UNFINISHED IRAN BUSINESS - STEVE FORBES (WASHINGTON TIMES, APRIL 25): Holding Iran accountable to its legal obligations is a nonviolent option that will prevent Iran from funding its activities with money made in the United States.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/200604...93435-7267r.htm

AVERTING A WAR OF NECESSITY - IVAN SAFRANCHUK (MOSCOW TIMES, APRIL 26): Diplomats from the United States, European Union and Israel involved in the Iranian uranium-enrichment affair say they want the international community united so that Iran understands that nobody -- absolutely nobody -- will come to Iran's defense if sanctions are imposed.
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2006/04/26/006.html

Iran-Israel Linkage By Bush Seen As Threat :

President Bush is risking a backlash that could injure the Jewish community — and his own cause — by repeatedly citing Israel as his top rationale for possible U.S. military conflict with Iran, Jewish leaders and Middle East analysts warned this week.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscont...hp3?artid=12350

===

Blair warns over Iran threat :

Downing Street has urged the world to take the threat posed by Iran "very seriously", as the United Nations deadline for it to cease uranium enrichment looms.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1818475.html?menu=

===
Iran split:

UK: Foreign Office lawyers have formally advised Jack Straw that it would be illegal under international law for Britain to support any US-led military action against Iran.
http://www.sundayherald.com/55316

===
Iran Unable To Block Hormuz :

The Center for Strategic and International Studies said the Iranian Navy, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has failed to procure the platforms or weapons required to block the Straits of Hormuz, the passage for 60 percent of the world's oil trade.
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2006/april/04_26_1.html

===
Iran threatens to defend itself if attacked :

Iran vowed on Wednesday to strike at U.S. interests worldwide if it is attacked by the United States
http://tinyurl.com/nxnaq

===
Iran's Euro Oil Exchange to open next week :

Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh said on Wednesday that the establishment of Oil Stock Exchange is in its final stage and the bourse will be launched in Iran in the next week.
http://tinyurl.com/pthml

===
Rice fails to win Greek support on Iran:

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, has won no public pledge of support from Greece for punitive sanctions against Tehran, as thousands protested on the streets of Athens against her visit.
http://tinyurl.com/pev84

===
‘No plans to use Pak land in Iran attack’ :

The US has said it has no plans to use Pakistani territory to launch operations in the likelihood of any decision to attack Iran
http://tinyurl.com/pptap

===
Azerbaijani President Rules Out Participating in Action Against Iran :

President Aliyev told the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington Wednesday that his country and Iran have an agreement that forbids aggression from either side.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-04-26-voa48.cfm

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-04/...ent_4478116.htm

Iran's supreme leader: US attack will cause global revenge

www.chinaview.cn 2006-04-26 19:34:19

TEHRAN, April 26 (Xinhua) -- The Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Wednesday that the United States would gain global revenge if it launches an attack on the Islamic republic, the state television reported.

"The Americans must understand that if they make a surprise attack on Iran, their interests around the world will be under retaliation, our country will give them diploid reply," Khamenei was cited as saying.

The supreme leader stressed that the U.S. has been threatening Iran for many years, but the Islamic republic would not be really concerned about it.

Earlier on Wednesday, Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that the country would neglect the UN calls to freeze its sensitive nuclear activities.

"We won't retreat from our legal rights," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

"If the international institutions acknowledge our country's rights, we will also respect their demands, but if they deprive our legal rights, I don't think Iran could accept any requests," he said.

"If they can carry out their responsibilities legally, there's no reason for us to reconsider our relations with them," the president stressed.

The two leaders made the flinty remarks just two days before a nuclear deadline set by the UN Security Council expires, which demanded Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment activities by Friday.

Based on a Feb. 4 resolution, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on March 8 handed over the Iranian nuclear issue to the UN Security Council.

After weeks of heated bargains, the 15-member Security Council on March 29 approved a non-binding presidential statement, asking Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities in 30 days and demanding the UN nuclear watchdog to report on Tehran's compliance.

Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the IAEA, is expected to submit the report to the Security Council in the coming days.

With the deadline looming, President Ahmadinejad said on Monday that he believed sanctions were unlikely, vowing to press ahead with the nuclear program.

He also warned that Tehran would "reconsider" its cooperation with the IAEA, hinting a possible withdrawal from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, if western countries continued to prevent Iran from obtaining peaceful nuclear technologies.

Earlier this month, Iran officially declared that it had gained ticket to joining the global nuclear club by having produced 3.5 percent enriched uranium, a technological leap in the process for nuclear power plant construction, which immediately aroused strong international concern.

The United States has accused Iran of secretly developing nuclear weapons under a civilian front, but Iran dismissed the charge, saying that its nuclear program is fully peaceful. Enditem

Editor: Zhu Jin

Iran threatens to strike at US targets if attacked
Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:39 PM ET

By Alireza Ronaghi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran vowed on Wednesday to strike at U.S. interests worldwide if it is attacked by the United States, which is keeping military options open in case diplomacy fails to curb Tehran's nuclear program.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made the threat two days before the U.N. nuclear watchdog reports on whether Iran is meeting Security Council demands to halt uranium enrichment.

Iran says it will not stop enrichment, which it says is purely for civilian purposes and not part of what the United States says is a clandestine effort to make atomic bombs.

"The Americans should know that if they assault Iran their interests will be harmed anywhere in the world that is possible," Khamenei was quoted as saying by state television.

"The Iranian nation will respond to any blow with double the intensity," he said.

Washington, backed by Britain and France, has been pushing for sanctions if, as it expects, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that Iran has flouted U.N. demands.

But Russia and China, the U.N. Security Council's other two veto-holding permanent members, oppose any embargo.

Iran's nuclear energy head, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, held talks with IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei in Vienna on Wednesday.

"The talks were encouraging," Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told Reuters, adding the two sides discussed ways to resolve outstanding issues with the IAEA. He gave no details.

NO TIME

But a Vienna-based diplomat said before the meeting it would be too late to alter decisively the IAEA report, due to be submitted to the Security Council by Friday, because inspectors would not have time to verify issues.

"All ElBaradei can do is note any information received and say he could not assess whether it was significant," said the diplomat, who asked not to be named.

ElBaradei visited Tehran this month but his proposal that Iran "pause" enrichment was rebuffed, diplomats have said.

British Foreign Minister Jack Straw sought to enlist China's backing on Wednesday, saying Beijing should use its growing diplomatic muscle to solve disputes with international partners.

"China's support for this goal, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has been valuable already and will be increasingly crucial in securing international consensus in the face of Iran's intransigence," Straw said in London.

The United States called on Iran to pursue diplomacy and warned that a confrontational approach would affect U.N. Security Council deliberations.

State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli urged Iran to address international concerns and "match our commitment to diplomacy with the actions of a responsible state."

"So far every step they've taken has been in the opposite direction, has been one of hostility and confrontation," he told reporters in Washington.

In response to the U.S. refusal to rule out military action, Iran has warned Washington that its forces in the region were vulnerable. Iran's war games in the Gulf this month were widely seen as a veiled threat to a vital oil shipping route.

"The security of the Persian Gulf is very well tied up to the world's economic affairs and it would be quite natural for Iran not to sit idle vis-a-vis any military adventure," Iranian legislator Alaeddin Broujerdi told reporters in London.

IRANIAN VOW

Iran said on Tuesday it would suspend relations with the IAEA if sanctions were imposed. Diplomats said this could mean withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday reiterated his view Iran could review its NPT and IAEA commitments if it saw no dividends from abiding by international protocols.

"We hope they fulfill their duties and make it unnecessary for the Islamic Republic of Iran to reconsider its relations with them," Ahmadinejad said.

Although Iran says it bases nuclear policy on the NPT, it pulled out of the treaty's Additional Protocol -- which allows snap inspections of atomic facilities -- in February after the IAEA referred its nuclear file to the Security Council.

Iran often says it does not benefit from the NPT's entitlement to shared technology, but Western diplomats say it must prove its goals are peaceful to qualify for this.

The IAEA has said that after three years of investigation it still cannot confirm that Iran's aims are entirely peaceful, although it has found no hard proof of a military program.

The agency points to gaps in its information, such as the status of Iran's research into P-2 centrifuges that can enrich uranium faster than the P-1 units it now operates.

(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Tehran, Mark Heinrich in Vienna and Katherine Baldwin in London)



© Copyright Reuters 2006All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
Quotes and other data are provided for your personal information only, and are not intended for trading purposes. Reuters, the members of its Group and its data providers shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the quotes or other data, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD28Ak01.html
COMMENTARY
Iran: Think long-term engagement
By Francesco Sisci

BEIJING - The defining question with regard to Iran is how it should be treated in the long term. Tehran is not regarded as reliable, therefore the West says it can't have nuclear arms, and must be stopped from developing them. But this is a short-term goal. What comes next?

The lack of clear, realistic and attainable goals after Saddam Hussein's demise is the reason for the present quagmire in Iraq, and this experience weighs heavily on the United States, which does not want to get bogged down in a similar mess in Iran. As a result, Washington has been pushed into hoping that negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program will work better than military intervention, at least for the time being. But this still fails to address the underlying issue of making Iran a partner, and not an enemy.

The North Korean example
With regard to North Korea, the strategy is much clearer. The US wants to stop Pyongyang from building a nuclear arsenal, but it has a fully fledged strategy to nudge the government into long-term change without pushing for overnight regime change, which would most likely result in the collapse of the country.

The US, within the framework of the six-party talks, with the key support of China, is saying to Pyongyang: refrain from the nukes, stop trafficking counterfeit currency and drugs, and we will provide aid that could improve the situation in the country. That is, the US and China would provide investment and know-how on economic reforms.

Pyongyang may not trust the United States, and it could believe that nuclear weapons are its only guarantee against US military pressure. And it could also be afraid that economic reforms would be the first step in a process leading to some kind of regime change.

Nevertheless, given the economic problems in the country, North Korea is virtually boxed in, and its present reluctance to rejoin the six-party talks could easily wane.

Besides, this strategy is acceptable to China and the other countries involved in the talks - Japan, South Korea, Russia and the US. They all broadly agree on how to deal with North Korea; indeed, in principle, so does Pyongyang.

The goal is to improve the economic situation in North Korea in the long run, to help bridge the gap with the South and, in a time frame of some 30 years, reunite the North with the South. The plan is acceptable and feasible, and it could be a win-win situation for everybody.

However, with regard to Iran, there appears to be no such long-term strategy.

It is not clear what the West envisages for Tehran. Does it just want the demise of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad? Or the overthrow of the clerics? Beyond this, what steps can be shared by the international community, as the grand North Korean plan is shared in principle by all members of the six-party talks?

Unlike on North Korea, there is no consensus on Iran. Russia and China have their own strong views and interests, as they are more concerned with practicalities (building nuclear plants, energy) than with regime change. Indeed, the status quo is more or less acceptable to them.

Without an international political strategy like the one toward North Korea, the options become clear: is it better to risk a larger Iraqi-style crisis by stopping Iran's proliferation (in the worst case by the use of force), or should the international community learn to live with a nuclear Iran?

In pondering this, two elements should be considered.

First, it is necessary to engage the main actors of this drama. China and Russia, for instance, must be more proactive. They are already much more "inside" Iran than the US. They do not want to see nuclear proliferation, or fundamentalist Islam triggering their own fundamentalism at home.

Moscow and Beijing cannot stay aloof as if nothing matters other than their immediate interests, because in the long run they have a lot to lose. This is especially so for China, with its restive Muslim minority. A nuclear, undependable Iran is in the interests of nobody. They must work to change this.

Second, despite the good faith of the kind souls wishing for the messiah of democracy to enlighten the whole world, democratic change is very complex. Three good examples: Japan, Germany and Italy were built on heavy compromises with past regimes. Democratic institutions were introduced in these countries after World War II, but the people running these institutions were often the same ones who had previously been in power.

The same must apply to Iran. A large measure of compromise is needed with the clerics, and the people around Ahmadinejad and other power players, if Iran is to be gently nudged into the political change that will result in it being considered a reliable partner, whether or not it has nuclear weapons.

Without this framework, any sudden "miracle" of Iran stopping its nuclear program would not solve its lack of political reliability. Until the international community can work with Tehran as a trusted, long-term partner, Iran will always be a problem. This is goal toward which the West should work.

Francesco Sisci is Asia editor of the Italian daily La Stampa.

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

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD28Ak02.html
SPEAKING FREELY
Iran: Let the democratic process work
By Hamid Dabashi

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

The "war on terror", as US President George W Bush defines it, is a moving target. The current record of his administration is the active fabrication of a public enemy No 1 followed by a major war every two years, one on the trail of the other.

In 2001, it was Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan, in 2003 it was Saddam Hussein and Iraq, in 2006 it is Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Iran.

The current concern over an impending attack on Iran intensified
this month when US journalist Seymour Hersh reported that the Pentagon had in fact put into operational gear its plans for a major attack against Iranian nuclear facilities.

The tangible possibility of yet another US-led war, generated by this report, can be read in one of four ways: (1) the veteran American journalist has indeed teased out of his varied sources a genuine plan according to which the US military intends to dismantle the clerical regime's ambition to achieve nuclear capabilities for peaceful and/or belligerent purposes; (2) he is being used by his Pentagon sources to launch a psychological operation (psy-op) against Iran; (3) a combination of both, for psy-op after all is in fact integral to any military planning; and (4) dissident US generals, now openly criticizing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, are putting the report of this pending invasion out to generate a public outcry against the Bush administration.

Any one of these readings that one might choose to believe, and indeed their common denominator, amounts to the same: a sudden and irreversible consolidation of the Islamic Republic against all its internal and external opponents - once again immunizing it to any peaceful process of democratization, as perhaps best epitomized in the course of the reform movement spearheaded during Mohammed Khatami's presidency (1997-2005).

After the Central Intelligence Agency-engineered coup of 1953 and the toppling of the democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, one might persuasively argue this is the second-most-significant time that the US has effectively thwarted the democratic aspirations of Iranians.

If the damage of such military adventurism were limited to Iranian people's struggle for freedom and democracy, one could just add it to the litany of other legitimate grievances that people around the world and human-rights organizations have with the US. But the problems that a potential or actual attack on Iran would today generate are manifold and open-ended.

The most immediate result of even the rumor of a pending US attack on Iran is the adversarial consolidation of a recalcitrant Islamic Republic, which thus resumes a warring posture, and any internal or external criticism of its abusive records will amount to treason and siding with the strategic maneuvers of an even more rebarbative power in the region.

The assumption of a popular uprising against the Islamic Republic once the US and/or Israel attack Iran is delusional and dangerous. Quite to the contrary. The issue of nuclear energy (and potentially nuclear arms) has already become a matter of national pride for Iranians, and people across a wide range of the political divide vociferously endorse it.

The deeply fragmented class divisions within the Islamic Republic also indicate that should the US attack Iran, it is the poorest and most disfranchised, the 15 million militarized poor who voted for Ahmadinejad - namely the Pasdars, the Basijis and the Hezbollah - who will be immediately mobilized for the protracted guerrilla warfare that will ensue, while the middle-class audience of expatriate, mostly Los Angeles-based, propaganda against the Islamic Republic will all run for cover.

Those analysts, Americans or expatriate Iranians, posing to defend the cause of democracy and/or human rights in Iran from the safe distance of US think-tanks, promising that Iranian people are all pro-American and thus will welcome the US Army, will have to be held accountable for their dangerous delusions should the US attack Iran and tens of thousands of Iranians and Americans are maimed and killed - with women in particular yet again the most under-reported victims of such crimes against humanity.

The emerging assumption that Ahmadinejad is yet another Adolf Hitler is factually false and rhetorically lame. His outlandish remarks about the Holocaust and Israel notwithstanding, Ahmadinejad is deeply in trouble and severely challenged from within the clerical establishment itself. The tug-of-war that is currently under way inside the leading organs of the Islamic Republic has very much sidestepped Ahmadinejad.

He is not a player in the high-power clerical clique. By virtue of the mandate the Iranian electorate handed him and the modicum of integrity invested in his office because of its previous occupant, he carries certain limited authority, but not much power.

Any potential or actual US/Israeli attack on the Islamic Republic will significantly change that balance, will unify the clerical establishment and popular resentment alike, and will lead to a Shi'ite/Islamic alliance across the Iranian borders and well into Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon - an alliance that will aggravate the already volatile region in terms of even more violent guerrilla operations, making even more room for al-Qaeda-like globalized terrorism.

Add to this condition the fact that the US simply lacks the military wherewithal to engage in a prolonged war inside Iran, and thus the only plan of action would be some sort of a US/Israeli hit-and-run operation - which will be immediately replicated in kind and most probably extend into US and European territories.

There are myriad similar problems that all follow the simple logic of violence breeding more violence. Even the threat of using the so-called "tactical" nuclear weapon will open a Pandora's box of unfathomable brutality.

The only sensible solution to the current crisis is to keep US and Israeli hands off the Islamic Republic, withdraw any military plan, suspend all financial aid to self-serving, ill-informed expatriate opposition groups, or those that discredit the legitimate oppositional forces inside Iran - and thus allow the democratic process to work itself out.

This is not just the best alternative. This is the only solution - for any investment in the self-promotional promises of the so-called Iranian oppositional forces and their neo-conservative cohorts in major US think-tanks is a waste of taxpayers' money in the US and an affront to the dignity and agency of Iranian people themselves.

If the international community at large has an issue with Iranians going nuclear, and it must, then it will have to wed that legitimate concern to the region at large, include Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the US (the four nuclear powers surrounding the Islamic Republic) in the equation, and subject them all to an identical application of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Hamid Dabashi is Hagop Kevorkian professor of Iranian studies and comparative literature and society at Columbia University in New York. He is the author of Theology of Discontent: The Ideological Foundation of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. His forthcoming book, Iran: A People Interrupted, is scheduled for publication this year from the New Press.

(Copyright 2006 Hamid Dabashi.)

http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060427143746.t19fuhz0.html

Iranian opposition urges 'all-out sanctions' against Tehran

PARIS, April 27 (AFP) Apr 27, 2006
The main exiled Iranian opposition group called Thursday for the United Nations to impose all-out sanctions on Tehran, claiming the regime was 18 months from the ability to build a nuclear bomb.
"It is not too late. The international community can still stop the process" through sanctions, Mohammad Mohaddessin, head of foreign affairs for the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), told reporters in Paris.

"The Iranian Resistance calls on the Security Council to swiftly impose comprehensive sanctions against the Iranian regime," he said, a day before the expiry of a UN deadline for Iran to suspend sensitive nuclear work.

Mohaddessin repeated claims by the NCRI -- which has in the past provided accurate information on Iran's nuclear work -- that "the regime is currently producing or procuring the necessary components to build a nuclear bomb".

If nothing is done to stop it, "by the end of 2007, the Iranian regime will be in a position to build a nuclear bomb," he charged.

Western powers, led by the United States, are convinced Tehran is seeking either a nuclear bomb or the capacity to make one, although Iran insists its nuclear programme is intended only to produce electricity.

Based on information from "supporters in Iranian society", Mohaddessin claimed Tehran was seeking to build a bomb similar to Fat Man, the atomic bomb the United States dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, ending World War II.

Repeating a claim made by the NCRI's Scandinavian branch last year, he said Tehran had obtained 20 kilos (44 pounds) of beryllium, a metal that can be used to make the trigger for nuclear weapons, from China in the past two years.

Mohaddessin also charged that Iran was currently smuggling high-resistance maraging steel, which can be used to build the outer casing of a nuclear bomb, from Malaysia via the United Arab Emirates.

The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is to release a report Friday on Iran's compliance with UN demands that it freeze sensitive uranium enrichment work.

Iran's refusal to halt enrichment opens the door to sanctions, despite opposition from Russia and China. The United States has also not ruled out taking military action.

The NCRI is opposed to military intervention in Iran, but supports "regime change and the establishment of democracy in Iran," Mohaddessin stressed.

He also repeated calls for the European Union and the United States to remove his group's military wing, the NCRI's military arm -- the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI), from their lists of terrorist organisations.





All rights reserved. © 2005 Agence France-Presse. Sections of the information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by Agence France-Presse. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of Agence France-Presse.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1161

One up for Tehran in Its Secret Bout with Washington

From DEBKA-Net-Weekly 250 Updated by DEBKAfile

April 26, 2006, 3:09 PM (GMT+02:00)


Tehran was undaunted when US officials confronted its negotiators in secret talks with the steps taken by Saudi Arabia and Egypt to launch their own nuclear weapons programs as a deterrent to the Iranian threat. Iran’s leaders countered the prospect of a Middle East arms race with a string of barefaced comments and threats against the United States, described by the State Department spokesman Tuesday, April 15, as a serious escalation of the crisis.

Monday, April 24, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: “There is no need for US-Iranian talks.”

The next day, Iran’s powerful nuclear negotiator and head of its Supreme Security Council, Alil Larijani, said Tehran would suspend ties with the UN nuclear watchdog and speed up its atomic program if the UN Security Council imposed sanctions. Larijani also threatened to hit oil installations in two Central Asian states in reprisal for any American attack.

Finally, Wednesday, Iran’s supreme ruler, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, promised the Americans a blow of “double intensity” in response to a US attack on its nuclear installations.

According to DEBKAfile’s Iran experts, Tehran feels confident enough to adopted a belligerent posture because -

1. Although US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad broke off the Iraq talks with an Iranian delegation in Baghdad, Tehran is confident that its influence in Iraqi politics outweighs Washington’s by virtue of its ties with Iraqi parties and Shiite militias and its intelligence network. The Iranians are therefore letting the US-backed Jawad al-Maliki take over as prime minister because they believe they hold the key to the crucial defense and interior appointments. They expect pro-Tehran SCIRI leader Abdel Aziz al-Hakim to land these jobs for Badr Organization commanders, preferably Abdel Mahdi, all of whose top echelon are under Tehran’s thumb.

2. The threat by Ahmadinejad to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty, also hinted at by Larijani, is an indicator of Tehran’s dissatisfaction with the progress of its secret diplomatic track with Washington – first in the US capital, then at an undisclosed venue in Europe. Iran’s negotiating tactics are guided by the presumption that no accord is possible with the United States on the nuclear issue; but diplomacy of any form is to be encouraged to buy time for progress in its program in a better international climate.

3. Tehran is increasingly confident that Moscow and Beijing will continue to block Washington’s initiatives for UN Security Council sanctions - as they did in the case of Bashar Assad’s Syria.

4. As perceived from Iran, the Bush administration is losing ground in the Middle East, whereas the Islamic Republic is in the middle of a forward thrust – and not only in Iraq. Iran’s allies, Syrian president Assad and Hizballah’s Hassan Nasrallah, have been able to wriggle off the international hook. The Americans, French and United Nations were not able to make the Shiite terror group give up its weapons and disband; the Palestinian jihadist Hamas is not only in power, but its heads are intensifying the movement’s rapport with the Iranian regime, a major coup for Tehran.

On April 21, DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s exclusive sources and analysts attempted to pierce the dense blackout cast over the Washington-Tehran talks.

Last week, the head of the White House National Security Council Stephen Hadley sent his senior deputies to meet in Washington with Mohammad Nahavandian, adviser on economic and technology issues to Ali Larijani, the lead Iranian nuclear negotiator.

US sources say Nahavandian entered the US around April 6 and stayed for an unspecified time.

According to DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s Washington sources, he got together with American officials on April 17. Rumors going around the US capital the next day about the arrival of a high-ranking Iranian official brought forth a statement by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack that no visa had been issued for Nahavandian. The spokesman also denied any meetings with US government representatives.

After this breach of secrecy, the talks were promptly moved to a West European capital where they are still going on – some sources say with Hadley himself taking part.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s most reliable sources pieced together the US objectives in the talks:

1. To build a route detouring the faltering Baghdad track.

2. To break the monopoly Moscow is striving to establish as the sole middleman for diplomacy between the West and Iran.

3. To undo the former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani’s pitch in a tour of Arab emirates which attempted to buy Gulf support by depicting his country’s nuclear enterprise as an Arab Nuclear Program.

4. To lay the groundwork for an alternative Middle East nuclear bloc hinging on Saudi Arabia and Egypt, i.e. a rival Arab nuclear program. Iran was meant to be brought up short by the discovery that if it goes all the way to an N- bomb, so too will its Arab opposite numbers. This race carries the extreme potential of pitting Sunni and Shiite nuclear powers on a collision course.

The American delegation proposed that Tehran be satisfied with the sensation it caused by its uranium enrichment bombshell and abandon its centrifuges and weapons program.

If not, Washington would deliver threefold punishment: A. The heat would be maintained for UN Security Council sanctions; B. The Saudi and Egyptian nuclear programs would be allowed to move forward. And if Tehran started building a weapon, both these Arab states would either produce or buy a nuclear weapon from countries like Pakistan. C. The US would line up a nuclear-armed Middle East front, including Israel, against Iran. Moscow and Beijing might then rethink their support for the Islamic Republic and weigh its worth against lost points in the Arab world and Persian Gulf.

Tehran’s clerical rulers did not back down in the face of the American ultimatum.

They adopted four courses, revealed here by DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s Iranian sources:

1. Supreme ruler Khamenei, while leaving the shrill rhetoric to president Ahmadinejad, tightened his grip on the national nuclear program and cut the president out of the ongoing diplomatic talks with the Americans.

2. Rafsanjani took over dealings on the Iraq issue and relations with Arab governments, while Larijani was put in charge of contacts with the Americans, the Russians and the Europeans.

3. To balance the American track, Iran went into secret negotiation with Moscow on a new Russian plan for international oversight of its enrichment activities.

4. Rafsanjani was dispatched on a tour of the Arab emirates to calm their fears of Iran’s nuclear motives and invite them to lend their support to its nuclear option. Our Gulf sources report that he failed in his mission. Aside from Damascus, which was his last stop, the emirates presented a solid wall of resistance to any suggestion of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

- Iranian Nuclear Time Bomb Ticking Virtually Away
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iranian_Nu...ually_Away.html

Washington (UPI) Apr 28, 2006 - In the 1980s it was Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime vying to fill a power vacuum left by the demise of the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran. Today the roles have reversed, as we witness the Islamic Republic of Iran trying to exert its influence in post-Saddam Iraq and beyond.

- The Double Peril From Iran
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/The_Double..._From_Iran.html

- UN Body Urged To Act Over Defiant Iran
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/UN_Body_Ur...fiant_Iran.html

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?Stor...27-110713-6263r

Analysis: Thinking outside the box on Iran
By Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor
Published April 27, 2006


WASHINGTON -- Iran's maverick President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad admitted a few weeks ago that the Islamic Republic was enriching uranium. And the world took notice. Yet far more dangerous, says a member of the Iranian opposition, Iran is also "enriching Islamic fundamentalism." And yet few are doing anything about it.

"A nuclear weapon does not have as much power as fundamental Islam," Nasser Rashidi, executive director of the National Coalition of pro-Democracy Advocates, an Iranian umbrella group opposed to the regime of the ayatollahs, told United Press International Wednesday.


A bomb is bomb, but "radical Islam is a philosophy. It is far more powerful," said Rashidi.

The Iranian dissident was speaking just as the U.S. House approved a bipartisan legislation -- The Iran Freedom Support Act -- that tightens existing sanctions on Iran, urges American divestment from companies investing in Iran's petroleum sector, and supports aiding democratic forces in Iran. The bill was passed 397-21. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R-FL., and Congressman Tom Lantos, D-CA, who were instrumental in getting the bill passed, are now hoping for similar legislation from the Senate, where the issue is currently under consideration. Before the bill can become law, it needs to be approved by the Senate and signed by the president. The Bush administration, however, is not too hot on the bill.

Supporters of H.R. 282 say that the bill will help choke off funds that the Islamic republic could use to build nuclear weapons because it tightens existing sanctions against Iran, ensuring that companies are no longer able to skirt the system by investing in Iran's energy sector through off-shore subsidiaries.

However, opponents to the bill argue that sanctions will be counter-productive. They will serve to unite the Iranian people -- including those who are traditionally vehemently opposed to the ayatollahs -- and rally them around the leadership, as Iranians have consistently done in times of crisis when national pride overrides political differences. Sanctions will only hurt the innocent and those without ample means to buy their way around the items restricted by sanctions, while sparing the leadership and those with money who will be able to circumnavigate the sanctions. Eight years of a vicious war with Iraq during which time sanctions were imposed on both protagonists, had little, if any, impact on the ayatollahs.

Trita Parsi, a spokesman with the National Iranian American Council, told UPI that voters on the NIAC Web site were 82.5 percent against sanctions being imposed, while those in favor were only 17.5 percent.

Opponents of the bill argued that it would undermine diplomatic efforts to curb the Iranian nuclear threat. Iran has already said that if attacked it will continue to build its bomb.

"This bill limits the administration's flexibility to pursue diplomacy without providing them any tools not already at their disposal," said Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. A similar measure -- S 333 -- was introduced in the Senate in February 2005 by Rick Santorum, R-Pa., but has yet to be considered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Foreign Relations Chairman Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind., has indicated he does not at present support additional sanctions against Iran.

One fear from opponents of sanctions is that the suffering and deaths caused by sanctions withholding food products and medicine will only create hardships for the people of Iran and will result in even greater animosity against the United States, whom they will blame for their ills.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to say that it will persevere with its uranium project, come what may. If attacked by the United States, Iran said it will strike back at American interests around the world. (Possibly starting in Iraq, where the United States currently has about 130,000 troops.) And, say the Iranians, they will rebuild their nuclear-producing facilities deeper and in greater secret.

President George W. Bush has indicated that "all options remain on the table" when it comes to dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. While the president did not say it in so many words, among those options would be military action to take out Iran's facilities.

Rashidi, the opposition official, believes that the mullahs governing Iran "would love to be bombed. It would give them an excuse for a war. They need an external excuse in order to put more pressure on the Iranian people," said Rashidi.

"Why is Iran building a bomb today? Iran doesn't want money, they don't want guns," says Rashidi, "they want recognition," and they believe a nuclear bomb will give them just that.

What is needed here is not more threats against the Islamic republic, which only serve to reinforce the mullahs, nor sanctions, which again, will end up working in favor of the regime. What is needed is new thinking from outside the box. The current regime thrives on crisis. The larger the crisis, the stronger they become. Sanctions will not address the "Islamist threat." Indeed, it will help strengthen the Islamic republic, as it will gain the immediate sympathy of the Arab and Muslim world.

Perhaps a more intelligent approach would be to deny them grounds for a crisis.

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?Stor...27-014343-1094r

Outside View: Solving the Persian puzzle
By Amir Oveissi
UPI Outside View Commentator
Published April 27, 2006


WASHINGTON -- In the 1980s it was Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime vying to fill a power vacuum left by the demise of the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran. Today the roles have reversed, as we witness the Islamic Republic of Iran trying to exert its influence in post-Saddam Iraq and beyond. Tehran's efforts to subvert progress next door betray an over-arching scheme to dominate the Middle East. And a nuclear weapon is the linchpin.

Despite what it claims, Iran is clearly seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Amid sheepish cries of protest from the United Nations, radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently touted the country's membership to the international "nuclear club" and declared its ambitions to be "irreversible." Iran's successful April 11 enrichment of uranium using 164 centrifuges is a mere prelude to "industrial scale" enrichment by the end of 2006, according to deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saaedi.


Nuclear technologies that could lead to weapons in the hands of Ahmadinejad and his ilk would undoubtedly render the entire Middle East hostage. Repeated calls by the firebrand leader that Israel be "wiped off the map" cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric. Ahmadinejad and a vanguard of influential mullahs are religious literalists convinced Shiite Islam's 12th Imam will soon return to herald a new era of Shiite Islamic supremacy. They also believe this must be preceded by an apocalyptic conflagration that will reduce enemies to ashes. Unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is a case to be made that Iran is not bound by the invisible cuffs of mutually assured destruction. Connect the dots and a nuclear Iran becomes more than just a geopolitical pest.

The delay of the world's attention to Iran is a testament to the clerics' prescience. Ahmadinejad's fire-and-brimstone remarks echo those of previous Iranian leaders since the revolution of 1979. Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini, the patriarch of the Shiite revolution, labeled Israel a "cancerous tumor;" former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani carried the banner, saying that if the "Islamic world is also equipped with (nuclear) weapons ... the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill;" and even self-styled reformer, ex-President Mohammad Khatami, deemed Israel "a parasite in the heart of the Islamic world."

While the tone of rhetoric has fluctuated -- hot under Khomeini, lukewarm after the setbacks of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and a tactful cool during the Khatami years -- work has moved forward underground to put bite behind the bark. The International Atomic Energy Agency discovered in 2003 that Iran had carried out secret nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. And just this week, Iran threatened to halt all cooperation with the U.N.'s atomic energy agency if the Security Council imposes sanctions, warning that it might hide its nuclear program if any other "harsh measures" are taken by the West.

Meanwhile, intelligence sources in Washington believe hundreds of Iranian intelligence agents have infiltrated Iraq to undermine U.S.-led efforts at democracy building. There are reports that Iran has smuggled sophisticated weaponry to give Shiite militants a boost in case of a full-blown conflict. Military officials further allege that Hassan Kazemi Ghomi, the charge d'affaires of the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, is working in secret with local forces and militias. According to the U.S.-backed Iraqi National Intelligence Service, Ghomi is a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' elite Quds Force -- a special forces outfit much like the Green Berets -- with specialized skills and experience in the support of militia activity.

As for soft power, mullahs in Tehran have cultivated ties with powerful Iraqi Shiite leaders such as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, ex-Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi (out of favor in Washington after charges that he passed U.S. intelligence to Iran). The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the country's most powerful political party, was formed by Khomeini's intelligence services. Even more troubling is firebrand leader Moqtada al-Sadr, whose 10,000-strong Mahdi Army has already fought U.S. troops. Sadr has vowed to defend Iran if necessary, and intelligence estimates indicate he commands the support of 1-1.5 million Iraqis.

Clearly Iran poses a formidable challenge to U.S. policy in the region: A state sponsor of terrorism, increasingly aggressive, on its way to developing nuclear weapons and tilting the balance of power in the Middle East favorably in its direction. With the brunt of its forces tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan as oil prices hover around $75 a barrel, how should United States respond to such a threat?

To the delight of the mullahs, fevered head-scratching is the order of the day among White House and Pentagon officials. But while there is no easy solution to the "Persian puzzle," inaction as Iran's nuclear program advances is tantamount to giving up the game. A comprehensive inside-out approach would at worst stall Tehran's nuclear drive, and at best, spark internal convulsions to scuttle the regime.

First, Security Council sanctions need to be imposed on Iran post-haste. With Russia and China running interference, the United States and allies must look for alternative means of delivering economic penalties. Wednesday's House vote to penalize foreign groups investing more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector is a first step. A possible arrangement with the EU3 (Britain, France, Germany) to impose a separate set of sanctions, free of Security Council restraints, could have leverage comparable to a Council decree and need not be ruled out.

Second, Congress needs to shotgun the approval of the $75 million dollar request by the Bush administration to increase support for opposition groups working in and outside of Iran. The House has already signed off on the initiative, though reports funding has been slashed to $56 million are troubling. Consider that a majority of this money would be used to finance television and radio broadcasts, which beam programs that reinforce the repressed but far from toothless student democratic movement in Iran.

And third, the administration needs to continually show -- in word and deed -- its support for Iranians and their plight for democracy in Iran. This will give a moral boost to opposition groups simmering within Iran. Modern Iranian history has shown that moral support from a U.S. administration can go a long way in fostering revolutionary movements. The distancing of Jimmy Carter's administration from the Shah, and his vocal support of dissident groups that toppled the Pahlavi throne, expedited Iran's undoing, whose aftershocks are still felt today throughout the Middle East. The lesson learnt from Carter's administration is that bold, symbolic gestures of solidarity drastically help dissident groups.

The last option on the table is military strikes. There's only one worse scenario, rightfully stated by Sen. John McCain, and that's a nuclear-armed Iran.

--

(Amir Oveissi is a Mideast analyst at the Institute for International Law and Politics at Georgetown University. He is currently working as a contributing author on a book titled "Lifecycles of Terrorist Movements," to be published by the IILP. He can be reached at aroveissi@gmail.com)

--

(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.wpherald.com/storyview.php?Stor...26-034107-3286r

Analysis: How to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions
By Stefan Nicola
UPI Germany Correspondent
Published April 26, 2006


BERLIN -- A new book written by two German investigative journalists takes an in-depth look at how long it would take Iran to build a nuclear weapon, and weighs possible measures availble to prevent the ongoing crisis with the West from escalating.

To tell the tale of the world's most controversial nuclear program, Gero von Randow and Ulrich Ladurner, reporters for Germany's prominent weekly Die Zeit, travelled to Iran and Pakistan for research.


In Islamabad, they researched Tehran's links to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, and the man who equipped Iran with gas centrifuges back in 1995. In Natanz, they investigated one of Iran's biggest uranium enrichment facilities.

The project was undertaken to help answer the question troubling non-proliferation experts today: How long would it take Iran to build a nuclear bomb?

The journalists have come to their own answer, and they make their case in the book "Die Iranische Bombe" (The Iranian Bomb), which first hit bookstores earlier this month.

"Iran needs roughly 1,700 working centrifuges to within one year build an atomic bomb," they write, adding that the Islamic Republic at the moment has an estimated 700 unconnected centrifuges, plus enough material to build another 1,000. The centrifuges are needed to enrich uranium to a high degree, the key element of a nuclear weapon.

While the numbers are available, the road to obtaining a bomb is difficult: To enable military-style enrichment, all 1,700 centrifuges would have to be assembled to one cascade system, which takes a substantial amount of time, they write.

And then there is the know-how needed for such an elaborate process. "Those systems cannot be built and run from a blueprint or a manual; experience is needed to master them."

Iran's technicians, they write, do not have such experience.

All those insecurities brushed aside, "then the assumption is plausible that it would take Iran at least three, probably five years to have enough uranium for a nuclear bomb," they write, adding that Tehran then would need at least a year to build it, more time to test it and make sure the carrier system works.

"One can say... that Iran is more than five and less than ten years away from a serviceable nuclear weapon."

But the question remains whether Iran actually wants the bomb, and why. Von Randow and Ladurner take into account the Muslim point of view when examining Pakistan's and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"Muslims feel mortified by the West. Their home countries are politically, socially and militarily inferior," they write. "As a general rule, this inferiority is experienced as a daily humiliation. It's not important if that is actually the case or not, it's how it is perceived. That's why possession of the bomb has become a symbol."

For Iran, they say, it may be much simpler to fuel speculations that it has the deterring capability of building a nuclear bomb then actually obtaining it.

However, if Tehran wants the bomb, it will likely be able to get it, they write, based on past experiences with Pakistan, North Korea and Libya -- three countries that have managed to hide their weapons program from inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Organization, the United Nation's nuclear watchdog. "It's possible to obtain all materials needed for a nuclear bomb illegally."

The West believes Iran is using its atomic energy program to secretly build nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. In 2003, the IAEA discovered Iran had carried out secret nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. Fear of a nuclear first strike is fueled by aggressive anti-Semitic rhetoric by Iranian hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who in the past has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

The desire for a nuclear program in Iran didn't start with Ahmadinejad, but is decades-old, the journalists write. Today, it is based on the wish to establish political supremacy in the region in an ongoing battle with the United States.

A nuclear-powered Iran is a "pressing problem," the journalists conclude.

"The annihilation anti-Semitism that Ahmadinejad has turned into politics has to be taken seriously," they write. "Miscalculations on both sides (namely in Iran, Israel and the United States) could lead to a nuclear inferno."

A preventive military air strike, as Washington is reported to be considering, would only worsen the crisis, fuel instability in the region, and cause developing countries and Iran's often regime-critical population to side with Ahmadinejad.

Rather, the international community should try to enlarge the time frame by urging Iran to agree to a combination of a moratorium and security controls; form international alliances and launch hierarchical sanctions, such as "travel bans, export sanctions of all kind, and import controls of industrial goods."

All those measures may "fuel the unhappiness of Iranian economic leaders with the isolationist course of the regime."

http://www.antiwar.com/bidwai/?articleid=8913

April 28, 2006
Iran Defiant, but Ready to Deal

by Praful Bidwai
TEHRAN - As the deadline set by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to halt uranium enrichment descends upon Iran, the already narrow window of opportunity to resolve the crisis over Tehran's nuclear program diplomatically may soon slam shut.

If the Western powers, led by the United States, adopt a tough posture and demand that sanctions be imposed on Iran, or worse, launch a military attack on its nuclear facilities, they will strengthen the hands of the nuclear hawks who at present constitute a minority in the Tehran regime.

A military attack on Iran could have catastrophic consequences for the entire Middle East, the world's most volatile region. The effects will be even more disastrous if the U.S. uses tactical nuclear weapons, which reports say, it is considering.

If the West explores the route of diplomacy and negotiation, it could be rewarded with rich dividends, including effective oversight over Iran's nuclear activities and improvement in relations with its government, which is keen on being accepted as a "normal," "responsible," status quo power.

At this extraordinarily delicate make-or-break moment, Iran has fashioned a three-pronged approach to deal with the nuclear crisis that has steadily escalated since the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) board of governors passed two resolutions against it in September and February and sent its case to the UNSC.

First, Tehran remains defiant that it will not sacrifice its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to engage in peaceful activities, including uranium enrichment for power generation. It has threatened to "hide" its atomic program, transfer nuclear technology to other countries, and cease cooperation with the IAEA, if the West takes "harsh measures." (The IAEA is due to submit a report on Iran's nuclear activities on April 28.)

These threats have emanated not just from cabinet ministers and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, often credited with harsh utterances, but from Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who only rarely makes pronouncements on such issues.

Second, the Iranian government is sending out signals that it is keen to reach a deal or compromise on the nuclear issue. Dr. Hasan Rowhani, a member of the Supreme National Security Council and Khamenei's nominee on it, has said that Iran is prepared to suspend its uranium enrichment for a short time.

Iranian officials are also working diplomatic channels to let it be known that Tehran wants talks which will lead to a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue.

The third prong of Iran's strategy is to reach out to its neighbors, including some pro-American states in the Persian Gulf, and to try to persuade them not to support a U.S. military attack on Iran. Recently, former President Rafsanjani and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani were in Kuwait and Bahrain respectively.

"Iran's current position is based on a strong domestic consensus in favor of a civilian nuclear program and of acquiring a degree of mastery over nuclear technology, not in favor of developing nuclear weapons or even a weapons capability," Prof. Nasser Hadian-Jazy, an international relations and security affairs specialist at the University of Tehran told IPS.

"Most Iranian policymakers believe that the gap between what Tehran wants and what pragmatists in the West will concede on the nuclear issue is not very wide, certainly not unbridgeable. They would certainly like to avoid a confrontation. Both sides know that the costs of a confrontation would be unaffordably high. Therefore, they can be realistically expected to try to negotiate a compromise. One can only hope the negotiations succeed," added Hadian-Jazy.

A likely compromise, say insiders who insist on anonymity, would involve temporary suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran and a possible joint venture with Russia (and some other states like South Africa) to take Iran's uranium hexafluoride gas out of the country and enrich it elsewhere. Iranian scientists would have access to the relevant facilities and technologies in the joint effort. Iran would stick to its NPT commitments and ratify the tough IAEA "additional protocol."

In return, the West would recognize Iran as a "normal" state, and give it security guarantees and a "package" of economic incentives, including access to enhanced gas and oil production technologies.

Numerous governmental and non-governmental experts, told IPS that there is fairly broad agreement that such a compromise proposal could be negotiated. It is, however, hard to verify this through public statements. Media debate on the nuclear issue is banned.

There seems to be very little support for the idea that Iran should become a nuclear-weapons-state like India or Pakistan. The much-publicized picture of some young Iranians dancing with joy following the official April 11 announcement that Iran has successfully enriched uranium to 3.5 percent is "highly misleading," said a member of the board of editors of a dissident publication. "That sentiment is not widely shared. There was no significant jubilation over Iran's claimed nuclear prowess."

Many Iranians are also skeptical of the claim that Iran has achieved technological sophistication as regards uranium enrichment. They believe that the Isfahan and Natanz facilities are rudimentary. But not much is independently known about them thanks to the media ban.

No tension or apprehension is detectable in the streets of Iran on the eve of the UNSC deadline. People go about their business in bustling cities as if unaware of the huge nuclear crisis.

Yet, Iranian policymakers seem to be acutely conscious of what is at stake. "It would be fair to say that they think Iran has much to lose from an overt pursuit of nuclear weapons," says Ramin Jehanbegloo, a political theorist in Tehran. "Contrary to Western stereotypes, they are sober, hard-nosed pragmatists, not ideologically driven. They know that nuclear weapons will make Iran more vulnerable and insecure, not more secure."

Among the factors that weigh with policymakers is the likely loss of Iran's conventional superiority vis-à-vis potential adversaries, and the "rebound" effect. Iran's bomb will invite Israel's active hostility and push the neighborhood's smaller states toward Washington. And it will increase the likelihood of nuclear proliferation to non-state actors like al-Qaeda, which views Iran with suspicion.

Iranian policymakers believe Iran has a strong hand, legally and politically, without nuclear weapons. It is not in breach of any international treaty or law. Iran hopes to win a measure of international public sympathy if it is unfairly targeted and cornered by the U.S. and its close allies. Therefore, Tehran is unlikely to alter the status quo radically.

If Washington does so by exercising the military option, it will invite serious trouble in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, and in the entire Muslim world. As the Iran situation is delicately poised, sobriety and wisdom are at a premium.

(Inter Press Service)

http://www.itv.com/news/index_1980368.html


Known in the West as BM-25s, the Russian-designed missiles have a range of around 2,500 km
Iran receives 'missile shipment'
9.14AM, Thu Apr 27 2006


Iran has received a shipment of missiles from North Korea that are capable of reaching Europe, according to Israel's military intelligence chief.

Known in the West as BM-25s, the Russian-designed missiles have a range of around 2,500 km (1,500 miles), giving them a longer reach than the Iranian-made Shihab-4 missiles which are capable of hitting Israel.

The intelligence chief, Major-General Amos Yadlin, was quoted by Israel's Haaretz newspaper as saying in a lecture on Wednesday that some BM-25s had arrived in Iran.

The BM-25 was originally manufactured in the Soviet Union, where it was known as the SSN6, a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, Haaretz reported.

After the Russians decommissioned the SSN6, the missiles were sold to North Korea, which adapted them to carry a heavier payload, the newspaper's military affairs correspondent said.

In February, a German diplomat, citing his country's intelligence data, confirmed a German newspaper report that said Iran had purchased 18 disassembled BM-25s from North Korea.

Israel has been urging the international community to pressure Iran to halt its nuclear programme as well as its efforts to obtain long-range missiles.

Iran, the world's fourth largest producer of crude oil, says its nuclear programme is a peaceful project to provide electricity.

Israel is widely believed to have more than 200 nuclear warheads. It declines to comment on its atomic programme, saying only it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...0425-irna01.htm
Former minister reveals US espionage in Iran
IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency

Tehran, April 25, IRNA
Iran-US-Younesi
The former information minister, Ali Younesi here Tuesday disclosed for the first time some of the US espionage activities aiming to make Iran's nuclear case more critical.

Speaking at the international conference called `Iran's Nuclear Energy Program: Policies and Prospects', he said that in the past the US and Zionist spying agencies attempted to undermine Iran's peaceful nuclear activities.

"However, such attempts were thwarted through the vigilance of Iran's intelligence service," he added.

Younesi said that on one occasion, the US intelligence service sent its agents to Iran under the pretext of selling enriched uranium, thus enabling them to create an atmosphere against Iran.

"The spies were told to write reports to prove their lies. In fact, it might be said that the US intended to validate its own lies rather than finding out the truth," he added.

Stressing that 'Iran's constructive cooperation and transparency prevented the premature US hostile actions against the country', he noted that now no one in the world accepts the false US claims on Iran's intention to proliferate nuclear weapons.

"Even, American administrators themselves have revised their wording and say that Iran will proliferate nuclear weapons in future." The former minister said that the quagmire, in which the US and Britain are entangled, given the high price it has cost them, is created due to incorrect information and lack of attention to such facts.

"Aggravating the crisis is not the way to solve Iran's nuclear issue. They should rather accept the truth and realize that production of nuclear weapons is against the country's strategy.

"Given that continuing the nuclear crisis is against global peace and security, it should be stemmed and brought back to its normal course," he added.

Younesi referred to cooperation and mutual confidence as the most rational way to tackle the issue.

"The option currently underlined by the West, namely suspension of the nuclear fuel cycle or sanction is most irrational and a mistake much worse than the US attack on Iraq.

"These measures, which undermine the NPT, may make Iran withdraw from the UN nuclear agency," he added.

Younesi said that by aggravating Iran's nuclear crisis, the US intends to conceal its failures in Iraq.

2326/2322/1412

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A1F...1357D628867.htm

Iran ignores UN call to halt enrichment
Friday 28 April 2006, 18:34 Makka Time, 15:34 GMT
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: We will not back down one iota

Iran has ignored a Security Council call to suspend all nuclear fuel enrichment by a Friday deadline and has accelerated the programme, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog says.


The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Friday that Tehran had pressed ahead with enrichment during a 30-day grace period and had not answered questions exploring whether its nuclear programme is purely civilian.

The Security Council, which received the report on Friday, could impose sanctions against Iran.

The report said questions persisted over Iranian research on advanced "P-2" centrifuges, documents on how to design an atomic bomb core, and intelligence reports of links between uranium ore processing, high-explosives tests and a missile warhead design.

"Iran was supposed to suspend [uranium enrichment], but since they continue to do experiments, they have not suspended enrichment efforts.

"The information available to us shows they have not heeded the request for compliance so far," an official close to the IAEA said.

President defiant

Tehran has said its enrichment policy is irreversible and that it can withstand any consequences, whether financial penalties or military attack.

"Those who want to prevent Iranians from obtaining their right, should know that we do not give a damn about such resolutions"

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
Iranian president

Speaking hours before the reported was submitted, the Iranian president said that no UN Security Council resolution could make Iran give up its nuclear programme.

"Those who want to prevent Iranians from obtaining their right, should know that we do not give a damn about such resolutions," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a rally in northwest Iran on Friday.

He added that Iran was ready to defy its enemies.

"Enemies think that by ... threatening us, launching psychological warfare or ... imposing embargos they can dissuade our nation from obtaining nuclear technology.

"The Iranian nation insists on its right to peaceful nuclear technology. We will not back down one iota," he said.

Timetable offer

However, Iran has offered to provide a timetable for co-operation with the IAEA if the UN nuclear agency, rather than the Security Council, oversaw Iranian compliance, the IAEA said.

"Iran will provide a timetable within the next three weeks" the IAEA said, if "the Iran nuclear dossier will remain, in full, in the framework of the IAEA and under its safeguards".

The report said inspector tests confirmed Iran's claim this month to have enriched uranium with a cascade of 164 centrifuges to the low level needed for fuelling nuclear power plants.

It must be purified to a much higher level to set off the chain reaction required for a bomb.

Iran is also building two new cascades of 164 centrifuges at its underground enrichment plant, which IAEA inspectors are monitoring.

"What is relevant is that they got the first 164-centrifuge cascade up and running and managed to produce low-enriched uranium," said a senior official versed with the report.

"The 164 centrifuges continue to spin as far as we know, and they are probably able to repeat the enrichment cycle at any point in time," said the official, who asked not to be named.

West Vows to Introduce Iran Resolution Washington Post
Western nations promised Friday to introduce a new Security Council resolution next week to demand Iran abandon uranium enrichment after a new report said Tehran had ignored calls to clear up suspicions that it wants a nuclear weapon. China, which wields a veto in the council, said it would oppose tough action in the powerful U.N. body. "All we want is to work for a diplomatic solution because this region is already complicated, there are a lot of problems in the region, and we should not do anything that would cause the situation (to be) more complicated," China's Ambassador Wang Guangya. Russia also was likely to resist. Council members said they would act urgently after the latest report from the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, even as Iran remains defiant. "We are concerned about the continued work that Iran is doing to acquire nuclear weapons capability," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said. "We do think there's a sense of urgency here and we hope that we can get council action just as soon as possible." Britain, France and Germany, which had led efforts for those earlier demands, will introduce a new resolution next week with the intention of discussing it Wednesday, Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones-Parry said. Last month, the council had urged Iran to stop enriching uranium and asked the IAEA, to report back on Tehran's compliance in 30 days. The agency released findings earlier Friday that said Iran had ignored those demands. The West wants the new resolution to fall under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which would require all member states, including Iran, to comply. If Iran did not, the council could then impose sanctions or even threaten military force _ though ambassadors say they want a diplomatic solution. "If Iran was prepared to comply fully with the wishes of the international community, then the next stage of the activity will not follow," Jones-Parry said. "We would get back into negotiations, which would be our preferred solution." Iran gave no indication it was willing to heed the council. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said no Security Council resolution could make Iran give up its nuclear program. "The Iranian nation won't give a damn about such useless resolutions," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people Friday in northwestern Iran before the IAEA report was issued. "Today, they want to force us to give up our way through threats and sanctions but those who resort to language of coercion should know that nuclear energy is a national demand and by the grace of God, today Iran is a nuclear country," state-run television quoted him as saying.

Western nations will also have to overcome opposition from China and Russia, which are extremely wary of tough council action. Intense opposition by those two nations during the council's last round of negotiations over Iran more than a month ago resulted in a statement that was far more watered down than the west wanted. After reading the latest report, Wang made clear that Beijing was opposed to a new Security Council resolution that could lead to sanctions or other strong action. Russia and China want the IAEA to play the main role and have the council stay in the background. The two fear that a tough resolution would push the council into the forefront and lead to more resolutions. "All we want is to work for a diplomatic solution because this region is already complicated, there are a lot of problems in the region, and we should not do anything that would cause the situation (to be) more complicated," Wang said. Bolton, on the other hand, underscored that the United States was increasingly concerned about what he said was Iran's "extensive program" to develop long-range ballistic missiles, particularly because of its status as "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism." He repeated earlier U.S. suggestions that Washington might go outside the Security Council to pressure Iran. The United States has previously mentioned bringing together a coalition of allies that could impose sanctions bilaterally. "There are a variety of other things that could be undertaken within or without the Security Council," he said.
By NICK WADHAMS. UNITED NATIONS
IAEA: Iran Defying UN Demands Voice of America
Iran Says It Will Ignore International Warnings on Nukes CNSNews.com
Wall Street Journal (subscription) - RIA Novosti - MTV.com - Asia Times Online - all 1,665 related »

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/The_Double..._From_Iran.html

The Double Peril From Iran

A bomb is bomb, but "radical Islam is a philosophy. It is far more powerful," said Rashidi.
by Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor
Washington (UPI) Apr 28, 2006
Iran's maverick President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad admitted a few weeks ago that the Islamic Republic was enriching uranium. And the world took notice. Yet far more dangerous, says a member of the Iranian opposition, Iran is also "enriching Islamic fundamentalism." And yet few are doing anything about it.
"A nuclear weapon does not have as much power as fundamental Islam," Nasser Rashidi, executive director of the National Coalition of pro-Democracy Advocates, an Iranian umbrella group opposed to the regime of the ayatollahs, told United Press International Wednesday.

A bomb is bomb, but "radical Islam is a philosophy. It is far more powerful," said Rashidi.

The Iranian dissident was speaking just as the U.S. House approved a bipartisan legislation -- The Iran Freedom Support Act -- that tightens existing sanctions on Iran, urges American divestment from companies investing in Iran's petroleum sector, and supports aiding democratic forces in Iran.

The bill was passed 397-21. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R-FL., and Congressman Tom Lantos, D-CA, who were instrumental in getting the bill passed, are now hoping for similar legislation from the Senate, where the issue is currently under consideration. Before the bill can become law, it needs to be approved by the Senate and signed by the president. The Bush administration, however, is not too hot on the bill.

Supporters of H.R. 282 say that the bill will help choke off funds that the Islamic republic could use to build nuclear weapons because it tightens existing sanctions against Iran, ensuring that companies are no longer able to skirt the system by investing in Iran's energy sector through off-shore subsidiaries.

However, opponents to the bill argue that sanctions will be counter-productive. They will serve to unite the Iranian people -- including those who are traditionally vehemently opposed to the ayatollahs -- and rally them around the leadership, as Iranians have consistently done in times of crisis when national pride overrides political differences.

Sanctions will only hurt the innocent and those without ample means to buy their way around the items restricted by sanctions, while sparing the leadership and those with money who will be able to circumnavigate the sanctions. Eight years of a vicious war with Iraq during which time sanctions were imposed on both protagonists, had little, if any, impact on the ayatollahs.

Trita Parsi, a spokesman with the National Iranian American Council, told UPI that voters on the NIAC Web site were 82.5 percent against sanctions being imposed, while those in favor were only 17.5 percent.

Opponents of the bill argued that it would undermine diplomatic efforts to curb the Iranian nuclear threat. Iran has already said that if attacked it will continue to build its bomb.

"This bill limits the administration's flexibility to pursue diplomacy without providing them any tools not already at their disposal," said Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. A similar measure -- S 333 -- was introduced in the Senate in February 2005 by Rick Santorum, R-Pa., but has yet to be considered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Foreign Relations Chairman Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind., has indicated he does not at present support additional sanctions against Iran.

One fear from opponents of sanctions is that the suffering and deaths caused by sanctions withholding food products and medicine will only create hardships for the people of Iran and will result in even greater animosity against the United States, whom they will blame for their ills.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to say that it will persevere with its uranium project, come what may. If attacked by the United States, Iran said it will strike back at American interests around the world. (Possibly starting in Iraq, where the United States currently has about 130,000 troops.) And, say the Iranians, they will rebuild their nuclear-producing facilities deeper and in greater secret.

President George W. Bush has indicated that "all options remain on the table" when it comes to dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. While the president did not say it in so many words, among those options would be military action to take out Iran's facilities.

Rashidi, the opposition official, believes that the mullahs governing Iran "would love to be bombed. It would give them an excuse for a war. They need an external excuse in order to put more pressure on the Iranian people," said Rashidi.

"Why is Iran building a bomb today? Iran doesn't want money, they don't want guns," says Rashidi, "they want recognition," and they believe a nuclear bomb will give them just that.

What is needed here is not more threats against the Islamic republic, which only serve to reinforce the mullahs, nor sanctions, which again, will end up working in favor of the regime. What is needed is new thinking from outside the box. The current regime thrives on crisis. The larger the crisis, the stronger they become. Sanctions will not address the "Islamist threat." Indeed, it will help strengthen the Islamic republic, as it will gain the immediate sympathy of the Arab and Muslim world.

Perhaps a more intelligent approach would be to deny them grounds for a crisis.


Source: United Press International

Ahmadinejad says Iran's nuclear programme irreversible Monsters and Critics.com
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday termed Iran's decision to pursue its nuclear programmes as irreversible. 'The decision by Iran to pursue nuclear technology and produce nuclear fuel in line with all international commitments is legal and irreversible,' Ahmadinejad said on state television in a first reaction to Friday's report by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei. 'We will not accept any discrimination, this (uranium enrichment) is our Red Line which we will not allow to be trespassed by anybody,' he added. He termed the current phase as a 'test' for international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency and called on the UN not to let its international credit being darkened by superpowers. 'The UN can ask us to remove whatever remaining ambiguities but not deprive us from the whole (nuclear) technology,' Ahmadinejad said. Ahmadinejad called on the West to respect the will and right of the Iranian nation and allow the Iran case being returned to the IAEA. The deputy of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said earlier Saturday that Iran will present the IAEA within the next three weeks a new plan for settling the nuclear dispute, Mohammad Saeidi said in an interview with the news network Khabar that the main condition for starting the new plan would however be maintaining the Iranian nuclear case within the IAEA and not the United Nations Security Council. Saeidi said that within the plan Iran would also resume voluntary implementation of the IAEA Additional Protocol and renewed snap IAEA inspections of Iran's nuclear sites but continue nuclear enrichment for research purposes. Saeidi had said on Friday night that the eight-page report from IAEA chief ElBaradei contained 'no negative aspects' and once again showed that the IAEA still had the potential to deal with the Iranian nuclear case and that involvement of the UN Security Council was the 'totally wrong way.' The Iranian official claimed that ElBaradei would also welcome the Iranian case being evaluated within the IAEA and not the Security Council. 'The report was of course not very satisfactory and could have been better but our new plan could be the most suitable way to settle the dispute in a diplomatic way - under the condition however that some countries stop their stubborn approach,' Saeidi said. He termed the Security Council demand from Iran to stop the enrichment process as illegal and contrary to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and therefore not able to be implemented. He stressed that also the differences over the P-1 and P-2 devices and the nuclear pollution mentioned in ElBaradei's report have been settled with the IAEA by almost 80 per cent. Saeidi however noted that the remaining differences are related to issues going beyond Iranian borders, referring to Pakistan from where Iran had purchased the devices. 'We are currently using only P-1 devices in our uranium enrichment process but we have already told the IAEA that it would be inevitable to use the most progressive devices to accelerate the enrichment process,' the Iranian official said. He added that the research phase of the enrichment process in the Natanz plant in central Iran was continuing within a 164 centrifuge-cascade and at a 3.6 per cent level but Iran planned to expand the cascades to 3000 centrifuges within one year. 'This would enable us the start of the initial phase of industrial enrichment,' Saeidi said while stressing that the Natanz plant has just recently been inspected again by the IAEA.
Iran moves to prevent sanctions by allowing nuclear inspections Irish Examiner
Iran nuclear face-off nears Seattle Times
CBC News - Winston-Salem Journal - BBC News - ABC News - all 1,904 related »

http://www.g2bulletin.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=1045

How U.S. will hit Iran
British sources say Bush ‘significantly closer' to attack

Publishing Date: 29.04.06 18:36

LONDON -- A secret crisis meeting of Britain's military and political chiefs has been told President Bush has moved "significantly closer" to launching attacks on Iran's nine nuclear plants.

Both Washington and the International Atomic Energy Agency believe the facilities are now "advanced in providing uranium enrichment and plutonium materials which will be used to provide nuclear bombs." The time frame for this to happen "is within three years at the outside," the meeting was told.

The Pentagon battle plans for the attack were revealed to the meeting.


Tactical Tomahawks key to attack plan
Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles would be launched from U.S. Navy ships and submarines in the Gulf to target Iran's air defense systems at the nuclear installations. The updated Tomahawks have an onboard facility that allows them to be reprogrammed while in-flight to attack an alternative target once the initial one is destroyed. Each has also a "loitering" capability over a target area to provide damage assessment through its on-board TV camera.

U.S. Air Force B2 stealth bombers, each equipped with eight 4,500-pound bunker-busting bombs, would fly from Diego Garcia, the isolated US Navy base in the Indian Ocean, the Whiteman USAF base in Missouri, and the USAF base at Fairford in Gloucestershire. Each meter-long bomb of hardened steel can penetrate 6 meters of concrete. There would be no ground-force follow-up attacks.

The meeting was called after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Foreign Secretary Jack Straw during her recent "feel good" visit to England that "if all else fails, we are prepared to go it alone or with the assistance of our good friend, Israel."

In Tel Aviv, officials of Israel's new centrist-left coalition government, led by Ehud Olmert's Kadima Party, said they remained committed to supporting a U.S. attack.

For Straw, Rice's privately-delivered blunt warning undermined his own reported public statements that an attack on Iran was "not going to happen - now or probably ever."

An official who was with Straw at the time of Rice's warning said: "She made it very clear military action was inevitable unless Tehran backed down."

Held in the monolithic Ministry of Defense building in Whitehall, the meeting had been ordered by Prime Minister Tony Blair to establish the level of Britain's own military involvement in such an attack.

It was also asked to assess the political consequences the strike would have for the United Kingdom - including the increased threat of terrorist attacks on the country - its relationship with the European Union and the effect on the role of Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The last time such a meeting was held was in March, 2003, on the eve of the war with Iraq.

The meeting was chaired by General Sir Michael Walker, the chief of the defense staff. Lt. General Andrew Ridgeway and the chief of army defense intelligence and Major-General Bill Rollo, the assistant chief of the general staff, flanked Walker.

Senior Foreign Office officials were led by William Ehram, director-general of the FO defence office, and David Landesman, head of the nuclear counter-proliferation department, Sir John Scarlett, head of MI6 and Eliza Manningham-Buller also had seats around the mahogany conference table. Senior officials from Downing Street completed the group.

Effectively they were the core of the Blair government "War Cabinet."
Before the meeting, Straw had flown with Rice to Baghdad to try and resolve another crisis which could affect when an Iran attack happened: the pressing issue of who governed Iraq.

In Baghdad Rice had said that "we need to get this settled as soon as possible." The words at the end of her press conference were not developed. But in London they were seen as an indication, a senior Foreign Office source said, "that Washington wants to get the Iraqi agenda off the top spot so it can concentrate on dealing with Iran. Bush is determined to destroy those nuclear sites."

The Whitehall meeting was given the latest intelligence on Iran's current ballistic missile capability:

•· A total of 85 S-300 air defence missiles. Provided by China, they would be effective against U.S. fighter-bombers. Less so against the multi-defense systems of the Tactical Tomahawks.

•· X-55 cruise missiles. Numbers believed to be no more than 40. Estimated range of over 1,000 miles. Situated close to the border with Turkmenistan.

•· Shabtai-3. A version of rocket provided by China. Exact numbers unknown. But believed to be no more than 26. Based in sites in southern Iran. Well within range of Israel.

•· Shahab-4. Currently being developed near Natanz, south of Tehran. Will not come on line until 2008. Each will have a range of 18,000 miles - able to strike against anywhere in Europe and the United States.

The present missiles can be adapted to fire from Iran's 25 missile craft and its three frigates. None can be launched from Iran's air force of 200 hundred old aircraft: Tomcats, MIG-29 Fulcum and Phantoms.

Iran's 500,000 army of regular and conscripts are poorly led and trained. Most of their equipment comes from the former Soviet Union.

The Blair "War Cabinet" meeting concluded:

•· Apart from the Blair Government who else will support attack on Iran? Definitely Israel. Its three Dolphin Class nuclear submarines are in the Gulf to help target Iran's air defences at the nuclear facilities. The submarines are currently linked by satellite to naval HQ at Tel Aviv. In turn that is linked to the Pentagon.

•· Who else would support the attack? Diplomatic support would probably come from Australia, Poland and possibly Germany, France and Spain. Less certain is the role of other European countries.

•· How high-risk is the attack strategy? It could trigger devastating reprisals against 8,500 British troops based in Iraq and the 3,500 troops due to arrive in Afghanistan by May, 2006. Both countries have strong religious and political links to Iran. It could also see Washington having to re-plan withdrawal of its troops from Iraq. It would also certainly lead to Iran cutting off oil supplies to the West. It could bring about confrontation with China and Russia that would inevitably destabilise the region - and probably beyond. It would increase the probability of suicide attacks against Israel - and all nations that supported the attack.

•· Finally, there is no guarantee that the U.S.-led attack would destroy all the country's facilities. MI6 told the meeting that, apart from the known eight identified targets, there are other secret facilities in Iran that have yet to be fully identified.

Given all this, when will the attack take place?

No date yet fixed. But if Iran continues to maintain its bellicose attitude and ignores demands made by the UN, the Bush administration will launch military action, either later this year or early in 2007. But certainly not later than the run-up to Bush's final year in office in 2008.

What are the present mission plans?

It is two-phased. First U.S. and probably Israeli cruise missiles will destroy defenses around targets. Second, B2 Stealth bombers will hit nuclear plants with bunker-busting bombs. Total mission time in target areas: probably eight hours.

What are the present targets?

Saghand: Mining operation set to begin later this year, yielding 50-60 tonnes of uranium annually.

Ardkan: Ore is purified to produce uranium ore concentrate known as yellowcake.

Gehine: Mine and milling facility.

Isfahan: Yellowcake cleansed of impurities and converted to uranium hexafluoride gas.

Natanz: Enrichment site which can be used to produce weapons grade uranium.

Tehran: Research reactor and radioactive waste storage.

Bushehr: Russian-built light water reactor.

Arak: Heavy water research reactor.

Anarak: Nuclear waste storage site.

Apart from its own intelligence briefing, what external analysis did the meeting consider?

Professor Paul Rogers, author of the Oxford Research Group's report on Iran: "A real possibility of military conflict. The immediate consequence could do serious damage to Iran's nuclear program, but that would be deceptive. The Americans do not have the troops for a regime change and an attack would strengthen the Iranian regime, spark another oil crisis and could encourage the Iranians to go hell for leather for nuclear weapons."

Dr. Rosemary Hollis, the research director at the Chatham House think-tank:
"There is so much opposition that I don't see an attack as imminent."

Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board from 2001 to 2003: "Whether Iran's nuclear weapons program ends with a whimper or a bang is up to the Iranians. If the UN does its job, by blocking Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions, it may be possible to avoid a more kinetic solution."

Dr. Olivia Bosch, a former weapons inspector in Iraq: "The rhetoric is disproportionate to the capability that Iran has."

Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran: "I do not agree with foreign military intervention. However, if the international community and the Security Council hesitate in adopting a firm policy on Iran, the regime would obtain the only thing it needs to acquire nuclear weapons, namely time. Then we would be facing an Islamic fundamentalist regime, the leading state sponsor of terrorism, armed with nuclear weapons. This would make war inevitable."

--G2B contributor Gordon Thomas

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=49982


NUCLEAR WAR-FEAR
Iran's secret plan if attacked
codenamed 'Judgment Day'
8 Islamist groups funded to strike
U.S. military, economic interests

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 29, 2006
5:40 p.m. Eastern



© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Tehran has recruited and funded eight Islamic fundamentalist organizations to undertake retaliatory strikes against U.S. and British military and economic interests across the Middle East – and perhaps in the U.S. and Europe – in the event Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked, reports a London Arab daily, Asharq Al-Awsat.

The plan, which has been heavily funded and was created by a number of experts in guerilla warfare and terrorist operations, includes suicide attacks against U.S. and British targets in the region as well as their allies. According to information gleaned from a senior source in the Iranian armed forces' joint chief of staff, logistical support for the groups that would participate in the plan comes from Brigadier General Qassim Suleimani of the of the Revolutionary Guards' al Quds Brigades.


"Most of Iran's visitors in the last four months, including the leaders of revolutionary groups in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, as well as the heads of Hezbollah cells in the Persian Gulf and Europe and North America were asked, when they met with the Iranian intelligence minister Gholamhossein Mohseni Ezhei and his aides: 'Are you ready to defend the Islamic revolution and vilayat e faqih (rule of the clergy)?'" the source said. "'If you agree to take part in the great jihad, what would you need to be ready for the great fight?'"

The leader of one of the Iraq groups that is part of the "Judgment Day" plan told the Iranians his men would turn Iraq into hell for Americans in the event of an attack on Iran. The Revolutionary Guards' military training camps have been made available to Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army. Al Sadr has received more than $20 million from the Iranians.

Street-fighting training has been given in Isfahan, Iran, to members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, as well as large sums of money and large quantities of arms.

As reported by WorldNetDaily, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recruited Imad Mugniyah, the Lebanese commander of Hezbollah's overseas operations, to oversee retaliation against Western targets following any U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Officers sent to southern Lebanon last month are in command of more than 10 thousand rockets aimed at Israel's cities. It is believed they've been given control of Hezbollah's missiles to attack Israel if Iran's nuclear sites are hit. U.S. officials and Israel intelligence sources believe Mugniyah is in charge of these operations.

"When and if the Iranians decide to hit the West in its soft belly, Imad will be the one to act," a Western intelligence source said.

Approximately 80 members of Hezbollah received training last year in ultralight aircraft and undersea operations in order to carry out suicide attacks.


Implementation of the plan is set to begin immediately following a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and would progress in six stages:

U.S. bases in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region to be struck by Iranian missiles.
Suicide attacks in a number of Muslim countries against U.S. embassies, military bases, economic and oil-related facilities tied to U.S. and British firms, and targets in countries allied with the U.S.
Attacks by Revolutionary Guards and Iraqi insurgents loyal to Iran against U.S. and British forces in Iraq.
Hundreds of rockets launched by Hezbollah against pre-selected targets in Israel.
If U.S. military attacks continue, more than 50 Shehab-3 missiles will be launched against Israel and 50 terrorist cells in the U.S., Canada and Europe will be given approval to launch attacks against civil and industrial targets in those countries.
Maximize civilian casualties with germ agents and "dirty bombs."

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

Iran strikes defiant stance before UN vote Yahoo! News
Iran renewed its defiant stance on Sunday, vowing to ignore a likely U.N. Security Council resolution against its atomic program and to strike back if it came under military attack. U.N. ambassadors from the United States, Britain and France are expected to introduce a resolution this week to legally oblige Iran to comply with the council's demands, hitherto rebuffed by Tehran, that it halt all uranium enrichment work. Failure to comply with the resolution could see Iran face limited sanctions, although veto-wielding council members China and Russia say they do not favor such a move for now. But Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, said Iran would continue to defy the council. "Iran will not implement any forced resolution," he said in speech to university students in Tehran. "Iran's plan is to have research and development and the nuclear fuel cycle in Iran," he added, underlining Iran's determination to continue production of nuclear fuel in defiance of calls from the United Nations that it stop. Western countries fear Iran could produce highly-enriched uranium for use in warheads rather than uranium enriched to the low level needed for power stations. Tehran says it has no interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. Larijani's pledge to keep the fuel cycle in Iran ran counter to earlier remarks by Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, who suggested there could be still be room to consider a proposal to move Iran's enrichment work to Russia. Although Washington has said it prefers a diplomatic solution to the stand-off, analysts say U.S. hawks who see Iran's enrichment of uranium as a tripwire for military action may feel there is not enough time for diplomacy. "We have thought about a possible military attack," Larijani said. "What the leader said should be taken seriously ... If they want to harm us, we will harm them." Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said last week Iran would harm U.S. interests around the world if it was attacked.

ECONOMY VULNERABLE
Iran has told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it planned to start installing 3,000 centrifuges by the end of this year. If running continuously for a year these could produce enough uranium for a warhead. Diplomats reckon the most likely first step against Iran would be Zimbabwe-style travel restrictions on politicians, before economic sanctions were considered. Iran's economy would be particularly vulnerable to sanctions on gasoline imports, bank loans and engineering parts, diplomats and analysts say. But oil officials say the embargoes against crude oil shipments from the world's number 4 exporter would be unthinkable. Hydrocarbons account for 80 percent of Iran's export earnings. Deputy Oil Minister Mohammad Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian said there was little risk of sanctions on Iran's energy sector while oil prices flirt with record highs above $70 a barrel. "Due to the sensitivity of the oil market, any action like that will increase oil prices very high. I believe (neither) the U.N., (nor) other bodies will put any sanction on oil or the oil industry," he told a news conference in Islamabad.
By Parisa Hafezi

Rice: Iran Is 'Playing Games' With Offer
Iran's offer to let a watchdog agency inspect the country's nuclear facilities is a stalling tactic to avoid U.N. penalties that would further isolate Tehran, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday."I think they're playing games. But obviously, if they're not playing games, they should come clean. They should stop the enrichment, suspend the enrichment," Rice told ABC's "This Week." Iran's deputy oil minister played down the chance of U.N. action, saying punishing Tehran would send oil prices even higher. Tehran on Saturday offered to allow inspections if the U.N. Security Council would turn the dispute over to its nuclear monitor, the International Atomic Energy Agency. An agency report confirmed Iran had successfully produced enriched uranium and defied the Security Council's Friday dadline to stop the process. Iran maintains it will not make nuclear weapons and does not need or want them. But the United States, Britain and France suspect the intent of the uranium enrichment program is to make nuclear warheads. "The international community is completely of one mind, that no one wants, needs or really can tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran in the midst of the world's most volatile region. That is the consistent view," Rice told CNN's "Late Edition." While the U.S. and its European allies are pushing for possible penalties, veto-wielding Security Council members Russia and China have opposed the idea. Rice said the U.S. would seek a U.N. resolution requiring that Iran comply with demands it stop enriching uranium. She mentioned a resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which can be enforced through penalties or military action. Iran's deputy oil minister played down the idea of penalties. "Any action like that will increase oil prices very high. And I believe that the U.N. or its bodies will not put any sanctions on oil or the oil industry," M.H. Nejad Hosseinian told reporters in Pakistan. Rice, however, declared, "No one is talking about going to oil and gas sanctions." She cited potential steps such as freezing assets. "Oh, I absolutely believe that we have a lot of diplomatic arrows in our quiver at the Security Council and also like-minded states that would be able and willing to look at additional measures if the security council does not move quickly enough," Rice told CBS'"Face the Nation." In contrast, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said in an interview broadcast Sunday in London that Iran seems to "have pretty much decided they can accept whatever sanctions are coming their way." Rice said Iran does not want to risk global isolation. "But when the Iranians say things like, we don't care if there are sanctions, then I ask myself, 'Then why are they working so hard to stay out of the Security Council?'" she said. "Why are they suddenly saying, 'Oh, by the way, yes, we will allow snap inspections?' Why are they suddenly saying, 'Well, let's get this back into the IAEA?' It really doesn't sound like a regime that is simply unaware of what might happen." While pledging to let diplomacy run its course, Rice did not need see the need for direct talks now between Washington and Tehran, as favored by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, GOP Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, and other lawmakers. "We have channels that we have used. We have people who know our views who talk with the Iranians. I don't think that the absence of communication is the problem here," Rice said. Rice, who has told Congress that Iran is without a doubt "the single biggest threat from a state that we face," renewed her criticism of the hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has drawn widespread criticism for anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli statements. "I have never seen the man or talked to him. I just know that nobody speaks in polite company in that way, and that he represents the Iranian regime very badly," Rice said.
By LIBBY QUAID

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12553823/site/newsweek/



Iran: A Rummy Guide
To borrow a phrase used for Iraq, there are 'things we now know we don't know.' NEWSWEEK sorts it out.

By Christopher Dickey and John Barry
Newsweek


May 8, 2006 issue - Back in June 2002, as the Bush administration started pushing hard for war with Iraq by focusing on fears of the unknown—terrorists and weapons of mass destruction—Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld explained that when it came to gathering intelligence on such threats, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Elaborating, Rumsfeld told a news conference: "There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."

Now there's a crisis brewing with Iran. And the same basic problem applies: what is known, what is suspected, what can be only guessed or imagined? Is danger clear and present or vague and distant? Washington is abuzz now, as it was four years ago, with "sources" talking of sanctions, war, regime change. In 2002, despite a paucity of hard evidence, Iraq was made to seem an urgent threat demanding immediate action. "We don't want 'the smoking gun' to be a mushroom cloud" is the memorable phrase used by the then national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Given the results of Washington's rush into the Iraqi unknown, concern is growing about U.S. policy toward Iran. Yet the Iranian case is very different—and more dangerous. The latest report from the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, released last Friday by Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, makes it clear that Tehran is defying U.N. demands that it freeze its nuclear activities. European and American diplomats are considering resolutions calling for unspecified consequences—and, according to European sources, they have contingency plans for sanctions outside the United Nations if they're blocked by Russian or Chinese vetoes. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, lest there be any doubt about his stand, said, "The Iranian nation won't give a damn about such useless resolutions."

With the confrontation raising questions about future oil supplies, and fears growing that a seemingly crazy regime may soon acquire atomic bombs, the IAEA and Western intelligence agencies are working overtime to separate fundamental facts from guesswork and propaganda.

The Known Knowns
Tehran has a full-fledged nuclear-energy program. That's a known known, and the rabble-rousing Ahmadinejad is proud of it. (Indeed, he's made it a nationalist rallying cry: "By the grace of God, today Iran is a nuclear country," he declared again last week.) The country has used high-speed centrifuges to produce low-enriched uranium suitable for power generation. That, too, is confirmed by the IAEA. But the same techniques that Iran is using, and the machinery it's assembling, can also make the highly enriched uranium at the core of atomic bombs. Once the process is mastered, the question is not whether Iran can make a weapon, but whether it wants to. And who's next? Ahmadinejad talked last week about sharing the technology with Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir.

Iran insists the whole project is benign, and that it's now observing the letter of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—which enshrines its "right" to peaceful nuclear energy. But, another fact: Iran kept its enrichment activities secret from 1985 to 2003, in clear violation of the treaty's safeguard agreements. And instead of continuing a freeze on some of its activities begun in 2003, which was supposed to help restore international trust, Iranrestarted nuclear-fuel enrichment earlier this year. Such facts led the IAEA board of governors, including a reluctant Russia and China, to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for further discussion and possible action.

Yet it's also true that no solid evidence has ever been revealed linking Iran's known nuclear program to the actual development or production of nuclear weapons.


The Unknown Unknowns
At the other end of the information spectrum, on the invisible wavelength of unknown unknowns, is the hypothesis that the mullahs have an entirely secret, separate and thus-far utterly undiscovered nuclear-weapons program. Israeli officials commonly espouse this view, as do some American analysts. Former Reagan administration terrorism adviser and neoconservative scholar Michael Ledeen says he believes the Iranians already have the bomb. "Of all the hypotheses, the hypothesis that they don't is the least likely," he claims. A senior intelligence source from a country with close ties to Washington, who is not allowed to discuss intelligence matters on the record, says there's no smoking gun that points to a clandestine program. But he insists none may be needed. "What we have are a lot of dots," he says. "If you trace them and they outline an elephant, it's probably an elephant."

Israel, in range of Iranian missiles and often the victim of Iranian-backed terrorists, has every reason to be alarmed. Ahmadinejad, after all, talks about wiping Israel off the map. Yet Israeli estimates of how long it might take Iran to acquire atomic weapons—two years or less, in some cases—are often much shorter than others. "It's not the facts, it's the interpretation," says Ephraim Sneh, chairman of the Knesset's Defense Planning and Policy Subcommittee. "Maybe we define differently the definition of the 'point of no return'." Last month in Washington, top aides to U.S. intelligence czar John Negroponte told reporters they believe Iran will not have a nuclear bomb until after 2010, at the earliest.

"Are there secret facilities? I don't think so," says Gary Samore, nonproliferation expert in the Clinton administration, who recently wrote a major study of Iran's WMD programs. "Look, if there were, Iran would be very foolish to provoke acrisis over its known facilities. Their best course would be to soothe everyone by allowing the IAEA to monitor those, while secretly working away in the clandestine plants." Joseph Cirincione at the Carnegie Endowment is equally skeptical. "There's not a scintilla of evidence," he says. "Is it possible? Yes. Is it possible Iran has a base on the moon? Yes."

The Known Unknowns
Between clear fact and pure speculation lies the realm of questions based on shreds of evidence that actually exist. That's where the IAEA's investigators spend most of their time, and that's where they've encountered some of their greatest frustrations. "After more than three years of Agency effort