| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:09 pm Post subject: Iran Warns on U.N. Sanctions for Nukes |
| Iran Warns on U.N. Sanctions for Nukes
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI,
Associated Press Writer
Sun Sep 11,11:35 AM ET
Iran warned Sunday there will be "certain consequences" if it is referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear activities.
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki also said at a news conference that Iran plans to seek bids for building two more nuclear power plants in the Islamic republic. Russia now is finishing a plant in Bushehr that Iran expects to begin producing electricity early next year.
Mottaki reiterated Iran's position that it will not stop uranium reprocessing, rejecting a U.S.-backed European threat that Tehran has about a week to freeze the activities or face referral to the Security Council for possible sanctions.
The threat was issued after the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog body, said Iran had converted uranium into about 7 tons of a gas needed to produce enriched uranium — which can be used to fuel a power-generating reactor but also to make nuclear weapons.
"There is no legal or legitimate reason, given Iran's transparent activities and its open cooperation with the IAEA ... that Iran be referred to the U.N. Security Council," Mottaki told reporters.
"If a political decision is made to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, it will be entering a lose-lose game. It will have its own certain consequences and will affect Iran's decisions. We prefer that such a game is not played."
He did not specify what those consequences would be, but Iran is a major oil exporter.
The United States accuses Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to secretly produce nuclear weapons. Iran has rejected the charge, saying its nuclear program is intended only for generating electricity.
While rejecting demands that Iran cease uranium conversion, Mottaki said his government was willing to continue talks with European Union negotiators.
Britain, Germany and France, negotiating on behalf of the 25-nation EU, previously offered Iran economic incentives and a supply of reactor fuel in return for Tehran permanently giving up uranium conversion.
Iran rejected the proposal as an infringement on its sovereignty, saying the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty gives it the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Mottaki said Iran was drawing up its own proposals for the nuclear issue and they would probably be delivered to U.N. officials and heads of state by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he arrives in New York for this week's U.N. General Assembly. | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:32 am Post subject: The Iran trap |
| The Iran trap
by Scott Ritter
Sunday 11 September 2005 3:06 PM GMT
In the complicated world of international diplomacy surrounding the issue of Iran's nuclear programme, there is but one thing that the United States, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the so-called EU-3 (Germany, France and Great Britain) and Iran can all agree upon.
And that is: Iran has resumed operations of facilities designed to convert uranium into a product usable in enrichment processes. From that point forward consensus on just about anything begins to fall apart.
Iran's resumption of its uranium conversion programme seems to have brought to an end a negotiating process begun in November 2004 between the EU-3 and Iran, at which time Iran agreed to freeze its uranium enrichment-related activities in exchange for the EU-3's agreement to broker a deal that would provide inducements for Iran to give up its nuclear enrichment program.
With the EU-3 initiative now dead in the water, it appears that the next logical step in the diplomatic process is for the IAEA to refer the matter to the Security Council, where the US, backed by the EU-3, have threatened to push for economic sanctions. The IAEA board meets in Vienna, Austria on 19 September to discuss this matter.
The EU-3 countries are uniform in their criticism of Iran's diplomatic slap in the face, but in fact neither the EU-3 nor the IAEA have a legal leg to stand on.
Iran, as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), asserts its "inalienable right" under Article IV of the NPT to "develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".
Such rights are conditional, however, but Iran strongly believes that it has complied with Articles I and II of the NPT, where it agrees not to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons, and Article III, where it accepts full safeguards, including on-site inspections.
The only chance the world has of avoiding a second disastrous US military adventure in the Middle East is for the EU-3 to step back from its policy of doing the bidding of the US
Iran has yet to be declared to be in formal breach of any of these obligations, which raises the basic question: What is it the EU-3 wish to accomplish vis-a-vis their diplomatic intervention?
The real purpose of the EU-3 intervention - to prevent the United States from using Iran's nuclear ambition as an excuse for military intervention - is never discussed in public.
The EU-3 would rather continue to participate in fraudulent diplomacy rather than confront the hard truth - that it is the US, and not Iran, that is operating outside international law when it comes to the issue of Iran's nuclear programme.
In doing so, the EU-3, and to a lesser extent the IAEA, have fallen into a trap deliberately set by the Bush administration designed to use the EU-3 diplomatic initiative as a springboard for war with Iran.
The heart of the EU-3's position regarding Iran's nuclear programme is the matter of nuclear enrichment, which the EU-3 outright oppose. This, of course, is an extension of the American position (as well as that of America's shadow ally, Israel).
Legally, this is an unsupportable position under the NPT, but one which has been pursued based upon two fundamental points.
The first is Iran's history of deception regarding its nuclear programme, in which Iran hid critical aspects of this effort from the international community.
Iran now claims to have come into compliance with its NPT obligations, by having declared the totality of its efforts, something neither the EU-3 and the IAEA, nor the US and Israel can refute factually.
As with Iraq earlier, the United States has embraced a position which requires Iran to prove the negative
Indeed, the recent disclosure by the IAEA that the hard 'evidence' it possessed to sustain the charge that Iran was pursuing a covert nuclear weapons programme (the existence of traces of highly enriched uranium on Iranian centrifuges) was flawed.
The fact that the uranium came from Pakistan, not Iran, has undercut any case the EU-3 might have had in pursuing its confrontational stance with Iran.
In the face of this development, the EU-3 - Britain, Germany and France - need to ask themselves a very fundamental question: What is their true policy objective being pursued vis-a-vis Iran?
The answer appears to be little more than serving as a front for American complaints against the Iranian nuclear programme.
Given this, the EU-3 must next confront the real policy of the US when it comes to Iran - regime change. As was the case with Iraq, Europe has failed to confront the Bush administration's policy of regime change.
Instead, the EU-3 has allowed their seemingly unified European foreign-policy position regarding Iran to be hijacked by a neoconservative cabal in Washington, DC, as a stepping stone to war.
Europe would like to believe that the diplomatic initiative undertaken by the EU-3 last November represents a nominal Plan A, which avoids direct confrontation between the US and Iran through use of the European intermediary.
It is completely irrelevant that Iran has yet to be shown to have a nuclear weapons program (in fact the overwhelming amount of data available points to the exact opposite conclusion)
The EU-3 comfort themselves with the knowledge that any failure of their initiative pushes the world not to the brink of war, but rather toward a Plan B, intervention by the Security Council of the United Nations, which would seek to compel Iran back into line with the threat of economic sanctions.
A failure by the Security Council to achieve change on the part of Iran would then, and only then, pave the way for Plan C, American military intervention.
European diplomats concede that there is little likelihood that the Security Council will impose sanctions on Iran, given the intransigence on the part of Russia and China.
However, they have lulled themselves into a false sense of complacency by noting that given the situation in Iraq, and now in the US in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the US military is so overstretched that any talk of the Bush administration implementing a Plan C is out of the question.
What the Europeans - and the member nations of the EU-3 in particular - fail to recognise is that the Bush administration's plan for Iran does not consist of three separate plans, but rather one plan composed of three phases leading to the inevitability of armed conflict with Iran and the termination of the theocratic regime of the mullahs currently residing in Tehran.
These three phases - the collapse of the EU-3 intervention leading to a referral of the Iran matter to the Security Council, the inability of the Security Council to agree upon the imposition of economic sanctions against Iran, and the US confronting the Security Council over its alleged inability to protect American national security interests - lead inevitably toward military confrontation.
A failure by the Security Council to achieve change on the part of Iran would then, and only then, pave the way for Plan C, American military intervention
As with Iraq earlier, the US has embraced a position which requires Iran to prove the negative (ie, demonstrate that it does not have a nuclear weapons program) as opposed to the US and the IAEA proving that one does in fact exist.
The criteria put forward by the Bush administration for Iran to comply - no-notice inspections of any site at any time - are an affront to a sovereign nation that has yet to be shown to be in violation of any of its legal obligations.
The fact that the US used a similar programme of no-notice weapons inspections as a front for espionage against Iraq in support of its regime-change policy against Saddam Hussein has not escaped the attention of the Iranians, who have flat-out rejected any such extra-legal requirements on its part.
The US, and to a lesser extent the IAEA and the EU-3, have taken Iran's intransigence as a clear sign that Iran has something to hide.
Once again, as was the case with Iraq, the US has put process over substance, and unless the EU-3 bloc, the American effort to have the Iranian case transferred to the Security Council, the end result will be war.
The Iran trap has been well baited by the Bush administration, so much so that a Europe already burned once by American duplicity regarding Iraq, and a war-weary American public, fail to recognise what is actually transpiring.
The bait for this trap is, of course, diplomacy, first in the form of the EU-3 intervention, and that having failed, in the form of Security Council actions.
Polls taken in April 2005 showed that most Americans (63% to 37%) believed the Bush administration should take military action to stop Iran from developing or trying to develop a nuclear weapons programme.
It is completely irrelevant that Iran has yet to be shown to have a nuclear weapons programme (in fact the overwhelming amount of data available points to the exact opposite conclusion).
Today, in September 2005, many Americans might be loath to immediately embrace a direct path towards war with Iran. However, according to recent polls, most Americans support referring the matter of Iran to the Security Council for the purpose of imposing sanctions.
The EU-3, and to a lesser extent the IAEA, have fallen into a trap deliberately set by the Bush administration designed to use the EU-3 diplomatic initiative as a springboard for war with Iran
If the Security Council, because of Russian and Chinese opposition, refuses to support sanctions, the American people will be confronted by the Bush administration with the choice to either appear weak before the UN, or to take matters into our own hands (ie, unilateral military action) in the name of national defence.
The outcome in this case is certain - war.
Since the result of any referral of the Iran issue to the Security Council is all but guaranteed, the push by the EU-3 to have the IAEA refer Iran to the Security Council, while rooted in the language of diplomacy, is really nothing less than an act of war.
The only chance the world has of avoiding a second disastrous US military adventure in the Middle East is for the EU-3 to step back from its policy of doing the bidding of the US, and to confront not only Iran on the matter of its nuclear programme, but also the larger issue of American policies of regional transformation that represent the greatest threat to Middle East security and stability today.
Scott Ritter is former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998 Author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, published by IB Tauris (London) and Nation Books (USA) in October 2005.
The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.
Aljazeera
By Scott Ritter
You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1A678E7E-2612-4B21-8D21-04E6D5FC5D54.htm | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject: U.S. Deploys Slide Show to Press Case Against Iran |
| washingtonpost.com
U.S. Deploys Slide Show to Press Case Against Iran
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 14, 2005; A07
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 13 -- With an hour-long slide show that blends satellite imagery with disquieting assumptions about Iran's nuclear energy program, Bush administration officials have been trying to convince allies that Tehran is on a fast track toward nuclear weapons.
The PowerPoint briefing, titled "A History of Concealment and Deception," has been presented to diplomats from more than a dozen countries. Several diplomats said the presentation, intended to win allies for increasing pressure on the Iranian government, dismisses ambiguities in the evidence about Iran's intentions and omits alternative explanations under debate among intelligence analysts.
The presenters argue that the evidence leads solidly to a conclusion that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at producing weapons, according to diplomats who have attended the briefings and U.S. officials who helped to assemble the slide show. But even U.S. intelligence estimates acknowledge that other possibilities are plausible, though unverified.
The problem, acknowledged one U.S. official, is that the evidence is not definitive. Briefers "say you can't draw any other conclusion, and of course you can draw other conclusions," said the official, who would discuss the closed-door sessions only on condition of anonymity.
The briefings were conducted in Vienna over the past month in advance of a gathering of world leaders this week at the United Nations. President Bush, who is to address the annual General Assembly gathering Wednesday, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, plan to use the meeting to press for agreement to threaten international sanctions against Iran.
The president's direct involvement marks an escalation of a two-year effort to bring Iran before the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions, unless Tehran gives up technology capable of enriching uranium for a bomb. U.S. officials have acknowledged that it has been an uphill campaign, with opposition from key allies who fear a prelude to a military campaign.
Several diplomats said the slide show reminded them of the flawed presentation on Iraq's weapons programs made by then-secretary of state Colin L. Powell to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003. "I don't think they'll lose any support, but it isn't going to win anyone either," said one European diplomat who attended the recent briefing and whose country backs the U.S. position on Iran.
Robert G. Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, acknowledged last week that despite European support, the Bush administration has traveled a tough road in persuading others that Iran should face consequences for a nuclear program it built in secret.
"There's a great deal of resistance . . . on the part of many governments who don't seem to place, quite frankly, nonproliferation and Iran, a nuclear-armed Iran, at the top of their priority list," he told a congressional panel last week.
Several influential nations such as India, Russia, China, South Africa and Brazil share U.S. suspicions about Iran's intentions. But they maintain profound differences with the Bush administration over how to respond, and are apprehensive about the goals of a U.S. president who has said "all options are on the table," in dealing with Tehran.
Three years ago, the White House used the same annual gathering to put both Iraq, and the world community on notice. In a toughly-worded speech, delivered six months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Bush warned that the United States would deal alone, if necessary, with a dictator bent on launching nuclear weapons.
The U.S. intelligence community no longer believes Iraq was trying to reconstitute a nuclear program, as the president said. Those and other U.S. intelligence failures have remained fresh in the minds of international decision-makers now being asked to weigh the case of Iran.
The Iraq experience has had a "sobering effect" on Iran discussions, said President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, a close ally of the Bush administration. In an interview, he refused to speculate on whether Iran, whose program was secretly aided by Pakistan's top nuclear scientist, had been designed for weapons production. But he said he feels confident Iran's aims are now peaceful and there was no need for Security Council action.
Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is also attending the U.N. summit, has his own meetings scheduled in New York, and Iranian officials said he would use the gathering to mount forceful counterarguments. Iranian diplomats have been in close contact with countries such as Japan, which relies heavily on Iranian oil.
The outcome of both sides' efforts will be tested on Sept. 19, when diplomats from 35 countries meet at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna to decide whether to report Iran's case to the Security Council.
Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns last night suggested the administration may not be able to press for a successful vote and was exploring other options. He said the administration was working "with lots of other governments to devise an international coalition that will call upon Iran to return to the talks," it walked away from this summer with European negotiators. "There is a consensus that Iran has got to return to the talks."
Iran insists its nuclear efforts are aimed at producing nuclear energy, not bombs. The Bush administration contends that the energy program, built in secret and exposed in 2002, is just a cover. "They cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear program, which is what they're trying to do," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said earlier this month.
A recent U.S. intelligence estimate found that Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and mastering technologies that could also be used for bomb-making. But there is no proof that such diversion has occurred, the estimate said, and the intelligence community is uncertain as to whether Iran's ruling clerics have made a decision to go forward with a nuclear weapons program.
The estimate judged Iran to be as much as a decade away from being able to manufacture the fissile material necessary for a nuclear explosion. A report issued last week by the International Institute for Security Studies, a London-based research group, found Iran was 10 to 15 years from the technical know-how to build a bomb.
Both reports are based in large part on the findings of U.N. nuclear inspectors, now in their third year of investigating Iran's program. While no proof of a weapons program has been found, serious questions about Tehran's past work on centrifuge designs and experiments with plutonium -- a key ingredient for a nuclear weapon -- have yet to be adequately addressed and have furthered suspicions that the country is hiding information.
With little new information from the probe, the Bush administration put together its own presentation of Iran's program for diplomats in Vienna who are weighing whether to report Iran to the Security Council.
The presentation has not been vetted through standard U.S. intelligence channels because it does not include secret material. One U.S. official involved in the briefing said the intelligence community had nothing to do with the presentation and "probably would have disavowed some of it because it draws conclusions that aren't strictly supported by the facts."
The presentation, conducted in a conference room at the U.S. mission in Vienna, includes a pictorial comparison of Iranian facilities and missiles with photos of similar-looking items in North Korea and Pakistan, according to a copy of the slides handed out to diplomats. Pakistan largely supplied Iran with its nuclear infrastructure but, as a key U.S. ally, it is identified in the presentation only as "another country."
Corey Hinderstein, a nuclear analyst with the Institute for Science and International Security, said the presence of a weapons program could not be established through such comparisons. She noted that North Korea's missile wasn't designed for nuclear weapons so comparing it to an Iranian missile that also wasn't designed to carry a nuclear payload "doesn't make sense." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:25 pm Post subject: Russians gave aid with nukes: report |
| Russians gave aid with nukes: report
17oct05
FORMER members of the Russian military have been accused of secretly helping Iran produce missiles capable of striking in the heart of Europe.
Britain's Sunday Telegraph has reported the Russians have been acting as go-betweens with North Korea.
Their help has enabled Tehran to receive regular clandestine shipments of top-secret missile technology, believed to be channelled through Russia.
Western intelligence officials believe the technology will enable Iran to finish developing a missile with a range of more than 3500km.
It can carry a 1.2 tonne payload, enough for a basic nuclear device.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday failed to win Russia's support for referring Iran to the UN Security Council if the Islamic republic refuses to resume talks over suspected nuclear arms programs.
Dr Rice flew to Moscow on a surprise trip to press President Vladimir Putin to commit to backing the move, and the potential for international sanctions, if Iran continues to defy the West.
But with Russia wary of measures against a country it has strong commercial ties with, Mr Putin was unmoved.
He reaffirmed Russia's position that the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency should deal with Iran.
A senior US official was quoted as saying Iran's program was "sophisticated and getting larger and more accurate".
"They've had very much in mind the payload needed to carry a nuclear weapon. I think Putin knows what the Iranians are doing," he told the Telegraph.
The US accuses Iran of hiding its weapons development behind its nuclear power program.
Iran has refused to suspend its uranium enrichment program or allow full UN inspections. – REUTERS | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:37 pm Post subject: Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come |
| October 17, 2005
Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come
by Jorge Hirsch
The stage is set for a chain of events that could lead to nuclear war over chemical weapons in the immediate future. If these events unfold, the trigger will be Israel, the target Iran, the nuclear aggressor the U.S. These are the reasons:
The U.S. State Department determined in August 2005 that "Iran is in violation of its CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] obligations because Iran is acting to retain and modernize key elements of its CW infrastructure to include an offensive CW R&D capability and dispersed mobilization facilities."
According to the CIA, "Iran likely has already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents – and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them – which it previously had manufactured."
According to (then undersecretary for arms control and international security, now U.S. ambassador to the UN) John Bolton's testimony to the House of Representatives (June 24, 2004), "We believe Iran has a covert program to develop and stockpile chemical weapons," and on Iran's ballistic missiles, "Iran continues its extensive efforts to develop the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction," and "The 1,300-km range Shahab-3 missile is a direct threat to Israel, Turkey, U.S. forces in the region, and U.S. friends and allies."
In the IAEA resolution of Sept. 24 [.pdf], Iran was found to be in "noncompliance" with its NPT safeguards agreements.
Members of the Israeli parliament from across the political spectrum are urging the United States to stop Iran's nuclear programs, or Israel will "act unilaterally." Statements of grave concern about Iran's nuclear program have been made by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and Mossad chief Meir Dagan (Iran poses an "existential threat" to Israel). Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter accuses Iran of plotting relentlessly to attack Israeli targets.
According to the head of the Russian Atomic Energy Organization, Alexander Rumyantsev, Russia will ship the first cargo of nuclear fuel for Iran's Bushehr's reactor at the end of 2005 or early 2006.
Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor (which was under IAEA supervision) in 1981 just before nuclear fuel was loaded into it (to prevent nuclear fallout).
President Bush has said that "all options are on the table" if diplomacy fails to halt Iran's nuclear program.
The U.S. House of Representatives on May 6, 2004, by a vote of 376-3, called on the United States to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
In the recently released draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf], the Pentagon states that it will respond to the threat of WMD (which includes chemical and biological weapons) with nuclear weapons.
Conclusion: according to Israel, the U.S. administration, and 99.2 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives, Iran will not be allowed to have access to any nuclear technology. No diplomatic options to achieve that goal will remain when Russia and China veto Security Council sanctions, or if the IAEA refuses on Nov. 24 to refer Iran to the Security Council. Military action will occur before Russia ships uranium fuel to Iran, and will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against Iran.
How will it all get started? No matter how much Bush and Cheney want it, the U.S. Senate is unlikely to authorize the bombing of Iranian installations out of the blue. Unless there is some major disturbance in Iraq that can be blamed on Iran, Israel is likely to pull the trigger. It knows how to and has every motivation to do so.
Once Israel drops the first bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility, as it did with Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, there is no return. Bushehr is likely to be the first target; other installations will follow.
Iran will respond – how can it not? At a minimum, it will shoot missiles at Israel. It may or may not shoot at U.S. forces in Iraq initially, but given the U.S.-Israel "special relationship," there is no way the U.S. will stay out of the conflict. Many of Iran's targeted facilities are underground, and U.S. bombs will be needed to destroy them all.
Once the U.S. enters the conflict, 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will be at risk of Iranian missiles with chemical warheads, or of being overrun by Iran's conventional forces streaming into Iraq. According to the Pentagon planning [.pdf], nuclear weapons will be used:
"To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."
"Against an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations…"
"[O]n adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies"
"[T]o counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces…"
"For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms…"
"To ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations…"
That makes six independent reasons for nuking Iran.
The first nuclear bomb used in an act of war after "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" should be code-named "Demo" – for "demonstration" that we can do it, don't mess with us, for "democracy" on the rise in the Middle East, and for the "Democrats" in Congress who will go along with the program. As with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we will be told it saved lives, ours and theirs. You know the script.
The upshot: a nuclear superpower will have nuked a non-nuclear state that is an NPT signatory and is cooperating with the IAEA, at the instigation of a state that is not an NPT signatory, that reportedly has over 100 nuclear bombs of its own, and that initiated hostilities with an unprovoked act of military aggression.
Given these prospects, the U.S. government should be doing its utmost to restrain Israel, yet it is doing exactly the opposite. It should be trying to achieve a diplomatic solution, but it refuses to even talk to Iran. The ongoing diplomatic effort by the EU is simply designed to provide cover for the planned military action, just as in the case of Iraq. How many times must Bush play the same game before the EU finally learns it is being used?
And how many times will it take for the U.S. citizenry to learn? The U.S. public and its representatives in Congress, preoccupied with the deception and subsequent disaster of the Iraq invasion, are blind to the enormously bigger deception and disaster unfolding just before their eyes. Do the majority of American citizens, from whom the authority of the administration is derived, really want to be drawn by Israel into a nuclear conflict? Is this really in the United States' best interest?
The sane world needs to tell the U.S. and Israeli governments to back off. And the United States needs to tell Israel, in no uncertain terms, that it will not allow (American-supplied) Israeli bombers carrying (American supplied) bunker-busting bombs over Iraqi airspace, and that it will not aid, abet, or condone such an attack. By not demanding this of the Bush administration, the U.S. Congress is complicit in what is about to happen and is betraying the trust of the people it represents.
There is a rational way to avoid this disaster.
Let Iran pursue a civilian nuclear program. Over 30 countries have civilian nuclear programs, while only nine have nuclear weapons. Let the Nobel-prize winning IAEA and Mohamed ElBaradei do their job!
The U.S. can guarantee Israel's safety by assuring Israel that any threat to its existence from a non-nuclear nation will be met with the full force of U.S. conventional forces, and any threat from a nuclear nation will be met with U.S. nuclear forces.
If Iran were to withdraw from the NPT and not allow international supervision of its programs, it would still take several years for it to acquire a nuclear weapon. There would still be plenty of time to act.
Otherwise? Welcome to the new world order, where the U.S. can nuke any non-nuclear country at will. Refrain from having a nuclear deterrent at your own risk. All nations that can will become nuclear, others on their way will be nuked, and all-out nuclear war will become an absolute certainty. Bye-bye, world.
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7649 | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject: Bush administration finalizes military attack on Iran |
| Bush administration finalizes military attack on Iran
Wayne Madsen Report
January 2, 2006
Wayne Madsen
January 2, 2006 -- Intelligence indications and warnings abound as Bush administration finalizes military attack on Iran.
Intelligence and military sources in the United States and abroad are reporting on various factors that indicate a U.S. military hit on Iranian nuclear and military installations, that may involve tactical nuclear weapons, is in the final stages of preparation. Likely targets for saturation bombing are the Bushehr nuclear power plant (where Russian and other foreign national technicians are present), a uranium mining site in Saghand near the city of Yazd, the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, a heavy water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak, the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit, the Uranium Conversion Facility and Nuclear Technology Center in Isfahan, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, the Kalaye Electric Company in the Tehran suburbs, a reportedly dismantled uranium enrichment plant in Lashkar Abad, and the Radioactive Waste Storage Units in Karaj and Anarak.
Primary target: Bushehr nuclear reactor and hundreds of Russian technicians
Other first targets would be Shahab-I, II, and III missile launch sites, air bases (including the large Mehrabad air base/international airport near Tehran), naval installations on the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea, command, control, communications and intelligence facilities. Secondary targets would include civilian airports, radio and TV installations, telecommunications centers, government buildings, conventional power plants, highways and bridges, and rail lines. Oil installations and commercial port facilities would likely be relatively untouched by U.S. forces in order to preserve them for U.S. oil and business interests.
There has been a rapid increase in training and readiness at a number of U.S. military installations involved with the planned primarily aerial attack. These include a Pentagon order to Fort Rucker, Alabama, to be prepared to handle an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 trainees, including civilian contractors, who will be deployed for Iranian combat operations. Rucker is home to the US Army's aviation training command, including the helicopter training school.
In addition, there has been an increase in readiness at nearby Hurlburt Field in Florida, the home of the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command. The U.S. attack on Iran will primarily involve aviation (Navy, Air Force, Navy-Marine Corps) and special operations assets.
There has also been a noticeable increase in activity at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, California, a primary live fire training activity located in a desert and mountainous environment similar to target areas in Iran.
From European intelligence agencies comes word that the United States has told its NATO allies to be prepared for a military strike on Iranian nuclear development and military installations.
On November 17, 2005, Russian President Vladimir Putin spent seven hours in secret discussions with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during the the opening ceremonies in Samsun, Turkey for the Russian-Turkish underwater Blue Stream natural gas pipeline, festivities also attended by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
According to sources knowledgeable about the meeting, Erdogan promised Putin, who has become a close friend, that Turkey would not support the use of its bases by the United States in a military attack on Iran. That brought a series of high level visits to Turkey by Bush administration officials, including CIA chief Porter Goss, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Although Erdogan listened to Goss's and Rice's pleas for Turkish logistical, political, and intelligence help for an attack on Iran and Turkish Army Chief Yasar Buyukanit heard much the same from Pentagon officials during his recent trip to Washington, the word is that Putin now has enough clout in Ankara to scuttle any use of Turkey by the U.S. for an attack on Iran. [Mueller delivered Ankara intelligence "proof" of Iranian backing for Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) guerrillas in Turkey. Intelligence agencies and business intelligence units around the world are now discounting any intelligence coming from the Bush administration as neocon propaganda invented by think tanks and discredited intelligence agencies in Washington, Tel Aviv-Herzliya, and Jerusalem].
A U.S. Attack on Iran: The Perfect Storm for wider nuclear conflict
U.S. political and military officials have also approached Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Oman, and Azerbaijan seeking their support for a U.S. attack on Iran. Ina replay of the phony pre-war intelligence on Iraq, Washington is trying to convince various countries that a link exists between Iran and "Al Qaeda."
Polish intelligence sources report that Poland's Defense Minister Radek Sikorski assured Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of Poland's support for any U.S. strike against Iran. Sikorski is a former American Enterprise Institute colleague of such neo-cons as Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, and Lynne Cheney, the so-called "Second Lady" of the United States. Sikorski and Polish Foreign Minister Stefan Meller assured Rumsfeld and Rice, respectively, that Poland would stand by the United States during the split in NATO that will occur as a result of the American strike. Polish intelligence sources, who are unhappy with the arrangement of the new right-wing government in Warsaw with the Bush administration, leaked the information about the recent U.S. demarche to NATO in Brussels about preparation for the attack.
Similar intelligence "leaks" about the U.S. attack plans were also leaked to the German magazine Der Spiegel.
European intelligence sources also report that the recent decision by Putin and Russia's state-owned Gazprom natural gas company to cut supplied of natural gas to Ukraine was a clear warning by Putin to nations like Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Moldova, France, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Bosnia, Serbia, and Germany that it would do the same if they support the U.S. attack on Iran. Gazprom natural gas is supplied, via pipelines in Ukraine, from Russia and Turkmenistan to countries in Eastern and Western Europe. The Bush administration charged Russia with using gas supplies as a "political tool."
Putin has additional leverage on Western Europe since former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder accepted an appointment to the board of a joint Russian-German North European Gas Pipeline Consortium that is controlled by Gazprom. The pipeline will bring Russian gas to Scandinavia, Germany, Netherlands, and Britain, giving Putin additional leverage over Washington in Europe.
Southeast Asian intelligence sources report that Burma's (Myanmar's) recent abrupt decision to move its capital from Rangoon (Yangon) to remote Pyinmana, 200 miles to the north, is a result of Chinese intelligence warnings to its Burmese allies about the effects of radiation resulting from a U.S. conventional or tactical nuclear attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. There is concern that a series of attacks on Iranian nuclear installations will create a Chernobyl-like radioactive cloud that would be caught up in monsoon weather in the Indian Ocean.
Rangoon (Yangon) capital moved 200 miles north over fears of monsoon season Iran nuclear fallout?
Low-lying Rangoon lies in the path of monsoon rains that would continue to carry radioactive fallout from Iran over South and Southeast Asia between May and October. Coastal Indian Ocean cities like Rangoon, Dhaka, Calcutta, Mumbai, Chennai, and Colombo would be affected by the radioactive fallout more than higher elevation cities since humidity intensifies the effects of the fallout. Thousands of government workers were given only two days' notice to pack up and leave Rangoon for the higher (and dryer) mountainous Pyinmana.
In neighboring West Bengal, the leftist government and its national leftist allies around the country are planning massive demonstrations during Bush's upcoming trip to India. They are protesting the war in Iraq as well as the threats against Iran.
Reports from Yemen indicate that western oil companies are concerned about U.S. intentions in Iran since the southern Arabian country catches the edge of the monsoon rains that could contain radioactive fallout from an attack, endangering their workers in the country.
The Bush administration aborted last minute plans to attack Iranian nuclear and political installations prior to the 2004 presidential election. On October 9, Rumsfeld met with defense minister colleagues on the now decommissioned USS John F. Kennedy in the Persian Gulf to seek support for the attack. That meeting has been confirmed by the Danish Defense Minister who was in attendance, however, the topic of the meeting was not discussed. According to U.S. naval personnel on board the Kennedy, a special "war room" was set up to coordinate the attack. Britain, Australia, Italy, Netherlands, and Japan did not attend the meeting because of their opposition to the attack plans.
Intelligence and military officials around the world are also bracing for the results of a U.S. attack on Iran. This includes the distinct possibility of a major Shia retaliatory attack in Iraq, the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Afghanistan against U.S. military, diplomatic, and economic targets in the region. Radioactive fallout from a conventional or tactical nuclear attack on Iran will result in major problems with Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Japan, and other downwind countries in Asia and the Pacific Rim, possibly including the fall of the Pervez Musharraf government in Pakistan and replacement by a radical Islamist regime having possession of nuclear weapons. That would provoke a military response from nuclear power India.
In a counter-attack, Iran would immediately launch its Shahab I and II missiles at the U.S. Green Zone in Baghdad, the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar, the US Navy base in Bahrain, Camp Doha base in Kuwait, Al Seeb airbase in Oman, Baghdad International Airport, the U.S. base in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Iran would also launch its long-range Shahab III missiles on the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheba, Eilat, and the Israeli nuclear complex at Dimona. Iranian missiles would also be launched at US naval ships in the Persian Gulf and oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The virtual end of NATO as a viable defense organization may also result from an attack that will drive a final wedge between Washington and Europe. And China may elect to respond financially and militarily against the United States since Iran is China's second largest source of imported Middle East oil after Saudi Arabia and plans to use an Iranian terminal for the export of natural gas from Turkmenistan. [China now imports 60 percent of its oil needs, and Iran represents 17 percent of those imports].
Russia recently participated in, through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a three-way military exercise (code named "Indira 2005") between Russia, China, and India to prepare for any new U.S. power projections in Asia, including an attack on Iran, a prospective SCO member. Last August, Russia and China held their first-ever joint land-sea-air military exercises.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's Stop a US/Israeli Attack on Iran:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/12/30/let-s-stop-a-us-israeli-war-on-iran.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:20 am Post subject: Time To Talk To Tehran |
| Time To Talk To Tehran
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Does President Bush intend a preventive war, early this year, to effect
the
nuclear castration of Iran? Or are we rattling sabers? What makes the
question
urgent are German reports that CIA Director Porter Goss has been in
Ankara,
Turkey, negotiating for U.S. use of bases for air strikes on Iran's
nuclear
sites. Over the weekend, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said time is
running
out on diplomacy to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat. The Israelis
are
warning that if diplomacy fails, and we do not haul Tehran before the
Security
Council for sanctions, Israel will denuclearize Iran herself. The end
of March is
said to be the deadline for when Israel decides whether the West is
serious.
Turning up the heat, the Israeli lobby AIPAC has begun to rap President
Bush -
for wimpishness on Iran. Prediction: If Bush does not confront or
attack
Tehran, Israel and its Amen Corner will begin to give him the same
treatment they
gave his father.
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8341 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:19 am Post subject: Crisis Over Iran's Nuclear Program Intensifies |
| http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/13/152244
Friday, January 13th, 2006
Crisis Over Iran's Nuclear Program Intensifies
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran threatened to halt snap inspections of its nuclear sites by the United Nations if its nuclear program is referred to the Security Council. The move came after the United States, Britain, France and Germany said Thursday that nuclear talks with Iran were at a dead end and the issue should be brought before the Council. We speak with Middle East and Iran expert Ervand Abrahamian of Baruch College. [includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran threatened to halt snap inspections of its nuclear sites by the United Nations if its nuclear program is referred to the Security Council. The protocol allows intrusive and short-notice inspections of the country's nuclear sites. The move came after the United States, Britain, France and Germany said Thursday that nuclear talks with Iran were at a dead end and the issue should be brought before the Council.
The crisis over Iran's nuclear program intensified this week after Iran removed seals at three nuclear facilities following a two-year freeze. Iran says its nuclear programs are solely for the peaceful generation of electricity.
Hashemi Rafsanjani, former president of Iran:
"Now the subject is very serious and sensitive and is the top issue. It seems that they, the West, don't want the Islamic country to have the new technology and want them to be backward. But we are determined to have this technology."
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the UN Thursday to confront what she called Iran's "defiance" over its nuclear program.
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State:
"We also agree that the removal of seals by the Iranian Government, in defiance of numerous IAEA Board resolutions, demonstrates that it has chosen confrontation with the international community over cooperation and negotiation. As the EU-3 and EU have declared, these provocative actions by the Iranian regime have shattered the basis for negotiation.
We join the European Union and many other members of the international community in condemning the Iranian Government's deliberate escalation of this issue. There is simply no peaceful rationale for the Iranian regime to resume uranium enrichment. We're gravely concerned by Iran's long history of hiding sensitive nuclear activities from the IAEA, in violation of its obligations, its refusal to cooperate with the IAEA's investigation, its rejection of diplomatic initiatives offered by the EU and Russia and now its dangerous defiance of the entire international community
This is Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.
Sen. John Kerry (D - MA):
"Ultimately if we are not able to find any diplomatic resolution in the next weeks I don't think we have any choice but to take it to the international community. I think Iran has made a very dangerous and a very silly decision and it is inviting confrontation not with the United States but with the global community that cares enormously about the control of nuclear weapons."
Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan stressed that diplomatic talks with Iran were still on the table.
Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General:
"First of all, I think we should try and resolve it if possible in the IAEA context and El Baradei is working with the parties doing his best to try to resolve it there. Once that process is exhausted it may end up in the council and I would leave it to the council to decide what to do if it were to come here. I wouldn't wan to preempt that. And my own, I have been talking to all the parties to negotiate a settlement and really keeping people at the table and try to discourage escalation. My good offices are always available if I need to do more and the parties so wish I will do it."
For the latest on Iran we are joined by:
Ervand Abrahamian, Middle East and Iran Expert at Baruch College, City University of New York. He is the author of several books and is the co-author of "Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran, and Syria"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
JUAN GONZALEZ: This is the former president of Iran, Rafsanjani.
HASHEMI RAFSANJANI: [translated] Now, the subject is very serious and sensitive and is the top issue. It seems that they, the West, don't want an Islamic country to have new technology and want them to be backward. But we are determined to have this technology.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the U.N. Thursday to confront what she called Iran's defiance over its nuclear program.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: We also agree that the removal of seals by the Iranian government in defiance of numerous I.A.E.A. board resolutions demonstrates that it has chosen confrontation with the international community over cooperation and negotiation. As the E.U.-3 and E.U. have declared, these provocative actions by the Iranian regime have shattered the basis for negotiation.
We join the European Union and many other members of the international community in condemning the Iranian government's deliberate escalation of this issue. There is simply no peaceful rationale for the Iranian regime to resume uranium enrichment. We are gravely concerned by Iran's long history of hiding sensitive nuclear activities from the I.A.E.A., in violation of its obligations, its refusal to cooperate with the I.A.E.A.'s investigation, its rejection of diplomatic initiatives offered by the E.U. and Russia, and now its dangerous defiance of the entire international community.
AMY GOODMAN: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. This is Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.
SEN. JOHN KERRY: Ultimately, if we're not able to find a diplomatic resolution in the next weeks, I don't think we have any choice but to take it to the international community. I think Iran has made a very dangerous and a very silly decision. And it really is inviting confrontation not with the United States, but with the global community that cares enormously about the control of nuclear weapons.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stressed diplomatic talks with Iran were still on the table.
KOFI ANNAN: First of all, I think we should try and resolve it, if possible, in the I.A.E.A. context. And El Baradei is working with the parties, doing his best to try and resolve it there. Once that process is exhausted, it may end up in the council, and I would leave it to the council to decide what to do if it were to come here. I wouldn't want to preempt them. And my own -- no, I've been talking to all the parties, doing whatever I can to encourage a negotiated settlement and really keeping people at the table and trying to avoid and discourage escalation. And I will continue to do that. My good offices are always available. If I need to do more and the parties so wish, I will do it.
AMY GOODMAN: That's Kofi Annan. For more on Iran, we are joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He is a Middle East and Iran expert at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of several books and coauthor of Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria. The professor joins us in our Firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, can you talk about the latest, what looks like is evolving as a major crisis at the United Nations?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes. I think what we're seeing are beginnings of escalation, escalation which can eventually lead to some sort of military confrontation. Because of the Iraqi war, we have the sort of the premise that wars are done by design, by intention. The Iraqi war was actually very much of an exception. Most wars come out of miscalculation, misjudgment, playing chickens, expecting the other side to climb down. And this is a classic case where the two sides have irreconcilable interests, and the two sides are going to, in fact, play chicken, expecting the other side to back down. And as far as I can see, neither side is going to back down. So along the road, military confrontation is very much likely.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And your sense of the role of China and Russia in the Security Council, if this does move now to the Security Council?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, Iran, in the past, has been hoping, with the help of also India and other countries, but the bottom line is when it comes to who can offer what, of course, the U.S. can offer China and Russia far more than Iran can. So Iran is not really going to get much protection from those countries, and it probably knows that. It's willing to go along, because it feels it has other cards it can play against United States. So, Iran's actually acting from a position of strength, the way they see it. This makes it very dangerous, because they are overconfident about the situation.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And the New York Times is reporting that Israel, behind the scenes, is pressing very hard on this issue of Iran. But the hypocrisy of many of these western countries, raising these issues about Iran's nuclear program, while Israel's nuclear program goes basically unnoticed or not targeted by any of the other major powers.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes. And it's not, of course, only Israel. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. As is often -- Israel constantly says Israel lives in a dangerous neighborhood. But actually Iran lives in the same dangerous neighborhood. Although Iran is adamant that it has no interest, intention of building the bomb, clearly what the policy is to have the capabilities of building the bomb, if necessary.
And this is directly related to Iran's experience during the Iraqi war, when the Iraqis were using weapons of mass destruction and the international community didn't lift a finger. In fact, countries like United States helped Iraq use these weapons on Iran, actually sold the materials and looked the other way and denied the fact that Iraq had been using it. And from this experience, the Iranian decision makers have come to the conclusion that they need to be self-reliant. And if they're ever in a situation like that again, they would be able to build a bomb.
But that doesn't mean they want to build a bomb now. In the nuclear business, it's known as the Japanese option. Japan has this option, within a few months, of building a bomb, because it has all the equipment, it has the science, it has the knowledge. And this Japanese option, actually, some 30 countries in the world has it, and I think the strategy of the Iranian leadership is to be in the same position.
AMY GOODMAN: Why do you think it unsealed, pulled the seals now?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I think this has been building up. I mean, Iran -- voluntary -- it kept on insisting this was a voluntary freeze while they’re negotiating with the Europeans. And those negotiations really went nowhere, mainly because it was -- Europeans were doing it for [inaudible] the United States. The United States was not involved. And since they discovered that basically they were freezing it indefinitely, it was not in their interest. So this is, for them, a time to do it. And, of course, what they see is the U.S. quagmire in Iraq. They feel that United States really can't do anything at the moment, and this is a perfect situation to go ahead.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Professor Ervand Abrahamian of Baruch College, has co-written the book, Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria. In news, the Times of London reported that Israel's armed forces have been ordered by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon -- this was in December -- to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran. Israel has denied the report.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, it actually doesn’t really matter whether U.S. does the strike or Israel does it, because Iran would obviously retaliate. And it really can't retaliate against Israel, but it could easily retaliate against United States, so if Israel carries out air strikes, it will be the United States that will suffer for it.
And the pain for the United States will come predominantly in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both countries, Iran, to use the jingo language, they have the assets, got a great deal of assets to cause a lot of trouble for United States. And the last thing, I think, the U.S. military wants in Iraq is a Shia revolt while they're dealing with a Sunni revolt.
AMY GOODMAN: You've talked about -- or I'd like to ask you about the President of Iran's comments on Israel, saying the Holocaust is a myth, saying Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, perhaps it should be established in someplace like Alaska. Your response?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, there are actually two explanations for this. One is this type of thinking is pretty current among rightwing in Iran. And the right wing in Iran is no more sophisticated than the right wing elsewhere. They pick up a few things from information about history, and they elaborate to a Holocaust denial, so every time in Europe someone questions a thing about the Holocaust, it's picked up in the rightwing newspapers in Iran as a major fact. So Ahmadinejad very much comes from that perspective, the questions about the Holocaust.
Then, the question is: Why is he being so adamant and insistent on it now? And I think that's a more interesting issue. If you look at it in the Middle East arena, in the Sunni Arab world Iran is seen as a collaborator with United States. This may sound strange in United States, but from their perspective, what's happening in Iraq is the government is set up in Baghdad, is a Shia government, pro-Iranian, but it's also working together closely with United States. I think this is a marriage of convenience that's not going last long, but from the Sunni, especially rightwing Sunni fundamentalist perspective, the Shias and the Iranians are actually in cahoots with United States.
Now, to basically overcome this stigma, the President in Iran is being more anti-Israeli than the Arabs. So if you can come out with these statements, you could say, ‘Well, look, I’m actually more pro-Palestinian, I’m more pro-Muslim, I’m more pro-Arab, I’m more anti-Israeli than you are, because I’m denying the Holocaust, I’m denying the legitimacy of Israel.’ And this is, again, from a rightwing Iranian perspective.
The more moderates, liberals, reformists had for a long time come to the conclusion that a two-state solution was the best thing. And the former president had actually gone on record as saying that anything the Palestinians accepted, Iran would have to accept, too. So if the Palestinians wanted a two-state solution, recognize Israel, it's not really the task of Iran to sabotage that and say, no. But I think here what Ahmadinejad is trying to do is like being more Catholic than the Pope, being more anti-Israeli than the Palestinians and the Arabs, as a way of forestalling the criticism that Iran is working with United States.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And in terms of North Korea, obviously the focus now, once again, on Iran and a nuclear program in Iran has basically forced North Korea out of the news. You hear virtually nothing about it anymore, and the United States policy of bringing this case to the U.N., while continuing to keep North Korea sort of aside in local regional talks there with some of the major powers there. Your perspective on the different approaches of the United States, of the Bush administration?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes. I mean, from the people in Tehran, their perspective is, ‘Look, North Korea has the bomb, and the U.S. is negotiating with it. Saddam Hussein didn't have the bomb and look what happened to him.’ So within, I think, Iranian elite, there is this debate. If, once Iran gets to the point of having the capabilities, should Iran then go that stretch, one lap, and actually build the bomb? And these are sort of questions that would be raised.
In fact, what is surprising is the last few years in Iran there has been much open discussion whether one should have the nuclear capability and the bomb. I don't know any other country that ever actually has such a debate. I mean, United States, when it built the bomb, or Germany or France or Russia or China, they did it secretly. And it became a de facto thing.
But in Iran there's actually quite a sophisticated knowledge about the dangers of going that route, and there's much discussion about it, the pros and cons into it. And there are even military leaders who argue that it's not in Iran's interest to build the bomb. They all agree on it’s important to have the capabilities, but to actually have the bomb is a debated issue. And many, I would say, important people would argue that it's not in Iran's interest to actually have the bomb.
AMY GOODMAN: We only have 30 seconds. But in your book you write, “The United States is on a collision course with Iran. The main casualty could well be the democratic movement in Iran.” What did you mean?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, it's already occurred. I mean, the casualty has been the democratic movement, because under the Carter and the Clinton administrations, there was actually a rapprochement, a détente. The two were pretty -- on good terms. And then you had the neo-cons coming into Washington and the “axis of evil” speech that basically undercut the reformers in Iran, because the reformers by basically -- inevitably were associated with good relations with United States. And here you have someone in Washington calling for the destruction of the Islamic republic, calling it “axis of evil.” That, really a major reason for the undermining of the reformers, so that's already occurred three years ago.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, this is a conversation that we will continue. Professor Ervand Abrahamian is a Middle East and Iran expert at Baruch College at the City University of New York, coauthor of Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran and Syria. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
