Iranian Alert - October 6, 2004 [EST]- IRAN LIVE THREAD - "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"

The US media still largely ignores news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, “this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year.” As a result, most American’s are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East. In fact they were one of the first countries to have spontaneous candlelight vigils after the 911 tragedy (see photo).

There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. I began these daily threads June 10th 2003. On that date Iranians once again began taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Today in Iran, most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy.

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.

In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.

This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.

I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.

If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.

If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.

U.S. Official: No Prospect of Bargain on Iran Nukes

Tue Oct 5, 2004 11:46 AM ET

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The United States sees no reason to offer Iran incentives to ensure its nuclear program remains peaceful, a U.S. government official said on Tuesday.

European states want the United States to make such proposals to Tehran after the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential election to add weight to efforts by Britain, France and Germany to reach an accord with Iran and avoid a U.N. Security Council showdown.

"At this point a grand bargain is not where we are heading," said the official, who requested anonymity.

He was referring to suggestions that Washington offer Iran economic and political inducements to halt activities which Washington suspects are aimed at making the atom bomb.

"We haven't seen any Iranian recognition that (a bargain) is in their interest," the official, in Brussels for talks with EU and Canadian officials on managing the challenge of Iran, told reporters.

But he said the United States would closely follow at any future signs that Tehran could respond positively to an offer.

"That would be a new factor we would look at very seriously. We don't have that now," he said.

Hardliners in the Bush administration have made it clear they would oppose offering any incentives to Tehran.

Iran has rebuffed a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry to supply the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if it gives up its own fuel-making capability.

Iran could be referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions if its cooperation is seen as insufficient at a Nov. 25 board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.

The talks launched by Britain, France and Germany have yielded disappointing results. There has been alarm at Iran's announcement last month that it had begun processing raw uranium for enrichment, a possible route to the bomb.

The U.S. official said there was a need to define a common approach to Iran between the United States and Europe but said it was not clear how that could be achieved at the moment.

"How do you ... elicit from Iran a readiness to engage? I don't know the answer and I don't think the Europeans do either," he said.

Iran analysis - Israel's options

Jerusalem Post - By Gerald Steinberg
Oct 5, 2004

As Iran races to get nuclear weapons, attempts to find a way to prevent this development are also accelerating, accompanied by an intense war of words. Scarcely a day goes by without an official Iranian warning of dire consequences if American or Israeli military action is taken to disrupt Iran's illicit program to enrich uranium for weapons production. Israeli statements are ambiguous, but there is plenty of media speculation, often attributed to "authoritative sources" on possible military action if diplomacy fails to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The reluctance of the Israeli government to add fuel to the rhetorical combustion is understandable and responsible, but it also leaves the field wide open for rumors and imagination. To get beyond the rhetoric and misinformation, it is necessary to analyze the issues and available options.

Israeli policy is based on assessments of likely Iranian capabilities, decision-making processes, and current activities. Although Iran is not classified as an enemy, a radical Islamic regime in which officials declare their intention of "wiping Israel off the map" and support Hamas, Hizbullah, and other terror groups involved in mass attacks, must be taken very seriously. The addition of a nuclear capability and a ballistic missile delivery system beyond the current Shihab-3 deployment constitutes a red line for Israeli decision makers.

Based on this assessment, four options can be identified, each with its own risks and potential benefits:

1. Do nothing and wait for internal change in Iran, allowing for a stable deterrence relationship.

This option has a low immediate cost, but, as in the case of Saddam Hussein's nuclear efforts in the early 1980s, is viewed potentially dangerous in the long term. A few years ago, when Iranian reformists appeared to be taking power, deterrence may have been an acceptable option, but internal developments have gone in the opposite direction. Instead of the hoped-for process of political reform, which might have created a regime less dependent on extremist ideology and more informed regarding the outside world (including Israel), the hard-liners have regained control. In addition, Iranian strategic decision-making structures are unclear, but appear to be controlled by extremist clerics whose ability to discern red lines and develop a stable deterrence relationship with respect to Israel is extremely limited.

2. Hope for military action from the United States, perhaps in cooperation with Europe.

Given the complexities faced in Iraq, the chance of a US-led strike on Iran's enrichment and other facilities seems quite low, but not impossible. Such a strike could take place regardless of the outcome of the elections, if the US sees its own vital national interests threatened by regional proliferation, as well as the end of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is also possible that as European leaders increasingly realize the dangers of a wider Middle East nuclear arms race, they will reluctantly work with the US to stop Iran. However, these decisions are made elsewhere, and Israeli decision makers would be dependent on the actions of others in this option. And the time frame for action to halt Iran's nuclear bomb efforts is quite limited, with estimates ranging from 6 months to 3 years. So beyond hoping, there is little the Israeli government can do in this framework.

3. Unilateral military action (as in the case of Osirak in 1981).

Here, Israeli decision makers must weigh the formidable challenges (distance to the targets, the need to penetrate the protective barriers, etc.) and the potential for Iranian retaliation, against the long-term costs of restraint. The technical difficulties can probably be overcome, and the retaliation threats are perceived as relatively limited. Iran might launch a few inaccurate Shihabs, which may be intercepted by the Arrow BMD, but these capabilities do not match Teheran's shrill rhetoric.

If this is the default option, the longer Israel waits, the greater the difficulties and the potential for Iranian retaliation. This was the logic that drove the 1981 decision to destroy the Iraqi nuclear reactor, which, from an Israeli strategic perspective, was highly successful. Saddam Hussein tried to rebuild his nuclear program, but failed, and the costs of the Iraqi retaliatory attacks in 1991 were minimal. Iran might have greater terror assets than Saddam had, but Israeli society has proven to be resilient and can absorb the costs and escalate its response, if necessary.

On the down side, following a preemptive attack, relations between Iran and Israel would be soured for decades, even following a regime change. And even if the technical difficulties can be overcome and the major nuclear weapons facilities are destroyed, they can be reconstructed relatively quickly. So this option also has considerable risks.

4) Negotiation of a "grand bargains" in which Israel would give up its own deterrent option in exchange for "international guarantees" on Iran.

An analysis of Israeli history and doctrine demonstrates that such proposals are non-starters in the current political environment. Israeli strategic culture is based on self-reliance and the lack of credibility inherent in external pledges of security. The fact that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons, despite IAEA safeguards and NPT pledges, reflects the weakness of international guarantees.

This analysis shows that there are no good options for Israel, and each scenario has considerable risks. In November, when the crucial review of Iran's program will take place, there is a small chance that the members of the IAEA and the UN Security Council, led by the US and Europe, will impose sanctions or even launch a military strike. But the odds of either are small, and then Israel will have to decide on its own.

The author is the director of the Program on Conflict Management at Bar-Ilan University.

Baghi banned from leaving Iran for Europe, US

IranMania News
Wednesday, October 06, 2004

LONDON, Oct 6 (IranMania) - Iranian dissident intellectual Emaddedin Baghi has been banned from travelling to Europe and the United States, where he was to take part in several conferences on human rights, press reports said Tuesday.

According to Agence France Press (AFP), Emaddedin Baghi, who heads the Committee for the Defence of Prisoner's Rights, had been slated to meet European Union officials working on human rights and attend meetings on the subject in the Netherlands, the United States and Canada.

"I had my passport and at passport control at the airport, my name did not figure on a list of people forbidden from leaving Iran and I was given an exit stamp. But before boarding the plane, an agent turned up and told me to accompany him," Baghi told the Iran newspaper.

"They presented me with a letter from a special clerical tribunal demanding I be prevented from leaving Iran," he added, complaining that "according to the law only people who have been ordered by a tribunal not to leave the country are barred from leaving the country, which is not my case."

In 2000, Baghi was jailed for three years for his writings in several pro-reform newspapers. He was released in February 2003, when he resumed his journalistic activities.

In December 2003, a Tehran Revolutionary Tribunal handed Baghi a one-year suspended prison sentence for "propagating against the regime" and having links with opposition groups.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=25849&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

Iran has produced gas in step toward nuclear enrichment, official says

ALI AKBAR DAREINI

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran has produced "a few tonnes" of the gas needed to enrich uranium, a top nuclear official said Wednesday, confirming the country has defied international demands and taken a necessary step toward producing nuclear fuel - or nuclear weapons.

Uranium hexafluoride gas is the material that, in the next stage, is fed into centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Uranium enriched to a low level is used to produce nuclear fuel to generate electricity, and if enriched further can be used to manufacture atomic bomb.

Iran said last month that it has started converting about 36 tonnes of raw uranium being mined for enrichment - plans the international community specifically said it found alarming. Iran maintains its intentions are peaceful energy purposes.

"We have converted part of the raw uranium we had and produced a few tonnes of uranium hexafluoride gas," said Hossein Mousavian, Iran's chief delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency. He would not specify how much.

A few tonnes of raw uranium would produce nearly the same amount of hexafluoride gas.

"We are not in a hurry to do it. The few tons of uranium gas we've produced is an experimental process, not industrial production," Mousavian said.

Mousavian, who also heads the Foreign Policy Committee at Iran's powerful Supreme National Security Council, said the process was under full IAEA supervision. "The agency knows of every milligram of uranium converted," he said.

In Vienna, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming agreed the process was "being done fully under IAEA's watch," but said she could not immediately confirm how far the Iranians had went.

"Inspectors are visiting that facility and we have other verification tools that are providing us with constant information about the operation of that facility," Fleming said.

A diplomat close to the agency said in Vienna that although the conversion does not contradict Iran's obligations, it will be viewed by some countries as a provocation.

Iran has thus far said it is honouring a pledge not to put uranium hexafluoride gas into centrifuges, spin it and make enriched uranium.

Last month, the IAEA's board of governors unanimously passed a resolution demanding for the first time that Iran freeze all work on uranium enrichment including conversion. It specifically expressed alarm at Iranian plans to convert the more than 36 tonnes of raw uranium into uranium hexafluoride.

At the time, the board suggested Iran may have to answer to the UN Security Council if it defied the demands. The resolution said the next board meeting, scheduled for Nov. 25, would "decide whether or not further steps are appropriate" in ensuring Iran complies.

A diplomat familiar with Iran's conversion activities said in Vienna last month that Iran had stopped at a precursor of uranium hexafluoride - apparently waiting for a decision from the leadership to finish the process.

Mousavian was clear Wednesday that Iran had produced the actual gas.

He said Iran was ready to guarantee that its nuclear program will not be diverted to a military use and take specific measures to eliminate concerns about Tehran's nuclear program.

"IAEA is the responsible body for non-proliferation. Iran is prepared to consider any IAEA proposal to take specific measures that its nuclear program will not be diverted toward weapons in the future. The specific measures should be defined by IAEA," he said.

Mousavian warned the international community, not Iran, will suffer if Iran is referred to the UN Security Council and sanctioned. He reiterated Iranian warnings that Tehran will stop implementing what is known as the additional protocol to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows unfettered IAEA inspections of Iranian facilities.

"Referring Iran to UN will not change the nuclear capability we already possess. The victim will be the additional protocol and NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), not Iran," he said.

Mousavian noted Iran has allowed international inspections of its facilities, including military sites.

"Up to now, Iran has not rejected a single IAEA request for inspections," he said. "This is the maximum of transparency and co-operation a member state can have with IAEA."

Iran's long march to nuclear weapons

Christopher Holton, WorldTechTribune.comWORLD TECH TRIBUNE.COMWednesday, October 6, 2004

No one should be surprised that Iran is poised to become a nuclear power.

Despite the seemingly rosy news of an agreement last fall between the European Union and Iran to allow inspections of its supposedly "peaceful" nuclear power program and the subsequent failure of the IAEA to hold Iran truly accountable for egregious violations of international treaties and agreements, there are years of historical evidence that Iran's nuclear program is in fact not an energy program, but a weapons program (IAEA denials notwithstanding).

The Iranians, of course, deny this. They insist that they are enriching uranium strictly for "peaceful" purposes and President (Ayatollah) Khatami now overtly claims that they have rejected nuclear weapons.

However, if one digs deep enough, one finds more sinister motives – out in the open for all to see. Probably no one has done a better job of digging than Kenneth R. Timmerman who, in 1995, wrote Iran's Nuclear Program: Myth and Reality, which was published by the Middle East Data Project. He found four alarming statements by two Iranian leaders and two other world leaders with regard to nuclear weaponry — statements that leave little doubt as to the Iranians' true intentions.

In February 1987, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini uttered these words in a speech before his country's Atomic Energy Organization:

"Regarding atomic energy, we need it now. Our nation has always been threatened from the outside. The least we can do to face the danger is to let our enemies know that we can defend ourselves. Therefore, every step you take here is in defense of your country and your revolution. With this in mind, you should work hard and at great speed."

That certainly does not sound as if the Ayatollah wants nuclear power to air condition his mosque!

An even more overt statement came a year later. In a broadcast over Tehran radio in October 1988, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani made this chilling declaration that called for the development of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons:

"We should fully equip ourselves both in the offensive and defensive use of chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons."

It was only after Iran's nuclear program began to grow and the Iranians began to secure the assistance of Russia and China that denials about their quest for nuclear weapons started popping up. But there is simply no getting around the fact that the scope and size of Iran's nuclear program is way beyond what one would reasonably expect from an oil-rich nation. Between 1988 and 1995, Iran started construction on no fewer than 15 nuclear facilities. That is the kind of active program that one would expect from a country in a severe energy crisis — or one that is hell-bent on having nuclear weapons.

A lot more evidence of Iranian nuclear intentions surfaced during the 1990s. German and French security officials reported that, from 1992 to 1995, they foiled several; attempts by Iranian intelligence agents to purchase equipment needed to create an atomic bomb. But perhaps the clearest evidence spilled out in January 1995 in a nuclear deal signed between Iran and Russia. After the U.S. strongly protested the agreement, Russian President Boris Yeltsin acknowledged that the agreement did in fact contain a military "component" and he announced that he was voiding that portion:

"But it is true that the contract does contain components of civilian and military nuclear energy. Now we have agreed to separate those two. In as much as they relate to the military component and the potential for creating weapons grade fuel and other matters — the centrifuge, the construction of shafts — we have decided to exclude those aspects from the contract."

Such statements make Iranian claims that they do not desire to have nuclear weapons appear to be bald-faced lies.

There is still more evidence. Ukrainian President Leonid Kucha was quoted as saying that Iran was seeking help from his nation to build nuclear weapons:

"We need oil from Iran because Russia is strangling us. We have no intention of responding to the repeated request by the Iranians to share with them know-how on nuclear weapons, or to sell them any equipment in this field."

To this day, Iran claims that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and they insist that they have no desire to have nuclear weapons. The IAEA seems intent on taking them at their word.

Lest you believe that this is Bush administration "neo-con" scare mongering, the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program was recognized long ago by members of the Clinton executive branch. Way back in 1994, the head of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, John Hollum, predicted that Iran would have an atomic bomb in ten years — in other words, 2004. Also in January 1994, Undersecretary of State for International Security, Lynn Davis, told USA Today that "Iran's actions leave little doubt that Tehran is intent upon developing nuclear weapons capabilities." Davis went on to say that "Iran's nuclear acquisitions are inconsistent with any rational civil nuclear program."

Independent observers have also reported on Iran's nuclear activities. And an authoritative report by the Monterey Institute of International Studies written in 1995 quoted unnamed U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials as saying that they believed Iran would be nuclear-armed in a ten year time frame — in other words, 2005. Citing sources within Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, respected New York Times columnist William Safire reported last year that hundreds of Russian scientists were in Iran building nuclear reactors and that, since Iran sits on a sea of cheap oil, its only reason for building a nuclear reactor was to produce plutonium for bombs.

Despite all these warnings over the years, we are getting perilously close to a radical Islamist nuclear foe in Tehran.

Perhaps that is why the Iranians are now going to great lengths to conceal the true nature of their nuclear program, perhaps so that they can avoid a confrontation with the West before they have a nuclear bomb.

The Iranians seem to be using the playbook that North Korea successfully used to become a nuclear power. First the Iranians feign cooperation, then they prevaricate. They insist that their nuclear program is entirely peaceful, then claim to reserve the sovereign right to do as they wish with nuclear power. One day we may wake up and the Ayatollahs in Iran will suddenly announce that they have The Bomb.

And then our options will be non-existent. Then it will be too late.

U.S.-Iranian Nuclear Talks: Developing Dialogue?

October 05, 2004
Stratfor
Premium Global Intelligence Brief

Iran announced Oct. 5 it has long-range missile capability, and the United States hinted it would be willing to parley with the Islamic republic on the nuclear issue if it had some positive indication from Tehran. It appears that, although Washington would resort to extreme measures against Tehran if it had to, it would prefer a negotiated settlement. This could lead to more overt talks between the two sides.

Analysis

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former two-term Iranian president and chief of the Expediency Council -- the highest political body in the country --expressed confidence Oct. 5 that the United States and/or Israel would not attack Iran because they understand the negative consequences. Rafsanjani also disclosed that the Islamic republic had added to its arsenal a modifiedShahab-3 missile with a range of 2,000 km.

On the same day, in Brussels, a senior U.S. official at a meeting with Canadian and EU officials about the Iranian nuclear program, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Reuters the United States does not have any reason to engage in discussions with Iran to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. The official said Washington had received no indications from Tehran that the latter was ready to bargain, but said the Bush administration would be watching closely for signs from Iran that it was interested in resolving the matter through talks.

The United States, while preparing for possible air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in the event Washington deems such action necessary, is much more interested in negotiating with the clerical regime than officials let on. Given the U.S. preference, and Iran's realization (contrary to its public proclamations) that it risks an attack from the United States or Israel should it approach crossing the nuclear threshold, the two states could engage in more overt negotiations.

Stratfor has, on several occasions, discussed the back-channel negotiations between Washington and Tehran regarding the issue of rebuilding Iraq. In fact, it was just last week U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Washington wanted to involve Iran in efforts to stabilize Iraq. Iran and the United States repeatedly have admitted talking to one another – albeit briefly and behind the scenes.

That said, the United States so far has avoided any direct dealings with Iran regarding its nuclear program. It has dealt with Iran through Russia; the EU trio of Britain, France and Germany; and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency. Doing so has created problems where the Bush administration has had the difficult task of going along with a Western consensus on dealing with Iran's efforts to develop nuclear technology. In fact, this latest development -- Washington expressing interest in opening direct and more public negotiations with Tehran -- is also the outcome of the United States' European allies trying to get Washington to agree to offer incentives as a means of thwarting Iran's bid to militarize nuclear technology.

Though Washington has dealt with the North Korean nuclear case by relying heavily on Chinese involvement, it does not enjoy the same luxury with Iran. Not only does it not have an equivalent to Beijing regarding Iran, the Islamic republic is much more geopolitically significant than North Korea --which is perhaps why Washington is even considering direct dealings with Iran.

Tehran will try to manipulate Washington's interest in talking to its advantage and will try to drive a hard bargain. But before that, Washington will have to see how Iran really entertains the offer -- beyond showing off its rockets.

It appears the issue has reached an inflection point. The United States and Iran have muddled along for the past two years with on-again, off-again back-channel talks over Iraq and nuclear weapons. There will be a post-U.S. election shift. Irrespective of the outcome, U.S. President George W. Bush will forever be relieved of re-election concerns, and what he does will be a function of the Iranian response to the U.S. offer of dialogue.

Iran rejects IAEA nuclear demands, says ready for confrontation

AFP - World News (via Yahoo)
Oct 6, 2004

TEHRAN - Iran will not cede to international demands that it suspend all activities related to the enrichment of uranium and the country is prepared for both confrontation or negotiations, the Islamic republic's top national security official said.

AFP/File Photo

Iran Nuclear Issues

"We have said clearly that we will not apply the second part of the resolution concerning the total suspension of enrichment," Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani was quoted as saying by state television.

"We have suspended enrichment voluntarily and we will not accept any constraints," he added.

The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on September 18 passed a resolution calling on Iran to "immediately" widen a suspension of enrichment to include all uranium enrichment-related activities -- such as making centrifuges, converting yellowcake into UF6 feed gas, and constructing a heavy water reactor.

Iran, facing a November 25 deadline, risks being referred to the UN Security Council if it fails to comply.

"To sort out this case, there are two possibilities," Rowhani said.

"Either we find a political solution and close the case (at the IAEA) or we move towards confrontation. We are ready for both."

Under IAEA pressure, Iran suspended enrichment in October last year after reaching a deal with Britain, France and Germany.

The country, suspected of using an atomic energy drive as a cover for weapons development, had been asked to halt enrichment pending the completion of an IAEA probe.

Depending on the level of purification, enriched uranium can be used either as fuel for a civilian reactor or as the explosive core of a nuclear bomb.

Iran says it only wants to generate electricity, and emphasises that enrichment is permitted under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- the treaty overseen by the IAEA -- if for peaceful purposes.

U.N., EU are oblivious as Iran goes nuclear

Arizona Daily Star - By Paul Greenberg
Oct 6, 2004

Here's how the deal works, or rather how it doesn't: Iran continues to play games with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which continues to pass resolutions demanding that Iran end its nuclear program - resolutions that Iran continues to ignore.

In the latest round of play, the mullahs have announced that they won't honor an earlier promise to suspend their nuclear programs. Is anybody really surprised?

Well, the editors of Britain's Guardian might be, though they'd be the last to admit it. It hasn't been too long ago (Oct. 22, 2003) that the Guardian devoted column after column to celebrating the announcement in Tehran the day before of the peaceful conclusion of any disagreement over Iran's nuclear program.

Three European foreign ministers - Britain's Jack Straw, Germany's Joschka Fischer and Dominique de Villepin of France - had made a pilgrimage to the Land of the Ayatollahs. Now they were returning waving the usual scrap of paper. For they had a solemn promise that Iran would "suspend (its) uranium-enrichment and reprocessing activities."

At the time, there was general elation in European capitals at this latest Peace in Our Time. As a bonus, here was also a chance to sneer at the White House. To quote the Guardian's Ian Black on the happy news: "The agreement marks a significant victory for the European Union's policy of 'conditional engagement' and the use of carrots and sticks, in contrast to threats from the United States against the Islamic republic."

As another writer in the Guardian put it: "Iran's agreement to allow unlimited inspections of its nuclear facilities and to suspend its uranium enrichment program marks a tremendous success for European diplomacy. . . . To date (America's) polarizing, aggressive pressure tactics have mostly made a difficult problem worse. Europe demonstrated yesterday that there is a different, more effective way. And it is not the American way."

Nobody in Europe is celebrating today. Instead there are worried looks and tough-sounding resolutions from the United Nations' sleepy watchdog of an atomic energy agency. And, of course, as the ayatollahs well know, the U.N. resolutions only sound tough.

How long before Iran joins North Korea as a full-fledged member of the Lunatic League of Nuclear Powers?

Iran's ayatollahs have often mused about nuking Israel. The Israelis might be able to retaliate in kind, but what are millions of casualties compared to wiping out the whole Jewish state with a single strike?

How deal with a regime bent on getting the Bomb and maybe using it? Carefully. And without illusions. Much as one would talk to the Mad Hatter at Alice's tea party.

Washington really isn't in much of a position to exert diplomatic pressure on Tehran. With no official relations and only the barest of indirect contacts, Iran and the United States are at a standoff that's continued for more than a quarter-century.

The chances are all too good - and all too scary - that Iran will develop nuclear weaponry and then proceed to share it with some terrorist outfit.

Let's hope somebody in Washington is drawing up plans for a response to this danger more effective than U.N. resolutions. The alternative to confronting Tehran is to awaken one morning to a radioactive Middle East. Or maybe a nuclear blast a lot closer to home.

It's unlikely the United Nations and the Europeans will have much success negotiating with Tehran, but they need to keep the pressure on, like a good cop. Meanwhile, Washington can play bad cop and try to get its message across in less subtle fashion.

For example, is it only a coincidence that the United States has just agreed to sell the Israelis 500 bunker-buster bombs - the kind that could be used to destroy underground nuclear facilities like Iran's uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz?

That the sale was made public indicates that not just a diplomatic message is being sent.

Paul Greenberg is editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

U.S. Official: No Prospect of Bargain on Iran Nukes

Iran MPs in uranium push

Four hanged in public in Iran

US May Seek International Sanctions Against Iran - Cheney

Iran analysis - Israel's options

Important Update:

Iran has produced gas in step toward nuclear enrichment, official says

U.S.-Iranian Nuclear Talks: Developing Dialogue?

Iran rejects IAEA nuclear demands, says ready for confrontation

U.N., EU are oblivious as Iran goes nuclear