Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

1 posted on 09/20/2004 9:52:07 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
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”

2 posted on 09/20/2004 9:53:51 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn

Libya Tells Iran: Be Like us and Comply with IAEA

By REUTERS

Published: September 20, 2004

Filed at 10:53 a.m. ET

VIENNA (Reuters) - Libya, which last year renounced its nuclear weapons program, Monday urged Iran to follow suit and comply with the demands of the U.N. nuclear watchdog to stop enriching uranium which can be used to make atomic bombs.

``As (IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei) said today, some things have to be fulfilled by Iran,'' Libyan Deputy Prime Minister Matouq M. Matouq told reporters after meeting U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham at the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) annual general conference.

``The Iranians have to meet these obligations because of the agreement with the IAEA, and we hope that we can have another example (of) Iran of fulfilling the obligations and following the IAEA agreements,'' he said.

Saturday the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution calling on Iran to end uranium enrichment. Tehran rejected the resolution, calling the demand illegal.

Matouq also said Tripoli's December 2003 decision to abandon all weapons of mass destruction could be seen as an example for Iran and all other countries.

``Libya has set an example for everybody,'' he said.

Washington accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons, but Tehran insists its atomic ambitions are peaceful.

3 posted on 09/20/2004 9:55:47 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn

Mideast too volatile for nukes,US Congressman says


AP - World News
Sep 20, 2004

Saying the Middle East is too dangerous for nuclear weapons, a U.S. lawmaker said Monday he hoped Iran would cooperate with the U.N. atomic agency and that Israel will eventually sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

"This is a region which is far too volatile, with too many political problems for us to have countries with nuclear weapons," Republican Congressman Jim Colby of Arizona told reporters after a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

The International Atomic Energy Agency demanded this weekend that Iran freeze all work on uranium enrichment, a process that is key to producing both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.

Iran criticized the IAEA demand, calling it "illegal," but indicated it was open to negotiations on the issue. Iran insists its nuclear program is only for generating electricity, but experts suspect - and the United States has alleged - that Iran is pursuing atomic weapons.

"We're very anxious that the Iranians will cooperate in this effort to have international experts look at their program," Colby said.
While Iran has signed the international accord pledging not develop or acquire nuclear weapons, Israel is one of the few countries in the world outside the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Israel refuses to either confirm or deny it has nuclear weapons, saying such a policy contributes to its security.

Colby was asked whether Mideast peace negotiations should be accompanied by efforts to get Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

"We hope that eventually it will be possible for Israel to" join the treaty, Colby said.

"I think that when there can be a peace settlement here in the Middle East then Israel can feel secure (and) that will be a prospect. But that's a decision that ... obviously Israel will have to make."

Mubarak's top adviser Osama el-Baz, who appeared at the news conference alongside Colby, said it had long been Egypt's position that once a comprehensive Israeli-Arab peace had been struck, "there will be no reason for Israel to maintain its nuclear program. They will have to join and sign the NPT."

El-Baz, singling out Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor, said even nuclear technology for energy purposes should be ruled out in the Middle East for fear of accidents.

4 posted on 09/20/2004 9:58:54 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran's judiciary plans to "detoxify" film industry


AFP - World News (via Yahoo)
Sep 20, 2004

TEHRAN - Iran's hardline judiciary has declared it intends to "detoxify" the Islamic republic's movie industry in a bid to eliminate what it described as "corrupt" artists, according to a statement carried in the press.

Photo
AFP/File Photo

 

The announcement of a new anti-vice drive targetting the bustling film sector comes amid criticism of the judiciary over its arrest of the organisers of an independent film festival on the grounds that female members of the audience had shown too much flesh or hair.

"As long as the culture ministry does not act to clean up the cultural field of disgraceful elements, the judicial apparatus is obliged to act to detoxify the cultural field of corrupt elements," said the judiciary's message.

Abolhasan Davoodi, head of the non-governmental Cinema House, was summoned and interrogated by police last week for "repeated protests over non-observance of the Islamic dress code" during the movie award festival.

He was then sent to a Tehran hospital with suspected heart failure after his arrest. Several other organisers were also detained and then freed on bail.

But the judiciary defended the arrests, arguing that "during the ceremony we witnessed a number of insults against the sacred rules of Islam as well as the propagation of immorality."

"These acts were committed deliberately," and "unfortunately the deputy culture minister in charge of cinema and other officials present at the ceremony gave their approval by smiling at these abominable and insulting acts," it said.

Organisers of the independent Cinema House festival have apologized for the attire of some women attending the event and acknowledged "with deep regret" that "some of those invited did not abide by the notices" reminding women to cover up properly.

At the event, film clips are shown and a series of awards handed out. It is often labelled as Iran's answer to the Oscars.

But this year the festival came under fierce attack by two hardline newspapers, Jomhuri Islami and Kayhan, which plastered pictures of several women at the festival wearing flimsy headscarfs, three-quarter-length trousers and skimpy coats.

Many of the women were also plastered in cosmetics.

Every post-pubescent female in Iran, regardless of her nationality or religion, is obliged to observe the Islamic dress code and cover her hair whenever outside the home.

5 posted on 09/20/2004 10:00:37 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn

Khatami: Iran Will Pursue Nuclear Program


Tue Sep 21, 7:07 AM ET

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran - President Mohammad Khatami (news - web sites) said Tuesday that Iran will continue a nuclear program some suspect is aimed at developing weapons, even if that means an end to U.N. oversight.

Defying a key demand set by 35 nations, Iran also announced Tuesday that it has started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons.

"We've made our choice: yes to peaceful nuclear technology, no to atomic weapons," Khatami said at a military parade in Tehran. "We will continue along our path even if it leads to an end to international supervision" of our nuclear activities.

As a member of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran allows supervision to ensure its nuclear programs are peaceful. Under international pressure last year, Iran agreed to a more aggressive inspection regime under an additional protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The IAEA demanded last weekend that Iran freeze uranium enrichment and related activities, such as the building of centrifuges, within two months. Failure to do so could lead to the IAEA's passing Iran's nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

The United States believes Iran is covertly developing nuclear weapons and has been lobbying for the country to be referred to the Security Council. Iran insists that its nuclear program is strictly for the generation of electricity.

"They have to explicitly recognize our natural and legal right (to peaceful nuclear energy) to open the way for greater understanding and cooperation," Khatami said.

"We've made our choice. Now it is up to others to make their choice," he added.

Khatami said Iran would not seek nuclear weapons regardless of IAEA supervision.

"I declare to the world that whether we are under supervision or not, we won't go for nuclear weapons at all," he said.

Iranian officials have denounced as "illegal" demands by IAEA that Iran cease enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for both nuclear power stations and nuclear weapons. While critics have said that Iran could import enriched uranium for power stations, Iran insists that it will develop its own fuel supplies.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator Hasan Rowhani has threatened that if Iran is referred to the U.N. Security Council, the country will halt the unfettered IAEA inspections that it agreed to last year. Iran's parliament has yet to ratify the additional protocol that authorizes them.

Iran says it already has the technology to manage the whole cycle of nuclear fuel — from extracting uranium ore to enriching it. Critics argue that a country which controls the fuel cycle would be able to produce a nuclear bomb.

Iran is not prohibited from enriching uranium under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but it has come under strong international pressure to stop enrichment and centrifuge construction as questions remain unanswered about the scope of its nuclear program.

Iranians are proud of their nuclear development. It is one of the few points on which there is consensus across the political spectrum.

Khatami spoke at a ceremony marking the anniversary of Iran's 1980-88 war with Iraq (news - web sites). The parade included an example of Iran's ballistic missile, the Shahab-3, which has the capacity to carry nuclear warheads.

Referring to Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), the ousted Iraqi dictator whom Iranians blame for the war, Khatami said: "The invader of yesterday is now in the quagmire of humiliation, captivity, disgrace and misery — a quagmire prepared by the same people (America) who encouraged him (Saddam) to invade Iran."

9 posted on 09/21/2004 8:27:17 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn

Bush Aides Divided on Confronting Iran Over A-Bomb

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

Published: September 21, 2004

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - At a time when the violent insurgency in Iraq is vexing the Bush administration and stirring worries among Americans, events may be propelling the United States into yet another confrontation, this time with Iran. The issues have an almost eerie familiarity, evoking the warnings and threats that led to the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and stirring an equally passionate debate.

Like Iraq in its final years under Saddam Hussein, Iran is believed by experts to be on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb. In Iraq, that proved to be untrue, though this time the consensus is much stronger among Western experts.

In addition, as with Iraq, administration officials have said recently that Iran is supporting insurgencies and terrorism in other countries. Recently, top administration officials have accused the Tehran government of backing the rebels in Iraq, something that officials fear could increase if Iran is pressed too hard on its nuclear program.

A parallel concern in Washington is Iran's continued backing of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite group that the administration and the Israeli government say is channeling aid to groups attacking Israeli civilians. Israel also warns that Iran's nuclear program will reach a "point of no return" next year, after which it will be able to make a bomb without any outside assistance.

The Bush administration has yet to forge a clear strategy on how to deal with Iran, partly because of a lack of attractive options and partly because there is a debate under way between hard-liners and advocates of diplomatic engagement. But in another similarity with the Iraq situation before the war, Washington is in considerable disagreement with key allies over how to handle the threat.

Britain, France and Germany say Iran's nuclear program is unacceptable, but they also warn that a confrontation could backfire and that incentives as well as punishments need to be presented to Tehran. Threatening sanctions - a cutoff in oil purchases, for example - is not viewed as credible or likely to get much support, they say.

European views cannot be dismissed, especially after the discord over Iraq, administration officials say. Last weekend, under European pressure, the United States agreed to defer its demand that the International Atomic Energy Agency immediately refer Iran's noncooperation on nuclear issues to the United Nations Security Council, where sanctions might be considered.Instead, Iran was given two more months to show that it was cooperating.

Still, even Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, the leading advocate of diplomacy in Mr. Bush's inner circle, cites a gathering threat from Iran.

"Diplomacy does not mean failure to look in the lion's mouth," Mr. Powell said in a recent interview. "Diplomacy doesn't mean pretending something isn't there when it's there. The Iranians have a nuclear weapons program, and I keep telling everybody it is the responsibility of the international community to apply all the pressure we can."

With Iran policy in a state of flux, there is a drive among conservatives to reach out to Iranian dissidents and exiles seeking to overthrow the government, much as efforts were made with Iraqis in the 1990's. Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, is sponsoring legislation favoring "regime change," with what some say is the tacit backing of administration conservatives.

Last year, when it was trying to reach out to Tehran for cooperation on Iraq, the administration stated that it did not support regime change in Iran, though President Bush also spoke out in favor of greater democracy there.

Administration officials say that there was an internal debate last year but that the idea of giving aid to dissidents who might try to overthrow the Iranian government had been dropped for lack of any credible groups to support.

Yet the cause of regime change in Iran is expected to be revived if President Bush is re-elected, administration officials say. Leading the charge is John R. Bolton, the under secretary of state for nonproliferation, who gave a speech last month saying that Iran's conduct did not "bode well for the success of a negotiated approach to dealing with this issue." A colleague called him "the self-appointed tip of the spear" in the discussions.

In an interview, Mr. Bolton declined to comment on whether regime change was appropriate for Iran, other than to say that even without outside support, widespread unhappiness among Iranians over a lagging economy and stifling religious rule could bring a "revolution from below."

"When the old regime in South Africa collapsed they got rid of their nukes," Mr. Bolton said. "When Ukraine became independent they did the same. At a time of profound dislocation, it is not inconceivable that a new government in Tehran might be persuaded to drop its nuclear program."

On the other side of the spectrum, some at the State Department say no solution is possible without a discussion of benefits to the Tehran government if it changes its behavior, or without progress in the impasse between Israel and the Palestinians.

Some experts call for a "grand bargain" that would involve an across-the-board agreement in which changed behavior by Tehran on all fronts would be negotiated in return for normal relations and investment from the West.

Still other experts say that such an approach is overly ambitious and that "selective engagement" on a few crucial issues, including steps to stabilize Iraq, should be tried first. That view is advocated by a Council on Foreign Relations committee led by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, a director of central intelligence in the early 1990's.

In three and a half years the Bush administration has tried engaging Iran, but little has come of its efforts. Diplomatic contacts at low levels were suspended in May of last year. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, is charging the Bush administration with ignoring the Iran problem. Mr. Kerry said last month that the United States "must work with our allies to end Iran's nuclear weapons program and be ready to work with them to implement a range of tougher measures if needed."

For all the talk about new policies, few administration officials or policy makers and experts outside the administration think that any new approach will be unveiled soon.

A final unpredictable factor in the discussions involves Israel, which some intelligence experts say would be willing to strike one or more Iranian weapons sites, as it did with the French-built nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981.

Israeli and American officials insist that the idea of a strike against Iranian sites is impractical. Nevertheless, some diplomats were rattled by a recent warning from Iran's defense minister, Vice Adm. Ali Shamkhani, that Iran would retaliate if Israel tried any such thing.

"I'm frankly very pessimistic about the future," said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy. "We have to offer a carrot as well as brandishing a stick. But this administration is too busy and they don't want to think about it. I don't think very much is going to happen until after the American election."

10 posted on 09/21/2004 8:30:07 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn

imclogo.jpg (6075 bytes)

CONTACT:
Roxana Ganji
+1-310-367-9617
IMConIran@aol.com

Press Release | Fact Sheet | H.R. Violations | Members | Organizers | Press Download PDF

International Moral Court to Investigate Iranian Regime


Paris – September 21 – An International Moral Court, Paris Tribunal, initiated by the Iranian Action Committee will bring together an unprecedented group of prominent legal experts, scholars, diplomats and human rights advocates in Paris this week to hear witnesses, document and investigate the clerical regime of Iran on its crimes against humanity.

Only the second of its kind in history, "the Paris Tribunal will document for the international community the Islamic Republic’s serial and systematic abuse of human rights against the Iranian people” said Dr. Manouchehr Ganji, himself a former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights.

According to Dr. Ganji, as the most active state sponsor of international terrorism, Iran’s ruling regime has, for more than two decades, suppressed, violated and terrorized citizens of Iran. To date, it has summarily killed more than 200,000; tortured, maimed, stoned to death thousands more; made to disappear and assassinated numerous others, at home and abroad; and currently incarcerates, by its own account, more than 600,000 in Iranian prisons.

“The Paris Tribunal, by hearing from the immediate families of those killed and from many tortured victims of the Iranian Regime, will attempt to arouse the global conscience and seek to shame governments and multinationals into taking actions in support, and not against, the people of Iran," said Dr. Ganji.

The Paris Tribunal will be seated between September 23-25, 2004 at the Paris Hilton La Defense, and will hold hearings and receive testimony from expert witnesses and actual victims of human rights abuses by the Iranian regime. In judicious and impartial performance of its function, the Paris Tribunal has formally delivered notice to the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in Paris, to send official representatives to also take part in its deliberations.

Members of the Paris Tribunal, Moral Court, are individuals from nine different countries with impeccable international respectability with authority on matters of human rights, international law and public diplomacy. At the conclusion of its three days initial session, the Paris Tribunal will report its findings and recommendations to the international community.

The Paris Tribunal is a creation and product of the Committee to Pursue the International Crimes of the Islamic Republic of Iran (www.iricrimes.org), a 27 member Committee of Iranians of all political stripes and professional orientations currently living in exile. Its funding comes exclusively from contributions of Iranians at home and abroad.

The founding organizer of the Committee to Pursue the International Crimes of the Islamic Republic of Iran is Dr. Manouchehr Ganji a former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights. He is a former Minister of Education of Iran, former Dean of Law School at Tehran University and is Secretary-General of the Organization for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms for Iran.

The impetus for the creation of the International Moral Court on Iran was born in 2002 – when the United Nations Commission on Human Rights surreptitiously dropped the post of Special Representative on Violations of Human Rights in Iran. This appeasing act was the result of actions by certain member states of the world body that chose to pursue short term commercial, oil and gas, interests with Tehran.


11 posted on 09/21/2004 8:40:16 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn

Rosenberg Logic and Iran

September 20, 2004
Eli Lake

Are France, Germany, and the United Kingdom willing to allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon? This is a fair question considering that these three countries, which have tried for more than a year to cajole the Islamic republic into assuring the world it is not building an atomic bomb, are now unwilling to attach any consequences to their latest deadline of November for the Iranians to come clean.

Last week at Vienna the Europeans tried to make the case that Iran be given until the end of October to, as British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said, "clarify remaining issues" regarding Tehran's nuclear enrichment program. This position was defensible a year ago, when the International Atomic Energy Agency was just finishing up inspections of the facilities the Iranians had kept hidden from the international community for at least 15 years. A year later it's insanity.

The latest report from the IAEA, which has been misreported as containing no smoking gun, provides much proof that Iran has negotiated in bad faith. For example, the Iranians have yet to supply the IAEA with information on where it actually got certain equipment, such as magnets for its P-2 centrifuges. Iran has yet to explain adequately why the centrifuge equipment it made domestically has levels of uranium contamination that it had said was because of contamination from imported equipment.

Nor have the Iranians provided a catalog of equipment used at Lavisan-Shian, a facility Tehran said was a physics research site conducting experiments on how to defend against a nuclear attack. The IAEA will never visit this facility because it was recently razed following a dispute between local authorities and the Ministry of Defense.

Despite such unanswered questions, the IAEA has yet to make any judgments with regard to Iran's nuclear activities. The IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, remains agnostic. "Have we seen any proof of a weapons program? Have we seen undeclared enrichment?" he asked Tuesday. "Obviously until today there is none of that," added he: "But are we in a position to say that everything is peaceful? Obviously we are not at this stage."

It's worth asking Mr. ElBaradei and the Europeans pushing for more negotiations exactly what more proof they need. The reason the IAEA is even considering this issue, after all, is that the mullahs for years failed to tell the atomic watchdog that it built an enormous underground centrifuge at Natanz, that it was conducting laser enrichment experiments at numerous other facilities, and that it had imported yellow cake uranium from China.

Why would one of the world's leading exporters of petroleum take such pains to hide a peaceful nuclear energy program from the rest of the world? Why is the IAEA bending over backward to ignore nearly two years of delays, false reports, and obstruction to see what's in front of its nose?

One reason is that under the consensus interpretation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty a nation can develop the infrastructure to enrich uranium and remain in good standing with the international community right up until the moment it decides to turn that infrastructure toward building bombs. North Korea proved that in 2002 when it admitted to having an undeclared enrichment program for the purpose of building a nuclear weapon. Iran seems intent to go down that path as well.

But another reason is that Mr. ElBaradei and the Europeans seem intent on treating all nuclear proliferation the same. Witness the handwringing the IAEA has devoted this week to South Korea's voluntary admission of some minor enrichment tests. Indeed, some commentators have reasoned that if Israel, which is not a member of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, is allowed to build bombs in Dimona, why can't Iran build bombs in Natanz?

This is the logic of the Rosenbergs, who rationalized their espionage over 50 years ago by convincing themselves that slipping atomic secrets to the Soviets would create a balance of terror between the two superpowers that emerged after World War II.

Beside all that, there is an important difference. Israel and South Korea are not the world's leading sponsor of Islamic terror. Israel and South Korea do not torture their journalists, harbor members of Al Qaeda, or provide funding and arms to groups that praise and recruit suicide bombers. A nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranian mullahs would provide a deterrent to any plans to end its chauvinistic theocracy.

Instead of defying reality and pretending that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb, the world would be better served were the British, French, and Germans to devote their energies aiding the most potent opponents of Tehran's clerics - the Iranian people.

12 posted on 09/21/2004 8:42:53 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn

Inquiry and Analysis Series - No. 189

September 20, 2004 No.189
Iran's Nuclear Policy Crisis
By: Ayelet Savyon*

Introduction

Iran's nuclear policy enjoys a national political consensus: Both the conservatives and the reform-seekers agree that Iran is entitled to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and that the Iranian nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. [1] Moreover, Iran maintains that it has fully complied with its international obligations regarding nuclear activities.

Yet reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA ) have stated that Iran has failed to comply with IAEA inspectors in the field, and that it has not fully reported on its acquisition of advanced P2 centrifuges or on its uranium enrichment activities. [2] Moreover, the IAEA condemned Iran in June 2004 for its "attempts to hide information concerning its nuclear project." Failure to report to the IAEA is considered a violation, albeit technical, of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which Iran has been a party since 1970.

On September 18, 2004, the IAEA Board of Governors issued a resolution calling on Iran to "immediately suspend all enrichment-related activities" in its nuclear program and setting November 25, 2004 as the date for a full review of Iran's nuclear dossier. [3]

The resolution in its final form was a joint initiative by France, Germany, and Britain, with whom Iran had negotiated in the past two years with the aim of resolving disputes regarding its nuclear program. The Board of Governors resolution is a compromise – in language and in demands on Iran – among various elements: the U.S. demand that Iran's nuclear dossier be transferred to the U.N. Security Council; the European desire to settle the dispute via dialogue with Iran; and the pressure by the non-aligned countries supporting Iran's claim that it is entitled to obtain advanced nuclear technology.

At the same time, Europe's positions, as manifested by the original draft resolution it submitted, had drawn closer to the position of the U.S. The original draft resolution had included an ultimatum to Iran to immediately halt uranium enrichment for its nuclear program, and if it did not, its nuclear dossier would be transferred to the U.N. Security Council in November. The final resolution, however, did not include this ultimatum.

In its response to the resolution, Iran called the IAEA demand to stop uranium enrichment activity "unacceptable," stating that it is entitled to carry out such activity as an NPT member state. Supreme National Security Council Secretary Hassan Rohani, in charge of Iran's nuclear affairs, said that Iran had never committed to halting its uranium-enrichment activities under an IAEA resolution and had done so voluntarily and temporarily in a show of good faith, as a confidence-building measure. He said, "Any resolution which seeks to bind us to suspension [of uranium enrichment] is unacceptable and we will not accept such an obligation." [4]

However, on another occasion Rohani restated Iran's position: "We will go ahead with confidence-building and will endeavor to build up our [nuclear] technical capability to restore our national rights in the context of the international conventions. This is our diplomacy: to proceed [in] both directions simultaneously." He further said that Iran does not need foreign assistance to produce nuclear fuel for the power plants, and has enough expertise to do so on its own." [5]

In his statement to IRNA, Rohani also said that Iran was "sensitive" to the section of the resolution concerning uranium enrichment because, he said, this is a right respected by the NPT, and added that "We don't have a program to extend the suspension yet." [6]

He further stressed Iran's perception of Europe's possible role in Iran's plans, saying that Washington was "totally against" Iran's fuel production while the European states agree with [Iranian] fuel producing "at specified degrees."

Stating that Iran "takes pride" in its continuous talks with Europe on its nuclear issue, Rohani emphasized that Iran could have reached proper accord with E.U. had it not been for U.S. pressure on Europe, and hinted that Iran-E.U. talks had not yet been concluded, and added that there is a possibility of resolving the dispute with the IAEA through diplomatic means. [7]

In order to continue its nuclear program, Iran is proceeding on two parallel tracks: a political-diplomatic track with the E.U., and a belligerent track. Both tracks serve a single strategic goal – obtaining advanced nuclear technology that also enables the development of nuclear weapons.

In its political-diplomatic track with the E.U., Iran sees Europe as a means of obtaining nuclear technology and as a key to achieving legitimization for its nuclear program. [8]

The belligerent track aims at creating a balance of fear with the West by threatening to harm it, and with Israel by threatening to wipe it off the face of the earth.

This paper reviews developments in the crisis in Iran's nuclear policy, in advance of the next IAEA Board of Governors session in November 2004, as reflected in the Iranian media. [9]

Background

In August 2002, the Mujahideen Khalq revealed in the U.S. that Iran had established nuclear plants without reporting them to the IAEA. [10] This revelation placed Iran in the position of being in violation of its international commitment as a member state of the NPT. In the wake of this information, the international community began to apply diplomatic pressure on Iran, and the IAEA launched an investigation of Iran's nuclear program.

Iran responded with a flurry of diplomatic activity directed at the three leading European countries – Britain, France, and Germany – in order to arrive at an understanding with them. This was aimed at keeping U.S. pressure at bay, and at persuading the IAEA to close its investigation of its nuclear dossier. Iran is apprehensive about its dossier being handed over to the U.N. Security Council because the move is likely to culminate in punitive measures against it. Further, in light of the major role played by the U.S. in keeping the international pressure on Iran, Iran is also closely following U.S. presidential race. [11]

At the same time, Iranian President Muhammad Khatami has expressed Iran's determination to obtain advanced nuclear technology. In February 2003, in advance of the Persian New Year, Khatami declared that Iran had begun enriching uranium, and that the country was aiming to attain independent nuclear fuel cycle capability – which would in effect enable it to produce a nuclear bomb. [12] Further, in August 2003, Khatami said that the IAEA must recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium, and added that "Iran is determined to obtain advanced nuclear technology." [13] More recently, in September 2004, Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Hassan Rohani, who is in charge of Iran's nuclear affairs, said, "Iran sees access to the fuel cycle as its legal and logical right, and will not relinquish it. Iran is trying to implement this goal at the most appropriate time and in the best possible way." [14]

Nevertheless, in October 2003, in what was later known as the Tehran Declaration, Iran announced its willingness to sign the Additional Protocol to the NPT, which would give the IAEA the right to intrusive inspection of its nuclear sites. At the same time, Iran also announced its willingness to suspend its uranium-enrichment activity temporarily, in a gesture of good will. [15] Further, in February 2004, Iran agreed to suspend production and assembly of centrifuge parts, in what later became known as the Brussels Understandings. [16]

According to Iranian press reports, the Tehran Declaration and the Brussels Understandings were apparently achieved via secret negotiations between Iran and the Europeans. According to Iranian reports, the three leading European countries undertook to close Iran's nuclear dossier at the IAEA at the June 2004 Board of Governors session. Iranian sources also said that the three would provide Iran with "advanced nuclear technology for peaceful purposes" in exchange for Iran's commitment to suspend nuclear activity and to subject itself to closer oversight of its nuclear facilities by the international community. [17]

Although Iran believed it had reached an understanding with the European three, at the June 2004 IAEA Board of Governors session the latter initiated a harsh condemnation of Iran for its failure to fully cooperate with the IAEA. In September 2004, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also complained that Iran had not met all its commitments. [18]

In response to this condemnation, Iran complained that even though it had indeed met its commitments, suspended its nuclear activity, and agreed to visits by IAEA inspectors, the three European countries had not fulfilled their obligations to Iran. [19]

At the meeting of Iranian and European delegates, in July 2004 in Paris, Iran rejected the European demand to give up its independent nuclear fuel cycle production capacity in exchange for nuclear fuel to be provided to Iran by Western countries themselves. Iran also refused to commit to a complete halt to its uranium enrichment activity. [20] Further, Iran claimed that it had agreed only to a temporary suspension of activity, and clung tenaciously to its right to enrich uranium and to attain independent nuclear fuel cycle production capability. [21]

In September of this year, Iran announced its intent to enrich 37 tons of "yellowcake" [22] - uranium mined at Saghand, about 200 miles south of Tehran. According to the report, the uranium will be enriched in the Natanz facility, 200 miles southeast of Tehran. [23]

According to Western sources in the IAEA, Iran had recently agreed in principle to renew its suspension of its nuclear activities, with the aim of improving its diplomatic status with the IAEA prior to the Board of Governors' September session, and to prevent the transfer of its dossier to the U.N. Security Council. According to these sources, IAEA Director-General Muhammad El-Baradei was attempting to finalize the details of a deal in which Iran would reinstate its suspension of uranium-enrichment activities, including centrifuge production, assembly, and testing. [24]

Upon his return from the Netherlands, which currently holds the presidency of the European Union, Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Hassan Rohaniconfirmed that sensitive talks were underway with Europe concerning important issues "about which it is too early to talk." [25]

Nevertheless, two days before the IAEA Board of Governors September session, Britain, Germany, and Franceissued a draft resolution for the IAEA session that included an ultimatum to Iran to meet all demands regarding its nuclear activities by November 2004. [26] The European draft resolution called on Iran to cooperate fully with the IAEA and its inspectors, and to immediately halt all uranium enrichment activities. If by November Iran failed to comply, the Iranian dossier would be handed over to the U.N. Security Council. [27] Apparently, this ultimatum came following Iran's announcement of its intention to process 37 tons of yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride, a stage in the uranium enrichment process, within the next two years. [28]

It was apparent from the European draft resolution that the position of the European countries was drawing closer to the policy of the U.S. - that Iran's nuclear dossier should be handed over to the U.N. Security Council with an ultimatum to Iran. However, Europe backed down from its demands and agreed to soften its stance toward Iran.

In a first response to the European draft, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi rejected the ultimatum and emphasized that over 95% of the problematic issues had already been resolved. He added that talks with Europe were held in a good atmosphere, and that efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear technology were fruitless since Iran "had already achieved the technology and have peaceful nuclear technology."

Asefi also hinted that Iran was already using yellowcake, saying, "Yellowcake is not an important issue… The yellowcake issue was not a secret case and we have informed the IAEA about it. We are committed to voluntary suspension [of uranium enrichment, which requires yellowcake], and will inform the IAEA on whatever activities Iran will implement." [29]

On September 18, 2004, the IAEA Board of Governors issued a resolution calling on Iran to "immediately suspend all enrichment-related activities" in its nuclear program and setting November 25, 2004 as the date for a full review of Iran's nuclear dossier. [30] The resolution in its final form was a joint initiative by France, Germany, and Britain, with whom Iran had negotiated in the past two years with the aim of resolving disputes regarding Iran's nuclear program.

The Board of Governors resolution is a compromise – in language and in demands on Iran – among various elements: the U.S. demand that Iran's nuclear dossier be transferred to the U.N. Security Council; the European desire to settle the dispute via dialogue with Iran; and the pressure by the non-aligned countries supporting Iran's claim that it was entitled to obtain advanced nuclear technology.

At the same time, Europe's positions, as manifested by the original draft resolution it submitted, had drawn closer to the position of the U.S. The original draft resolution had included an ultimatum to Iran to immediately halt uranium enrichment for its nuclear program, and if it did not, its nuclear dossier would be transferred to the U.N. Security Council in November.

In its response to the resolution, Iran deemed as "unacceptable" the IAEA demand to stop uranium enrichment activity, stating that it was entitled to carry out such activity as an NPT member state. Supreme National Security Council Secretary Hassan Rohani said that Iran had never committed to halting its uranium-enrichment activities under an IAEA resolution and had done so voluntarily in a show of good faith, as a confidence-building measure. He added, "Any resolution which seeks to bind us to suspension [of uranium enrichment] is unacceptable and we will not accept such an obligation." [31]

However, Rohani explained: "We will go ahead with confidence-building and will endeavor to
build up our technical capability to restore our national rights in the context of the international conventions. This is our diplomacy: to proceed [in] both directions simultaneously." He further said that Iran does not need foreign assistance to produce nuclear fuel for the power plants, and has enough expertise to do so on its own. Stating that Iran is "sensitive" to the section of the resolution concerning uranium enrichment because this is a right respected by the NPT, Rohani added that "We don't have a program to extend the suspension yet." He further stressed Iran's perception of Europe's possible role in Iran's plans, saying that Washington was "totally against" Iran's fuel production while the European states agree with part of the fuel producing. Rohani also said that Iran "takes pride" in its continuous talks with Europe on its nuclear issue, and emphasized that Iran could have reached proper accord with E.U. had it not been for U.S. pressure on Europe. He also hinted that Iran-E.U. talks had not yet been concluded. He said that there is a possibility of resolving the dispute with the IAEA through diplomatic means. [32]

Iran's Nuclear Policy 2003-2004

Iran's conduct in its nuclear matters over the past two years has reflected a policy of ambiguity. While it has denied carrying out any unauthorized nuclear activity and has made no reports of such activity to the IAEA, when its nuclear activity was revealed – either by Iranian opposition groups abroad or following IAEA inspections – it has officially confirmed such information and argued that this activity was in no way a violation of the treaties to which it is a signatory or to international commitments it had taken upon itself. [33] These tactics, and the lack of transparency regarding its nuclear policy, have been criticized within Iran itself as well. [34]

On the other hand, in an attempt to neutralize international pressure and to have its nuclear dossier closed by the IAEA instead of being handed over to the U.N. Security Council, Iran has over the past two years been active in diplomatic efforts with the three leading European countries. According to Iran, the dispute could be resolved via agreement among itself, the three, and the IAEA, with no need for other – i.e. U.S. and the U.N. Security Council – intervention. [35]

The responses and statements by Iran's leaders indicate that decisions are being made in reaction to international pressure, resulting in a policy of reversals. As long as the pressure remained low-key, Iran continued with its declared nuclear activity. However, when the pressure increased, or when there was an imminent threat that Iran's dossier would be handed over to the U.N. Security Council, Iran has taken concrete steps to appease the West.

For instance, following Iranian President Muhammad Khatami's announcement that Iran was enriching uranium, Iran was forced by European pressure into agreeing to join the Additional Protocol. [36] In the same way, it was revealed that at the October 2003 Tehran meeting and February 2004 Brussels meeting that Iran had reached secret understandings to suspend its nuclear activity and accept tighter international oversight of its nuclear facilities. [37] It would also seem that Iran's latest agreement to suspend centrifuge production and assembly came in advance of the September 2004 IAEA Board of Governors session.

Iran's Policy Following the June 2004 IAEA Condemnation

Iran's response to the June 2004 condemnation by the IAEA indicates that it has decided to take a tougher stance with the European three. This is an attempt to signal that it is not hostage to the West and that the E.U. is not its only option. At the same time, it is cultivating its diplomatic relations with Russia and China in order to prevent its dossier from being transferred to the U.N. Security Council. [38]

Iran has employed the following measures in its changing attitude:

  1. Declaring a month-long moratorium on diplomatic meetings with the European three. During July 2004, Iranian delegates again met, in Paris, with European delegates, and rejected out of hand the European demand to completely give up their efforts to arrive at independent nuclear fuel cycle production capacity in exchange for nuclear technology provided by the Western countries themselves. Iran also rejected demands to halt its uranium enrichment activities. [39]
  2. Hardening its approach on its nuclear activity – that is, announcing that it was canceling the obligation it took upon itself to suspend centrifuge assembly and uranium enrichment. At the same time, Iran's leaders made it clear that actual enrichment activities had not yet resumed. [40]
  3. Announcing that it would not ratify the Additional Protocol. [41] It should be noted that the conservative Seventh Majlis (Iranian parliament), which was inaugurated in May 2004, is not supportive of cooperation with the West like the reformist Sixth Majlis.
  4. Making veiled threats that Europe will suffer economic damage and that the oversight of Iran's nuclear facilities would be lost if Europe supports the transfer of its dossier to the U.N. Security Council. [42]

Majlis Speaker Deputy and Parliamentary Foreign Policy and National Security Committee member Akbar A'alami said that if the dossier were to be handed over to the Security Council, "the European countries would lose more than Iran… The European economy is more fragile than that of the U.S., and is oil-dependent… We believe that the Europeans will adopt a wise policy and ensure their national interests." [43]

Alongside these threats, a month later Iran announced its willingness to return to the diplomatic channel with Europe, even meeting in July 2004 in Paris with European delegates. [44]

In order to be able to continue with its nuclear program, Iran is trying to consolidate two parallel tracks: a political-diplomatic track and a belligerent track. It is trying to create a balance of fear with the West, by threatening to harm it, and with Israel by threatening to destroy it.

I. The Political-Diplomatic Track: On the one hand, Iran is declaring that it is continuing to cooperate with the IAEA and with Europe. [45] On the other hand, Iran is refusing to commit to a permanent halt to its uranium-enrichment activity and to give up its independent nuclear fuel cycle production capability. [46] At the same time, as a confidence-building measure, Iran is refraining from explicitly declaring that it is resuming uranium enrichment, although it has explicitly stated that it is entitled to enrich uranium and that it is determined to obtain advanced nuclear technology. [47] Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi even acknowledged that Iran already possesses this technology. [48]

Furthermore, in his rejection of the IAEA's resolution to call on Iran to suspend uranium-enrichment activity, Supreme National Security Council Secretary Hassan Rohani stated that Iran does not need foreign assistance to produce nuclear fuel for the power plants, and has enough expertise to do so on its own. [49]

Despite Iran's rage at Europe's position towards it at the June 2004 IAEA Board of Governors session and Europe's role in the September resolution, Iran recognizes Europe's importance as a means of circumventing both international pressure and the U.S. threat to hand its dossier over to the U.N. Security Council. Moreover, Iran sees Europe as a means of obtaining nuclear technology and as a key to achieving legitimization for its nuclear program. [50]

Supreme National Security Council Secretary Hassan Rohani stressed Iran's perception of Europe's possible role in Iran's plans, saying that Washington was "totally against" Iran's fuel production while the European states agree with part of the fuel production.

Rohani also said that Iran "takes pride" in its continuous talks with Europe on its nuclear issue, and emphasized that Iran could have reached proper accord with E.U. had it not been for U.S. pressure on Europe, and hinted that Iran-E.U. talks had not yet been concluded. He said that there is a possibility of resolving the dispute with the IAEA through diplomatic means. [51]

During his early September 2004 visit to the Netherlands, Rohani had said that Iran was "expecting the E.U. to honor the October 2003 Tehran Declaration, which was signed by France, Germany, and Britain." He had also called on the E.U. to provide Iran with advanced nuclear technology. [52] Moreover, he had added ominously that "if the Europeans do not honor their commitments or if they submit a harsh or illogical draft resolution [condemning Iran] to the IAEA, the Iranian reaction is ready. But it is still too early to talk about this." [53]

II. The Belligerent Track: Creating a Balance of Fear with the West and Israel

A. Threats of Attacks on U.S. Interests

Recently, threats to strike at U.S. interests in the Gulf and in the West have proliferated. [54] Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei said that Iran's response to any harm to it would not be limited by Iran's borders. In a speech to the residents of the city of Hamedan on July 5, 2004, hesaid: "We, the Iranian people, within the borders of our country, will cut off any hand that harms our scientific, natural, human, or technological interests. We will cut off the hand that is sent to invade and work against our people's interests. We will do this with no hesitation… If the enemy has the audacity to harm and invade, our blows against it will not be limited to the borders of our country… If someone harms our people and invades [our country], we will endanger his interests anywhere in the world." [55]

Iranian Revolutionary Guards Political Bureau head General Yadollah Javani said: "… Today we have in our possession long-range smart missiles which can reach many of the interests and vital resources of the Americans and of the Zionist regime in our region. Thus, if the enemies show stupidity and make any mistake towards Iran, [Iran] will certainly use all the means and capabilities at its disposal. Today we enjoy high deterrent ability, and if the enemy acts in madness and wants to try his luck, he will, as the leader said, quickly see his black fate, and will regret acting against Iran's Islamic regime." [56]

In an editorial, the July 6, 2004 edition of Kayhan stated: "The entire Islamic Middle East is now a volatile and tangled trap, and will be set off by the smallest bit of silliness – and will reap many victims of the sinful adventurers… Indeed, the White House's 80 years of exclusive rule are likely to become 80 seconds of Hell that will burn to ashes everything that has been built. Iran's counter-response is likely to be called 'sudden death' and 'the Angel of Death suddenly revealed.' That very day, those who resist [Iran] will be struck from directions they never expected. The heartbeat of the crisis is undoubtedly [dictated by] the hand of Iran." [57]

Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said at a press conference at which he announced improvements to the Shihab-3 missile that it is "obvious that we feel threatened, considering the line of thought of the superpowers. [But] we have prepared ourselves for the worst conditions." He stressed that "anyone attacking Iran will get a suitable response." [58] He also said in an interview with Al-Jazeera TV that "Iran will not sit idly by awaiting a strike against it, and would resort to using the preemptive strike option against Israel and the U.S.… The principle of preemption strike is not exclusive to the U.S." [59]

At a lecture at Tehran University on May 23, 2004, Iranian Revolutionary Guards official Dr. Hassan Abassi said: " We have two million Iranians [in the U.S.]. You can be sure that I will recruit from among them guerillas… 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-kilometer coast and 36 islands. The average depth of the Persian Gulf is 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… Take a tanker to the Straits of Hormuz and sink it there… When it lies on the surface, half of it will protrude. It will take five months for it to be salvaged. A rise in oil prices, as you have seen, causes the West fever…" [60]

B. Threats of Attacks on European Interests

Among the threats of attacks on European interests was Iran's announcement of the resumption of the Shihab-4 and Shihab-5 long-range missile project, at the order of Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei – with the strategic target of the missiles declared to be Europe and the U.S. [61] At the same time, Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani stated that Iran is not a threat to Europe. [62]

Also at the same time came statements by Revolutionary Guards Intelligence official Dr. Hassan Abassi regarding a plan to eradicate Anglo-Saxon civilization using missiles and suicide bombers and regarding the 29 weak spots in the West identified by Iranian intelligence agents with the aim of bombing them; the recruitment, training, and dispatch of thousands of Iranian volunteers by the Revolutionary Guards for suicide missions against Western, American, and European targets in Iraq; and a report on the mobilization of suicide bombers to defend the nuclear reactor in Bushehr. [63]

C. Balance of Fear: Iran-Israel

In light of Iran's fear that if its nuclear facilities are attacked the attack will come from Israel, Iran aspires to create a balance of fear with Israel even before it has attained independent nuclear fuel cycle capacity. The main thrust of this balance of fear is a threat to attack Israel's nuclear facilities and to destroy Israel if it dares to attack Iran.

This balance of fear is based on the following elements:

  • Ideology: The Islamic Revolution regime in Iran ideologically rejects Israel's very existence and legitimacy.
  • Strategic Capability – Shihab Ballistic Missiles: According to Iranian sources, the Shihab-3 is aimed at Israel, and its range covers Israel's entire territory. On August 11, 2004, Iran held another test with the improved Shihab-3, and showed the technological innovations it had introduced. Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said that Iran had attained "effective deterrent power" against its enemies in the region. [64] Iranian commentators added that the Shihab is capable of striking Israel or any other enemy target in the region, and that it is a response to the Israeli Arrow missile.
  • Threat to Israel via Hizbullah in Lebanon: In addition to the Revolutionary Guards officers' training and instructing of Hizbullah activists, it was recently reported that Iran provided Hizbullah, under Syria's protection, with "advanced missiles with a range of 250-350 km. that threaten every point in Israel." [65]
  • Threats by Iranian officials and Revolutionary Guards officials to strike Israel's nuclear facilities if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, and threats to destroy Israel. The following are several examples:
    • Iranian Revolutionary Guards Public Relations and Publications Office Director Masud Jazayeri warned the U.S. against using its "mad dog" Israel, saying that if the Zionist regime attacks Iran's nuclear facilities "we will wipe it off the map of the world." [66]
    • Iranian Revolutionary Guards Political Bureau head General Yadollah Javanisaid: "All the areas under the control of the Zionist regime, including the nuclear facilities and nuclear arsenal of this country, are within range of Iran's advanced missiles. Thus neither the Zionist regime nor America, will implement their threats" against Iran. [67]
    • Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Rahim Safavi said, "If Israel is crazy enough to attack Iranian interests, we will strike them as with a hammer and shatter their bones." [68] He added, "The time has come to wipe Israel off." [69]
    • Revolutionary Guards deputy commander Mohamed Baqer Zou Al-Qadr said, "As soon as Israel fires the first missile on Bushehr, it must forget immediately about its nuclear center in Dimona… If Israel attacks the nuclear centers of our country, we will strike at its arsenal of nuclear weapons." [70]
    • Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhanisaid, "If Israel attacks Iran militarily, no place in Israel will be safe for the heads of this regime." [71]

* Ayelet Savyon is Director of the Iranian Media Project.


[1] For more on Iran's goals in obtaining nuclear weapons, see MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 89, March 26, 2002: "Iran's Armament - A Central Element in Establishing Itself as a Regional Superpower," http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA8902. Also see the statement by Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani: "Iran is now regarded as an undisputable regional power." ( IRNA, Iran, August 29, 2004)

[2] IAEA Director-General Muhammad El-Baradei said that Iran had not fully complied with the IAEA for the past nine months, and that its nuclear program was not transparent ( Aftab-e Yazd, Iran, September 8, 2004). Iran maintains that the IAEA had accepted the Iranian version of events about the P2 centrifuges, and that the matter was therefore closed. Only technical matters, not essential matters, remained open. Kayhan (Iran), September 4, 2004; Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi's statement, IRNA (Iran), September 12, 2004. At the same time, Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Hassan Rohani said, "The IAEA claims that certain ambiguities remain in the key issues of pollution [as a result of uranium enrichment] and P2, and believes that there are still problems with this issue." Kayhan (Iran), September 8, 2004; Aftab-e Yazd (Iran),September 9, 2004.

[3] See "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran – Resolution adopted by the Board on 18 September 2004" on IAEA website: "… [The IAEA] considers it necessary to promote confidence that Iran immediately suspend all enrichment-related activities, including the manufacture or import of centrifuge components, the assembly and testing of centrifuges, and the production of feed material, including through tests or production at the UCF…" http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-79.pdf

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] IRNA (Iran), September 19, 2004. About two weeks earlier, Rohani had called upon France, Germany, and Britain to "honor the October 2003 Tehran Declaration" to which they were signatories, and had called on the E.U. to provide Iran with advanced nuclear technology." Aftab-e Yazd & Jomhour-ye Eslami (Iran), September 7, 2004.

[8] As Rohani put it, "any time Iran makes progress with Europe on its nuclear program, the Americans disrupt the process." IRNA (Iran), September 19, 2004.

[9] A review of the Iranian media with extensive quotes will be published separately.

[10] In an editorial opposing the European demand for Iran to suspend its nuclear activity, the conservative daily Kahyan pointed out some Iranian nuclear plants involved in fuel production: "The production of uranium ore [at Saghand, near the central Iranian city of Yazd]; the conversion of yellowcake to UF6 at the Isfahan facilities; injection of UF6 gas into centrifuges, at the Natanz facilities; the heavy water production project, at the Arak facilities; the assembly of centrifuges and the parts required for them; and so on…" Kayhan (Iran), August 5, 2004.

[11] In an editorial, the Iranian reformist daily Sharq wrote that John Kerry is similar to President George W. Bush and that no policy change towards Iran should be expected if the Democrats win the election ( Sharq, Iran, July 19, 2004). Expectations in Iran are that Iran's situation will become clear only after the U.S. elections. The fundamental assumption was that a Bush win would be very bad for Iran because it would mean increased pressure on it. See article by Ebrahim Yazdi in Sharq (September 11, 2004), which states that if Kerry wins, Europe and the U.S., along with Japan, China, and Russia, will shift their policy in favor of Iran's nuclear program.

[12] IRNA (Iran), February 13, 2003; Aftab-e Yazd (Iran),September 6, 2004.

[13] Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), August 29, 2004.

[14] Kayhan (Iran), September 8, 2004; Sharq (Iran), June 20, 2004.

[15] See for example the statement by Chris Patten, E.U. Commissioner in charge of External Relations,in IRNA, Iran, August 11, 2004. The Additional Protocol (93+2) allows the IAEA to carry out snap inspections at nuclear sites and facilities. Report on the secret agreements, Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), July 1, 2004.

[16] Kayhan (Iran), June 27, 2004; Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), June 30, 2004; Jomhouri-ye Eslami (Iran), September 7, 2004.

[17] Kayhan (Iran), September 4, 2004; Aftab-e Yazd & Jomhouri-ye Eslami, (Iran),September 7, 2004. Editorials in the Iranian press complained about how the understandings were concealed from the relevant Majlis (Iranian parliament)committees and from the editors of Iran's leading conservative newspapers that are close to the Iranian regime heads. See editorials in the reformist daily Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), June 30 and July 1, 2004, and criticism by r eformist political activist Ali Akbar Mokhtashemi-Pour, Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), July 1, 2004. Iran later stated that its agreement to suspend its uranium enrichment activities was only a temporary one. See statements by Iranian Expediency Council Chairman and former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, Aftab-e Yazd, Iran, June 30, 2004; and Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary Hassan Rohani's statements in Sharq (Iran), June 20, 2004, Kayhan (Iran), September 8, 2004.

[18] Kayhan (Iran), September 4, 2004.Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in response that when Iran and Europe were conducting sensitive negotiations, statements of this kind were not constructive ( Aftab-e Yazd & Jomhouri-ye Eslami, Iran, September 6, 2004). Also, IAEA Director-General Muhammad El-Baradei said that Iran had not fully complied with the IAEA for the past nine months and that its nuclear program is not transparent, Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), September 8, 2004.

[19] IRNA (Iran), September 8, 2004.

[20] Kayhan (Iran), August 5, 2004.

[21] See, for example, statements by Expediency Council Chairman Hashemi Rafsanjani ( Aftab-e Yazd, Iran, June 30, 2004), and by Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary Hassan Rohani ( Sharq, Iran, June 20, 2004; Kayhan, Iran, September 8, 2004).

[22] Yellowcake is a stage in the uranium enrichment process, which is basically refining raw uranium prior to processing it in a UF6 facility for enrichment purposes.

[23] This quantity is sufficient to produce five nuclear warheads. These statements were made by the site's work director and Iranian Atomic Energy Organization member Qassem Suleimani during the first visit by an Associated Press representativeto the Saghand uranium mine. The mine will be able to produce 132,000 tons of raw uranium annually. Suleimani said it would be possible to produce uranium ore by early 2006, and that 77% of the work had already been completed. He added that if the Iranian leadership wanted to push the project forward, uranium could be produced beginning in mid-2005. Saghand project director Mahdi Kabirzade said that at this point 220 Iranian engineers and workers were on site and that "today we are completely independent" ( Kayhan & Aftab-e Yazd, Iran, September 6, 2004).

[24] Western diplomats in the IAEA have reported on a deal, but have noted that the details on the content, duration, extent, and timing of the suspension remain unknown. It was also said that the deal was still unsigned and that the Europeans were following the talks closely. ( Kayhan, Aftab-e Yazd, Iran Daily, Iran,September 8, 2004.) In response, the U.S. and the U.K. have said that this deal was strictly a "tactical step" on Iran's part. ( Aftab-e Yazd, Iran, September 9, 2004.) Kayhan, Iran, September 8, 2004. See editorial by Kayhan editor Hossein Shariatmadari calling the European demands for Iran to halt nuclear activity – that is, uranium enrichment suspension and a freeze on centrifuges activities – a "red line." ( Kayhan, Iran, September 8, 2004).

[25] Kayhan (Iran), September 8, 2004.

[26] Prior to the IAEA Board of Governors' September 13 session, there had been reports in the Iranian press that the resolution on Iran's nuclear dossier would be postponed until the November session. Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), September 5, 2004.Report in the Iranian press that IAEA Secretary-General Muhammad El-Baradei announced that the decision regarding Iran would be postponed to the November session, Kayhan, September 8, 2004. Iran's National Security Council Hassan Rohani said that the E.U. and particularly the temporarily president the Netherlands opposed pressures and threats against Iran, IRNA, September 8, 2004; editor of the daily Kayhan, Hussein Shriatmadari, in an editorial, explained that the postponement was due to U.S. presidential elections in November, Kayhan (Iran), September 6, 2004. See also reports according to which Europe was divided on the question of the pressure on and additional condemnation of Iran, with Britain supporting it, France hesitating, and Germany opposing it. Kayhan (Iran), September 8, 2004; Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), September 9, 2004.

[27] IRNA (Iran), September 12, 2004.

[28] Kayhan & Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), September 6, 2004.

[29] IRNA (Iran), September 12, 2004.

[30] See "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran – Resolution adopted by the Board on 18 September 2004" on IAEA website: "… [The IAEA] considers it necessary to promote confidence that Iran immediately suspend all enrichment-related activities, including the manufacture or import of centrifuge components, the assembly and testing of centrifuges, and the production of feed material, including through tests or production at the UCF…" http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-79.pdf

[31] See "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran – Resolution adopted by the Board on 18 September 2004" on IAEA website: "… [The IAEA] considers it necessary to promote confidence that Iran immediately suspend all enrichment-related activities, including the manufacture or import of centrifuge components, the assembly and testing of centrifuges, and the production of feed material, including through tests or production at the UCF…" http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-79.pdf

[32] IRNA (Iran), September 19, 2004. About two weeks earlier, Rohani had called upon France, Germany, and Britain to "honor the October 2003 Tehran Declaration" to which they were signatories, and had called on the E.U. to provide Iran with advanced nuclear technology." Aftab-e Yazd & Jomhour-ye Eslami (Iran), September 7, 2004.

[33] As happened for example with the reveal of the existence of plants connected to the nuclear industry, acquisition of centrifuges of an advanced generation, and uranium-enrichment activity.

[34] Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), March 16, 2004, June 30, 2004, July 1, 2004.

[35] IRNA (Iran), September 5, 2004. See also Kayhan editor Hossein Shariatmadari's criticism of the assumption that Europe will stand with Iran and act against the U.S. ( Kayhan, Iran, June 27, 2004, August 5, 2004; Aftab-e Yazd, Iran, March 16, 2003).

[36] See editorial in reformist daily Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), March 16, 2004.

[37] IRNA (Iran), September 5, 2004.

[38] Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Hassan Rohani said: "Iran must maintain relations with all the IAEA Board of Governors member states and must continue its political activity with China, Russia, and the NAM [countries], alongside its activities with Europe." Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), September 9, 2004.

[39] Kayhan (Iran), August 5, 2004. Statement by the rapporteur of the Parliamentary Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy Kazem Jalaliin Kayhan (Iran), August 15, 2004.

[40] Sharq (Iran), June 20, 2004; Tehran Times (Iran), June 20, 2004; Jomhouri-ye Eslami (Iran), June 22, 2004; Iran announced the resumption of centrifuge assembly activity which is an important stage in the uranium enrichment process, Sharq, June 30, 2004. Expediency Council Chairman, Hashemi Rafsanjani, Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), June 30, 2004, IRNA (Iran), Sept 5, 2004.

[41] See statements by the chairman of Iran's Parliamentary Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy 'Alaa Al-Din Boroujerdi to the German Ambassador to Tehran: "The atmosphere is completely unsuitable for the ratification of the Additional Protocol. Europe must first change its positions towards Iran" ( Sharq, Iran, July 1, 2004; Aftab-e Yazd, Iran, September 7, 2004). See also statement by Iranian MP Elham Amin-Zade that Iran could not be forced to ratify the Additional Protocol (Resalat, Iran, September 5, 2004) and statements by Iran's Majlis Speaker Haddad 'Adel ( Jomhouri-ye Eslami, Iran, September 6, 2004). Threats of quitting the NPT like North Korea have also been voiced (Kayhan, Iran, August 5, 2004, June 27, 2004; Aftab-e Yazd, Iran, May 31, 2004).

[42] Supreme National Security Council Secretary Hassan Rohani, Kayhan (Iran), September 8, 2004. See also Iranian commentary in Kayhan (Iran), September 6, 2004.

[43] IRNA (Iran), September 12, 2004.

[44] Sharq (Iran), July 14, 2004. Kayhan editor Hossein Shariatmadari, who is close to Iran's Leader Ali Khamenei, criticized the Iranian decision-makers' haste to ratify the Additional Protocol in exchange for a renewed commitment by Europe to close the Iranian dossier at the September IAEA Board of Governors session ( Kayhan, Iran, July 20, 2004).

[45] Supreme National Security Council Secretary Hassan Rohani, Aftab-e Yazd, Jomhouri-ye Eslami, (Iran) September 7, 2004. Majlis Speaker Haddad 'Adel, Aftab-e Yazd, (Iran) September 7, 2004.

[46] Seereports on the Iranian intent to enrich uranium within two years, Kayhan & Aftab-e Yaz d, (Iran) September 6, 2004. Also see statements by Supreme National Security Committee Secretary Hassan Rohani that "Iran sees access to the fuel cycle as its legal and logical right, and will not abandon it. Iran is trying to implement this goal at the most appropriate time, in the best possible way." ( Kayhan, Iran, September 8, 2004).

[47] Statement by Iranian President Muhammad Khatami, Aftab-e Yazd, Kayhan (Iran), August 29, 2004. Recently, the Majlis determined that the resumption of uranium enrichment would be discussed in the near future, with intent to implement resumption. Former Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA 'Ali Akbar Salehi, said that "issue of resuming uranium enrichment is special, and the authorities should announce their position on it. The[y] will make their decisions in light of the current developments and changes which may take place in the future…and will depend on the current developments and also on the reactions adopted by the IAEA and Europe" ( IRNA, Iran, September 1, 2004.) Iranian Ambassador to Moscow Gholam-Reza Shafei told reporters that the production of a nuclear fuel cycle is Iran's legitimate and legal right and that Iran "is still interested in producing nuclear fuel for providing energy for our nuclear plants… Producing centrifuges is the right of every country capable of building such apparatuses" ( Kayhan, Iran, September 4, 2004). See also the statement by Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), September 6, 2004, and the statement by Rohani, Kayhan (Iran), September 8, 2004. Apparently, Iran is trying to pressure Europe, and is using the argument that the conservative Seventh Majlis is the authority that must ratify Iran's joining the Additional Protocol ( Kayhan, Iran, July 31, 2004).

[48] IRNA (Iran), September 12, 2004.

[49] IRNA (Iran), September 19, 2004.

[50] As Rohani put it, "any time Iran makes progress with Europe on its nuclear program, the Americans disrupt the process." IRNA (Iran), September 19, 2004. Earlier, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi had said that Iran was at the height of "highly sensitive" talks with Europe, and that "serious and sensitive" negotiations on "ways of closing Iran's dossier with the IAEA" were underway, and added that Iran "understands that the E.U. is under heavy pressure from the U.S." Aftab-e Yazd & Jomhouri-ye Eslami (Iran), September 6, 2004. Asefi also said, "We have agreed to take some steps in response to the sensitivities of the E.U. regarding certain matters." Iran Daily (Iran), September 6, 2004.

[51] IRNA (Iran), September 19, 2004. About two weeks earlier, Rohani had called upon France, Germany, and Britain to "honor the October 2003 Tehran Declaration" to which they were signatories, and had called on the E.U. to provide Iran with advanced nuclear technology." Aftab-e Yazd & Jomhour-ye Eslami (Iran), September 7, 2004.

[52] Aftab-e Yazd & Jomhouri-ye Eslami (Iran),September 7, 2004.

[53] Rohani added, "The closer Iran has gotten to [uranium] enrichment [capability], the more sensitive the Europeans have become, and any time we have suspended [uranium] enrichment activities, their tone has become moderate and they smiled." Kayhan (Iran), September 8, 2004.

[54] MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 181: The Internal Debate in Iran: How to Respond To Western Pressure Regarding Its Nuclear Program, June 17, 2004, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA18104and MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 743, July 13, 2004: Iran Threatens the West, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP74304.

[55] Kayhan (Iran), July 6, 2004. See also broadcast of the July 5, 2004 speech on Iran's Channel 1, Kayhan (Iran), July 6, 2004. See also broadcast of the July 5, 2004 speech on Iran's Channel 1, MEMRITV Clip No. 140, 'Iranian Leader Khamenei: If Someone Harms Our People... We Will Endanger His Interests Anywhere In The World', July 5, 2004, http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=140.

[56] Kayhan (Iran), July 8, 2004.

[57] Kayhan (Iran), July 6, 2004.

[58] Kayhan & Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), August 8, 2004. See also statements by Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Rahim Safavi on Iran's good ballistic-missile deterrent capabilities ( IRNA, Iran, September 12, 2004). Iranian Intelligence Minister Ali Younesi said that if the U.S. or any other country intends to endanger Iran's security, "its own security would naturally be at risk" ( Aftab-e Yazd, Iran, September 1, 2004).

[59] Kayhan (Iran), August 19, 2004, Akhbar Al-Khaleej (Bahrain), August 19, 2004.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), June 14, 2004.

[62] "I clearly announce that we pose no threat to any European country." Kayhan & Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), August 8, 2004.

[63] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 181: The Internal Debate in Iran: How to Respond To Western Pressure Regarding Its Nuclear Program, June 17, 2004, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA18104; and MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 743, July 13, 2004: Iran Threatens the West, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP74304. See also audio recording of Dr. Hassan Abassi's lectures at Tehran University, May 23, 2004, www.memritv.org, Clips No. 251 and 252. See also reports of thousands of Iranian volunteers who registered for suicide operations against Western attacks on Iran at the Bushher nuclear plant, Kayhan & Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), September 9, 2004.

[64] Jomhouri-ye Eslami (Iran), August 31, 2004; Kayhan (Iran), July 31, 2004, August 16, 2004.

[65] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 765, August 19, 2004, "Kuwaiti Daily: Iran Delivered Missiles to Hizbullah in Lebanon via Syria," http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP76504.

[66] Mehr Persian News Agency, ISNA (Iranian Students News Agency), July 26, 2004.

[67] Kayhan (Iran), August 12, 2004.

[68] Ibid.

[69] Al-Zaman (London and Baghdad), September 1, 2004.

[70] Kayhan (Iran), August 16, 2004, August 18, 2004.

[71] Kayhan (Iran), July 29, 2004, August 8, 2004.


13 posted on 09/21/2004 9:11:46 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn


By the Dawn’s Early Light
Critical period. Critical election.

Victor Davis Hanson said it right: In Iraq, the climactic moment is about to arrive. And not just for Iraq, but for the region — for Syria with the WMDs it just tried out in Darfur, Sudan, and for Iran with its nuclear reactors almost ready for dangerous action. And for Saudi Arabia and Palestine. The foreign brain — including al Qaeda's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, the Iranian intelligence, and others — can see November 2 on the calendar as ominously as John Kerry does. They want the equivalent of a Tet Offensive — lots of American blood — a shock like that given Madrid — before November 2. But, above all, they turn the calendar to the end of January. They have to stop the Iraqi election. They have to do something dramatic in Iraq before then.

Don't think we Americans cannot read a calendar too. Don't think we are remaining passively in our bases in our Iraq, wearing little signs saying "Hit me!" Our guys are out on multiple offensives just now, and will be out on the attack in a gathering crescendo all during the next 45 days. Watch the towns to the East of the Sunni Triangle, the towns guarding the routes fresh supplies of foreign terrorists must traverse on their way to Fallujah and Ramadi. Three of them have either fallen into American hands in the last couple weeks or will soon.

Take a look at Najaf. Sick and tired of totally useless bloodshed, this city of merchants prevailed upon the Americans and Iraqi defense forces to come back into the city, to be welcomed by children with thumbs up and repeating over and over again their few English words: "I love you" to American soldiers. The people of Najaf threw Sadr's thugs out. The people of Najaf had had enough of the riff-raff. They loathe the terrorists' religious "courts," from which those accused often simply disappeared, never to be seen again. Enough extremist terror. Americans did not have to fight their way in, they were begged to come in, and given a warm and happy welcome.

For months before the recent war to oust Saddam began, Saddam and the foreign terrorists (we now know) were planning a guerrilla war after the main invasion passed by. After the fact, they were luckier than they knew, in that the Turkish refusal to allow the American Fourth Division to march into Iraq from the North to subdue the Sunni Triangle, left the pre-planned centers of this guerrilla war — Fallujah, Najaf, Ramadi, Samarra, Tikrit — unsubdued, unpunished, unintimidated, largely unsearched. Those cities are now the center of the bomb-making, training, coordinating, planning, and dispatching of terrorist attacks on strategically pre-arranged targets.

Watch for American forces to cut these cities off, one from another — or at least split them into two separated segments — and then go into them in force, one by one.

It is odd how American journalists are not reporting this war from the side of American strategic officers and American frontline units, whose officers and men are now enjoying their own professional capacities and daily successes.

Reading the blogs of our own military guys in the field is infinitely more satisfying to intellectual curiosity than reading (or hearing) the ordinary empty droning of journalists. Compared to bloggers in America, American journalists seem like amateurs; compared to military professionals on the battlefield, journalists (whatever their age) seem like undisciplined college kids. When one compares these professions as professions, the military profession to journalism, journalism really is dropping fast — and not only because of Dan Rather.

To get back to the main subject: Expect a lot of fighting in Iraq during the next six weeks. The climactic days of the terrorist guerrilla war are at hand. When the guerrillas are broken here, and exposed to the world as the losers they are, then the Baathists in Syria and the tyrants in Tehran know they are next in getting the full attention of the United States, and feeling the full pressures of the desire for liberty among their own people. Nearly half their population is under 25 years old, and those young people are hungry for the opportunities they know the rest of the world shares, which they currently do not.

Our own Democratic party, once the party of democracy and human rights, has lost its understanding of the power of the cause of liberty overseas, among the world's most repressed and mistreated peoples. Fewer than half today's Democratic party, according to polls, grasps what is at stake in the war in Iraq. But a lot of U.S. Democrats do. They are cheering for our troops on the offensive in Iraq, and they are going to vote in droves for George W. Bush, much to the amazement of those who have not yet grasped the transformation of the world that occurred after September, 2001.

Liberty is on the march. And revulsion at Islamo-terrorists that would deliberately kill hundreds of tiny schoolchildren in a remote small-town school has been sweeping Islamic countries, as well as Western ones. Hatred is starting to turn against killers of civilians and instigators of meaningless terror, who bandy about extremist, gibberish slogans.

Michael Novak is the winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize for progress in religion and the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. Novak's own website is www.michaelnovak.net.

14 posted on 09/21/2004 9:17:14 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn


Nuclear Rights and Wrongs

Iran should not be allowed to dictate the terms of the nonproliferation treaty.



By Henry Sokolski

Ever since word first leaked out that Iran was trying to make nuclear-weapons-usable fuels, U.S. officials have been trying to get the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council.

Washington's first argument — now over two years old — was that Iran cheated for nearly two decades on its nonproliferation-treaty (NPT) obligation to declare its sensitive nuclear activities to the IAEA. This was confirmed by the agency but put aside in favor of encouraging Iran to open up and to temporarily suspend some of its most worrisome nuclear-fuel-related production activities.

Our diplomats' second argument — mounting evidence that Iran intends to make nuclear weapons — is now making the rounds. This goes to the heart of the NPT's key prohibition. Yet with the intelligence gaffes over Iraq, many states remain skeptical even after being briefed and will likely remain so until the U.S. includes the equivalent of pictures of an Iranian bomb (preferably painted with the coordinates of key Western capitals). This, by definition, is unlikely, and will come — if at all — much too late.

Of course, the U.S. and its allies will and should continue to make these arguments.
But there is one additional question that deserves even greater attention — the one Iran has repeatedly spotlighted and answered in its own defense. Do nations have a right under the NPT to acquire ostensibly civilian nuclear technology, if it brings them within days of having a bomb?

Iran — backed by Brazil, South Africa, Germany, the IAEA's own director general, and, most recently, Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards — has always said yes. Iran's most sensitive nuclear activities, which can generate weapons-usable fuels, they argue, are clearly backed by the NPT's authorization of all members to develop peaceful nuclear energy as they see fit.

Whether you call this a legal loophole or, as Iranian officials insist, an inalienable right, the only way either Iran or the supporters of this view can imagine getting Iranians to desist in their nuclear brinkmanship is to sit down with them, treat them as equals, and cut a deal that addresses their concerns. Iran wants a larger voice to set oil prices (Iran's oil minister last week insisted that Iran deserved to chair OPEC). Iran also has numerous security and cultural concerns about how Iraq will be ruled, and even clearer economic requirements that its neighbors increase their investment in Iran. All of these concerns, and presumably more, would have to be worked out.

What restraints on its nuclear program would Iran offer in return? If its outbursts of the last few weeks are any indication, not much. As Iran's chief nuclear negotiator noted over the weekend, "Iran will not accept any obligation regarding the suspension of uranium enrichment" (a process that can produce a large number of bombs). Moreover, if the U.N. mistakenly tried to impose such an obligation with sanctions, Iran, he insisted, would withdraw from the NPT. "No international body," he explained, "can force Iran" legally to drop its "peaceful" nuclear activities. Instead, Iran might choose voluntarily to suspend such efforts. But it would only do so if it retained its right and ability to resume these activities. Any suspension could come only after direct talks with those nations most worried about its nuclear activities. Under any deal Tehran might agree to, Iran would retain its option to make bombs.

What, then, should we do?

First, recognize that Iran is already too close to making bombs for us ever to rest easy. It would be nice if we could precision-bomb or appease Iran out of its nuclear capabilities, but, short of overthrowing the current regime, neither is likely to produce lasting results. Iran has too much invested and hidden, and too many scientists salted away, for mere bombing or bribing to cap their nuclear-weapons capabilities.

Second, and both despite and because of this, we and our allies must challenge Iran's arguments about the NPT. If we don't, even worse awaits us in the wings. The Saudis are interested in importing nuclear arms from China or Pakistan. Syria has begun serious nuclear research. Iraq retains most of its nuclear scientists. Egypt is planning to build reactors to desalinate and Algeria has just upgraded a very large research reactor in a remote location and surrounded it with air defenses.

If we don't want these states to follow in Iran's footsteps, we will have to tackle what we've avoided for decades: clarifying which nuclear activities are protected under the NPT and which ones are too close to bomb-making to be regarded as benign.

Luckily, the NPT recommends an answer. Its first two articles prohibit states that are signatories from helping other, non-nuclear states acquire the bomb directly or indirectly, and ban states that lack these weapons from trying to acquire them. Meanwhile, nuclear safeguards, which non-weapons states must submit to under the treaty, are supposed to prevent "the diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons." This and the NPT's other prohibitions are important since the "inalienable right" of all treaty members to develop nuclear energy for "peaceful" purposes must be exercised "in conformity" with them. This more than suggests that nuclear activities that can be quickly diverted to make bombs — such as Iran's enrichment and reprocessing capabilities — are activities that the treaty meant to be kept at bay.

Nor should they be seen as being peaceful on some economic ground. After all, if Iran solicited private bids to provide the country with power-generating capacity, all of the non-nuclear bids would come in at a fraction of the cost of the nuclear infrastructure Iran is now building. Nearly all of these bids, moreover, could secure legitimate, private financing — something Iran's nuclear efforts clearly cannot.

This suggests a set of market tests for "peacefulness." These tests might not be foolproof but would be better than what we have now, which is effectively nothing. Yes, they'd flag our own nuclear subsidies (Export-Import Bank loans for reactor sales to states like China, government-subsidized nuclear insurance, reactor-construction loan-guarantee proposals, federal nuclear-commercialization projects, federally mandated rate-payer assumption of nuclear-waste disposal and reactor-decommissioning costs, etc.). They also would spotlight uneconomical subsidized projects in friendly countries including South Africa, Brazil, Japan, India, and Pakistan. Still, adopting such tests would enjoy broad support (from Reagan conservatives to anti-corporatist liberals to Greens to private capitalists), be neutral, and make Iran's nuclear program an extreme example case. As the NPT is to be formally reviewed in May of next year, the best time to start raising these points is now.

Finally, the U.S. and its allies should build upon recent European proposals to enforce the NPT. These should specify that countries that reject inspections or withdraw from the NPT (something Iran has just threatened to do) without first addressing previous infractions must surrender or dismantle their nuclear capabilities to come back into compliance.

They also should stipulate that nations the IAEA cannot find to be in full compliance should no longer receive nuclear assistance from others until the IAEA Board of Governors unanimously gives them a clean bill of health. This would include Russia's help to complete the power reactor at Busheir, which has been Iran's "peaceful" justification for its other nuclear activities. France is already backing these rules. Presumably the rest of Europe can too, along with the U.S. and its allies. If these nations are unified, Russia would have difficulty resisting and China, in turn, would be compelled to follow. A U.N. resolution, in short, may be possible.

All this will be difficult to pull off. If we are serious about isolating Iran, though, we may no longer have a choice. The alternative, after all, is listening to Iran dictate to us what the rules mean.

Henry Sokolski is executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington D.C. and is editor, with Patrick Clawson, of Checking Iran's Nuclear Ambitions.

15 posted on 09/21/2004 9:19:53 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran shows off missiles with anti-US, Israeli slogans


AFP - World News (via Iranmania)
Sep 21, 2004

  Related Pictures
 
Archived Picture -  Iran showed off its range of ballistic missiles at an annual military parade on Tuesday, with the rockets draped in banners vowing to "crush America" and "wipe Israel off the map", Agence France Press (AFP) reported.
Archived Picture - A banner stating "Israel must be wiped off the map" was draped on the side of a Shahab-2 missile, while a banner saying "We will crush America under our feet" was on the side of a trailer carrying the latest Shahab-3 missile.

TEHRAN - Iran showed off its range of ballistic missiles at an annual military parade on Tuesday, with the rockets draped in banners vowing to "crush America" and "wipe Israel off the map".

A banner stating "Israel must be wiped off the map" was draped on the side of a Shahab-2 missile, while a banner saying "We will crush America under our feet" was on the side of a trailer carrying the latest Shahab-3 missile.

The parade marks the beginning of "Sacred Defence Week", an event commemorating Iraq's 1980 attack on Iran and the outset of the bloody eight-year war.

"The Shahab-3 missiles, with different ranges, enables us to destroy the most distant targets," said an official commentary accompanying the parade, which was carried live on state television.

"These missiles enable us to destroy the enemy with missile strikes," the commentary said, without giving any specific details on the range of the missiles.

The Shahab-3 is Iran's most advanced missile, and is touted as being


16 posted on 09/21/2004 9:22:43 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn

Iran's next in Bush sights


United Press International - World News
Sep 21, 2004

Washington, DC -- Iran is shaping up to be the next target for the Bush administration because of its nuclear ambitions and support for insurgents, the New York Times said.

However, advisers are divided on a strategy, with some advocating diplomacy and others a more hard-line approach, the newspaper said.

Conservatives are calling for a policy of reaching out to Iranian dissidents and exiles seeking to overthrow the government, much as efforts were made with Iraqis in the 1990s.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, the leading advocate of diplomacy in Bush's inner circle, has also noted the gathering threat from Iran.

"Diplomacy doesn't mean pretending something isn't there when it's there," Powell said. "The Iranians have a nuclear weapons program, and I keep telling everybody it is the responsibility of the international community to apply all the pressure we can."

On the other side, some at the State Department say no solution is possible without a discussion of benefits to the Tehran government if it changes its behavior.

17 posted on 09/21/2004 9:24:34 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn

Yemen Obtains Evidence of Iranian Aid to Al Houthi


Middle East Newsline-Report Section
Sep 21, 2004

CAIRO -- Yemen was said to have obtained evidence that a Shi'ite insurgency in the north was aided by Iran. Yemeni sources said Sanaa's intelligence and security agencies have determined that the "Believing Youth" movement of Hussein Badr Eddin Al Houthi was financed, armed and trained by a foreign power over the last few years. The sources identified the power as Iran, but said the funds came through a third country.

The information was said to have been disclosed in wake of interrogations by a Yemeni security team of captured fighters of the Believing Youth. The sources said the Yemeni team found evidence of foreign involvement in the Shi'ite insurgency, which began on June 18 and declared to have been quelled in early September.

The sources said the security team determined that an unspecified number of fighters were trained in Iran and Lebanon. They said some of the fighters were supported by dissidents, including opposition political movements, within Yemen.

18 posted on 09/21/2004 9:27:10 AM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorZIn
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”

20 posted on 09/21/2004 9:06:42 PM PDT by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson