was a piker.

It is just possible – and this is still speculative at this point, of course – that the recent purported message from Osama bin Laden was in part a response to some of these moves by Iran to reassert itself as the primary revolutionary Islamic force in the world. Bin Laden, if he is still alive, and what is left of al-Qaeda is he isn't, might be feeling a need to reassert themselves as a still-relevant force and more significant than Iran.

If this is so, there could be some interesting interplay in the contest to be seen as the most radical revolutionary Islamic force. Friedman goes so far as to suggest that Iran's leaders "might welcome a (survivable) attack by Israel or the United States. It would burnish Iran's credentials as the true martyr and fighter of Islam."

Instead of the Predictable

The predictable course for the United States in the face of all this maneuvering is about what has been happening – maneuvering to get votes in the UN Security Council for some kind of sanctions regime, which includes a delicate minuet with Russia and China, which have significant economic relations with Iran and could cast a Security Council veto. Presumably there will also be moves to try to get International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back into Iran.

What if we went another way entirely?

Instead of plumping for sanctions and symbolic gestures, the United States could surprise everybody by announcing that it is resuming full diplomatic relations and entering into direct negotiations with the Iranian government rather than outsourcing negotiations to Europe. At the same time, unhampered trade and economic relations would also be resumed.

The U.S. could save face for this about-face by announcing that its real concern is the ordinary people of Iran, not their rotten rulers, and that open trade and open relationships are the best way to improve the condition and prospects of ordinary Iranians. It would be a tactical question whether to mention in public also that free trade and open markets are the most effective way yet discovered to undermine a dictatorial, oppressive regime and that the United States has finally learned this important lesson. Whether this is said in public by U.S. officials or not, however, plenty of commentators will make such observations.

At the public level, the United States can simply say that whatever political or geostrategic disagreements it might have with the Iranian regime, it is moving to a post-imperial policy of open economic relations with all countries, which would be beneficial to U.S. citizens as well as ordinary people in the rest of the world, even as political and other differences are dealt with at the political level.

I think it would be best if the United States sincerely believed this. It is worth noting, however, that many people, especially in the Muslim world, would be skeptical. Conspiracy theories as to what secret deals are behind such a shift in policies, what huge sell-outs of the Islamic revolutionary cause have been made by the Iranian leaders to get such an unexpected accommodation from the United States, would abound. It might be tactically advantageous for the United States to deny any such special deal with all innocence, while not being unhappy that they are in existence.

I don't happen to think it's true, as so many piously proclaim, that free countries and democracies don't engage in aggressive geopolitical behavior or start wars. (For one thing, how do you explain the U.S. engaging in an aggressive "war of choice" against Iraq unless you posit that it is no longer free or democratic?) I do think, however, that countries that have a stake in one another economically are marginally less likely to go to war with one another.

It should be the policy of a United States that really wants to promote peace in the longer run, then, to promote economic interdependence wherever and whenever possible. Iran would be a fascinating place to start. And such an unexpected policy might well be the best way to begin to defuse whatever real risk to others is likely to develop if Iran actually does develop nuclear weapons.

This is a thought experiment in its early stages, subject to change if conditions change. I do think it's worth discussing, however.

Targeting Iran's nuclear threat
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
January 19, 2006


In technical terms, the U.S. military has the ability to inflict major damage to Iran's nuclear weapons program, potentially setting it back for years. That's the general view of military strategists in the United States and Israel.
Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld publicly confirmed that such a project has been contingently planned, and is doable.
Given that Iran's nuclear program is believed to be widely dispersed among dozens or more sites, some of them easily concealed and unknown to foreign intelligence agencies, it's not likely that military action short of overthrowing the current regime could eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat. Since Iran has a population of close to 70 million, almost three times the size of Iraq, it's extremely difficult to imagine any scenario by which the United States, with its armed forces stretched in Iraq, could assemble a coalition force large enough to effectively occupy the Islamic Republic of Iran. The most likely scenario is U.S. or Israeli destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities.
The Iranian government is publicly committed to the destruction of the Jewish state, and there's precedent to answer that threat: In 1981, Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear weapons facility at Osirik. But destroying Iran's nuclear program would be a far more difficult, complex undertaking than the Israeli operation against Iraq.
The Osirik mission stretched the Israeli Air Force to the limit. Eight F-16 fighters were escorted by six F-15s a distance of 1,200 miles over the hostile airspace of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, yet managed to achieve surprise. The Osirik reactor was destroyed in minutes. According to Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the F-16s were operating at very close to their fuel limits. Had the Israeli forces been challenged by Iraqi, Jordanian or Saudi aircraft, they could not have engaged in sustained combat.
Even so, the Osirik operation was simple compared to the challenge of targeting Iran. The Iranians have not repeated Saddam Hussein's mistake of leaving his sole nuclear facility in the open; the Iranians have dispersed and hidden their weapons infrastructure. Iranian facilities are hundreds of miles more distant from Israel. Three or four sites are producing plutonium or enriching uranium, and some are thought to be buried deep underground.
Former Israeli Gen. Ephraim Kam, who is skeptical of military action, believes that even if several Iranian sites were attacked, such as the centrifuge facility for uranium enrichment in Natanz, Iran could build a replacement facility "in a short time." That assumes that Iran does not have a covert facility that has escaped detection. Because centrifuge facilities and the factories used to produce them can be hidden in relatively small buildings, Gen. Kam says "the possibility that such facilities already secretly exist is a real one, and is liable to leave Iran with a significant surviving capability even after the known facilities are attacked."
Other knowledgeable analysts, however, believe the Iranian threat is so grave that destruction of some if not all Iranian nuclear facilities would be worth doing because it could set the Iranian program back several years. One such analyst is Shai Feldman, who until a few weeks ago was Gen. Kam's boss at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, a moderately left-of-center Israeli think tank. On the right, Ephraim Inbar, a professor at Bar-Ilan University, believes that surgical air strikes combined with limited ground operations by special forces would be able "to cripple Iran's ability to build a nuclear bomb in the near future."
Although Mr. Inbar contends that Israel has the capability to conduct such an operation, he, along with many other analysts in Israel and the United States, say the American military is best able to do it. Even operating with less-than- ideal intelligence, the U.S. military has the ability to inflict great damage to the regime and its military infrastructure. Professor Richard Russell of the National Defense University suggests that by targeting Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, American aircraft and cruise missiles could strike bases used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Aircraft and ballistic missiles that could be used to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as well as weapons production facilities, should be targeted also.
U.S. forces could strike Iran with weapons such as air-launched cruise missiles, delivered by B-2 bombers coming from the United States, and the Navy can fire sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles. Retired Col. Rick Francona, a military affairs analyst for the cable network MSNBC, says that the Air Force and the Navy, the services least involved in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, should be primarily responsible for the mission. Several of the Iranian facilities, such as those in Natanz, are buried as deep as 75 feet underground, and would require the use of U.S. satellite- guided munitions.

Jan. 20, 2006, 12:35AM

Syria backs Iran's move for nuclear capabilities
Russians urge caution on issue as U.S. accuses Tehran of trying to fool the world
By ALBERT AJI
Associated Press

DAMASCUS, SYRIA - Syria asserted Thursday that Iran had a right to atomic technology and said Western objections to Tehran's nuclear ambitions were not persuasive.

President Bashar Assad of Syria, a longtime Iranian ally facing its own criticism, said he backed Tehran's moves toward nuclear power and wanted to strengthen ties.

"We support Iran regarding its right to peaceful nuclear technology," Assad said at a news conference with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"It is the right of Iran and any other state to own nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Countries that object to that have not provided a convincing or logical reason."

Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrovon, on Thursday called for a cautious approach to the mounting crisis over Iran's renewal of nuclear research, while a senior U.S. envoy, Gregory Schulte, accused Tehran of deceiving the world about its intentions.

The United States and key European nations have been pushing for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council, a first step toward possible sanctions over Iran's unsealing equipment earlier this month and announcing the start of small-scale experimental uranium enrichment, a potential step toward nuclear weapons.

Syria is facing its own condemnation over its reluctance to cooperate with a U.N. investigation implicating it in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Damascus has denied any role.

Ahmadinejad said the two countries needed to coordinate their positions.

"Considering that Syria is the steadfast party confronting Israel, and Iran is the defender of the Islamic revolution, this obliges us to have more consultation and cooperation," the Iranian president said.

"The circumstances in the region dictate on us such strengthening (of ties)," he said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...ld/3599496.html

Iranian President Cements Syrian Alliance

By ALBERT AJI Associated Press Writer

Jan 19, 2006, 7:10 AM EST

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began a visit to Syria Thursday to consolidate an old alliance made increasingly crucial as both countries face mounting U.S. pressure and the threat of international sanctions.

Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar Assad were expected to talk about Iran's standoff with the West over its nuclear program and the threat to refer it to the U.N. Security Council, as well as Syria's own troubles over a U.N. investigation that implicated it in the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister.

Bilateral economic, industrial and cultural agreements also were expected to be discussed during the two-day visit.

Syria is Iran's closest Arab ally. The two countries have had close relations since 1980 when Syria sided with Iran against Iraq at the start of the Iran-Iraq war.

On the eve of the visit, Ahmadinejad described bilateral relations as "strong and good."

Both countries share to a certain extent similar foreign policy objectives: opposition to what they describe as U.S. attempts to dominate the Middle East, hostility toward Israel and support for Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups fighting the Jewish state.

Ahmadinejad's visit comes at a very delicate time for both nations.

Iran's insistence to proceed with its peaceful nuclear activities have raised great concern in the European Union and the United States, which have been pushing for referring the issue to the Security Council, a first step toward possible sanctions.

Syria faces international accusations of failing to fully cooperate with the U.N. investigation into last year's assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Investigators have implicated Syrian officials and now want to interview Assad and his foreign minister. Damascus has denied any role in the killing.

Syria sits on the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency board, which meets on Feb. 2 for a vote on whether to refer Tehran to the Security Council.

Ahmadinejad on Wednesday accused the West of acting like the "lord of the world" in denying his country peaceful use of nuclear energy. But the United States and other countries are suspicious that Iran is planning on develop nuclear arms.

Iran starts transferring foreign assets
Friday 20 January 2006, 16:42 Makka Time, 13:42 GMT

The governor of Iran's central bank has confirmed that the country has started to transfer assets held in foreign accounts.

Ebrahim Sheibani told the ISNA students' news agency on Friday: "We transfer foreign reserves to wherever we see as expedient. On this issue, we have started transferring. We are doing that."

ISNA specifically asked whether the money was being moved to Asian accounts but Sheibani's answer sidestepped the issue.

Sheibani told reporters earlier this week that Iran stood ready to repatriate the money it held abroad should this prove necessary.

Iran, which could face UN economic sanctions over its atomic programme, has bitter memories of its US assets being frozen shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Shift to Asia

ISNA's question appeared to be based on an article in the London-based Asharq al-Awsat Arabic newspaper that said Iran's Supreme National Security Council had ordered foreign holdings to be shifted to Asia.

Iran is the fourth biggest oil exporter in the world and the second largest in OPEC. Eighty percent of its export earnings come from oil, the price of which has soared over the past two years.

"If you're talking in terms of a safe haven proposal, that's where Switzerland is very strong, stronger than Singapore or other places. We are a country that is non-judgmental"

Steve Bernard,
Geneva Financial Centre, Zurich

Economists estimate Iran will have earned more than $40 billion in oil revenues by the end of the year to March 2006. Of this, $16 billion goes straight to budgeted government spending.

The rest goes to the Central Bank of Iran which keeps an unknown amount of holdings in foreign accounts.

The Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), the powerful trade and financing arm of the National Iranian Oil Company, is based in Switzerland.

Swiss reaction

Meanwhile a leading financial industry representative in Zurich on Friday said Swiss banks would welcome asset transfers by Iran.



"If you're talking in terms of a safe haven proposal, that's where Switzerland is very strong, stronger than Singapore or other places. We are a country that is non-judgmental," said Steve Bernard, director of the Geneva Financial Centre, a lobby in Switzerland's second-largest banking city after Zurich.



Switzerland is home to more offshore wealth than any other country, and is a traditional haven for investors who seek the safety of Swiss political neutrality and legal guarantees of banking privacy.



"Because of its non-discriminatory practices, Switzerland has always been an attractive place and would remain an attractive proposal for Iranian authorities looking to shift some of their assets or to diversify the geographical distribution of some of their assets," Bernard said.


Reuters

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

January 19, 2006
Hillary Clinton Says White House Has Mishandled Iran
By JOHN O'NEIL
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last night criticized the Bush administration for its response to Iran's nuclear program, saying it had chosen to "downplay" the crisis over the past several years.

In a speech at Princeton University, Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, joined the Bush administration's call for sanctions against Iran, and also said that the threat of military action against nuclear sites should not be ruled out.

But she was critical of the administration for letting European nations take the lead in negotiations over the last several years.

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Ms. Clinton said, according to a transcript of the speech published by The Daily Princetonian. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."

Since 2002 Britain, France and Germany have led talks meant to assure that Tehran's nuclear program would not give it the capacity to build weapons. The three countries last week declared that Iran's decision to resume nuclear research had brought the talks to an end, and, with the United States in support, asked that the matter be sent to the United Nations Security Council for possible action.

The Bush administration has long favored sanctions, but had deferred action at the request of the European nations, who convinced Iran in 2003 to suspend its nuclear program. Mr. Bush last week said that he would pursue a vigorous diplomatic push to get as many countries as possible on board for possible United Nations action. On North Korea, the Bush administration has refused that nation's request for direct talks over its nuclear program and instead has worked in concert with China, South Korea, Russia and Japan.

Iran today continued to give mixed signals in reaction to the push for a United Nations referral. Its oil minister, Davoud Danesh-Jafari, told the official Iranian news agency that "in case of sanctions, other countries will suffer as well as Iran."

"One of the consequences will be the unleashing of a crisis in the oil sector and particularly a price hike," he said, according to Reuters.

At the same time, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told the BBC that his country wanted a compromise and hoped to resume the European talks.

"They should not ask a brave nation with very good scientists not to engage in nuclear research," he said. "If they want guarantees of no diversion of nuclear fuel we can reach a formula acceptable to both sides."

The United States and Europe have made clear that they will not accept any program that includes research that would give Tehran the know-how to develop weapons.

In her Princeton speech, Ms. Clinton spoke of the gravity of Iran's program in terms similar to those used by the Administration.

"Let's be clear about the threat we face," Ms. Clinton said. "A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond."

"We cannot and should not - must not - permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations."

The United States and the European nations have called for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Feb. 2, and have begun circulating a draft resolution that would refer Iran to the Security Council.

Russia and China have both expressed opposition to sanctions, at least at this point, and are reluctant even to support a Security Council referral. The United States and the European nations have sought to reassure Russia and China that, for now, referral to the Security Council will not necessarily lead to sanctions.

Last week, Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, said that the Bush administration was correct in not ruling out possible military action to block an Iranian nuclear weapons program, but stressed that force should only be used after every other measure had been exhausted.

In general, Democrats have been supportive of the administration decision to take a back seat to the Europeans in negotiations, and many have expressed alarm whenever the conservative Republicans engaged in a more aggressive posture toward Iran.

Ms. Clinton's speech last night laid out a markedly tougher approach. She has already been under fire from many liberal activists in the Democratic party for her support of the war in Iraq and refusal to call for an immediate American pullout.

Iraq also figured in Ms. Clinton's speech, as she so drew a link between the Iranian conflict and events there. Shiite parties with close links to Iran appear to have been the biggest winners in last month's Iraqi elections, whose final results are to be released soon.

"Part of the problem that we confront with Iran today is, of course, its involvement in and influence over Iraq," she said.

Ms. Clinton said she was against an immediate military pullout, but said the American military commitment should not be "open ended."

"If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities," she said.

"That will help us stabilize the new Iraqi government," Ms. Clinton said. "It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there."



Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

Iran threatens oil crisis in nuclear standoff Thu Jan 19, 1:39 PM ET

Iran warned of a world oil crisis if sanctions are imposed over its nuclear program even as the United States and Europe struggled to get support for UN Security Council action.

"In case of sanctions, other countries will suffer as well as Iran," Oil Minister Davoud Danesh-Jafari said, according to the official news agency, IRNA.

"One of the consequences will be the unleashing of a crisis in the oil sector and particularly a price hike."

Iran, the number two oil exporter in OPEC with oil revenue last year of 42 billion dollars, risks being referred to the United Nations Security Council over what the West suspects is a covert nuclear weapons drive.

World oil prices this week hit a near-four-month high in New York, partly on fears of Iran sanctions.

The nuclear standoff came to a head when Iran broke international seals last week to restart uranium enrichment research which had been suspended for two years under deals with the Europeans.

But the United States and Europe are facing resistance, particularly from permanent UN Security Council members China and Russia, to their push for a referral to the world body and possible sanctions.

"We have been very clear that we believe the time has come for a referral of Iran to the Security Council," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in Washington.

Rice said Iran had been given adequate opportunities to resolve the nuclear issue through negotiations and prove to the world that it was not seeking nuclear weapons.

Russia, which is Iran's main partner in the growing civil nuclear programme, has been trying to steer away from a UN showdown. China has also opposed such a step.

Britain, France and Germany, backed by the United States, have called for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on February 2, a first step before possible UN Security Council referral.

Iran insists it is not seeking to build nuclear weapons and that it has the right to develop atomic energy. It has threatened to suspend snap inspections by the IAEA if it is brought before the Security Council.

But the Western powers have rejected Iran's call for a return to direct talks, Britain describing it as "vacuous", unless there is a return to the fuel cycle suspension.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy met with resistance when he held talks in Moscow with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to get support for UN action.

"We must simultaneously be united but also firm, to tell the Iranians to return to reason, to stop these dangerous nuclear activities and to let us negotiate together," Douste-Blazy told reporters after the talks.

But Lavrov reiterated Russia's attempts to strike a less confrontational stance.

"We need to act exactly as in medicine," he told journalists. "First understand what method is the most effective -- the scalpel or therapy. Only then do you understand all the aftereffects of further steps. Only then should you act."

As the world powers appeared split, Iran secured backing from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who pledged support for Iran's nuclear programme and rejected pressure on Tehran.

"We expressed our support for Iran in its pursuit of peaceful nuclear technology and we back the idea of a dialogue with international parties," Assad said after talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"We also reject the pressure being exerted on this country" over its nuclear programme, he said.

Tehran denied a newspaper report that Iran was moving billions of dollars in hard currency from European banks to Asia and said Europe had no right to freeze its assets.

Economy Minister Davoud Danesh-Jafari dismissed a report in pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat that Iran had ordered government departments to withdraw currency from European banks, fearing possible sanctions over its disputed nuclear programme.

Danesh-Jafari described the news report as "politicized" and "media-driven."

"International law does not allow Europeans to do such a thing (freeze assets)," Danesh-Jafari said.

Iranian hard currency reserves in foreign banks, mainly European banks, are valued at more than 36 billion dollars.

A US senator said he planned to introduce a bill calling on President George W. Bush's administration to press governments around the world to shun Iran over its nuclear program.

Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, speaking on US television, said he plans to introduce his resolution Friday, calling for Iran to be excluded from international forums and events and asking the administration to urge other governments to sever economic relations with Tehran.



Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

The Iran Charade, Part II

By Charles Krauthammer

Rather than face the consequences of action in the time left before a group of apocalyptic madmen go nuclear, Europe's leaders congratulate themselves for doing nothing in unison.

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle

Russia: Iran Ready to Discuss Nuclear Issue
By VOA News
20 January 2006



A top Russian energy official says Iran is ready for detailed discussions on Moscow's proposal to conduct Tehran's uranium enrichment in Russia.

Sergei Kiryenko, the head of Russia's atomic energy agency, made the announcement Friday, during a televised meeting with President Vladimir Putin. Kiryenko says Iranian officials were due to visit Moscow in the coming days to discuss the plan.


Inside Iranian nuclear plant
The proposal for uranium to be enriched in Russia for use in Iranian reactors is aimed at eliminating concerns that Tehran could enrich its own uranium for use in nuclear weapons.

The United States and European Union have backed the Russian proposal as a way to break the deadlock over Iran's nuclear program.

The U.S. accuses Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran insists its nuclear intentions are peaceful.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP

Iran says moving assets Reuters
Embroiled in a nuclear standoff with the West, Iran said on Friday it was moving its foreign assets to shield them from possible UN sanctions, and flexed its oil muscles with a proposal to cut OPEC output. "Yes, Iran has started withdrawing money from European banks and transferring it to other banks abroad," said a senior Iranian official, who asked not to be named. Central Bank Governor Ebrahim Sheibani was quoted earlier as saying Tehran had started shifting funds, but he sidestepped a question on whether the assets would go to accounts in Asia. It is far from clear how placing assets in Asia or anywhere abroad would protect them from being frozen as few governments or major banks would be willing to flout U.N. sanctions openly.
Iran calm as tempers fray over uranium research The Age
Iran comparing its nuke programme with India 'outrageous': US Outlook (subscription)
China Daily - Monsters and Critics.com - Sydney Morning Herald - New York Times - all 1,517 related »

Defusing Iran with democracy

By Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi, SHIRIN EBADI, a human rights advocate, was awarded the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize. MUHAMMAD SAHIMI is a professor of chemical engineering at USC.


LOST IN THE international fury over Iran's partial restart of its nuclear energy program, and the deplorable statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding Israel, has been the fact that respect for human rights and a democratic political system are the most effective deterrent against the threat that any aspiring nuclear power, including Iran, may pose to the world.

When the U.S. and its allies encouraged the shah in the 1970s to start Iran's nuclear energy program, they helped create the Frankenstein that has become so controversial today. If, instead, they had pressed the shah to undertake political reforms, respect human rights and release Iran's political prisoners, history could have been very different.

In the three decades since then, India, South Africa, North Korea, Israel and Pakistan have joined the nuclear club — and most people would acknowledge that the democracies among them are viewed today as the least threatening. In the 1980s, South Africa's apartheid regime made several nuclear bombs, but the democratic government of Nelson Mandela dismantled them. India has a nuclear arsenal, but few perceive the world's largest democracy as a global threat. Nor is Israel considered likely to be the first in the Middle East to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

But North Korea's nuclear program is a threat because its regime is secretive, its leader a recluse. The nuclear arsenal of Pakistan is dangerous because the military, which runs the country and is populated by Islamic extremists, helped create the Taliban and allowed Abdul Qadeer Khan to freely operate a nuclear supermarket.

Iran's nuclear program began accelerating around 1997 when the reform-minded Mohammad Khatami was elected president — just as Iran was developing an independent press, and just before a reformist parliament was elected in 2000. The reformists supported the nuclear program but wanted it to be fully transparent and in compliance with Iran's international obligations. These were reassuring signs that it would not get out of control.

But instead of backing Iran's fledgling democratic movement, which would have led to nuclear transparency, the U.S. undercut it by demonizing Iran.

While Khatami proposed people-to-people dialogue between Americans and Iranians, Washington chose to block Iranian scholars, artists and authors from visiting the U.S. Although Khatami helped the U.S. in Afghanistan, President Bush designated Iran a member of the "axis of evil."

By 2003, when it became clear that Khatami's reforms had stalled, the world started paying closer attention to Iran's nuclear program. So, what had demonizing Iran achieved?

The U.S. will not solve the nuclear problem by threatening military strikes or by dragging Iran before the U.N. Security Council. Although a vast majority of Iranians despise the country's hard-liners and wish for their downfall, they also support its nuclear program because it has become a source of pride for an old nation with a glorious history.

A military attack would only inflame nationalist sentiments. Iran is not Iraq. Given Iranians' fierce nationalism and the Shiites' tradition of martyrdom, any military move would provoke a response that would engulf the entire region, resulting in countless deaths and a ruined economy not only for the region but for the world.

Imposing U.N. sanctions on Iran would also be counterproductive, prompting Tehran to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and its "additional protocol." Is the world ready to live with such prospects?

So, what can the West do? Western nations should help the U.N. appoint a special human rights monitor for Iran. It would remind the General Assembly of Iran's human rights record annually, and strongly condemn it if the record keeps deteriorating. Contrary to the general perception, Iran's clerics are sensitive to outside criticism.

The World Bank should stop providing Iran with loans and, instead, work with nongovernmental organizations and the private sector to strengthen civil society. The West should support Iran's human-rights and democracy advocates, nominate jailed leaders for international awards and keep the cause in the public eye. Western nations should downgrade diplomatic relations if Iran continues violating basic human rights.

Iran is at least six to 10 years away from a nuclear bomb, by most estimates. The crisis is not even a crisis. There is ample time for political reform before Iran ever develops the bomb. Meanwhile, the West should permit Iran a limited uranium enrichment program (as allowed under the nonproliferation treaty) under strict safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency — but only when Tehran undertakes meaningful reforms, including freeing political prisoners and holding free and fair elections.

Lastly, the U.S. and Iran should enter direct negotiations. It is simply absurd for the U.S. and the most important nation in the Middle East not to communicate directly. The Bush administration should not be seduced by exile groups with no support in Iran. Developing democracy is an internal affair.

Democracy, in the end, will provide the ultimate safeguard against nuclear disaster, because a truly democratic Iran, backed by a majority of Iranians, would feel secure enough not to pursue dangerous military adventures.

PROLIFERATION NEWS
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie Issue Brief __20 January 2006


Vol. 8, No. Vol. 9, No. 1



No Military Options

By Joseph Cirincione

Iran is moving to restart its suspended uranium enrichment program. Negotiations with the European Union have collapsed and the crisis is escalating. Does the United States -- or Israel -- have a military option?

The same neoconservative pundits who campaigned for the invasion of Iraq are now beating the drums on Iran. Urging us this week to keep military options open, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol said Iran’s “nuclear program could well be getting close to the point of no return.” Writing from the same talking points, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said, “Instead of being years away from the point of no return for an Iranian bomb…Iran is probably just months away.”

Do they reflect the thinking of senior officials closely aligned with these political currents? No official has indicated that they do. But just one year ago, Vice President Cheney seemed to be thinking along exactly these lines when he told radio host Don Imus on Inauguration Day, "Iran is right at the top of the list." Cheney came close to endorsing military action, noting that "the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards."

There is no need for military strikes against Iran. The country is five to ten years away from the ability to enrich uranium for fuel or bombs. Even that estimate, shared by the Defense Intelligence Agency and experts at IISS, ISIS, and University of Maryland, assumes Iran goes full-speed ahead and does not encounter any of the technical problems that typically plague such programs.

This is not a nuclear bomb crisis, it is a nuclear regime crisis. US Ambassador John Bolton has correctly pointed out that this is a key test for the Security Council. If Iran is not stopped the entire nonproliferation regime will be weakened, and with it the UN system.

But it will have to be diplomats, not F-15s that stop the mullahs. An air strike against a soft target, such as the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan (which this author visited in 2005) would inflame Muslim anger, rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular government and jeopardize further the US posit