Iran ends snap nuclear inspections Christian Science Monitor
In a move likely to increase tensions between the West and Iran, Iranian officials Monday sent a letter to the United Nations saying it wanted the organization to "remove by mid-month any seals and surveillance systems on their uranium enrichment plant , parts of which were still being monitored by international inspectors." The Los Angeles Times reports the letter also said that Iran would end all voluntary compliance with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran had been voluntarily complying with a set of rules that allowed for inspections on short notice on many facilities that are a part of Iran's nuclear energy program. Now that access to these facilities will end.
International Community Faces Decision Over Iran's Nuclear Program Voice of America
Iran's inspection curb hobbles key IAEA atom probe Washington Post
IranMania News - Forbes - Los Angeles Times - People's Daily Online - all 2,317 related »

Ex-U.N. Inspector: Decision Already Made To Attack Iran

Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

By Brandon Garcia

Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11812.htm

Russian Ultranationalist Leader Expects U.S. to Attack Iran in Late March

By MosNews

He went on to add that the publication of Prophet Muhammad cartoons in the European press was a planned action by the U.S. whose aim is “to provoke a row between Europe and the Islamic world”. “It will all end with European countries thanking the United States and paying, and giving soldiers,” he said.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11828.htm

===
Beware The Ides Of March

Soothsayer's warning before Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44BC.

By Mathew Maavak

If Julius - regarded as one of the greatest Caesars - couldn’t take note, the leader of the current superpower should. This March, his actions may spark off a conflict from which the world might never recover.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11826.htm

Iran capable of nuclear bomb: US :

Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control, "I would say that Iran does have the capability to develop nuclear weapons and the delivery means for those weapons,"
http://tinyurl.com/82hcx


'Iran is world's most serious threat since WWII':

Israel's Ambassador to the United States Danny Ayalon said on Tuesday morning that Iran is the biggest problem facing the world since World War II.
http://tinyurl.com/dgkmw


Hawks have warplanes ready if the nuclear diplomacy fails:

US forces virtually surround Iran with military air bases to the west in Afghanistan, to the east in Iraq, Turkey and Qatar and the south in Oman and Diego Garcia. The US Navy also has a carrier group in the Gulf, armed with attack aircraft and Tomahawk cruise missiles. B2 stealth bombers flying from mainland America could also be used.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/rticle11816.htm


Norman Solomon: The Iran Crisis -- "Diplomacy" as a Launch Pad for Missiles :

Air attacks on targets in Iran are very likely. Yet many antiwar Americans seem eager to believe that won't happen.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11813.htm


U.S. Poll: Growing Number of People Fear Iran :

More people in this country now rate Iran as the biggest threat to the U.S., 27 percent, than say that about any other country, including North Korea, China and Iraq, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...5600595,00.html


Partners in War: The Hillary and George Show:

There aren't many elected officials in Washington who want to throw the gantlet down on Iran more than Hillary Clinton. The New York Senator believes the president has been too soft on the militant Islamic country, claiming that Bush has played down the threat of a nuclear-armed Tehran.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11821.htm


Russian position on Iran remains unchanged - Rosatom chief:

Russia will support any country's right of access to cheap nuclear energy on the condition that it observes the nonproliferation regime, he said.
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.htm..._issue=11461385


Russia Has Almost No Leverage On Iran-Lawmaker :

A senior Russian lawmaker said Tuesday that Moscow has practically no leverage over Iran - an unusually frank statement dampening hopes that Russian-Iranian talks set for next week could help ease tensions over Iran's nuclear program.
http://tinyurl.com/7ffcm


Iran-India pipeline uncertain :

India's decision to vote to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council puts into doubt the future of a gas pipeline the two countries were looking to build through Pakistan.
http://tinyurl.com/dvohz


US 'encouraged' by India's Iran vote:

Describing the Indo-US civil nuclear deal as “a very important arrangement for future,” the US has said it was working with India to make it a win-win for both countries.
http://tinyurl.com/8ao5o

IRAN NUKES

Putin Believes IAEA Move On Iran 'Balanced'
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Putin_Beli...n_Balanced.html

Moscow, Russia (AFP) Feb 07, 2006 - The recent decision by the UN's nuclear safety agency to report Iran to the Security Council is "balanced" and encourages further efforts to resolve peacefully the standoff over Tehran's nuclear program, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday.

Iran Leader Calls For Nuclear Demo
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Leade...clear_Demo.html

Zhaoxing Says Diplomacy Still Best Solution In Iran Nuke Dispute
http://www.sinodaily.com/reports/Zhaoxing_...ke_Dispute.html

Americans Believe Iran Is Biggest Threat To US
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Americans_...reat_To_US.html

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?Stor...07-011959-3485r

Outside View: The end of soft power
By Amitai Etzioni
UPI Outside View Commentator
Published February 7, 2006


WASHINGTON -- Iran's unilaterally breaking of the seals on its uranium enrichment facilities casts grave doubts on the European attempt to show the world that major conflicts can be ended through multilateral negotiations and subtle diplomacy, without threatening, let alone exercising, the use of force.

Ever since the invasion of Iraq, numerous European public intellectuals and elected officials have severely criticized the Bush Administration for its unilateral and bullying approach to the world. The use of "soft power" has been all the rage. It was to be a foreign policy based on legitimate moves and the "power of attraction" -- as Joe Nye, Jr. the celebrated advocate of the term has defined it. Nations were to be convinced or given incentives to act in line with established international norms, rather than coerced.


Iran for a while played along; it suggested more negotiations, floated new proposals, and won time for its nuclear development (possibly including a clandestine program) -- while giving the Europeans the run around. Finally, in January 2006, even Iran seemed to have tired of the game and it moved ahead in open defiance of its previous international commitments. One may say that breaking the seals is merely an attempt to up the ante before a final settlement is reached. However, there is no indication that Iran is even willing to limit its nuclear program by relying on fuel to be provided by an international consortium. (The idea calls for Iran to receive enriched uranium from abroad instead of manufacturing it, so it will be able to produce all the energy it wishes -- which Iran claims is its only goal -- and still be unable to siphon off the material required for bomb making. The international suppliers of enriched uranium would ensure that it is used only for peaceful purposes and expatriate the spent fuel, another bomb making material).

The limits of soft power have further been highlighted by the fact that the Europeans, which took the lead in dealing with Iran, are at loss as to what next to do. Economic sanctions -- unlike economic incentives such as credits and favorable trade terms -- are punitive and do not qualify as soft power. Moreover, they are difficult to impose, make stick, and render effective.

To initiate economic sanctions the IAEA must refer the matter to the U.N.; however, its 35-member board is reluctant to proceed. If it does, China may still veto the needed Security Council resolutions or water them down. Were sanctions to be imposed, experience in the Middle East shows that they often enrich the smugglers rather then cramp the styles of the governments involved, and that the population suffers rather than the elites. Iran, which is flooded with petro dollars, is in a strong position to resist sanctions as well as impose some of its own by withholding oil.

Ergo, down the road, either military force will have to be employed or -- if this is impractical -- Iran will become a full-fledged nuclear power. In either case, soft power will be shown up for what it is: by itself a very insufficient instrument of international relations. It turns out that just as hard power does best when preceded and accompanied by soft power, so the other way around: soft power works much better when it is known that if all else fails, hard power might well follow. There is room to rely much more on legitimate international institutions, allies, and diplomacy than the Bush Administration has done. However, there is a much greater need for hard power back up than the Europeans have been willing to acknowledge.

Iran is hardly the first case in point. The U.N. has passed hundreds of resolutions censuring nations but many have been wantonly ignored with almost no consequences, because the U.N. has so little hard power of its own. Indeed the massive slaughter in East Timor did not stop until Australian troops intervened and likewise until British troops marched into Sierra Leone and Americans into Liberia and so on.

In short, the humbling of the Europeans by Iran shows that soft power by itself will not do; it must be combined with a hard backing. The time has come for the Europeans to swallow their sense of superiority and recognize that they must work with the U.S. if a nuclear Iran is to be stopped and the numerous other international challenges that do not yield to soft power alone are to be met.

Little know PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative) might serve as a model initiated and headed by the U.S. It involves the navies and Intelligence Services of 60 nations, working to stop traffic in nuclear arms and materials on the High Seas. But it also has the full blessing of the U.N. (under Resolution 1540). Thus hard and soft power are combined. Let the era of mixed power begin.

--

(Amitai Etzioni is professor of international relations at The George Washington University and author of From Empire to Community (Palgrave, 2004.)

--

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of World Peace Herald or United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20347&l=i&size=1&hd=0


Why Russia betrayed Iran
Mike Whitney

February 6, 2006

Many people are probably wondering why Russia caved in at the IAEA board meeting and agreed to have Iran sent before the UN Security Council. Russia, of course, is very familiar with Iran’s nuclear program (having worked with Iran on its nuclear power plants) and fully realizes that the Mullahs are not developing nuclear weapons.

So, why would they go along with the coercive maneuvering of the United States that is so clearly designed to pave the way for war?

Obviously, the Russian foreign minister’s comment that the referral to the UNSC is "only a warning" doesn’t adequately explain why Russia would have placed its ally in such grave danger of a preemptive attack.

So why did Russia capitulate?

It may be, in the words of the Godfather, that the Bush administration made Putin "a deal he couldn’t refuse".

Russia’s real goal has always been to reclaim its contract-rights to explore and extract oil from the huge West Qurna-2 oil-field. This apparently was part of a previous agreement that Lukoil made with Saddam that was ignored after the invasion by American forces.

According to the Boston Globe, Lukoil president Vagit Alekperov met with Iraq’s oil minister Ibrahim al-Ulloum to firm up "an understanding" about Russia’s $6 billion contract to develop the West Qurna-2 oil field.

Was there a quid pro quo between the Bush administration and Putin?

Iraq’s oil minister is presumably just following Washington’s directives in reviving the moribund Russian contract. But it is striking that Bush would surrender such an enormous trophy as one of Iraq’s main oil fields just to secure Russia’s vote. After all, the administration doesn’t give away oil fields to anyone.

Why?

Does the administration really need a war with Iran so desperately?

Yes.

Even the control of oil is not nearly as critical to the US as maintaining its continued dominance in the exchange of oil in greenbacks. If Iran is allowed to open its oil bourse (exchange) in March and openly compete with the US’s monopoly on trading oil in petrodollars, the central banks across the globe will dump hundreds of billions of dollars overnight, and the American economy will collapse.

This is a problem Washington takes very seriously and we can expect to see Democrats and Republicans alike falling in line behind Bush for a war with Iran.

The reason the United States is the unchallenged leader of the global economic system is because it has a stranglehold on the oil trade. Even the oil itself, or the price at which it is sold, is of less importance than the means by which it is traded. The nation that controls the currency, determines the rules of the game. It forces other nations to stockpile mountains of its debt-ridden script, while producing oceans of red ink. America’s fat-cat bankers, corporatists, and politicos are now living off the profits from sweatshops in the developing world that prop up the ailing dollar so they can purchase oil. Iran’s plan to sell its oil in petro-euros threatens to break up this massive extortion-ring and put the greenback nose-to-nose with its global competitor; the euro.

The Lukoil transaction should prove to skeptics that Washington will do anything to prevent the opening of Iran’s oil exchange, even if it means initiating hostilities against another peaceful nation. Bush is determined to preserve the present economic-system of global-servitude via debt and protect the ongoing supremacy of the greenback.

The UN Security Council is just the last step before military operations begin.


Courtesy and Copyright © Mike Whitney





:: Article nr. 20347 sent on 07-feb-2006 00:02 ECT


:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=20347

:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_162...01301700000.htm
India committed to Iran pipeline project: Deora

Indo-Asian News Service

New Delhi, February 8, 2006

Putting at rest the speculation that New Delhi was having second thoughts on the gas pipeline project with Iran, new Petroleum Minister Murli Deora said on Wednesday that India was committed to the tri-nation project and would make efforts to ensure that it fructifies.

"We are committed to the project and are making the same efforts, as former petroleum minister Mani Shankar Aiyar did, to continue with the talks and hope that the project will fructify," he told on the sidelines of a meeting with Maharashtra Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh.

Deora said that his Pakistani counterpart Amanullah Khan Jadoon would arrive on February 17 for two-day talks and "we'll make use of his visit to discuss the project".

Asked when the talks will reach the trilateral ministerial level, he said that it would take time. The talks have, however, reached the trilateral stage at the technical level, with the first round having been held late last month and another round scheduled in Islamabad.

Asked if there were apprehensions that India's vote against Iran's nuclear programme would impact the pipeline project, the minister said he didn't have any.

On Iran not having ratified a deal to supply five million tonnes of liquefied natural gas from 2009, he said that the External Affairs ministry would be taking up the issue.

"We hope to find a solution soon," Deora added.

Blair: "British Troops In Iran? We Can Never Say Never"

TONY Blair yesterday refused to rule out a British military invasion of Iran.
http://tinyurl.com/by8jx


UK: Military action on a nuclear Iran not inevitable:

Military action against Iran is not inevitable even if the Islamic state develops the technology to build a nuclear bomb, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said on Wednesday.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11835.htm


Selling a war:

Iran Greatest Threat, Most Americans Think :

President Bush has been warning about Tehran's nuclear program - The poll found two-thirds or more of Americans think if Iran develops nuclear weapons, it's likely to attack Israel, Europe, or the U.S.
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/2274236.html


Iran's missile tech suppliers named :

Two German businessmen, a former Russian military officer and North Korea are among those helping Iran develop missiles that the West fears could one day carry nuclear warheads, diplomats and intelligence officials say.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060208/ts_nm/...iran_germany_dc


Iran designs tunnel that could one day be used for atomic test:

Iranian engineers have completed sophisticated drawings of a deep subterranean shaft, according to officials who have examined classified documents in the hands of U.S. intelligence for more than 20 months.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/3643805.html


Fixing The Intelligence For War With Iran:

State Department sees exodus of weapons experts:

State Department officials appointed by President Bush have sidelined key career weapons experts and replaced them with less experienced political operatives who share the White House and Pentagon's distrust of international negotiations and treaties.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11829.htm


More false evidence?

Suspected drawings of nuclear test site found in Iran: diplomats :

The document was part of US intelligence which has been made available to the UN nuclear watchdog and which has been presented to Iran, said a diplomat, who asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp.../192275/1/.html


An Interview with British MP George Galloway:

"If I have to choose between Iran and George Bush, I choose Iran."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11839.htm

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB10Ak01.html
China's energy insecurity and Iran's crisis
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has gone on record stating that the fear of soaring energy prices should not deter the international community from imposing comprehensive sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

That is easier said than done, especially when looking at the dire economic and non-economic consequences of the current Iranian crisis for China, Iran's energy partner.

In fact, the China-Iran connection transcends energy and covers a whole spectrum of economic activities - dam-building, steel mills, ship-building, transport and dozens of other projects. At present, more than 100 Chinese firms are involved in Iran, also cooperating to develop ports, jetties, airports in six cities, mine-development projects and, of course, oil and gas. Trade between the two countries in 2005 hit a new record of US$9.5 billion, compared with $7.5 billion in 2004.

The world's media are nowadays awash with news of China's energy dependency on Iran weighing heavy on its policy considerations in light of the possible showdown at the United Nations Security Council next month over Iran's nuclear program and suspicions that it might want to develop a nuclear weapon - something Tehran vigorously denies.

China currently gets 13.6% of its oil imports from Iran. Beijing is also in the process of importing Iranian natural gas. China's plan is to become a comprehensive participant in exploration, drilling, petrochemicals, pipelines and other upstream and downstream services related to Iran's oil and gas industries (see China rocks the geopolitical boat, November 6, 2004).

As the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' second-largest oil supplier, with a unique location straddling two main energy hubs, the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf, invoking the notion of an "energy Silk Road" to China, Iran is a natural partner for China and its booming economy's increasing appetite for foreign oil. China's total energy consumption in 2004 was about 2.3 times that in 1980.

China's plans with Iran are both short-term and long-term; the latter includes a plan to secure a 386-kilometer pipeline connecting Iranian oil with another pipeline from Kazakhstan to China.

China's demand for a stable Iranian - and Persian Gulf - supply of oil and gas is critical for its rapidly growing economy. As the world's second-largest oil consumer in the world after the United States, China has been a net oil importer since 2003; its dependence on foreign oil reached 40% in 2004. According to the Energy Information Agency, China alone accounted for one-third of global oil-demand growth during the period 2001-04. Still, its total oil imports accounted only for 6.6% of the total global oil trade in 2004.

According to experts, China's growing hunger for oil has been driven mainly by three factors: the increasing demand for personal mobility and good transport; a growing chemical industry that relies on petroleum products as feedstock; and using diesel-fired power generators as short-term solutions to provide needed electricity on-site when there is a national or regional electricity shortage.

In the United States, there is considerable concern over a future US-China collision over energy. Last December, Joseph Lieberman, a high-ranking Democratic senator, raised the specter of military conflict between the two countries by stating: "We are heading towards two-thirds [reliance of] each country on ... foreign oil. Let's recognize this problem before it becomes an intense competition which can actually lead to military conflict."

Last year, because of strong objections by the US Congress, China's $18 billion bid for a share of the US energy pie, that is, its quest to procure Unocal, the ninth-largest US oil company, was frustrated. That episode has brought into sharp focus the potential zero-sum energy game between the US and China.

What worries China in this game is its heavy reliance on foreign intermediaries to transport most of its oil from the Middle East (where China obtained 45% of its imported oil in 2004) and Africa (which contributed to 29% of China's oil imports) to its ports, and its lack of navy capacity to protect oil cargoes on the high sea and patrol the Malacca Strait, through which four-fifths of its oil imports pass.

To compensate for its sources of energy security, China has engaged in a spirited energy diversification, production-sharing and other creative oil contracts around the world, as well as beefing up its military power projections by, among other things, developing Gwadar Port in Pakistan's Balochistan province at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, some 400km from the Strait of Hormuz, at the estimated cost of $1.16 billion.

Moreover, recently China consented to Iran's accession to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an observer, thus adding to the geostrategic dimension of its energy-led cooperation with Iran. Simultaneously, China's cooperation with other Persian Gulf countries - Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia - has increased dramatically recently. According to one China watcher penning in a recent issue of the Washington Quarterly, increased China-Saudi cooperation could translate into a weakening of the oil kingdom's US dependency.

Conspicuously absent in the various commentaries on China and the Middle East is any serious consideration of what is actually loudly talked about in Tehran these days, that is, China's potential to contribute to regional security arrangements.

Implications of the nuclear crisis for China
Given China's veto power in the Security Council, it has a major determining role in influencing the shape and outcome of the international "proto-crisis" over Iran's nuclear program.

China's decision to vote against Iran at the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting this month - resulting in Iran's referral to the Security Council - did not come as a big surprise to Tehran, since for more than two years top Chinese officials have been visiting Iran and in no unmistakable tone conveying the message that China would not sacrifice its huge trade interests with the West, the US in particular, over Iran.

Branding itself as a "force for peace", China has been working overtime to prevent the situation from deteriorating to the point of UN sanctions threatening the wellspring of its imported energy.

In the light of Iran's rejection of the IAEA move and threats of punitive UN measures against it, China must calculate the various unhappy scenarios involving serious disruption in the Iranian oil supply, not to mention the lesser threat of a more comprehensive disruption in oil flows from the Persian Gulf as a whole in a military scenario. It must factor those risks into its present options of how to behave at the Security Council when the matter arises next month, after the IAEA has presented its latest report on Iran to the UN.

Even a medium-intensity crisis recycling the present danger of escalation is harmful to China's economic interests and investments in Iran and the Persian Gulf, as it translates into higher energy prices and costlier premiums on insurance for oil and gas shipments to China. Fearing diplomatic isolation and a backlash should it exercise its veto in the face of a seemingly global consensus on the threats of Iranian nuclear proliferation, China might be willing to abstain at the Security Council, but likely as a result of a substantive quid pro quo with the US and Europe.

In turn, this raises the important question of what the US and Europe can put on the table that would possibly appease China. Certainly not much on the energy front, at least not directly. Indirectly, however, the US could push for Chinese participation in Iraqi oil or, similarly, a more meaningful China-Saudi cooperation. Yet it is doubtful that China would be content with such initiatives in the light of continuing instability in Iraq impeding its oil industry and the United States' own weariness of undue Chinese closeness to Saudi Arabia.

Hence the US might turn to alternative trade incentives, perhaps even an India-style promise of civil nuclear cooperation, since China is keen on a major push with several new nuclear reactors. But the nub of the problem is that with every move or initiative there are certain flip-sides that may, in fact, trump the original purpose - for example, how the India-US nuclear agreement has been sold in the US Congress as a sop toward deterring China. A similar deal with China for the sake of garnering its vote against Iran only complicates the United States' Asian and subcontinent strategy.

Nor should we be oblivious to the negative ramification on US-Russia relations, given that the old power competition between Moscow and Beijing has not altogether disappeared, irrespective of their recent joint military exercises and other contacts.

Clearly, the US can sweeten the pot with several related concessions, such as selling state-of-the-art coal-gasification material to China, leaning on Europe to ease some of its restrictions on China trade. But again, the million-dollar question is whether or not the sum of such incentives suffices to bring China on board for sanctions on Iran.

Perhaps not, which is why US policy has quickly veered in the military direction, as a timely prop in its current bargaining with China and Russia over Iran, the assumption being that these two Iran allies will go for sanctions as a lesser evil compared to outright military confrontation.

To their credit, both Moscow and Beijing have recognized the perils to their interests by the United States' scripted strategy against Iran, simultaneously warning the US not to threaten Iran. After all, Iran is not the poor, and strategically unimportant, former Yugoslavia, and the stakes are too high to let the US impose its will unilaterally.

Nonetheless, the United States' drive to deprive Iran of nuclear-weapons potential is not easily reversible and, henceforth, China's policymakers must include in their calculations the worst-case scenario imperiling their energy ties to Iran (at least for a while).

Since China has scanty strategic oil reserves of about 30 days, the "nightmare scenario" itself is a powerful motivating force for China to play crisis-prevention, and yet, since it has limited influence on Iran and the other players in this dangerous crisis, it must also consider the option of sacrificing some of its shared interests with the US for the sake of safeguarding its cherished energy stakes in the Middle East.

The latter form important facets of China's long-term ambitions as a global superpower. The real danger of deflating those ambitions by a deft US policy that would deny China one of its most important regional allies is unmistakable.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu.

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing .)

Iran may need force, warns Hurd :

Former Foreign Secretary Lord Hurd has said Britain cannot "realistically" rule out using military force against Iran over its nuclear programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4698066.stm

===
Russia confirms missile defence contract with Iran:

Amid the escalating crisis around Iran's nuclear programme, Russia said on Thursday that it will still arm Tehran with missiles that can secure nuclear facilities from attacks.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1408706.cms

===
U.S. shield blunts Israeli military option on Iran:

Israel has long pursued a policy of preemptive attack as its preferred form of defence. But when it comes to tackling arch-foe Iran, that option may have been put on hold under a protective "umbrella" on offer from the United States.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L09764669.htm

===
Iran poised to retaliate against UN referral:

Ahmadinejad vows his country will continue on the road to victory, labels Bush warmonger who should be put on trial.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=15628

===
Iran dismisses US threat over nukes:

"We are not afraid of attacks by the United States or by other countries on Iran's nuclear installations because we have nothing to hide, we have no installations to produce nuclear weapons," Iranian Vice President Esfandyar Rahim Mashaee said
http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/02/10/d60210012622.htm

===
Parallels Between Iran and Pre-War Iraq :

Iran is not Iraq, and the year 2006 is not the same as year 2003 for George Bush; but one cannot stop wondering about the uncanny similarities between Iraq at the verge of war, and the present state of affairs in Iran. Parallels are abound:
http://www.payvand.com/news/06/feb/1069.html

===
China says welcomes Iran-Russia nuclear talks:

China said on Thursday it welcomed talks between Iran and Russia next week on plans to defuse the crisis over Tehran's atomic programme, but refused to say whether it would join the meeting.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP103048.htm

February 10, 2006
Tehran Journal
In Iranian Eyes, the 'Cross-Eyed British' Are to Blame
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
TEHRAN, Feb. 7 — The Embassy of Denmark was attacked and pelted with gasoline bombs two days in a row because of the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper. The Austrian Embassy was stoned and all its windows were smashed for the same reason. The United States has been dubbed the World Oppressor, and Israel has always been at the top of the enemies list.

But to understand whom Iranians distrust most of all, you need only visit Bobby Sands Street. Named after the Irish republican who died of a hunger strike in 1981, the street runs right past the British Embassy in a busy neighborhood of Tehran.

A not-too-subtle finger in the eye.

"We have not seen anything other than bad things from the British since they stepped foot here 200 years ago," said Seyed Razi Abbassian, 72, a dealer in stamps and coins at a shop across from the street from the British Embassy. "We have no good memories of the British."

In an often bitterly divided country, Mr. Abbassian's outlook is one that unites Iranians of many social, economic and political classes.

The idea that Britain is behind much of what goes wrong in Iran is not just a conspiracy theory but also a prism through which to view events. Indeed, America — the Great Satan itself — is often portrayed as merely a hapless, muscle-bound child manipulated by smarter, craftier, more deceitful forces in London.

One European diplomat said he once received a gift from an Iranian child: a drawing of America as a marionette with Britain pulling the strings.

"For 200 years we have had a political relationship with the British," said Mansoureh Ettehadie, a history professor and writer. "They have never been innocent. There is a feeling in Iran that is widespread, that the British have not been blameless."

As Ms. Ettehadie intimated, there are sound historical reasons for the Iranians to suspect the British. Early in the 20th century, she said, Britain tussled with France and Russia over control of the country, and Britain's success in the south, and in dominating the rich oil fields, left a bad taste. She said, for example, that for many years, Iran did not even have its own central bank, but had to rely on the Imperial Bank to issue currency.

And as every Iranian schoolchild knows, it was the British who engineered the coup that brought to power the dictatorial Reza Shah Pahlavi, who founded the hated dynasty that lasted until the Shiite revolution in 1979.

Distrust of Britain is so ingrained in the public psyche — especially among the older generation — that it has been joked about, written about and even dismissed as paranoia, but never done away with. One of the most popular novels in Iran, "My Uncle Napoleon," is a comic love story spoofing how Iranians see a British hand in all dark deeds.

The book popularized the phrase, "This is the job of the cross-eyed British," which is often used here with a smile, and a wink. It can be said when bombs go off, or when there is really bad traffic.

While many Iranians are adept at poking fun at their Brit-fixation, the prevailing view also serves to complicate already tense relations between London and Tehran over such matters as the Iranian nuclear program. One Western diplomat, who asked not to be identified so as not to inflame his host country, said Iranians often raised the specter of "historical inequities" with Britain in diplomatic meetings.

Recently, as the United States and Britain and other European partners pressed for Iran to be referred to the United Nations Security Council for its nuclear activities, Iranian officials accused the British of some recent bombings and deadly plane crashes in Iran.

In each case, government officials said that Britain was not working alone, but in tandem with Israel and the United States. Nevertheless, Britain was the ringmaster.

If there is an event that still angers many, it is the coup in 1953 that ousted the prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, and reinstalled Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who had fled the country. Although the Central Intelligence Agency was involved in ousting Mr. Mossadegh, sentiment here holds that British intelligence pulled the strings.

"The British were responsible for ending Mossadegh's rule," said Mustafa Jahangard, 26, who runs a fruit and vegetable store in central Tehran. Asked who is disliked more in Iran, the United States or Britain, Mr. Jahangard first drew a distinction between the American people, who "are good," and the American government, which "is bad." No such distinction was made for the British.

"The British win in this competition," he said. "England is even worse. They are sneaky."

The anger and suspicions are widespread, and widely discussed. On Jan. 31, Resalat, an Iranian daily, ran an article about the bombings in Ahvaz beneath the headline: "England's Hand in Measures Against Our National Security."

"Britain, the old colonizer, has a hand in all of these criminal measures," the article said. "Another trick of the government of the old colonizer, England, is that whenever its secret intentions — in conspiring against others — are somehow revealed, it takes totally friendly positions, that are against America's positions, regarding Iran; and when everything is back to normal, it follows up its previous hostile positions."

The British Embassy occupies a large compound in Tehran and is tucked back inside, behind a tall brick wall. Reza Razavi said he had run his pen store on a corner, on the other side of the wall, for 12 years, and had never, to his knowledge, had a British customer from the embassy. He said it was easy to believe that the British were up to no good because of recent charges made public by Russia about a British diplomat caught working as a spy — and of course the Mossadegh affair.

As for all the negative deeds Iranians attribute to the Americans, he said, "If you think about it, America was under the British as well."



Copyright 2006The New York Times

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...11/ixworld.html
Iran plant 'has restarted its nuclear bomb-making equipment'
By Con Coughlin, Defence and Security Editor, in Washington
(Filed: 11/02/2006)

Iran's controversial Natanz uranium processing plant has successfully restarted the sophisticated equipment that could enable it to produce material for nuclear warheads, according to reports received by Western intelligence.


An aerial view of the Natanz plant
In the past few days Iranian nuclear scientists have reportedly restarted four of the centrifuges required to produce weapons-grade uranium, and have begun feeding them with uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas, a key component in the production of nuclear bombs.

This crucial development follows Iran's decision to withdraw its co-operation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna after the body decided last week to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council.

Iranian officials have moved quickly to obstruct the work of the UN nuclear inspectors still working in the country's nuclear facilities.

Intelligence officials say restrictions have been imposed on the inspectors' movements between the various facilities at Natanz.

They have been specifically excluded from those areas where the Iranians have announced they would resume uranium enrichment, and have ordered the UN inspectors to report to officials running the plant on a daily basis. Security cameras installed by IAEA officials to monitor key facilities have been disabled.

Having effectively excluded the UN inspection teams from the most sensitive sites, Iranian nuclear scientists have removed the seals from the P-2 centrifuges that Iran acquired from Pakistan through the secret nuclear network operated by Dr A Q Khan, the "father" of Pakistan's nuclear bomb.

They have also begun installing tanks in underground bunkers that are designed for industrial enrichment.

In previous submissions to the UN inspectors, the Iranians insisted they had acquired the P-2 centrifuges merely for research purposes, They have continued to insist that their nuclear programme is solely aimed at developing alternative energy sources.

However, a senior Western intelligence official said: "Iran's recent activity is a clear escalation of its attempts to enrich uranium to weapons grade. With the UN inspectors out of the way they are basically free to do as they please."

7 February 2006: Iran tells watchdog to end snap inspections
5 February 2006: Iran raises the nuclear stakes after being reported to UN
5 February 2006: US turns screw as Iran atom row goes to UN

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8531

February 11, 2006
Smoking Laptop

by Gordon Prather
Since February, 2003, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei and his inspectors at the International Atomic Energy Agency have been conducting intrusive investigations into Iran’s Safeguarded nuclear programs.

Since December, 2003, Iran has been voluntarily adhering to an (as yet) unratified Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement.

Furthermore, Iran has searched for and provided ElBaradei documentation of its past procurement activities for nuclear programs, going back two decades. Documentation that Iran had been under no obligation to provide the IAEA at the time, much less obligated to preserve for later inspection.

In effect, for more than two years Iran has been attempting to comply with a retroactive Additional Protocol.

Nevertheless, a year ago, ElBaradei publicly announced that – although he had found no indication that (a) there were any undeclared "source or special nuclear materials" in Iran nor that ( "source or special nuclear materials" were being or had ever been "used in furtherance of a military purpose" – he still had "concerns" that Iran had been unwilling to address.

ElBaradei still had concerns?

Perhaps it was time (in mid-July) for senior intelligence officials to brief ElBaradei and senior staff on some of the sensitive "intelligence" they had gleaned from a "stolen Iranian laptop computer."

However, ElBaradei didn’t buy their intelligence. "Sources close to the IAEA" said what they had been briefed on appeared to be aerodynamic design work for a ballistic missile reentry vehicle, which certainly couldn't contain a nuke if the Iranians didn't have any.

Bummer!

Unless "source or special nuclear materials" had been "used in furtherance of a military purpose" it was none of ElBaradei’s beeswax.

So, surprise, surprise.

Last week Dafna Linzer "revealed" that the smoking-laptop had, indeed, contained evidence that was ElBaradei’s beeswax.

According to Linzer;

"In the spring of 2001, a small design firm opened shop on the outskirts of Tehran to begin work for what appears to have been its only client – the Iranian Republican Guard. Over the next two years, the staff at Kimeya Madon completed a set of technical drawings for a small uranium-conversion facility, according to four officials who reviewed the documents.

"Several sources with firsthand knowledge of the original documents said the facility, if constructed, would give Iran additional capabilities to produce a substance known as UF4, or "green salt," an intermediate product in the conversion of uranium to a gas. Further refined in a large-scale enrichment plant, such as the one Iran says it intends to build for its energy program, the material could become usable for the core of a bomb."

According to Linzer, the CIA has had the smoking-gun laptop for twenty months, but it was not until last December that the CIA provided the IAEA the "intelligence" about the Green Salt Project and its alleged link to the Iranian Republican Guards.

Whereupon President Bush immediately called for an emergency meeting of the IAEA Board to consider an "update brief," [.pdf] dated January 31, 2006, prepared by ElBaradei’s deputy for safeguards, which included – among other things – these paragraphs about the Green Salt Project:

"On 5 December 2005, the Agency reiterated its request for a meeting to discuss information that had been made available to the Agency about alleged undeclared studies, known as the Green Salt Project, concerning the conversion of uranium dioxide into UF4 ("green salt"), as well as tests related to high explosives and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle, all of which could have a military nuclear dimension and which appear to have administrative interconnections.

"In the course of the meeting, which took place on 27 January 2006, the Agency presented for Iran’s review a copy of a process flow diagram related to bench scale conversion and communications related to the project.

"Iran reiterated that all national nuclear projects are conducted by the AEOI, that the allegations were baseless and that it would provide further clarifications later."

The Iranians were first confronted with the alleged Green Salt Project on January 27, and the IAEA Board issued its resolution [.pdf] on February 4.

The resolution did not "refer" Iran’s nuclear program to the Security Council for possible action, nor did it contain any mention of a military UF4 project.

Why not? Perhaps, because the just-in-time discovery on the Iranian laptop of a link between the IRG and UF4 production doesn’t pass the smell test.

Obviously – much too obviously – someone wanted the IAEA Board to be able to charge that Iran had used "source or special nuclear material in furtherance of a military purpose."

February 12, 2006
Bracing for Penalties, Iran Threatens to Withdraw From Nuclear Treaty
By NAZILA FATHI
TEHRAN, Feb. 11 — Iran's president warned on Saturday that Iran could withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if international pressure increased over its nuclear program.

His threat was a significant escalation of the government's previous position that it would only stop complying with spot inspections of military installations and sites it has not declared to be part of its nuclear program. The warning also raised the specter that Iran was considering following a strategy set by North Korea three years ago.

In a speech to tens of thousand of demonstrators who had gathered to mark the 27th anniversary of the Islamic revolution, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also staked out a broader path of resistance if penalties are imposed against Iran.

Evoking the possibility of penalties and international ostracism, he insisted that the country would continue its nuclear activities and urged Iranians to brace for tough times.

"The Islamic Republic has continued its program within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the nonproliferation treaty," he said in the speech, which was broadcast live on state television. "But if we see that you want to use the NPT regulations to deprive us of our rights, know that the people will revise their policy in this regard."

"I ask our dear people to prepare themselves for a great struggle," he added, evoking the possibility of international penalties. "Fasten your seat belts and pull up your sleeves."

In interviews in recent days, American and European officials have said they have been looking for signs that Mr. Ahmadinejad's government might abandon the nonproliferation treaty.

American officials and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, have said that the treaty provision allowing countries to renounce it, with just 90 days' notice, constitutes a major flaw in the effort to keep nations from becoming nuclear powers.

That provision essentially allows nations to build up a civilian nuclear infrastructure under the protection of the treaty, and then convert it to military use as soon as the country abandons the treaty.

"It's the obvious hole in the treaty, and the Iranians may choose to exploit it," one senior American official said this week, before Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech. "From their perspective, the North Koreans didn't pay much of a price."

The Central Intelligence Agency has estimated that the North Koreans have produced fuel enough for six or more weapons since they left the treaty three years ago. But those are rough estimates, based more on the country's ability than knowledge of what they have produced, and it is unclear whether that fuel has been converted to weapons. Iran is further away from that ability.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Robert Joseph, the State Department official in charge of fighting nuclear proliferation, said that "a nuclear-armed Iran with this leadership does represent an existential threat to the state of Israel."

"We ought to make very clear not only that we find that repugnant," Mr. Joseph said, "but that that has policy significance, that that hardens our view, that we and the entire international community must band together and prevent this regime from acquiring nuclear weapons."

But he said he had no clear idea of when Iran might obtain a weapon.

The governing board of the atomic energy agency passed a resolution this month to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council for possible penalties over its nuclear program. But the resolution gave Iran until March to halt its atomic research and development work.

On Thursday, Secretary General Kofi Annan also called on Iran to freeze those activities and pursue a proposal by Moscow to enrich Iranian uranium in Russia.

But in his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad again discounted proposals by Europe and Russia that countries could sell enriched nuclear fuel to Iran rather than have the country produce it itself.

"According to international regulations, every country that sells aircraft to other countries is required to sell its spare parts as well," he said. "For 27 years you have refused to give us aircraft spare parts. How can we be sure that you will give us nuclear fuel?"

Iran immediately reduced its cooperation with the United Nations nuclear agency after the referral resolution, saying that it would end compliance with the nuclear treaty's Additional Protocol, which allows intrusive inspections of nuclear sites. The government also announced that it was preparing to resume the enriching of uranium, which it had suspended for more than two years.

But at the time, some Iranian officials said they would not leave the treaty, in part because they feared that would bolster the West's argument that Tehran was racing toward production of a weapon.

All of Iran's senior officials have emphasized the country's right to have a peaceful nuclear energy program. But on Saturday, statements by two senior Iranian figures continued to show that differences were emerging over how to handle international pressure.

At the same rally where the president called for complete resistance regardless of the cost, former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is head of the powerful Expediency Council, said that "instead of relying on strength, we must try to fix the situation wisely," the news agency ISNA reported.

A former speaker of Parliament, Mehdi Karroubi, told demonstrators that officials must refrain from "imprudent" policies and must try to adopt dialogue and act wisely.

In his speech at the rally, Mr. Ahmadinejad repeated his much-publicized claims that the Holocaust was a myth, and he made reference to the wave of demonstrations in the Arab world over the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in some Western newspapers.

"In some European countries and in America insulting Prophet Muhammad is acceptable," he said. "But questioning the Holocaust and formation of the Zionist regime is a crime. This is a myth with which the Zionists have blackmailed other countries and carried out their crimes for 60 years in the occupied territories."

He continued: "The real Holocaust is happening in Palestine where the Zionists are killing Palestinians. If you are looking for the crimes of Holocaust, find them in Iraq."

Angry protesters attacked the Norwegian, Austrian and Danish Embassies in Tehran in recent days over the cartoons. They also attacked the British and the French Embassies on Thursday with homemade bombs and stones.

David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington for this article.



Copyright 2006The New York Times

http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jse...xportaltop.html

US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 12/02/2006)

Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."

The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran's nuclear programme. But the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret nuclear operations and the virulent anti-Israeli threats of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices. They would fly from bases in Missouri with mid-air refuelling.

The Bush administration has recently announced plans to add conventional ballistic missiles to the armoury of its nuclear Trident submarines within the next two years. If ready in time, they would also form part of the plan of attack.

Teheran has dispersed its nuclear plants, burying some deep underground, and has recently increased its air defences, but Pentagon planners believe that the raids could seriously set back Iran's nuclear programme.



Iran was last weekend reported to the United Nations Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency for its banned nuclear activities. Teheran reacted by announcing that it would resume full-scale uranium enrichment - producing material that could arm nuclear devices.

The White House says that it wants a diplomatic solution to the stand-off, but President George W Bush has refused to rule out military action and reaffirmed last weekend that Iran's nuclear ambitions "will not be tolerated".

Sen John McCain, the Republican front-runner to succeed Mr Bush in 2008, has advocated military strikes as a last resort. He said recently: "There is only only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has made the same case and Mr Bush is expected to be faced by the decision within two years.

By then, Iran will be close to acquiring the knowledge to make an atomic bomb, although the construction will take longer. The President will not want to be seen as leaving the White House having allowed Iran's ayatollahs to go atomic.

In Teheran yesterday, crowds celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution chanted "Nuclear technology is our inalienable right" and cheered Mr Ahmadinejad when he said that Iran may reconsider membership of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

He was defiant over possible economic sanctions.

11 February 2006: Iran plant 'has restarted its nuclear bomb-making equipment'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2036145,00.html

The Sunday Times February 12, 2006


Bush urged to stir rebellion within Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington



NEOCONSERVATIVES in Washington are urging President George W Bush to drop diplomacy with Iran in favour of boosting internal dissent and opposition forces within the Islamic regime.
In an open breach with White House policy, they argue the multilateral diplomacy pursued by Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, is encouraging the Iranians to snub the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and develop a nuclear bomb under cover of a peaceful energy programme.

Michael Rubin, a Middle East expert at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said: “The United States doesn’t have a policy on Iran. We should be looking for a way to address the people of the country.”

Rubin accused Rice of being tepid in her support for democratic reform and internal regime change. “I don’t believe Rice has ever put her neck out for freedom when the Soviet Union was dissolving or now,” he said.

Foreign policy hawks believe America should be assisting democratic forces inside Iran, much as President Ronald Reagan did with the trade union organisation Solidarity in Poland in the early 1980s.

Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative who helped to make the case for the invasion of Iraq, accused the Bush government of doing little “to exploit the evident weaknesses in the regime”.

The Wall Street Journal argued last week that “neorealists” such as Rice, who support diplomacy as the best way to project American power and interests, were consolidating their grip.

Rice helped to broker the agreement in London by recommending that Iran be reported by the IAEA to the United Nations security council for breaching the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, although it is unlikely to lead in the first instance to tough economic sanctions.

In response Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has told the IAEA to remove the seals and surveillance cameras at its nuclear development sites. Yesterday, in what could mark a further escalation in the crisis, he warned Iran might withdraw from the treaty.

Few foreign policy hawks believe the Iranian regime should be overthrown by force but they argue it could collapse from within.

There are signs of labour unrest in Iran. Mansoor Oslanloo, leader of a bus workers’ union, has been in prison since December last year and hundreds of union members have been arrested, prompting a wave of protests in Tehran.

The US state department spends roughly $4m (£2.3m) a year on the promotion of democracy and women’s rights in Iran — too little to make a difference, according to critics. A campaign for human rights and democracy in Iran is to be launched in the US Congress on March 2.

Iran warns it may quit NPT :

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned on Saturday the Islamic republic could quit the Non-Poliferation Treaty if forced by the West to limit its disputed nuclear programme.
http://www.asianage.com/main.asp?layout=2&...&RF=DefaultMain

===
Use of force debate persist on Iran:

In a private meeting with European diplomats this week, a former senior U.S. official raised the idea of launching a dozen B2 bombers in an air raid aimed at crippling key Iranian nuclear facilities.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11870.htm

===
War pimp alert:

Gingrich: U.S. Must Stop Iran:

Facing a potential nuclear holocaust at the hands of Iran, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich say the United States must do everything in its power to bring about regime change there, even if it means invading that nation.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/...3752.shtml?s=ic

===
War pimp alert:

World Jewish Congress launches anti-Iran campaign :

The World Jewish Congress has launched a campaign against Iran following the nuclear crisis and the anti-Semitic statements of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/681155.html

===
Karen Kwiatkowski: Why We Fight:

Why We Fight will eagerly be consumed and digested by millions and millions of real and loyal Americans who are now weary of strange endless wars in far away places and an economy wasting under the demands of voracious spending on "defense."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11874.htm

Iran raises the stakes in nuclear dispute IranMania News
Iran's hardline regime has again raised the stakes in a standoff over its disputed atomic drive by warning it could follow the path of North Korea and quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, AFP reported. The Islamic republic's outspoken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has also unleashed a fresh verbal assault against Israel, repeating his view that the Holocaust is a "myth" and predicting that "Zionists" would soon be destroyed. "Iran has continued its nuclear drive within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the NPT, but if we see that you want to deprive us of our right using these regulations, know that the people will revise their policy in this regard," Ahmadinejad said in a thinly-veiled warning on Saturday. The NPT is the cornerstone of the global battle against the spread of nuclear weapons, prohibiting the development of the bomb and subjecting its signatories to IAEA inspections. Iran is under intense pressure to agree to a moratorium on nuclear fuel work that can be extended to make weapons, but insists it only wants to generate electricity and argues that its nuclear ambitions are therefore entirely legal. Although foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Sunday that Iran was "still committed" to the treaty, he nevertheless repeated the warning that this position could soon change. "We will decide depending on the position they have towards the Islamic republic," Asefi said when asked if Iran would abandon the NPT if fully referred to the UN Security Council on March 6, when the IAEA board next meets.
Iran Reaffirms Commitment to Nuclear Pact Forbes
Iran Says It Is Still Committed to Nuclear Treaty New York Times
Voice of America - Indian Express - The Moscow Times - Reuters - all 648 related »

Sunday Telegraph Claims US Drawing Up Plans For Iran Attack
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Sunday_Tel...ran_Attack.html

London, UK (AFP) Feb 12, 2006 - US military strategists are drawing up plans for an attack on Iran as a last resort to stop the Islamic republic from developing nuclear weapons, the Sunday Telegraph newspaper in London reported.

- Russia Increasingly Displeased With Iran
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Inc..._With_Iran.html

- Gore Says Iran Danger For World
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Gore_Says_..._For_World.html

- Iran Says Committed To NPT For Now
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Says_...PT_For_Now.html

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=8533

February 13, 2006
Iran: The Next War

by John Pilger
Has Tony Blair, our minuscule Caesar, finally crossed his Rubicon? Having subverted the laws of the civilized world and brought carnage to a defenseless people and bloodshed to his own, having lied and lied and used the death of a hundredth British soldier in Iraq to indulge his profane self-pity, is he about to collude in one more crime before he goes?

Perhaps he is seriously unstable now, as some have suggested. Power does bring a certain madness to its prodigious abusers, especially those of shallow disposition. In The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam, the great American historian Barbara Tuchman described Lyndon B. Johnson, the president whose insane policies took him across his Rubicon in Vietnam. "He lacked [John] Kennedy's ambivalence, born of a certain historical sense and at least some capacity for reflective thinking," she wrote. "Forceful and domineering, a man infatuated with himself, Johnson was affected in his conduct of Vietnam policy by three elements in his character: an ego that was insatiable and never secure; a bottomless capacity to use and impose the powers of his office without inhibition; a profound aversion, once fixed upon a course of action, to any contradictions."

That, demonstrably, is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the cabal that has seized power in Washington. But there is a logic to their idiocy – the goal of dominance. It also describes Blair, for whom the only logic is vainglorious. And now he is threatening to take Britain into the nightmare on offer in Iran. His Washington mentors are unlikely to ask for British troops, not yet. At first, they will prefer to bomb from a safe height, as Bill Clinton did in his destruction of Yugoslavia. They are aware that, like the Serbs, the Iranians are a serious people with a history of defending themselves and who are not stricken by the effects of a long siege, as the Iraqis were in 2003. When the Iranian defense minister promises "a crushing response," you sense he means it.

Listen to Blair in the House of Commons: "It's important we send a signal of strength" against a regime that has "forsaken diplomacy" and is "exporting terrorism" and "flouting its international obligations." Coming from one who has exported terrorism to Iran's neighbor, scandalously reneged on Britain's most sacred international obligations and forsaken diplomacy for brute force, these are Alice-through-the-looking-glass words.

However, they begin to make sense when you read Blair's Commons speeches on Iraq of Feb. 25 and March 18, 2003. In both crucial debates – the latter leading to the disastrous vote on the invasion – he used the same or similar expressions to lie that he remained committed to a peaceful resolution. "Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament..." he said. From the revelations in Philippe Sands' book Lawless World, the scale of his deception is clear. On Jan. 31, 2003, Bush and Blair confirmed their earlier secret decision to attack Iraq.

Like the invasion of Iraq, an attack on Iran has a secret agenda that has nothing to do with the Tehran regime's imaginary weapons of mass destruction. That Washington has managed to coerce enough members of the International Atomic Energy Agency into participating in a diplomatic charade is no more than reminiscent of the way it intimidated and bribed the "international community" into attacking Iraq in 1991.

Iran offers no "nuclear threat." There is not the slightest evidence that it has the centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium to weapons-grade material. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has repeatedly said his inspectors have found nothing to support American and Israeli claims. Iran has done nothing illegal; it has demonstrated no territorial ambitions nor has it engaged in the occupation of a foreign country – unlike the United States, Britain and Israel. It has complied with its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty to allow inspectors to "go anywhere and see anything" – unlike the US and Israel. The latter has refused to recognize the NPT, and has between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons targeted at Iran and other Middle Eastern states.


Those who flout the rules of the NPT are America's and Britain's anointed friends. Both India and Pakistan have developed their nuclear weapons secretly and in defiance of the treaty. The Pakistani military dictatorship has openly exported its nuclear technology. In Iran's case, the excuse that the Bush regime has seized upon is the suspension of purely voluntary "confidence-building" measures that Iran agreed with Britain, France and Germany in order to placate the US and show that it was "above suspicion." Seals were placed on nuclear equipment following a concession given, some say foolishly, by Iranian negotiators and which had nothing to do with Iran's obligations under the NPT.

Iran has since claimed back its "inalienable right" under the terms of the NPT to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. There is no doubt this decision reflects the ferment of political life in Tehran and the tension between radical and conciliatory forces, of which the bellicose new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is but one voice. As European governments seemed to grasp for a while, this demands true diplomacy, especially given the history.

For more than half a century, Britain and the US have menaced Iran. In 1953, the CIA and MI6 overthrew the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh, an inspired nationalist who believed that Iranian oil belonged to Iran. They installed the venal shah and, through a monstrous creation called SAVAK, built one of the most vicious police states of the modern era. The Islamic revolution in 1979 was inevitable and very nasty, yet it was not monolithic and, through popular pressure and movement from within the elite, Iran has begun to open to the outside world – in spite of having sustained an invasion by Saddam Hussein, who was encouraged and backed by the US and Britain.

At the same time, Iran has lived with the real threat of an Israeli attack, possibly with nuclear weapons, about which the "international community" has remained silent. Recently, one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld, wrote: "Obviously, we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and I don't know if they're developing them, but if they're not developing them, they're crazy."

It is hardly surprising that the Tehran regime has drawn the "lesson" of how North Korea, which has nuclear weapons, has successfully seen off the American predator without firing a shot. During the cold war, British "nuclear deterrent" strategists argued the same justification for arming the nation with nuclear weapons; the Russians were coming, they said. As we are aware from declassified files, this was fiction, unlike the prospect of an American attack on Iran, which is very real and probably imminent.

Blair knows this. He also knows the real reasons for an attack and the part Britain is likely to play. Next month, Iran is scheduled to shift its petrodollars into a euro-based bourse. The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant, if not, in the long term, disastrous. At present the dollar is, on paper, a worthless currency bearing the burden of a national debt exceeding $8 trillion and a trade deficit of more than $600 billion. The cost of the Iraq adventure alone, according to the Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz, could be $2 trillion. America's military empire, with its wars and 700-plus bases and limitless intrigues, is funded by creditors in Asia, principally China.


That oil is traded in dollars is critical in maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency. What the Bush regime fears is not Iran's nuclear ambitions but the effect of the world's fourth-biggest oil producer and trader breaking the dollar monopoly. Will the world's central banks then begin to shift their reserve holdings and, in effect, dump the dollar? Saddam Hussein was threatening to do the same when he was attacked.

While the Pentagon has no plans to occupy all of Iran, it has in its sights a strip of land that runs along the border with Iraq. This is Khuzestan, home to 90 percent of Iran's oil. "The first step taken by an invading force," reported Beirut's Daily Star, "would be to occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan Province, securing the sensitive Straits of Hormuz and cutting off the Iranian military's oil supply." On Jan. 28 the Iranian government said that it had evidence of British undercover attacks in Khuzestan, including bombings, over the past year. Will the newly emboldened Labour MPs pursue this? Will they ask what the British army based in nearby Basra – notably the SAS – will do if or when Bush begins bombing Iran? With control of the oil of Khuzestan and Iraq and, by proxy, Saudi Arabia, the US will have what Richard Nixon called "the greatest prize of all."

But what of Iran's promise of "a crushing response"? Last year, the Pentagon delivered 500 "bunker-busting" bombs to Israel. Will the Israelis use them against a desperate Iran? Bush's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review cites "preemptive" attack with so-called low-yield nuclear weapons as an option. Will the militarists in Washington use them, if only to demonstrate to the rest of us that, regardless of their problems with Iraq, they are able to "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major-theater wars," as they have boasted? That a British prime minister should collude with even a modicum of this insanity is cause for urgent action on this side of the Atlantic.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C1C...7CDBA08A6E9.htm

Iran - a threat to the petrodollar?
By Emilie Rutledge


Thursday 03 November 2005, 13:10 Makka Time, 10:10 GMT

Iran's decision to set up an oil and associated derivatives market next year has generated a great deal of interest.

This is primarily because of Iran's reported intention to invoice energy contracts in euros rather than dollars.

The contention that this could unseat the dollar's dominance as the de facto currency for oil transactions may be overstated, but this has not stopped many commentators from linking America's current political disquiet with Iran to the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB).

The proposal to set up the IOB was first put forward in Iran's Third Development Plan (2000-2005). Mohammad Javad Assemipour, who heads the project, has said that the exchange will strive to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region and that it should be operational by March 2006.

Geographically Iran is ideally located as it is in close proximity to major oil importers such as China, Europe and India.

It is unlikely, in the short term at least, that large numbers of energy traders will decamp and set up shop in Iran; a country which happens to be categorised as a member of the "axis of evil" by the president of the world's largest oil-importing country; the United States.

But over time, Iran could take some business away from the two incumbent energy exchanges, the International Petroleum Exchange and the New York Mercantile Exchange who both invoice sales solely in dollars.

Economic motives

If successful, the IOB will provide Iran with concrete economic benefits especially if it invoices at least some of its energy contracts in euros.

Iran has around 126 billion barrels of proven oil reserves about 10% of the world's total, and has the world's second largest proven natural gas reserves.

From an economic perspective, invoicing oil in euros would be logical for Iran as trade with the euro zone countries accounts for 45% of its total trade. More than a third of Iran's oil exports are destined for Europe, while oil exports to the United States are non existent.

The IOB could create a new euro denominated crude oil marker, which in turn would enable GCC nations to sell some of their oil for euros. The bourse should lead to greater levels of foreign direct investment in Iran's hydrocarbon sector and if it facilitates futures trading it will give regional investors an alternative to investing in their somewhat overvalued stock markets.

Euro zone countries alone account for almost a third of Iran's imports and currently Iran must exchange dollars earned from hydrocarbon exports into euros which involves exchange rate risk and transaction costs.

The decline in the dollar against the euro since 2002 - some 26% to date - has substantially reduced Iran's purchasing power against its main importing partner.

If the decline continues, more states will increase the percentage of euros vis-à-vis the dollar they hold in reserve and in turn this will increase calls both in Iran and the GCC to invoice at least some of their oil exports in euros.

A move away from the dollar and a strengthening of the euro would further benefit Iran as according to a member of Iran's Parliament Development Commission, Mohammad Abasspour, more than half of the country's assets in the Forex Reserve Fund are now euros.

It is primarily the US which stands to lose out from any move away from the petrodollar status quo, it is the world's largest importer of oil and a move away from invoicing oil in dollars to euros will undoubtedly have a negative effect on its economy.
Fewer nations would be willing to hold the dollar in reserve which would cause a significant devaluation and result in the loss seigniorage revenues. In addition, US energy-related companies stand to lose out as they will be unable to participate in the bourse due to the longstanding American trade embargo on Iran.

Political considerations

In the 1970s, not long after the collapse of the gold standard, the US agreed with Saudi Arabia that Opec oil should be traded in dollars in effect replacing the gold standard with the oil standard.

Since then, consecutive US governments have been able to print dollar bills and treasury bonds in order to paper over huge current account and budgetary deficits, last year's US current account deficit was $646 billion.

Needless to say, the current petrodollar system greatly benefits the US; it enables it to effectively control the world oil market as the dollar has become the fiat currency for international trade.

In terms of its own oil imports, the US can print dollar bills without exporting commodities or manufactured goods as these can be paid for by issuing yet more dollars and T-bills.

George Perkovich, of the Washington based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has argued that Iran's decision to consider invoicing oil sales in euros is "part of a very intelligent strategy to go on the offense in every way possible and mobilise other actors against the US."

This viewpoint however, ignores Iran's economic motives, just because the decision, if eventually taken, displeases the US does not mean that the rationale is purely political.

In light of such sentiments and the US's current insistence that Iran be referred to the UN Security Council Iran must consider and weigh carefully the economic benefits against the potential political costs.

Although a matter of conjecture, some observers consider Iran's threat to the petrodollar system so great that it could provoke a US military attack on Iran, most likely under the cover of a preemptive attack on its nuclear facilities, much like the cover of WMD America used against Iraq.

In November 2000, Iraq began selling its oil in euros, its Oil For Food account at the UN was also transferred into euros and later it converted its $10 billion UN held reserve fund into euros.

At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised and saw it as nothing more than a political statement, which in essence it may have been, but the euro has gained roughly 17% over the dollar between then and the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Perhaps unsurprisingly, since the US led occupation of Iraq its oil sales are once again being invoiced in dollars.

The best policy choice for Iran would be to proceed with the IOB as planned as the economic advantages of such a bourse are clear, but in order to mitigate against the potentially greater political "threat" should provide customers with flexibility.

It would make it much harder for America to object to the new bourse, overtly or covertly, if Iran allows customers to decide for themselves which currency to use when purchasing oil, such an approach would facilitate for euro purchases without explicitly ruling out the dollar.

Emilie Rutledge is a British economist who is currently based at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai.

Iran shelves Russia nuclear talks BBC News
Iran has postponed planned talks with Russia on plans to enrich uranium on Russian soil as a way to bypass a crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Thursday's talks have now been pushed back indefinitely, Iranian presidential spokesman Gholamhossein Elham said. They will recommence at a time of "mutual agreement," Mr Elham added. Iran recently said it was resuming nuclear research, sparking criticism and a referral to the UN Security Council by the UN nuclear agency. For its part, Russia said talks could still take place this week. "Our offer for the 16th still stands," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said in Moscow.

Sanctions threat
Western powers are concerned that Iran's decision to resume research into uranium enrichment - a process which creates fuel for nuclear reactors and, potentially, for a nuclear bomb - is part of a plan to acquire nuclear weaponry. Iran says its programme is solely aimed at energy production.
Iran reduced to Russian roulette Asia Times Online
Iran Holds Out Its Hand to Moscow Kommersant
AKI - RIA Novosti - Canada.com - People's Daily Online - all 147 related »

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB14Ak01.html
Iran plays Russian roulette
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

The genie of Iran's nuclear crisis may be contained if the much-anticipated meeting in Moscow between Iranian and Russian officials bears fruit on the Russian proposal for a joint venture with Iran to enrich uranium on Russian soil.

Officials from Iran and Moscow were due to meet on Tuesday, but Iran announced on Monday that the meeting had been postponed, though it stressed that it had not been canceled.

So far, this proposal has received mixed reviews in Iran and there are indications of a split within Iran's ruling establishment. Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, warned on the eve of the recent International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in Vienna that the Russian proposal would be "killed" if Iran's case were sent to the United Nations Security Council, which it duly was. Larijani also categorically stated that such a move by the IAEA would "end diplomacy".

Yet despite such dire warnings, fortunately neither the nuclear diplomacy nor the Russian proposal is dead, partly as a result of timely intervention by Iran's former presidents, Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, as well as Hassan Rowhani, who until recently led Iran's nuclear negotiations and was the architect of the historic Iran-Europe agreement known as Paris Accord of 2004 that resulted, in part, with Iran voluntarily suspending its uranium-enrichment program, since, according to some reports, restarted.

Warning of Iran's isolation and a global consensus against Iran, these and other leading figures, such as the former Speaker of Iran's majlis (parliament), Mahdi Karubi, have definitely leaned on the militants controlling the presidency and the Supreme National Security Council to pursue a less confrontational approach. Yet Iran is not alone in evincing apprehension about the Russian offer, which has come under fire in the United States as well as in Russia.

Last November, Presidents George W Bush and Vladimir Putin discussed the Russian proposal for the first time, on the sidelines of an economic summit in South Korea. Subsequently, Stephen Hedley, the US national security adviser, clarified that Iran's role in this nuclear scheme would be "management participation and financial participation". In other words, the US does not favor a truly joint venture whereby Iran's nuclear scientists would gradually master the critical technology that could ultimately lead to developing a nuclear weapon.

In a recent commentary in the New York Times, Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin raised serious misgivings about the Russian proposal, their main argument being that (a) it would not stop Iran's drive toward nuclear weapons, ( Iran would exploit the Russian "sweetheart deal" to master the nuclear fuel cycle, and © it would simply adopt it as a short-term solution.

By all indications, the earlier White House enthusiasm for the Russian proposal has disappeared and one is struck by the peculiar absence of any meaningful follow-up on the part of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other US policymakers.

Meanwhile, according to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, in his press interview of last Friday, "Russia's suggestion to enrich uranium for Iran on Russian territory remains on the table." This is slightly different from the initial pitch for a "joint venture" by Putin, who is gearing up to lead the Group of Eight (G8) summit in St Petersburg in July and, per the advice of the US ambassador to Russia, William Burns, needs to "demonstrate a sense of direction".

To open a parenthesis here, while non-proliferation is not on the G8's agenda for the moment, events surrounding Iran between now and July may force the issue, all the more reason for the G8 working committees to start on this matter immediately, in light of the recent meeting of G8 finance ministers, which addressed risks to oil markets as a result of Iran's nuclear crisis. One reason Russia may wish the subject outside the purview of the G8 summit is that it may complicate Russia's relations with the West and thus diminish Russia's chances for economic support from the West's financial institutions.

This aside, the Russian proposal has its own domestic critics, including Anton Khlopkov, the deputy director of the influential Center for Policy Studies in Russia, who stated on Russian TV last Wednesday: "The Iranian request to have access to enriched technology and centrifuges in the framework of a joint Russian-Iranian consortium is not acceptable to Russia. Russia insists on observing a moratorium on transfer of uranium-enrichment ... technologies."

Khlopkov and a number of other Russian nuclear experts have called for a "feasibility study" before any agreement between Iran and Russia can be reached on this proposal. This may take several months, however, hardly befitting the crisis-prevention momentum generated by Putin's initiative.

The IAEA is due to present a report next month to the UN Security Council on Iran's nuclear program. After this, the possible imposition of sanctions on Tehran will become an issue.

The Russian proposal scrutinized
If accepted, the proposed facility would probably be at Angarsk Electrolysis Chemical Plant in Siberia, where there is already a uranium conversion plant, as well as operational enrichment facilities. Citing safety and economic reasons against the Iranian idea of transporting UF4 (uranium tetrafluoride) from its facility near Isfahan to the proposed site, Russia insists on conducting uranium conversion for Iran on its own territory. Yet in the light of Iran's prior investment in the uranium-conversion facility and the question of national pride, Russia may need to compromise on this issue.

Iran has insufficient uranium ore for its power plant in Bushehr, which alone will deplete Iran's proven uranium reserves in about six years. This is not to mention the extremely uneconomical uranium mining near Ardakan. The Iranian media have recently reported the discovery of smaller uranium deposits in several provinces, including Isfahan, Khorasan, Azerbaijan and Sista-Balochistan.

To assuage Iranian concerns of nuclear-fuel disruption in light of their history of mistrust of Russia, this proposal has to be complemented with another proposal, for a nuclear-fuel bank under IAEA supervision, inside Iran, stockpiling several years of fuel, as well as an international guarantee to substitute Russian nuclear fuel in case there is a disruption in its flow to Iran. In turn, Iran would agree to implement its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty right to enrich uranium on a rolling basis.

One of the potential problems of the Moscow meeting is that it may focus too narrowly on the proposal to enrich fuel inside Russia, without tackling the other outstanding issues that may hamper its acceptance in Iran. Above all, this includes the national-security concerns of Iran regarding a possible US and/or Israeli attack on Iran.

Without a firm security guarantee, it is highly unlikely that the Russian proposal can go too far in today's rather militant political climate in Iran. The economic carrot of Western financial compensation to Iran to recover the costs of facilities in Isfahan and Natanz is also, if not equally, important.

From Iran's vantage point, the Russian proposal has several merits, given their own technical struggles with enrichment technology. According to IAEA inspectors, Iran's UF4 is tainted with a large amount of heavy metals, such as molybdenum, which "risks blockages of valves and piping". Iran's plan is to convert UF4, or yellowcake, into uranium hexafluoride (UF6) potentially to be separated into isotopes by centrifuges at Natanz. Iran prides itself for manufacturing key centrifuge parts and if the "voluntary" suspensions continue indefinitely, it may lose that scientific edge.

At present, Iran has assembled more than 1,000 P-1 centrifuges at Natanz and, once operational, the giant facility could manufacture 100-120 rotors per month. Henceforth, the incentives to Iran for giving up its cherished nuclear investments, which are a source of national pride, must be sufficiently high, eg, a guarantee of a steady fuel supply and technological cooperation with Russia and, perhaps, an international consortium. However, at this point it is doubtful that the West is willing to put such necessary incentives on the table. What then may be necessary is an alternative proposal.

Alternative Russian proposal?
As an alternative, Russia could conceivably propose to enrich uranium for Iran on Iran's territory, together with China and other participants. In so doing, Russia and China could build on their own history of nuclear cooperation. Russia has supplied China with an entire uranium-enrichment facility at Janzhun, including a gas centrifuge plant for the production of low-enriched uranium with an annual capacity of 200,000-300,000 separative work units (SWU).

Russian experts have also participated in the installation of a Russian-designed Tokamak-7 experimental thermonuclear fusion reactor at Hefei.

Also, Russia's nuclear transactions with Europe are instructive, in view of the strict stipulations for keeping aspects of technology "black-boxed" so that Russian firms' anxiety about patent control and re-export of technology by the recipient nation to third parties are addressed.

This alternative has the advantage of nuclear safety and likely acceptance by Iran, compared with the current Russian offer, which can be telescoped into a scientific feasibility study that would cover the issue of "objective guarantees" about non-diversion to illicit purposes.

This alternative has yet to be examined by either the IAEA, the US or the European governments, and yet the mere escalation of the nuclear standoff requires a broadening of their horizons to all peaceful options to put this genie back in the bottle.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu.

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing .)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB14Ak02.html
War with Iran on the worst terms
By Spengler

Europe has fought two Thirty Years' Wars. The first destroyed nearly half the population of German-speaking Europe between 1618 and 1648, and the second claimed 10 million casualties in its first phase (World War I) and 55 million lives in its second (World War II). In both cases, a century of well-meaning efforts to preserve peace ensured that war, when it came, would last until two generations of soldiers and civilians had been slaughtered. Washington wants to avoid a small war in the Middle East today, and instead may set in motion yet another Thirty Years' War in the region.

Iran cannot be persuaded to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Its peasants and urban poor gave an overwhelming electoral mandate to a government with imperial ambitions. The government cannot be overthrown, and cannot be derailed. But it can be beaten handily. A few hundred, or at worst a few thousand, sorties by US aircraft at this juncture could put an end to the matter now.

Why is Washington unwilling to take expeditious action? Iran's influence in Iraq is sufficient to throw the latter country into civil war should the United States attack the Islamic Republic. On October 25 (A Syriajevo in the making?), I warned that Iran kept Iraqi Shi'ite militias under its control in readiness to blackmail the United States. US intelligence, I observed, has accused Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of sponsoring the Shi'ite radical leader Muqtada al-Sadr. "If Washington believes that Muqtada is Khamenei's dog, then Khamenei can credibly promise to muzzle him," I wrote them.

US National Intelligence Director John Negroponte spelled out in essence the same scenario before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 1. Negroponte accused Tehran of arming Shi'ite militants in Iraq, warning that Iran has the capacity to broaden the conflict into a wider regional war.

The peace camp, meanwhile, hails Muqtada al-Sadr as the arbiter of civil peace in Iraq. Juan Cole, whose website (juancole.com) offers a running denunciation of the administration of US President George W Bush, reported on February 12 that the al-Sadr bloc in the Iraqi parliament determined the choice of Ibrahim Jaafari as Iraq's new prime minister.

Writing in salon.com on February 3, Nir Rosen called Muqtada "America's unlike savior", explaining:
On the crucial issues that divide Shi'ite and Sunni, Muqtada sides with the Sunnis. He opposes federalism, which he believes will lead to the breakup of Iraq, and supports amending the constitution. SCIRI [the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq] and the other main Shi'ite party, Dawa, support federalism and refuse to amend the constitution. For Sunnis, federalism means the loss not just of the old Iraq, which they dominated, but also of oil revenue, and they are determined to resist it. Muqtada is their only Shi'ite ally. Inexperienced in foreign affairs and barely experienced in politics, Muqtada may nonetheless be the only figure capable of halting Iraq's steady descent into a civil war that could ignite the entire region.
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah received the Shi'ite militant Muqtada in Riyadh last month, an extraordinary gesture from the Saudi monarchy that preceded another extraordinary gesture to Saudi Arabia's own Shi'ite population. For the first time in a generation they were permitted to observe in public the mourning day of Ashura on February 8 (see The blood is the life, Mr Rumsfeld!, October 12, 2005). On Ashura, Shi'ites whip and cut themselves to express in streams of blood their grief over the death of Mohammed's grandson Ali in AD 680.

Both the concession to the Saudi Shi'ites and the reception of Muqtada represent Saudi gestures to Iran, which is emerging as the arbiter of power in the region. Muqtada already has warned that if the United States attacks Iran, his militias will rise in Iraq. That is not the only warning. "Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range missiles, secret commando units, and terrorist allies planted around the globe in retaliation for any strike on the country's nuclear facilities, according to new US intelligence assessments and military specialists," wrote the Boston Globe on February 12.

Much as Washington complains about Iran's efforts to arm militant Shi'ites in Iraq, it cannot do anything to hinder this except to deliver and execute a military ultimatum. The longer Washington dallies, the more resources Tehran can put in place, including:
Upgrading Hezbollah's offensive-weapon capabilities in Lebanon.
Integrating Hamas into its sphere of influence and military operations.
Putting in place terrorist capability against the West.
Preparing its Shi'ite auxiliaries in Iraq for insurrection.

The problem with postponing war is that the belligerents gain more time to prepare for war. Russia could not abandon the Central European Slavs without losing faith in its own mission, and Austria-Hungary could not accommodate the Slavs without destroying a multi-ethnic empire. Germany could not permit Russia to walk over Austria, for it might not be able to defeat Russia a generation later; France could not let Germany defeat Russia, for it would lose its last chance to prevent German domination of the continent. War might have broken out a half-dozen times prior to August 1914. Postponing war allowed France to cement its alliance with Russia, and France and Russia to ensure Britain's support in the event of hostilities with Germany. A perfect balance of power gives each armed camp assurance if there is no ultimate motivation for war, but in the event of war, it ensures that war will be prolonged and thoroughly destructive.

The 30 Years' War of 1618-48, by the same token, culminated a century of efforts to establish a balance of power between Catholic and Protestant powers in Europe. The 1555 Peace of Augsburg responded to episodic fighting between Protestant princes and the Catholic Empire, agreeing that each prince would establish the religion in his own domain. That did not prevent France from massacring its Huguenots in 1572, or the Spanish from suppressing Protestantism in the Netherlands. As Europe formed into two great and equally balanced camps, a revolt by Bohemian Protestants against the Austrian Empire precipitated the most terrible war in European history.

Today's Shi'ites are the Serbs of the Middle East. Emerging from a millennium of oppression into majority power in Mesopotamia and Persia, the Shi'ites have their first and only opportunity to exact compensation for the humiliation of centuries. They have the misfortune to enter modern history at a point of maximum disadvantage for the peoples of the Middle East, who have few means to compete with the economic powers of East Asia. In Iran, as I have shown elsewhere (Demographics and Iran's imperial design, September 13, 2005), they face a devastating economic and demographic decline one generation from now. That is why these choose leaders such as Mahmud Ahmedinejad in Tehran and Muqtada al-Sadr in Baghdad.

Washington does not wish to fight but will if necessary. The Europeans, and even the Saudis, will fight rather than allow Iran to become a nuclear power, although they wish to fight much less than Washington.

If Washington were to deliver a military ultimatum to Iran tomorrow, the results would be a painful jump in oil prices, civil violence in Iraq, low-intensity war on Israel's northern border, and a wave of anti-Americanism in the Arab world - not an inviting picture.

But if Washington waits another year to deliver an ultimatum to Iran, the results will be civil war to the death in Iraq, the direct engagement of Israel in a regional war through Hezbollah and Hamas, and extensive terrorist action throughout the West, with extensive loss of American life. There are no good outcomes, only less terrible ones. The West will attack Iran, but only when such an attack will do the least good and the most harm.

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.)

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5518

February 10, 2006


Dubious Assumptions about Iran
by Ted Galen Carpenter

Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of seven books and the editor of 10 books on international affairs.


A consensus is gradually emerging in the United States that Washington and its allies must take whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Various options are advocated, from U.N.-mandated economic sanctions to airstrikes on suspected nuclear installations to active subversion of the mullah-controlled regime in Tehran.

All of these options are based on key assumptions about both the probable conduct of the Iranian government and the underlying political situation in Iran. Unfortunately, many of those assumptions are dubious at best.

A nuclear Iran would attack Israel. Advocates of a hardline policy toward Tehran argue that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it will use those weapons against Israel, its hated adversary. Fears of such a scenario have risen sharply in recent months following comments by Iran's president that Israel should be wiped off the map.

Such a comment is certainly reprehensible, but does it negate the long-standing realities of deterrence? Israel has between 150 and 300 nuclear weapons of its own. Even if Iran does go forward with its nuclear program, it will not be able to build more than a dozen or so weapons over the next decade.

It would be suicidal for a country with a tiny nuclear arsenal to attack a county with a large arsenal. One should not confuse repulsiveness with suicidal tendencies. The current government of Iran is certainly repulsive, but it has never given evidence that it is suicidal. In all likelihood, rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map is merely ideological blather. Israel has more than a sufficient capability to deter an Iranian nuclear attack.

Iran would pass along nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. Tehran has a cozy relationship with a number of terrorist organizations in the Middle East, most notably Hezbollah. The pervasive assumption in the West is that if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, sooner or later it would pass one along to a terrorist ally.

But how likely is it that Iran would make such a transfer? At the very least, it would be an incredibly high-risk strategy. Even the most fanatical mullahs in Tehran realize that the United States would attack the probable supplier of such a weapon--and Iran would be at the top of Washington's list of suspects.

Significantly, Iran has possessed chemical weapons for decades, yet there is no indication that it has passed on any of those weapons to Hezbollah or to Palestinian groups that Tehran supports politically. Why should one assume that the mullahs would be more reckless with nuclear weapons when the prospect of devastating retaliation for an attack would be even more likely? The more logical conclusion is that Iran, like other nuclear powers, would jealously guard its arsenal.

It would be easy to overthrow the mullahs. American proponents of regime change -- most prominently Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute -- insist that the current government in Tehran is ripe for overthrow. Indeed, advocates of regime change typically argue that an invasion of the country would be unnecessary; rather, American financial and political support for dissident groups, combined with destabilizing special forces operations, should be sufficient.

There is undoubtedly significant popular discontent with the dour and repressive mullahs, but it is easy to overestimate the extent and clout of the opposition. It is not reassuring that many of the loudest American enthusiasts for a strategy of regime change are the same people who argued that the Iraq mission would be brief and easy and that Ahmed Chalabi was the most popular politician in Iraq. Those predictions proved to be spectacularly wrong, and we therefore should be doubly cautious about following the advice of that faction regarding Iran.

A democratic Iran would renounce all nuclear ambitions. This is the favorite assumption of those Americans who believe that Washington should pursue an aggressive policy of regime change. They argue that Tehran's nuclear program is merely the pet initiative of the Islamic elite, while the bulk of the Iranian people are indifferent or hostile. Regime change, therefore, would not only remove an odious regime, but also provide the ultimate solution to the nuclear problem.

It is yet another dubious assumption. Tehran's nuclear ambitions date back to the Shah of Iran in the 1970s. The bulk of the evidence suggests that a "peaceful" nuclear program has widespread support in Iran for reasons of national pride and regional prestige. The goal of a nuclear-weapons arsenal is more controversial, but given the dangerous neighborhood in which Iran is located, support for that objective also goes well beyond the mullahs and their staunch allies. Washington could be making a serious miscalculation if it assumes that a democratic Iran would be content to remain non-nuclear.

The Iranian nuclear issue is a hellishly difficult problem, and the United States has no good policy options. But whatever course U.S. leaders ultimately adopt must at the very least be based on sound assumptions. Unfortunately, some of the most crucial assumptions appear to be anything but well founded.


This article appeared on Foxnews.com on February 8, 2006.

February 14, 2006
Iran Delays Talks With Russia on Enrichment of Its Uranium
By NAZILA FATHI and MARK LANDLER
TEHRAN, Feb. 13 — Iran announced Monday that it had postponed talks on letting Russia enrich its uranium, a proposal that Russia had offered as a way to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Iran also signaled that it was resuming the enrichment of uranium at one of its main nuclear sites, according to diplomats close to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

The enrichment move, while not unexpected, intensifies Iran's confrontation with the West over its nuclear ambitions, two weeks after the agency's 35-nation board voted to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council. Iran's hardening stance seemed to close off some options for diplomacy.

In Tehran, a government spokesman, Gholamhossein Elham, said during a weekly news conference that the Russian talks had been postponed because of the "new situation."

The talks were to resume Thursday on a proposal by Moscow to enrich Iranian uranium in Russia up to low level to allay international concerns that Iran might try to make a nuclear bomb. The plan was supported by the United States, Europe and China.

Mr. Elham said talks with Russia had not been canceled, but the date should be discussed. "The date of the talks, considering the new situation and the government's plans to pursue peaceful nuclear program inside the country, should be examined and we are following the matter," the student news agency ISNA quoted him as saying.

A Foreign Ministry spokesman, Aleksei A. Sazonov, said Moscow was not yet sure "whether this is a disruption or postponement of the talks."

"In any case, we still have three days before the 16th," he said in a telephone interview.

The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, including Russia, passed the resolution to report Iran to the Security Council for possible penalties over its nuclear program. But the resolution gave Iran until March to halt its research and development program.

As for the enrichment, "The I.A.E.A. has gotten signals that they're going to do it," a diplomat said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. "The only question is: how much, and how many machines?"

Depending on its level of pur