| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:42 am Post subject: Israel: U.S. Iran Report May Cause War |
| Israel: U.S. Iran Report May Cause War
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316963,00.html
Saturday , December 15, 2007
Fox News
JERUSALEM — Israel's public security minister warned Saturday that a U.S. intelligence report that said Iran is no longer developing nuclear arms could lead to a regional war that would threaten the Jewish state.
In his remarks — Israel's harshest criticism yet of the U.S. report — Avi Dichter said the assessment also cast doubt on American intelligence in general, including information about Palestinian security forces' crackdown on militant groups. The Palestinian action is required as part of a U.S.-backed renewal of peace talks with Israel this month.
Dichter cautioned that a refusal to recognize Iran's intentions to build weapons of mass destruction could lead to armed conflict in the Middle East.
He compared the possibility of such fighting to a surprise attack on Israel in 1973 by its Arab neighbors, which came to be known in Israel for the Yom Kippur Jewish holy day on which it began.
"The American misconception concerning Iran's nuclear weapons is liable to lead to a regional Yom Kippur where Israel will be among the countries that are threatened," Dichter said in a speech in a suburb south of Tel Aviv, according to his spokesman, Mati Gil. "Something went wrong in the American blueprint for analyzing the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat."
Dichter didn't elaborate on the potential scenario but seemed to imply that a world that let its guard down regarding Iran would be more vulnerable to attack by the Islamic regime.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had disputed the U.S. intelligence assessment this month, saying that Iran continues its efforts to obtain components necessary to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran still poses a major threat to the West and the world must stop it, Olmert said.
Israel has for years been warning that Iran is working on nuclear weapons and backed the United States in its international efforts to exert pressure on Iran to stop the program. Israel considers Iran a significant threat because of its nuclear ambitions, its long-range missile program and repeated calls by its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for the disappearance of Israel.
Iran says its nuclear program is for purely peaceful purposes.
Israel will work to change the American intelligence agencies' view of Iran, said Dichter, a former chief of Israel's Shin Bet secret service agency.
"A misconception by the world's leading superpower is not just an internal American occurrence," Dichter said.
Any future faulty U.S. intelligence on the actions of Palestinian security forces could damage peace efforts, Dichter said.
"Those same (intelligence) arms in the U.S. are apt to make a mistake and declare that the Palestinians have fulfilled their commitments, which would carry with it very serious consequences from Israel's vantage point," Dichter said. | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject: |
| General (Ret) James David is mentioned on the cover of the third edition of former Republican Congressman Paul Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' book about the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby in the USA:
From: BGJDAVID
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:02:40 EST
Subject: Israel's is getting desperate
This great swollen parasite thrives not only on our money but on our very life's blood itself. The U.S. war with Iraq is primarily to protect Israel's continued military dominance in the Middle East. Iraq was never a threat to America. But it was a potential threat to Israel. The same thing is happening with Iran, and no matter how much our intelligence reports that Iran is no threat to America, the Israelis are determined to use its control on our politicians to insure America does Israel's dirty work again. When will the American people discover how this evil state of Israel is taking this nation to an all time low? It is our legitimate right as citizens and taxpayers not to be forced to finance the crimes of Zionism with our blood and our money. Our programming is so strong and our reasoning so weak that otherwise intelligent people have become irrational zealots when it comes to supporting Israel, a nation that shares none of the most important values we are supposed to believe in as Americans.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert pauses during the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Sunday, Dec. 16, 2007. Israel has dispatched an unscheduled delegation of intelligence officials to the U.S. to try to convince it that Iran is still trying to develop nuclear weapon, contrary to the findings of a recent U.S. intelligence report, security officials say. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner, pool) | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:52 pm Post subject: |
| Israel, US 'must quickly negate NIE'
Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:25:47
An Israeli think tank says the US and Israel must adopt a new approach to Iran before the recently released NIE alters public opinion.
The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) said the 'short-term' moves made by the United States and Israel to prevent the implications of the US intelligence report are greatly 'significant'.
As the US National Intelligence Estimate confirmed with 'high confidence' that Iran is not developing weapons of mass destruction, the INSS admits that the NIE will undermine the Israeli campaign for persuading the international community to impose further sanctions against Tehran.
The INSS argues that Tel Aviv will face a difficult task to persuade White House officials that Iran is 'a danger', since Israeli and American intelligence services are 'closely coordinated'.
The Zionist lobby and hawkish US politicians, including President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have come under fire after the release of the NIE. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: |
| Israel, US 'must quickly negate NIE'
Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:25:47
An Israeli think tank says the US and Israel must adopt a new approach to Iran before the recently released NIE alters public opinion.
The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) said the 'short-term' moves made by the United States and Israel to prevent the implications of the US intelligence report are greatly 'significant'.
As the US National Intelligence Estimate confirmed with 'high confidence' that Iran is not developing weapons of mass destruction, the INSS admits that the NIE will undermine the Israeli campaign for persuading the international community to impose further sanctions against Tehran.
The INSS argues that Tel Aviv will face a difficult task to persuade White House officials that Iran is 'a danger', since Israeli and American intelligence services are 'closely coordinated'.
The Zionist lobby and hawkish US politicians, including President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have come under fire after the release of the NIE. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:22 am Post subject: |
| American Jews on War and Peace:
What Do the Polls Tell Us and Not Tell Us?
James Petras
December 15, 2007
Introduction
Once again, a poll recently released by the American Jewish Committee (AJC) (1) has confirmed that on some questions of major significance there are vast differences between the opinion of the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations and the mass of American Jews. On questions of the Iraq war, the escalation of US military forces in Iraq (the ‘Surge’) and military action against Iran, most Jewish Americans differ from the leaders of the major American Jewish organizations.
Most liberal, progressive or radical Jewish commentators have emphasized these differences to argue, “most American Jews resoundingly reject the Middle East militarism and GOP foreign policy championed by right-wing Jewish factions.”(2) This progressive interpretation however avoids an even more fundamental question: How is it that a majority of US Jews who, according to the AJC poll (and several others going back over two decades) differ with the principal American Jewish organizations, have not or do not challenge the position of the dominant Jewish organization, have virtually no impact on the US Congress, the Executive and the mass media in comparison to the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations?
The issue of the ‘silent majority’ is questionable since all Jewish and non-Jewish commentators point to the highly vocal and disproportionate rates of participation of American Jews in the political process, from electoral campaigns to civil society movements. Not is it clear that the progressive majority lacks the high incomes of the reactionary ‘minority’. There are some Jewish millionaires and even a few billionaires who hold views opposing the leadership of the major Jewish organizations. There are several probable explanations that account for the power of Jewish leaders in shaping US Middle East policy and the relative impotence of the majority of American Jews.
The Poll: A Re-Analysis
The poll results highlighted by progressive Jewish analysts point to the 59% to 31% majority of Jews disapproving the way the US is handling the ‘campaign against terror.” The problem with using the answers to this question to indicate progressive opinion is that a number of Zionist ideologues and their followers also oppose the ‘handling of the campaign’ because it is not sufficiently brutal, authoritarian and arbitrary. Other findings cited include a 67% to 27% majority currently believing that the US should have stayed out of Iraq, a 76% to 23% majority who believe the war is going ‘somewhat’ or ‘very badly’ in Iraq, a 68% to 30% majority believing that the ‘surge’ has either made things worse or has no impact.
Evem more important, a large majority (57% to 35%) of American Jews oppose the United States launching a pre-emptive military attack against Iran, even if it were taken ‘to prevent (Iran) from developing nuclear weapons.” The progressive analysts then cite the polls finding that most American Jews are ‘some shade of liberal’ rather than ‘conservative’ (42% to 25%) and overwhelmingly identified as Democrats rather than Republicans by 58% to 15%. Most Jews believe that Democrats will make the ‘right decisions on the war in Iraq (61% to 21%). Finally, the progressives have very favorable views of the top three Democratic presidential candidates.
On the surface these polling results would suggest that American Jews would be at the cutting edge of the congressional anti-war movements, arousing their fellow Jews to join and resurrect the moribund peace movement. Nothing of the sort has occurred.
One reason for the gap between the ‘progressive’ polling results and the actual pro-war behavior of the major American Jewish Organizations is found in several of the opinions not cited by progressive analysts but emphasized by the 52 leaders of the major communal organizations (Daily Alert, December 13, 2007). Over eighty percent (82%) of American Jews agree that ‘the goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel’. Only 12% of Jews disagree. And 55% to 37% do not believe Israel and its Arab neighbors will settle their differences and live in peace. On the key issue of a compromise on the key issue of Jerusalem, by 58% to 36% American Jews reject an Israeli compromise to insure a framework for permanent peace.
Given the high salience of being pro-Israel for the majority of American Jews and the fact that the source of their identity stems more from their loyalty to Israel than to the Talmud or religious myths and rituals, then it is clear that both the ‘progressive, majority of Jews and the reactionary minority who head up all the major American Jewish organizations have a fundamental point of agreement and convergence: Support and identity with Israel and its anti-Arab prejudices, its expansion and the dispossession of Palestine. This overriding convergence allows the reactionary Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in America to speak for the Jewish community with virtually no opposition from the progressive majority either within or without their organizations. By raising the Israeli flag, repeating clichés about the ‘existential threat’ to Israel at each and every convenient moment, the majority of Jews have bowed their heads and acquiesced or, worst, subordinated their other ‘progressive’ opinions to actively backing the leaders ‘identity’ with Israel. Their franchise on being the recognized Jewish spokespeople intimidates and/or forces progressive Jews to publicly abide to the line that ‘Israel (sic) knows what is best for Israel’ and by extension for all American Jews who identify with Israel.
A second important factor in undermining progressive American Jewish activity against US-Israeli war policy in the Middle East (Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Palestine) is the influence of Israeli public opinion. A Haaretz report (December 9, 2007) documents a civil rights poll showing that ‘Israel has reached new heights of racism…’, citing a 26% rise in anti-Arab incidents (Association for Civil Rights in Israel Annual Report for 2007). The report cites the doubling of the number of Jews expressing feelings of hatred to Arabs. Fifty percent of Israeli Jews oppose equal rights for their Arab compatriots. According to a Haifa University study, 74% of Jewish youth in Israel think that Arabs are ‘unclean’.
Progressive American Jews, identifying with a racist colonial state, face a dilemma: Whether to act against their primary identity in favor of their progressive opinions or whether to back Israel and submit to its American franchise holders and recognized leaders.
Given these issues, a serious analyst clearly must distinguish between ‘opinions’ and ‘commitment’. While a majority of American Jews may voice private progressive opinions, their commitments based on their identity as Jews rests with the State of Israel and its principal mouthpieces in the US.
This probably explains the unwillingness of progressive Jews to criticize the principal reactionary Jewish leaders and their mass organizations, even worse to attack and slander any critics of the pro-Israel power configuration. Progressive Jews have subordinated their progressive opinions to their loyalty and identity with Israel. Organizationally this has meant that the majority of major American Jewish organizations are still led and controlled by pro-war, pro-Israel leaders. Progressive Jewish organizations are on the fringe of the organizational map, with virtually no influence in the Congress or Presidency and backers of a pro-war Democratic Party and Congress.
Progressive analysts who cite overwhelming Jewish support for the Democratic Party, its top three Presidential candidates and their preference for the liberal label as differentiating them from the leaders of the major organizations, commit an elementary logical and substantive fallacy. Liberals, like the Clintons, supported the wars against Iraq and are among the driving forces promoting a military attack on Iran. The Democratic majority in Congress has backed every military appropriation demanded by the Republicans and the White House. Being Democrat and ‘liberal’ is no indicator of being ‘progressive’ using any foreign policy indicator, from the Middle East wars to destabilizations efforts in Venezuela.
The apparent paradox of progressive anti-war Jews contributing big bucks to pro-war Democrats is based on the latter’s unconditional support for Israel which trumps any ‘dissonance’ that might exist in the head of progressive Jewish political activists.
With the American Pro-Israel Power Configuration leading the way to savaging the Naitonal Intelligence Estimate study, released in December 2007, on the absence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, progressive Jewish opinion is silent or complicit. Worse still, progressive liberal and radical Jewish peace activists have acted as gate-keepers in the anti-war movement – prohibiting any criticism of Israel and labeling individuals or citizen activists critical of the pro-war Zionist lobby as ‘anti-Semites’.
The AJC opinion poll on the high proportion of American Jewish with more progressive opinions than the leadership of all the major mainstream organizations would be officially welcomed if it led to something else besides private opinions compromised by Israeli identities.
Footnotes:
1. www.ajc.org/site/c.1J1TSPHKoG/b.36428551
2. Glen Greenwald, “New Poll Reveals How Unrepresentative Neo-Con Jewish Groups Are”, on salon.com
James Petras is the author of The Power of Israel in the United States (Clarity Press 2006); The Rulers and the Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants (Clarity Press 2007)
He is a specialist on US Zionist politics and a close reader of the Israeli and American Jewish Press. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:34 am Post subject: |
| Russia ships nuclear fuel to Iran
Russia has delivered its first shipment of nuclear fuel to a reactor it is helping to build at Bushehr in Iran, Russia's foreign ministry has said.
The two sides reached agreement last week on a schedule to finish building the plant after years of delays.
Some Western countries fear Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons but Tehran says its programme is peaceful.
The UN Security Council has already imposed two sets of sanctions on Iran for refusing to stop enriching uranium.
Iranian assurances
Enriched uranium is used as fuel in nuclear power stations. When it is more highly enriched, it can be used to make nuclear weapons.
There are two pressurised water reactors at the Bushehr site, one of which is reportedly near completion and likely to be the first major Iranian reactor to go on stream.
Russian officials have previously said the plant could be operational within six months of fuel being made available.
Iran first planned a reactor near the south-western port of Bushehr with German assistance in 1974.
Those plans were abandoned after the Islamist revolution in 1979 but the Russians picked up the project in 1992.
The Russian company building the plant, Atomstroiexport, said the containers of fuel had been inspected and sealed before delivery by the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Russia's foreign ministry said it had received assurances from Tehran that the fuel would not be used anywhere but at Bushehr.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7147463.stm
Published: 2007/12/17 08:22:13 GMT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia makes 1st nuke shipment to Iran
By JIM HEINTZ, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago
Russia has made its first shipment of nuclear fuel to Iran's Bushehr plant, which is at the center of the international tensions over Tehran's nuclear program, the Foreign Ministry said Monday.
Iran contends the nuclear power plant operation in Bushehr is strictly for civilian purposes, but many critics suspect Tehran intends to use the plant as part of an alleged effort to develop nuclear weapons.
Construction at Bushehr had been frequently delayed. Officials said the delays were due to payment disputes, but many observers suggested Russia also was unhappy with Iran's resistance to international pressure to make its nuclear program more open and to assure the international community that it was not developing nuclear arms.
"All fuel that will be delivered will be under the control and guarantees of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the whole time it stays on Iranian territory," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "Moreover, the Iranian side gave additional written guarantees that the fuel will be used only for the Bushehr nuclear power plant."
Russia announced last week that its construction disputes with Iran had been resolved and said fuel deliveries would begin about a half year before Bushehr was expected to go into service.
Two weeks ago, a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate report concluded that Iran had halted efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003 and that the program had been frozen through at least the middle of this year.
Although Russia has resisted drives to impose sanctions on Iran, it also repeatedly has urged Tehran to cooperate with the Vienna, Austria-based IAEA to resolve concerns over the nuclear program.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underlined that position last week after a meeting in Moscow with his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki.
Lavrov said resolving the controversy is possible "solely on the basis of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, IAEA rules and principles and, certainly, with Iran proving its right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy."
Officials at Atomstryexport, the Russian contractor for Bushehr, raised the prospect last week of creating a Russian-Iranian joint venture "to ensure security" at the Bushehr plant, according to the RIA-Novosti agency.
That could indicate Russian interest in ensuring that enriched uranium at the plant is not stolen or diverted. Depleted fuel rods also could be reprocessed into plutonium.
Last edited by Alpha on Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:51 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:38 am Post subject: Bush 'twisting NIE to support Iran war' |
| http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=35270§ionid=351020104
Bush 'twisting NIE to support Iran war'
Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:25:03
Bush has been unusually averse to admitting his error.
US intelligence agencies would not have published the NIE with 'high confidence' unless they were quite sure, a US analyst has said.
Bush is now trying his best to twist and warp the published report so that it complements rather than contradicts his dire warnings about Iran, Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford University, says.
"Still, even by historical standards, President Bush has been unusually averse to admitting error. But Bush's reaction to the considered view of his own intelligence agencies sets a new standard. He and his aides quite obviously wish the intelligence community had kept its views to itself," he added in an article published by the San Francisco Chronicle.
"By some accounts, the administration was building a case to attack Iran. At the very least, it was trying to convince China and Russia to accept a more stringent United Nations Security Council resolution. Now, of course, the odds of passing that resolution are slim," Brinkley said.
US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted in his speech, with obvious displeasure, that the intelligence agencies decide on their own what to report and when to make it public, he added.
"That wasn't always so. During the buildup to the Iraq invasion, the White House pressured the agencies to produce 'intelligence' to support his case for war. The agencies complied. Quite obviously Bush and his aides remain wistful for those days," the article concluded.
BGA/RE | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:09 am Post subject: |
| Bolton: Bush must 'rein in' Rice
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3483252,00.html
Former American ambassador to UN slams president's foreign policy, says Bush 'doesn't supervise Secretary of State Rice enough'
Reuters
US President George W. Bush's foreign policy is in free fall and puts the nation's security at risk, former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told a German magazine on Sunday.
Bolton , who was a leading hawk in the US administration and favored a tough stance against Iran, North Korea and Iraq, told the Der Spiegel weekly that Bush needed to rein in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
"His foreign policy is in free fall. The president is acting against his own judgment and instincts (and is) under the influence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice," he was quoted as telling the magazine.
Bolton said Rice's was the dominant voice on foreign policy and that she was a channel for the views of liberal career bureaucrats in the foreign ministry.
"(Bush) does not supervise her enough. That is a mistake," he was quoted as saying, adding that a moderate foreign policy was a threat to US security.
"North Korea will, for example, now keep its nuclear weapons. And the Iranians have got a signal from our own intelligence services that they can do whatever they want.
"I am not as confident as the intelligence services that Iran has stopped its nuclear weapons program."
The former diplomat, who quit his UN job last December after failing to win Senate confirmation and now works at a think-tank (American Enterprise Institute), also predicted a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq if Hillary Clinton became the next US president. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:18 am Post subject: |
| Iran receives Russian nuclear fuel
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 47 minutes ago
Iran received its first nuclear fuel from Russia on Monday, paving the way for the startup of its reactor in 2008.
Both the U.S. and Russia said that with the shipment, the Iranians would no longer have any reason to produce enriched uranium that could be used to build a nuclear weapon.
But Iran said it would continue its enrichment activities at a separate facility, in the central city of Natanz, to provide fuel for another nuclear reactor. Not only that, it indicated that construction had begun on just such a reactor, in Darkhovin in southwestern Iran.
"We are currently constructing a 360-megawatt nuclear power plant in Darkhovin," Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh said on state television. Previously Iran had always described the Darkhovin plant as being in the planning stages.
Aghazadeh said it will take several more years for Iran to install 50,000 centrifuges in Natanz, an industrial-scale enrichment plant, to produce the fuel needed for Darkhovin. Tehran says the enrichment program is part of an effort to generate electricity, but the United States fears it will lead to weapons development.
After initial opposition, the U.S. now publicly supports Russia providing uranium fuel to Iran so long as Moscow retrieves the used reactor fuel for reprocessing, as stipulated in an agreement between Russia and Iran.
"If that's the case — if the Russians are willing to do that, which I support — then the Iranians do not need to learn how to enrich," Bush said in Fredricksburg, Va. "If the Iranians accept that uranium for civilian nuclear power, then there's no need for them to learn how to enrich."
Bush also reiterated his view that "Iran's a danger to peace," despite a recent U.S. intelligence estimate that found Iran halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003.
"My attitude hasn't changed toward Iran," he said. "If somebody had a weapons program, what's to say they couldn't start it up tomorrow?"
The construction of the Bushehr plant has been frequently delayed. Officials said the delays were a result of payment disputes, but many observers suggested Russia also was unhappy with Iran's resistance to international pressure to make its nuclear program more open and to assure the international community that it was not developing nuclear arms.
Russia announced last week that its construction disputes with Iran had been resolved and said fuel deliveries would begin about a half year before Bushehr was expected to go into service.
"All fuel that will be delivered will be under the control and guarantees of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the whole time it stays on Iranian territory," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "Moreover, the Iranian side gave additional written guarantees that the fuel will be used only for the Bushehr nuclear power plant."
The Iranians trumpeted Russia's decision to deliver fuel Monday as a victory for Iran, with Aghazadeh calling it "a message for the world."
Aghazadeh said the Bushehr plant was 95 percent complete and would begin operations "next year." He indicated the reactor needed 80 tons of nuclear fuel during the initial phase of operation, but did not provide further details.
Although at first opposed to Russian participation in building and supplying Bushehr, the United States and its allies agreed to remove any reference to the project in the first set of U.N. Security Council sanctions passed a year ago, in exchange for Moscow's support for those penalties. A draft that mentioned Bushehr was amended after Russia demanded that the language not prevent Moscow from conducting legitimate nuclear activities in Iran.
Washington has since publicly swung behind the project, in what diplomats say is an attempt to maintain Security Council unity, focusing on the fact that terms of the deal between Tehran and Moscow commit the Iranians to allow the Russians to retrieve all used reactor fuel for reprocessing. The U.S. fears that Iran might otherwise extract plutonium from the spent fuel to make atomic weapons.
But plutonium is not the only material that can be used to build a nuclear bomb. The U.S. is pushing the U.N. Security Council to pass a third round of sanctions against Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.
The Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated its calls for Iran to halt uranium enrichment, saying the Russian deliveries mean Tehran has "no objective need" for its own enrichment facility.
Iranian officials have argued they need to develop alternative energy sources to prepare for when oil reserves run out. The government has announced plans to built six more reactors like Bushehr to produce 7,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear energy by 2021.
Some analysts say Russia's willingness to resolve its dispute over Bushehr was related to the new U.S. intelligence report.
"This is more meaningful after the recent report by U.S. intelligence agencies," said Iranian political analyst Jalal Fayazi. "Shipment of nuclear fuel to Iran by Russia means Moscow has full confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program."
Others downplayed the impact of the National Intelligence Estimate.
"The U.S. report was not a decisive factor," said Anton Khlopkov, a nonproliferation expert with the Moscow-based PIR-Center think tank. "The decision was taken before it was released."
Although Russia has resisted drives to impose sanctions on Iran, it also repeatedly has urged Tehran to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency to resolve concerns over the nuclear program.
___
Associated Press writers Jim Heintz in Moscow and George Jahn in Vienna contributed to this report. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
