No need to panic over Iranian nukes
United Nations sanctions won't work but there's still plenty of time for patient talks.
By Gwynne Dyer
When the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed last Tuesday that Iran had broken the seals on its nuclear research facility at Natanz, many people reacted as if the very next step was the testing of an Iranian nuclear weapon.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11569.htm
Two excerpts:
"Ahmadinejad's comment was as foolish, but also ultimately as meaningless, as Ronald Reagan's famous remark into a microphone that he didn't know was open: "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I have signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
"Even if the CIA is unduly optimistic in assuming that Tehran is still 10 years away from a bomb, there is still plenty of time and room for patient negotiation. And no need for the current histrionics."
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
Interesting op-ed from the Telegraph in the UK. Please note: I do not necessarily endorse this view of the situation. I just found it an interesting addition to the possible scenarios being proposed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh.../ixopinion.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh.../ixopinion.html
QUOTE
The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented
By Niall Ferguson
(Filed: 15/01/2006)
Are we living through the origins of the next world war? Certainly, it is easy to imagine how a future historian might deal with the next phase of events in the Middle East:
With every passing year after the turn of the century, the instability of the Gulf region grew. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible ingredients for a conflict - far bigger in its scale and scope than the wars of 1991 or 2003 - were in place.
The first underlying cause of the war was the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. On the one hand, the rest of the world's oil reserves were being rapidly exhausted. On the other, the breakneck growth of the Asian economies had caused a huge surge in global demand for energy. It is hard to believe today, but for most of the 1990s the price of oil had averaged less than $20 a barrel.
A second precondition of war was demographic. While European fertility had fallen below the natural replacement rate in the 1970s, the decline in the Islamic world had been much slower. By the late 1990s the fertility rate in the eight Muslim countries to the south and east of the European Union was two and half times higher than the European figure.
This tendency was especially pronounced in Iran, where the social conservatism of the 1979 Revolution - which had lowered the age of marriage and prohibited contraception - combined with the high mortality of the Iran-Iraq War and the subsequent baby boom to produce, by the first decade of the new century, a quite extraordinary surplus of young men. More than two fifths of the population of Iran in 1995 had been aged 14 or younger. This was the generation that was ready to fight in 2007.
This not only gave Islamic societies a youthful energy that contrasted markedly with the slothful senescence of Europe. It also signified a profound shift in the balance of world population. In 1950, there had three times as many people in Britain as in Iran. By 1995, the population of Iran had overtaken that of Britain and was forecast to be 50 per cent higher by 2050.
Yet people in the West struggled to grasp the implications of this shift. Subliminally, they still thought of the Middle East as a region they could lord it over, as they had in the mid-20th century.
The third and perhaps most important precondition for war was cultural. Since 1979, not just Iran but the greater part of the Muslim world had been swept by a wave of religious fervour, the very opposite of the process of secularisation that was emptying Europe's churches.
Although few countries followed Iran down the road to full-blown theocracy, there was a transformation in politics everywhere. From Morocco to Pakistan, the feudal dynasties or military strongmen who had dominated Islamic politics since the 1950s came under intense pressure from religious radicals.
The ideological cocktail that produced 'Islamism' was as potent as either of the extreme ideologies the West had produced in the previous century, communism and fascism. Islamism was anti-Western, anti-capitalist and anti-Semitic. A seminal moment was the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intemperate attack on Israel in December 2005, when he called the Holocaust a 'myth'. The state of Israel was a 'disgraceful blot', he had previously declared, to be wiped 'off the map'.
Prior to 2007, the Islamists had seen no alternative but to wage war against their enemies by means of terrorism. From the Gaza to Manhattan, the hero of 2001 was the suicide bomber. Yet Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War, craved a more serious weapon than strapped-on explosives. His decision to accelerate Iran's nuclear weapons programme was intended to give Iran the kind of power North Korea already wielded in East Asia: the power to defy the United States; the power to obliterate America's closest regional ally.
Under different circumstances, it would not have been difficult to thwart Ahmadinejad's ambitions. The Israelis had shown themselves capable of pre-emptive air strikes against Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. Similar strikes against Iran's were urged on President Bush by neo-conservative commentators throughout 2006. The United States, they argued, was perfectly placed to carry out such strikes. It had the bases in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. It had the intelligence proving Iran's contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
But the President was advised by his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to opt instead for diplomacy. Not just European opinion but American opinion was strongly opposed to an attack on Iran. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had been discredited by the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had supposedly possessed and by the failure of the US-led coalition to quell a bloody insurgency.
Americans did not want to increase their military commitments overseas; they wanted to reduce them. Europeans did not want to hear that Iran was about to build its own WMD. Even if Ahmad-inejad had broadcast a nuclear test live on CNN, liberals would have said it was a CIA con-trick.
So history repeated itself. As in the 1930s, an anti-Semitic demagogue broke his country's treaty obligations and armed for war. Having first tried appeasement, offering the Iranians economic incentives to desist, the West appealed to international agencies - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council. Thanks to China's veto, however, the UN produced nothing but empty resolutions and ineffectual sanctions, like the exclusion of Iran from the 2006 World Cup finals.
Only one man might have stiffened President Bush's resolve in the crisis: not Tony Blair, he had wrecked his domestic credibility over Iraq and was in any case on the point of retirement - Ariel Sharon. Yet he had been struck down by a stroke as the Iranian crisis came to a head. With Israel leaderless, Ahmadinejad had a free hand.
As in the 1930s, too, the West fell back on wishful thinking. Perhaps, some said, Ahmadinejad was only sabre-rattling because his domestic position was so weak. Perhaps his political rivals in the Iranian clergy were on the point of getting rid of him. In that case, the last thing the West should do was to take a tough line; that would only bolster Ahmadinejad by inflaming Iranian popular feeling. So in Washington and in London people crossed their fingers, hoping for the deus ex machina of a home-grown regime change in Teheran.
This gave the Iranians all the time they needed to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium at Natanz. The dream of nuclear non-proliferation, already interrupted by Israel, Pakistan and India, was definitively shattered. Now Teheran had a nuclear missile pointed at Tel-Aviv. And the new Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu had a missile pointed right back at Teheran.
The optimists argued that the Cuban Missile Crisis would replay itself in the Middle East. Both sides would threaten war - and then both sides would blink. That was Secretary Rice's hope - indeed, her prayer - as she shuttled between the capitals. But it was not to be.
The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran.
Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's original principle of pre-emption. For, if that principle had been adhered to in 2006, Iran's nuclear bid might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And the Great Gulf War might never have happened.
• Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University www.niallferguson.org
By Niall Ferguson
(Filed: 15/01/2006)
Are we living through the origins of the next world war? Certainly, it is easy to imagine how a future historian might deal with the next phase of events in the Middle East:
With every passing year after the turn of the century, the instability of the Gulf region grew. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible ingredients for a conflict - far bigger in its scale and scope than the wars of 1991 or 2003 - were in place.
The first underlying cause of the war was the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. On the one hand, the rest of the world's oil reserves were being rapidly exhausted. On the other, the breakneck growth of the Asian economies had caused a huge surge in global demand for energy. It is hard to believe today, but for most of the 1990s the price of oil had averaged less than $20 a barrel.
A second precondition of war was demographic. While European fertility had fallen below the natural replacement rate in the 1970s, the decline in the Islamic world had been much slower. By the late 1990s the fertility rate in the eight Muslim countries to the south and east of the European Union was two and half times higher than the European figure.
This tendency was especially pronounced in Iran, where the social conservatism of the 1979 Revolution - which had lowered the age of marriage and prohibited contraception - combined with the high mortality of the Iran-Iraq War and the subsequent baby boom to produce, by the first decade of the new century, a quite extraordinary surplus of young men. More than two fifths of the population of Iran in 1995 had been aged 14 or younger. This was the generation that was ready to fight in 2007.
This not only gave Islamic societies a youthful energy that contrasted markedly with the slothful senescence of Europe. It also signified a profound shift in the balance of world population. In 1950, there had three times as many people in Britain as in Iran. By 1995, the population of Iran had overtaken that of Britain and was forecast to be 50 per cent higher by 2050.
Yet people in the West struggled to grasp the implications of this shift. Subliminally, they still thought of the Middle East as a region they could lord it over, as they had in the mid-20th century.
The third and perhaps most important precondition for war was cultural. Since 1979, not just Iran but the greater part of the Muslim world had been swept by a wave of religious fervour, the very opposite of the process of secularisation that was emptying Europe's churches.
Although few countries followed Iran down the road to full-blown theocracy, there was a transformation in politics everywhere. From Morocco to Pakistan, the feudal dynasties or military strongmen who had dominated Islamic politics since the 1950s came under intense pressure from religious radicals.
The ideological cocktail that produced 'Islamism' was as potent as either of the extreme ideologies the West had produced in the previous century, communism and fascism. Islamism was anti-Western, anti-capitalist and anti-Semitic. A seminal moment was the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intemperate attack on Israel in December 2005, when he called the Holocaust a 'myth'. The state of Israel was a 'disgraceful blot', he had previously declared, to be wiped 'off the map'.
Prior to 2007, the Islamists had seen no alternative but to wage war against their enemies by means of terrorism. From the Gaza to Manhattan, the hero of 2001 was the suicide bomber. Yet Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War, craved a more serious weapon than strapped-on explosives. His decision to accelerate Iran's nuclear weapons programme was intended to give Iran the kind of power North Korea already wielded in East Asia: the power to defy the United States; the power to obliterate America's closest regional ally.
Under different circumstances, it would not have been difficult to thwart Ahmadinejad's ambitions. The Israelis had shown themselves capable of pre-emptive air strikes against Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. Similar strikes against Iran's were urged on President Bush by neo-conservative commentators throughout 2006. The United States, they argued, was perfectly placed to carry out such strikes. It had the bases in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. It had the intelligence proving Iran's contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
But the President was advised by his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to opt instead for diplomacy. Not just European opinion but American opinion was strongly opposed to an attack on Iran. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had been discredited by the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had supposedly possessed and by the failure of the US-led coalition to quell a bloody insurgency.
Americans did not want to increase their military commitments overseas; they wanted to reduce them. Europeans did not want to hear that Iran was about to build its own WMD. Even if Ahmad-inejad had broadcast a nuclear test live on CNN, liberals would have said it was a CIA con-trick.
So history repeated itself. As in the 1930s, an anti-Semitic demagogue broke his country's treaty obligations and armed for war. Having first tried appeasement, offering the Iranians economic incentives to desist, the West appealed to international agencies - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council. Thanks to China's veto, however, the UN produced nothing but empty resolutions and ineffectual sanctions, like the exclusion of Iran from the 2006 World Cup finals.
Only one man might have stiffened President Bush's resolve in the crisis: not Tony Blair, he had wrecked his domestic credibility over Iraq and was in any case on the point of retirement - Ariel Sharon. Yet he had been struck down by a stroke as the Iranian crisis came to a head. With Israel leaderless, Ahmadinejad had a free hand.
As in the 1930s, too, the West fell back on wishful thinking. Perhaps, some said, Ahmadinejad was only sabre-rattling because his domestic position was so weak. Perhaps his political rivals in the Iranian clergy were on the point of getting rid of him. In that case, the last thing the West should do was to take a tough line; that would only bolster Ahmadinejad by inflaming Iranian popular feeling. So in Washington and in London people crossed their fingers, hoping for the deus ex machina of a home-grown regime change in Teheran.
This gave the Iranians all the time they needed to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium at Natanz. The dream of nuclear non-proliferation, already interrupted by Israel, Pakistan and India, was definitively shattered. Now Teheran had a nuclear missile pointed at Tel-Aviv. And the new Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu had a missile pointed right back at Teheran.
The optimists argued that the Cuban Missile Crisis would replay itself in the Middle East. Both sides would threaten war - and then both sides would blink. That was Secretary Rice's hope - indeed, her prayer - as she shuttled between the capitals. But it was not to be.
The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran.
Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's original principle of pre-emption. For, if that principle had been adhered to in 2006, Iran's nuclear bid might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And the Great Gulf War might never have happened.
• Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University www.niallferguson.org
The Sunday Times
Sarah Baxter, Washington and Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv
WHEN President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations for the first time last September, he had a mystical, out of body experience. On his return to Iran he said: “One of our group told me that when I started to say, ‘In the name of the God, the almighty and merciful’, he saw a light around me and I was placed inside this aura.”
Sheer flattery? Not according to the Iranian president. “I felt it myself,” he continued.
“I felt the atmosphere suddenly change and for those 27 or 28 minutes the leaders of the world did not blink . . . They were rapt. It seemed as if a hand was holding them there and had opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic republic.”
Ahmadinejad is said to believe in the return of the 12th imam, the Mahdi, who will restore peace and justice at the end of the world.
Middle Eastern commentators have noted the delicious irony of having two sparring, devout leaders — President George W Bush and Ahmadinejad — who believe in the second coming of a messiah on judgment day. But only the Iranian leader has vowed to “wipe” another nation, Israel, off the map, adding an apocalyptic air of menace to his country’s quest to acquire supposedly peaceful nuclear power.
Iran’s decision to break the UN seals at its nuclear enrichment plant in Natanz last week has placed the international community in a quandary.
Was it a shrewd piece of Iranian realpolitik designed to win approval at home and to spread fear abroad, or the actions of an Islamic fanatic and avowed Holocaust denier obsessed with destroying the Jewish state? And whatever the Iranian president’s motivation, can he be stopped?
Bush is expected to invite Ehud Olmert, the acting Israeli prime minister, to Washington next month for talks on Iran. The timing is sensitive. Israel goes to the polls in March and it would be bad form for the White House to give the successor to Ariel Sharon an apparent electoral boost. But the Iranian threat is considered so serious that Bush may not want to wait.
Before the massive stroke that left him in a coma, Sharon had declared: “Israel will not accept a nuclear weapon equipped Iran.” He had quietly ordered the Israeli Defence Forces to be ready to launch airstrikes against nuclear sites in the Islamic republic if necessary.
“The whole issue is now with the Americans,” said an Israeli defence source. “Once we get the green light, we’re ready.”
For now the light has stalled on amber. Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, chastised Iran last week for its “dangerous defiance” and warned that “the president of the United States never takes any of his options off the table”. She added, however, that diplomacy was the best way to solve the crisis: “If the international community stays united, it has a chance to work.”
The European Union Three (EU3) of Britain, France and Germany spent 2½ years trying to coax Iran into a “grand bargain” whereby it would be welcomed into the community of nations with trade and technology sweeteners in exchange for suspending its nuclear programme.
That policy lies in ruins after the election of Ahmadinejad in June radically changed the political calculus.
Meeting in Berlin last week it took less than an hour for Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and his French and German counterparts to agree that talks with Iran had reached a “dead end”. It was time, they concluded, for the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 35-nation board of governors to refer the matter to the UN security council.
That was the easy part, confirmed over tea and biscuits. Whether sanctions will be imposed on Iran remains a matter of intense debate and negotiation. If they are, the Iranians have vowed to raise the stakes further by ending unannounced inspections and other co-operation with the agency.
In Tehran yesterday a defiant Ahmadinejad accused the West of hypocrisy and arrogance. “They think they have the power and want to deprive Iran of its rights,” he declared. Iran would not compromise “one iota” but insisted that it was seeking only to develop nuclear energy.
It is a claim greeted with scepticism by western experts who believe that Iran has plentiful supplies of fuel for its nuclear reactor at Bushehr without conducting uranium enrichment, a process that can produce either low-grade reactor fuel or the highly enriched material needed to make a nuclear bomb.
The next round of diplomacy opens tomorrow in London when senior EU3 officials will meet their counterparts from Washington, Moscow and Beijing at the Foreign Office. Top of the agenda will be an attempt to persuade the Russians and the Chinese, who have veto powers at the UN, to agree to a common front against Iran.
“We want to reassure them about what we intend to do at the next stage,” said a Foreign Office official. But there is no unanimity on the best course of action; nor is it obvious who will emerge the ultimate victor in the showdown between the Iranians and the West.
The EU3’s decision to recommend Iran’s referral to the security council should be a moment of vindication for the Americans, who have sought for years to persuade the Europeans that there is no point in dallying with the Iranians. As long ago as 2001 the neo-conservative hawk Richard Perle, then a senior adviser to the Pentagon, had accused Straw of “grovelling” to the mullahs.
Perle’s opinion of British and European negotiating efforts has not improved. “They’ll still be talking when the Iranians detonate their first bomb,” he said last week. “Ahmadinejad’s rantings are deeply rooted in an apocalyptic concept of the 12th imam which welcomes mass destruction. We may think it’s crazy, but the question is whether the Iranians are capable of acting on this madness. I’d rather not take the risk.”
Yet as Perle readily admits, much has changed in America in the past couple of years. “The (Bush) administration has become paralysed. It’s lost all clear sense of direction with regard to Iran and is all too content not to face difficult decisions,” he said.
In other words, as Straw said last week: “To quote the White House, Iran is not Iraq.”
There was a time when American officials boasted of “turning right after we march to Baghdad” — towards Tehran. The toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was supposed to be a warning to the remaining members of the “axis of evil”, Iran and North Korea, that nuclear proliferation was a fool’s game. Instead, Iran has been able to thumb its nose at the West while America struggles to prevent civil war in Iraq.
It is more commonly said in Washington these days that America does not have to worry about Iran because, if push comes to shove, Israel will do the dirty work needed to stop the Iranians from acquiring an “Islamic” bomb. But will it?
Some Israelis have declared themselves willing to shoulder the burden. “We should attack and we are capable of completing the job,” said General Uzi Dayan, former head of Israel’s national security council, last week. “Iran is an imminent danger to Israel.”
Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party, has backed the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities, although Olmert’s Kadima party looks the more likely election winner.
At the Hatzerim air base on the edge of the Negev desert, the elite 69 strategic F-15 I squadron is ready to attack. Months of preparations have been completed and the young pilots have finished training for the long-haul flights that will be necessary to reach Iran and back without refuelling.
The planes, costing £60m each, are equipped with secret state-of-the-art weaponry and precision bombs that have yet to be tested in battle.
Two submarines capable of launching cruise missiles are on standby: one hidden in the depths of the Persian Gulf, the other stationed in the Israeli port of Haifa. In an attack they will be used to receive high quality signal intelligence.
Israel’s elite special forces are also prepared for their role — flying into Iran by helicopter to sabotage the underground targets that cannot be bombed from the air.
That Israel has a plan of action surprises nobody, but it is a long way from pressing the start key. Its air force successfully bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981 but, mindful of the lessons of that attack, the mullahs have dispersed their nuclear sites around Iran. There are thought to be at least 40 targets, some buried deep in the ground.
“What we now have is a lot of targets, which makes the operation much more difficult,” said Ze’ev Raz, the former pilot who led the attack on Osirak.
It is inconceivable that the Israelis could strike without the support of the Americans. “The reality is that it would have to be a sponsored mission because the Israelis would have to fly across Iraqi or Turkish air space,” said a senior British defence official.
“Then there is the question of retaliation. Iran has got ballistic missiles and some chemical weapons. What would happen if they used them?”
A wave of terrorism could be unleashed against Israeli and Jewish targets. On Israel’s southern border with Lebanon, Iran’s Hezbollah allies could fire off rockets — although, as with Osirak, there would be plenty of Arab nations relieved that Iran had been de-fanged.
The consequences, however, are so unpredictable that Perle believes it would be safer for America to take on the job itself. “If the only credible solution to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is an airstrike to destroy their facilities, we are far better able to do it than the Israelis. The worst thing would be to attack and not succeed.”
If Olmert comes to Washington next month, Bush is certain to warn him against acting precipitately. “Our working assumption is that the Americans will try to pour water on our military plans,” said an Israeli defence source.
One of the questions uppermost in the policymakers’ minds is the state of public opinion in Iran. It is overwhelmingly likely that an attack would inflame people against the American “Great Satan” and Israel.
Not only would Iranian national pride be wounded; civilian casualties could also provoke fury at a time when pro-western sentiment in Iran had been on the rise.
For Perle, the correct strategy is obvious: hold off military action for now and extend vigorous support to the internal opposition in Iran. As he sees it: “There’s nothing being done there. We’re giving the mullahs a free ride.”
Mounting international pressure on Iran could test the unity of the Islamic regime and the Iranian people. The son of an ironworker, Ahmadinejad’s humble background and simple lifestyle have won him the respect of many of the poorest Iranians, who still hope he will fulfil election promises to fight unemployment and corruption.
The country’s political elites, although aghast at his gaucheness, mostly support his nuclear policy out of national pride. “Ahmadinejad is using the nuclear question to play to the domestic gallery,” said a Foreign Office official. “He has revived the sentiments of the 1980s. That’s his philosophy.”
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president, has been one of Ahmadinejad’s most outspoken critics but he has remained silent on the nuclear issue. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran who has the final say on all matters, is said to favour Ahmadinejad’s uncompromising stance.
Some reformists are concerned by Iran’s defiance of world opinion. Mohammad Reza Khatami, the younger brother of Ahmadinejad’s predecessor as president, believes that the country should not risk international isolation.
“It’s impossible to put very strict and broad sanctions in place against Iran. The world is not unified and it needs Iran’s oil,” said Khatami. “But it is important that Iranians feel they are part of the world and their isolation would have a very heavy effect on them.”
How to put pressure on the regime without punishing its citizens is a vexing question for the security council. One idea floated last week was to ban Iran from the World Cup, for which the country has qualified for the first time.
“It would give a very clear signal to Iran that the international community will not accept what they are doing,” said Michael Ancram, the Conservative MP.
That was not the view from the terraces in Tehran on Friday, where the Iranian team Persepolis was playing Germany’s Bayern Munich in front of a home crowd for the first time since 1972. Many fans expressed relief that the German team had ignored the political fallout over the nuclear issue and turned up to play.
In London, Straw soon rejected the idea anyway, saying he was “not certain” that sports sanctions would help. “Sports sanctions hurt the people, not the regime,” said a spokesman.
Other suggestions for sanctions include blocking travel visas for the political elite and halting Iran’s application for membership of the World Trade Organisation.
China — Iran’s top oil importer, with burgeoning energy needs — is likely to veto all but the mildest of diplomatic sanctions. “It would be a replay of the Iraq debate,” said one western diplomat gloomily.
Only last month a high-level Chinese delegation slipped into Tehran for talks on an oil and gas deal worth more than $57 billion. The two nations also have military links stretching back to the Iran-Iraq war.
The Russians are furious that their attempt to play the go- between with Iran and the West has gone nowhere. They had hoped that Ahmadinejad would take up their offer to enrich uranium in Russia for Iran’s civilian needs. His humiliating lack of interest led to some unusually sharp criticism of the Iranians last week.
Even so, it is highly doubtful that President Vladimir Putin would support stringent sanctions jeopardising Moscow’s huge economic and strategic interests in the region. Even the French and Germans have warned that economic sanctions are “premature”.
As a first step, the UN security council president is likely to issue a stern statement condemning Iran, a move likely to be interpreted in Tehran as a sign of western weakness. The pressure will then be increased by degrees but it is a risky gambit that will allow Iran to continue its nuclear work.
The Israelis believe that time is running out. Its nuclear scientists claim that Iran is fast approaching the “point of no return” when it will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium to bomb-grade purity.
According to a study by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, Iran will be three years away from producing a nuclear bomb if it can feed the uranium through 1,000 centrifuges that it hopes to operate at Natanz. A 50,000-centrifuge plant being built nearby could hasten the process considerably.
The 2½ years of talks with the Iranians have already sped by. By the time the talking stops, Iran may have the know-how to build what the rest of the world dreads: an “Islamic” bomb.
Additional reporting: Michael Sheridan, Bangkok, Mark Franchetti, Moscow, Tom Walker and Flora Bagenal
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=5321
Sarah Baxter, Washington and Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv
WHEN President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations for the first time last September, he had a mystical, out of body experience. On his return to Iran he said: “One of our group told me that when I started to say, ‘In the name of the God, the almighty and merciful’, he saw a light around me and I was placed inside this aura.”
Sheer flattery? Not according to the Iranian president. “I felt it myself,” he continued.
“I felt the atmosphere suddenly change and for those 27 or 28 minutes the leaders of the world did not blink . . . They were rapt. It seemed as if a hand was holding them there and had opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic republic.”
Ahmadinejad is said to believe in the return of the 12th imam, the Mahdi, who will restore peace and justice at the end of the world.
Middle Eastern commentators have noted the delicious irony of having two sparring, devout leaders — President George W Bush and Ahmadinejad — who believe in the second coming of a messiah on judgment day. But only the Iranian leader has vowed to “wipe” another nation, Israel, off the map, adding an apocalyptic air of menace to his country’s quest to acquire supposedly peaceful nuclear power.
Iran’s decision to break the UN seals at its nuclear enrichment plant in Natanz last week has placed the international community in a quandary.
Was it a shrewd piece of Iranian realpolitik designed to win approval at home and to spread fear abroad, or the actions of an Islamic fanatic and avowed Holocaust denier obsessed with destroying the Jewish state? And whatever the Iranian president’s motivation, can he be stopped?
Bush is expected to invite Ehud Olmert, the acting Israeli prime minister, to Washington next month for talks on Iran. The timing is sensitive. Israel goes to the polls in March and it would be bad form for the White House to give the successor to Ariel Sharon an apparent electoral boost. But the Iranian threat is considered so serious that Bush may not want to wait.
Before the massive stroke that left him in a coma, Sharon had declared: “Israel will not accept a nuclear weapon equipped Iran.” He had quietly ordered the Israeli Defence Forces to be ready to launch airstrikes against nuclear sites in the Islamic republic if necessary.
“The whole issue is now with the Americans,” said an Israeli defence source. “Once we get the green light, we’re ready.”
For now the light has stalled on amber. Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, chastised Iran last week for its “dangerous defiance” and warned that “the president of the United States never takes any of his options off the table”. She added, however, that diplomacy was the best way to solve the crisis: “If the international community stays united, it has a chance to work.”
The European Union Three (EU3) of Britain, France and Germany spent 2½ years trying to coax Iran into a “grand bargain” whereby it would be welcomed into the community of nations with trade and technology sweeteners in exchange for suspending its nuclear programme.
That policy lies in ruins after the election of Ahmadinejad in June radically changed the political calculus.
Meeting in Berlin last week it took less than an hour for Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and his French and German counterparts to agree that talks with Iran had reached a “dead end”. It was time, they concluded, for the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 35-nation board of governors to refer the matter to the UN security council.
That was the easy part, confirmed over tea and biscuits. Whether sanctions will be imposed on Iran remains a matter of intense debate and negotiation. If they are, the Iranians have vowed to raise the stakes further by ending unannounced inspections and other co-operation with the agency.
In Tehran yesterday a defiant Ahmadinejad accused the West of hypocrisy and arrogance. “They think they have the power and want to deprive Iran of its rights,” he declared. Iran would not compromise “one iota” but insisted that it was seeking only to develop nuclear energy.
It is a claim greeted with scepticism by western experts who believe that Iran has plentiful supplies of fuel for its nuclear reactor at Bushehr without conducting uranium enrichment, a process that can produce either low-grade reactor fuel or the highly enriched material needed to make a nuclear bomb.
The next round of diplomacy opens tomorrow in London when senior EU3 officials will meet their counterparts from Washington, Moscow and Beijing at the Foreign Office. Top of the agenda will be an attempt to persuade the Russians and the Chinese, who have veto powers at the UN, to agree to a common front against Iran.
“We want to reassure them about what we intend to do at the next stage,” said a Foreign Office official. But there is no unanimity on the best course of action; nor is it obvious who will emerge the ultimate victor in the showdown between the Iranians and the West.
The EU3’s decision to recommend Iran’s referral to the security council should be a moment of vindication for the Americans, who have sought for years to persuade the Europeans that there is no point in dallying with the Iranians. As long ago as 2001 the neo-conservative hawk Richard Perle, then a senior adviser to the Pentagon, had accused Straw of “grovelling” to the mullahs.
Perle’s opinion of British and European negotiating efforts has not improved. “They’ll still be talking when the Iranians detonate their first bomb,” he said last week. “Ahmadinejad’s rantings are deeply rooted in an apocalyptic concept of the 12th imam which welcomes mass destruction. We may think it’s crazy, but the question is whether the Iranians are capable of acting on this madness. I’d rather not take the risk.”
Yet as Perle readily admits, much has changed in America in the past couple of years. “The (Bush) administration has become paralysed. It’s lost all clear sense of direction with regard to Iran and is all too content not to face difficult decisions,” he said.
In other words, as Straw said last week: “To quote the White House, Iran is not Iraq.”
There was a time when American officials boasted of “turning right after we march to Baghdad” — towards Tehran. The toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was supposed to be a warning to the remaining members of the “axis of evil”, Iran and North Korea, that nuclear proliferation was a fool’s game. Instead, Iran has been able to thumb its nose at the West while America struggles to prevent civil war in Iraq.
It is more commonly said in Washington these days that America does not have to worry about Iran because, if push comes to shove, Israel will do the dirty work needed to stop the Iranians from acquiring an “Islamic” bomb. But will it?
Some Israelis have declared themselves willing to shoulder the burden. “We should attack and we are capable of completing the job,” said General Uzi Dayan, former head of Israel’s national security council, last week. “Iran is an imminent danger to Israel.”
Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party, has backed the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities, although Olmert’s Kadima party looks the more likely election winner.
At the Hatzerim air base on the edge of the Negev desert, the elite 69 strategic F-15 I squadron is ready to attack. Months of preparations have been completed and the young pilots have finished training for the long-haul flights that will be necessary to reach Iran and back without refuelling.
The planes, costing £60m each, are equipped with secret state-of-the-art weaponry and precision bombs that have yet to be tested in battle.
Two submarines capable of launching cruise missiles are on standby: one hidden in the depths of the Persian Gulf, the other stationed in the Israeli port of Haifa. In an attack they will be used to receive high quality signal intelligence.
Israel’s elite special forces are also prepared for their role — flying into Iran by helicopter to sabotage the underground targets that cannot be bombed from the air.
That Israel has a plan of action surprises nobody, but it is a long way from pressing the start key. Its air force successfully bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981 but, mindful of the lessons of that attack, the mullahs have dispersed their nuclear sites around Iran. There are thought to be at least 40 targets, some buried deep in the ground.
“What we now have is a lot of targets, which makes the operation much more difficult,” said Ze’ev Raz, the former pilot who led the attack on Osirak.
It is inconceivable that the Israelis could strike without the support of the Americans. “The reality is that it would have to be a sponsored mission because the Israelis would have to fly across Iraqi or Turkish air space,” said a senior British defence official.
“Then there is the question of retaliation. Iran has got ballistic missiles and some chemical weapons. What would happen if they used them?”
A wave of terrorism could be unleashed against Israeli and Jewish targets. On Israel’s southern border with Lebanon, Iran’s Hezbollah allies could fire off rockets — although, as with Osirak, there would be plenty of Arab nations relieved that Iran had been de-fanged.
The consequences, however, are so unpredictable that Perle believes it would be safer for America to take on the job itself. “If the only credible solution to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is an airstrike to destroy their facilities, we are far better able to do it than the Israelis. The worst thing would be to attack and not succeed.”
If Olmert comes to Washington next month, Bush is certain to warn him against acting precipitately. “Our working assumption is that the Americans will try to pour water on our military plans,” said an Israeli defence source.
One of the questions uppermost in the policymakers’ minds is the state of public opinion in Iran. It is overwhelmingly likely that an attack would inflame people against the American “Great Satan” and Israel.
Not only would Iranian national pride be wounded; civilian casualties could also provoke fury at a time when pro-western sentiment in Iran had been on the rise.
For Perle, the correct strategy is obvious: hold off military action for now and extend vigorous support to the internal opposition in Iran. As he sees it: “There’s nothing being done there. We’re giving the mullahs a free ride.”
Mounting international pressure on Iran could test the unity of the Islamic regime and the Iranian people. The son of an ironworker, Ahmadinejad’s humble background and simple lifestyle have won him the respect of many of the poorest Iranians, who still hope he will fulfil election promises to fight unemployment and corruption.
The country’s political elites, although aghast at his gaucheness, mostly support his nuclear policy out of national pride. “Ahmadinejad is using the nuclear question to play to the domestic gallery,” said a Foreign Office official. “He has revived the sentiments of the 1980s. That’s his philosophy.”
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president, has been one of Ahmadinejad’s most outspoken critics but he has remained silent on the nuclear issue. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran who has the final say on all matters, is said to favour Ahmadinejad’s uncompromising stance.
Some reformists are concerned by Iran’s defiance of world opinion. Mohammad Reza Khatami, the younger brother of Ahmadinejad’s predecessor as president, believes that the country should not risk international isolation.
“It’s impossible to put very strict and broad sanctions in place against Iran. The world is not unified and it needs Iran’s oil,” said Khatami. “But it is important that Iranians feel they are part of the world and their isolation would have a very heavy effect on them.”
How to put pressure on the regime without punishing its citizens is a vexing question for the security council. One idea floated last week was to ban Iran from the World Cup, for which the country has qualified for the first time.
“It would give a very clear signal to Iran that the international community will not accept what they are doing,” said Michael Ancram, the Conservative MP.
That was not the view from the terraces in Tehran on Friday, where the Iranian team Persepolis was playing Germany’s Bayern Munich in front of a home crowd for the first time since 1972. Many fans expressed relief that the German team had ignored the political fallout over the nuclear issue and turned up to play.
In London, Straw soon rejected the idea anyway, saying he was “not certain” that sports sanctions would help. “Sports sanctions hurt the people, not the regime,” said a spokesman.
Other suggestions for sanctions include blocking travel visas for the political elite and halting Iran’s application for membership of the World Trade Organisation.
China — Iran’s top oil importer, with burgeoning energy needs — is likely to veto all but the mildest of diplomatic sanctions. “It would be a replay of the Iraq debate,” said one western diplomat gloomily.
Only last month a high-level Chinese delegation slipped into Tehran for talks on an oil and gas deal worth more than $57 billion. The two nations also have military links stretching back to the Iran-Iraq war.
The Russians are furious that their attempt to play the go- between with Iran and the West has gone nowhere. They had hoped that Ahmadinejad would take up their offer to enrich uranium in Russia for Iran’s civilian needs. His humiliating lack of interest led to some unusually sharp criticism of the Iranians last week.
Even so, it is highly doubtful that President Vladimir Putin would support stringent sanctions jeopardising Moscow’s huge economic and strategic interests in the region. Even the French and Germans have warned that economic sanctions are “premature”.
As a first step, the UN security council president is likely to issue a stern statement condemning Iran, a move likely to be interpreted in Tehran as a sign of western weakness. The pressure will then be increased by degrees but it is a risky gambit that will allow Iran to continue its nuclear work.
The Israelis believe that time is running out. Its nuclear scientists claim that Iran is fast approaching the “point of no return” when it will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium to bomb-grade purity.
According to a study by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, Iran will be three years away from producing a nuclear bomb if it can feed the uranium through 1,000 centrifuges that it hopes to operate at Natanz. A 50,000-centrifuge plant being built nearby could hasten the process considerably.
The 2½ years of talks with the Iranians have already sped by. By the time the talking stops, Iran may have the know-how to build what the rest of the world dreads: an “Islamic” bomb.
Additional reporting: Michael Sheridan, Bangkok, Mark Franchetti, Moscow, Tom Walker and Flora Bagenal
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=5321
Iran Focus
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=5274
Tehran, Iran, Jan. 12 – Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday evening that the Islamic Republic’s 1979 Islamic revolution was a great movement and a stepping stone to a final “great event” in the world.
Speaking to a crowd in the southern city of Roudan, Hormozgan province, Ahmadinejad said, “The Islamic Republic is the continuation of the path of the prophets which came to begin a great movement and the final occurrence”.
“The Islamic revolution was a great leap in leading the people and reaching the climax of history”, Ahmadinejad said.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=5274
Tehran, Iran, Jan. 12 – Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday evening that the Islamic Republic’s 1979 Islamic revolution was a great movement and a stepping stone to a final “great event” in the world.
Speaking to a crowd in the southern city of Roudan, Hormozgan province, Ahmadinejad said, “The Islamic Republic is the continuation of the path of the prophets which came to begin a great movement and the final occurrence”.
“The Islamic revolution was a great leap in leading the people and reaching the climax of history”, Ahmadinejad said.
“Ahmadinejad? Who’s he?”
Source: http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=2605
A firebrand Islamic fundamentalists dedicated to the cause of an Islamic world revolution.
Founded the Islamic Students Association
Representative of Elm-o Sanaat which later became known as the OSU (Office of Strengthening and Unity between universities and theological semanaries).
The OSU played a central role in the seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran in November 1979.
Ahmadinejad and the OSU played a critical role in purging dissident lecturers and students many of whom were arrested and later executed.
Ahmadinejad joined the Revolutionary Guards.
Ahmadinejad worked in the “Internal Security” department of the IRGC and earned notoriety as a ruthless interrogator and torturer.
Worked for some time as an executioner in the notorious Evin Prison, where thousands of political prisoners were executed in the bloody purges of the 1980s.
Senior officer in the Special Brigade of the Revolutionary Guards and was stationed in Ramazan Garrison headquarters of the Revolutionary Guards’ “extra-territorial operations near Kermanshah in western Iran.
“Extra-territorial operations”, a euphemism for terrorist attacks beyond Iran’s borders
Key planner of the assassination of Iranian Kurdish leader Abdorrahman Qassemlou
Mastermind of a series of assassinations in the Middle East and Europe
Returned to Elm-o Sanaat University to teach, but his principal activity was to organize Ansar-e Hezbollah, a radical gang of violent Islamic vigilantes
Used his position a mayor of Tehran to build up a strong network of radical Islamic fundamentalists organised as “Abadgaran-e Iran-e Islami”
Abadgaran-e Iran-e-Islami is a group of young neo-Islamic fundamentalists who want to revive the ideals and policies of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini and is one of several ultra-conservative groups that were setup on the orders of Ayatollah Khamenei in order to defeat outgoing President Mohammad Khatami’s faction after the parliamentary elections in February 2000.
Ahmadinejad’s record is typical of the men chosen by Khamenei’s entourage to put a new face on the clerical elite’s ultra-conservative identity. But beyond the shallow façade, few doubt that the Islamic Republic under its new President will move with greater speed and determination along the path of radical policies that include more human rights abuses, continuing sponsorship of terrorism, and the drive to obtain nuclear weapons.
Source: http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=2605
A firebrand Islamic fundamentalists dedicated to the cause of an Islamic world revolution.
Founded the Islamic Students Association
Representative of Elm-o Sanaat which later became known as the OSU (Office of Strengthening and Unity between universities and theological semanaries).
The OSU played a central role in the seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran in November 1979.
Ahmadinejad and the OSU played a critical role in purging dissident lecturers and students many of whom were arrested and later executed.
Ahmadinejad joined the Revolutionary Guards.
Ahmadinejad worked in the “Internal Security” department of the IRGC and earned notoriety as a ruthless interrogator and torturer.
Worked for some time as an executioner in the notorious Evin Prison, where thousands of political prisoners were executed in the bloody purges of the 1980s.
Senior officer in the Special Brigade of the Revolutionary Guards and was stationed in Ramazan Garrison headquarters of the Revolutionary Guards’ “extra-territorial operations near Kermanshah in western Iran.
“Extra-territorial operations”, a euphemism for terrorist attacks beyond Iran’s borders
Key planner of the assassination of Iranian Kurdish leader Abdorrahman Qassemlou
Mastermind of a series of assassinations in the Middle East and Europe
Returned to Elm-o Sanaat University to teach, but his principal activity was to organize Ansar-e Hezbollah, a radical gang of violent Islamic vigilantes
Used his position a mayor of Tehran to build up a strong network of radical Islamic fundamentalists organised as “Abadgaran-e Iran-e Islami”
Abadgaran-e Iran-e-Islami is a group of young neo-Islamic fundamentalists who want to revive the ideals and policies of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini and is one of several ultra-conservative groups that were setup on the orders of Ayatollah Khamenei in order to defeat outgoing President Mohammad Khatami’s faction after the parliamentary elections in February 2000.
Ahmadinejad’s record is typical of the men chosen by Khamenei’s entourage to put a new face on the clerical elite’s ultra-conservative identity. But beyond the shallow façade, few doubt that the Islamic Republic under its new President will move with greater speed and determination along the path of radical policies that include more human rights abuses, continuing sponsorship of terrorism, and the drive to obtain nuclear weapons.
Wouldn't want to be female (or male for that matter) and living in Iran. Imagine having acid thrown in your face because you didn't dress right. But's this is just one of the stories.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Iran’s Islamist rulers want sex segregation on pavements
Sat. 07 Jan 2006
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 – The government of radical Islamist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plans to segregate Iran’s pedestrian walkways on gender basis, according to Fatemeh Alia, a deputy in Iran’s Majlis (Parliament) and one of Ahmadinejad’s closest allies.
Iran to hang teenage girl attacked by rapists
Sat. 07 Jan 2006
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 – An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.
Iran sentences 17-year-old girl to death
Fri. 06 Jan 2006
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Jan. 06 – The Persian-language website Hambastegi Meli reported on Friday that in Karaj, west of the Iranian capital, a 17-year-old girl, identified only as Nazanin, was sentenced to be hanged. The verdict was handed down in branch 71 of Iran’s Islamic courts, the report said.
Iran’s Islamists terrorise young women with acid
Wed. 04 Jan 2006
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Jan. 04 – In the latest “acid attack” by radical Islamists on young women accused of ignoring the country’s strict dress regulations, two female university students had acid splashed on their faces in the town of Shahroud, north-eastern Iran.
Iran to hang teenage woman for crime she denies
Tue. 27 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 27 – Iran’s State Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence for a teenage woman accused of murdering another woman despite her repeatedly denying that she had committed the crime, according to a wire report from the country’s State Security Forces (SSF).
Girls constitute 11 percent of runaway children in Iran capital
Mon. 26 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 26 – More than ten percent of street-children in the Iranian capital, Tehran, are girls, according to a report in the Fars news agency, which is close to the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Women set tyres on fire in Iran demo
Tue. 20 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 20 – Dozens of women sealed off a highway in southern Iran on Tuesday by setting fire to car tyres.
Iran’s “anti-vice police” make arrests in party raid
Tue. 20 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 20 – Iranian State Security Forces raided a residence in the northern city of Noshahr over the weekend, arresting some 20 men and women who had attended a co-ed party, according to an email sent to Iran Focus from the area.
Selection of Iran’s leader to remain a men-only domain
Mon. 19 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 19 – A powerful cleric rejected the notion of women taking up posts in the assembly of theologians who choose the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic.
Iraqi women condemn Iran’s meddling in elections
Mon. 12 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Baghdad, Dec. 12 – Prominent women’s rights personalities from Iraq’s Diyala Province condemned on Monday “massive meddling by Iran” in their country’s internal affairs ahead of key elections this week. They called for widespread and active participation in the elections by Iraqi women to combat this threat.
Iran sentences woman to death by stoning
Sun. 11 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 11 – An Islamic court in Tehran sentenced a woman to stoning for adultery in the town of Varamin, near Tehran, a state-run daily reported on Sunday.
Iran hangs young woman in prison
Thu. 08 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 08 – A young Iranian woman
was hanged in prison in the north-eastern town of Shirevan, a state-run daily reported on Thursday.
Iran women block off road during protest
Wed. 07 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 07 – Dozens of women blockaded a main road leading to Tehran during a protest on Monday.
Women protest against Iran-linked torture centres in Iraq
Mon. 05 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Baghdad, Dec. 05 – Iraqi women gathered outside a political party headquarters in Baghdad protesting secret prisons and torture chambers run by Iraq’s Interior Ministry, an Iraqi television reported on Saturday.
Iran court sentences woman to hanging
Wed. 23 Nov 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Nov. 23 – Iran’s State Supreme Court upheld a death sentence against a woman, state dailies reported on Wednesday.
Iran sentences woman to death by hanging
Mon. 14 Nov 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Nov. 14 – Iran’s State Supreme Court upheld a death sentence against a woman who had been accused of murdering her abusive husband, the state-run Fars news agency reported on Monday.
Iran’s Ansar-e Hezbollah vows to root out mal-veiling
Fri. 11 Nov 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Nov. 11 – The radical group Ansar-e Hezbollah pledged to Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that it would root out the “virus” of mal-veiled women.
Iran police confiscate mannequins in new crackdown
Mon. 31 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 31 – Police in the north-eastern town of Bojnourd have launched a new crackdown on alluring mannequins in clothes stores and the main bazaar, the town’s prosecutor-general told the state-run news agency, IRNA on Monday.
Two-thirds of Iran women victims of domestic abuse: official
Mon. 31 Oct 2005
AFP: Two thirds of Iranian women have suffered domestic violence and a quarter are unhappy with their gender, a social welfare official said Monday.
Iran’s Supreme Court gives go-ahead for execution of woman
Wed. 26 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 26 - Iran’s State Supreme Court upheld the death sentence against a 35-year-old woman, the Iran daily reported on Wednesday.
Iran sentences woman to execution
Tue. 18 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 18 – An Iranian woman was
sentenced to execution in the Iranian capital on Monday, a
state-run daily reported on Tuesday.
Female students clash with police in Iran capital
Tue. 18 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 18 – Students from a female dormitory of Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran started a protest against lack of water supply, a state-owned daily reported on Tuesday.
Iran sentences woman to death by stoning for adultery
Sat. 15 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 15 – A court in Iran sentenced a woman to death by stoning for adultery and an Afghan man to execution and 100 lashes on charges of murder, a state-run daily reported on Saturday.
Get home by dusk, Iran tells female civil servants
Tue. 11 Oct 2005
Reuters: Female civil servants at Iran's Culture Ministry and female journalists at the state newspaper and news agency must be out of the office by dusk to be with their families, a directive said on Tuesday.
Majlis deputy urges greater crackdown on women
Mon. 10 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 10 – A Majlis (Parliament) deputy from the central city of Isfahan told reporters that there was an urgent need to act against “corruption and mal-veiling” by women in society, state media reported on Monday.
Senior Iran cleric: Prostitutes must be hanged
Mon. 10 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 10 – A senior Iranian cleric in the city of Qom called for death sentences to be handed down to prostitutes, a semi-official daily reported on Monday.
Iran sentences woman to death
Sun. 02 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 02 – Iran’s State Supreme Court sentenced a woman to death, a state-run daily reported on Sunday.
Iran’s women lose jobs despite competence
Sun. 11 Sep 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Sep. 11 – Women have been finding it evermore difficult to find employment in Iran and their social rights have continuously deteriorated since the 1979 revolution that swept to power fundamentalist Islamic clerics, according to a recent economic survey in the country.
Iran says women unfit to manage restaurants
Fri. 09 Sep 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Sep. 09 – Female restaurant managers in Iran will be required to name a man as the person who will carry out the management on their behalf, or else their businesses will be shut down, the country’s police force announced on Friday.
Iran to speed up flogging of women for “bad” veil
Tue. 06 Sep 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Sep. 06 – Women who violate Iran’s strict Islamic dress code will be flogged immediately, prosecutor’s offices in provincial centres announced on Tuesday.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=6
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Iran’s Islamist rulers want sex segregation on pavements
Sat. 07 Jan 2006
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 – The government of radical Islamist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plans to segregate Iran’s pedestrian walkways on gender basis, according to Fatemeh Alia, a deputy in Iran’s Majlis (Parliament) and one of Ahmadinejad’s closest allies.
Iran to hang teenage girl attacked by rapists
Sat. 07 Jan 2006
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 – An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.
Iran sentences 17-year-old girl to death
Fri. 06 Jan 2006
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Jan. 06 – The Persian-language website Hambastegi Meli reported on Friday that in Karaj, west of the Iranian capital, a 17-year-old girl, identified only as Nazanin, was sentenced to be hanged. The verdict was handed down in branch 71 of Iran’s Islamic courts, the report said.
Iran’s Islamists terrorise young women with acid
Wed. 04 Jan 2006
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Jan. 04 – In the latest “acid attack” by radical Islamists on young women accused of ignoring the country’s strict dress regulations, two female university students had acid splashed on their faces in the town of Shahroud, north-eastern Iran.
Iran to hang teenage woman for crime she denies
Tue. 27 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 27 – Iran’s State Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence for a teenage woman accused of murdering another woman despite her repeatedly denying that she had committed the crime, according to a wire report from the country’s State Security Forces (SSF).
Girls constitute 11 percent of runaway children in Iran capital
Mon. 26 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 26 – More than ten percent of street-children in the Iranian capital, Tehran, are girls, according to a report in the Fars news agency, which is close to the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Women set tyres on fire in Iran demo
Tue. 20 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 20 – Dozens of women sealed off a highway in southern Iran on Tuesday by setting fire to car tyres.
Iran’s “anti-vice police” make arrests in party raid
Tue. 20 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 20 – Iranian State Security Forces raided a residence in the northern city of Noshahr over the weekend, arresting some 20 men and women who had attended a co-ed party, according to an email sent to Iran Focus from the area.
Selection of Iran’s leader to remain a men-only domain
Mon. 19 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 19 – A powerful cleric rejected the notion of women taking up posts in the assembly of theologians who choose the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic.
Iraqi women condemn Iran’s meddling in elections
Mon. 12 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Baghdad, Dec. 12 – Prominent women’s rights personalities from Iraq’s Diyala Province condemned on Monday “massive meddling by Iran” in their country’s internal affairs ahead of key elections this week. They called for widespread and active participation in the elections by Iraqi women to combat this threat.
Iran sentences woman to death by stoning
Sun. 11 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 11 – An Islamic court in Tehran sentenced a woman to stoning for adultery in the town of Varamin, near Tehran, a state-run daily reported on Sunday.
Iran hangs young woman in prison
Thu. 08 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 08 – A young Iranian woman
was hanged in prison in the north-eastern town of Shirevan, a state-run daily reported on Thursday.
Iran women block off road during protest
Wed. 07 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Dec. 07 – Dozens of women blockaded a main road leading to Tehran during a protest on Monday.
Women protest against Iran-linked torture centres in Iraq
Mon. 05 Dec 2005
Iran Focus: Baghdad, Dec. 05 – Iraqi women gathered outside a political party headquarters in Baghdad protesting secret prisons and torture chambers run by Iraq’s Interior Ministry, an Iraqi television reported on Saturday.
Iran court sentences woman to hanging
Wed. 23 Nov 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Nov. 23 – Iran’s State Supreme Court upheld a death sentence against a woman, state dailies reported on Wednesday.
Iran sentences woman to death by hanging
Mon. 14 Nov 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Nov. 14 – Iran’s State Supreme Court upheld a death sentence against a woman who had been accused of murdering her abusive husband, the state-run Fars news agency reported on Monday.
Iran’s Ansar-e Hezbollah vows to root out mal-veiling
Fri. 11 Nov 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Nov. 11 – The radical group Ansar-e Hezbollah pledged to Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that it would root out the “virus” of mal-veiled women.
Iran police confiscate mannequins in new crackdown
Mon. 31 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 31 – Police in the north-eastern town of Bojnourd have launched a new crackdown on alluring mannequins in clothes stores and the main bazaar, the town’s prosecutor-general told the state-run news agency, IRNA on Monday.
Two-thirds of Iran women victims of domestic abuse: official
Mon. 31 Oct 2005
AFP: Two thirds of Iranian women have suffered domestic violence and a quarter are unhappy with their gender, a social welfare official said Monday.
Iran’s Supreme Court gives go-ahead for execution of woman
Wed. 26 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 26 - Iran’s State Supreme Court upheld the death sentence against a 35-year-old woman, the Iran daily reported on Wednesday.
Iran sentences woman to execution
Tue. 18 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 18 – An Iranian woman was
sentenced to execution in the Iranian capital on Monday, a
state-run daily reported on Tuesday.
Female students clash with police in Iran capital
Tue. 18 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 18 – Students from a female dormitory of Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran started a protest against lack of water supply, a state-owned daily reported on Tuesday.
Iran sentences woman to death by stoning for adultery
Sat. 15 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 15 – A court in Iran sentenced a woman to death by stoning for adultery and an Afghan man to execution and 100 lashes on charges of murder, a state-run daily reported on Saturday.
Get home by dusk, Iran tells female civil servants
Tue. 11 Oct 2005
Reuters: Female civil servants at Iran's Culture Ministry and female journalists at the state newspaper and news agency must be out of the office by dusk to be with their families, a directive said on Tuesday.
Majlis deputy urges greater crackdown on women
Mon. 10 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 10 – A Majlis (Parliament) deputy from the central city of Isfahan told reporters that there was an urgent need to act against “corruption and mal-veiling” by women in society, state media reported on Monday.
Senior Iran cleric: Prostitutes must be hanged
Mon. 10 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 10 – A senior Iranian cleric in the city of Qom called for death sentences to be handed down to prostitutes, a semi-official daily reported on Monday.
Iran sentences woman to death
Sun. 02 Oct 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Oct. 02 – Iran’s State Supreme Court sentenced a woman to death, a state-run daily reported on Sunday.
Iran’s women lose jobs despite competence
Sun. 11 Sep 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Sep. 11 – Women have been finding it evermore difficult to find employment in Iran and their social rights have continuously deteriorated since the 1979 revolution that swept to power fundamentalist Islamic clerics, according to a recent economic survey in the country.
Iran says women unfit to manage restaurants
Fri. 09 Sep 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Sep. 09 – Female restaurant managers in Iran will be required to name a man as the person who will carry out the management on their behalf, or else their businesses will be shut down, the country’s police force announced on Friday.
Iran to speed up flogging of women for “bad” veil
Tue. 06 Sep 2005
Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Sep. 06 – Women who violate Iran’s strict Islamic dress code will be flogged immediately, prosecutor’s offices in provincial centres announced on Tuesday.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=6
Mideast Asks Cheney for Patience With Iran
By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer
The Arab world's two major powers urged Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday to give negotiations more time in the growing diplomatic conflict over Iran's nuclear program.
As Cheney wound up a meeting with Saudi King Abdullah at his ranch outside Riyadh late Tuesday, officials close to the talks said the monarch had spoken of "the necessity of giving negotiations a chance" before pressing for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
Cheney got a similar message from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when they met earlier Tuesday in Cairo. Neither spoke to reporters, but Mubarak's spokesman said Cairo would "wait and see whether there will be a consensus" on dealing with Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
"We call for Iran to show more flexibility and cooperation, and we call for a continuation of dialogue with Iran," presidential spokesman Suleiman Awad said.
He declared Egypt could not "ignore our long-standing principled position ... which refuses to put all this fuss and focus on the Iranian nuclear program without looking at Israel's nuclear arsenal. We cannot give support to a resolution unless it makes reference to the universality of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and unless it is free of double standards."
Israel neither denies nor confirms it has nuclear weapons, but is widely believed to have them.
Washington is lobbying the 35-member IAEA Board of Governors to refer Iran to the Security Council over its recent decision to break U.N. seals on nuclear equipment and resume small-scale enrichment of uranium — a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors as well as material for atomic bombs. Egypt is a member of the IAEA board.
The U.S. drive against Iran has met resistance from Russia and China, which hope for a compromise. They say Iran had not ruled out having its nuclear fuel processed in Russia, which would allow greater oversight. Russia and China are among the five permanent members of the Security Council who have veto power over any resolution.
While many Persian Gulf leaders are concerned over Iran's nuclear program, Saudi Arabia and Egypt in particular fear putting Iran before the Security Council could sharpen the confrontation, and both say the West should do more about Israel's nuclear arsenal.
Awad said Cheney and Mubarak did not discuss Egyptian domestic issues. The vice president had been expected to broach democratic reforms after Egypt's recent parliamentary elections, which were marred by violence and police blockades of polling stations in opposition strongholds.
The talks in Saudi Arabia were joined by intelligence chief Prince Mogrin bin Abdel Aziz, Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and the Saudi ambassador to Washington and former intelligence boss, Prince Turki bin al-Faisal.
The king and Cheney also discussed Iraq, ways to keep the Israeli-Palestinian peace process afloat after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke and the standoff with Syria over charges it was involved in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The United States is demanding that Damascus show greater cooperation with a U.N. inquiry into Hariri's killing. Arab leaders worry Washington is using the probe to try to remove Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose security officials have been implicated in the death.
Arab diplomats said ahead of the Cheney-Abdullah meeting that the Saudis were expected to present Cheney with a deal in which Assad would end interference in Lebanon and extend cooperation with the U.N. investigation in exchange for an end to U.S.-led Western pressure on Assad's regime. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.
On Iraq, Arab nations want to ensure a strong representation for the Sunni Arab minority in the new government after victories by the country's Shiite majority in Dec. 15 elections. Most of the Arab world outside of Iraq is dominated by Sunnis.
Late Tuesday, Cheney flew to Kuwait to pay his respects to the ruling family after the death Sunday of Emir Sheik Jaber Al Ahmed Al Sabah.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer
The Arab world's two major powers urged Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday to give negotiations more time in the growing diplomatic conflict over Iran's nuclear program.
As Cheney wound up a meeting with Saudi King Abdullah at his ranch outside Riyadh late Tuesday, officials close to the talks said the monarch had spoken of "the necessity of giving negotiations a chance" before pressing for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
Cheney got a similar message from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when they met earlier Tuesday in Cairo. Neither spoke to reporters, but Mubarak's spokesman said Cairo would "wait and see whether there will be a consensus" on dealing with Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
"We call for Iran to show more flexibility and cooperation, and we call for a continuation of dialogue with Iran," presidential spokesman Suleiman Awad said.
He declared Egypt could not "ignore our long-standing principled position ... which refuses to put all this fuss and focus on the Iranian nuclear program without looking at Israel's nuclear arsenal. We cannot give support to a resolution unless it makes reference to the universality of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and unless it is free of double standards."
Israel neither denies nor confirms it has nuclear weapons, but is widely believed to have them.
Washington is lobbying the 35-member IAEA Board of Governors to refer Iran to the Security Council over its recent decision to break U.N. seals on nuclear equipment and resume small-scale enrichment of uranium — a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors as well as material for atomic bombs. Egypt is a member of the IAEA board.
The U.S. drive against Iran has met resistance from Russia and China, which hope for a compromise. They say Iran had not ruled out having its nuclear fuel processed in Russia, which would allow greater oversight. Russia and China are among the five permanent members of the Security Council who have veto power over any resolution.
While many Persian Gulf leaders are concerned over Iran's nuclear program, Saudi Arabia and Egypt in particular fear putting Iran before the Security Council could sharpen the confrontation, and both say the West should do more about Israel's nuclear arsenal.
Awad said Cheney and Mubarak did not discuss Egyptian domestic issues. The vice president had been expected to broach democratic reforms after Egypt's recent parliamentary elections, which were marred by violence and police blockades of polling stations in opposition strongholds.
The talks in Saudi Arabia were joined by intelligence chief Prince Mogrin bin Abdel Aziz, Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and the Saudi ambassador to Washington and former intelligence boss, Prince Turki bin al-Faisal.
The king and Cheney also discussed Iraq, ways to keep the Israeli-Palestinian peace process afloat after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke and the standoff with Syria over charges it was involved in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The United States is demanding that Damascus show greater cooperation with a U.N. inquiry into Hariri's killing. Arab leaders worry Washington is using the probe to try to remove Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose security officials have been implicated in the death.
Arab diplomats said ahead of the Cheney-Abdullah meeting that the Saudis were expected to present Cheney with a deal in which Assad would end interference in Lebanon and extend cooperation with the U.N. investigation in exchange for an end to U.S.-led Western pressure on Assad's regime. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.
On Iraq, Arab nations want to ensure a strong representation for the Sunni Arab minority in the new government after victories by the country's Shiite majority in Dec. 15 elections. Most of the Arab world outside of Iraq is dominated by Sunnis.
Late Tuesday, Cheney flew to Kuwait to pay his respects to the ruling family after the death Sunday of Emir Sheik Jaber Al Ahmed Al Sabah.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Another Undeclared War?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Is the United States about to launch a second preemptive war, against a nation that has not attacked us, to deprive it of weapons of mass destruction that it does not have?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11602.htm
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Is the United States about to launch a second preemptive war, against a nation that has not attacked us, to deprive it of weapons of mass destruction that it does not have?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11602.htm
January 19, 2006
West Tells Russia It Won't Press to Penalize Iran Now
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 - The United States and Europe, seeking Russia's help in bringing Iran's nuclear activities before the United Nations Security Council for review, have assured Russian officials that they are not pressing for sanctions against Iran right now, American and European diplomats said Wednesday.
The diplomats said that instead they were pursuing a limited effort to convene a Security Council debate and send the matter back to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear monitor, for further efforts to get Iran to suspend uranium activities that the West suspects are part of a nuclear weapons program.
"We are not seeking a sanction mechanism at this moment," a European diplomat said. "We are pursuing a gradual approach. We are trying to tell Iran that what the I.A.E.A. is telling them is exactly what the Security Council thinks. It's an empowering process for the I.A.E.A."
European diplomats said the Council could act either by passing a resolution or by allowing its president to issue a declaration in its name.
The West's incremental approach is a response to Russian and Chinese reluctance to press for immediate sanctions, despite their concern that Iran has broken its commitment to suspend uranium enrichment activities. The Russians and Chinese say they do not want Iran to retaliate by breaking off talks and forcing international inspectors to leave the country.
On the other hand, some diplomats eager to press Iran on nuclear matters said they were concerned that the steps being contemplated might be too small to be taken seriously in Tehran.
The diplomats who described the situation, from several nations, spoke on the condition of anonymity so that they could speak more freely while the negotiations continue.
The Bush administration has said for two years that its ultimate objective is to bring Iran before the Security Council for possible censure or sanctions. But it has proceeded slowly, deferring to European efforts to negotiate. That deference is still part of the American approach despite Iran's recent actions.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, after meeting with Javier Solana, the chief European Union envoy, said Wednesday that "it is now important for the I.A.E.A. board of governors to act so that Iran knows that the international community will not tolerate its continued acting with impunity against the interests of the international community."
Afterward, Mr. Solana said the Europeans and the United States were considering a Russian proposal presented as an alternative to the possible referral of Iran's case to the Security Council by the atomic energy agency. The Russian proposal was to have the Security Council take up Iran, but without a formal "referral" from the agency.
Whether or not there is a formal referral from the agency is technical but significant, Mr. Solana said. Without a referral, the Security Council could debate the matter but not consider sanctions.
"A referral to the Security Council is in itself a very important decision," Mr. Solana said, suggesting that the Russian idea did not go far enough. He said that there was "nothing fundamentally wrong" with the Russian idea but that it implied too much of a delay.
"Referral means something which has legal consequences for the relationship of this dossier to the Security Council," he said.
The European and American approach has been codified in a draft resolution to be presented to the International Atomic Energy Agency for possible adoption at an emergency meeting on Feb. 2. The Western timetable is for Iran to be "referred" at that meeting and then considered at the Security Council and then referred back to the atomic agency.
The Russian proposal, by contrast, calls for no formal action by the atomic agency on Feb. 2, but some kind of debate at the Security Council in February, possibly with the agency director, Mohamed ElBaradei, taking part. Then the agency could take up the subject of Iran in March.
American and European officials said they did not feel comfortable putting off the entire matter until March. Iran, many Western experts say, is perhaps only a year or two away from developing the capacity to operate centrifuges that enrich uranium and take other steps enabling it to make a nuclear weapon.
Mr. Solana and Ms. Rice also reiterated Wednesday that they would not accept Iran's latest offer to talk about its nuclear program unless it returned to a full suspension of its uranium enrichment activities.
It was Iran that effectively cut off negotiations by breaking the moratorium on enrichment, Ms. Rice said, adding, "As that condition exists, I am sensing from the Europeans that there's not much to talk about."
Britain, France and Germany, also representing Europe, have engaged in talks for a year with the objective of persuading Iran to suspend and then shut down its uranium processing and suspected weapons-making activities in return for economic, political and security benefits from the West.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
West Tells Russia It Won't Press to Penalize Iran Now
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 - The United States and Europe, seeking Russia's help in bringing Iran's nuclear activities before the United Nations Security Council for review, have assured Russian officials that they are not pressing for sanctions against Iran right now, American and European diplomats said Wednesday.
The diplomats said that instead they were pursuing a limited effort to convene a Security Council debate and send the matter back to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear monitor, for further efforts to get Iran to suspend uranium activities that the West suspects are part of a nuclear weapons program.
"We are not seeking a sanction mechanism at this moment," a European diplomat said. "We are pursuing a gradual approach. We are trying to tell Iran that what the I.A.E.A. is telling them is exactly what the Security Council thinks. It's an empowering process for the I.A.E.A."
European diplomats said the Council could act either by passing a resolution or by allowing its president to issue a declaration in its name.
The West's incremental approach is a response to Russian and Chinese reluctance to press for immediate sanctions, despite their concern that Iran has broken its commitment to suspend uranium enrichment activities. The Russians and Chinese say they do not want Iran to retaliate by breaking off talks and forcing international inspectors to leave the country.
On the other hand, some diplomats eager to press Iran on nuclear matters said they were concerned that the steps being contemplated might be too small to be taken seriously in Tehran.
The diplomats who described the situation, from several nations, spoke on the condition of anonymity so that they could speak more freely while the negotiations continue.
The Bush administration has said for two years that its ultimate objective is to bring Iran before the Security Council for possible censure or sanctions. But it has proceeded slowly, deferring to European efforts to negotiate. That deference is still part of the American approach despite Iran's recent actions.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, after meeting with Javier Solana, the chief European Union envoy, said Wednesday that "it is now important for the I.A.E.A. board of governors to act so that Iran knows that the international community will not tolerate its continued acting with impunity against the interests of the international community."
Afterward, Mr. Solana said the Europeans and the United States were considering a Russian proposal presented as an alternative to the possible referral of Iran's case to the Security Council by the atomic energy agency. The Russian proposal was to have the Security Council take up Iran, but without a formal "referral" from the agency.
Whether or not there is a formal referral from the agency is technical but significant, Mr. Solana said. Without a referral, the Security Council could debate the matter but not consider sanctions.
"A referral to the Security Council is in itself a very important decision," Mr. Solana said, suggesting that the Russian idea did not go far enough. He said that there was "nothing fundamentally wrong" with the Russian idea but that it implied too much of a delay.
"Referral means something which has legal consequences for the relationship of this dossier to the Security Council," he said.
The European and American approach has been codified in a draft resolution to be presented to the International Atomic Energy Agency for possible adoption at an emergency meeting on Feb. 2. The Western timetable is for Iran to be "referred" at that meeting and then considered at the Security Council and then referred back to the atomic agency.
The Russian proposal, by contrast, calls for no formal action by the atomic agency on Feb. 2, but some kind of debate at the Security Council in February, possibly with the agency director, Mohamed ElBaradei, taking part. Then the agency could take up the subject of Iran in March.
American and European officials said they did not feel comfortable putting off the entire matter until March. Iran, many Western experts say, is perhaps only a year or two away from developing the capacity to operate centrifuges that enrich uranium and take other steps enabling it to make a nuclear weapon.
Mr. Solana and Ms. Rice also reiterated Wednesday that they would not accept Iran's latest offer to talk about its nuclear program unless it returned to a full suspension of its uranium enrichment activities.
It was Iran that effectively cut off negotiations by breaking the moratorium on enrichment, Ms. Rice said, adding, "As that condition exists, I am sensing from the Europeans that there's not much to talk about."
Britain, France and Germany, also representing Europe, have engaged in talks for a year with the objective of persuading Iran to suspend and then shut down its uranium processing and suspected weapons-making activities in return for economic, political and security benefits from the West.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
QUOTE
Winter/Spring - The clone army of foreign policy "experts" from conservative foreign policy outfits nobody ever heard of before suddenly appear on all the cable news programs all the time, frowning furiously and expressing concerns about the "grave threat" that Iran poses. Never before heard of Iranian exile group members start appearing regularly, talking about their role in the nuclear program and talking up Iran's human rights violations.
It's so obvious that our press is completely unreliable to tell the truth anymore. This is so sad and disgusting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tehran plans a nuclear weapons test before March 20, 2006 – the Iranian New Year, moves Shahab-3 missiles within striking range of Israel
January 22, 2006, 9:30 AM (GMT+02:00)
Reporting this, the dissident Foundation for Democracy in Iran, a US-based watch group, cites sources in the US and Iran. The FDI adds from Iran: on June 16, the high command of the Revolutionary Guards Air Force ordered Shahab-3 missile units to move mobile launchers every 24 hours instead of weekly. This is in view of a potential pre-emptive strike by the US or Israel.
Advance Shahab-3 units have been positioned in Kermanshah and Hamad within striking distance of Israel, reserve launchers moved to Esfahan and Fars.
The missile units were told to change positions “in a radius of 30-35 kilometers” and only at night.
DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources add: FDI reporting has a reputation for credibility. Western and Israeli intelligence have known for more than six months that Iran’s nuclear program has reached the capability of being able to carry out a nuclear explosion, albeit underground. It would probably be staged in a desert or mountain region and activated by a distant control center. Tehran would aim at confronting the Americans, Europeans and Israelis with an irreversible situation.
At the same time, an explosion of this sort would indicate that Iran is not yet able to produce a nuclear bomb that can be delivered by airplane or a warhead adapted to a missile. The stage Iran has reached is comparable to Pakistan’s when it conducted its first nuclear tests in the nineties and North Korea’s in 2001. All the same, an Iranian underground nuclear blast, which will most probably be attempted on March 22, would turn around the strategic position of all the parties concerned and the Middle East as whole.
The question now is: will the United States, Israel or both deliver a pre-emptive strike ahead of the Iranian underground test - or later? Or will Washington alternatively use the event to bring the UN Security Council round to economic sanctions? Tehran is already organizing to withstand economic penalties. For Israel, the timing is getting tight in view of its general election on March 28. Acting prime minister Ehud Olmert must take into account that a ruling party which allows an Iranian nuclear explosion to take place six days before the poll would draw painful punishment from the voter.
Tehran plans a nuclear weapons test before March 20, 2006 – the Iranian New Year, moves Shahab-3 missiles within striking range of Israel
January 22, 2006, 9:30 AM (GMT+02:00)
Reporting this, the dissident Foundation for Democracy in Iran, a US-based watch group, cites sources in the US and Iran. The FDI adds from Iran: on June 16, the high command of the Revolutionary Guards Air Force ordered Shahab-3 missile units to move mobile launchers every 24 hours instead of weekly. This is in view of a potential pre-emptive strike by the US or Israel.
Advance Shahab-3 units have been positioned in Kermanshah and Hamad within striking distance of Israel, reserve launchers moved to Esfahan and Fars.
The missile units were told to change positions “in a radius of 30-35 kilometers” and only at night.
DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources add: FDI reporting has a reputation for credibility. Western and Israeli intelligence have known for more than six months that Iran’s nuclear program has reached the capability of being able to carry out a nuclear explosion, albeit underground. It would probably be staged in a desert or mountain region and activated by a distant control center. Tehran would aim at confronting the Americans, Europeans and Israelis with an irreversible situation.
At the same time, an explosion of this sort would indicate that Iran is not yet able to produce a nuclear bomb that can be delivered by airplane or a warhead adapted to a missile. The stage Iran has reached is comparable to Pakistan’s when it conducted its first nuclear tests in the nineties and North Korea’s in 2001. All the same, an Iranian underground nuclear blast, which will most probably be attempted on March 22, would turn around the strategic position of all the parties concerned and the Middle East as whole.
The question now is: will the United States, Israel or both deliver a pre-emptive strike ahead of the Iranian underground test - or later? Or will Washington alternatively use the event to bring the UN Security Council round to economic sanctions? Tehran is already organizing to withstand economic penalties. For Israel, the timing is getting tight in view of its general election on March 28. Acting prime minister Ehud Olmert must take into account that a ruling party which allows an Iranian nuclear explosion to take place six days before the poll would draw painful punishment from the voter.
Israeli Hints at Preparation to Stop Iran
Jan 21, 9:00 PM (ET)
By JOSEF FEDERMAN
(AP) Italian Foreign Minister and Deputy Premier Gianfranco Fini, gestures during an interview with the...
Full Image
JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.
"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.
His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran.
Germany's defense minister said in an interview published Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but argued that "all options" should remain open.
(AP) Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leaves his office in Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, Jan. 18,...
Full Image
Asked by the Bild am Sonntag weekly whether the threat of a military solution should remain in place, Franz Josef Jung was quoted as responding: "Yes, we need all options."
French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Saturday that Chirac's threats reflect the true intentions of nuclear nations, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
"The French president uncovered the covert intentions of nuclear powers in using this lever (nuclear weapons) to determine political games," IRNA quoted Asefi as saying.
Israel long has identified Iran as its biggest threat and accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program is peaceful.
(AP) Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki walks during a farewell ceremony for Tajik President...
Full Image
Iran broke U.N. seals at a uranium enrichment plant Jan. 10 and said it was resuming nuclear research after a 2 1/2-year freeze. Germany, France and Britain said two days later that talks aimed at halting Iran's nuclear progress were at a dead end and called for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, will meet Feb. 2 to discuss possible referral.
Israel's Mofaz said sanctions and international oversight of Iran's nuclear program stood as the "correct policy at this time."
In Germany, Jung called himself "confident that there will be a diplomatic solution in the case of Iran."
Israeli leaders have also repeatedly said they hope the crisis can be resolved through diplomacy, and they said any military action would have to be part of an international effort. They have denied having plans for a unilateral preventive strike.
(AP) Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, talks with Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr...
Full Image
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Tehran might still agree to Moscow's offer to move its uranium enrichment program to Russia, a step backed by the United States and Europeans as a way to resolve the deadlock.
Israel's concerns about Iran have grown since the election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said last year that Israel should be "wiped off the map."
On Friday, Iran's Students News Agency reported Friday that Central Bank governor Ebrahim Sheibani said Iran had begun moving its foreign currency reserves from European banks and transferring them to an undisclosed location as protection against possible U.N. sanctions.
Sheibani backed away Saturday from his statement that the transfers were already underway, and Iran's Central Bank said there had been no change in its currency policy.
Estimates put Iranian funds in Europe at as much as $50 billion.
---_
Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi and Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran and Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.
Jan 21, 9:00 PM (ET)
By JOSEF FEDERMAN
(AP) Italian Foreign Minister and Deputy Premier Gianfranco Fini, gestures during an interview with the...
Full Image
JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.
"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.
His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran.
Germany's defense minister said in an interview published Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but argued that "all options" should remain open.
(AP) Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leaves his office in Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, Jan. 18,...
Full Image
Asked by the Bild am Sonntag weekly whether the threat of a military solution should remain in place, Franz Josef Jung was quoted as responding: "Yes, we need all options."
French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Saturday that Chirac's threats reflect the true intentions of nuclear nations, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
"The French president uncovered the covert intentions of nuclear powers in using this lever (nuclear weapons) to determine political games," IRNA quoted Asefi as saying.
Israel long has identified Iran as its biggest threat and accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program is peaceful.
(AP) Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki walks during a farewell ceremony for Tajik President...
Full Image
Iran broke U.N. seals at a uranium enrichment plant Jan. 10 and said it was resuming nuclear research after a 2 1/2-year freeze. Germany, France and Britain said two days later that talks aimed at halting Iran's nuclear progress were at a dead end and called for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, will meet Feb. 2 to discuss possible referral.
Israel's Mofaz said sanctions and international oversight of Iran's nuclear program stood as the "correct policy at this time."
In Germany, Jung called himself "confident that there will be a diplomatic solution in the case of Iran."
Israeli leaders have also repeatedly said they hope the crisis can be resolved through diplomacy, and they said any military action would have to be part of an international effort. They have denied having plans for a unilateral preventive strike.
(AP) Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, talks with Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr...
Full Image
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Tehran might still agree to Moscow's offer to move its uranium enrichment program to Russia, a step backed by the United States and Europeans as a way to resolve the deadlock.
Israel's concerns about Iran have grown since the election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said last year that Israel should be "wiped off the map."
On Friday, Iran's Students News Agency reported Friday that Central Bank governor Ebrahim Sheibani said Iran had begun moving its foreign currency reserves from European banks and transferring them to an undisclosed location as protection against possible U.N. sanctions.
Sheibani backed away Saturday from his statement that the transfers were already underway, and Iran's Central Bank said there had been no change in its currency policy.
Estimates put Iranian funds in Europe at as much as $50 billion.
---_
Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi and Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran and Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.
Israel Hints at Military Action Against Iran
By Robert Berger
Jerusalem
22 January 2006
Shaul Mofaz
Israel is threatening to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear program.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz has hinted that Israel is preparing for military action against Iran's nuclear facilities.
"Israel cannot accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must defend itself, with all that that implies," Mofaz said. "We are preparing," he added.
But Mofaz said international diplomacy must be the first course of action. He welcomed the U.S.-led effort to bring Iran before the U.N. Security Council, saying sanctions and international oversight of Iran's nuclear program are the "correct policy at this time."
Israel has expressed growing alarm about Iran's nuclear program since late October, when the Iranian president called for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map." Israeli spokesman Mark Regev says the U.S. and Europe must move more quickly to prevent Iran from acquiring the atom bomb.
"The combination of a regime with a very radical agenda, put together with nuclear weapons, I think that is a combination, a dangerous combination that no one in the international community can accept," said Regev.
The Israeli air force destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. And Israeli officials have warned repeatedly that if diplomacy fails, there is a military option.
Voice of America News
By Robert Berger
Jerusalem
22 January 2006
Shaul Mofaz
Israel is threatening to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear program.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz has hinted that Israel is preparing for military action against Iran's nuclear facilities.
"Israel cannot accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must defend itself, with all that that implies," Mofaz said. "We are preparing," he added.
But Mofaz said international diplomacy must be the first course of action. He welcomed the U.S.-led effort to bring Iran before the U.N. Security Council, saying sanctions and international oversight of Iran's nuclear program are the "correct policy at this time."
Israel has expressed growing alarm about Iran's nuclear program since late October, when the Iranian president called for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map." Israeli spokesman Mark Regev says the U.S. and Europe must move more quickly to prevent Iran from acquiring the atom bomb.
"The combination of a regime with a very radical agenda, put together with nuclear weapons, I think that is a combination, a dangerous combination that no one in the international community can accept," said Regev.
The Israeli air force destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. And Israeli officials have warned repeatedly that if diplomacy fails, there is a military option.
Voice of America News
Swiss banking giant UBS AG stops doing business with Iran . A similar policy implemented against Syria
January 22, 2006, 2:50 PM (GMT+02:00)
UBS AG spokesman Serge Steiner announced Sunday, Jan. 22, that all existing business with customers in Iran will be cancelled, except for Iranians in exile.
DEBKAfile’s financial sources reveal that, under the threat of sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program, the ayatollahs and corporate heads as well as the government have begun transferring vast private fortunes out of secret accounts in Europe.
The money is being spread out among dozens of banks around the world, including the oil emirates, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Indonesia.
DEBKAfile has learned that Iran’s spiritual ruler Ayatollah Ali Khameini has transferred his personal fortune of $1.2 bn from the Swiss UBS AG to banks in Singapore and Malaysia. Former president Hashemi Rafsanjani has ordered the removal of two large sums in Canadian dollars – 856 m and 1,425 bn – from Canadian banks to establishments in Beirut, Dubai, Hong Kong and Singapore.
Our financial experts estimate that in the last ten days, some $7.5bn dollars have been drained from private Iranian accounts in Germany, Switzerland, France, Britain and Italy and concealed in Southeast Asian banks. That is in addition to the estimated $23bn in governing holdings that Iran has taken out of European banks and deposited in the Bahamas, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Dubai and Singapore.
Rumors began circulating at the end of last week that the two European banking giants, LNB in Italy and UBS AG, were about to freeze Iranian assets. DEBKAfile’s financial experts calculate the holdings in the two banks as totaling $17bn of oil revenues. The Swiss bank appears to have acted on a tip from Washington and pre-empted Tehran’s massive withdrawals which would created havoc on the world currency markets. The UBS AG took advantage of the bank being closed on a Sunday for this maneuver.
Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.
January 22, 2006, 2:50 PM (GMT+02:00)
UBS AG spokesman Serge Steiner announced Sunday, Jan. 22, that all existing business with customers in Iran will be cancelled, except for Iranians in exile.
DEBKAfile’s financial sources reveal that, under the threat of sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program, the ayatollahs and corporate heads as well as the government have begun transferring vast private fortunes out of secret accounts in Europe.
The money is being spread out among dozens of banks around the world, including the oil emirates, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Indonesia.
DEBKAfile has learned that Iran’s spiritual ruler Ayatollah Ali Khameini has transferred his personal fortune of $1.2 bn from the Swiss UBS AG to banks in Singapore and Malaysia. Former president Hashemi Rafsanjani has ordered the removal of two large sums in Canadian dollars – 856 m and 1,425 bn – from Canadian banks to establishments in Beirut, Dubai, Hong Kong and Singapore.
Our financial experts estimate that in the last ten days, some $7.5bn dollars have been drained from private Iranian accounts in Germany, Switzerland, France, Britain and Italy and concealed in Southeast Asian banks. That is in addition to the estimated $23bn in governing holdings that Iran has taken out of European banks and deposited in the Bahamas, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Dubai and Singapore.
Rumors began circulating at the end of last week that the two European banking giants, LNB in Italy and UBS AG, were about to freeze Iranian assets. DEBKAfile’s financial experts calculate the holdings in the two banks as totaling $17bn of oil revenues. The Swiss bank appears to have acted on a tip from Washington and pre-empted Tehran’s massive withdrawals which would created havoc on the world currency markets. The UBS AG took advantage of the bank being closed on a Sunday for this maneuver.
Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The international community must deal with the Iranian nuclear issue and prospective Hamas inclusion in Palestinian government
January 22, 2006, 7:33 PM (GMT+02:00)
This view was advanced by Israel’s new foreign and justice minister Tzipi Livneh. in an TV interview Sunday, Jan. 22. She stressed that the Iranian nuclear threat is of concern to the West as a whole and does not pinpoint Israel. Israel has accepted the international community’s undertaking to make Abu Mazen dismantle all terrorist organizations, especially Hamas, a commitment that will be tested after, not before, the Palestinian election next Wednesday.
DEBKAfile: The attempt to internationalize Israel’s security problems is unrealistic. Israel cannot rely on outsiders to undertake the daily burden of combating Palestinian terrorism, any more than Abu Mazen.
Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.
The international community must deal with the Iranian nuclear issue and prospective Hamas inclusion in Palestinian government
January 22, 2006, 7:33 PM (GMT+02:00)
This view was advanced by Israel’s new foreign and justice minister Tzipi Livneh. in an TV interview Sunday, Jan. 22. She stressed that the Iranian nuclear threat is of concern to the West as a whole and does not pinpoint Israel. Israel has accepted the international community’s undertaking to make Abu Mazen dismantle all terrorist organizations, especially Hamas, a commitment that will be tested after, not before, the Palestinian election next Wednesday.
DEBKAfile: The attempt to internationalize Israel’s security problems is unrealistic. Israel cannot rely on outsiders to undertake the daily burden of combating Palestinian terrorism, any more than Abu Mazen.
Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.
QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Jan 22 2006, 01:39 PM)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The international community must deal with the Iranian nuclear issue and prospective Hamas inclusion in Palestinian government
January 22, 2006, 7:33 PM (GMT+02:00)
This view was advanced by Israel’s new foreign and justice minister Tzipi Livneh. in an TV interview Sunday, Jan. 22. She stressed that the Iranian nuclear threat is of concern to the West as a whole and does not pinpoint Israel. Israel has accepted the international community’s undertaking to make Abu Mazen dismantle all terrorist organizations, especially Hamas, a commitment that will be tested after, not before, the Palestinian election next Wednesday.
DEBKAfile: The attempt to internationalize Israel’s security problems is unrealistic. Israel cannot rely on outsiders to undertake the daily burden of combating Palestinian terrorism, any more than Abu Mazen.
Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.
DEBKA makes Fox news look fair and balanced. The only purpose of the website and organiztion is to promote the cause of likudniks. Still a visit to the site will provide you a wonderful collection of sort of propaganda that led us into the Iraqi quagmire. And that which is being used to lead us into the one in Iran. The site is full of stories about how th threat is not just to Israel, but everything posted is.The international community must deal with the Iranian nuclear issue and prospective Hamas inclusion in Palestinian government
January 22, 2006, 7:33 PM (GMT+02:00)
This view was advanced by Israel’s new foreign and justice minister Tzipi Livneh. in an TV interview Sunday, Jan. 22. She stressed that the Iranian nuclear threat is of concern to the West as a whole and does not pinpoint Israel. Israel has accepted the international community’s undertaking to make Abu Mazen dismantle all terrorist organizations, especially Hamas, a commitment that will be tested after, not before, the Palestinian election next Wednesday.
DEBKAfile: The attempt to internationalize Israel’s security problems is unrealistic. Israel cannot rely on outsiders to undertake the daily burden of combating Palestinian terrorism, any more than Abu Mazen.
Copyright 2000-2006 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.
For example...
Debkafile with many rants about Iraq that turned out to be lies..page June 21, 2003
QUOTE
According to US officials, Mahmoud’s information on Iraq’s WMD contradicts equivocations of formerly detained Saddam insiders
QUOTE
US retains military option to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons – senior official Bolton in response to Iran’s refusal to allow IAEA UN watchdog access to all its nuclear sites. IAEA rejected US effort to complain of Iran’s violations to UN Security Council. Read earlier DEBKAfile article below
DEBKAfile saying The Nuclear Threat is Real! in november 2001
DEBKAfile saying Iran will tests nukes in March 06 in the current propaganda collection. jan 22 2006
QUOTE
Tehran plans a nuclear weapons test before March 20, 2006 – the Iranian New Year, moves Shahab-3 missiles within striking range of Israel
As I have pointed out before we have heard these lies before, this time pay attention. Unlike what has been posted in another topic lightning might just strike twice. Don't let it.
When the likes of DEBKAfile says "The international community must deal with the Iranian nuclear issue", beware, its just another campaign to send your kids to die in a war against a nation that can not harm us and will not attack us.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...21-1-2006_pg1_1
Iran will be taught a lesson: Burns
* US undersecretary of state calls Iran ‘a world threat’
* Calls Iran’s N-programme outrageous
* Admits ‘complexities’ in India-US talks
By Iftikhar Gilani
NEW DELHI: US Undersecretary of State R Nicolas Burns has called Iran “a threat to world peace” and vowed to “teach it a lesson”.
He said this in a press conference following talks with Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran on Friday.
Iran has “crossed so many international red lines, that it has to know that will be a penalty to be paid,” he said.
The two countries, however, held divergent positions on Iran. While Burns said that Iran should be referred to the UN Security Council, Saran maintained that New Delhi would prefer the matter resolved within the purview of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Saran said that India was committed to finding an amicable solution to the Iran issue. “We have close, civilised relations with Iran, and would not like to see any confrontation. International consensus needs to be evolved on the issue,” he said.
Terming as “outrageous” Iran’s comparison of its nuclear programme with India, Burns said that Russia, China and the EU-3 – Germany, UK and France – agreed that Iran had “crossed the line it should not have crossed”, although the views of all these countries were not identical the US position on the issue. “They were outrageous remarks ... On the one hand, you have a country that has never been a proliferator while on the other, you have a regime in Iran which ... for 18 years conducted secret nuclear research,” said Burns.
Meanwhile, Burns admitted that there were difficulties ahead in formulating an agreement on nuclear cooperation with India, but said these difficulties would be removed in time.
He said that the framework for an agreement has been established but was far from completion, as it envisaged “overturning” both the US and international law. “There’s no question that we have made some progress over the last six months, but much progress has still to be made.”
“We have concluded (that) we need to discuss this in greater detail in the coming days, and this dialogue will continue,” Saran said.
Iran will be taught a lesson: Burns
* US undersecretary of state calls Iran ‘a world threat’
* Calls Iran’s N-programme outrageous
* Admits ‘complexities’ in India-US talks
By Iftikhar Gilani
NEW DELHI: US Undersecretary of State R Nicolas Burns has called Iran “a threat to world peace” and vowed to “teach it a lesson”.
He said this in a press conference following talks with Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran on Friday.
Iran has “crossed so many international red lines, that it has to know that will be a penalty to be paid,” he said.
The two countries, however, held divergent positions on Iran. While Burns said that Iran should be referred to the UN Security Council, Saran maintained that New Delhi would prefer the matter resolved within the purview of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Saran said that India was committed to finding an amicable solution to the Iran issue. “We have close, civilised relations with Iran, and would not like to see any confrontation. International consensus needs to be evolved on the issue,” he said.
Terming as “outrageous” Iran’s comparison of its nuclear programme with India, Burns said that Russia, China and the EU-3 – Germany, UK and France – agreed that Iran had “crossed the line it should not have crossed”, although the views of all these countries were not identical the US position on the issue. “They were outrageous remarks ... On the one hand, you have a country that has never been a proliferator while on the other, you have a regime in Iran which ... for 18 years conducted secret nuclear research,” said Burns.
Meanwhile, Burns admitted that there were difficulties ahead in formulating an agreement on nuclear cooperation with India, but said these difficulties would be removed in time.
He said that the framework for an agreement has been established but was far from completion, as it envisaged “overturning” both the US and international law. “There’s no question that we have made some progress over the last six months, but much progress has still to be made.”
“We have concluded (that) we need to discuss this in greater detail in the coming days, and this dialogue will continue,” Saran said.
Tehran plans nuclear weapon test by March:
Tehran is planning a nuclear weapons test before the Iranian New Year on March 20, 2006 says a group opposed to the regime in Tehran.
http://tinyurl.com/7ulb6
===
Iran: Israeli military strike against nuclear program would be 'fatal mistake' :
Iran on Sunday said Israel would be making a "fatal mistake" if it resorted to military action against Tehran's nuclear program, and dismissed comments on the issue made by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz as a "childish game."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11640.htm
===
Iraq's Sadr says his militia will support Iran:
Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has assured Iran that his Shi'ite Muslim militiamen will support the Islamic Republic if it comes under attack, the official IRNA news agency reported on Sunday.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11642.htm
===
Iran's Bomb:
There's been a lot of talk recently about Israel and/or the United States bombing the nuclear facilities in Iran. I wouldn't worry about that. I believe they are both bluffing.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese256.html
===
Iran will be taught a lesson: Burns:
US Undersecretary of State R Nicolas Burns has called Iran “a threat to world peace” and vowed to “teach it a lesson”.
http://tinyurl.com/7lqrq
===
Talk Of Military Action As Iran Nuclear Standoff Continues:
Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/6317172/detail.html
===
Iran's conventional forces remain key to deterring potential threats:
The minimum force packages required for an Israeli or US strike would vary widely. An Israeli strike on even a single Iranian nuclear facility would stretch Israel's nascent long-range strike capability and require innovative basing and airborne refuelling solutions
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jir/jir060120_2_n.shtml
===
U.S. Still Short in Iran Security Council Push:
The United States has been unable to win international support to officially report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, despite two years of diplomatic efforts and defiant new actions by the country to resume uranium enrichment research
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11638.htm
===
Italy Min Warns Against Any Israeli Action Vs Iran : -
Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini warned Friday that any pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities would have potentially disastrous consequences for the Middle East and the world.
http://tinyurl.com/7addw
Tehran is planning a nuclear weapons test before the Iranian New Year on March 20, 2006 says a group opposed to the regime in Tehran.
http://tinyurl.com/7ulb6
===
Iran: Israeli military strike against nuclear program would be 'fatal mistake' :
Iran on Sunday said Israel would be making a "fatal mistake" if it resorted to military action against Tehran's nuclear program, and dismissed comments on the issue made by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz as a "childish game."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11640.htm
===
Iraq's Sadr says his militia will support Iran:
Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has assured Iran that his Shi'ite Muslim militiamen will support the Islamic Republic if it comes under attack, the official IRNA news agency reported on Sunday.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11642.htm
===
Iran's Bomb:
There's been a lot of talk recently about Israel and/or the United States bombing the nuclear facilities in Iran. I wouldn't worry about that. I believe they are both bluffing.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese256.html
===
Iran will be taught a lesson: Burns:
US Undersecretary of State R Nicolas Burns has called Iran “a threat to world peace” and vowed to “teach it a lesson”.
http://tinyurl.com/7lqrq
===
Talk Of Military Action As Iran Nuclear Standoff Continues:
Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/6317172/detail.html
===
Iran's conventional forces remain key to deterring potential threats:
The minimum force packages required for an Israeli or US strike would vary widely. An Israeli strike on even a single Iranian nuclear facility would stretch Israel's nascent long-range strike capability and require innovative basing and airborne refuelling solutions
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jir/jir060120_2_n.shtml
===
U.S. Still Short in Iran Security Council Push:
The United States has been unable to win international support to officially report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, despite two years of diplomatic efforts and defiant new actions by the country to resume uranium enrichment research
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11638.htm
===
Italy Min Warns Against Any Israeli Action Vs Iran : -
Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini warned Friday that any pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities would have potentially disastrous consequences for the Middle East and the world.
http://tinyurl.com/7addw
===
Egypt: West ignores Israeli nukes:
Egypt told U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney it supported efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East but slammed the West for turning a blind eye to Israel's atomic program, one official said.
http://tinyurl.com/7eyps
===
Iran and Israel: The Ambiguous Nuclear Weapons:
For more than fifty years Israel has been directly and illegitimately funded and aided in its nuclear weapons production by France, the United States, Britain, Germany and Norway yet maintaining "ambiguity". During that time, Israel has also refused to sign or negotiate any commitment against the use of biological weapons
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=012006234222
Egypt: West ignores Israeli nukes:
Egypt told U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney it supported efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East but slammed the West for turning a blind eye to Israel's atomic program, one official said.
http://tinyurl.com/7eyps
===
Iran and Israel: The Ambiguous Nuclear Weapons:
For more than fifty years Israel has been directly and illegitimately funded and aided in its nuclear weapons production by France, the United States, Britain, Germany and Norway yet maintaining "ambiguity". During that time, Israel has also refused to sign or negotiate any commitment against the use of biological weapons
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=012006234222
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAF2B.htm
Article
20 January
Iran: an irrational war of words
The spat between the West and Iran highlights the dangers of making up foreign policy as you go along.
by Brendan O'Neill
Some scary words are being used to describe the spat between the West and Iran. Some are predicting 'World War III'. There is talk of another Holocaust against the Jews, following Iranian president Mahmoud Admadinejad's inflammatory remarks about wanting to wipe Israel off the map and his expressions of Holocaust denial. Others think there might be a 'nuclear stand-off' between an already nuked-up USA and an Iran that is keen (allegedly) to build the Bomb. On the anti-war side, the big word is 'Empire': it's argued that President George W Bush's administration is plotting a war on Iran in order to control its oil reserves (1).
What all of this doom-laden bluster overlooks is that Iran was, until quite recently, a supporter of America's war on terror, and was pretty much turned into a pariah by an American foreign policy initiative thought up on the hoof and scribbled down on a sheet of paper. Up to 2002 Iran had been making increasingly friendly gestures towards the West until it was labelled part of an 'axis of evil' by Bush as part of a new foreign policy conjured up in a smoky backroom with little consideration given to the consequences. Nuclear World Wars with Holocausts attached are not normally made of such stuff.
America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have not exactly been the best of friends since 1979. US hawks never forgave the Islamists for overthrowing 'our bastard', the Shah. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was installed as ruler of Iran in 1953 in a coup backed by the CIA and MI6 which deposed of the democratically elected prime minister, Dr Mohammad Mossadeq. From 1953 to 1979 the Shah was a loyal US ally in the Middle East. In the words of US foreign policy officials he maintained an 'island of stability' (2). Iran during that time was America's main customer for high-tech military hardware and its second-largest provider of fairly inexpensive oil; it was also, which seems strange now, Israel's most valuable ally in a hostile Muslim world. As notorious US secretary of state Henry Kissinger said in the Seventies, the Shah supported the US on 'virtually every major foreign policy issue', and in return the US gave him 'everything he wanted' (3).
So America's response to the Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini that got shot of the Shah was swift and unforgiving. Draconian economic sanctions were imposed, and Iran was denounced by Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior and Clinton as a 'rogue' or 'terrorist state'. The Iranian hostage crisis, during which Iran held captive 66 American diplomats and citizens for 444 days between late 1979 and 1981, was especially humiliating for US officials, and is said to have contributed to President Jimmy Carter's loss of the presidential election in 1980.
Yet behind America's harsh public denunciations of Iran various US presidents sought to improve relations. America had an ambivalent relationship with Iran, motivated by outrage over the Islamic revolution and memories of the hostage crisis but also by a desire to influence events there. Even President Ronald Reagan, in the Iran-Contra affair in the mid-1980s, okayed the selling of arms to the Iranian mullahs. During the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988, America gave the green light to Saddam Hussein to attack Iran but also armed and supported, at different times, the Iranian side too.
In the Nineties, under President Bill Clinton's administration, these various private attempts to build bridges with the mullahs became more public. Clinton stopped labelling Iran a rogue state and publicly admitted, for the first time, that the US 'orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister' in 1953 and that this had been a 'setback' for Iran (4). He relaxed economic sanctions. Iran assured Britain that it had 'no intention to threaten [Salman Rushdie]' - against whom Khomeini had issued a fatwa for his novel The Satanic Verses in 1989 - for which Britain repaid Iran by restoring full diplomatic relations. After 9/11 Iran publicly showed its willingness to do business with the US: it denounced the 'terrorist Taliban' and urged the Northern Alliance (whom it had armed) fully to cooperate with the Americans. As one Iranian official said, '[The Afghan war] provided the two countries a perfect opportunity for improved relations' (5).
What went wrong? How has Iran gone from being a supporter of America's war on terror in 2001 to an apparently grave threat to America and Israel today, and the potential author of a new World War? It wasn't Iran that changed, where, if anything, there have been liberalising reforms in recent years and the growth of a student movement for more democracy; Iran is ruled by reformers and conservatives, and the reformers had been making headway since the Nineties. Rather, Iran was catapulted into its current pariah status by a Bush administration seeking some kind of enemy against which it could posture - not by a US determined to 'do another Shah', but by a US which decided, virtually out of the blue, to label Iran as 'evil' to demonstrate that it still has some clout and purpose in the world.
In 2002, Bush gave his now famous (or perhaps infamous) State of the Union address in which he denounced Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an 'axis of evil'. Far from being the product of a carefully thought-out plan to rattle and threaten Iran, the axis of evil thesis seems to have been made up on the hoof. As Ervand Abrahamian points out in his contribution to the very good book Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria (following the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Syria has been namechecked as the latest member of the axis of evil), this sudden demonisation of Iran will have come as a 'bolt out of the blue sky…for the average Iranian', who had seen 'relations between Iran and America gradually but markedly improve in the course of the previous five years' (6).
It was rhetoric, not realpolitik, that stoked this stand-off
Even leading US officials were taken aback by Bush's speech. As Abrahamian notes, 'Colin Powell [then secretary of state] and the State Department had not been consulted about the speech, neither about its general thrust nor about the inclusion of Iran'. State Department officials privately complained that the speech would 'undermine their long-standing policy of rapprochement with Iranian reformers'. Abrahamian's book points out 'how arbitrary [the] trinity was': 'Consensus held that three countries sounded better than two....' (7)
Bush's speech demonstrated the extent to which US officials make up foreign policy as they go along these days. It was reportedly written at the last minute, and it would seem that little thought was given to the consequences of labelling three states as evil opponents. The fact that leading Bushies did not know about the content of the speech shows how little overarching coherence there is to US foreign policy. The creation of the axis of evil was not guided by a clear vision or strategy, but rather by stalemate within the war on terror. The Americans had been fighting in Afghanistan for four months at the time of Bush's speech and though the Taliban had been easily toppled, the main targets of the war - Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar - had proved infuriatingly elusive. America had gone to Afghanistan not only in search of bin Laden, but also in search of itself, of a mission that could define what America is for and against today. When that didn't come off, it conjured up three new evil spectres against which it might define itself, most likely in some meeting room in the Pentagon.
America's support for the Shah for close to 30 years was driven by realpolitik, by a clear sense of America's interests in the Middle East. The consequence was a denial of democracy for Iranians. Its covert arming of Iran at various times in the 1980s was motivated by a desire to have some influence on the mullahs. The consequence was a drawn-out and bloody war between Iran and Iraq.
America's kneejerk denunciation of Iran in 2002 was motivated by the absence of a clear sense of America's interests or mission; it was a quickly thought-up pose which, it was hoped, would make the US appear serious and impressive at a time when its war on terror was faltering. The consequence has been an increasingly tense situation, as both US and Iranian officials have upped the rhetoric between 2002 and today: US officials in order to take the heat off their disastrous wars on terror and Iraq, and Iranian officials in an attempt to appease and appear committed to the Iranian masses.
It was rhetoric, not realpolitik, that stoked the stand-off between the West and Iran. The tensions are not the result of design, whether of an American elite hell-bent on taking over Iran or of Iranian leaders who have decided politically to oppose the USA; they are the product of a US foreign policy that is driven more by emotional kneejerk reactions than by a coherent strategy. It is the irrationalism of US foreign policy today, rather than its cunning or ambition, that heightened tensions with Iran. This episode shows, not so much that America is greedily pursuing its own interests in foreign fields (which would be nothing new), but that its foreign policy is now so changeable and opportunistic that it can easily act against its own interests in its various foreign ventures.
It demonstrates that moral posturing in international affairs can sometimes be as dangerous as an old-style military mission. It is highly unlikely to lead to a new World War. But it has made international affairs a volatile and unpredictable realm.
Visit Brendan O'Neill's website here.
(1) Oil, geopolitics and the coming war with Iran, Global Policy Forum, 11 April 2005
(2) Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria, Ervand Abrahamian et al, The New Press, 2004
(3) Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria, Ervand Abrahamian et al, The New Press, 2004
(4) Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria, Ervand Abrahamian et al, The New Press, 2004
(5) Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria, Ervand Abrahamian et al, The New Press, 2004
(6) Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria, Ervand Abrahamian et al, The New Press, 2004
(7) Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria, Ervand Abrahamian et al, The New Press, 2004
Article
20 January
Iran: an irrational war of words
The spat between the West and Iran highlights the dangers of making up foreign policy as you go along.
by Brendan O'Neill
Some scary words are being used to describe the spat between the West and Iran. Some are predicting 'World War III'. There is talk of another Holocaust against the Jews, following Iranian president Mahmoud Admadinejad's inflammatory remarks about wanting to wipe Israel off the map and his expressions of Holocaust denial. Others think there might be a 'nuclear stand-off' between an already nuked-up USA and an Iran that is keen (allegedly) to build the Bomb. On the anti-war side, the big word is 'Empire': it's argued that President George W Bush's administration is plotting a war on Iran in order to control its oil reserves (1).
What all of this doom-laden bluster overlooks is that Iran was, until quite recently, a supporter of America's war on terror, and was pretty much turned into a pariah by an American foreign policy initiative thought up on the hoof and scribbled down on a sheet of paper. Up to 2002 Iran had been making increasingly friendly gestures towards the West until it was labelled part of an 'axis of evil' by Bush as part of a new foreign policy conjured up in a smoky backroom with little consideration given to the consequences. Nuclear World Wars with Holocausts attached are not normally made of such stuff.
America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have not exactly been the best of friends since 1979. US hawks never forgave the Islamists for overthrowing 'our bastard', the Shah. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was installed as ruler of Iran in 1953 in a coup backed by the CIA and MI6 which deposed of the democratically elected prime minister, Dr Mohammad Mossadeq. From 1953 to 1979 the Shah was a loyal US ally in the Middle East. In the words of US foreign policy officials he maintained an 'island of stability' (2). Iran during that time was America's main customer for high-tech military hardware and its second-largest provider of fairly inexpensive oil; it was also, which seems strange now, Israel's most valuable ally in a hostile Muslim world. As notorious US secretary of state Henry Kissinger said in the Seventies, the Shah supported the US on 'virtually every major foreign policy issue', and in return the US gave him 'everything he wanted' (3).
So America's response to the Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini that got shot of the Shah was swift and unforgiving. Draconian economic sanctions were imposed, and Iran was denounced by Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior and Clinton as a 'rogue' or 'terrorist state'. The Iranian hostage crisis, during which Iran held captive 66 American diplomats and citizens for 444 days between late 1979 and 1981, was especially humiliating for US officials, and is said to have contributed to President Jimmy Carter's loss of the presidential election in 1980.
Yet behind America's harsh public denunciations of Iran various US presidents sought to improve relations. America had an ambivalent relationship with Iran, motivated by outrage over the Islamic revolution and memories of the hostage crisis but also by a desire to influence events there. Even President Ronald Reagan, in the Iran-Contra affair in the mid-1980s, okayed the selling of arms to the Iranian mullahs. During the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988, America gave the green light to Saddam Hussein to attack Iran but also armed and supported, at different times, the Iranian side too.
In the Nineties, under President Bill Clinton's administration, these various private attempts to build bridges with the mullahs became more public. Clinton stopped labelling Iran a rogue state and publicly admitted, for the first time, that the US 'orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister' in 1953 and that this had been a 'setback' for Iran (4). He relaxed economic sanctions. Iran assured Britain that it had 'no intention to threaten [Salman Rushdie]' - against whom Khomeini had issued a fatwa for his novel The Satanic Verses in 1989 - for which Britain repaid Iran by restoring full diplomatic relations. After 9/11 Iran publicly showed its willingness to do business with the US: it denounced the 'terrorist Taliban' and urged the Northern Alliance (whom it had armed) fully to cooperate with the Americans. As one Iranian official said, '[The Afghan war] provided the two countries a perfect opportunity for improved relations' (5).
What went wrong? How has Iran gone from being a supporter of America's war on terror in 2001 to an apparently grave threat to America and Israel today, and the potential author of a new World War? It wasn't Iran that changed, where, if anything, there have been liberalising reforms in recent years and the growth of a student movement for more democracy; Iran is ruled by reformers and conservatives, and the reformers had been making headway since the Nineties. Rather, Iran was catapulted into its current pariah status by a Bush administration seeking some kind of enemy against which it could posture - not by a US determined to 'do another Shah', but by a US which decided, virtually out of the blue, to label Iran as 'evil' to demonstrate that it still has some clout and purpose in the world.
In 2002, Bush gave his now famous (or perhaps infamous) State of the Union address in which he denounced Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an 'axis of evil'. Far from being the product of a carefully thought-out plan to rattle and threaten Iran, the axis of evil thesis seems to have been made up on the hoof. As Ervand Abrahamian points out in his contribution to the very good book Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria (following the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Syria has been namechecked as the latest member of the axis of evil), this sudden demonisation of Iran will have come as a 'bolt out of the blue sky…for the average Iranian', who had seen 'relations between Iran and America gradually but markedly improve in the course of the previous five years' (6).
It was rhetoric, not realpolitik, that stoked this stand-off
Even leading US officials were taken aback by Bush's speech. As Abrahamian notes, 'Colin Powell [then secretary of state] and the State Department had not been consulted about the speech, neither about its general thrust nor about the inclusion of Iran'. State Department officials privately complained that the speech would 'undermine their long-standing policy of rapprochement with Iranian reformers'. Abrahamian's book points out 'how arbitrary [the] trinity was': 'Consensus held that three countries sounded better than two....' (7)
Bush's speech demonstrated the extent to which US officials make up foreign policy as they go along these days. It was reportedly written at the last minute, and it would seem that little thought was given to the consequences of labelling three states as evil opponents. The fact that leading Bushies did not know about the content of the speech shows how little overarching coherence there is to US foreign policy. The creation of the axis of evil was not guided by a clear vision or strategy, but rather by stalemate within the war on terror. The Americans had been fighting in Afghanistan for four months at the time of Bush's speech and though the Taliban had been easily toppled, the main targets of the war - Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar - had proved infuriatingly elusive. America had gone to Afghanistan not only in search of bin Laden, but also in search of itself, of a mission that could define what America is for and against today. When that didn't come off, it conjured up three new evil spectres against which it might define itself, most likely in some meeting room in the Pentagon.
America's support for the Shah for close to 30 years was driven by realpolitik, by a clear sense of America's interests in the Middle East. The consequence was a denial of democracy for Iranians. Its covert arming of Iran at various times in the 1980s was motivated by a desire to have some influence on the mullahs. The consequence was a drawn-out and bloody war between Iran and Iraq.
America's kneejerk denunciation of Iran in 2002 was motivated by the absence of a clear sense of America's interests or mission; it was a quickly thought-up pose which, it was hoped, would make the US appear serious and impressive at a time when its war on terror was faltering. The consequence has been an increasingly tense situation, as both US and Iranian officials have upped the rhetoric between 2002 and today: US officials in order to take the heat off their disastrous wars on terror and Iraq, and Iranian officials in an attempt to appease and appear committed to the Iranian masses.
It was rhetoric, not realpolitik, that stoked the stand-off between the West and Iran. The tensions are not the result of design, whether of an American elite hell-bent on taking over Iran or of Iranian leaders who have decided politically to oppose the USA; they are the product of a US foreign policy that is driven more by emotional kneejerk reactions than by a coherent strategy. It is the irrationalism of US foreign policy today, rather than its cunning or ambition, that heightened tensions with Iran. This episode shows, not so much that America is greedily pursuing its own interests in foreign fields (which would be nothing new), but that its foreign policy is now so changeable and opportunistic that it can easily act against its own interests in its various foreign ventures.
It demonstrates that moral posturing in international affairs can sometimes be as dangerous as an old-style military mission. It is highly unlikely to lead to a new World War. But it has made international affairs a volatile and unpredictable realm.
Visit Brendan O'Neill's website here.
(1) Oil, geopolitics and the coming war with Iran, Global Policy Forum, 11 April 2005
(2) Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria, Ervand Abrahamian et al, The New Press, 2004
(3) Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria, Ervand Abrahamian et al, The New Press, 2004
(4) Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria, Ervand Abrahamian et al, The New Press, 2004
(5) Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria, Ervand Abrahamian et al, The New Press, 2004
(6) Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria, Ervand Abrahamian et al, The New Press, 2004
(7) Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria, Ervand Abrahamian et al, The New Press, 2004
http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=...xt&index=recent
Military Intelligence or Military Ignorance? (The US and Iran)
WorldNews.com,Mon 23 Jan 2006 Email this story to a friend
Print this story
Military Intelligence or Military Ignorance? (The US and Iran)
WorldNews Guest Writer Beverly Darling.
There is a long-standing joke in the U.S. Army that the phrase ‘Military Intelligence’ is an oxymoron (incongruent and contradictory words). No one can say for certain how many Professional Elite Military Intelligence Officers working for the Bush Regime have ever experienced actual combat, (the closest warfare the current Commander in Chief has experienced is evidently a jet landing on an aircraft carrier near a naval base in California), but it is probably very few. Military combat is chaos and mass confusion. There is screaming, yelling, and piercing noises that envelope your dry, dusty, and adrenaline-filled world. Your peripheral vision is narrowed by smoke and aiming a weapon at unexpected and moving targets. Mental capabilities are overridden with emotions of fear and an instinct to simply survive. Human error is common and usually fatal. This description of warfare does not include the break-down in communications, lack of reinforcements, ill-advised and short-sighted planning, and numerous equipment failures. When President Bush recently mentioned that it was going to be a challenge to persuade council members to refer Iran to the UN and attempt to thwart their peaceful Nuclear Productions Program-U.S. Military Intelligence, on the other hand, claims Iran will manufacture nuclear weapons-due to ’a lack of U.S. Military Intelligence credibility for not finding WMD’s in Iraq,’ this had to be the understatement of the new year. Just as genuine warfare reflects mass confusion, so does the history and current Military Intelligent Agencies (MIA) of the U.S.
As early as 1898, when the USS Maine was sunk by a boiler-room explosion, the U.S. Military blamed the event on Spain and initiated the Spanish-America War. The U.S. MIA continued their follies as they manipulated European and Eurasian events when entering WWI and thereafter attempting to invade and conquer Russia and defeat the Communist Revolution. In 1941, MIA missed the hundreds of Japanese destroyers, battleships, aircraft carriers, and submarines as Pearl Harbor was surprised and attacked. During the 1960’s, the CIA claimed that an invasion of U.S. trained Cuban Guerilla Fighters would quickly topple Fidel Castro and be gleefully supported by millions of disgruntled Cubans. The Bay of Pigs Incursion was a fiasco, as the fighters were captured within three days. When President Johnson asked Congress for the authority to send troops to Vietnam, because MIA claimed that two small North Vietnamese PT Boats fired upon the USS Maddox, once again the information was false and misleading. Again, the CIA and MIA were stunned when the Berlin Wall was dismantled and the Soviet Union began to disintegrate. During the 1990’s, numerous American Embassies in foreign countries were bombed along with the WTC, USS Cole, and the U.S. Barracks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. While the CIA was bombing Sudanese pharmaceutical and medicine plants in hopes of assassinating Osama bin-Laden, Osama flew planes into the Pentagon and WTC, despite repeated warnings in PDB’s and from numerous state officials and U.S. citizens. One of the biggest fiascos of Military Ignorance was the naked and illegal aggression against Iraq in 2003, not to mention the thousands of errant bombing raids that murder innocent women and children, such as the recent attacks in Iraq and Pakistan.
Resembling combat, there are adrenaline-filled war-hawks, emotional ultra-conservatives, and rogue groups that compete for funds within the CIA and MIA. Their bias’ and prejudices influence the gathering of information, the manufacturing of consent, and decisions to pursue war. As Mr. Bush and his MIA prepared for the war with Iraq and placed millions of young women and men in harms way, it was paramount for them to be objective and include all of the information and sources concerning Iraq‘s WMD Program. President ‘Rogue’ Bush and his MIA was hardly objective. Instead, they selectively and dishonestly singled out information that conformed ONLY to their preconceived beliefs and rush to war. They were warned repeatedly that the Nigerian Uranium Documents were forged, the captured Al-Quaeda suspect Mr. Al-Libi was espousing false information about ties between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, and ‘Curveball‘-an Iraqi informant, was not a credible witness. President Bush’s MIA excluded any alternative or contradictory information that threatened their self-absorbed pro-war stance towards Iraq. Those who presented different findings and disagreed, were quickly silenced and forced to resign. The greatest treason, which is an impeachable offense, is the deceitfulness and untruthfulness use of military intelligence and information that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents.
The REAL debate taking place in the UN and around the world, should not be about Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear technologies, but instead it should be about U.S. Military Ignorance and the abuse and misuse of information, addiction to foreign markets, dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and as Mr. Ahmadinejad, the leader of Iran said in referring to the U.S., ‘a people who want to solve everything through the use of force.’ The U.S. has illegally invaded and is now occupying Iraq, Iran’s neighbor. The U.S. has destroyed an Iranian passenger air-bus killing 293 civilians. The U.S., in order to make money, has sold nuclear technologies to other countries promoting nuclear proliferation. The U.S. has aided Israel, as they scrambled jets, invaded Iran’s airspace, and destroyed a nuclear power plant. The U.S. has toppled the Iranian government and supported a ruthless and monarchical regime. During the Iran-Contra Scandal, the U.S. MIA falsified and then shredded documents while authorization was given to establish a secret ’stand alone’ unit that could conduct covert actions without Congressional approval. And finally, the U.S. is the ONLY country to have used nuclear weapons in the history of the world.
As the U.S. spends $40 billion a year on the CIA and MIA, and as they have caused mass pandemonium and bloodshed in Iraq and much of the Middle East, one can only wait to see what is in store for Iran. America’s MIA have been missing in action, while the current President suffers from attention deficit concerning the history of Iran and the U.S. It would be wise for Mr. Bush and the MIA to heed the words of Mr. Ahmadinejad, ’Those same powers,’ speaking of the west and the U.S., ’have done their utmost to oppress us, but this nation, because of its dignity, has forgiven them to a large extent. But if they persist with their present stance, maybe the day will come when the Iranian nation will reconsider…If they want to deny us our rights, we have ways to secure those rights.’ President Bush recently stated in a speech, in reference to Iraq, ’All of my decisions will be based upon conditions on the ground…’ Mr. Bush, as you hit the ground in Iraq and gather information, you had better also hit the ground in Iran. With U.S. Military Intelligence, such as the examples previously mentioned, who needs U.S. Military Blunders?
Military Intelligence or Military Ignorance? (The US and Iran)
WorldNews.com,Mon 23 Jan 2006 Email this story to a friend
Print this story
Military Intelligence or Military Ignorance? (The US and Iran)
WorldNews Guest Writer Beverly Darling.
There is a long-standing joke in the U.S. Army that the phrase ‘Military Intelligence’ is an oxymoron (incongruent and contradictory words). No one can say for certain how many Professional Elite Military Intelligence Officers working for the Bush Regime have ever experienced actual combat, (the closest warfare the current Commander in Chief has experienced is evidently a jet landing on an aircraft carrier near a naval base in California), but it is probably very few. Military combat is chaos and mass confusion. There is screaming, yelling, and piercing noises that envelope your dry, dusty, and adrenaline-filled world. Your peripheral vision is narrowed by smoke and aiming a weapon at unexpected and moving targets. Mental capabilities are overridden with emotions of fear and an instinct to simply survive. Human error is common and usually fatal. This description of warfare does not include the break-down in communications, lack of reinforcements, ill-advised and short-sighted planning, and numerous equipment failures. When President Bush recently mentioned that it was going to be a challenge to persuade council members to refer Iran to the UN and attempt to thwart their peaceful Nuclear Productions Program-U.S. Military Intelligence, on the other hand, claims Iran will manufacture nuclear weapons-due to ’a lack of U.S. Military Intelligence credibility for not finding WMD’s in Iraq,’ this had to be the understatement of the new year. Just as genuine warfare reflects mass confusion, so does the history and current Military Intelligent Agencies (MIA) of the U.S.
As early as 1898, when the USS Maine was sunk by a boiler-room explosion, the U.S. Military blamed the event on Spain and initiated the Spanish-America War. The U.S. MIA continued their follies as they manipulated European and Eurasian events when entering WWI and thereafter attempting to invade and conquer Russia and defeat the Communist Revolution. In 1941, MIA missed the hundreds of Japanese destroyers, battleships, aircraft carriers, and submarines as Pearl Harbor was surprised and attacked. During the 1960’s, the CIA claimed that an invasion of U.S. trained Cuban Guerilla Fighters would quickly topple Fidel Castro and be gleefully supported by millions of disgruntled Cubans. The Bay of Pigs Incursion was a fiasco, as the fighters were captured within three days. When President Johnson asked Congress for the authority to send troops to Vietnam, because MIA claimed that two small North Vietnamese PT Boats fired upon the USS Maddox, once again the information was false and misleading. Again, the CIA and MIA were stunned when the Berlin Wall was dismantled and the Soviet Union began to disintegrate. During the 1990’s, numerous American Embassies in foreign countries were bombed along with the WTC, USS Cole, and the U.S. Barracks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. While the CIA was bombing Sudanese pharmaceutical and medicine plants in hopes of assassinating Osama bin-Laden, Osama flew planes into the Pentagon and WTC, despite repeated warnings in PDB’s and from numerous state officials and U.S. citizens. One of the biggest fiascos of Military Ignorance was the naked and illegal aggression against Iraq in 2003, not to mention the thousands of errant bombing raids that murder innocent women and children, such as the recent attacks in Iraq and Pakistan.
Resembling combat, there are adrenaline-filled war-hawks, emotional ultra-conservatives, and rogue groups that compete for funds within the CIA and MIA. Their bias’ and prejudices influence the gathering of information, the manufacturing of consent, and decisions to pursue war. As Mr. Bush and his MIA prepared for the war with Iraq and placed millions of young women and men in harms way, it was paramount for them to be objective and include all of the information and sources concerning Iraq‘s WMD Program. President ‘Rogue’ Bush and his MIA was hardly objective. Instead, they selectively and dishonestly singled out information that conformed ONLY to their preconceived beliefs and rush to war. They were warned repeatedly that the Nigerian Uranium Documents were forged, the captured Al-Quaeda suspect Mr. Al-Libi was espousing false information about ties between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, and ‘Curveball‘-an Iraqi informant, was not a credible witness. President Bush’s MIA excluded any alternative or contradictory information that threatened their self-absorbed pro-war stance towards Iraq. Those who presented different findings and disagreed, were quickly silenced and forced to resign. The greatest treason, which is an impeachable offense, is the deceitfulness and untruthfulness use of military intelligence and information that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents.
The REAL debate taking place in the UN and around the world, should not be about Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear technologies, but instead it should be about U.S. Military Ignorance and the abuse and misuse of information, addiction to foreign markets, dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and as Mr. Ahmadinejad, the leader of Iran said in referring to the U.S., ‘a people who want to solve everything through the use of force.’ The U.S. has illegally invaded and is now occupying Iraq, Iran’s neighbor. The U.S. has destroyed an Iranian passenger air-bus killing 293 civilians. The U.S., in order to make money, has sold nuclear technologies to other countries promoting nuclear proliferation. The U.S. has aided Israel, as they scrambled jets, invaded Iran’s airspace, and destroyed a nuclear power plant. The U.S. has toppled the Iranian government and supported a ruthless and monarchical regime. During the Iran-Contra Scandal, the U.S. MIA falsified and then shredded documents while authorization was given to establish a secret ’stand alone’ unit that could conduct covert actions without Congressional approval. And finally, the U.S. is the ONLY country to have used nuclear weapons in the history of the world.
As the U.S. spends $40 billion a year on the CIA and MIA, and as they have caused mass pandemonium and bloodshed in Iraq and much of the Middle East, one can only wait to see what is in store for Iran. America’s MIA have been missing in action, while the current President suffers from attention deficit concerning the history of Iran and the U.S. It would be wise for Mr. Bush and the MIA to heed the words of Mr. Ahmadinejad, ’Those same powers,’ speaking of the west and the U.S., ’have done their utmost to oppress us, but this nation, because of its dignity, has forgiven them to a large extent. But if they persist with their present stance, maybe the day will come when the Iranian nation will reconsider…If they want to deny us our rights, we have ways to secure those rights.’ President Bush recently stated in a speech, in reference to Iraq, ’All of my decisions will be based upon conditions on the ground…’ Mr. Bush, as you hit the ground in Iraq and gather information, you had better also hit the ground in Iran. With U.S. Military Intelligence, such as the examples previously mentioned, who needs U.S. Military Blunders?
Rice says time for talking with Iran is over:
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Monday there was strong international consensus against Iran's nuclear plans and time had run out for talking to Tehran.
http://tinyurl.com/8aevc
===
Iran threatens to restart full-scale enrichment if referred to U.N. Security Council :
Iran will immediately retaliate if referred to the U.N. Security Council next week by forging ahead with developing a full-scale uranium enrichment program, a senior envoy said Monday.
http://tinyurl.com/b4f49
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Monday there was strong international consensus against Iran's nuclear plans and time had run out for talking to Tehran.
http://tinyurl.com/8aevc
===
Iran threatens to restart full-scale enrichment if referred to U.N. Security Council :
Iran will immediately retaliate if referred to the U.N. Security Council next week by forging ahead with developing a full-scale uranium enrichment program, a senior envoy said Monday.
http://tinyurl.com/b4f49
January 23, 2006
U.S. and Europe Run Into New Obstacles on Iran
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:16 p.m. ET
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran will immediately retaliate if referred to the U.N. Security Council next week by forging ahead with developing a full-scale uranium enrichment program, a senior envoy said Monday.
The comments by Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, a senior envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, reflected Iran's defiance in the face of growing international pressure over its nuclear program. Enrichment can be used in electricity production but it also is needed in making uranium-based nuclear weapons.
Separately, Iran's top nuclear negotiator planned to travel to Moscow on Tuesday for a high-level session as talks intensified surrounding a proposal to have Iran's uranium enriched in Russia, then returned to Iran for use in the country's reactors -- a compromise that would provide more oversight and ease tensions.
Ending a 15-month commitment, Iran removed IAEA seals from equipment Jan. 10 and announced it would restart experiments, including what it described as small-scale enrichment -- a move that led key European countries to call for an emergency session of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency's board of governors Feb. 2.
The Europeans also began drafting a basic text for a resolution calling for the Security Council to press Tehran to reimpose its total freeze on enrichment and ''to extend full and prompt cooperation to the agency'' in its investigation of suspect nuclear activities -- though it stops short of asking the council to impose sanctions.
Soltaniyeh, in comments to The Associated Press, warned against referral, suggesting such a ''hasty decision'' would backfire.
Whether Iran's suspension of its full-scale enrichment program remains in effect ''depends on the decision of Feb. 2,'' he said. Asked if that meant Iran would resume efforts to fully develop its nascent enrichment activities if the board votes for referral at that meeting, he said, ''yes.''
Iran insists its nuclear ambitions do not go beyond wanting to generate fuel, but concerns are growing its main focus is trying to make nuclear weapons -- something more than three years of IAEA investigations have failed to prove or disprove.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, meanwhile, rejected a request by the United States and several other member nations for a full report on the agency's investigation into Iran's nuclear program, signaling his resistance to ratcheting up pressure on Tehran.
In a letter dated Friday, Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S. representative to the IAEA, asked ElBaradei to prepare a written report on the ''status of IAEA efforts to investigate indications of an Iranian nuclear weapons program'' and on other activities Washington says are a cover for such a program. Supporting letters from the other countries also asking for a special report were dated Monday.
In a written reply dated Monday, ElBaradei said ''a detailed report'' would only be available in March, the next scheduled meeting of the IAEA board. Instead, he offered an ''update brief'' for the Feb. 2 meeting, to be read by a deputy.
The exchange in the letters, which were made available to AP, reflected differences between ElBaradei and the United States and its key allies over the handling of the Iran nuclear issue.
Diplomats close to the agency -- who demanded anonymity for divulging confidential information -- said the IAEA chief was unhappy about the push for a special board meeting and would have preferred to wait until the scheduled March session, when he hopes to end a more than three-year probe of Iran's nuclear dossier.
Iran repeatedly has said it is willing to offer guarantees that its nuclear program won't be used to manufacture weapons. But it has so far refused to give up what it calls its clear rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel.
In Moscow, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov encouraged Tehran to adopt a position that would help ease tensions.
''We count on discussing with you the so-called nuclear problem, around which the situation is currently being heightened,'' Lavrov said at the start of a meeting with Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari. ''We hope that our Iranian friends will choose a position that helps to ease tension and renew negotiations.''
Iran's top negotiator, Ali Larijani, will meet in Moscow with top Russian officials, including Russia's Security Council head Igor Ivanov, the council's press service said. Ivanov visited Iran last year.
Russia, which has veto power in the U.N. Security Council, has close ties with Tehran and is building Iran's first nuclear power reactor, but has been moving closer to the Western position on Iran and is reluctant to let the issue cause a major rift in its relations with the United States and Europe.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press Home
U.S. and Europe Run Into New Obstacles on Iran
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:16 p.m. ET
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran will immediately retaliate if referred to the U.N. Security Council next week by forging ahead with developing a full-scale uranium enrichment program, a senior envoy said Monday.
The comments by Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, a senior envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, reflected Iran's defiance in the face of growing international pressure over its nuclear program. Enrichment can be used in electricity production but it also is needed in making uranium-based nuclear weapons.
Separately, Iran's top nuclear negotiator planned to travel to Moscow on Tuesday for a high-level session as talks intensified surrounding a proposal to have Iran's uranium enriched in Russia, then returned to Iran for use in the country's reactors -- a compromise that would provide more oversight and ease tensions.
Ending a 15-month commitment, Iran removed IAEA seals from equipment Jan. 10 and announced it would restart experiments, including what it described as small-scale enrichment -- a move that led key European countries to call for an emergency session of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency's board of governors Feb. 2.
The Europeans also began drafting a basic text for a resolution calling for the Security Council to press Tehran to reimpose its total freeze on enrichment and ''to extend full and prompt cooperation to the agency'' in its investigation of suspect nuclear activities -- though it stops short of asking the council to impose sanctions.
Soltaniyeh, in comments to The Associated Press, warned against referral, suggesting such a ''hasty decision'' would backfire.
Whether Iran's suspension of its full-scale enrichment program remains in effect ''depends on the decision of Feb. 2,'' he said. Asked if that meant Iran would resume efforts to fully develop its nascent enrichment activities if the board votes for referral at that meeting, he said, ''yes.''
Iran insists its nuclear ambitions do not go beyond wanting to generate fuel, but concerns are growing its main focus is trying to make nuclear weapons -- something more than three years of IAEA investigations have failed to prove or disprove.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, meanwhile, rejected a request by the United States and several other member nations for a full report on the agency's investigation into Iran's nuclear program, signaling his resistance to ratcheting up pressure on Tehran.
In a letter dated Friday, Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S. representative to the IAEA, asked ElBaradei to prepare a written report on the ''status of IAEA efforts to investigate indications of an Iranian nuclear weapons program'' and on other activities Washington says are a cover for such a program. Supporting letters from the other countries also asking for a special report were dated Monday.
In a written reply dated Monday, ElBaradei said ''a detailed report'' would only be available in March, the next scheduled meeting of the IAEA board. Instead, he offered an ''update brief'' for the Feb. 2 meeting, to be read by a deputy.
The exchange in the letters, which were made available to AP, reflected differences between ElBaradei and the United States and its key allies over the handling of the Iran nuclear issue.
Diplomats close to the agency -- who demanded anonymity for divulging confidential information -- said the IAEA chief was unhappy about the push for a special board meeting and would have preferred to wait until the scheduled March session, when he hopes to end a more than three-year probe of Iran's nuclear dossier.
Iran repeatedly has said it is willing to offer guarantees that its nuclear program won't be used to manufacture weapons. But it has so far refused to give up what it calls its clear rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel.
In Moscow, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov encouraged Tehran to adopt a position that would help ease tensions.
''We count on discussing with you the so-called nuclear problem, around which the situation is currently being heightened,'' Lavrov said at the start of a meeting with Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari. ''We hope that our Iranian friends will choose a position that helps to ease tension and renew negotiations.''
Iran's top negotiator, Ali Larijani, will meet in Moscow with top Russian officials, including Russia's Security Council head Igor Ivanov, the council's press service said. Ivanov visited Iran last year.
Russia, which has veto power in the U.N. Security Council, has close ties with Tehran and is building Iran's first nuclear power reactor, but has been moving closer to the Western position on Iran and is reluctant to let the issue cause a major rift in its relations with the United States and Europe.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press Home
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 23, 2006
Rice: Time Is Now to Take Iran Before U.N.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:13 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday ''the time has come'' to send Iran before the U.N. Security Council over its disputed nuclear program, but she seemed to acknowledge that U.N. action may not be swift.
Iran warned that it would intensify its nuclear development if referred to the Security Council.
''It has been our belief, and it is that of the Europeans as well and a number of other states, that the time has come for referral'' to the United Nations body, Rice said following a meeting with Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini.
Calling the case for referral ''very strong,'' Rice said the United States will push for it at a special meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency early next month.
She would not speculate on what action the Security Council might take, or comment on whether the United States would be satisfied with an outcome less punitive than international economic sanctions.
''The Security Council can then take up the matter at a later time, but the referral absolutely has to be made,'' Rice said.
On another topic, Rice was guarded about how the United States would proceed if, as expected, the militant and political group Hamas gains a substantial or dominant foothold in Palestinian elections this week.
Rice repeated U.S. policy that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and she said Washington will not change that position. At the same time, she said Hamas poses a ''practical problem'' for the U.S.-backed Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Hamas has not renounced violence and does not recognize Israel's right to exist.
''It probably goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that it's hard to have negotiations with a party that you do not recognize its right to exist,'' Rice said.
Israel, the U.S. and other nations are trying to come up with an approach to a Palestinian government with a large Hamas component. U.S. officials say they will not deal directly with Hamas members, but they suggest Washington would not shun the entire government.
On Iran, although Rice stressed the strength of international resolve to stop Iran's march toward possible nuclear weapons, she was reminded that even strong military allies may not share the United States' preference for harsh repercussions for Tehran.
Fini said he agrees that Iran's case should go to the Security Council, which could take a range of steps up to broad trade sanctions or an oil embargo. But Fini began remarks on Iran by noting that Italy is Iran's largest European trading partner, a reminder that economic measures against the oil exporter would have consequences far beyond Iran.
''The Security Council will evaluate the issue, we hope, with flexibility and with political farsightedness,'' Fini said.
European nations that have been negotiating with Iran began drafting a referral resolution that stops short of asking the Security Council to impose sanctions. The draft resolution asks the body to press Tehran to reinstate a freeze on uranium enrichment and to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency investigation of suspect nuclear activities.
Iran claims its nuclear program is entirely devoted to developing the technology needed to make nuclear energy. The United States claims Iran is hiding a weapons program, or ambitions for one, and that its past deceptions warrant review by the Security Council.
Ending a 15-month hiatus during negotiations with European countries over a way to ensure Iran cannot make a bomb, Tehran removed IAEA seals from nuclear equipment Jan. 10 and announced it would restart experiments.
Israel's defense minister implied over the weekend that if diplomacy fails with Iran, Israel could resort to military action to defend itself from a nation whose leader, hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has said the Jewish state should be wiped off the map.
European diplomats have reacted with alarm. Fini called Ahmadinejad's statements unacceptable but added: ''Being equally firm, we want to stress and reiterate to our Israeli friends that the only way to guarantee peace and security is the diplomatic route.''
Rice said that while President Bush always reserves the right to use force, U.S. military action against Iran ''is not on the agenda because we have committed to the diplomatic course.''
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press
January 23, 2006
Rice: Time Is Now to Take Iran Before U.N.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:13 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday ''the time has come'' to send Iran before the U.N. Security Council over its disputed nuclear program, but she seemed to acknowledge that U.N. action may not be swift.
Iran warned that it would intensify its nuclear development if referred to the Security Council.
''It has been our belief, and it is that of the Europeans as well and a number of other states, that the time has come for referral'' to the United Nations body, Rice said following a meeting with Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini.
Calling the case for referral ''very strong,'' Rice said the United States will push for it at a special meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency early next month.
She would not speculate on what action the Security Council might take, or comment on whether the United States would be satisfied with an outcome less punitive than international economic sanctions.
''The Security Council can then take up the matter at a later time, but the referral absolutely has to be made,'' Rice said.
On another topic, Rice was guarded about how the United States would proceed if, as expected, the militant and political group Hamas gains a substantial or dominant foothold in Palestinian elections this week.
Rice repeated U.S. policy that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and she said Washington will not change that position. At the same time, she said Hamas poses a ''practical problem'' for the U.S.-backed Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Hamas has not renounced violence and does not recognize Israel's right to exist.
''It probably goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that it's hard to have negotiations with a party that you do not recognize its right to exist,'' Rice said.
Israel, the U.S. and other nations are trying to come up with an approach to a Palestinian government with a large Hamas component. U.S. officials say they will not deal directly with Hamas members, but they suggest Washington would not shun the entire government.
On Iran, although Rice stressed the strength of international resolve to stop Iran's march toward possible nuclear weapons, she was reminded that even strong military allies may not share the United States' preference for harsh repercussions for Tehran.
Fini said he agrees that Iran's case should go to the Security Council, which could take a range of steps up to broad trade sanctions or an oil embargo. But Fini began remarks on Iran by noting that Italy is Iran's largest European trading partner, a reminder that economic measures against the oil exporter would have consequences far beyond Iran.
''The Security Council will evaluate the issue, we hope, with flexibility and with political farsightedness,'' Fini said.
European nations that have been negotiating with Iran began drafting a referral resolution that stops short of asking the Security Council to impose sanctions. The draft resolution asks the body to press Tehran to reinstate a freeze on uranium enrichment and to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency investigation of suspect nuclear activities.
Iran claims its nuclear program is entirely devoted to developing the technology needed to make nuclear energy. The United States claims Iran is hiding a weapons program, or ambitions for one, and that its past deceptions warrant review by the Security Council.
Ending a 15-month hiatus during negotiations with European countries over a way to ensure Iran cannot make a bomb, Tehran removed IAEA seals from nuclear equipment Jan. 10 and announced it would restart experiments.
Israel's defense minister implied over the weekend that if diplomacy fails with Iran, Israel could resort to military action to defend itself from a nation whose leader, hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has said the Jewish state should be wiped off the map.
European diplomats have reacted with alarm. Fini called Ahmadinejad's statements unacceptable but added: ''Being equally firm, we want to stress and reiterate to our Israeli friends that the only way to guarantee peace and security is the diplomatic route.''
Rice said that while President Bush always reserves the right to use force, U.S. military action against Iran ''is not on the agenda because we have committed to the diplomatic course.''
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press
Paul Craig Roberts talks about some of the reasons he sees for the invasion of Iran....
Just How Dumb Do They Think We Are? Cheney's War Workshop Plots Another Attack Paul Craig Roberts
The opportunity and the means.....
The external influences....
The internal influences....
And no one to stop them....
Just How Dumb Do They Think We Are? Cheney's War Workshop Plots Another Attack Paul Craig Roberts
The opportunity and the means.....
QUOTE
2006 is a dangerous year for Americans. The Bill of Rights and Americans' civil liberties are being sacrificed on the alter of unaccountable executive power, as is the separation of powers, the foundation of our constitutional system.
The Supreme Court is being packed with a majority that favors more expansive executive rule.
The Supreme Court is being packed with a majority that favors more expansive executive rule.
The external influences....
QUOTE
Perhaps the greatest threat of all is Israel's determination to attack Iran, either directly or indirectly through its surrogate, the Bush administration.
We are witnessing the same drumbeat against Iranian WMD as we witnessed in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Fox "News," which in fact is the most thorough-going dispenser of war propaganda since the Nazi Third Reich, provides a parade of bought-and-paid-for-consultants who assure credulous audiences that Osama bin Laden has forged an alliance with Iran, which will soon be providing al Qaeda with nuclear weapons.
Even the Bush administration's chief warmonger, VP Dick Cheney, found the Fox "News" charges too absurd to be useful propaganda. Cheney disavowed close relations between al Qaeda Sunnis and Iranian Shi'ites: "there's not a natural fit there."
We are witnessing the same drumbeat against Iranian WMD as we witnessed in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Fox "News," which in fact is the most thorough-going dispenser of war propaganda since the Nazi Third Reich, provides a parade of bought-and-paid-for-consultants who assure credulous audiences that Osama bin Laden has forged an alliance with Iran, which will soon be providing al Qaeda with nuclear weapons.
Even the Bush administration's chief warmonger, VP Dick Cheney, found the Fox "News" charges too absurd to be useful propaganda. Cheney disavowed close relations between al Qaeda Sunnis and Iranian Shi'ites: "there's not a natural fit there."
QUOTE
Israel, however, and its neocon allies in the Bush administration, claim without any evidence that Iran is making a bomb. The nuclear inspectors find no evidence of a weapons program. Israel and its neocon allies reply that once Iran has the know-how for nuclear power, it will be able to make the material from which to make a bomb, therefore, Iran must not be permitted its rights under the non-proliferation treaty. Since Iran refuses to give up its treaty rights to develop nuclear energy, Israel and the neocons maintain that Iran's facilities must be bombed and destroyed.
Americans will pay a heavy price for Israeli paranoia.The entire world knows that Israel cannot bomb Iran without US weapons and cooperation.
Americans will pay a heavy price for Israeli paranoia.The entire world knows that Israel cannot bomb Iran without US weapons and cooperation.
The internal influences....
QUOTE
The American people need to understand that with its massive budget and trade deficits, the US is able to go to war only because the Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, and oil producing countries finance Bush's war by purchasing US debt and holding dollar denominated assets. Once Bush has the US over-extended, it will be the end of the American superpower if one of our bankers decides to rein in the rogue American state by dumping dollar holdings.
Indeed, a number of thinkers (William Clark and Krassimir Petrov, for example) have concluded that the reason that the Pentagon has plans to attack Iran is Iran's intention to establish an international oil exchange in which anyone can buy or sell oil in any currency.
Such an exchange, it is argued, would spell the dollar's death as the currency in which oil is billed. With countries no longer needing dollars in order to pay their oil bills, the demand for dollars and dollar denominated assets would decline. The dollar would further depreciate, bringing crisis to import-dependent America.
Indeed, a number of thinkers (William Clark and Krassimir Petrov, for example) have concluded that the reason that the Pentagon has plans to attack Iran is Iran's intention to establish an international oil exchange in which anyone can buy or sell oil in any currency.
Such an exchange, it is argued, would spell the dollar's death as the currency in which oil is billed. With countries no longer needing dollars in order to pay their oil bills, the demand for dollars and dollar denominated assets would decline. The dollar would further depreciate, bringing crisis to import-dependent America.
And no one to stop them....
QUOTE
Doesn't it make more sense to mend our ill-considered ways than to go to war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and who else? Is there no one in the Republican or Democratic parties who is capable of intelligent leadership? How many more Americans and Muslims are going to pay for Bush's insane policy with their lives, arms, legs, and eyes? How stupid are the American people?
IRAN NUKES - SPECIAL
- Bush Warns Iran On Israel
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Bush_Warns..._On_Israel.html
Manhattan (AFP) Jan 23, 2006 - US President George W. Bush said Monday that the United States would defend Israel against any Iranian threat and that the world could not risk being "blackmailed" by a nuclear-armed Tehran.
- Iran Stands By Threat Of Retaliation
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Stand...etaliation.html
- Walker's World: Can Iran Nukes Be Stopped
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Walkers_Wo...Be_Stopped.html
- UN Referral For Iran 'Absolutely' Necessary
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/UN_Referra..._Necessary.html
- Russia Calls On Iran To Change Tack On Nuke Standoff
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Cal...e_Standoff.html
- Chirac And Merkel Hold Talks On EU, Iran
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Chirac_And...On_EU_Iran.html
- Iran Threatens To Carry Out Enrichment On Industrial Scale
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Threa...rial_Scale.html
- Iran Denies Transferring ForEx Reserves
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Denie...x_Reserves.html
- Bush Warns Iran On Israel
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Bush_Warns..._On_Israel.html
Manhattan (AFP) Jan 23, 2006 - US President George W. Bush said Monday that the United States would defend Israel against any Iranian threat and that the world could not risk being "blackmailed" by a nuclear-armed Tehran.
- Iran Stands By Threat Of Retaliation
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Stand...etaliation.html
- Walker's World: Can Iran Nukes Be Stopped
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Walkers_Wo...Be_Stopped.html
- UN Referral For Iran 'Absolutely' Necessary
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/UN_Referra..._Necessary.html
- Russia Calls On Iran To Change Tack On Nuke Standoff
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Cal...e_Standoff.html
- Chirac And Merkel Hold Talks On EU, Iran
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Chirac_And...On_EU_Iran.html
- Iran Threatens To Carry Out Enrichment On Industrial Scale
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Threa...rial_Scale.html
- Iran Denies Transferring ForEx Reserves
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Denie...x_Reserves.html
January 24, 2006
Military Action Against Iran?
by Ivan Eland
The Bush administration is moving toward military action against Iran, despite its current public support for multilateral diplomacy. Surprisingly, that eventual outcome may also comport with the interests of the Iranian government. The real losers in this arms-length conspiracy between the two hostile governments will be the American and Iranian peoples.
For the moment, the Bush administration is playing a more sophisticated diplomatic game against Iran than it did during the ham-handed run-up to the unpopular invasion of Iraq, which led to U.S. isolation from most of the rest of the world. The administration has allowed France, Britain, and Germany to take the lead in trying to negotiate away Iran’s nuclear program. Having failed in that effort, the Europeans are now on board with an International Atomic Energy Agency referral to the United Nations Security Council for the possible imposition of sanctions. The United States is now working to convince China and Russia that stiffer actions against Iran are warranted. Rather than taking rash, almost unilateral, action as it did against Iraq, the Bush administration apparently has learned its lesson and seems to be willing to let multilateral diplomacy play out in order to build international support for a military response.
President Bush has said that Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and recently used the term “grave” to describe the threat from Iran, eerily, the same term he used to describe the threat from Iraq before the U.S. invasion. A source on Capitol Hill told me that anti-Iranian hawks are already making speeches and introducing bills to build the case for a military attack.
But after the disaster in Iraq, an invasion probably will not be the preferred course of military action against Iran. Although the Bush administration likes to flex its muscles, it does seem capable of learning—at least in a tactical sense. Any invasion of Iran would be a daunting task, especially with almost 150,000 U.S. forces tied down in the quagmires in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has two-and-a-half times the population of Iraq, almost four times the area of that country, and is mountainous rather than flat. If the challenge of winning a counterinsurgency war against the mainly secular Sunnis in Iraq seems impossible now, fighting the fanatical religious zealots in Iran on unfavorable terrain would likely prove to be horrific.
Instead, the Bush administration would probably opt for air strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear sites. Although aerial bombardment might set back the Iranian nuclear program, it would probably not eliminate it. After Israeli air strikes against the Iraq’s Osirik nuclear reactor in 1981, nuclear aspirants dispersed and hid atomic facilities, buried them, or placed them in highly populated areas where bombing would kill many innocent civilians. If the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is any indication, U.S. intelligence on Iranian nuclear facilities probably isn’t that good, and air strikes would thus likely be ineffective. Why then would the Bush administration go down this route? Because much of government policy—U.S. or other—is to show the domestic audience that something is being done about a problem, especially when the threat from an external “enemy” has been embellished. With a long confrontation with Iran and eventual air strikes, the Bush administration could distract attention from the deteriorating situations in Iraq and Afghanistan for many months without risking yet another quagmire in Iran.
First, only mild international economic sanctions will likely be placed on Iran. Here the United States will fall victim to the first consequence of its invasion of Iraq. Other countries are suspicious that a hard-line approach against Iran will encourage the United States to do what it did against Iraq. Yet economic sanctions, no matter how strong, will be unlikely to compel the Iranian government to get rid of its nuclear program, which has wide public support in Iran. The second consequence of the invasion of Iraq, a country that was not even close to getting a nuclear weapon, was that Iran, which was much closer to that goal, saw how the U.S. superpower treated non-nuclear “rogue” states and accelerated its nuclear program to acquire the ultimate deterrent against the United States and Israel. No wonder Iran has been unwilling to accept Western trade and investment goodies to negotiate away its nuclear program.
But if the aggressive Bush administration is prone to military action, why is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new Iranian president, making inflammatory comments that could allow the United States to portray him as madman who requires a military drubbing? Perhaps Ahmadinejad realizes that a U.S. invasion is unlikely and that air strikes by the “Great Satan” would be ineffectual but would help him win over a young population that is tired of Islamic radicalism and wants to reestablish ties with the world. Thus, U.S. air strikes could benefit both the U.S. and Iranian governments at the expense of their peoples.
Instead the U.S. should accept the fact that Iran will probably obtain nuclear weapons and use the massive U.S. nuclear arsenal to deter the use of any puny Iranian nuclear force. Something similar was done when radical Maoist China obtained nuclear weapons in the mid- to late-1960s. Also, “the return of the radicals”—as represented by Ahmadinejad—will likely generate a counterrevolution among the Iranian people, who want to reconnect with the world, according to Professor Jack A. Goldstone of George Mason University, an expert on revolutions. According to Goldstone, this counterrevolution happened in China after radicals returned during the Cultural Revolution and in the Soviet Union after Stalin’s purges.
So instead of the Bush administration’s activist stance against the fulminating Iranian regime and its nuclear program, perhaps a “do-nothing” policy would achieve better results with much less cost in blood and treasure.
Military Action Against Iran?
by Ivan Eland
The Bush administration is moving toward military action against Iran, despite its current public support for multilateral diplomacy. Surprisingly, that eventual outcome may also comport with the interests of the Iranian government. The real losers in this arms-length conspiracy between the two hostile governments will be the American and Iranian peoples.
For the moment, the Bush administration is playing a more sophisticated diplomatic game against Iran than it did during the ham-handed run-up to the unpopular invasion of Iraq, which led to U.S. isolation from most of the rest of the world. The administration has allowed France, Britain, and Germany to take the lead in trying to negotiate away Iran’s nuclear program. Having failed in that effort, the Europeans are now on board with an International Atomic Energy Agency referral to the United Nations Security Council for the possible imposition of sanctions. The United States is now working to convince China and Russia that stiffer actions against Iran are warranted. Rather than taking rash, almost unilateral, action as it did against Iraq, the Bush administration apparently has learned its lesson and seems to be willing to let multilateral diplomacy play out in order to build international support for a military response.
President Bush has said that Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and recently used the term “grave” to describe the threat from Iran, eerily, the same term he used to describe the threat from Iraq before the U.S. invasion. A source on Capitol Hill told me that anti-Iranian hawks are already making speeches and introducing bills to build the case for a military attack.
But after the disaster in Iraq, an invasion probably will not be the preferred course of military action against Iran. Although the Bush administration likes to flex its muscles, it does seem capable of learning—at least in a tactical sense. Any invasion of Iran would be a daunting task, especially with almost 150,000 U.S. forces tied down in the quagmires in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has two-and-a-half times the population of Iraq, almost four times the area of that country, and is mountainous rather than flat. If the challenge of winning a counterinsurgency war against the mainly secular Sunnis in Iraq seems impossible now, fighting the fanatical religious zealots in Iran on unfavorable terrain would likely prove to be horrific.
Instead, the Bush administration would probably opt for air strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear sites. Although aerial bombardment might set back the Iranian nuclear program, it would probably not eliminate it. After Israeli air strikes against the Iraq’s Osirik nuclear reactor in 1981, nuclear aspirants dispersed and hid atomic facilities, buried them, or placed them in highly populated areas where bombing would kill many innocent civilians. If the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is any indication, U.S. intelligence on Iranian nuclear facilities probably isn’t that good, and air strikes would thus likely be ineffective. Why then would the Bush administration go down this route? Because much of government policy—U.S. or other—is to show the domestic audience that something is being done about a problem, especially when the threat from an external “enemy” has been embellished. With a long confrontation with Iran and eventual air strikes, the Bush administration could distract attention from the deteriorating situations in Iraq and Afghanistan for many months without risking yet another quagmire in Iran.
First, only mild international economic sanctions will likely be placed on Iran. Here the United States will fall victim to the first consequence of its invasion of Iraq. Other countries are suspicious that a hard-line approach against Iran will encourage the United States to do what it did against Iraq. Yet economic sanctions, no matter how strong, will be unlikely to compel the Iranian government to get rid of its nuclear program, which has wide public support in Iran. The second consequence of the invasion of Iraq, a country that was not even close to getting a nuclear weapon, was that Iran, which was much closer to that goal, saw how the U.S. superpower treated non-nuclear “rogue” states and accelerated its nuclear program to acquire the ultimate deterrent against the United States and Israel. No wonder Iran has been unwilling to accept Western trade and investment goodies to negotiate away its nuclear program.
But if the aggressive Bush administration is prone to military action, why is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new Iranian president, making inflammatory comments that could allow the United States to portray him as madman who requires a military drubbing? Perhaps Ahmadinejad realizes that a U.S. invasion is unlikely and that air strikes by the “Great Satan” would be ineffectual but would help him win over a young population that is tired of Islamic radicalism and wants to reestablish ties with the world. Thus, U.S. air strikes could benefit both the U.S. and Iranian governments at the expense of their peoples.
Instead the U.S. should accept the fact that Iran will probably obtain nuclear weapons and use the massive U.S. nuclear arsenal to deter the use of any puny Iranian nuclear force. Something similar was done when radical Maoist China obtained nuclear weapons in the mid- to late-1960s. Also, “the return of the radicals”—as represented by Ahmadinejad—will likely generate a counterrevolution among the Iranian people, who want to reconnect with the world, according to Professor Jack A. Goldstone of George Mason University, an expert on revolutions. According to Goldstone, this counterrevolution happened in China after radicals returned during the Cultural Revolution and in the Soviet Union after Stalin’s purges.
So instead of the Bush administration’s activist stance against the fulminating Iranian regime and its nuclear program, perhaps a “do-nothing” policy would achieve better results with much less cost in blood and treasure.
January 24, 2006
'Disarming' Tehran
by Gordon Prather
President Bush will soon, once again, "take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat."
Here are selected points Bush made in such a discussion back in 2002:
"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions – its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations."
Wrong! By 1997, UN inspectors had concluded that Iraq was effectively in full compliance with all relevant Security Council resolutions. Hence, Council members called for the lifting of UN sanctions. President Clinton announced he would never allow the sanctions to be lifted so long as Saddam Hussein was in power.
"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today – and we do – does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"
And how did "we" know that?
"In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected."
But the defector Bush refers to was General Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, who told the UN exactly the opposite of what Bush implies. Kamel revealed that by the end of 1991, all of Iraqis "weapons of mass destruction," as well as the means for producing more, had been destroyed – either in the Gulf War itself or on Saddam's orders in the immediate aftermath.
Hence, by 1997, UN inspectors reported to the Security Council that they had verified that Kamel spoke the truth – "Nothing remained."
"Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. …
"The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities – only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist."
Bush is apparently referring to Clinton's five-day cruise-missile assault on Saddam's palaces in 1998. Of course, by then Clinton already knew that Saddam had completely disarmed and had made no attempt to re-arm. Clinton's outrageous assault on Baghdad was a blatant attempt to kill Saddam Hussein.
"Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the UN to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. … And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.
"The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself – or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."
In 2002, the "grave threat to peace" was the nuclear weapons program Bush almost certainly knew the Iraqis were not pursuing.
And by the time Bush launched his war of aggression against Iraq, the whole world certainly knew, because the International Atomic Energy Agency had certified it.
This time, the "grave threat to peace" will be the nuclear weapons program Bush charges the Iranians are pursuing, right under the sensors of IAEA inspectors to whom the Iranians voluntarily gave more than two years ago the kind of access Bush demanded of – and was granted by – the Iraqis back in 2002.
And Bush's 2006 speech about the Iranian "nucular" threat will likely be replete with other statements that are – at best – misleading, and deliberately so.
In particular, "America" may want the UN to be an "effective organization" that helps keep the peace, but Bush and the Cheney Cabal certainly don't.
In fact, historians will no doubt marvel at their success – in the pursuit of Iraq's nonexistent nukes – in partially undermining international treaties (such as the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons), international agencies (such as the IAEA), the UN Security Council, and the UN Charter itself.
Will Bush finish the UN demolition job by "leading the world in confronting the [nonexistent] Iranian nuke threat"?
Stay tuned.
'Disarming' Tehran
by Gordon Prather
President Bush will soon, once again, "take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat."
Here are selected points Bush made in such a discussion back in 2002:
"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions – its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations."
Wrong! By 1997, UN inspectors had concluded that Iraq was effectively in full compliance with all relevant Security Council resolutions. Hence, Council members called for the lifting of UN sanctions. President Clinton announced he would never allow the sanctions to be lifted so long as Saddam Hussein was in power.
"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today – and we do – does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"
And how did "we" know that?
"In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected."
But the defector Bush refers to was General Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, who told the UN exactly the opposite of what Bush implies. Kamel revealed that by the end of 1991, all of Iraqis "weapons of mass destruction," as well as the means for producing more, had been destroyed – either in the Gulf War itself or on Saddam's orders in the immediate aftermath.
Hence, by 1997, UN inspectors reported to the Security Council that they had verified that Kamel spoke the truth – "Nothing remained."
"Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. …
"The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities – only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist."
Bush is apparently referring to Clinton's five-day cruise-missile assault on Saddam's palaces in 1998. Of course, by then Clinton already knew that Saddam had completely disarmed and had made no attempt to re-arm. Clinton's outrageous assault on Baghdad was a blatant attempt to kill Saddam Hussein.
"Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the UN to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. … And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.
"The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself – or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."
In 2002, the "grave threat to peace" was the nuclear weapons program Bush almost certainly knew the Iraqis were not pursuing.
And by the time Bush launched his war of aggression against Iraq, the whole world certainly knew, because the International Atomic Energy Agency had certified it.
This time, the "grave threat to peace" will be the nuclear weapons program Bush charges the Iranians are pursuing, right under the sensors of IAEA inspectors to whom the Iranians voluntarily gave more than two years ago the kind of access Bush demanded of – and was granted by – the Iraqis back in 2002.
And Bush's 2006 speech about the Iranian "nucular" threat will likely be replete with other statements that are – at best – misleading, and deliberately so.
In particular, "America" may want the UN to be an "effective organization" that helps keep the peace, but Bush and the Cheney Cabal certainly don't.
In fact, historians will no doubt marvel at their success – in the pursuit of Iraq's nonexistent nukes – in partially undermining international treaties (such as the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons), international agencies (such as the IAEA), the UN Security Council, and the UN Charter itself.
Will Bush finish the UN demolition job by "leading the world in confronting the [nonexistent] Iranian nuke threat"?
Stay tuned.
Walker's World: The price for stopping Iran nukes
By Martin Walker
UPI Editor
Published January 23, 2006
HERZLIYA, Israel -- A rumble of alarm went through the hall when Israel's annual Herzliya security conference was told Sunday that any diplomatic settlement to halt Iran's nuclear development plans would probably have to include an Israeli commitment to a nuclear-free Middle East.
Sir Michael Quinlan, the former top official at Britain's Ministry of Defense, was spelling out the terms and procedures that would almost certainly be required -- short of military action -- to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. And as he went through the list, which included the kinds of economic damage the world might have to face if economic sanctions were to be credible, a gloom settled over the conference.
China, Russia and India would probably have to be persuaded to risk significant financial loss, he began.
Then the United States, NATO and Israel would probably be required to give security guarantees to Iran that there would be no attempt at regime change, along with pled
By Martin Walker
UPI Editor
Published January 23, 2006
HERZLIYA, Israel -- A rumble of alarm went through the hall when Israel's annual Herzliya security conference was told Sunday that any diplomatic settlement to halt Iran's nuclear development plans would probably have to include an Israeli commitment to a nuclear-free Middle East.
Sir Michael Quinlan, the former top official at Britain's Ministry of Defense, was spelling out the terms and procedures that would almost certainly be required -- short of military action -- to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. And as he went through the list, which included the kinds of economic damage the world might have to face if economic sanctions were to be credible, a gloom settled over the conference.
China, Russia and India would probably have to be persuaded to risk significant financial loss, he began.
Then the United States, NATO and Israel would probably be required to give security guarantees to Iran that there would be no attempt at regime change, along with pled