Iranian Alert - September 12, 2004 [EST]- IRAN LIVE THREAD - "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

Iran Nuclear - November Deadline

Saturday,September11,2004,1:36 PM

BERLIN Europe's major powers have agreed to give Iran a deadline for complying with international concerns about its nuclear capability.A confidential document made available to The Associated Press reveals Britain, France and Germany have agreed to set a November deadline for Iran to banish concerns that it is trying to build nuclear weapons.

Iran says its nuclear program is solely for energy production.

The draft resolution was prepared for a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Monday.

It warns of possible "further steps," which diplomats say is shorthand for the referral of Iran's case to the U-N Security Council.

The draft is likely to undergo changes. But it's significant because, for the first time, it's in line with U-S concerns about Iran.

Saturday, September 11, 2004 · Last updated 9:44 a.m. PT

Iran's nuke history, recent developments

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Iran possesses five research nuclear reactors and two partially constructed power reactors at Bushehr, where Russia is assisting in constructing a light-water facility. Here's a look at Iran's nuclear development since the 1970s, when it acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons:

- Mid-1970s: Shah of Iran initiates a nuclear power program; reports say Iran also begins a small nuclear weapon research program.

- 1979: Islamic revolution ousts shah, ends all nuclear efforts for five years.

- 1984: Iran, in midst of war with Iraq, revives nuclear power program and reportedly begins covert procurement for a nuclear weapon program.

- Mid-2002: American intelligence learns of existence of two secret nuclear facilities - a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy water production plant near Arak. The United States believes the facilities might result in Iran's ability to maintain a complete nuclear fuel cycle, enabling it to build nuclear weapons without importing nuclear material.

- February 2003: Iran announces it wants to develop a nuclear energy plan using entirely domestic resources. An International Atomic Energy Agency delegation visits pilot-scale gas centrifuge enrichment plant at Natanz, now nearly ready for operation. The inspection team learns Iran has capability to build more centrifuges. Iran indicates it will place the Natanz facility, and any enriched uranium it produces, under IAEA inspection but that the U.N. watchdog agency wouldn't have the right to examine locations in Iran where it believes nuclear weapons design research might be under way.

- March 2003: Reports surface that Iran may have introduced nuclear material into the Natanz plant to test it without informing IAEA, which would be a treaty violation. Iran denies it but claims the right to possess nuclear weapons to counter Israel's.

- May 2003: Iranian initiative to normalize relations is communicated to the United States, including a promise to address U.S. concerns on nuclear weapons in exchange for lifting sanctions and eventual normalization of relations. U.S. hasn't responded.

- September 2003: Intense U.S. pressure for Iran to prove it has no secret atomic weapons program culminates in a toughly worded U.N. resolution, prompting a walkout and subsequent freeze on nuclear inspections by Iran.

- February 2004: It's revealed that highly enriched uranium (HEU) traces detected by IAEA inspectors 12 months previously - in at least two different sites - were pure enough to produce nuclear weaponry.

- March 2004: February's revelation and IAEA evidence that nuclear activities had been pursued on Iranian military bases leads to acknowledgment by Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani that the Iranian military produced centrifuges to enrich uranium. Iran continues to assert that the program is only for generating electricity.

- April 2004: Iran vows to step up cooperation with IAEA, saying it has suspended enrichment programs and stopped producing and assembling related parts. Iran agrees to IAEA inspection schedule and to a mid-May deadline to submit details about its program goals.

- May 2004: Iran acknowledges importing parts for advanced centrifuges that can be used to enrich uranium, the IAEA says in a report that remains inconclusive on the nature of Tehran's nuclear program.

- June 2004: IAEA says Iran inquired about buying thousands of magnets for centrifuges on the black market - casting doubt on assertions its centrifuge program is purely experimental and not geared toward full uranium enrichment. IAEA board of governors rebukes Iran for past cover-ups, warns it has little time left to disprove it has a nuclear weapons program.

- July 2004: Western diplomats reveal Iran is once again building centrifuges that can be used to make nuclear weaponry, breaking U.N. watchdog agency seals on the equipment in a show of defiance against international efforts to monitor its program.

- August 2004: Diplomats reveal IAEA has traced some particles of enriched uranium found in Iran to Pakistan. The finding gives credence to Iranian claims it didn't use modern equipment to enrich domestically, but doesn't absolve Tehran because the agency is unable to verify all claims that all such material came into the country on equipment bought on the black market.

- September 2004: IAEA report says Iran plans to process tons of raw uranium, an activity that could be used to make nuclear weapons. Iran says it had not hidden its intentions and insists its program is for peaceful use only.

Five N-bombs within Iran's grasp as West prevaricates

By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 12/09/2004)

Iran's decision to begin processing 37 tons of uranium yellowcake this month will enable it to acquire enough weapons grade uranium to build up to five nuclear bombs, Western intelligence officials are warning.

The Iranians announced their intention to process the material last week in a submission to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose 35-member Board of Governors will meet tomorrow to discuss whether the Iranians are being truthful about their nuclear programme.

Although the Iranians insist that their uranium-processing programme is intended solely to provide fuel for the country's new nuclear power plants, Western scientists are becoming increasingly concerned about glaring discrepancies in Teheran's official submission on its nuclear programme to the IAEA, the international nuclear watchdog.

Suspicions about the true extent of Iran's nuclear programme have intensified since The Sunday Telegraph revealed last year that traces of enriched uranium had been found at a secret processing plant at Natanz in central Iran. The Iranians claimed that a consignment of research equipment delivered from Pakistan had been contaminated before it was brought into the country.

Since then IAEA inspectors, with the full support of European and American leaders, have been pressing Iran to provide a comprehensive account of its nuclear activities.

In an attempt to counter the mounting hostility of the Bush administration in Washington, which branded Teheran part of an "axis of evil", the Iranians last October reached an agreement with Britain, France and Germany to suspend all uranium enrichment activity.

Following the gains made by the fundamentalists in the Iranian parliamentary elections earlier this year, in June Teheran reneged on the agreement, claiming it was fully entitled to conduct uranium enrichment under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), so long as it was undertaken for peaceful purposes.

Iran's insistence, however, that its nuclear programme is aimed solely at developing the country's power industry is now being called into question by Western intelligence officials and nuclear experts. They argue that recent discoveries by IAEA inspectors indicate that Iran is maintaining a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.

The first serious discrepancy in Iran's official declaration on its nuclear programme was uncovered earlier this year when IAEA inspectors - many of whom helped to uncover Saddam Hussein's secret nuclear weapons programme in the early 1990s - discovered that Iran had failed to declare that it had imported the design for an advanced centrifuge, which could be used to produce weapons grade uranium.

IAEA inspectors were also alarmed to find an ultra-sensitive radiation detection device at the site of Iran's Physics Research Centre in Teheran, where the government said it had been researching the impact of a nuclear attack on Iran.

When inspectors made a pre-arranged visit to the centre, they found that the Iranians had razed the complex to the ground, and removed topsoil from the surrounding area to a depth of two feet.

Western intelligence officials believe the radiation detection devices found at the site may have been used to identify and clean up traces of enriched uranium, to prevent a repeat of the embarrassing discovery made by IAEA inspectors at Natanz.

"The Iranians' actions are highly suspicious, to say the least," commented a senior Western intelligence official. "They are deliberately spinning out their negotiations with the IAEA so that they can get on with their clandestine project to build a nuclear bomb."

In an attempt to head off any criticism from the IAEA at tomorrow's meeting, Iranian nuclear officials have offered to stop work on construction of new centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium. But nuclear scientists estimate that Iran may already possess sufficient centrifuges to process uranium yellowcake to weapons grade.

Unlike many of its nuclear rivals in the Middle East, Iran is self-sufficient in raw uranium, and Teheran recently announced that it was to resume mining 40 tons of uranium ore each year.

The first stage in the uranium enrichment process being undertaken by the Iranians is to convert the yellowcake to uranium hexafluoride. Once that has been achieved the uranium hexafluoride is spun repeatedly through a succession of centrifuges, the end result being weapons grade uranium.

Nuclear experts estimate that the 37 tons of raw uranium now being processed by the Iranians would yield 100 kilos (220lb) of enriched uranium, sufficient to build four or five crude nuclear devices.

Although European diplomats believe that Iran can still be persuaded to suspend its nuclear programme, there is mounting frustration in Washington that the Iranians are not taking the inspections process seriously.

John Bolton, US undersecretary for arms control and international security, wants the issue of Iran's non-compliance with the IAEA referred to the UN Security Council, arguing that nothing else will force other countries to take the threat posed by Iran's nuclear programme seriously.

A Western intelligence official said: "The very fact that Iran now possesses the ability to enrich uranium means that ultimately it has the ability to make a nuclear bomb.

"The Iranians have been playing games with us for years, and unless drastic action is taken to force them to observe their international obligations they will soon be in a position to threaten the entire Middle East region with their nuclear arsenal."

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 12 September 2004 1214 hrs

Time growing short at UN nuclear watchdog on dealing with Iran

VIENNA : The UN nuclear watchdog meets Monday with Britain, France and Germany ready to set a November deadline for Iran to allay suspicions it is secretly making nuclear weapons, in a draft resolution that brings the Euro 3 closer to the US hard line, diplomats said.
But differences remain for the meeting in Vienna of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) 35-nation board of governors.

The resolution does not oblige the IAEA to take any specific action, falling short of US demands for a so-called "trigger mechanism" that would oblige the agency to take Iran before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions if certain conditions were not met, a diplomat familiar with the text told AFP.

The United States has said urgent action is needed since Iran has announced its intention to convert 37 tons of mineral uranium into a gas that is the feed for enriching uranium.

Uranium can be enriched through centrifuges into a highly refined form that can be used as fuel for civilian reactors or to make atomic bombs.

The Euro 3 draft resolution calls on IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei to file an overall report before the next board meeting in November on his investigation that began in February 2003 into an Iranian program which the United States claims hides the development of nuclear weapons.

The draft says the board would in November make a "definite determination on whether or not further steps are required," a diplomat close to the IAEA told AFP.

ElBaradei has filed six written reports so far and Western diplomats have expressed concern that people are forgetting that Iran was already last year found guilty of violations of nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards for hiding sensitive nuclear activities for 18 years.

Iran claims its nuclear program is a strictly peaceful effort to provide electric power.

The draft resolution is "the expression of the strong desire to reach a conclusion in November," the diplomat told AFP.

"It is not a trigger, it is setting a date to take stock," the diplomat said.

Another diplomat said: "We need to send a signal to Iran that this process is not going to go on forever."

The Euro 3 had previously resisted setting any time limit on their policy of constructive engagement to get Iran to cooperate in the investigation.

But Iran has since reaching an agreement last October with the Euro 3 not to enrich uranium bickered over whether this extended to activities short of actual enrichment and backtracked on some promises made, such as to suspend manufacturing, assembling and testing the centrifuges that do the enrichment.

The Euro 3 worked towards a compromise with the United States over Iran in meetings in Geneva last week with US Under Secretary of State John Bolton.

It was not clear if the United States was happy with the draft, and if it would accept this watered-down form of a trigger.

A US state department official had told AFP earlier in the week that Washington "wants a resolution to lay out essential and urgent steps that Iran must take before the November board. Compliance with those steps becomes equivalent to safeguards obligations."

Resolutions at the IAEA traditionally go through several rounds of revision up until their final adoption, which is almost always by consensus rather than vote and the United States has so far not had a majority for its hard line.

The draft resolution does call on Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment related activities, diplomats said.

This fits the US demand for Iran to suspend the full nuclear fuel cycle, including a first stage of converting uranium yellowcake into a gas that is the feed for enriching uranium, a non-American diplomat said.

The NPT does not bar states from enriching uranium but one diplomat said Iran must be stopped "from heading towards what would be a breakout capability" to make nuclear weapons.

The diplomat said the IAEA "legally doesn't have the right to demand Iran not to complete the fuel cycle and we need to look at a body that does have the legal right to look at that, and that is the Security Council."

The IAEA will be also discussing next week surprise developments in South Korea, where the US ally has admitted there were clandestine programs to enrich uranium and extract plutonium, a potential embarrassment for Washington in its efforts to get North Korea to abandon plans to make nuclear weapons.

Diplomats said IAEA chief ElBaradei will probably call for further investigation into South Korea, which now also runs the risk of being brought before the UN Security Council for violating the NPT.

Check out this video from Iran called September 11 - The Deception of the Century...

It makes liberal use of footage from Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11.

Time for action on Iran's plans

By Dick Lugar

Nearly two years have passed since the world discovered Iran has been cheating under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Despite repeated denials by Tehran, an indisputable mass of evidence since uncovered makes it clear Iran seeks to build a nuclear bomb.

For almost as long, many in the international community have tried to avoid direct confrontation with Iran over this illegal program by offering deals and second chances.

This has not worked. Iran has walked away from its nearly year-old commitments to three European countries to cease and desist from enriching uranium usable in a nuclear weapon.

Iran has announced it will resume enrichment activities and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear watchdog, has confirmed Iran is making uranium hexafluoride, a key step in creating bomb-grade uranium.

The international community has dithered long enough. It is time for decisive action. When the IAEA meets this week, it should vote to report Iran's violations to the United Nations Security Council, which has authority to impose diplomatic and economic sanctions and, if necessary, call for the use of force.

The world has been more than patient in the face of Iran's repeated violations of the NPT and lies to the IAEA. It secretly built a large pilot uranium enrichment complex, a far larger, weapons-scale underground enrichment plant, and conducted a clandestine laser isotope separation program, all clearly banned by the treaty. It has also conducted plutonium separation experiments and is reportedly seeking deuterium, both primarily useful in nuclear weapons. As an oil-rich state with a single, unfinished nuclear power plant, there can only be one explanation: Iran is constructing a weapons complex.

Last year, Britain, France and Germany tried to coax the ruling mullahs off their weapons path by offering a trade deal if all enrichment and reprocessing halted. Iran initially agreed but now has reneged, violating every promise to the Europeans.

Failure to act now will bring us one step closer to a nuclear-armed Iran, which already has an advancing ballistic missile program that could threaten Israel as well as Europe. Iran may be less than two years away from a bomb, according to some experts. Even if it doesn't use such weapons, merely possessing them would strengthen Tehran's ability to undermine American policy throughout the Middle East.

Moreover, an Iran with nuclear weapons could trigger a wave of proliferation, pressuring Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Algeria to develop their own nuclear forces, and would hamper efforts to rein in Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.

Not only does Iran itself have extensive and well-documented ties to terrorists, such a dispersal of weapons technology would increase exponentially the threat of nuclear terrorism from any number of Muslim extremists in the region.

Failure to act now also would deal a blow to the already fragile nonproliferation regime. The safeguards and inspections under the NPT have succeeded, albeit belatedly, in proving Iran's failure to comply with the treaty. Only by prompt enforcement can the treaty stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Despite the flagrant violations, some Europeans are searching for new reasons to avoid a diplomatic showdown. They argue Iran doesn't pose an immediate threat and if the case is taken to the Security Council, Iran may walk out of the NPT.

But keeping Iran in the treaty is not an end in itself — the aim is to stop the spread of weapons. A vote by the IAEA to enforce the NPT would be a step toward that goal.

Following a familiar pattern of cheat and retreat, Tehran has at the last minute offered the Europeans another deal. It promised to stop some — but not all — of its enrichment activities in return for trade concessions, apparently hoping to put off an IAEA vote until the next meeting in November. This is worse than the bargain it struck — and broke — last year.

The Europeans should reject it out of hand. The international community understandably wants to avoid a military confrontation. It must realize the best way to do so is to face the Iranian violations today. Putting it off does not buy time; it only buys greater risk in the future.

Dick Lugar, Indiana Republican, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

U.S. refuses to rule out Iran attack

Sun 12 September, 2004 13:08

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The United States is determined to stop Iran getting atomic weapons, and has signalled Washington will not rule out an attack if peaceful diplomacy failed to achieve this.

President George W. Bush's top official on nuclear on-proliferation, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, was asked during a brief visit to Israel if the United States could consider such an attack.

"President Bush is determined to try and find a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the problem of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons," he said. "But we are determined that they are not going to achieve a nuclear weapons capability."

Iran says it is not trying to build an atom bomb and its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes.

But intelligence officials told Reuters in Vienna earlier this week they estimated it would take Iran a few months to a year to become nuclear capable -- meaning Tehran would be able to build a nuclear bomb without importing technology or experts.

As Iran's arch-enemy, Israel has particular fear of Tehran developing nuclear arms. Israel is presumed to have its own atomic arsenal, but has a policy of neither confirming nor denying that.

Bolton's comments in Jerusalem came the day before a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is due to discuss a European resolution giving Tehran until November to come clean about its nuclear programme.

The United States wants Iran brought before the U.N. Security Council to face possible sanctions, but Bolton said Washington did not see such measures as automatic.

"The most important reason to take Iran to the Security Council is to heighten political pressure," he said.

"It is by no means inevitable that the Security Council has to impose economic sanctions or take other steps, that's why this really lies in Iran's hands."

Iran on Sunday rejected European demands it abandon sensitive nuclear activities but reiterated its readiness to provide assurances that its atomic ambitions are entirely peaceful.

Iran should not become nuke power: Powell

Press Trust of India
Posted online: Sunday, September 12, 2004 at 1329 hours IST

Washington, September 12: US Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that "we don't want to see Iran become another nuclear power," and if it does not satisfy "our concerns," the international nuclear watchdog IAEA should take the issue to the UN Security Council.

"I think eventually it has to go to the UN, as long as Iran keeps behaving the way it has been behaving. The international community has expectations of Iran. We don't want to see Iran become another nuclear power," he said on NBC TV network.

The US has been trying to get rid of nuclear weapons. Iran has made promises to the IAEA, it has obligations, and it also has made promises to the European Union through their three Foreign Ministers, he said.

"And we believe that if they have not satisfied our concerns, the matter should be referred by the IAEA to the Security Council. There is an IAEA meeting next week, where it will be brought up. We have seen some movement in the discussions that we have had with our European colleagues that would suggest everybody is now taking this perhaps a little more seriously."

The Secretary of State also indirectly suggested that the US is in a soup in Iraq because it did not fully follow the Powell Doctrine on war which he formulated when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He said the media, not he, had labelled the principles he espoused for the application of military power "the Powell Doctrine" but it did reflect his thinking.

Iran Says It Won't Halt Nuclear Technology Drive

Sun Sep 12, 2004 07:22 AM ET By Amir Paivar

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran Sunday rejected European demands it abandon sensitive nuclear activities but reiterated its readiness to provide assurances that its atomic ambitions are entirely peaceful.

Western diplomats have said Britain, France and Germany have demanded Iran halt all parts of the atomic fuel cycle, particularly uranium enrichment, that can be used to make a bomb. The European Union trio have proposed a draft resolution for a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) starting in Vienna Monday which gives Iran until November to dispel doubts about its nuclear program.

Asked about the EU trio's stance, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi reiterated that Iran had no intention of abandoning its efforts to master the nuclear fuel cycle.

"If the Europeans and the international community want assurances that nuclear technology will be for peaceful purposes, we are ready to give assurances," Asefi told a weekly news conference.

"But if the issue is that we cannot master nuclear technology for peaceful purposes that is out of the question because we have already reached that point," he said.

The trio's draft does not order Tehran to be automatically reported to the U.N. Security Council if it does not meet the deadline, as Washington wishes.

It says the IAEA board will "probably" consider whether further steps are needed after receiving IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei's next report on Iran in November.

Washington accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons under cover of an atomic energy program, a charge Iran vehemently denies. The IAEA has found many previously concealed nuclear activities in Iran but no "smoking gun" backing the U.S. view.

Iran insists its nuclear facilities will only be used to generate electricity.

  Iran insists that as a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has the right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes under IAEA supervision.

"We are ready to give assurances because from the start we said that using nuclear weapons is forbidden ... No group in the country is thinking of acquiring nuclear weapons," Asefi said.

Eager to prevent its case being sent to the Security Council Iran has again offered to temporarily suspend enrichment-related activities, European officials have said.

Iran made a similar promise in a deal struck with Britain, Germany and France in October 2003. But it never fully suspended enrichment activities and in June announced it had abandoned the pledge.

Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot, whose country holds the EU presidency, said Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani had offered to give assurances about its atomic program as part of a strategic deal addressing other EU concerns such as terrorism, human rights and Middle east violence.

Asefi confirmed that Iran was exploring a broader deal with the EU. "We think it is a pity that Iran and Europe's huge potentials are focused on only one issue ... We are thinking of a comprehensive cooperation with Europe and negotiations covering those subjects are part of it."

THE WORLD

Iran Threat Grows Amid U.S. Divisions

[Excerpt]

The lack of consensus on how to deal with Tehran's nuclear program is complicated by allies' opposing views and the stakes involved.

By Tyler Marshall, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Deep divisions within the Bush administration are hampering U.S. efforts to defuse the growing nuclear weapons threat posed by Iran, a cross-section of Middle East specialists say.

The differences — between those advocating a tough, confrontational approach and those convinced that engagement on a variety of issues is the best way to stop Tehran's quest for a nuclear weapon — are so strong that nearly three years after President Bush declared Iran part of an "axis of evil" threatening the free world, his administration still has no widely accepted approach to the problem.

The search for common ground has been complicated by a variety of factors, including the sharply opposing views among America's closest allies and the stakes involved. Arms control specialists and regional analysts argue that a nuclear-armed Iran could endanger Israel's existence, touch off a regional arms race in an already unstable Middle East and — because of Iran's medium- and long-range missile technology acquired from North Korea — very quickly pose direct threats to Europe and the United States.

"It's a potential nightmare," said Joseph Cirincione, who specializes in nonproliferation issues at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

He argued that the problem could be resolved only by engaging Iran across a broad front of issues. "Narrow contact on the nuclear issue on its own won't work," he said.

In general, the Pentagon, along with Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John R. Bolton, are said to favor a tough approach. Many officials at the State Department have argued for engagement.

Against this backdrop, the United States heads into a crucial meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors in Vienna this week hoping to persuade key European allies to refer Iran's quest for nuclear weapons to the U.N. Security Council for possible action, such as economic sanctions or other punitive measures.

"The challenge now is to get friends and allies to take the steps they need to take," said an administration official working on the issue.

That won't be easy.

After meetings with the U.S. in Geneva, the governments of Britain, France and Germany reportedly agreed to a November deadline for Iran to convince the international community that it is not seeking nuclear weapons. But the Europeans stopped short of demanding that the case be referred automatically to the Security Council if Iran fails to meet the deadline.

European nations, many of which enjoy strong business ties with Iran, argue that such a step could backfire, causing Tehran to pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which would in effect end international inspection of Iran's nuclear program.

After the rupture of confidence in transatlantic ties that has surrounded the war in Iraq, Europeans are deeply suspicious of the Bush administration's intentions toward Iran. The divisions within the administration have added to this wariness, "if only because these countries believe the U.S. may not actually want what it says it wants," said Francois Heisbourg, director of the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research.

"This is an administration that's bent on polishing its macho image seven weeks before an election, " Heisbourg said.

European officials have said they want to allow more time for diplomatic efforts to produce a compromise that enables Iran to operate a peaceful nuclear energy program, yet relinquish control over fuel that could be used to make weapons.

The arms control community was stunned this month when the IAEA revealed in a report that Iran planned to convert 37 tons of milled uranium, known as yellowcake, into a compound that can be used in a peaceful nuclear power program but also can be used to make weapons-grade enriched uranium.

The amount would be enough for three to five nuclear weapons, said a U.S. official dealing with the issue.

"I recognize engagement isn't getting us very far, but I also recognize that the alternative of going to the Security Council means working on a military strategy," Heisbourg said.

Although debate goes on about how best to deal with Tehran, there is no disagreement, either within the administration or among America's allies, that Iran's effort to build a nuclear weapon must be stopped.

White House officials insist that the administration is united on the immediate need to work with European allies to head off Iran's nuclear weapons production through diplomacy. The absence of an agreed overall strategy on Iran means little when dealing with the day-to-day realities of the issue, they say.

"It's typical of those in Washington who think a piece of paper or another meeting is the answer to the problem," National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said. "We certainly have a policy. We're willing to engage Iran on issues of mutual concern in the appropriate manner, if the president decides."

Others express frustration at what they describe as a lack of depth in U.S. policy.

Two experts outside the administration — one from either side of the ideological divide, neither of whom wanted to be named — said the lack of what one of them called a "coherent plan" had undercut America's ability to shape events on Iran.

"There's no effective policy on the nuclear issue, so there's no coordination with the major powers," said one specialist, who favored engagement. "It's not good at all."

The other said the Bush policy sometimes seemed to go no further than rhetoric.

"There are those who insist we keep trying a diplomatic approach, others believe that hasn't worked, so you have the president standing up there and saying a nuclear Iran is intolerable, but not being exactly specific about how to go about preventing that from happening," this specialist said.

Some blame national security advisor Condoleezza Rice for failing to shape a comprehensive policy, whereas others think those favoring engagement have blocked efforts to produce such a policy in the belief their ideas would not survive.

Some who have worked within the administration on the Iran issue say the absence of an agreed strategy is distracting.

"When you don't have a policy, this is where the debate is; it's a lightning rod," said Michael Rubin, who dealt with Iran at the Pentagon's main policy unit before moving to the conservative American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research in Washington last spring.

A mid-level Pentagon analyst on Iran from the same unit, Larry Franklin, is the subject of an FBI inquiry to determine whether he passed to Israel a classified document relating to the administration's internal policy struggle on Iran.

The Pentagon office in question is run by Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith, a well-known and controversial hard-liner on Iran. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobby group, has been implicated in the investigation — both factors that have done little to calm the debate.

While Europeans work to blunt what they consider overly aggressive American tactics, other powerful foreign forces are pulling the administration in the opposite direction, urging an even harder line against Tehran.

Top military officials in Israel have hinted at airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, as voices from across the Israeli political spectrum point to the danger and press Washington for a stronger response.

"Israel is in existential danger if they acquire nuclear weapons, as they already have missiles with the capacity to deliver them," said former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, now a lawmaker in the opposition Labor Party. "Unfortunately, so far, the achievements of U.S. policy in this regard are minimal."

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the Jerusalem Post in an interview last week that "actions [against Iran] are being taken, but I don't think the pressure is enough."

In a sign of the depth of Israel's concern, Sharon this year appointed Meir Dagan, the chief of the intelligence agency Mossad, as the point man on the country's efforts to deny Iran atomic weapons.

Pressure on the Bush administration to support Israel's position is magnified by AIPAC, which has lobbied for strong positions against Iran. The group's website lists the issue at the top of its current agenda.

The accounts of some Iranian dissidents paint a chilling picture of the intensity of Tehran's quest for nuclear weapons.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, the head of a Washington consulting firm who was part of a group that disclosed Iran's nuclear weapons development sites two years ago, contended that international pressure aimed at slowing Iran's nuclear program had had the opposite effect. ...

Yes, these "war games" going on need to be watched, imho. Over at Haaretz (Israeli news site) their "news ticker" says the following:

17:55 Hundreds of thousands of Iran`s elite Revolutionary Guards begin military maneuvers near border with Iraq.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/ShTickers.html

DoctorZin Note: An excellent article.

FIASCO A LA FRANCAISE

by Amir Taheri
New York Post
September 10, 2004

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/7310

Sept. 11: Why Was US Attacked?

Amir Taheri, Arab News

“I shall never forget as long as I live! “ This was the phrase that I heard most often when I visited New York shortly after the Sept. 11 2001 attacks that brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center.

It came from old ladies who could hardly contain their tears as they looked upon the still fuming debris of Ground Zero. And it came from young joggers who said they stopped every day to offer a prayer for the dead. Mayor Rudi Guiliani asserted it, as did hotel receptionists, taxi drivers, and the editors of the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and New York Post.

How could anyone forget such an event? There are moments in history that, no matter how deeply buried under the avalanche of years, retain a place in common memory.

But memory is a trickster. The issue is not that we remember an event. Our memories are reshaped by narratives through which they are expressed. What matters is how an event is remembered.

Initially, the Sept. 11 attack provoked disbelief among Americans. This had been a bolt, or rather two bolts, out of the blue. Like other events that we cannot easily gauge and store-up in our mental archives, this had no ready explanation. To ask why it had happened was almost as irrelevant as to ask why there are earthquakes, plagues, hurricanes and, indeed, death itself.

A few days later, by the time President George W. Bush came to visit Ground Zero, disbelief had given birth to anger. This was raw, sizzling anger of the kind that, had the United States not been a mature democracy, would have translated into lynch mobs and indiscriminate attacks on nations and groups blamed for the tragedy.

Because there is always something good even in the worst of events, the Sept. 11 attacks gave the Americans a sense of national unity that they had not experienced for generations. For decades the Americans had felt that their nation was strong and rich enough not to need the drumbeat of unity to face adversity.

Three years later, almost all Americans would still insist that they remember Sept. 11. But the question is: What is it that they remember?

Broadly speaking, three versions of Sept. 11 have entered the American psyche.

The first and the most common version is that of an unprovoked attack by a group of fanatics who just hate the America for what it is.

The second version is that of an attack carried out by individuals expressing grievances that, at some point and in some form, need to be addressed. In this version the US was attacked not for what it is but for what it does.

The third version, based on conspiracy theories and peddled by charlatans like Michael Moore, would not have merited mention had it not been for the disturbing fact that so many Americans seem to believe it. Nevertheless, let us ignore this version because it could only lead us into a maze of lies and affabulations.

So, what about the first and second versions?

Is America attacked for what it is or for what it does?

President Bush, and most other Republicans, favor the first version. In his speech in New York last week, accepting the presidential nomination, George W. Bush described the United States as “the hope of the oppressed, the greatest force for good on earth”, and implied that those who attacked it represented universal evil.

Those who favor this version point to the freedom the Americans enjoy, the openness of their society, the tolerance that the US has for all beliefs and life styles, and, of course, American wealth and scientific progress that is supposed to arouse the jealousy of “the forces of evil”.

Others, like Ms. Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Party’s leader in the House of Representatives, and others of her camp, uphold the second version: The US is attacked for what it does. At one point Ms. Pelosi even compared Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the Al-Qaeda terrorist group, to the American “Founding Fathers” who had, according to her, also been “religious zealots.”

Those who favor this version come up with their list of real or imagined “wrongs” that the US has done: Supporting Israel against the Arabs, refusing to join the Kyoto environmental accords, backing dictators of the right, such as Anastasio Somosa while knocking dictators of the left such as Fidel Castro, and, digging deep into history, the mass murder of native Americans and the oppression of black slaves and their descendants.

The final report of the Congressional committee set up by Bush to examine the causes of the Sept. 11tragedy, tries to reflect both versions. As a result, the report is based on faulty analysis and offers a defensive strategy that, if implemented, could make the US more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

But what if the two versions are really one? Is it not possible to say that the United States does what it does because it is what it is?

Over 2000 years ago Aristotle taught that character is action. In other words: You are what you do, and do not.

So, what is the United States?

The simplest answer is this: It is the only global power in the sense that what it does or does not has a direct major effect on most aspects of international life. The US is the world’s biggest market. A small recession in the US economy could wipe out millions of jobs in more than 100 countries. At the same time the US is the only country with the military and political clout to tip the balance in most issues. It is thus no surprise that the US is involved in all the 66 active or semi-active crises in the world, often as guarantor of fragile peace deals.

Needless to say everyone would like to deploy American power in his own favor. Some see the US as an 800-pound gorilla that is useful for heavy lifting but becomes suspect if it manifests a judgment of its own.

Some Arabs are sore because the US would not let them march in and wipe Israel off the map. Some Israelis are sore because the US is not prepared to back the mass expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank.

The Indians resent that the US would not allow them to teach Pakistan a lesson. The Pakistanis are sore because the does not sell them the weapons that could tip the military balance against India.

The mullas of Tehran hate the US because it would not let them create a Khomeinist mini-empire in the region.

Nostalgics of the Shah hate the US because it refuses to march on Tehran to topple the mullas. Slobodan Milosevic and other Serbian mass murders now in jail or in hiding know that without US intervention no one could have stopped the genocides that they had organized.

In Afghanistan, the Taleban, and the drug barons and fanatical mullas who prospered under them, know that had it not been for US intervention they would still be in power in Kabul. The Baathist know that had the US not marched on Baghdad, Saddam Hussein would still be ruling from one of his palaces rather than doing the crosswords in his jail cell.

The logical conclusion of the theory that America is attacked because of what it does is to hand over American policy to its enemies and critics.

And, if Sept. 11 teaches the Americans one lesson it must be precisely not to allow that to happen.

5/23/04	Clip No. 252

Iranian Republican Guard Official in Tehran University Lecture (Part II): We Plan To Target US Nuclear Warheads on US Soil; Will Take Over England Itself Not Embassy

Hassan Abassi, who heads the Center of External Security Doctrinal Analysis of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps gave a lecture at Tehran University in May. The following are excerpts from the lecture posted in an audio version on the Internet at http://khabarnameh.gooya.com/nabavi/archives/real/abbasi-hassan.rm Abbasi Pay close attention to wily England! I am not saying anyone should take over its embassy. It has already removed all of its documents from it. we need to take over England itself. Take a look at the book "Women of Vietnam". It contains a propaganda pamphlet in which was written that when American soldiers train in the bases – and here I must apologize to all of the sisters and ladies present – they raise their gun in one hand and they place their other hand on their genitals, and they call both of them "gun." "Gun" [in English] means cannon. They do this every day at reveille. They have a directive that whenever they set foot in a country, one of their first jobs is to change the racial situation there. It would be an honor to do something that would make the Americans afraid. If it is possible to strike fear in the White House and in Tel-Aviv and to scare the Zionists and the Americans, that would be a great honor. This kind of terrorism is sacred. I'd be honored to do anything like that. If it is be possible for me to do this, I will. I will certainly present my plans on this matter. On the subject of sacred terrorism and terrorizing, the Koran speaks of "The party of God," are those who love the beloved of God, and "The party of Satan," are those who love the enemies of God. If we can strike fear among the enemies of God, in the party of Satan and in the heart of Satan, this will be an honor. Why shouldn't we do this? Why should violence be bad over there? Is it not the case that modernity, Christianity and Judaism advanced themselves through violence? We would be honored to turn the violence of modernity, Judaism and Christianity against them. In response to what he [Vice President Cheney] said, that he will uproot this nation, I swear by my honor, by the Koran – though it's inappropriate to swear by the Koran – as head of the Center for Strategic Studies, the rival of Cato Institute, Hudson Institute, Rand Corporation and American Enterprise Institute which are working to uproot Iran – I make a pact with God, with the blood of the martyrs and with this nation, that I will prepare, with God's help, harsh strategies and doctrines to uproot the Anglo-Saxon race, and I will present these plans on the Internet. Mr. George W. Bush and Mr. Tony Blair, you said that you would reap in Iran the fruits of the war in Iraq. it was not the president of Iran who fired RPGs against your tanks in the war. Mr. Khatami, Mr. Hasan Rouhani, and Mr. Kamal Kharrazi were not the ones who stood facing your warships in the Persian Gulf. It was I who filmed your warships. When (USS) Kitty Hawk was here, when (USS) Wisconsin, (USS) New Jersey, and (USS) Missouri were here, it was I who filmed them. Mr. Khatami! It was I who planted the mines that sunk the Bridgeton tanker. Mr. Khatami! It was I who nurtured Hizbullah in Lebanon and not you. We have only one lesson: The lesson of jihad and martyrdom. So, Dick Cheney! We will uproot the Anglo-Saxon race. This is retaliation. I will only say this once: We have two million Iranians there [in the U.S.]. You can be sure that I will recruit from among them guerillas against you. If 11 people succeeded in causing September 11, is it not clear that we are capable of acting? We don't need nuclear weapons. You have 6,000 nuclear warheads on your soil. Those 6,000 warheads are the target of our plans. The guerilla groups will go and destroy those warheads there. Not Iranian guerilla groups, but groups from all Islamic countries. You can expel all of them. We are also working on the Mexicans and the Argentinians. We will organize everyone who has problems with America. When our Internet site goes up, the American friends should get hold of the address. We've prepared plans concerning the American Achilles' heal and their weaknesses. We have identified all of their weaknesses on land, in the air, by sea, their technological weaknesses, etc., and we will pass on addresses to the guerilla organizations of the entire world concerning these, America's weaknesses. We have established a department that will take care of England. England's demise is on our agenda. If America attacks us, Don't worry at all. It won't be like what you've seen in Afghanistan and in Iraq. In Southern Iran we have a 2000 km coast and 36 islands. The average depth of the Persian Gulf is between 45-50 meters. The Deepest spot there is 94 meters deep between the islands of Abu Musa and Tonb. This is a very suitable spot for maritime guerrilla warfare. Our special forces are definitely ready for action there. Through the Straits of Hormuz, 67% of the world's total energy passes. You must know this. Imagine I'm gone abd, God willing, you want to face America. Take a tanker to the Straits Of Hormuz and sink it there. The tanker won't sink because the water is shallow there – about 50 meters. The tanker itself is 55 meters high, and when it will lie on the surface, half of it will protrude. It will take five months until it will be salvaged. A rise in oil prices, as you have seen, causes the West fever. These are the weaknesses. "To view the videos Click Here”

This thread is now closed.

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

Iran Nuclear - November Deadline

Iran's nuke history, recent developments

Five N-bombs within Iran's grasp as West prevaricates

Time growing short at UN nuclear watchdog on dealing with Iran

Check out this video from Iran called September 11 - The Deception of the Century...

Time for action on Iran's plans

U.S. refuses to rule out Iran attack

Iran should not become nuke power: Powell

Iran Says It Won't Halt Nuclear Technology Drive

Iran Threat Grows Amid U.S. Divisions

Sept. 11: Why Was US Attacked?

Iranian Republican Guard Official in Tehran University Lecture (Part II): We Plan To Target US Nuclear Warheads on US Soil; Will Take Over England Itself Not Embassy

"To view the videos Click Here”