- Defiant Iran Threatens To Quit Nuclear Treaty
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Defiant_Ir...ear_Treaty.html
Tehran (AFP) Mar 13, 2006 - Iran on Sunday threatened to walk out of an international atomic treaty, as it continued to insist on its right to conduct sensitive nuclear activities ahead of a key meeting of the UN Security Council.
- Iran Nuke Talks Center At UN
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Nuke_...nter_At_UN.html
Full Version: War Against Iran in "Final Planning"
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Foreign Policy and National Defense > Foreign Policy & National Defense Issues Archive
U.S. Campaign Is Aimed at Iran's Leaders
Uneasy About Tehran's Nuclear Plans, Bush Administration Tries to Build Opposition to Theocracy
By Peter Baker and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, March 13, 2006; A01
As the dispute over its nuclear program arrives at the U.N. Security Council today, Iran has vaulted to the front of the U.S. national security agenda amid Bush administration plans for a sustained campaign against the ayatollahs of Tehran.
President Bush and his team have been huddling in closed-door meetings on Iran, summoning scholars for advice, investing in opposition activities, creating an Iran office in Washington and opening listening posts abroad dedicated to the efforts against Tehran.
The internal administration debate that raged in the first term between those who advocated more engagement with Iran and those who preferred more confrontation appears in the second term to be largely settled in favor of the latter. Although administration officials do not use the term "regime change" in public, that in effect is the goal they outline as they aim to build resistance to the theocracy.
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in Senate testimony last week. "We do not have a problem with the Iranian people. We want the Iranian people to be free. Our problem is with the Iranian regime."
In private meetings, Bush and his advisers have been more explicit. Members of the Hoover Institution's board of overseers who met with Bush, Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley two weeks ago emerged with the impression that the administration has shifted to a more robust policy aimed at the Iranian government.
"The message that we received is that they are in favor of separating the Iranian people from the regime," said Esmail Amid-Hozour, an Iranian American businessman who serves on the Hoover board.
"The upper hand is with those who are pushing regime change rather than those who are advocating more diplomacy," said Richard N. Haass, who as State Department policy planning director in Bush's first term was among those pushing for engagement.
But as the administration gears up, the struggle with Iran remains shadowed by Iraq. The botched intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons has left a credibility challenge in convincing the public and the world that the administration is right this time about Iran. After alienating European allies in the rush to war in Iraq, the administration is following a slower, multilateral approach. And with U.S. forces stretched, analysts wonder how feasible a military option would be if it came to that.
The focus on Iran inside the administration lately has been striking. Bush, according to aides, has been spending more time on the issue, and advisers have invited 30 to 40 specialists for consultations in recent months.
In the past week, the State Department created an Iran desk. Last year, only two people in the department worked full time on Iran; now there will be 10. The department is launching more training in the Farsi language and is planning an Iranian career track, which has been difficult without an embassy there.
Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said in an interview that the department will also add staff in Dubai, which is part of the United Arab Emirates, as well as at other embassies in the vicinity of Iran, all assigned to watch Tehran. He called the new Dubai outpost the "21st century equivalent" of the Riga station in Latvia that monitored the Soviet Union in the 1930s when the United States had no embassy in Moscow.
The administration also has launched a $75 million program to advance democracy in Iran by expanding broadcasting into the country, funding nongovernmental organizations and promoting cultural exchanges. Voice of America broadcasts one hour a day into Iran; by April, that will grow to four hours a day, and the administration plans to go to 24 hours a day. But the administration suffered a setback last week when lawmakers slashed $19 million, mainly from broadcast operations.
The administration got to this point after a year of deliberately staying on the sidelines. After the United States took the lead on Iraq, the British told Bush administration officials that Washington should let the Europeans go first on dealing with Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
During her first trip to Europe as secretary of state, in February 2005, Rice was surprised that most questions from European officials concerned Iran, not Iraq, and was sobered by the realization that they viewed Washington as the problem, not Tehran.
When Bush went to Europe a few weeks later, French President Jacques Chirac and then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany pushed him to support a British-French-German diplomatic effort dubbed the EU-3. Bush agreed, and Rice announced the decision a year ago last weekend. With the Europeans in the lead, it became easier to persuade Russia and China as well to take a tougher line with Iran.
"We have taken the position from the get-go that we believed it was important to work with as many countries as possible," Burns said. "We wanted to have the entire international community on our side in order to pressure Iran."
The biggest help bringing the international community together, though, came from Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proved so incendiary -- in dismissing the Holocaust and talking about wiping Israel off the map -- that the prospect of a negotiated solution faded. The statements underscored the danger posed by Tehran and, according to Burns, led Rice "to say we need to fire on all pistons on Iran." Ultimately, the Europeans, Russia and China agreed to send Iran to the Security Council.
Bush decided to push more overtly for a democratic Iran. "Tonight," he said in his State of the Union address on Jan. 31, "let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran."
Now that the nuclear issue is at the Security Council, the U.S. strategy is to escalate gradually rather than force an immediate climax. The first step would be a statement by the council president declaring Iran in violation of nuclear treaty obligations and demanding it suspend uranium enrichment. If that fails, the council could be asked to impose economic sanctions or pass a resolution allowing military force to enforce compliance. Russia and China, which have veto power, seem unlikely to support either move.
"There's a clear desire to have a broad coalition," a senior U.S. official said. "The question is, how do you get any action out of it?"
Some analysts believe this year will lead to a decision point for Bush whether to use a military option. For now, Bush and his aides say all options are on the table, but as a practical matter no armed strike is likely until diplomacy has been exhausted.
Many military specialists doubt a strike would be effective because Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered in dozens of locations, and would require hundreds of sorties first to disrupt Iranian air defenses. Such an attack, they say, could inflame the Muslim world and alienate reformers within Iran.
Haass, now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Washington should instead try direct negotiations with Tehran: "The United States ought to make a major diplomatic push in part because it might succeed, in part because none of the other options are attractive and in part because if you're going to escalate you want to demonstrate that you tried." The current policy, he said, "looks to me more like a hope than a strategy."
Some Republicans, though, say a military attack may be required if only to set back Iran's nuclear program a few years.
"Every year that we wait, the risk increases," said former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. "I would hope that the administration would decide to do something decisive. . . . We have the military power in the region if we need it. It's a question of whether we have the will."
Such a decision could prompt deep skepticism after the Iraq intelligence failure. "As far as Congress, they're certainly going to do their homework more this time and demand more from the intelligence community before they go along with this," said a Senate Republican leadership aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The way things are going now, the aide said, "It's hard to see this getting resolved under the Bush administration."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Uneasy About Tehran's Nuclear Plans, Bush Administration Tries to Build Opposition to Theocracy
By Peter Baker and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, March 13, 2006; A01
As the dispute over its nuclear program arrives at the U.N. Security Council today, Iran has vaulted to the front of the U.S. national security agenda amid Bush administration plans for a sustained campaign against the ayatollahs of Tehran.
President Bush and his team have been huddling in closed-door meetings on Iran, summoning scholars for advice, investing in opposition activities, creating an Iran office in Washington and opening listening posts abroad dedicated to the efforts against Tehran.
The internal administration debate that raged in the first term between those who advocated more engagement with Iran and those who preferred more confrontation appears in the second term to be largely settled in favor of the latter. Although administration officials do not use the term "regime change" in public, that in effect is the goal they outline as they aim to build resistance to the theocracy.
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in Senate testimony last week. "We do not have a problem with the Iranian people. We want the Iranian people to be free. Our problem is with the Iranian regime."
In private meetings, Bush and his advisers have been more explicit. Members of the Hoover Institution's board of overseers who met with Bush, Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley two weeks ago emerged with the impression that the administration has shifted to a more robust policy aimed at the Iranian government.
"The message that we received is that they are in favor of separating the Iranian people from the regime," said Esmail Amid-Hozour, an Iranian American businessman who serves on the Hoover board.
"The upper hand is with those who are pushing regime change rather than those who are advocating more diplomacy," said Richard N. Haass, who as State Department policy planning director in Bush's first term was among those pushing for engagement.
But as the administration gears up, the struggle with Iran remains shadowed by Iraq. The botched intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons has left a credibility challenge in convincing the public and the world that the administration is right this time about Iran. After alienating European allies in the rush to war in Iraq, the administration is following a slower, multilateral approach. And with U.S. forces stretched, analysts wonder how feasible a military option would be if it came to that.
The focus on Iran inside the administration lately has been striking. Bush, according to aides, has been spending more time on the issue, and advisers have invited 30 to 40 specialists for consultations in recent months.
In the past week, the State Department created an Iran desk. Last year, only two people in the department worked full time on Iran; now there will be 10. The department is launching more training in the Farsi language and is planning an Iranian career track, which has been difficult without an embassy there.
Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said in an interview that the department will also add staff in Dubai, which is part of the United Arab Emirates, as well as at other embassies in the vicinity of Iran, all assigned to watch Tehran. He called the new Dubai outpost the "21st century equivalent" of the Riga station in Latvia that monitored the Soviet Union in the 1930s when the United States had no embassy in Moscow.
The administration also has launched a $75 million program to advance democracy in Iran by expanding broadcasting into the country, funding nongovernmental organizations and promoting cultural exchanges. Voice of America broadcasts one hour a day into Iran; by April, that will grow to four hours a day, and the administration plans to go to 24 hours a day. But the administration suffered a setback last week when lawmakers slashed $19 million, mainly from broadcast operations.
The administration got to this point after a year of deliberately staying on the sidelines. After the United States took the lead on Iraq, the British told Bush administration officials that Washington should let the Europeans go first on dealing with Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
During her first trip to Europe as secretary of state, in February 2005, Rice was surprised that most questions from European officials concerned Iran, not Iraq, and was sobered by the realization that they viewed Washington as the problem, not Tehran.
When Bush went to Europe a few weeks later, French President Jacques Chirac and then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany pushed him to support a British-French-German diplomatic effort dubbed the EU-3. Bush agreed, and Rice announced the decision a year ago last weekend. With the Europeans in the lead, it became easier to persuade Russia and China as well to take a tougher line with Iran.
"We have taken the position from the get-go that we believed it was important to work with as many countries as possible," Burns said. "We wanted to have the entire international community on our side in order to pressure Iran."
The biggest help bringing the international community together, though, came from Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proved so incendiary -- in dismissing the Holocaust and talking about wiping Israel off the map -- that the prospect of a negotiated solution faded. The statements underscored the danger posed by Tehran and, according to Burns, led Rice "to say we need to fire on all pistons on Iran." Ultimately, the Europeans, Russia and China agreed to send Iran to the Security Council.
Bush decided to push more overtly for a democratic Iran. "Tonight," he said in his State of the Union address on Jan. 31, "let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran."
Now that the nuclear issue is at the Security Council, the U.S. strategy is to escalate gradually rather than force an immediate climax. The first step would be a statement by the council president declaring Iran in violation of nuclear treaty obligations and demanding it suspend uranium enrichment. If that fails, the council could be asked to impose economic sanctions or pass a resolution allowing military force to enforce compliance. Russia and China, which have veto power, seem unlikely to support either move.
"There's a clear desire to have a broad coalition," a senior U.S. official said. "The question is, how do you get any action out of it?"
Some analysts believe this year will lead to a decision point for Bush whether to use a military option. For now, Bush and his aides say all options are on the table, but as a practical matter no armed strike is likely until diplomacy has been exhausted.
Many military specialists doubt a strike would be effective because Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered in dozens of locations, and would require hundreds of sorties first to disrupt Iranian air defenses. Such an attack, they say, could inflame the Muslim world and alienate reformers within Iran.
Haass, now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Washington should instead try direct negotiations with Tehran: "The United States ought to make a major diplomatic push in part because it might succeed, in part because none of the other options are attractive and in part because if you're going to escalate you want to demonstrate that you tried." The current policy, he said, "looks to me more like a hope than a strategy."
Some Republicans, though, say a military attack may be required if only to set back Iran's nuclear program a few years.
"Every year that we wait, the risk increases," said former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. "I would hope that the administration would decide to do something decisive. . . . We have the military power in the region if we need it. It's a question of whether we have the will."
Such a decision could prompt deep skepticism after the Iraq intelligence failure. "As far as Congress, they're certainly going to do their homework more this time and demand more from the intelligence community before they go along with this," said a Senate Republican leadership aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The way things are going now, the aide said, "It's hard to see this getting resolved under the Bush administration."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?Do..._page=index.cfm
March 3, 2006
Newest IAEA report on Iran cites continued concerns in anticipation of full UNSC consideration
[click here for “IAEA formally refers Iranian matter to UN Security Council,” Feb. 27, 2006]
[click here for “IAEA on Iran: recent and pending action and legal parameters,” Feb. 2, 2006]
With UN Security Council (UNSC) referral already underway, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei on Feb. 27, 2006, circulated to the IAEA Board of Governors the latest IAEA report on the Iranian nuclear program, in anticipation of the board’s upcoming meeting beginning March 6, 2006.
(The report is officially restricted unless and until the board votes to make it public. Nevertheless, portions are set out in news reports, and the entire report may be downloaded from http://www.iranwatch.org/international/IAE...port-022706.pdf.
Update March 8, 2006: copy released to public now available on IAEA web site: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents...gov2006-15.pdf)
Egyptian lawyer ElBaradei’s language is cautious, but nevertheless voices continued concern and unanswered questions. The report cited Iran’s recent decision to resume nuclear fuel cycle activities, the violation of the 2004 Paris Agreement with Europe that brought Europe to temporarily drop diplomatic efforts and back UNSC referral. With respect to other issues, the IAEA report’s bottom line assessment appears to be that there has been partial cooperation sufficient to account for all previously discovered nuclear materials; the IAEA is not able to conclude the Iranian program is entirely peaceful and therefore licit; with respect to specific items under review there still are unanswered questions either because of a lack of full and active cooperation or because assessments and investigation are simply still ongoing; and the legal and corresponding investigative frameworks need to be strengthened.
Some of the report’s major points include:
With respect to that body of known nuclear materials Iran previously has declared or been forced to declare, all have been accounted for.
The IAEA is unable to conclude there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.
Iran possesses a “generic document” related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components, which Iran has agreed to keep under IAEA seal, and has opened to on-site examination; Iran refuses to provide a copy, and denies it requested it from foreign sources.
There is lack of clarification about the role of the military in Iran’s nuclear program, including with respect to recently obtained information received by the agency concerning alleged weapon studies that could involve nuclear material.
The IAEA believes it lacks legal authority to undertake the full scope of activities necessary to resolve the Iranian matter and ensure that ongoing questions will not continue being raised.
Even if Iran complies with its safeguards agreement as well as the unratified Additional Protocol that level of investigative intensity would not go far enough .
Ongoing IAEA assessments will be delayed by Iran’s lack of full cooperation, such as evidenced by Iran’s Feb. 6, 2006, decision to stop following the signed but unratified Additional Protocol (recall that the Additional Protocol is the latest generation of safeguards and provides moderately more intrusive and expansive inspections but does not go as far as what the IAEA board requires of Iran in its Feb. 4, 2006, board resolution reporting Iran to the UNSC).
There is an inadequacy of information available on Iran’s centrifuge enrichment program.
There still is not a full explanation for the presence of highly enriched uranium on some of the Iranian equipment.
Without active cooperation by Iran the matter cannot be resolved, implying that with its current level of authority the IAEA is not able to accomplish that goal on its own if Iran wished to thwart efforts to investigate it.
The report states:
53. … Although the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. The process of drawing such a conclusion, under normal circumstances, is a time consuming process even with an Additional Protocol in force. In the case of Iran, this conclusion can be expected to take even longer in light of the undeclared nature of Iran’s past nuclear programme, and in particular because of the inadequacy of information available on its centrifuge enrichment programme, the existence of a generic document related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components, and the lack of clarification about the role of the military in Iran’s nuclear programme, including, as mentioned above, about recent information available to the Agency concerning alleged weapon studies that could involve nuclear material.
“Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Report by the Director General,” International Atomic Energy Agency, GOV/2006/15, Feb. 27, 2006,
http://www.iranwatch.org/international/IAE...port-022706.pdf
The report further states:
54. It is regrettable, and a matter of concern, that the above uncertainties related to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme have not been clarified after three years of intensive Agency verification. … Iran’s full transparency is still essential. Without full transparency that extends beyond the formal legal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol — transparency that could only be achieved through Iran’s active cooperation — the Agency’s ability to reconstruct the history of Iran’s past programme and to verify the correctness and completeness of the statements made by Iran, particularly with regard to its centrifuge enrichment programme, will be limited, and questions about the past and current direction of Iran’s nuclear programme will continue to be raised. Such transparency should primarily include access to, and cooperation by, relevant individuals; access to documentation related to procurement and dual use equipment; and access to certain military owned workshops and R&D locations that the Agency may need to visit in the future as part of its investigation.
Evidence of enriched uranium on centrifuges
The IAEA previously detected contamination from both low-enriched uranium (LEU) and highly enriched uranium (HEU) on Iranian centrifuge equipment. Iran argued the contamination occurred outside Iran before Iran obtained the equipment. The IAEA believes that the some evidence supports Iran’s claim with respect to some of the HEU particles but that the matter is still not fully resolved:
… the origin of some HEU particles, and of the LEU particles, remains to be further investigated … Due to the fact that it is difficult to establish a definitive conclusion with respect to the origin of all of the contamination, it is essential to make progress on the scope and chronology of Iran’s experiments with UF6 in its centrifuge enrichment programme.
Need to strengthen nonproliferation regime
With respect to the overall investigation, part of the crux of the situation is that IAEA safeguards traditionally were aimed at essentially auditing known activities and materials, to account for their whereabouts, uses, and disposition. The Additional Protocol was aimed to provide moderately more proactive inspections but still does not provide open-ended authority of the kind the IAEA board has determined is needed to resolve the Iranian matter.
The UNSC, in contrast, has broad authority to engage any situation impacting international peace and security, to investigate and to require appropriate solutions. Under the text of the UN Charter, the UNSC hypothetically could require any kind of inspections. One interesting legal question would be how easily the UNSC could require Iran to give up nuclear energy, but clearly that proposal is not presently on the table, even though there appears to be international consensus that Iran should not have an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle. Note that negotiations between Iran and Russia on a joint enrichment project in Russia have generated a sense of partial cooperation analogous to the IAEA investigations, with Iran at times speaking favorable of the Russian proposal, but nevertheless refusing to foreclose the possible of also having purely Iranian enrichment projects located purely within Iran.
In any event, for the IAEA the next stage could be for the UNSC to strengthen the IAEA’s legal and investigative framework, in the process seeking to demonstrate the capacity of the UN system, working in synergy with other multilateral efforts, to “nip in the bud” any security and other challenges the Iranian matter poses.
Sources and further reading:
“Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Report by the Director General,” International Atomic Energy Agency, GOV/2006/15, Feb. 27, 2006,
http://www.iranwatch.org/international/IAE...port-022706.pdf
“FACTBOX-Key points of UN atomic watchdog report on Iran,” Reuters, Feb. 28, 2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type
=topNews&storyID=2006-02-28T181019Z_01_L28589764_
RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml &related=true
George Nishiyama, “Iran: Russia link counters mistrust raised by UN report,” Reuters, Feb. 28, 2006,
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....opNews&storyID=
2006-02-28T185724Z_01_L28111746_
RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml
“Tehran fails to dispel IAEA 'concern',” Financial Times, Feb. 28, 2006 http://news.ft.com/cms/s/426d2364-a7fe-11d...00779e2340.html
“IAEA Safeguards Overview: Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols,” International Atomic Energy Agency, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheet...g_overview.html
March 3, 2006
Newest IAEA report on Iran cites continued concerns in anticipation of full UNSC consideration
[click here for “IAEA formally refers Iranian matter to UN Security Council,” Feb. 27, 2006]
[click here for “IAEA on Iran: recent and pending action and legal parameters,” Feb. 2, 2006]
With UN Security Council (UNSC) referral already underway, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei on Feb. 27, 2006, circulated to the IAEA Board of Governors the latest IAEA report on the Iranian nuclear program, in anticipation of the board’s upcoming meeting beginning March 6, 2006.
(The report is officially restricted unless and until the board votes to make it public. Nevertheless, portions are set out in news reports, and the entire report may be downloaded from http://www.iranwatch.org/international/IAE...port-022706.pdf.
Update March 8, 2006: copy released to public now available on IAEA web site: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents...gov2006-15.pdf)
Egyptian lawyer ElBaradei’s language is cautious, but nevertheless voices continued concern and unanswered questions. The report cited Iran’s recent decision to resume nuclear fuel cycle activities, the violation of the 2004 Paris Agreement with Europe that brought Europe to temporarily drop diplomatic efforts and back UNSC referral. With respect to other issues, the IAEA report’s bottom line assessment appears to be that there has been partial cooperation sufficient to account for all previously discovered nuclear materials; the IAEA is not able to conclude the Iranian program is entirely peaceful and therefore licit; with respect to specific items under review there still are unanswered questions either because of a lack of full and active cooperation or because assessments and investigation are simply still ongoing; and the legal and corresponding investigative frameworks need to be strengthened.
Some of the report’s major points include:
With respect to that body of known nuclear materials Iran previously has declared or been forced to declare, all have been accounted for.
The IAEA is unable to conclude there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.
Iran possesses a “generic document” related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components, which Iran has agreed to keep under IAEA seal, and has opened to on-site examination; Iran refuses to provide a copy, and denies it requested it from foreign sources.
There is lack of clarification about the role of the military in Iran’s nuclear program, including with respect to recently obtained information received by the agency concerning alleged weapon studies that could involve nuclear material.
The IAEA believes it lacks legal authority to undertake the full scope of activities necessary to resolve the Iranian matter and ensure that ongoing questions will not continue being raised.
Even if Iran complies with its safeguards agreement as well as the unratified Additional Protocol that level of investigative intensity would not go far enough .
Ongoing IAEA assessments will be delayed by Iran’s lack of full cooperation, such as evidenced by Iran’s Feb. 6, 2006, decision to stop following the signed but unratified Additional Protocol (recall that the Additional Protocol is the latest generation of safeguards and provides moderately more intrusive and expansive inspections but does not go as far as what the IAEA board requires of Iran in its Feb. 4, 2006, board resolution reporting Iran to the UNSC).
There is an inadequacy of information available on Iran’s centrifuge enrichment program.
There still is not a full explanation for the presence of highly enriched uranium on some of the Iranian equipment.
Without active cooperation by Iran the matter cannot be resolved, implying that with its current level of authority the IAEA is not able to accomplish that goal on its own if Iran wished to thwart efforts to investigate it.
The report states:
53. … Although the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. The process of drawing such a conclusion, under normal circumstances, is a time consuming process even with an Additional Protocol in force. In the case of Iran, this conclusion can be expected to take even longer in light of the undeclared nature of Iran’s past nuclear programme, and in particular because of the inadequacy of information available on its centrifuge enrichment programme, the existence of a generic document related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components, and the lack of clarification about the role of the military in Iran’s nuclear programme, including, as mentioned above, about recent information available to the Agency concerning alleged weapon studies that could involve nuclear material.
“Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Report by the Director General,” International Atomic Energy Agency, GOV/2006/15, Feb. 27, 2006,
http://www.iranwatch.org/international/IAE...port-022706.pdf
The report further states:
54. It is regrettable, and a matter of concern, that the above uncertainties related to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear programme have not been clarified after three years of intensive Agency verification. … Iran’s full transparency is still essential. Without full transparency that extends beyond the formal legal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol — transparency that could only be achieved through Iran’s active cooperation — the Agency’s ability to reconstruct the history of Iran’s past programme and to verify the correctness and completeness of the statements made by Iran, particularly with regard to its centrifuge enrichment programme, will be limited, and questions about the past and current direction of Iran’s nuclear programme will continue to be raised. Such transparency should primarily include access to, and cooperation by, relevant individuals; access to documentation related to procurement and dual use equipment; and access to certain military owned workshops and R&D locations that the Agency may need to visit in the future as part of its investigation.
Evidence of enriched uranium on centrifuges
The IAEA previously detected contamination from both low-enriched uranium (LEU) and highly enriched uranium (HEU) on Iranian centrifuge equipment. Iran argued the contamination occurred outside Iran before Iran obtained the equipment. The IAEA believes that the some evidence supports Iran’s claim with respect to some of the HEU particles but that the matter is still not fully resolved:
… the origin of some HEU particles, and of the LEU particles, remains to be further investigated … Due to the fact that it is difficult to establish a definitive conclusion with respect to the origin of all of the contamination, it is essential to make progress on the scope and chronology of Iran’s experiments with UF6 in its centrifuge enrichment programme.
Need to strengthen nonproliferation regime
With respect to the overall investigation, part of the crux of the situation is that IAEA safeguards traditionally were aimed at essentially auditing known activities and materials, to account for their whereabouts, uses, and disposition. The Additional Protocol was aimed to provide moderately more proactive inspections but still does not provide open-ended authority of the kind the IAEA board has determined is needed to resolve the Iranian matter.
The UNSC, in contrast, has broad authority to engage any situation impacting international peace and security, to investigate and to require appropriate solutions. Under the text of the UN Charter, the UNSC hypothetically could require any kind of inspections. One interesting legal question would be how easily the UNSC could require Iran to give up nuclear energy, but clearly that proposal is not presently on the table, even though there appears to be international consensus that Iran should not have an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle. Note that negotiations between Iran and Russia on a joint enrichment project in Russia have generated a sense of partial cooperation analogous to the IAEA investigations, with Iran at times speaking favorable of the Russian proposal, but nevertheless refusing to foreclose the possible of also having purely Iranian enrichment projects located purely within Iran.
In any event, for the IAEA the next stage could be for the UNSC to strengthen the IAEA’s legal and investigative framework, in the process seeking to demonstrate the capacity of the UN system, working in synergy with other multilateral efforts, to “nip in the bud” any security and other challenges the Iranian matter poses.
Sources and further reading:
“Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Report by the Director General,” International Atomic Energy Agency, GOV/2006/15, Feb. 27, 2006,
http://www.iranwatch.org/international/IAE...port-022706.pdf
“FACTBOX-Key points of UN atomic watchdog report on Iran,” Reuters, Feb. 28, 2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type
=topNews&storyID=2006-02-28T181019Z_01_L28589764_
RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml &related=true
George Nishiyama, “Iran: Russia link counters mistrust raised by UN report,” Reuters, Feb. 28, 2006,
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....opNews&storyID=
2006-02-28T185724Z_01_L28111746_
RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml
“Tehran fails to dispel IAEA 'concern',” Financial Times, Feb. 28, 2006 http://news.ft.com/cms/s/426d2364-a7fe-11d...00779e2340.html
“IAEA Safeguards Overview: Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols,” International Atomic Energy Agency, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheet...g_overview.html
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/1...hange_again.php
It's Regime Change, Again
Tom Porteous
March 10, 2006
Tom Porteous is a freelance writer and analyst who was formerly with BBC Africa and served as Conflict Management Advisor for Africa with the British Foreign Office.
Make no mistake. The current posture and policy of the United States are leading inexorably towards a military showdown with Iran that could have profoundly negative consequences for Iran, for the region and for the United States.
For all the studied vagueness and ambiguity of senior United States and European officials, for all the talk of a long diplomatic process, of economic sanctions and political isolation, at the end of this road lies the opening of another front in America's "Long War."
The Egyptian IAEA chief, Mohammed ElBaradei, implicitly acknowledged the high risks at stake when he appealed to both Western and Iranian leaders on March 7 to "lower the rhetoric" and adopt a "cool-headed approach." But, as the Iranian dossier now moves to the U.N. Security Council, there is little sign of such an approach either in Tehran or in Washington.
"The Iranian regime needs to know," Dick Cheney told the annual policy conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington on March 7, "that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences. For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
Pressed by reporters on whether Cheney's "meaningful consequences" meant military action, hapless White House press spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that the vice president was merely "stating our policy".
But Cheney's message, delivered with symbolic, if not verbal, precision against the backdrop of a massive graphic of the Israeli national flag merging into the Stars and Stripes, was clear enough: the United States will use military force if diplomacy and economic pressure do not persuade the Iranian government to back down.
Two days later, on March 9, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice further raised the temperature, reiterating her claim that Iran is the Middle East's "central banker for terrorism."
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," she said, "whose policies are directed at developing a Middle East that would be 180 degrees different than the Middle East that we would like to see develop."
The problem with the United States' confrontational approach to Iran is that it is based on a misreading of the internal situation in Iran and on an over-confident assessment of the strategic position of the United States in the region in the aftermath of the U.S. military invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Diplomatic pressure, far from bringing about a change of heart in Tehran, is already strengthening the domestic political position of the hardliners around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and reinforcing their determination to press ahead with their nuclear enrichment plans in defiance of the United States, Europe and Israel. Furthermore, President Bush's nuclear deal with India has significantly undermined the diplomatic argument against Iran by blowing a hole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Because of the size of Iran's shadow economy and its relative economic self-sufficiency, any economic sanctions against Iran will be ineffective and could further bolster the hardliners' internal political standing. Furthermore, as Iranian officials have pointed out, Iran's status as a major oil producer means that it is in a position to retaliate to economic sanctions in kind, pushing up the price of oil.
The scarcely veiled threat of U.S. military action is no more likely to deter Iran's hardliners. Ahmadinejad calculates, correctly, that a full-scale invasion of Iran is out of the question and that United States or Israeli air strikes would simply help to strengthen Iran's political position in the region and provide a pretext for further consolidation at home (e.g. a crackdown on political opponents). Furthermore, Iran could respond to military action by piling the pressure on the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on Israel from Lebanon and Palestine.
The absence of a cool-headed approach to the crisis on the part of Ahmadinejad and his supporters seems to be based on a very cool calculation of their own factional political interests within Iran's political maze and of Washington's strategic difficulties in the region.
All this points in one direction: at some point in the not too distant future, once the diplomatic process at the U.N. is exhausted and economic sanctions have failed to get the Iranians to change their tune, there won't be any options left on Washington's table except military ones. And Iran's leaders are probably right in their assessment that those options are not good ones.
U.S. firepower could do a lot of physical damage and might even put back Iran's nuclear programme by a few years. But it would also do a lot of political damage: to the prospects of political reform in Iran; to the stability of Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider region; and to U.S. political and strategic standing in the world.
The United States is making the same mistakes with regard to Iran as those which it made with regard to Iraq. The consequences are likely to be just as fraught, and perhaps even more damaging.
Although several leading members of the neo-conservative movement, which provided the theoretical and intellectual underpinning for the invasion of Iraq, have now recanted and admitted they were wrong about Iraq, the prospect of U.S. military action against Iran is not getting the critical attention it deserves.
Washington has missed several good opportunities in recent years to engage with Iran and to influence internal Iranian politics in a positive and peaceful manner. It is unlikely that any more will present themselves now or that this U.S. administration will seek to engage in bold, transformational diplomacy with the Iranian government. That would count as appeasement in Washington's current political vocabulary.
So there is no serious debate about the credible alternatives to military action in Iran. The United States is drifting unnecessarily towards military confrontation with the largest and richest state in the Middle East, with grave implications for the future of Western relations with the Muslim world. And everyone is busily pretending that it is not happening.
Copyright © 2006 Tom Porteous
It's Regime Change, Again
Tom Porteous
March 10, 2006
Tom Porteous is a freelance writer and analyst who was formerly with BBC Africa and served as Conflict Management Advisor for Africa with the British Foreign Office.
Make no mistake. The current posture and policy of the United States are leading inexorably towards a military showdown with Iran that could have profoundly negative consequences for Iran, for the region and for the United States.
For all the studied vagueness and ambiguity of senior United States and European officials, for all the talk of a long diplomatic process, of economic sanctions and political isolation, at the end of this road lies the opening of another front in America's "Long War."
The Egyptian IAEA chief, Mohammed ElBaradei, implicitly acknowledged the high risks at stake when he appealed to both Western and Iranian leaders on March 7 to "lower the rhetoric" and adopt a "cool-headed approach." But, as the Iranian dossier now moves to the U.N. Security Council, there is little sign of such an approach either in Tehran or in Washington.
"The Iranian regime needs to know," Dick Cheney told the annual policy conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington on March 7, "that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences. For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
Pressed by reporters on whether Cheney's "meaningful consequences" meant military action, hapless White House press spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that the vice president was merely "stating our policy".
But Cheney's message, delivered with symbolic, if not verbal, precision against the backdrop of a massive graphic of the Israeli national flag merging into the Stars and Stripes, was clear enough: the United States will use military force if diplomacy and economic pressure do not persuade the Iranian government to back down.
Two days later, on March 9, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice further raised the temperature, reiterating her claim that Iran is the Middle East's "central banker for terrorism."
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," she said, "whose policies are directed at developing a Middle East that would be 180 degrees different than the Middle East that we would like to see develop."
The problem with the United States' confrontational approach to Iran is that it is based on a misreading of the internal situation in Iran and on an over-confident assessment of the strategic position of the United States in the region in the aftermath of the U.S. military invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Diplomatic pressure, far from bringing about a change of heart in Tehran, is already strengthening the domestic political position of the hardliners around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and reinforcing their determination to press ahead with their nuclear enrichment plans in defiance of the United States, Europe and Israel. Furthermore, President Bush's nuclear deal with India has significantly undermined the diplomatic argument against Iran by blowing a hole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Because of the size of Iran's shadow economy and its relative economic self-sufficiency, any economic sanctions against Iran will be ineffective and could further bolster the hardliners' internal political standing. Furthermore, as Iranian officials have pointed out, Iran's status as a major oil producer means that it is in a position to retaliate to economic sanctions in kind, pushing up the price of oil.
The scarcely veiled threat of U.S. military action is no more likely to deter Iran's hardliners. Ahmadinejad calculates, correctly, that a full-scale invasion of Iran is out of the question and that United States or Israeli air strikes would simply help to strengthen Iran's political position in the region and provide a pretext for further consolidation at home (e.g. a crackdown on political opponents). Furthermore, Iran could respond to military action by piling the pressure on the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on Israel from Lebanon and Palestine.
The absence of a cool-headed approach to the crisis on the part of Ahmadinejad and his supporters seems to be based on a very cool calculation of their own factional political interests within Iran's political maze and of Washington's strategic difficulties in the region.
All this points in one direction: at some point in the not too distant future, once the diplomatic process at the U.N. is exhausted and economic sanctions have failed to get the Iranians to change their tune, there won't be any options left on Washington's table except military ones. And Iran's leaders are probably right in their assessment that those options are not good ones.
U.S. firepower could do a lot of physical damage and might even put back Iran's nuclear programme by a few years. But it would also do a lot of political damage: to the prospects of political reform in Iran; to the stability of Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider region; and to U.S. political and strategic standing in the world.
The United States is making the same mistakes with regard to Iran as those which it made with regard to Iraq. The consequences are likely to be just as fraught, and perhaps even more damaging.
Although several leading members of the neo-conservative movement, which provided the theoretical and intellectual underpinning for the invasion of Iraq, have now recanted and admitted they were wrong about Iraq, the prospect of U.S. military action against Iran is not getting the critical attention it deserves.
Washington has missed several good opportunities in recent years to engage with Iran and to influence internal Iranian politics in a positive and peaceful manner. It is unlikely that any more will present themselves now or that this U.S. administration will seek to engage in bold, transformational diplomacy with the Iranian government. That would count as appeasement in Washington's current political vocabulary.
So there is no serious debate about the credible alternatives to military action in Iran. The United States is drifting unnecessarily towards military confrontation with the largest and richest state in the Middle East, with grave implications for the future of Western relations with the Muslim world. And everyone is busily pretending that it is not happening.
Copyright © 2006 Tom Porteous
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0313/dailyUpdate.html
posted March 13, 2006 at 10:50 a.m.
Nature of conflict changing for Iraqis
Sectarian violence, not insurgency, now greatest threat to life.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
As the third anniversary of the start of the invasion of Iraq nears, the nature of the conflict is changing for Iraqis. The greatest danger is no longer the insurgency, reports The Washington Post, but the threat of sectarian violence, which increases almost daily. Increasingly, lines are being drawn – literally – between Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods.
Baghdad has calmed since the mosque bombing, partly because the city's nightly curfew was moved up three hours to 8 p.m. But Baghdad and Iraq have nevertheless begun to look like Lebanon during that country's 15-year civil war. Green lines and red lines have sprung up between neighborhoods, and complex rivalries have grown among myriad factions pursuing political aims with armed militias. ...
Checkpoints set up by Iraqi security forces now mark the otherwise imperceptible boundaries between some neighborhoods. Uniformed gunmen from Iraq's many ambiguous and shifting security forces and militias scan passing traffic, sticking their heads in rolled-down windows to question motorists, in search of anyone who looks like an outsider and a possible threat.
In one sign of the growing public nature of this violence, the Los Angeles Times reports that the head of Iraq's public TV network, Al-Iraqiya, was ambushed and killed Saturday. The network is indirectly controlled by the Shiite-led government. But it appears the murder was in retaliation for the killing four days earlier of Munsuf Abdallah Khalidi, a news anchor on Baghdad Television, which is run by the country's largest Sunni Arab party.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the growing power of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and his Madhi Army, causes great concern among US officials. Many see the only way that the US time in Iraq will be considered a success is if they leave behind a stable government, but Sadr's growing power is a danger to that hope.
"The true nightmare in Iraq is not Anbar," the province that is the hotbed of the Sunni-led insurgency, "it's Basra," said a high-level U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It's neighborhood by neighborhood, police station by police station, collectives of quasi-political, quasi-criminal gangs, who may use a label that has a national color to it but in reality isn't national at all. And it's the intermingling of criminality and the push for individual power, all blended into one."
The BBC reports that Britain's Foreign Office minister, Kim Howells, admits that the situation in Iraq is "a mess," but argues that Iraq's prospects are better than media reports suggest. He also dismissed reports of civil war, and said that while Iraq may be a mess, it's "a mess that can't launch an attack now on Iran; a mess that won't be able to march into Kuwait; it's a mess that can't develop nuclear weapons." He also took a swipe at conservative figures in the US who have complained about the direction of the war.
"I would never take my guidance from swivel-eyed right-wing Americans and I'm surprised that anybody ever did. I do not look to them to continue the fight for democracy and to rebuild a nation in Iraq any more than I would look at some left-wing loony," he said.
"This is a job that has to be done; these are the materials we have got to deal with; and they are great materials. We've just got to get on with it now."
But John Burns, who has been the New York Times bureau chief in Baghdad for four years and was one of the few journalists to remain in the capital during the US invasion, paints a completely different picture of the situation. Editor & Publisher reports that Mr. Burns, appearing on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday night, said that for the first time, he believes the US mission in Iraq "will fail."
Asked if a civil war was developing there, Burns said, "It's always been a civil war," adding that it's just a matter of extent. He said the current US leaders there – military and diplomatic – were doing their best but sectarian differences would "probably" doom the enterprise.
Burns said that he and others underestimated this problem, feeling for a long time that toppling Saddam Hussein would almost inevitably lead to something much better. He called the Abu Ghraib abuse the worst of many mistakes the US made but said that even without so many mistakes the sectarian conflict would have gotten out of hand.
Burns said the US military officials in Iraq will be deciding over the next couple of weeks if they should draw down US forces in Iraq this spring. With conditions on the ground deteriorating, it could lead to chaos in Iraq, but if the troops are not brought back "it would prove to be a political disaster for the White House."
A secret study by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service seems to support concerns about early withdrawal from Iraq. The Toronto Star reports that unless Iraq first had a stable government, insurgents would see the removal of US troops as a "significant victory." The CSIS study says the insurgents are working hard to exploit the differences between the various factions in Iraq and that the "spectrum of instability" in Iraq includes "high levels of criminal activity, civil unrest, increased sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites, regular guerrilla action against allied forces, assaults on Iraqi authorities, sabotage, kidnapping and assassination."
The spy service notes some observers have argued that rather than prompt a descent into civil war, an American pullout may pacify anti-U.S. elements, impair the recruiting efforts of the insurgents and give the Iraqi state a new sense of purpose.
"However, without having clearly established a stable democratic government, insurgents will likely perceive a U.S. withdrawal as a significant victory," the study adds.
The Associated Press reports that, after a meeting with US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, Iraqi leaders announced that the parliament would convene three days earlier than planned. Officials also announced that meetings to break the deadlock over the forming of a new government would continue. Khalilzad said a permanent government needed to be in place quickly because of the continuing effort by "terrorists to provoke sectarian conflict. To deal with the need on an urgent basis [we must] form a government of national unity."
The Sydney Morning Herald reported last week, however, that Abdul Karim al-Enzy, Iraq's national security minister, took a swipe at the US for interfering in Iraq's internal affairs. He said the US was intentionally slowing Iraq's redevelopment because of "a self-serving agenda that included oil and the 'war on terror.'"
Mr. Enzy argued that if the US-led coalition in Iraq had been more serious about rebuilding the country's security forces in the first year of the occupation, it could now be making substantial cuts in foreign troop numbers in Iraq. "We don't want foreign forces here, but it's impossible for them to leave now, because we're on the edge of civil war," he said.
"The truth is the Americans don't want us to reach the levels of courage and competence needed to deal with the insurgency because they want to stay here. They came for their own strategic interests. A lot of the world's oil is in this region and they want to use Iraq as a battlefield in the war on terror because they believe they can contain the terrorism in Iraq."
Enzy said Iraq and the region's relationship with the West was complicated by "significant differences of culture and tradition."
posted March 13, 2006 at 10:50 a.m.
Nature of conflict changing for Iraqis
Sectarian violence, not insurgency, now greatest threat to life.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
As the third anniversary of the start of the invasion of Iraq nears, the nature of the conflict is changing for Iraqis. The greatest danger is no longer the insurgency, reports The Washington Post, but the threat of sectarian violence, which increases almost daily. Increasingly, lines are being drawn – literally – between Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods.
Baghdad has calmed since the mosque bombing, partly because the city's nightly curfew was moved up three hours to 8 p.m. But Baghdad and Iraq have nevertheless begun to look like Lebanon during that country's 15-year civil war. Green lines and red lines have sprung up between neighborhoods, and complex rivalries have grown among myriad factions pursuing political aims with armed militias. ...
Checkpoints set up by Iraqi security forces now mark the otherwise imperceptible boundaries between some neighborhoods. Uniformed gunmen from Iraq's many ambiguous and shifting security forces and militias scan passing traffic, sticking their heads in rolled-down windows to question motorists, in search of anyone who looks like an outsider and a possible threat.
In one sign of the growing public nature of this violence, the Los Angeles Times reports that the head of Iraq's public TV network, Al-Iraqiya, was ambushed and killed Saturday. The network is indirectly controlled by the Shiite-led government. But it appears the murder was in retaliation for the killing four days earlier of Munsuf Abdallah Khalidi, a news anchor on Baghdad Television, which is run by the country's largest Sunni Arab party.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the growing power of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and his Madhi Army, causes great concern among US officials. Many see the only way that the US time in Iraq will be considered a success is if they leave behind a stable government, but Sadr's growing power is a danger to that hope.
"The true nightmare in Iraq is not Anbar," the province that is the hotbed of the Sunni-led insurgency, "it's Basra," said a high-level U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It's neighborhood by neighborhood, police station by police station, collectives of quasi-political, quasi-criminal gangs, who may use a label that has a national color to it but in reality isn't national at all. And it's the intermingling of criminality and the push for individual power, all blended into one."
The BBC reports that Britain's Foreign Office minister, Kim Howells, admits that the situation in Iraq is "a mess," but argues that Iraq's prospects are better than media reports suggest. He also dismissed reports of civil war, and said that while Iraq may be a mess, it's "a mess that can't launch an attack now on Iran; a mess that won't be able to march into Kuwait; it's a mess that can't develop nuclear weapons." He also took a swipe at conservative figures in the US who have complained about the direction of the war.
"I would never take my guidance from swivel-eyed right-wing Americans and I'm surprised that anybody ever did. I do not look to them to continue the fight for democracy and to rebuild a nation in Iraq any more than I would look at some left-wing loony," he said.
"This is a job that has to be done; these are the materials we have got to deal with; and they are great materials. We've just got to get on with it now."
But John Burns, who has been the New York Times bureau chief in Baghdad for four years and was one of the few journalists to remain in the capital during the US invasion, paints a completely different picture of the situation. Editor & Publisher reports that Mr. Burns, appearing on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday night, said that for the first time, he believes the US mission in Iraq "will fail."
Asked if a civil war was developing there, Burns said, "It's always been a civil war," adding that it's just a matter of extent. He said the current US leaders there – military and diplomatic – were doing their best but sectarian differences would "probably" doom the enterprise.
Burns said that he and others underestimated this problem, feeling for a long time that toppling Saddam Hussein would almost inevitably lead to something much better. He called the Abu Ghraib abuse the worst of many mistakes the US made but said that even without so many mistakes the sectarian conflict would have gotten out of hand.
Burns said the US military officials in Iraq will be deciding over the next couple of weeks if they should draw down US forces in Iraq this spring. With conditions on the ground deteriorating, it could lead to chaos in Iraq, but if the troops are not brought back "it would prove to be a political disaster for the White House."
A secret study by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service seems to support concerns about early withdrawal from Iraq. The Toronto Star reports that unless Iraq first had a stable government, insurgents would see the removal of US troops as a "significant victory." The CSIS study says the insurgents are working hard to exploit the differences between the various factions in Iraq and that the "spectrum of instability" in Iraq includes "high levels of criminal activity, civil unrest, increased sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites, regular guerrilla action against allied forces, assaults on Iraqi authorities, sabotage, kidnapping and assassination."
The spy service notes some observers have argued that rather than prompt a descent into civil war, an American pullout may pacify anti-U.S. elements, impair the recruiting efforts of the insurgents and give the Iraqi state a new sense of purpose.
"However, without having clearly established a stable democratic government, insurgents will likely perceive a U.S. withdrawal as a significant victory," the study adds.
The Associated Press reports that, after a meeting with US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, Iraqi leaders announced that the parliament would convene three days earlier than planned. Officials also announced that meetings to break the deadlock over the forming of a new government would continue. Khalilzad said a permanent government needed to be in place quickly because of the continuing effort by "terrorists to provoke sectarian conflict. To deal with the need on an urgent basis [we must] form a government of national unity."
The Sydney Morning Herald reported last week, however, that Abdul Karim al-Enzy, Iraq's national security minister, took a swipe at the US for interfering in Iraq's internal affairs. He said the US was intentionally slowing Iraq's redevelopment because of "a self-serving agenda that included oil and the 'war on terror.'"
Mr. Enzy argued that if the US-led coalition in Iraq had been more serious about rebuilding the country's security forces in the first year of the occupation, it could now be making substantial cuts in foreign troop numbers in Iraq. "We don't want foreign forces here, but it's impossible for them to leave now, because we're on the edge of civil war," he said.
"The truth is the Americans don't want us to reach the levels of courage and competence needed to deal with the insurgency because they want to stay here. They came for their own strategic interests. A lot of the world's oil is in this region and they want to use Iraq as a battlefield in the war on terror because they believe they can contain the terrorism in Iraq."
Enzy said Iraq and the region's relationship with the West was complicated by "significant differences of culture and tradition."
Nuclear expert: Too late to stop Iran;
"I'm afraid that we probably are past the point where there is any meaningful alternative other than military action to stop the Iranians if they are determined to go ahead.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/193...E68343B14C1.htm
McCain: If Iran Gets Nukes, U.S. 'In Trouble':
"Iran may be the greatest single threat to America since the end of the Cold War,"McCain told an audience at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Memphis, Tenn. "If the Iranians acquire nuclear weapons, then my friends, we are in trouble.”
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/...0926.shtml?s=lh
Iran builds a secret underground complex as nuclear tensions rise:
Iran's leaders have built a secret underground emergency command centre in Teheran as they prepare for a confrontation with the West over their illicit nuclear programme, the Sunday Telegraph has been told.
http://tinyurl.com/f3hxl
"I'm afraid that we probably are past the point where there is any meaningful alternative other than military action to stop the Iranians if they are determined to go ahead.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/193...E68343B14C1.htm
McCain: If Iran Gets Nukes, U.S. 'In Trouble':
"Iran may be the greatest single threat to America since the end of the Cold War,"McCain told an audience at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Memphis, Tenn. "If the Iranians acquire nuclear weapons, then my friends, we are in trouble.”
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/...0926.shtml?s=lh
Iran builds a secret underground complex as nuclear tensions rise:
Iran's leaders have built a secret underground emergency command centre in Teheran as they prepare for a confrontation with the West over their illicit nuclear programme, the Sunday Telegraph has been told.
http://tinyurl.com/f3hxl
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...4/ixportal.html
Bush ready to initiate 'regime change' for the mullahs
By Alec Russell in Washington
(Filed: 14/03/2006)
After five years of indecision and internal disputes the Bush administration has started a new, more vigorous phase in trying to undermine the ruling mullahs of Iran.
The phrase "regime change" is seen as too loaded to use in public but in effect that is what the administration is hoping to do, according to officials in Washington.
Buoyed up by achieving its initial goal of dragging Teheran before the United Nations Security Council, which is to debate Iran this week, officials are now promoting several measures reminiscent of the American approach towards Moscow in the Cold War.
Even as £45 million is pumped into television and radio outlets to broadcast to the Iranian people, listening posts are to be opened in countries close to Iran to make up for America's lack of a diplomatic presence there.
At the same time officials from the state department and the Pentagon, traditionally at loggerheads on Iran, appear to be sounding the same tune. Talk of "overtures" and "outreach to Teheran", the preferred approach of many in the state department in President George W Bush's first term, is over as Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, nudges the diplomats towards a more confrontational approach.
"A lot of things have come together," a senior administration official told The Daily Telegraph yesterday. "It's not yet the end of the line. . . but this is the moment for us to start organising our efforts."
US officials are privately cockahoop that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's new president, has "played into their hands" by threatening to eliminate Israel and by denying the Holocaust.
That played a crucial role in bolstering EU nations, in particular Germany, to abandon misgivings over the Bush administration and work with it to confront Iran.
"So determined are they to get nuclear weapons that they have forfeited a lot of what they had gained. It had been a great success of Iranian foreign policy to split America and Europe but they have thrown that away," said the official.
The official insisted that military action against Iran's nuclear sites remained a last resort. But he suggested that people were wrong to assume that the presence of 130,000 US troops across the border in Iraq meant that action was out of the question. "I wouldn't assume anything. Our president has said everything is still on the table."
Some insiders suggest that a decision will have to be made on military action by the end of this year.
In the meantime there will be a twin-track approach of boosting external and internal opponents of the regime, while trying to stiffen the spines of nations on the Security Council so they do not shrink from imposing penalties on Iran. The plan is for the pressure to intensify bit by bit rather than to bring the issue to a sudden climax.
"We still support diplomatic measures but they ought to include using the UN Security Council and putting the Iranians on the spot if they continue to defy everybody," said the official. Analysts caution that backing the exiled opposition and sending messages to internal opponents of the regime risks backfiring badly and bolstering the mullahs.
But in Washington officials feel that after deliberately staying on the sidelines over a year of diplomacy led by Britain, France and Germany, it is time to take charge of the debate.
Mr Bush has spent more and more time on the issue in recent months, inviting dozens of analysts to the White House for briefings. The state department last week created a special Iran desk.
Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state, told the Washington Post yesterday that more diplomats would be posted to countries around Iran specifically to focus on Teheran.
He said that a new outpost in Dubai would be the "21st Century equivalent" of the station in Riga, the capital of Latvia, in the 1930s when Washington had no embassy in the Soviet Union.
12 March 2006: Iran builds a secret underground complex as nuclear tensions rise
11 March 2006: Britain, US and France push for timetable to make Iran reveal atom secrets
Bush ready to initiate 'regime change' for the mullahs
By Alec Russell in Washington
(Filed: 14/03/2006)
After five years of indecision and internal disputes the Bush administration has started a new, more vigorous phase in trying to undermine the ruling mullahs of Iran.
The phrase "regime change" is seen as too loaded to use in public but in effect that is what the administration is hoping to do, according to officials in Washington.
Buoyed up by achieving its initial goal of dragging Teheran before the United Nations Security Council, which is to debate Iran this week, officials are now promoting several measures reminiscent of the American approach towards Moscow in the Cold War.
Even as £45 million is pumped into television and radio outlets to broadcast to the Iranian people, listening posts are to be opened in countries close to Iran to make up for America's lack of a diplomatic presence there.
At the same time officials from the state department and the Pentagon, traditionally at loggerheads on Iran, appear to be sounding the same tune. Talk of "overtures" and "outreach to Teheran", the preferred approach of many in the state department in President George W Bush's first term, is over as Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, nudges the diplomats towards a more confrontational approach.
"A lot of things have come together," a senior administration official told The Daily Telegraph yesterday. "It's not yet the end of the line. . . but this is the moment for us to start organising our efforts."
US officials are privately cockahoop that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's new president, has "played into their hands" by threatening to eliminate Israel and by denying the Holocaust.
That played a crucial role in bolstering EU nations, in particular Germany, to abandon misgivings over the Bush administration and work with it to confront Iran.
"So determined are they to get nuclear weapons that they have forfeited a lot of what they had gained. It had been a great success of Iranian foreign policy to split America and Europe but they have thrown that away," said the official.
The official insisted that military action against Iran's nuclear sites remained a last resort. But he suggested that people were wrong to assume that the presence of 130,000 US troops across the border in Iraq meant that action was out of the question. "I wouldn't assume anything. Our president has said everything is still on the table."
Some insiders suggest that a decision will have to be made on military action by the end of this year.
In the meantime there will be a twin-track approach of boosting external and internal opponents of the regime, while trying to stiffen the spines of nations on the Security Council so they do not shrink from imposing penalties on Iran. The plan is for the pressure to intensify bit by bit rather than to bring the issue to a sudden climax.
"We still support diplomatic measures but they ought to include using the UN Security Council and putting the Iranians on the spot if they continue to defy everybody," said the official. Analysts caution that backing the exiled opposition and sending messages to internal opponents of the regime risks backfiring badly and bolstering the mullahs.
But in Washington officials feel that after deliberately staying on the sidelines over a year of diplomacy led by Britain, France and Germany, it is time to take charge of the debate.
Mr Bush has spent more and more time on the issue in recent months, inviting dozens of analysts to the White House for briefings. The state department last week created a special Iran desk.
Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state, told the Washington Post yesterday that more diplomats would be posted to countries around Iran specifically to focus on Teheran.
He said that a new outpost in Dubai would be the "21st Century equivalent" of the station in Riga, the capital of Latvia, in the 1930s when Washington had no embassy in the Soviet Union.
12 March 2006: Iran builds a secret underground complex as nuclear tensions rise
11 March 2006: Britain, US and France push for timetable to make Iran reveal atom secrets
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060314-12...7713r_page2.htm
Tehran elite turning on extremist presidency
By John R. Bradley
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 14, 2006
TEHRAN -- Iran's clerical and business establishments, deeply concerned by what they see as reckless spending and needlessly aggressive foreign policies, are increasingly turning against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Within this context, many see the president's long-running confrontation with the United States and Europe over Tehran's nuclear program as an attempt to demonize the West and distract the Iranian public from pressing domestic problems.
A relatively small group of extremists "at the top of the government around the president" are seeking to benefit from a crisis with the West, because "that way they will be able once again to blame the West for all of their problems," said Mousa Ghaninejad, the editor of Iran's best-selling economics daily newspaper, Dunya Al-Eqtisad.
Millions of low-income Iranians voted for the new president last year, motivated by his firm stand against corruption and pledges to give financial priority to their needs.
"His appeal was to those for whom class discrimination is important, and his simple lifestyle gave an air of credibility to his claims," said Nasser Hadian, a political analyst at Tehran University who attended high school with Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Mr. Hadian predicted that senior Iranian clerics would continue to support Mr. Ahmadinejad -- or at least not move against him -- for about a year because of that popular support. But privately, he said, they feel he is isolating Iran internationally and putting its economy at risk.
Also at the back of their minds is the fear that his anti-corruption drive ultimately threatens their own considerable privileges.
Mr. Ghaninejad was one of 13 experts in economics who warned, in two petitions to the government just before Mr. Ahmadinejad was elected, that his populist, short-term policies would spell disaster for Iran in the long term.
"Now he's throwing money at complex problems and just doesn't care about the long term. He thinks he should help the poor today and leave everything else to the Hidden Imam," the newspaper editor said, referring to a character whom Shi'ites believe will one day emerge to bring justice to the world.
The critics say Mr. Ahmadinejad's budget, which has just been approved by parliament after prolonged wrangling, flouts economic doctrines sanctioned by the powerful Expediency Council, which is under the supervision of the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Iran's long-term planning calls for vigorous efforts to reduce the size of government and to curb subsidies to state-owned entities, which account for an estimated 75 percent of the economy. But the Ahmadinejad budget boosts spending by 25 percent and envisions a 31 percent increase in spending on state enterprises.
The 2006 budget also calls on the government to use up to $40 billion of its foreign cash reserves -- generated from oil sales -- to meet the fiscal year's spending needs, in spite of long-term payments. The value of Tehran's stock market had fallen by $10 billion under Mr. Ahmadinejad as of February, the Los Angeles Times reported. Other recent Western news reports say that the nation's vibrant real-estate market has withered and that capital outflows are increasing.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's spending has pushed the inflation rate to an estimated 13.5 percent, and several estimates say it could go as high as 30 percent this year.
Economic analysts note that inflation will be felt most acutely by the poor, undermining the president's support among his most important constituency.
Parliament has challenged the president on other issues, most notably by rejecting three successive candidates for oil minister. Mr. Ahmadinejad declared angrily after the second rejection that "no other president has ever been subject to such negative propaganda and treatment."
Mr. Ahmadinejad's detractors say the broad coalition against him is attracting many of the regime's powerful personalities and may include even the supreme leader himself, despite his superficial statements in support of the president.
They point to a recent decree by Ayatollah Khamenei giving the Expediency Council, headed by former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, oversight of the presidency.
The clerical establishment has close ties with the capitalist class and is said to be appalled at the rapid slide of the economy since Mr. Ahmadinejad's inauguration. The clerics are also thought to be deeply apprehensive about the president's aggressive foreign policy.
Mr. Ghaninejad said that by confronting Iran over its nuclear program, the West was in fact throwing a lifeline to Mr. Ahmadinejad.
"If they keep piling on the pressure, Ahmadinejad will become a national hero," the newspaper editor said.
"Let the Iranians deal with him. If you leave him alone, he will become a bankrupt politician within a year. With greater pressure, only the extremists will benefit." lans calling for restraint.
Tehran elite turning on extremist presidency
By John R. Bradley
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 14, 2006
TEHRAN -- Iran's clerical and business establishments, deeply concerned by what they see as reckless spending and needlessly aggressive foreign policies, are increasingly turning against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Within this context, many see the president's long-running confrontation with the United States and Europe over Tehran's nuclear program as an attempt to demonize the West and distract the Iranian public from pressing domestic problems.
A relatively small group of extremists "at the top of the government around the president" are seeking to benefit from a crisis with the West, because "that way they will be able once again to blame the West for all of their problems," said Mousa Ghaninejad, the editor of Iran's best-selling economics daily newspaper, Dunya Al-Eqtisad.
Millions of low-income Iranians voted for the new president last year, motivated by his firm stand against corruption and pledges to give financial priority to their needs.
"His appeal was to those for whom class discrimination is important, and his simple lifestyle gave an air of credibility to his claims," said Nasser Hadian, a political analyst at Tehran University who attended high school with Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Mr. Hadian predicted that senior Iranian clerics would continue to support Mr. Ahmadinejad -- or at least not move against him -- for about a year because of that popular support. But privately, he said, they feel he is isolating Iran internationally and putting its economy at risk.
Also at the back of their minds is the fear that his anti-corruption drive ultimately threatens their own considerable privileges.
Mr. Ghaninejad was one of 13 experts in economics who warned, in two petitions to the government just before Mr. Ahmadinejad was elected, that his populist, short-term policies would spell disaster for Iran in the long term.
"Now he's throwing money at complex problems and just doesn't care about the long term. He thinks he should help the poor today and leave everything else to the Hidden Imam," the newspaper editor said, referring to a character whom Shi'ites believe will one day emerge to bring justice to the world.
The critics say Mr. Ahmadinejad's budget, which has just been approved by parliament after prolonged wrangling, flouts economic doctrines sanctioned by the powerful Expediency Council, which is under the supervision of the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Iran's long-term planning calls for vigorous efforts to reduce the size of government and to curb subsidies to state-owned entities, which account for an estimated 75 percent of the economy. But the Ahmadinejad budget boosts spending by 25 percent and envisions a 31 percent increase in spending on state enterprises.
The 2006 budget also calls on the government to use up to $40 billion of its foreign cash reserves -- generated from oil sales -- to meet the fiscal year's spending needs, in spite of long-term payments. The value of Tehran's stock market had fallen by $10 billion under Mr. Ahmadinejad as of February, the Los Angeles Times reported. Other recent Western news reports say that the nation's vibrant real-estate market has withered and that capital outflows are increasing.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's spending has pushed the inflation rate to an estimated 13.5 percent, and several estimates say it could go as high as 30 percent this year.
Economic analysts note that inflation will be felt most acutely by the poor, undermining the president's support among his most important constituency.
Parliament has challenged the president on other issues, most notably by rejecting three successive candidates for oil minister. Mr. Ahmadinejad declared angrily after the second rejection that "no other president has ever been subject to such negative propaganda and treatment."
Mr. Ahmadinejad's detractors say the broad coalition against him is attracting many of the regime's powerful personalities and may include even the supreme leader himself, despite his superficial statements in support of the president.
They point to a recent decree by Ayatollah Khamenei giving the Expediency Council, headed by former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, oversight of the presidency.
The clerical establishment has close ties with the capitalist class and is said to be appalled at the rapid slide of the economy since Mr. Ahmadinejad's inauguration. The clerics are also thought to be deeply apprehensive about the president's aggressive foreign policy.
Mr. Ghaninejad said that by confronting Iran over its nuclear program, the West was in fact throwing a lifeline to Mr. Ahmadinejad.
"If they keep piling on the pressure, Ahmadinejad will become a national hero," the newspaper editor said.
"Let the Iranians deal with him. If you leave him alone, he will become a bankrupt politician within a year. With greater pressure, only the extremists will benefit." lans calling for restraint.
March 15, 2006
In Iran, Dissenting Voices Rise on Its Leaders' Nuclear Strategy
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
TEHRAN, March 14 — Just weeks ago, the Iranian government's combative approach toward building a nuclear program produced rare public displays of unity here. Now, while the top leaders remain resolute in their course, cracks are opening both inside and outside the circles of power over the issue.
Some people in powerful positions have begun to insist that the confrontational tactics of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been backfiring, making it harder instead of easier for Iran to develop a nuclear program.
This week, the United Nations Security Council is meeting to take up the Iranian nuclear program. That referral and, perhaps more important, Iran's inability so far to win Russia's unequivocal support for its plans have empowered critics of Mr. Ahmadinejad, according to political analysts with close ties to the government.
One senior Iranian official, who asked to remain anonymous because of the delicate nature of the issue, said: "I tell you, if what they were doing was working, we would say, 'Good.' " But, he added: "For 27 years after the revolution, America wanted to get Iran to the Security Council and America failed. In less than six months, Ahmadinejad did that."
One month ago, the same official had said with a laugh that those who thought the hard-line approach was a bad choice were staying silent because it appeared to be succeeding.
As usual in Iran, there are mixed signals, and the government does not always speak with the same voice.
On Tuesday, both Mr. Ahmadinejad and the nation's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted in public speeches that their country would never back down. At the same time, Iranian negotiators arrived in Moscow to resume talks — at Iran's request — just days after Iran had rejected a Russian proposal to resolve the standoff.
Average Iranians do not seem uniformly confident at the prospect of being hit with United Nations sanctions.
From the streets of Tehran to the ski slopes outside the city, some people have begun to joke about the catch phrase of the government — flippantly saying, "Nuclear energy is our irrefutable right."
Reformers, whose political clout as a movement vanished after the last election, have also begun to speak out. And people with close ties to the government said high-ranking clerics had begun to give criticism of Iran's position to Ayatollah Khamenei, which the political elite sees as a seismic jolt.
"There has been no sign that they will back down," said Ahmad Zeidabady, a political analyst and journalist. "At least Mr. Khamenei has said nothing that we can interpret that there will be change in the policies."
But, he said, "There is more criticism as it is becoming more clear that this policy is not working, especially by those who were in the previous negotiating team."
There are also signs that negotiators are starting to back away, however slightly, from a bare-knuckle strategy and that those who had initially opposed the president's style — but remained silent — are beginning to feel vindicated and are starting to speak up.
A former president, Mohammad Khatami, recently publicly criticized the aggressive approach and called a return to his government's strategy of confidence-building with the west.
"The previous team now feels they were vindicated," said Nasser Hadian, a political science professor at Tehran University who is close to many members of the government. "The new team feels they have to justify their actions."
Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the final say, issued a strong defense of Iran's position on Tuesday.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran considers retreat over the nuclear issue, which is the demand of the Iranian people, as breaking the country's independence that will impose huge costs on the Iranian nation," he said.
"Peaceful use of nuclear technology is a must and is necessary for scientific growth in all fields," Ayatollah Khamenei said. "Any kind of retreat will bring a series of pressures and retreats. So, this is an irreversible path and our foreign diplomacy should defend this right courageously."
In a speech in northern Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad called on the people to "be angry" at the pressure being put on Iran.
"Listen well," the president said to a crowd chanting "die" as they punched the air with their fists. "A nuclear program is our irrefutable right."
When Mr. Ahmadinejad took office, he embraced a decision already made by the top leadership to move toward confrontation with the West about the nuclear program. From the sidelines, Mr. Ahmadinejad's opponents remained largely silent as his political capital grew.
Iran's ability to begin uranium enrichment, and to remove the seals in January at least three nuclear facilities without any immediate consequences, was initially seen as a validation of the get-tough approach.
But one political scientist who speaks regularly with members of the Foreign Ministry said that Iran had hinged much of its strategy on winning Russia's support. The political scientist asked not to be identified so as not to compromise his relationship with people in the government.
The political scientist said some negotiators believed that by being hostile to the West they would be able to entice Moscow into making Tehran its stronghold in the Middle East. "They thought the turn east was the way forward," the person said. "That was a belief and a vision."
The person added, "They thought, 99 percent, Russia would seize the opportunity and back the Iranian leaders."
The route forward remains unclear as Iran tries to regain a sense of momentum.
There is a consensus here that Iran has many cards to play — from its influence with the Shiites in Iraq to its closer ties to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to the prospect of using oil as a weapon. But the uncertainty of appearing before the Security Council, and the prospect of sanctions, has led some here to begin to rethink the wisdom of fighting the West head-on, analysts said.
Professor Hadian said he believed that for Iran to fundamentally change course the situation for Iran would have to first grow much worse.
"There are concerns to keep the situation calm," said Mr. Zeidabady, the journalist. "We have received orders not even to have headlines saying the case has been sent to the Security Council. Although the situation is very critical, they want to pretend that everything is normal. They do not want to show the country is coming under pressure and lose their supporters."
Nazila Fathi contributed reporting for this article.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
In Iran, Dissenting Voices Rise on Its Leaders' Nuclear Strategy
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
TEHRAN, March 14 — Just weeks ago, the Iranian government's combative approach toward building a nuclear program produced rare public displays of unity here. Now, while the top leaders remain resolute in their course, cracks are opening both inside and outside the circles of power over the issue.
Some people in powerful positions have begun to insist that the confrontational tactics of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been backfiring, making it harder instead of easier for Iran to develop a nuclear program.
This week, the United Nations Security Council is meeting to take up the Iranian nuclear program. That referral and, perhaps more important, Iran's inability so far to win Russia's unequivocal support for its plans have empowered critics of Mr. Ahmadinejad, according to political analysts with close ties to the government.
One senior Iranian official, who asked to remain anonymous because of the delicate nature of the issue, said: "I tell you, if what they were doing was working, we would say, 'Good.' " But, he added: "For 27 years after the revolution, America wanted to get Iran to the Security Council and America failed. In less than six months, Ahmadinejad did that."
One month ago, the same official had said with a laugh that those who thought the hard-line approach was a bad choice were staying silent because it appeared to be succeeding.
As usual in Iran, there are mixed signals, and the government does not always speak with the same voice.
On Tuesday, both Mr. Ahmadinejad and the nation's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted in public speeches that their country would never back down. At the same time, Iranian negotiators arrived in Moscow to resume talks — at Iran's request — just days after Iran had rejected a Russian proposal to resolve the standoff.
Average Iranians do not seem uniformly confident at the prospect of being hit with United Nations sanctions.
From the streets of Tehran to the ski slopes outside the city, some people have begun to joke about the catch phrase of the government — flippantly saying, "Nuclear energy is our irrefutable right."
Reformers, whose political clout as a movement vanished after the last election, have also begun to speak out. And people with close ties to the government said high-ranking clerics had begun to give criticism of Iran's position to Ayatollah Khamenei, which the political elite sees as a seismic jolt.
"There has been no sign that they will back down," said Ahmad Zeidabady, a political analyst and journalist. "At least Mr. Khamenei has said nothing that we can interpret that there will be change in the policies."
But, he said, "There is more criticism as it is becoming more clear that this policy is not working, especially by those who were in the previous negotiating team."
There are also signs that negotiators are starting to back away, however slightly, from a bare-knuckle strategy and that those who had initially opposed the president's style — but remained silent — are beginning to feel vindicated and are starting to speak up.
A former president, Mohammad Khatami, recently publicly criticized the aggressive approach and called a return to his government's strategy of confidence-building with the west.
"The previous team now feels they were vindicated," said Nasser Hadian, a political science professor at Tehran University who is close to many members of the government. "The new team feels they have to justify their actions."
Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the final say, issued a strong defense of Iran's position on Tuesday.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran considers retreat over the nuclear issue, which is the demand of the Iranian people, as breaking the country's independence that will impose huge costs on the Iranian nation," he said.
"Peaceful use of nuclear technology is a must and is necessary for scientific growth in all fields," Ayatollah Khamenei said. "Any kind of retreat will bring a series of pressures and retreats. So, this is an irreversible path and our foreign diplomacy should defend this right courageously."
In a speech in northern Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad called on the people to "be angry" at the pressure being put on Iran.
"Listen well," the president said to a crowd chanting "die" as they punched the air with their fists. "A nuclear program is our irrefutable right."
When Mr. Ahmadinejad took office, he embraced a decision already made by the top leadership to move toward confrontation with the West about the nuclear program. From the sidelines, Mr. Ahmadinejad's opponents remained largely silent as his political capital grew.
Iran's ability to begin uranium enrichment, and to remove the seals in January at least three nuclear facilities without any immediate consequences, was initially seen as a validation of the get-tough approach.
But one political scientist who speaks regularly with members of the Foreign Ministry said that Iran had hinged much of its strategy on winning Russia's support. The political scientist asked not to be identified so as not to compromise his relationship with people in the government.
The political scientist said some negotiators believed that by being hostile to the West they would be able to entice Moscow into making Tehran its stronghold in the Middle East. "They thought the turn east was the way forward," the person said. "That was a belief and a vision."
The person added, "They thought, 99 percent, Russia would seize the opportunity and back the Iranian leaders."
The route forward remains unclear as Iran tries to regain a sense of momentum.
There is a consensus here that Iran has many cards to play — from its influence with the Shiites in Iraq to its closer ties to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to the prospect of using oil as a weapon. But the uncertainty of appearing before the Security Council, and the prospect of sanctions, has led some here to begin to rethink the wisdom of fighting the West head-on, analysts said.
Professor Hadian said he believed that for Iran to fundamentally change course the situation for Iran would have to first grow much worse.
"There are concerns to keep the situation calm," said Mr. Zeidabady, the journalist. "We have received orders not even to have headlines saying the case has been sent to the Security Council. Although the situation is very critical, they want to pretend that everything is normal. They do not want to show the country is coming under pressure and lose their supporters."
Nazila Fathi contributed reporting for this article.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8701
March 15, 2006
Iran and Bird Flu: The Perfect Casus Belli?
by Jorge Hirsch
The casus belli against Iran is about to be unveiled. You may call it the modern equivalent of Pearl Harbor, and it has already occurred without you even noticing. Iran is attacking us with air-delivered weapons of mass destruction, and we have no choice but to respond in kind. Unless we act immediately, the next wave of Iran's deadly chirping missiles will be launched in the next few weeks from the Iranian wetlands toward their targets in Scandinavia and Alaska, and from there will extend their deadly effect, killing millions throughout the Western world.
You see, Americans have grown weary of "preemptive doctrine" [.pdf] after the Iraq fiasco, no matter what the officially adopted "National Security Strategy" proclaims. We will not support a U.S. attack on Iran based on a nuclear threat that is at best several years into the future. The Israeli argument that Iran should be attacked before some ill-defined "point of no return" has no traction. No matter how "grave" the nuclear threat is, no matter how "unacceptable" a nuclear Iran is, we need a trigger. And unfortunately, Israel has bailed out on us. It wisely does not want to be accused of "dragging the nations into a war" with an Osirak-type bombing that would "force us" to step in, so it has said that it will not "act alone against Iran." No, the ball is in our court, it is up to us to get it rolling. And we will.
Why Haven't We Attacked Iran Yet?
The "reasons" to attack Iran are infinitely better than they were for Iraq. Iran is processing yellowcake uranium, which is a precondition for nuclear bombs. Iran is determined without a doubt to build such weapons, as stated repeatedly and categorically by administration officials. Iran is believed by all of Congress and most Americans to be the prime sponsor of terrorism. Iran has missiles that can reach Israel, and its statements against Israel have been prominently amplified in the news. Iran can kill a lot of Americans in Iraq if it so chooses. Iran is "threatening" the U.S. with "harm and pain" (never mind that the statement Iran made was completely distorted in the press). Iran has weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological) and their means of delivery (missiles with suitable warheads), according to administration officials. Iran is stirring up trouble in Iraq. Iran oppresses its people. Iran harbors al-Qaeda. What on earth are we waiting for?
All this is good but not good enough, because the bar has been raised much higher by the Iraq fiasco, and because the upcoming confrontation has much higher stakes: it will result in many more casualties and will involve the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. for the first time in 60 years. We need a mighty good reason, one that will allow the president to stand up and say "we cannot wait any longer" and Americans to stand behind him and cheer. Because the stakes are so high, we need a Pearl Harbor; a Gulf of Tonkin won't do, a "defiant Saddam" much less. Or we need an imminent threat, one so huge that it can be argued to be equivalent to an actual attack, and that has a crucial time element.
The Bird Flu Threat
Iran's Shahab missiles can reach Israel but not Western Europe or the U.S. But Iran's birds can. They can carry a weapon that will potentially cause 150 million deaths, as the media have been pointing out so conveniently [1], [2], [3].
Iran's wetlands in Gilan and Khuzestan and several other locations are reservoirs for thousands of migratory birds. Ducks, geese, and swans from Iranian wetlands will start migrating to cooler northern countries in early April. Some will head northwest through Eastern Europe to Germany and Scandinavia, others will head northeast through East Asia toward Alaska. The deadly strain of H5N1 bird flu virus will travel with them, and their feces will infect chickens and other domestic fowl in their path. And from there, on to kill tens of millions of Americans and Europeans. Or so the story goes.
It has been pointed out by Michel Choussudovsky and others that there is something very strange about the sudden fearmongering by government officials and the Western press on the dangers of bird flu. Avian flu has been around for centuries, and even the particularly virulent form H5N1 has been known since 1959, and human infection has been recorded since 1997. Why the recent emphasis? Why are the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense so deeply involved in preparations for an impending bird-flu pandemic?
The H5N1 virus is not transmissible from human to human, so a pandemic is impossible unless the virus undergoes a random mutation. However, any random mutation of any virus could potentially be very dangerous to humans. What if the HIV virus suddenly mutated into a form where it was transmitted by casual contact or even worse, through the air? What if the ebola virus suddenly mutated into a form that remains dormant for six months before killing the victim? Why aren't we panicking about those possibilities, which are as likely (or rather, as unlikely) as H5N1 mutating into a human transmissible virus?
Simply because the H5N1 disaster scenario lends itself to a casus belli against Iran. Iran has the "weapons" and the "means of delivery." Time is of the essence. All that is missing is the bioterrorism connection, which the Bush administration is about to kindly provide.
Iran and Bioterrorism
Iran is accused by the U.S. State Department, the CIA, the Department of Defense, and John Bolton of "operating a clandestine biological weapons program." Judith Miller was warning as far back as 1998 that Iran was working on germ warfare, at the same time Rumsfeld was warning about Iran's "means of delivery." There is not a shred of real evidence for this claim, which does not prevent the administration from continuously repeating it.
In May 2003, the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e Khalq claimed that "Iran has begun production of weaponized anthrax and is actively working with at least five other pathogens, including smallpox, in a drive to build an arsenal of biological weapons," and that "the anthrax weapons are the first fruits of a program begun secretly in 2001 to triple the size of Iran's biowarfare program." This was duly reported in the press, despite the fact that no evidence in support of these claims was presented. "Experts" said the description "seemed plausible" since the group had "provided solid leads in the past." Indeed, this is the same group that exposed the existence of the Natanz nuclear enrichment complex, claiming that it was part of a " very sophisticated, advanced, serious, and expensive nuclear weapons program," which, coincidentally, has also been the U.S. position, again without a shred of real evidence.
Iran has an advanced biotechnology research and development effort and certainly knows how to genetically modify organisms. What prevents the U.S. from arguing that because biotechnology could potentially lead to bioweapons, Iran should not be allowed to pursue biotechnology for non-weapons purposes? It would be no different from the U.S. stance toward Iran's nuclear aspirations.
Watch for more explicit language on Iran's "biological weapons" programs to be added to the H.R. 282 bill in the next few days. It will be the equivalent of the congressional authorization for the Iraq war.
Bolton has accused Cuba of pursuing biotechnology for the sake of biological weapons, but not Iran. Experts and a Canadian military agency have warned about the possibility of using bird flu as a bioterrorist weapon. The U.S., however, has been silent on this, and there is a good reason why: the surprise factor.
Classified Information
T he U.S. has gathered intelligence revealing that Iranian scientists have been working intensely in hidden underground facilities to develop a strain of the H5N1 virus that is transmissible from human to human. The information is being kept classified, following Executive Order 13292 of 2003, which made all information on "weapons of mass destruction" and "defense against transnational terrorism" classifiable. The real reason to keep such information classified is, of course, to avoid public scrutiny.
I should clarify that I am not privy to classified information. However, there is no doubt that at the very least administration officials believe that what I just described is possible, and a single individual such as "Curveball" making such a "plausible" claim could lead the administration to act, if it fits their aims. So let's continue with the scenario:
Dual-use facilities disguised as Iranian chicken farms are being used to test how fast the virus can be transmitted from a wild duck to a chicken and on to the humans handling the chicken, and from them to their family and friends. In the last few weeks, a breakthrough was achieved, and the perfect strain was finally found. Iranian ecologists are currently at work in the Iranian wetlands to deploy the mutated virus among wild ducks, swans, and geese, in preparation for the launching of the birds along their migratory paths toward the Western world in early April.
Does that sound like a good enough casus belli to you? It does to me.
If true, this could potentially lead to tens of millions of deaths in the Western world over the next six months. Can you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is not true?
Time is of the essence. The birds start migrating in early April. There is no time to "trust but verify."
A B61-11 nuclear earth-penetrator aimed at Iran's underground facility where the mutated virus is being manufactured would destroy the facility and prevent a bioholocaust, at the inevitable cost of a few lives. "The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just."
"Geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions. Examples include… Imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."
Plus:
"The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack.
Bush's April 2006 Speech
I am not a speechwriter. Still, I feel compelled to help the president out, to make my small contribution to the New World Order. Here is what President Bush will announce to the nation and the world in early April 2006:
Iran has flouted the international community and continues in its determined path to manufacture nucular weapons.
Iran has announced that it will destroy Israel, and once it has a nucular weapon it will do so.
Iran is the prime sponsor of terrorism, and once it has nucular weapons it will give them to terrorists to detonate in New York, London, and Tel Aviv. It will also put nucular weapons on missiles aimed at Europe and the U.S.
I have said that I will not remain idle while dangers gather. Nevertheless, I am mindful of those that say that there is still time to pursue diplomatic action, however unlikely it is to succeed. But I am here to announce that we no longer have that luxury.
Thousands of Iranian birds will begin their journey along their migratory pathways in the next few days. Their routes will bring them to Europe and the United States. This is a fact, and nobody can accuse the United States of making it up. [smirk]
Intelligence gathered by the U.S. and British governments shows that Iranian scientists have developed a mutated strain of the H5N1 virus that can be transmitted from human to human. World health agencies and experts have warned that such a virus will lead to a bird-flu pandemic that can potentially kill 150 million human beings. Iranian birds have already infected and killed innocent birds of our allies in Europe.
Even a single bird carrying the mutated strain can transmit it to countless other birds and humans, causing a nightmare of unimaginable proportions.
I demand that the Iranian government immediately destroy all strains of the mutated virus and provide to the international community incontrovertible proof that it has done so.
While we are at it, I demand that the Iranian government immediately destroy all its dual-use nuclear facilities, as well as all the knowledge it has about nucular weapons, including all physics books written after September 27, 1905.
I demand that the Iranian government immediately open up all its military, industrial, scientific, health care, and agricultural facilities for full and unconstrained international inspections.
I demand that the Iranian government immediately and verifiably destroy the wetlands at Gilan, Khuzestan, and Hamoon that breed the deadly birds that will attack us.
The Iranian government has 24 hours to comply with these just demands. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.
The rest, such as "[we] did nothing to deserve or invite this threat," "before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed," and other appropriate statements you can cut and paste from the March 17, 2003 speech. Bombing will start right after the 24-hour deadline expires. You are welcome, William McGurn.
Why It May Not Work
There is of course the small point that there will be no proof Iran is making the deadly virus. But that doesn't matter: Iran will have 24 hours to prove that it is not making the virus. The proof that Bush's claim was false will be buried in radioactive fallout, impossible to retrieve. In the administration's logic, because it will not be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their claim was untrue, it must have been true. They trust, based on earlier experience, that the American people will treat them as criminal justice demands: innocent, even if suspect, until proven guilty. And that is good enough for them, given the important goal that will be achieved.
But it may not work, because it is being exposed in this article and elsewhere. The fact that I and others can predict these events proves that they will not be based on real facts gathered from intelligence, since I am not privy to classified information on any Iranian bioweapons work. These future events can be predicted today based on publicly available information only because they are not based on facts but rather on a sinister plan: to manufacture conditions that will make the U.S. nuclear attack on Iranian underground facilities palatable to the American public.
It may not work because those who are privy to this plan or parts of it still have time to make choices that may prevent it from happening: to blow the whistle, disobey orders, or resign from their posts. To talk to their colleagues and persuade them not to carry it through.
Or perhaps the American people will come out en masse, when the ultimatum to Iran is given, and demand that the administration back down. Others have done this and succeeded [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Perhaps the military, seeing the overwhelming public opposition, will collectively refuse to go along with the plan.
If the Bush administration carries through with the attack, at least we will know that it is heinously criminal. The terrorists who retaliate against America will know it, and Americans will know why they are being attacked. At the very least, we will be able to put a new administration in place that will bring the perpetrators to justice, swiftly, and with penalties that match the crime.
March 15, 2006
Iran and Bird Flu: The Perfect Casus Belli?
by Jorge Hirsch
The casus belli against Iran is about to be unveiled. You may call it the modern equivalent of Pearl Harbor, and it has already occurred without you even noticing. Iran is attacking us with air-delivered weapons of mass destruction, and we have no choice but to respond in kind. Unless we act immediately, the next wave of Iran's deadly chirping missiles will be launched in the next few weeks from the Iranian wetlands toward their targets in Scandinavia and Alaska, and from there will extend their deadly effect, killing millions throughout the Western world.
You see, Americans have grown weary of "preemptive doctrine" [.pdf] after the Iraq fiasco, no matter what the officially adopted "National Security Strategy" proclaims. We will not support a U.S. attack on Iran based on a nuclear threat that is at best several years into the future. The Israeli argument that Iran should be attacked before some ill-defined "point of no return" has no traction. No matter how "grave" the nuclear threat is, no matter how "unacceptable" a nuclear Iran is, we need a trigger. And unfortunately, Israel has bailed out on us. It wisely does not want to be accused of "dragging the nations into a war" with an Osirak-type bombing that would "force us" to step in, so it has said that it will not "act alone against Iran." No, the ball is in our court, it is up to us to get it rolling. And we will.
Why Haven't We Attacked Iran Yet?
The "reasons" to attack Iran are infinitely better than they were for Iraq. Iran is processing yellowcake uranium, which is a precondition for nuclear bombs. Iran is determined without a doubt to build such weapons, as stated repeatedly and categorically by administration officials. Iran is believed by all of Congress and most Americans to be the prime sponsor of terrorism. Iran has missiles that can reach Israel, and its statements against Israel have been prominently amplified in the news. Iran can kill a lot of Americans in Iraq if it so chooses. Iran is "threatening" the U.S. with "harm and pain" (never mind that the statement Iran made was completely distorted in the press). Iran has weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological) and their means of delivery (missiles with suitable warheads), according to administration officials. Iran is stirring up trouble in Iraq. Iran oppresses its people. Iran harbors al-Qaeda. What on earth are we waiting for?
All this is good but not good enough, because the bar has been raised much higher by the Iraq fiasco, and because the upcoming confrontation has much higher stakes: it will result in many more casualties and will involve the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. for the first time in 60 years. We need a mighty good reason, one that will allow the president to stand up and say "we cannot wait any longer" and Americans to stand behind him and cheer. Because the stakes are so high, we need a Pearl Harbor; a Gulf of Tonkin won't do, a "defiant Saddam" much less. Or we need an imminent threat, one so huge that it can be argued to be equivalent to an actual attack, and that has a crucial time element.
The Bird Flu Threat
Iran's Shahab missiles can reach Israel but not Western Europe or the U.S. But Iran's birds can. They can carry a weapon that will potentially cause 150 million deaths, as the media have been pointing out so conveniently [1], [2], [3].
Iran's wetlands in Gilan and Khuzestan and several other locations are reservoirs for thousands of migratory birds. Ducks, geese, and swans from Iranian wetlands will start migrating to cooler northern countries in early April. Some will head northwest through Eastern Europe to Germany and Scandinavia, others will head northeast through East Asia toward Alaska. The deadly strain of H5N1 bird flu virus will travel with them, and their feces will infect chickens and other domestic fowl in their path. And from there, on to kill tens of millions of Americans and Europeans. Or so the story goes.
It has been pointed out by Michel Choussudovsky and others that there is something very strange about the sudden fearmongering by government officials and the Western press on the dangers of bird flu. Avian flu has been around for centuries, and even the particularly virulent form H5N1 has been known since 1959, and human infection has been recorded since 1997. Why the recent emphasis? Why are the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense so deeply involved in preparations for an impending bird-flu pandemic?
The H5N1 virus is not transmissible from human to human, so a pandemic is impossible unless the virus undergoes a random mutation. However, any random mutation of any virus could potentially be very dangerous to humans. What if the HIV virus suddenly mutated into a form where it was transmitted by casual contact or even worse, through the air? What if the ebola virus suddenly mutated into a form that remains dormant for six months before killing the victim? Why aren't we panicking about those possibilities, which are as likely (or rather, as unlikely) as H5N1 mutating into a human transmissible virus?
Simply because the H5N1 disaster scenario lends itself to a casus belli against Iran. Iran has the "weapons" and the "means of delivery." Time is of the essence. All that is missing is the bioterrorism connection, which the Bush administration is about to kindly provide.
Iran and Bioterrorism
Iran is accused by the U.S. State Department, the CIA, the Department of Defense, and John Bolton of "operating a clandestine biological weapons program." Judith Miller was warning as far back as 1998 that Iran was working on germ warfare, at the same time Rumsfeld was warning about Iran's "means of delivery." There is not a shred of real evidence for this claim, which does not prevent the administration from continuously repeating it.
In May 2003, the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e Khalq claimed that "Iran has begun production of weaponized anthrax and is actively working with at least five other pathogens, including smallpox, in a drive to build an arsenal of biological weapons," and that "the anthrax weapons are the first fruits of a program begun secretly in 2001 to triple the size of Iran's biowarfare program." This was duly reported in the press, despite the fact that no evidence in support of these claims was presented. "Experts" said the description "seemed plausible" since the group had "provided solid leads in the past." Indeed, this is the same group that exposed the existence of the Natanz nuclear enrichment complex, claiming that it was part of a " very sophisticated, advanced, serious, and expensive nuclear weapons program," which, coincidentally, has also been the U.S. position, again without a shred of real evidence.
Iran has an advanced biotechnology research and development effort and certainly knows how to genetically modify organisms. What prevents the U.S. from arguing that because biotechnology could potentially lead to bioweapons, Iran should not be allowed to pursue biotechnology for non-weapons purposes? It would be no different from the U.S. stance toward Iran's nuclear aspirations.
Watch for more explicit language on Iran's "biological weapons" programs to be added to the H.R. 282 bill in the next few days. It will be the equivalent of the congressional authorization for the Iraq war.
Bolton has accused Cuba of pursuing biotechnology for the sake of biological weapons, but not Iran. Experts and a Canadian military agency have warned about the possibility of using bird flu as a bioterrorist weapon. The U.S., however, has been silent on this, and there is a good reason why: the surprise factor.
Classified Information
T he U.S. has gathered intelligence revealing that Iranian scientists have been working intensely in hidden underground facilities to develop a strain of the H5N1 virus that is transmissible from human to human. The information is being kept classified, following Executive Order 13292 of 2003, which made all information on "weapons of mass destruction" and "defense against transnational terrorism" classifiable. The real reason to keep such information classified is, of course, to avoid public scrutiny.
I should clarify that I am not privy to classified information. However, there is no doubt that at the very least administration officials believe that what I just described is possible, and a single individual such as "Curveball" making such a "plausible" claim could lead the administration to act, if it fits their aims. So let's continue with the scenario:
Dual-use facilities disguised as Iranian chicken farms are being used to test how fast the virus can be transmitted from a wild duck to a chicken and on to the humans handling the chicken, and from them to their family and friends. In the last few weeks, a breakthrough was achieved, and the perfect strain was finally found. Iranian ecologists are currently at work in the Iranian wetlands to deploy the mutated virus among wild ducks, swans, and geese, in preparation for the launching of the birds along their migratory paths toward the Western world in early April.
Does that sound like a good enough casus belli to you? It does to me.
If true, this could potentially lead to tens of millions of deaths in the Western world over the next six months. Can you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is not true?
Time is of the essence. The birds start migrating in early April. There is no time to "trust but verify."
A B61-11 nuclear earth-penetrator aimed at Iran's underground facility where the mutated virus is being manufactured would destroy the facility and prevent a bioholocaust, at the inevitable cost of a few lives. "The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just."
"Geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions. Examples include… Imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."
Plus:
"The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack.
Bush's April 2006 Speech
I am not a speechwriter. Still, I feel compelled to help the president out, to make my small contribution to the New World Order. Here is what President Bush will announce to the nation and the world in early April 2006:
Iran has flouted the international community and continues in its determined path to manufacture nucular weapons.
Iran has announced that it will destroy Israel, and once it has a nucular weapon it will do so.
Iran is the prime sponsor of terrorism, and once it has nucular weapons it will give them to terrorists to detonate in New York, London, and Tel Aviv. It will also put nucular weapons on missiles aimed at Europe and the U.S.
I have said that I will not remain idle while dangers gather. Nevertheless, I am mindful of those that say that there is still time to pursue diplomatic action, however unlikely it is to succeed. But I am here to announce that we no longer have that luxury.
Thousands of Iranian birds will begin their journey along their migratory pathways in the next few days. Their routes will bring them to Europe and the United States. This is a fact, and nobody can accuse the United States of making it up. [smirk]
Intelligence gathered by the U.S. and British governments shows that Iranian scientists have developed a mutated strain of the H5N1 virus that can be transmitted from human to human. World health agencies and experts have warned that such a virus will lead to a bird-flu pandemic that can potentially kill 150 million human beings. Iranian birds have already infected and killed innocent birds of our allies in Europe.
Even a single bird carrying the mutated strain can transmit it to countless other birds and humans, causing a nightmare of unimaginable proportions.
I demand that the Iranian government immediately destroy all strains of the mutated virus and provide to the international community incontrovertible proof that it has done so.
While we are at it, I demand that the Iranian government immediately destroy all its dual-use nuclear facilities, as well as all the knowledge it has about nucular weapons, including all physics books written after September 27, 1905.
I demand that the Iranian government immediately open up all its military, industrial, scientific, health care, and agricultural facilities for full and unconstrained international inspections.
I demand that the Iranian government immediately and verifiably destroy the wetlands at Gilan, Khuzestan, and Hamoon that breed the deadly birds that will attack us.
The Iranian government has 24 hours to comply with these just demands. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.
The rest, such as "[we] did nothing to deserve or invite this threat," "before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed," and other appropriate statements you can cut and paste from the March 17, 2003 speech. Bombing will start right after the 24-hour deadline expires. You are welcome, William McGurn.
Why It May Not Work
There is of course the small point that there will be no proof Iran is making the deadly virus. But that doesn't matter: Iran will have 24 hours to prove that it is not making the virus. The proof that Bush's claim was false will be buried in radioactive fallout, impossible to retrieve. In the administration's logic, because it will not be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their claim was untrue, it must have been true. They trust, based on earlier experience, that the American people will treat them as criminal justice demands: innocent, even if suspect, until proven guilty. And that is good enough for them, given the important goal that will be achieved.
But it may not work, because it is being exposed in this article and elsewhere. The fact that I and others can predict these events proves that they will not be based on real facts gathered from intelligence, since I am not privy to classified information on any Iranian bioweapons work. These future events can be predicted today based on publicly available information only because they are not based on facts but rather on a sinister plan: to manufacture conditions that will make the U.S. nuclear attack on Iranian underground facilities palatable to the American public.
It may not work because those who are privy to this plan or parts of it still have time to make choices that may prevent it from happening: to blow the whistle, disobey orders, or resign from their posts. To talk to their colleagues and persuade them not to carry it through.
Or perhaps the American people will come out en masse, when the ultimatum to Iran is given, and demand that the administration back down. Others have done this and succeeded [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Perhaps the military, seeing the overwhelming public opposition, will collectively refuse to go along with the plan.
If the Bush administration carries through with the attack, at least we will know that it is heinously criminal. The terrorists who retaliate against America will know it, and Americans will know why they are being attacked. At the very least, we will be able to put a new administration in place that will bring the perpetrators to justice, swiftly, and with penalties that match the crime.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/misc/PrinterFri...AQ-USA-IRAN.xml
U.S. general says no proof Iran behind Iraq arms
Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:21 PM GMT
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States does not have proof that Iran's government is responsible for the presence of Iranian weapons and military personnel in Iraq, the top U.S. military officer said on Tuesday.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also said the United States may slightly increase its troops in Iraq from the current 133,000 to provide more security for an upcoming Shi'ite pilgrimage amid worry about further sectarian violence.
President George W. Bush said on Monday components from Iran were being used in powerful roadside bombs used in Iraq, and Rumsfeld said last week that Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel had been inside Iraq to stir up trouble.
Asked whether the United States has proof that Iran's government was behind these developments, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon briefing, "I do not, sir."
Rumsfeld said that there was evidence, which he did not specify, that Revolutionary Guard troops "have been and/or are in Iraq," and that it would be reasonable to suggest Iran's government was responsible.
"It's entirely possible there are rogue elements and they're just there on their own or they're pilgrims. Not likely," Rumsfeld added.
U.S. charges about Iranian weapons and personnel in Iraq have added to tensions between the United States and Iran over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
DIFFICULT TO PROVE
Rumsfeld said it was difficult to prove Iranian government involvement.
"As to equipment, unless you physically see it coming in a government-sponsored vehicle or with government-sponsored troops, you can't know it," Rumsfeld said. "All you know is that you find equipment, weapons, explosives, whatever, in a country that came from the neighbouring country."
"With respect to people, it's very difficult to tie a thread precisely to the government of Iran," Rumsfeld added.
He noted, for example, that Iranian Shi'ite Muslims make pilgrimages by the thousands to Shi'ite holy places in Iraq.
Bush said on Monday, referring to improvised explosive devices, "Some of the most powerful IEDs we're seeing in Iraq today includes components that came from Iran."
Ahead of the Shi'ite religious holiday Arba'een, Rumsfeld said that Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, "may decide he wants to bulk up slightly for the pilgrimage." Rumsfeld did not indicate that a decision had been made or how many U.S. troops may be added.
The United States has reduced the size of its force from about 160,000 in December.
Just days before the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Rumsfeld said that "it's clearly a very difficult situation." He argued that there were positive indicators, including Iraqi public support for democracy and U.S.-trained Iraqi government security forces taking on more responsibility for the security of their country.
Pace added: "The path to civil war is available to the Iraqi people. And the path towards freedom and representative government is available to them. And they are standing at the crossroads right now. And they're looking down both paths."
"And right now, it appears to me that, for sure, the Iraqi people want to go down the path towards prosperity and freedom," Pace added.
Asked how long Americans should expect U.S. troops to be fighting in Iraq, Rumsfeld said: "Now, the implication to your question is: do we think we're going to be there four or five years more in terms of large numbers of U.S. ground forces? And the answer is no, I don't think so."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
U.S. general says no proof Iran behind Iraq arms
Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:21 PM GMT
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States does not have proof that Iran's government is responsible for the presence of Iranian weapons and military personnel in Iraq, the top U.S. military officer said on Tuesday.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also said the United States may slightly increase its troops in Iraq from the current 133,000 to provide more security for an upcoming Shi'ite pilgrimage amid worry about further sectarian violence.
President George W. Bush said on Monday components from Iran were being used in powerful roadside bombs used in Iraq, and Rumsfeld said last week that Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel had been inside Iraq to stir up trouble.
Asked whether the United States has proof that Iran's government was behind these developments, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon briefing, "I do not, sir."
Rumsfeld said that there was evidence, which he did not specify, that Revolutionary Guard troops "have been and/or are in Iraq," and that it would be reasonable to suggest Iran's government was responsible.
"It's entirely possible there are rogue elements and they're just there on their own or they're pilgrims. Not likely," Rumsfeld added.
U.S. charges about Iranian weapons and personnel in Iraq have added to tensions between the United States and Iran over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
DIFFICULT TO PROVE
Rumsfeld said it was difficult to prove Iranian government involvement.
"As to equipment, unless you physically see it coming in a government-sponsored vehicle or with government-sponsored troops, you can't know it," Rumsfeld said. "All you know is that you find equipment, weapons, explosives, whatever, in a country that came from the neighbouring country."
"With respect to people, it's very difficult to tie a thread precisely to the government of Iran," Rumsfeld added.
He noted, for example, that Iranian Shi'ite Muslims make pilgrimages by the thousands to Shi'ite holy places in Iraq.
Bush said on Monday, referring to improvised explosive devices, "Some of the most powerful IEDs we're seeing in Iraq today includes components that came from Iran."
Ahead of the Shi'ite religious holiday Arba'een, Rumsfeld said that Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, "may decide he wants to bulk up slightly for the pilgrimage." Rumsfeld did not indicate that a decision had been made or how many U.S. troops may be added.
The United States has reduced the size of its force from about 160,000 in December.
Just days before the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Rumsfeld said that "it's clearly a very difficult situation." He argued that there were positive indicators, including Iraqi public support for democracy and U.S.-trained Iraqi government security forces taking on more responsibility for the security of their country.
Pace added: "The path to civil war is available to the Iraqi people. And the path towards freedom and representative government is available to them. And they are standing at the crossroads right now. And they're looking down both paths."
"And right now, it appears to me that, for sure, the Iraqi people want to go down the path towards prosperity and freedom," Pace added.
Asked how long Americans should expect U.S. troops to be fighting in Iraq, Rumsfeld said: "Now, the implication to your question is: do we think we're going to be there four or five years more in terms of large numbers of U.S. ground forces? And the answer is no, I don't think so."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/1...l_over_iran.php
Deja Vu All Over Iran
Robert Dreyfuss
March 14, 2006
Robert Dreyfuss is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books, 2005). Dreyfuss is a freelance writer based in Alexandria, Va., who specializes in politics and national security issues. He is a contributing editor at The Nation, a contributing writer at Mother Jones, a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone.He can be reached through his website: www.robertdreyfuss.com
Comedians might be forgiven for making jokes that President Bush is talking about drawing down U.S. forces in Iraq because he needs them next door in Iran. It isn’t, however, so far off the mark.
The pieces are falling into place for Operation Regime Change II, this time in Iran. You’d think, given how badly it went the first time, and how utterly unpredictable a showdown with Iran would be, that the Bush administration would have at least changed its m.o.—but no. Shaking his head in New York, where he was attending United Nations Security Council discussions on Iran, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said bluntly: “It looks so déjà vu.” He ridiculed the idea of sanctions on Iran as useless and ineffective, and he called the U.S. push for a showdown over Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”
He’s right. Even John Bolton, the neoconservative saber-rattler who represents the United States at the U.N., agrees. Said Bolton, when asked about Lavrov’s comment: “If that is déjà vu, then so be it, but that is the course we are on in an effort to get Iran to reverse its decision to acquire nuclear weapons.”
So let’s look precisely at what course that is. In the past few weeks, we’ve seen the Bush administration create a brand-new Office of Iranian Affairs at the State Department, which looks suspiciously like a step toward creating the Iraq war planning office at the Pentagon called the Office of Special Plans. No word yet on whether the Department of Defense plans to create a parallel Office of Iranian Affairs, but it can’t be far behind. So that’s déjà vu, for sure.
The United States is pressing the U.N. to sanction Iran, to be more aggressive in shutting down a nuclear program that, so far at least, the International Atomic Energy Agency has not been able to find, exactly. Even the least charitable among us might forgive the U.N.’s diplomats, including Lavrov, for being suspicious of the Bush administration when it pledges to take Iran to the U.N. Security Council and to abide by the result. In 2002, the Bush administration took Iraq to the UNSC, got the IAEA inspectors invited back in, began pressing for further U.N. action—and then gave up the whole thing and invaded Iraq unilaterally. So that, for sure, sounds like déjà vu.
Then there are the exiles. The Bush administration, backed once again by a bloodthirsty Republican Congress—with the same cast of characters, led once again by Sen. Sam Brownback—is planning to spend $75 million to support Iranian “democrats” and to back Iranian exile television stations. And, according to a recent State Department planning document, the United States is busily setting up anti-Iranian intelligence and mobilization centers in Dubai, Istanbul, Ankara, Adana, Tel Aviv, Frankfurt, London and Baku to work with “Iranian expatriate communities.” I wonder how many Ahmad Chalabis they can find in those places. Dozens, I’d guess. More déjà vu.
Finally, believe it or not, almost as if the United States were deliberately trying to undercut its own diplomacy at the U.N., various U.S. officials are talking openly about bypassing the U.N., ignoring international legitimacy, and forging yet another ad hoc coalition of allies—a “coalition of the willing”—to confront Iran. Still more déjà vu.
And then, of course, there is the saber-rattling. No one is better at that than the Israelis, and last week the neoconservative Hudson Institute gave a platform to a rabid former Israeli army chief of staff, Moshe Yaalon, who had these charming words to say:
Israel has the ability to disrupt the Iranian air defense system; Israel can strike Iran through a number of ways, not only through aerial attack. … The Israeli strike can be precise, like targeted assassination. Just as we succeed in striking a lone terrorist, we can also strike a nuclear site without causing major damage to the environment and harming civilians.
But U.S. officials, too, from Vice President Cheney to Bolton to the president himself continue to insist that all options are on the table, that a military attack against Iran cannot be ruled out, and so forth. Lots more déjà vu there.
As cooler heads have pointed out, none of this amounts to an actual strategy. The Iranians know that a military attack on their nuclear facilities isn’t a feasible option. Not only would it kill hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilians (if all of the more than 50 sites, many in populated areas, were attacked), but the Iranians know that they could strike back at the United States with a deadly combination of counterstrikes. Martin Indyk, the hard-headed hawk at the Brookings Institution, ridicules the idea of a military strike against Iran:
The Iranians have 500,000 battle-hardened Pasdaran [members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp], plus the people they have control or influence over in Iraq. I would just put this proposition on the table—the United States cannot strike Iran while we still have our troops in Iraq.
The Iranians also know that the idea of U.N. sanctions is hollow, since neither China nor Russia will go along with economic sanctions against the country.
The Iranians know that the exile community is weak and fractious, and they don’t fear its might. They know that they have tremendous assets to bring to bear against the United States in a confrontation.
The fact is that the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq knocked off two of Iran’s deadliest regional enemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Iran has amassed great power inside Iraq, not by supporting the insurgents, as President Bush claims, but simply by using its Shiite allies to gain power in Baghdad. Iran is building its influence in Lebanon, too, and among the Shiite population in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Bush administration seems incapable of understanding the need to engage with Iran, to seek their help in Iraq, and to search for an accommodation with the ayatollahs. Ironically, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad of the United States in Iraq has been given permission to talk to Iran about calming tensions in Iraq, but according to the latest statements from U.S. embassy he has not yet done so. According to a March 12 Reuters report:
The U.S. ambassador in Baghdad denied on Sunday seeking Iran's help to calm violence in Iraq and said there were still concerns about the Islamic Republic's links with militias in Iraq. ...
"Ambassador Khalilzad has the authority to meet with Iranian officials to discuss issues of mutual concern," the embassy said in a statement. "But he has not sent a letter in any language to the Iranians."
And, that, unfortunately, is the saddest commentary of all.
Deja Vu All Over Iran
Robert Dreyfuss
March 14, 2006
Robert Dreyfuss is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books, 2005). Dreyfuss is a freelance writer based in Alexandria, Va., who specializes in politics and national security issues. He is a contributing editor at The Nation, a contributing writer at Mother Jones, a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone.He can be reached through his website: www.robertdreyfuss.com
Comedians might be forgiven for making jokes that President Bush is talking about drawing down U.S. forces in Iraq because he needs them next door in Iran. It isn’t, however, so far off the mark.
The pieces are falling into place for Operation Regime Change II, this time in Iran. You’d think, given how badly it went the first time, and how utterly unpredictable a showdown with Iran would be, that the Bush administration would have at least changed its m.o.—but no. Shaking his head in New York, where he was attending United Nations Security Council discussions on Iran, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said bluntly: “It looks so déjà vu.” He ridiculed the idea of sanctions on Iran as useless and ineffective, and he called the U.S. push for a showdown over Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”
He’s right. Even John Bolton, the neoconservative saber-rattler who represents the United States at the U.N., agrees. Said Bolton, when asked about Lavrov’s comment: “If that is déjà vu, then so be it, but that is the course we are on in an effort to get Iran to reverse its decision to acquire nuclear weapons.”
So let’s look precisely at what course that is. In the past few weeks, we’ve seen the Bush administration create a brand-new Office of Iranian Affairs at the State Department, which looks suspiciously like a step toward creating the Iraq war planning office at the Pentagon called the Office of Special Plans. No word yet on whether the Department of Defense plans to create a parallel Office of Iranian Affairs, but it can’t be far behind. So that’s déjà vu, for sure.
The United States is pressing the U.N. to sanction Iran, to be more aggressive in shutting down a nuclear program that, so far at least, the International Atomic Energy Agency has not been able to find, exactly. Even the least charitable among us might forgive the U.N.’s diplomats, including Lavrov, for being suspicious of the Bush administration when it pledges to take Iran to the U.N. Security Council and to abide by the result. In 2002, the Bush administration took Iraq to the UNSC, got the IAEA inspectors invited back in, began pressing for further U.N. action—and then gave up the whole thing and invaded Iraq unilaterally. So that, for sure, sounds like déjà vu.
Then there are the exiles. The Bush administration, backed once again by a bloodthirsty Republican Congress—with the same cast of characters, led once again by Sen. Sam Brownback—is planning to spend $75 million to support Iranian “democrats” and to back Iranian exile television stations. And, according to a recent State Department planning document, the United States is busily setting up anti-Iranian intelligence and mobilization centers in Dubai, Istanbul, Ankara, Adana, Tel Aviv, Frankfurt, London and Baku to work with “Iranian expatriate communities.” I wonder how many Ahmad Chalabis they can find in those places. Dozens, I’d guess. More déjà vu.
Finally, believe it or not, almost as if the United States were deliberately trying to undercut its own diplomacy at the U.N., various U.S. officials are talking openly about bypassing the U.N., ignoring international legitimacy, and forging yet another ad hoc coalition of allies—a “coalition of the willing”—to confront Iran. Still more déjà vu.
And then, of course, there is the saber-rattling. No one is better at that than the Israelis, and last week the neoconservative Hudson Institute gave a platform to a rabid former Israeli army chief of staff, Moshe Yaalon, who had these charming words to say:
Israel has the ability to disrupt the Iranian air defense system; Israel can strike Iran through a number of ways, not only through aerial attack. … The Israeli strike can be precise, like targeted assassination. Just as we succeed in striking a lone terrorist, we can also strike a nuclear site without causing major damage to the environment and harming civilians.
But U.S. officials, too, from Vice President Cheney to Bolton to the president himself continue to insist that all options are on the table, that a military attack against Iran cannot be ruled out, and so forth. Lots more déjà vu there.
As cooler heads have pointed out, none of this amounts to an actual strategy. The Iranians know that a military attack on their nuclear facilities isn’t a feasible option. Not only would it kill hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilians (if all of the more than 50 sites, many in populated areas, were attacked), but the Iranians know that they could strike back at the United States with a deadly combination of counterstrikes. Martin Indyk, the hard-headed hawk at the Brookings Institution, ridicules the idea of a military strike against Iran:
The Iranians have 500,000 battle-hardened Pasdaran [members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp], plus the people they have control or influence over in Iraq. I would just put this proposition on the table—the United States cannot strike Iran while we still have our troops in Iraq.
The Iranians also know that the idea of U.N. sanctions is hollow, since neither China nor Russia will go along with economic sanctions against the country.
The Iranians know that the exile community is weak and fractious, and they don’t fear its might. They know that they have tremendous assets to bring to bear against the United States in a confrontation.
The fact is that the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq knocked off two of Iran’s deadliest regional enemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Iran has amassed great power inside Iraq, not by supporting the insurgents, as President Bush claims, but simply by using its Shiite allies to gain power in Baghdad. Iran is building its influence in Lebanon, too, and among the Shiite population in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Bush administration seems incapable of understanding the need to engage with Iran, to seek their help in Iraq, and to search for an accommodation with the ayatollahs. Ironically, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad of the United States in Iraq has been given permission to talk to Iran about calming tensions in Iraq, but according to the latest statements from U.S. embassy he has not yet done so. According to a March 12 Reuters report:
The U.S. ambassador in Baghdad denied on Sunday seeking Iran's help to calm violence in Iraq and said there were still concerns about the Islamic Republic's links with militias in Iraq. ...
"Ambassador Khalilzad has the authority to meet with Iranian officials to discuss issues of mutual concern," the embassy said in a statement. "But he has not sent a letter in any language to the Iranians."
And, that, unfortunately, is the saddest commentary of all.
Mar 16, 2006
The fragile Euro-US 'alliance' on Iran
By Michael Flynn
GENEVA - As the United States began making the case in the United Nations Security Council this week for what its Ambassador John Bolton calls "painful consequences" if Iran continues with its controversial nuclear program, Washington is facing a familiar dilemma: what to do if the rest of the world refuses to go along?
Unlike in the debate preceding the war in Iraq, the US and much of the world seem to agree that something must be done to restrain Tehran. However, there is no consensus on the question of just how "painful" the consequences should be. And while its allies across the Atlantic have recently joined the US in issuing strong statements about Iran's activities, Europe remains largely divided on how far it will follow Washington's line.
The five veto-holding UN Security Council powers are struggling this week to come up with text the council can issue aimed at curtailing Iran's nuclear program without threatening sanctions or other punitive measures. Russia and China oppose a proposal from the US, Britain and France for a presidential statement that would express "serious concern" and urge Tehran to abide by resolutions from the International Atomic Energy Agency. An alternative is to call on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment efforts, which the West believes are a cover for a program to make nuclear weapons.
In the US, the recent rapprochement between the US and Europe has been cited with we-told-you-so vindication. But according to observers in Europe, the Euro-US convergence on Iran is much thinner than it appears. Europe's willingness to present a united front with the US on Iran is driven by a number of factors, they say, including mounting concern for the US predicament in Iraq, the disappointing outcomes of its negotiations with Iran, and the fear that further destabilization in the Middle East will have serious consequences for European security.
None of these factors, however, means that Europe sees Iran as an "enemy that must be vanquished" - or that it views Washington's "war on terror" with anything less than skepticism. And solving the Iranian crisis, say these observers, will likely hinge more on how far Washington is willing to move toward a European position rather than vice-versa.
Tim Guldimann, a former Swiss ambassador to Iran and currently a professor at the University of Frankfurt who co-authored a recent report on the Iranian nuclear situation by the International Crisis Group (ICG), argues that the best way out of the impasse is to forge an agreement that recognizes an Iranian nuclear-fuel program as a fait accompli.
"For two and a half years now, Iran has been perfectly clear about its intentions to have an enrichment program. But the EU-3 [Germany, France and Britain] ignored this, arguing that offering incentives and threatening sanctions would eventually get Iran to stop its enrichment program," Guldimann said. "Not surprisingly, the Iranians rejected out of hand this approach when it was proposed by the Europeans last August."
Instead of insisting that Iran relinquish enrichment, says Guldimann, negotiators should propose a "delayed limited enrichment program" as a potential compromise.
According to the ICG report, under such a program, "The wider international community, and the West in particular, would explicitly accept that Iran cannot only produce peaceful nuclear energy but has the 'right to enrich' domestically; in return, Iran would agree to a several-year delay in the commencement of its enrichment program, major limitations on its initial size and scope, and a highly intrusive inspections regime."
The problem with this, says Guldimann, is that the US will never get on board as long it remains steadfastly opposed to any enrichment program. In Europe, on the other hand, the reaction to the ICG report has been at least cautiously curious.
Ultimately, says Guldimann, what Iran seems to be pushing for is not the bomb itself, but the capability to produce a bomb if the need should arise. "The goal, which has not been officially recognized, is to have the military option, but not a bomb," he said. "The Iranians were attacked by Iraq with weapons of mass destruction; 600,000 died. When that happened they stood alone, without the support from outside. That history is critical in Iranian considerations."
Mohammad-Reza Djalili, an Iranian-born professor of history at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, agrees. Djalili, who compares Iran's ambitions to Israel's policy of nuclear "opacity" - neither confirming nor denying the existence of its arsenal - says that while Iran might seek a nuclear weapons capability, it is not in its interest actually to have the bomb.
"The theoretical possibility of having a nuclear arsenal goes a long way to giving Iran standing both globally and regionally. At the same time, by refraining from actually producing weapons, Iran wouldn't provide sufficient rationale for its neighbors [including Turkey and Saudi Arabia] to build their own arsenals."
The author of the 2005 book Geopolitique de l'Iran, Djalili argues that Europe and the US need to view the Iranian nuclear program within the larger context of Tehran's evolving grand strategies, which traditionally have included a "European strategy" aimed at building relations with Europe to counterbalance US antagonism and an "Eastern strategy" intended to develop economic relations with India, Russia and China.
Both strategies, says Djalili, have at their root Iran's preoccupation with the United States, which has been a core concern since the Islamic revolution.
In part because of the growing nuclear crisis, he said, "what we are now witnessing is the ultimate failure of the European strategy, as Europe adopts a harder stance and aligns itself closer to the United States".
How far Europe is willing to go to block an Iranian enrichment program, he said, is another matter altogether. While Europe and the United States might agree on sanctions, it is hard to imagine Europe supporting the use of force, "the option pushed by some in the United States".
"My biggest concern is that this impasse will drive some policymakers in the United States to adopt the view pushed by neo-conservatives - that is, to try to destabilize Iran by supporting internal rebellions among different ethnic, religious and political factions," he concluded. "This would be disastrous, leading to still further balkanization in the region, more conflict, and more bloodshed."
Other observers note that Europe should not be viewed as a monolithic block, even if there has been widespread consensus in support of the EU-3 negotiating efforts. Not only are there opposing political currents among states on the continent, there are competing agendas within individual countries.
According to Jean Brincmont, a Belgian theoretical physicist and author of Imperialisme Humanitaire (2005), "There is a struggle in Europe between pro and anti-US opinions."
Further, many countries, such as France, have shown a strong willingness to go it alone in their foreign policies, which was seen in President Jacques Chirac's recent declarations about changes in his country's nuclear posture. Citing the example of the pro-US and enormously influential French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarcozy, Brincmont argued that "France may sometimes be divided over issues like Iran, but it is by no means subservient to US positions".
The potential for fissures in the European position was exhibited early this month in the wake of allegations that Moscow had floated a proposal to allow Iran to enrich a small amount of uranium on its soil in exchange for delaying for several years larger-scale production.
According to the March 6 New York Times, European diplomats said the proposal was "driving a wedge into what had been a relatively united front on uranium enrichment in Iran". Germany is cautiously supportive of Russia, they said, while France and Britain are siding with the US.
Russia later disavowed the proposal. But the Russian case highlights another complication in any trans-Atlantic effort to resolve the crisis - that Western powers do not hold all the cards.
"The West hasn't yet fully realized that the world has changed," said Guldimann. "The economic development of Asia, rising oil prices, the emergence of Russia as a key negotiating partner - all these things work against the idea that we can impose an end to the enrichment program, which is the preferred solution."
In contrast to US Vice President Dick Cheney's statement that the "international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences", Guldimann contended that while most countries may pay lip service to the idea that Iran should not have an enrichment program, "when you put sanctions on the table things will fall apart. China won't go along, nor will Russia or India, or presumably Japan."
Brincmont agreed, but said that ultimately, the nuclear-power states have themselves to blame. "As long as the great powers want to keep their bombs, smaller powers will emerge asking for the same."
(Inter Press Service)
The fragile Euro-US 'alliance' on Iran
By Michael Flynn
GENEVA - As the United States began making the case in the United Nations Security Council this week for what its Ambassador John Bolton calls "painful consequences" if Iran continues with its controversial nuclear program, Washington is facing a familiar dilemma: what to do if the rest of the world refuses to go along?
Unlike in the debate preceding the war in Iraq, the US and much of the world seem to agree that something must be done to restrain Tehran. However, there is no consensus on the question of just how "painful" the consequences should be. And while its allies across the Atlantic have recently joined the US in issuing strong statements about Iran's activities, Europe remains largely divided on how far it will follow Washington's line.
The five veto-holding UN Security Council powers are struggling this week to come up with text the council can issue aimed at curtailing Iran's nuclear program without threatening sanctions or other punitive measures. Russia and China oppose a proposal from the US, Britain and France for a presidential statement that would express "serious concern" and urge Tehran to abide by resolutions from the International Atomic Energy Agency. An alternative is to call on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment efforts, which the West believes are a cover for a program to make nuclear weapons.
In the US, the recent rapprochement between the US and Europe has been cited with we-told-you-so vindication. But according to observers in Europe, the Euro-US convergence on Iran is much thinner than it appears. Europe's willingness to present a united front with the US on Iran is driven by a number of factors, they say, including mounting concern for the US predicament in Iraq, the disappointing outcomes of its negotiations with Iran, and the fear that further destabilization in the Middle East will have serious consequences for European security.
None of these factors, however, means that Europe sees Iran as an "enemy that must be vanquished" - or that it views Washington's "war on terror" with anything less than skepticism. And solving the Iranian crisis, say these observers, will likely hinge more on how far Washington is willing to move toward a European position rather than vice-versa.
Tim Guldimann, a former Swiss ambassador to Iran and currently a professor at the University of Frankfurt who co-authored a recent report on the Iranian nuclear situation by the International Crisis Group (ICG), argues that the best way out of the impasse is to forge an agreement that recognizes an Iranian nuclear-fuel program as a fait accompli.
"For two and a half years now, Iran has been perfectly clear about its intentions to have an enrichment program. But the EU-3 [Germany, France and Britain] ignored this, arguing that offering incentives and threatening sanctions would eventually get Iran to stop its enrichment program," Guldimann said. "Not surprisingly, the Iranians rejected out of hand this approach when it was proposed by the Europeans last August."
Instead of insisting that Iran relinquish enrichment, says Guldimann, negotiators should propose a "delayed limited enrichment program" as a potential compromise.
According to the ICG report, under such a program, "The wider international community, and the West in particular, would explicitly accept that Iran cannot only produce peaceful nuclear energy but has the 'right to enrich' domestically; in return, Iran would agree to a several-year delay in the commencement of its enrichment program, major limitations on its initial size and scope, and a highly intrusive inspections regime."
The problem with this, says Guldimann, is that the US will never get on board as long it remains steadfastly opposed to any enrichment program. In Europe, on the other hand, the reaction to the ICG report has been at least cautiously curious.
Ultimately, says Guldimann, what Iran seems to be pushing for is not the bomb itself, but the capability to produce a bomb if the need should arise. "The goal, which has not been officially recognized, is to have the military option, but not a bomb," he said. "The Iranians were attacked by Iraq with weapons of mass destruction; 600,000 died. When that happened they stood alone, without the support from outside. That history is critical in Iranian considerations."
Mohammad-Reza Djalili, an Iranian-born professor of history at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, agrees. Djalili, who compares Iran's ambitions to Israel's policy of nuclear "opacity" - neither confirming nor denying the existence of its arsenal - says that while Iran might seek a nuclear weapons capability, it is not in its interest actually to have the bomb.
"The theoretical possibility of having a nuclear arsenal goes a long way to giving Iran standing both globally and regionally. At the same time, by refraining from actually producing weapons, Iran wouldn't provide sufficient rationale for its neighbors [including Turkey and Saudi Arabia] to build their own arsenals."
The author of the 2005 book Geopolitique de l'Iran, Djalili argues that Europe and the US need to view the Iranian nuclear program within the larger context of Tehran's evolving grand strategies, which traditionally have included a "European strategy" aimed at building relations with Europe to counterbalance US antagonism and an "Eastern strategy" intended to develop economic relations with India, Russia and China.
Both strategies, says Djalili, have at their root Iran's preoccupation with the United States, which has been a core concern since the Islamic revolution.
In part because of the growing nuclear crisis, he said, "what we are now witnessing is the ultimate failure of the European strategy, as Europe adopts a harder stance and aligns itself closer to the United States".
How far Europe is willing to go to block an Iranian enrichment program, he said, is another matter altogether. While Europe and the United States might agree on sanctions, it is hard to imagine Europe supporting the use of force, "the option pushed by some in the United States".
"My biggest concern is that this impasse will drive some policymakers in the United States to adopt the view pushed by neo-conservatives - that is, to try to destabilize Iran by supporting internal rebellions among different ethnic, religious and political factions," he concluded. "This would be disastrous, leading to still further balkanization in the region, more conflict, and more bloodshed."
Other observers note that Europe should not be viewed as a monolithic block, even if there has been widespread consensus in support of the EU-3 negotiating efforts. Not only are there opposing political currents among states on the continent, there are competing agendas within individual countries.
According to Jean Brincmont, a Belgian theoretical physicist and author of Imperialisme Humanitaire (2005), "There is a struggle in Europe between pro and anti-US opinions."
Further, many countries, such as France, have shown a strong willingness to go it alone in their foreign policies, which was seen in President Jacques Chirac's recent declarations about changes in his country's nuclear posture. Citing the example of the pro-US and enormously influential French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarcozy, Brincmont argued that "France may sometimes be divided over issues like Iran, but it is by no means subservient to US positions".
The potential for fissures in the European position was exhibited early this month in the wake of allegations that Moscow had floated a proposal to allow Iran to enrich a small amount of uranium on its soil in exchange for delaying for several years larger-scale production.
According to the March 6 New York Times, European diplomats said the proposal was "driving a wedge into what had been a relatively united front on uranium enrichment in Iran". Germany is cautiously supportive of Russia, they said, while France and Britain are siding with the US.
Russia later disavowed the proposal. But the Russian case highlights another complication in any trans-Atlantic effort to resolve the crisis - that Western powers do not hold all the cards.
"The West hasn't yet fully realized that the world has changed," said Guldimann. "The economic development of Asia, rising oil prices, the emergence of Russia as a key negotiating partner - all these things work against the idea that we can impose an end to the enrichment program, which is the preferred solution."
In contrast to US Vice President Dick Cheney's statement that the "international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences", Guldimann contended that while most countries may pay lip service to the idea that Iran should not have an enrichment program, "when you put sanctions on the table things will fall apart. China won't go along, nor will Russia or India, or presumably Japan."
Brincmont agreed, but said that ultimately, the nuclear-power states have themselves to blame. "As long as the great powers want to keep their bombs, smaller powers will emerge asking for the same."
(Inter Press Service)
March 15, 2006
Russia, China Urge Diplomatic Solution to Iran Crisis
By REUTERS
Filed at 10:59 p.m. ET
BEIJING (Reuters) - Russia and China, veto-wielding permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, are urging a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions, Russia's ambassador to China said on Thursday.
Iran was reported to the Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions, after the U.N. nuclear watchdog found that Tehran was not cooperating with inspectors seeking to assess its nuclear program.
``We both believe we need to seek political solutions to the issues through diplomatic channels,'' Ambassador Sergei Razov told reporters in Beijing.
``Russian and Chinese cooperation has played an important role in keeping the Iran nuclear issue on the track of diplomatic solution,'' he added.
Copyright 2006 Reuters Ltd. Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
Russia, China Urge Diplomatic Solution to Iran Crisis
By REUTERS
Filed at 10:59 p.m. ET
BEIJING (Reuters) - Russia and China, veto-wielding permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, are urging a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions, Russia's ambassador to China said on Thursday.
Iran was reported to the Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions, after the U.N. nuclear watchdog found that Tehran was not cooperating with inspectors seeking to assess its nuclear program.
``We both believe we need to seek political solutions to the issues through diplomatic channels,'' Ambassador Sergei Razov told reporters in Beijing.
``Russian and Chinese cooperation has played an important role in keeping the Iran nuclear issue on the track of diplomatic solution,'' he added.
Copyright 2006 Reuters Ltd. Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
March 15, 2006
Bolton Compares Iran Threat to Sept 11 Attacks
By REUTERS
Filed at 7:59 p.m. ET
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, on Wednesday compared the threat from Iran's nuclear programs to the September 11 terror attacks on the United States.
``Just like September 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that's the threat. I think that is the threat,'' Bolton told ABC News' Nightline program.
``I think it's just facing reality. It's not a happy reality, but it's reality and if you don't deal with it, it will become even more unpleasant.''
Bolton ratcheted up the rhetoric as the five veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council failed again to reach agreement on how to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions after a fifth round of negotiations.
Russia and China are resisting proposals from Britain, France and the United States for a council statement that would express ``serious concern'' about Iran's nuclear program and asks it to comply with demands from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The statement does not threaten sanctions.
At the same time foreign ministry officials from the five powers and Germany are considering meeting in New York on Monday to review strategy, diplomats said. Russia had previously proposed such talks in Vienna, seat of the IAEA.
China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, said his country and Russia still had problems with a proposal that the IAEA be asked to report to the Security Council within 14 days on any progress Iran has made toward meeting the U.N. nuclear watchdog's demands.
Russia and China view the reporting requirement as shifting the focus of the Iran dossier from the IAEA to the Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions. They would like any report on Iran's compliance to go directly to the 35-nation IAEA governing board.
``We are still discussing,'' Wang told Reuters after the hour-long session at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, adding that he did not consider the talks deadlocked.
The negotiations shift to the full Security Council on Thursday when all 15 of its members are to meet for a second time to discuss the draft drawn up by France and Britain.
STATEMENT OR RESOLUTION?
The draft statement also calls on Iran ``to re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development'' that the IAEA would verify.
It asks Iran to reconsider building a heavy-water nuclear reactor in Arak, which is more suitable for producing fuel for nuclear weapons than a light-water reactor.
A council statement needs to be approved by all 15 members, while a resolution requires nine votes in favor and no veto from any of the permanent members. If the impasse continues, the West could try to force Russia and China into the uncomfortable position of having to consider a resolution.
``Whether it is a statement or a resolution we haven't decided,'' Bolton said.
``We're trying to hold the permanent five together first but reality is reality and time is an important factor, given that the Iranians continue to progress toward overcoming their technological difficulties in enriching uranium.''
The 10 nonpermanent members of the Security Council, which rotate for two-year terms, are: Argentina, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Tanzania, Congo Republic, Ghana, Peru, Qatar and Slovakia.
Copyright 2006 Reuters Ltd. Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
Bolton Compares Iran Threat to Sept 11 Attacks
By REUTERS
Filed at 7:59 p.m. ET
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, on Wednesday compared the threat from Iran's nuclear programs to the September 11 terror attacks on the United States.
``Just like September 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that's the threat. I think that is the threat,'' Bolton told ABC News' Nightline program.
``I think it's just facing reality. It's not a happy reality, but it's reality and if you don't deal with it, it will become even more unpleasant.''
Bolton ratcheted up the rhetoric as the five veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council failed again to reach agreement on how to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions after a fifth round of negotiations.
Russia and China are resisting proposals from Britain, France and the United States for a council statement that would express ``serious concern'' about Iran's nuclear program and asks it to comply with demands from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The statement does not threaten sanctions.
At the same time foreign ministry officials from the five powers and Germany are considering meeting in New York on Monday to review strategy, diplomats said. Russia had previously proposed such talks in Vienna, seat of the IAEA.
China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, said his country and Russia still had problems with a proposal that the IAEA be asked to report to the Security Council within 14 days on any progress Iran has made toward meeting the U.N. nuclear watchdog's demands.
Russia and China view the reporting requirement as shifting the focus of the Iran dossier from the IAEA to the Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions. They would like any report on Iran's compliance to go directly to the 35-nation IAEA governing board.
``We are still discussing,'' Wang told Reuters after the hour-long session at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, adding that he did not consider the talks deadlocked.
The negotiations shift to the full Security Council on Thursday when all 15 of its members are to meet for a second time to discuss the draft drawn up by France and Britain.
STATEMENT OR RESOLUTION?
The draft statement also calls on Iran ``to re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development'' that the IAEA would verify.
It asks Iran to reconsider building a heavy-water nuclear reactor in Arak, which is more suitable for producing fuel for nuclear weapons than a light-water reactor.
A council statement needs to be approved by all 15 members, while a resolution requires nine votes in favor and no veto from any of the permanent members. If the impasse continues, the West could try to force Russia and China into the uncomfortable position of having to consider a resolution.
``Whether it is a statement or a resolution we haven't decided,'' Bolton said.
``We're trying to hold the permanent five together first but reality is reality and time is an important factor, given that the Iranians continue to progress toward overcoming their technological difficulties in enriching uranium.''
The 10 nonpermanent members of the Security Council, which rotate for two-year terms, are: Argentina, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Tanzania, Congo Republic, Ghana, Peru, Qatar and Slovakia.
Copyright 2006 Reuters Ltd. Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/printable.asp?...=22975&cat_ID=2
Copyright © 2006 The Daily Star
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Jordan king warns strike on Iran catastrophic for region
Abdullah slams israeli raid on West bank prison
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
AMMAN: Jordan's King Abdullah II warned on Wednesday that a strike on Iran would cause the region "to explode" and deplored Israel's raid on a Palestinian prison. "A strike against Iran would cause the whole region to explode," the Jordanian monarch told AFP in comments on the crisis between the West and Tehran over its nuclear activities.
"The threat to regional security and stability will be grave if force is utilized to resolve this problem. Dialogue, patience and diplomacy are the only solution," he added.
He likewise deplored Israel's raid Tuesday on a Jericho prison to seize prominent Palestinian prisoners wanted over the 2001 murder of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi.
"What happened ... is a threat to the future of the peace process and to security in the region. It is an unfortunate escalation," he said.
"It would have been better for the parties concerned to find another formula to deal with this issue. They created tensions and lessened the chances for an adequate climate to forge ahead with the peace process."
The king also urged Hamas "to deal with regional and international realities" as it prepares to form a government.
But he likewise called on the international community "to respect the Palestinians' will, to give Hamas a chance, and not to judge it before it presents its program and vision."
Jordan expelled Hamas leaders, including current political chief Khaled Meshaal, in 1999, but King Abdullah said Amman is ready to deal with it "through the Palestinian National Authority."
The Jordanian monarch also urged Palestinians and Israelis to compromise and return to the negotiating table, warning that time was running out.
"If we are going to keep throwing the ball to each other's court ... the reality of the situation is that we will find, two years from now, that we have no homeland to talk about," he said.
He also cautioned that there has been a "drop" in international interest for the Palestinian issue because of other world concerns such as Iran's row with the West and Iraq.
"A lawyer once told me that a good deal is always brokered when both sides are unhappy because both sides have had to give something," he added.
He renewed an invitation to host an Iraqi inter-faith conference in Amman "to come up with a religious consensus so that Iraqis could reach a political consensus."
"I call on our brothers in Iraq to recognize the gravity of the situation, and not to listen to those who promote division, internal discord and the division of Iraqis into Sunni, Shiite, Kurd and Turkman," he said.
He also admitted that the rampant violence in Iraq "placed a huge security burden on Jordan," where several Iraqis were indicted this week over the devastating November 9 hotel bombings in Amman.
"Many terrorist movements found in Iraq a fertile ground to achieve their goals, especially Al-Qaeda, which has adopted a strategy of using Iraqis to strike Jordan, as happened in the Amman hotel bombings," he said.
Earlier this month Jordan said it foiled a plot involving Iraqi nationals to strike at a "vital civilian installation."
"We have a security problem at the borders ... so we are working on preparing the infrastructure," he said.
Meanwhile, the Jordanian monarch said he was not worried about the latest victories of Islamic movements in Egypt and the Palestinian territories.
These polls "showed a surge of Islamic movements because the Islamists organized themselves well, while other parties were set back by ... a lack of leadership [and] corruption among some of their leaders," he said. "We in Jordan are not concerned about the possibility of an Islamist victory, as long as they respect the Constitution, our laws and regulations and as long as their allegiance is to Jordan."
King Abdullah said he will travel Monday to Paris for talks with French President Jacques Chirac, including Jordan's efforts to promote "a moderate, tolerant Islam, to which extremism and fanaticism are alien."
Copyright © 2006 The Daily Star
Copyright © 2006 The Daily Star
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Jordan king warns strike on Iran catastrophic for region
Abdullah slams israeli raid on West bank prison
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
AMMAN: Jordan's King Abdullah II warned on Wednesday that a strike on Iran would cause the region "to explode" and deplored Israel's raid on a Palestinian prison. "A strike against Iran would cause the whole region to explode," the Jordanian monarch told AFP in comments on the crisis between the West and Tehran over its nuclear activities.
"The threat to regional security and stability will be grave if force is utilized to resolve this problem. Dialogue, patience and diplomacy are the only solution," he added.
He likewise deplored Israel's raid Tuesday on a Jericho prison to seize prominent Palestinian prisoners wanted over the 2001 murder of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi.
"What happened ... is a threat to the future of the peace process and to security in the region. It is an unfortunate escalation," he said.
"It would have been better for the parties concerned to find another formula to deal with this issue. They created tensions and lessened the chances for an adequate climate to forge ahead with the peace process."
The king also urged Hamas "to deal with regional and international realities" as it prepares to form a government.
But he likewise called on the international community "to respect the Palestinians' will, to give Hamas a chance, and not to judge it before it presents its program and vision."
Jordan expelled Hamas leaders, including current political chief Khaled Meshaal, in 1999, but King Abdullah said Amman is ready to deal with it "through the Palestinian National Authority."
The Jordanian monarch also urged Palestinians and Israelis to compromise and return to the negotiating table, warning that time was running out.
"If we are going to keep throwing the ball to each other's court ... the reality of the situation is that we will find, two years from now, that we have no homeland to talk about," he said.
He also cautioned that there has been a "drop" in international interest for the Palestinian issue because of other world concerns such as Iran's row with the West and Iraq.
"A lawyer once told me that a good deal is always brokered when both sides are unhappy because both sides have had to give something," he added.
He renewed an invitation to host an Iraqi inter-faith conference in Amman "to come up with a religious consensus so that Iraqis could reach a political consensus."
"I call on our brothers in Iraq to recognize the gravity of the situation, and not to listen to those who promote division, internal discord and the division of Iraqis into Sunni, Shiite, Kurd and Turkman," he said.
He also admitted that the rampant violence in Iraq "placed a huge security burden on Jordan," where several Iraqis were indicted this week over the devastating November 9 hotel bombings in Amman.
"Many terrorist movements found in Iraq a fertile ground to achieve their goals, especially Al-Qaeda, which has adopted a strategy of using Iraqis to strike Jordan, as happened in the Amman hotel bombings," he said.
Earlier this month Jordan said it foiled a plot involving Iraqi nationals to strike at a "vital civilian installation."
"We have a security problem at the borders ... so we are working on preparing the infrastructure," he said.
Meanwhile, the Jordanian monarch said he was not worried about the latest victories of Islamic movements in Egypt and the Palestinian territories.
These polls "showed a surge of Islamic movements because the Islamists organized themselves well, while other parties were set back by ... a lack of leadership [and] corruption among some of their leaders," he said. "We in Jordan are not concerned about the possibility of an Islamist victory, as long as they respect the Constitution, our laws and regulations and as long as their allegiance is to Jordan."
King Abdullah said he will travel Monday to Paris for talks with French President Jacques Chirac, including Jordan's efforts to promote "a moderate, tolerant Islam, to which extremism and fanaticism are alien."
Copyright © 2006 The Daily Star
This article should be quoted in the msm and the talk shows should have knowledgable people on to discuss it.
Sounds like there's at least one sane ME leader with brains out there trying to stop wars and live in peace.
Kudos to King Abdullah!
Sounds like there's at least one sane ME leader with brains out there trying to stop wars and live in peace.
Kudos to King Abdullah!
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Mar 16 2006, 12:12 AM)
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/printable.asp?...=22975&cat_ID=2
Copyright © 2006 The Daily Star
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Jordan king warns strike on Iran catastrophic for region
Abdullah slams israeli raid on West bank prison
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
AMMAN: Jordan's King Abdullah II warned on Wednesday that a strike on Iran would cause the region "to explode" and deplored Israel's raid on a Palestinian prison. "A strike against Iran would cause the whole region to explode," the Jordanian monarch told AFP in comments on the crisis between the West and Tehran over its nuclear activities.
"The threat to regional security and stability will be grave if force is utilized to resolve this problem. Dialogue, patience and diplomacy are the only solution," he added.
He likewise deplored Israel's raid Tuesday on a Jericho prison to seize prominent Palestinian prisoners wanted over the 2001 murder of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi.
"What happened ... is a threat to the future of the peace process and to security in the region. It is an unfortunate escalation," he said.
"It would have been better for the parties concerned to find another formula to deal with this issue. They created tensions and lessened the chances for an adequate climate to forge ahead with the peace process."
The king also urged Hamas "to deal with regional and international realities" as it prepares to form a government.
But he likewise called on the international community "to respect the Palestinians' will, to give Hamas a chance, and not to judge it before it presents its program and vision."
Jordan expelled Hamas leaders, including current political chief Khaled Meshaal, in 1999, but King Abdullah said Amman is ready to deal with it "through the Palestinian National Authority."
The Jordanian monarch also urged Palestinians and Israelis to compromise and return to the negotiating table, warning that time was running out.
"If we are going to keep throwing the ball to each other's court ... the reality of the situation is that we will find, two years from now, that we have no homeland to talk about," he said.
He also cautioned that there has been a "drop" in international interest for the Palestinian issue because of other world concerns such as Iran's row with the West and Iraq.
"A lawyer once told me that a good deal is always brokered when both sides are unhappy because both sides have had to give something," he added.
He renewed an invitation to host an Iraqi inter-faith conference in Amman "to come up with a religious consensus so that Iraqis could reach a political consensus."
"I call on our brothers in Iraq to recognize the gravity of the situation, and not to listen to those who promote division, internal discord and the division of Iraqis into Sunni, Shiite, Kurd and Turkman," he said.
He also admitted that the rampant violence in Iraq "placed a huge security burden on Jordan," where several Iraqis were indicted this week over the devastating November 9 hotel bombings in Amman.
"Many terrorist movements found in Iraq a fertile ground to achieve their goals, especially Al-Qaeda, which has adopted a strategy of using Iraqis to strike Jordan, as happened in the Amman hotel bombings," he said.
Earlier this month Jordan said it foiled a plot involving Iraqi nationals to strike at a "vital civilian installation."
"We have a security problem at the borders ... so we are working on preparing the infrastructure," he said.
Meanwhile, the Jordanian monarch said he was not worried about the latest victories of Islamic movements in Egypt and the Palestinian territories.
These polls "showed a surge of Islamic movements because the Islamists organized themselves well, while other parties were set back by ... a lack of leadership [and] corruption among some of their leaders," he said. "We in Jordan are not concerned about the possibility of an Islamist victory, as long as they respect the Constitution, our laws and regulations and as long as their allegiance is to Jordan."
King Abdullah said he will travel Monday to Paris for talks with French President Jacques Chirac, including Jordan's efforts to promote "a moderate, tolerant Islam, to which extremism and fanaticism are alien."
Copyright © 2006 The Daily Star
Copyright © 2006 The Daily Star
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Jordan king warns strike on Iran catastrophic for region
Abdullah slams israeli raid on West bank prison
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
AMMAN: Jordan's King Abdullah II warned on Wednesday that a strike on Iran would cause the region "to explode" and deplored Israel's raid on a Palestinian prison. "A strike against Iran would cause the whole region to explode," the Jordanian monarch told AFP in comments on the crisis between the West and Tehran over its nuclear activities.
"The threat to regional security and stability will be grave if force is utilized to resolve this problem. Dialogue, patience and diplomacy are the only solution," he added.
He likewise deplored Israel's raid Tuesday on a Jericho prison to seize prominent Palestinian prisoners wanted over the 2001 murder of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi.
"What happened ... is a threat to the future of the peace process and to security in the region. It is an unfortunate escalation," he said.
"It would have been better for the parties concerned to find another formula to deal with this issue. They created tensions and lessened the chances for an adequate climate to forge ahead with the peace process."
The king also urged Hamas "to deal with regional and international realities" as it prepares to form a government.
But he likewise called on the international community "to respect the Palestinians' will, to give Hamas a chance, and not to judge it before it presents its program and vision."
Jordan expelled Hamas leaders, including current political chief Khaled Meshaal, in 1999, but King Abdullah said Amman is ready to deal with it "through the Palestinian National Authority."
The Jordanian monarch also urged Palestinians and Israelis to compromise and return to the negotiating table, warning that time was running out.
"If we are going to keep throwing the ball to each other's court ... the reality of the situation is that we will find, two years from now, that we have no homeland to talk about," he said.
He also cautioned that there has been a "drop" in international interest for the Palestinian issue because of other world concerns such as Iran's row with the West and Iraq.
"A lawyer once told me that a good deal is always brokered when both sides are unhappy because both sides have had to give something," he added.
He renewed an invitation to host an Iraqi inter-faith conference in Amman "to come up with a religious consensus so that Iraqis could reach a political consensus."
"I call on our brothers in Iraq to recognize the gravity of the situation, and not to listen to those who promote division, internal discord and the division of Iraqis into Sunni, Shiite, Kurd and Turkman," he said.
He also admitted that the rampant violence in Iraq "placed a huge security burden on Jordan," where several Iraqis were indicted this week over the devastating November 9 hotel bombings in Amman.
"Many terrorist movements found in Iraq a fertile ground to achieve their goals, especially Al-Qaeda, which has adopted a strategy of using Iraqis to strike Jordan, as happened in the Amman hotel bombings," he said.
Earlier this month Jordan said it foiled a plot involving Iraqi nationals to strike at a "vital civilian installation."
"We have a security problem at the borders ... so we are working on preparing the infrastructure," he said.
Meanwhile, the Jordanian monarch said he was not worried about the latest victories of Islamic movements in Egypt and the Palestinian territories.
These polls "showed a surge of Islamic movements because the Islamists organized themselves well, while other parties were set back by ... a lack of leadership [and] corruption among some of their leaders," he said. "We in Jordan are not concerned about the possibility of an Islamist victory, as long as they respect the Constitution, our laws and regulations and as long as their allegiance is to Jordan."
King Abdullah said he will travel Monday to Paris for talks with French President Jacques Chirac, including Jordan's efforts to promote "a moderate, tolerant Islam, to which extremism and fanaticism are alien."
Copyright © 2006 The Daily Star
March 16, 2006
Bush Reaffirms Pre - Emptive Use of Force
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:27 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Undaunted by the difficult war in Iraq, President Bush reaffirmed his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations on Thursday and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.
In a 49-page national security report, the president said diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons.
''If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur -- even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack,'' Bush wrote.
Titled ''National Security Strategy,'' the report summarizes Bush's plan for protecting America and directing U.S. relations with other nations. It is an updated version of a report Bush issued in 2002.
In the earlier report a year after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush underscored his administration's adoption of a pre-emptive policy, marking the end of a deterrent military strategy that dominated the Cold War.
The latest report makes it clear Bush hasn't changed his mind, even though no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
''When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. ... The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same,'' Bush wrote.
The report had harsh words for Iran. It accused the regime of supporting terrorists, threatening Israel and disrupting democratic reform in Iraq. Bush said diplomacy to halt Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons work must prevail to avert a conflict.
''This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided,'' Bush said.
He did not say what would happen if international negotiations with Iran failed. The Bush administration currently is working to persuade Russia and China to support a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that Iran end its uranium enrichment program.
A top Iranian official said Thursday that his country was ready to open direct talks with the United States over Iraq, marking a major shift in Tehran's foreign policy a day after an Iraqi leader called for such talks. Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator and secretary of the country's Supreme National Security Council, told reporters that any talks between the United States and Iran would deal only with Iraqi issues.
But any direct dialogue between Tehran and Washington -- were it to happen -- also could be a beginning for negotiations between the two foes over Iran's suspect nuclear program.
Washington, which repeatedly has accused Iran of meddling in Iraq's affairs and of sending weapons and men to help insurgents in Iraq, had no immediate response.
Bush also had tough words for North Korea, which he said poses a serious nuclear proliferation challenge, counterfeits U.S. currency, traffics in narcotics, threatens its neighbors and starves its people.
''The North Korean regime needs to change these polices, open up its political system and afford freedom to its people,'' Bush said. ''In the interim, we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct.''
Bush issued rebukes to Russia and China and called Syria a tyranny that harbors terrorists and sponsors terrorist activity.
On Russia, Bush said recent trends show a waning commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions. ''Strengthening our relationship will depend on the policies, foreign and domestic, that Russia adopts,'' he said.
The United States also is nudging China down a road of reform and openness.
''China's leaders must realize, however, that they cannot stay on this peaceful path while holding on to old ways of thinking and acting that exacerbate concerns throughout the region and the world,'' Bush wrote.
He said these ''old ways'' include enlarging China's military in a non-transparent way, expanding trade, yet seeking to direct markets rather than opening them up, and supporting energy-rich nations without regard to their misrule or misbehavior at home or abroad.
In 2002, when he sent his first report to Congress, Bush was struggling to persuade U.S. allies to join an offensive to topple Saddam Hussein.
Since then, the oppressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan was replaced by a freely elected government. In Iraq, citizens voted in the nation's first free election, a constitution was passed by referendum and nearly 12 million Iraqis elected a permanent government.
Challenges remain in Iraq, where sectarian violence threatens the fragile government and the U.S. death toll has topped 2,300. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said Iraq's political transition will take a couple of years. Earlier this week, the Pentagon announced it was moving about 700 additional U.S. troops into Iraq from Kuwait because of the escalating killings there and fears that a Shiite holiday would spark even more violence.
''When the Iraqi government, supported by the coalition, defeats the terrorists, terrorism will be dealt a critical blow,'' Bush said, acknowledging that the fight against terrorism was far from over.
The report is laden with strategies for advancing democracy across the globe, a theme of Bush's second inaugural address.
The president said his administration was advancing this goal by holding high-level meetings at the White House with democratic reformers in repressive nations; using foreign aid to support fair elections, women's rights and religious freedom; and pushing to abolish human trafficking.
Countering suggestions that he favors a go-it-alone approach to foreign policy, Bush emphasized multilateral problem-solving.
''Many of the problems we face -- from the threat of pandemic disease to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to terrorism, to human trafficking, to natural disasters -- reach across borders,'' he said.
''Effective multinational efforts are essential to solve these problems. Yet history has shown that only when we do our part will others do theirs. America must continue to lead.''
------
^On the Web:
www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
Bush Reaffirms Pre - Emptive Use of Force
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:27 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Undaunted by the difficult war in Iraq, President Bush reaffirmed his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations on Thursday and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.
In a 49-page national security report, the president said diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons.
''If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur -- even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack,'' Bush wrote.
Titled ''National Security Strategy,'' the report summarizes Bush's plan for protecting America and directing U.S. relations with other nations. It is an updated version of a report Bush issued in 2002.
In the earlier report a year after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush underscored his administration's adoption of a pre-emptive policy, marking the end of a deterrent military strategy that dominated the Cold War.
The latest report makes it clear Bush hasn't changed his mind, even though no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
''When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. ... The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same,'' Bush wrote.
The report had harsh words for Iran. It accused the regime of supporting terrorists, threatening Israel and disrupting democratic reform in Iraq. Bush said diplomacy to halt Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons work must prevail to avert a conflict.
''This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided,'' Bush said.
He did not say what would happen if international negotiations with Iran failed. The Bush administration currently is working to persuade Russia and China to support a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that Iran end its uranium enrichment program.
A top Iranian official said Thursday that his country was ready to open direct talks with the United States over Iraq, marking a major shift in Tehran's foreign policy a day after an Iraqi leader called for such talks. Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator and secretary of the country's Supreme National Security Council, told reporters that any talks between the United States and Iran would deal only with Iraqi issues.
But any direct dialogue between Tehran and Washington -- were it to happen -- also could be a beginning for negotiations between the two foes over Iran's suspect nuclear program.
Washington, which repeatedly has accused Iran of meddling in Iraq's affairs and of sending weapons and men to help insurgents in Iraq, had no immediate response.
Bush also had tough words for North Korea, which he said poses a serious nuclear proliferation challenge, counterfeits U.S. currency, traffics in narcotics, threatens its neighbors and starves its people.
''The North Korean regime needs to change these polices, open up its political system and afford freedom to its people,'' Bush said. ''In the interim, we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct.''
Bush issued rebukes to Russia and China and called Syria a tyranny that harbors terrorists and sponsors terrorist activity.
On Russia, Bush said recent trends show a waning commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions. ''Strengthening our relationship will depend on the policies, foreign and domestic, that Russia adopts,'' he said.
The United States also is nudging China down a road of reform and openness.
''China's leaders must realize, however, that they cannot stay on this peaceful path while holding on to old ways of thinking and acting that exacerbate concerns throughout the region and the world,'' Bush wrote.
He said these ''old ways'' include enlarging China's military in a non-transparent way, expanding trade, yet seeking to direct markets rather than opening them up, and supporting energy-rich nations without regard to their misrule or misbehavior at home or abroad.
In 2002, when he sent his first report to Congress, Bush was struggling to persuade U.S. allies to join an offensive to topple Saddam Hussein.
Since then, the oppressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan was replaced by a freely elected government. In Iraq, citizens voted in the nation's first free election, a constitution was passed by referendum and nearly 12 million Iraqis elected a permanent government.
Challenges remain in Iraq, where sectarian violence threatens the fragile government and the U.S. death toll has topped 2,300. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said Iraq's political transition will take a couple of years. Earlier this week, the Pentagon announced it was moving about 700 additional U.S. troops into Iraq from Kuwait because of the escalating killings there and fears that a Shiite holiday would spark even more violence.
''When the Iraqi government, supported by the coalition, defeats the terrorists, terrorism will be dealt a critical blow,'' Bush said, acknowledging that the fight against terrorism was far from over.
The report is laden with strategies for advancing democracy across the globe, a theme of Bush's second inaugural address.
The president said his administration was advancing this goal by holding high-level meetings at the White House with democratic reformers in repressive nations; using foreign aid to support fair elections, women's rights and religious freedom; and pushing to abolish human trafficking.
Countering suggestions that he favors a go-it-alone approach to foreign policy, Bush emphasized multilateral problem-solving.
''Many of the problems we face -- from the threat of pandemic disease to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to terrorism, to human trafficking, to natural disasters -- reach across borders,'' he said.
''Effective multinational efforts are essential to solve these problems. Yet history has shown that only when we do our part will others do theirs. America must continue to lead.''
------
^On the Web:
www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
Diplomacy must win to avoid Iran confrontation: US
By Steve Holland
Thu Mar 16, 7:41 AM ET
An international diplomatic effort to force Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions must succeed "if confrontation is to be avoided," the White House said on Thursday in a new national security strategy.
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," said the document, which also described national security challenges in Iraq and across the Middle East as well as in Russia and China.
The United States and its European allies are locked in a test of wills with Iran over suspicions that Tehran is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program despite its insistence that it merely wants atomic power for civilian use.
"This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided," said the document without elaborating.
President George W. Bush has insisted on a diplomatic outcome to the negotiations but has never taken the military option off the table, although experts believe U.S. involvement in the Iraq war is a limiting factor.
The document cited other concerns about Iran: that it sponsors terrorism, threatens Israel, seeks to thwart Middle East peace, disrupts democracy in Iraq and denies freedom to Iranians. It said these can only be resolved if Iran makes the strategic decision to change its policies, open up its political system and allow freedom.
"This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy," the document said. "In the interim, we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct."
The document sought to draw a line between Iran's leaders and the Iranian people, saying "our strategy is to block the threats posed by the regime while expanding our engagement and outreach to the people the regime is oppressing."
North Korea also poses a serious nuclear proliferation challenge, the document said.
It said Washington will continue to press for a return to talks on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program between the two Koreas, the United States, Russia, China and Japan despite North Korea's "long and bleak record of duplicity and bad-faith negotiations."
"PREPARED TO ACT ALONE"
The new strategy is an update of a 2002 document that itself reversed a Cold War policy aimed at containing the Soviet Union. The 2002 document advocated pre-emptive strikes against hostile states or terrorist groups -- a policy critics said was used to launch the Iraq war.
In the new document, the United States insists that "we must be prepared to act alone if necessary."
But in the wake of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq three years ago, which strained international ties, the document emphasized the need for diplomacy, saying "there is little of lasting consequence that we can accomplish in the world without the sustained cooperation of our allies and partners."
The document reflected U.S. concerns that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been backsliding on democracy. It said strengthening ties with Moscow depends on the foreign and domestic policies that Russia adopts, particularly toward the Middle East, South and Central Asia and East Asia.
"Recent trends regrettably point toward a diminishing commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions," the document said. "We will work to try to persuade the Russian government to move forward, not backward, along freedom's path."
The document also described worries about China, saying it was "holding on to old ways of thinking and acting that exacerbate concerns throughout the region and the world."
These include quietly expanding China's military while extending trade but acting as if Beijing can somehow "lock up" energy supplies around the world "or seek to direct markets rather than opening them up."
China is "supporting resource-rich countries without regard to the misrule at home or misbehavior abroad of those regimes," the document said.
"Ultimately, China's leaders must see that they cannot let their population increasingly experience the freedoms to buy, sell and produce, while denying them the rights to assemble, speak and worship."
The document also said Hamas, the militant group that won Palestinian elections, has the opportunity for peace with Israel and statehood "if Hamas will abandon its terrorist roots and change its relationship with Israel."
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
By Steve Holland
Thu Mar 16, 7:41 AM ET
An international diplomatic effort to force Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions must succeed "if confrontation is to be avoided," the White House said on Thursday in a new national security strategy.
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," said the document, which also described national security challenges in Iraq and across the Middle East as well as in Russia and China.
The United States and its European allies are locked in a test of wills with Iran over suspicions that Tehran is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program despite its insistence that it merely wants atomic power for civilian use.
"This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided," said the document without elaborating.
President George W. Bush has insisted on a diplomatic outcome to the negotiations but has never taken the military option off the table, although experts believe U.S. involvement in the Iraq war is a limiting factor.
The document cited other concerns about Iran: that it sponsors terrorism, threatens Israel, seeks to thwart Middle East peace, disrupts democracy in Iraq and denies freedom to Iranians. It said these can only be resolved if Iran makes the strategic decision to change its policies, open up its political system and allow freedom.
"This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy," the document said. "In the interim, we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct."
The document sought to draw a line between Iran's leaders and the Iranian people, saying "our strategy is to block the threats posed by the regime while expanding our engagement and outreach to the people the regime is oppressing."
North Korea also poses a serious nuclear proliferation challenge, the document said.
It said Washington will continue to press for a return to talks on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program between the two Koreas, the United States, Russia, China and Japan despite North Korea's "long and bleak record of duplicity and bad-faith negotiations."
"PREPARED TO ACT ALONE"
The new strategy is an update of a 2002 document that itself reversed a Cold War policy aimed at containing the Soviet Union. The 2002 document advocated pre-emptive strikes against hostile states or terrorist groups -- a policy critics said was used to launch the Iraq war.
In the new document, the United States insists that "we must be prepared to act alone if necessary."
But in the wake of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq three years ago, which strained international ties, the document emphasized the need for diplomacy, saying "there is little of lasting consequence that we can accomplish in the world without the sustained cooperation of our allies and partners."
The document reflected U.S. concerns that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been backsliding on democracy. It said strengthening ties with Moscow depends on the foreign and domestic policies that Russia adopts, particularly toward the Middle East, South and Central Asia and East Asia.
"Recent trends regrettably point toward a diminishing commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions," the document said. "We will work to try to persuade the Russian government to move forward, not backward, along freedom's path."
The document also described worries about China, saying it was "holding on to old ways of thinking and acting that exacerbate concerns throughout the region and the world."
These include quietly expanding China's military while extending trade but acting as if Beijing can somehow "lock up" energy supplies around the world "or seek to direct markets rather than opening them up."
China is "supporting resource-rich countries without regard to the misrule at home or misbehavior abroad of those regimes," the document said.
"Ultimately, China's leaders must see that they cannot let their population increasingly experience the freedoms to buy, sell and produce, while denying them the rights to assemble, speak and worship."
The document also said Hamas, the militant group that won Palestinian elections, has the opportunity for peace with Israel and statehood "if Hamas will abandon its terrorist roots and change its relationship with Israel."
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8713
QUOTE
Is Another 9/11 in the Works?
by Paul Craig Roberts
March 16, 2006
If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?
Yes, you would.
Bush’s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.
First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.
Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.
Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shi'ite majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.
Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indica
by Paul Craig Roberts
March 16, 2006
If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?
Yes, you would.
Bush’s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.
First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.
Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.
Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shi'ite majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.
Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indica