Iranian Alert - November 21, 2004 [EST] "Bush Says Iran Speeds Output of A-Bomb Fuel"

Bush Says Iran Speeds Output of A-Bomb Fuel

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press

President Bush with President Hu Jintao of China, center rear, at the Asia-Pacific talks in Chile Saturday.

By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: November 21, 2004

ANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 20 - President Bush increased the administration's pressure on Iran on Saturday, saying there were indications that the country was speeding forward in its production of a key ingredient for nuclear weapons fuel, a move he said was "a very serious matter'' that undercut Iran's denials that it was seeking to build weapons.

On the first day here of the annual gathering of Pacific Rim leaders, his first summit meeting since winning re-election, Mr. Bush also tried to re-establish a unified front against the other nuclear challenge facing his second term: North Korea.

In back-to-back meetings with the leaders of China, Japan and South Korea here Saturday morning, Mr. Bush urged each to draw North Korea back into six-nation negotiations. And in a speech later, he issued a direct challenge to North Korea's reclusive leader that echoed President Reagan's demand in 1987 for the dismantling of the Berlin Wall. After the meetings, he said, he was convinced "that the will is strong, that the effort is united and the message is clear to Mr. Kim Jong Il: Get rid of your nuclear weapons programs."

His aides have played down informal intelligence estimates that the country had already produced enough plutonium in the past two years to manufacture six additional nuclear weapons.

Mr. Bush's efforts here underscored his determination to reverse two nuclear projects that appear to have made significant progress while American attention has been focused on Iraq.

In North Korea, he is facing a country that has defied every previous effort he has made to force it to dismantle what it has already built. And in Iran's case, he is clearly skeptical about a European-led effort to suspend the country's manufacture of nuclear material.

He told reporters on Saturday that he was "concerned about reports" that said Iran appeared "willing to speed up processing of materials that could lead to a nuclear weapon." Diplomats had said the day before that Iran had told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it was racing to produce uranium hexafluoride, a gas that can be enriched into bomb fuel, before it begins to observe the temporary suspension of nuclear activity that it negotiated with the Europeans.

Following Mr. Bush's assertion on Saturday that Iran had accelerated its uranium enrichment, Mr. Powell appeared at a news conference here with Foreign Minister Ignacio Walker Prieto of Chile and was asked to provide details to back that up but declined to do so. He said that in the past four years, as a result of American cries of alarm about Iran's intentions, the international community was now "as concerned as we are" about the problem.

The focus of most of Mr. Bush's sessions was North Korea, and one participant said Mr. Bush hinted he would show "some flexibility'' in offering incentives to the North, a subject of furious infighting within the administration.

But a senior American official told reporters this afternoon that could only happen after North Korea returned to the negotiating table. "The North Korean strategy of running out the clock didn't work,'' this official said, referring to the speculation that the North thought Mr. Bush would be defeated on Election Day.

In 2003, Mr. Bush said he "will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea," and in April 2004 he told a convention of newspaper editors in Washington that a nuclear program in Iran was "intolerable" and would be dealt with, starting at the United Nations if necessary. He did not repeat either phrase on Saturday, and the agreement with Europe appears to have halted, at least temporarily, the administration's hopes of taking the Iranian program to the United Nations Security Council this month.

But Mr. Bush's quickness to seize on the Iranian production of uranium hexafluoride was driven, administration officials said, by a sense among his national security aides that there is still time to stop Iran from actually producing a weapon. "We're past that point with North Korea," one senior adviser said recently. "With the North, it's a question of unwinding what's already happened."

So far, there have been three sessions of talks involving North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States, but no real agreement on the scope of the North Korean program. Meanwhile, North Korea appears to have reprocessed a trove of 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods.

In preparation for the meeting on Saturday morning with China's president, Hu Jintao, American officials took the unusual step several weeks ago of passing to Beijing what one senior Asian official called "classified packets" of data intended to convince the Chinese that the North has two weapons programs under way.

Chinese leaders had few doubts that the North has been trying to produce plutonium weapons, and they have not questioned unofficial American intelligence estimates that the North has reprocessed enough plutonium for four to six weapons since inspectors were expelled from the country nearly two years ago.

But until recently China expressed considerable doubts about a second program that the United States believes the North started with help from A. Q. Khan, then the head of Pakistan's nuclear weapons project. Like the Iranian program, which also received extensive aid from Mr. Khan's network in the 1990's, the North's program involves enriching uranium to make bomb fuel. "The Chinese made their own inquiries from Pakistan, and we believe they got confirmation there," said one senior Asian official involved in the Saturday talks with President Bush. "They don't seem to be questioning the validity of that intelligence anymore, at least in private."

But Mr. Bush was clearly concerned that South Korea's president, Roh Moo Hyun, might diverge from the American strategy, and offer the North more aid and investment even before it agrees to surrender its weapons, halt its production of new weapons and allow open inspections.

Iran's intentions are unclear. If it is truly suspending the production of all nuclear fuel, it is unclear why it would work so quickly to finish production of the raw material that is fed into centrifuges and enriched. At low enrichment levels, the fuel could be used to produce nuclear power; at high enrichment levels, it could make the core of a bomb.

American officials said Mr. Bush spoke out because he wanted to highlight the possibility that Iran could cheat on its deal with the Europeans, and to raise the possibility that it had a secret complex of centrifuges that could keep producing bomb fuel. A dissident group operating outside Iran charged this week that Tehran was doing exactly that, but American officials say they cannot verify the claim.

Mr. Bush's day was tense in other ways, as well. He had an unusual encounter with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, questioning him over lunch about Mr. Putin's efforts to concentrate more power in the Kremlin. It was the first time Mr. Bush had expressed his concerns in person to the Russian leader.An American official said later that Mr. Putin responded with "a very long explanation, went back deep into Russian history, the Stalinist period'' and said the country was still struggling to "develop a Russian-style democracy.''

The conversation did not appear to satisfy either side, but the American official said it would be the "basis for further conversations."

Then, in an odd scene on Saturday before dinner, Mr. Bush had to rescue his lead secret service agent.

The agent had been blocked from entering the ornate dinner hall and was surrounded by a scrum of shoving Chilean security officers. The president, realizing what was happening, turned around and walked up to the group, reached in to pull his agent free, and walked back into the hall, shaking his head.

Goodbye Colin, Hello Condi
From the November 29, 2004 issue:

Regime change at the State Department.

by Fred Barnes
11/29/2004, Volume 010, Issue 11

PRESIDENT BUSH always believed he would be reelected. So in the weeks before November 2, he repeatedly discussed with White House aides who should replace the departing cabinet members in his second term. And decisions were made, pre-Election Day. Alberto Gonzales, the president's legal counsel, would succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general, and Margaret Spellings, chief White House domestic adviser, would take over for Rod Paige as education secretary. Another decision: Those planning to leave the administration at their leisure over the coming months would be asked to depart immediately. When Secretary of State Colin Powell met with Bush on November 11, he requested to stay a few extra months to tie up loose ends at the State Department. Bush said no, and Powell's resignation was announced the following Monday. The next day, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was named as Powell's successor.

If anyone thought the president would relax after an arduous campaign--I certainly did--they were wrong. The three prior presidents to win reelection (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton) had relatively skimpy plans for their second terms, but Bush has a breathtakingly ambitious agenda. To achieve it, he wants full control over his administration. He wants cabinet members he knows and trusts. Thus, what an official calls "the Gonzales model" of dispatching White House aides or other loyalists to take over key agencies is being followed. The president also believes the new cabinet officers should be installed as quickly as possible. That way they'll be ready early next year for expected struggles

with Congress, recalcitrant federal bureaucracies, and opponents of America and of Bush's drive for democracy around the world.

The president hasn't listed his priorities for 2005, but it's not difficult to figure them out. Winning the war in Iraq and the battle against terrorists is number one. The second priority, given the likelihood of as many as three or four Supreme Court vacancies, is gaining Senate confirmation of conservative justices. Number three: Social Security reform. A bill is now being drafted at the White House to create individual investment accounts and to produce savings aimed at keeping the Social Security system from insolvency. Four, tax reform. Five, tort reform. Six, an energy bill that increases domestic oil and gas production. The list goes on, but I'll stop there.

The most significant decision was to send Rice to the State Department. Presidential aides insist no one else was in the running to replace Powell. The move has many ramifications. For one thing, it means the center of national security policy-making, aside from Bush himself, shifts to the State Department. And things will change there. Powell, reflecting the State bureaucracy, was at odds with the president on Iraq, Israel and the Palestinians, the pursuit of democracy in the Middle East and Arab countries, Iran, North Korea, and who knows what else. Powell allowed at least one senior official to tell European counterparts they should wait for John Kerry to be elected. Then policies they and the American official prefer would be put in place. Rice, on the other hand, reflects Bush's views on all these policies. Her promotion also means the dysfunctional relationship with the Pentagon and State endlessly clashing over policy will cease.

One of Rice's tasks will be to impose these policies on the State Department without touching off a revolt or clandestine efforts to undermine the president, such as occurred at the CIA and is only now being quashed by the new director, Porter Goss. Rice, however, usually acts with a light touch. This has prompted criticism of her as a weak manager. After all, she didn't ride herd on Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But, other than the president, who could? In any case, she'll need a strong deputy to run the department day to day, plus a crew of new assistant secretaries in sync with Bush's policies.

Another urgent task for Rice is to begin making the case for Bush's policies around the world, especially in Europe. There's a name for this--diplomacy. The media assumed Powell did this, but in fact he did not. Diplomacy aimed at persuading the wary or the opposed has to be carried out face to face. But Powell rarely visited Europe. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, several American officials traveled to Turkey in hopes of convincing the Turks to allow the 4th Infantry Division to attack Iraq from the north, from Turkey. Powell would surely have had more influence than the Americans who lobbied the Turks, but he did not go. The Turks barred the use of the territory. It's safe to say Rice will travel.

A big question in Bush's first term was where Rice would come down. Would she side with

the more dovish Powell or the hawkish coterie of Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz? Within months, the answer was obvious. She tilted toward the hawks. Or perhaps she simply followed the president's lead in often discounting Powell's advice and embracing tougher policies destined to divide the United States from some of its European allies. Still, Rice was known for her caution. Some in the Cheney-Rumsfeld camp complained that she was too timid. But Bush didn't think so. He expanded her authority.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, brought Bush and Rice even closer. Both were traumatized by the event and concluded the world had fundamentally changed. After the fall of Soviet communism, America seemed to face no major threat in the world. But 9/11 persuaded Bush and Rice that America would have to wage war against Islamic jihadists, probably for decades. The reaction at the State Department was not so drastic.

Nor did Powell and State respond enthusiastically to Bush's broadest foreign policy goal, democratization of the Arab world. They are realists who think such goals are unattainable and a distraction from pursuing America's national interest, narrowly construed. That would be fine if Richard Nixon or the elder George Bush were president. But the current President Bush is not a realist. He's a moralist who believes the best route to peace and security is through planting democracy in countries--Iraq, for one--where it doesn't exist. One example: For the Palestinians, it means democracy first, then statehood. This is the opposite of the realist formula.

Rice, too, is a moralist. This makes all the difference. And it's why Bush can't wait for her to take over as secretary of state.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

H-hour has arrived
Caroline B. Glick (archive)

November 20, 2004 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Send

The agreement that France, Germany and Britain reached with Iran this week signals that the diplomatic option of dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program no longer exists. To understand why this is the case, we must look into the agreement and understand what is motivating the various parties to accede to its conditions.

The agreement stipulates that the European-3 will provide Iran with light water reactor fuel, enhanced trade relations and more nuclear reactors. In exchange, the Iranians agree that for the duration of the negotiations toward implementing the agreement – including a European push for Iranian ascension to the World Trade Organization – it will not develop centrifuges and will not enrich uranium. At the same time, the Europeans accepted Iran's claim that it has the legal right to complete the entire nuclear fuel cycle – meaning, it has the legal right to enrich uranium. Strangely, in a separate Iranian agreement with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, the Iranians announced that they would cease enriching uranium effective Monday, November 22, rather than immediately. This apparently annoyed the Europeans, but it wasn't a deal breaker.

The Weekly Standard this week explained that light water reactor fuel of the type that the Europeans have agreed to give Iran can be used to produce bomb material within nine weeks. Since the IAEA inspectors only visit Iran every three months, it would be a simple matter to divert enough light water fuel to produce a bomb between inspections. And so, the agreement itself holds the promise of direct European assistance to Iran's nuclear weapons program.

While the Europeans were congratulating themselves for their feckless diplomacy, the Iranians were taking to the airwaves and arguing that they gave up nothing in the deal and received everything. Hamid Reza Asefi, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, said the suspension of nuclear activities would last only until Iran and the Europeans reached a long-term agreement. For his part, Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani said that enriching uranium is "Iran's right, and Iran will never give up its right to enrich uranium."

Iran's interest in making the deal is clear. The IAEA governing board is set to meet next week to discuss Iran's nuclear program. By agreeing to the deal with the Europeans, Iran has effectively foreclosed the option, favored by the US, of transferring Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council for discussions that could lead to sanctions on Iran.

Aside from that, all along, Iran has been gaming the system. It has pushed to the limits all feasible interpretation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory, to enable it to reach the cusp of nuclear weapons development without breaking its ties or diminishing its leverage over the Europeans as well as the Russians and Chinese. In so doing, it has isolated the US and Israel – which have both gone on record that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons – from the rest of the international community, which is ready to enable Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capabilities.

In the meantime, as Iran has negotiated the deal with the Europeans, it has moved quickly to develop its nuclear weapons delivery systems. Its recent Shihab-3 ballistic missiles tests seem to have demonstrated that Iran can now launch missiles to as far away as Europe. In addition, last week's launching of an Iranian drone, as well as this week's Katyusha rocket attacks on northern Israel, have shown that Iran has developed a panoply of delivery options for using its nuclear (as well as chemical and biological) arsenals to physically destroy Israel.

For their part, the European powers must know that this deal is a lie. The ink had not dried on their signatures when Iran announced that it wasn't obligated by the agreement to end its uranium enrichment. As well, on Wednesday, just two days after the deal was announced formally, the Iranian opposition movement, the National Council of Resistance – the political front for the People's Mujahedeen (which the deal stipulates must be treated as a terrorist organization comparable to al-Qaida) – held press conferences in Paris and Vienna where its representatives stated that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium at a Defense Ministry facility in Teheran and that it bought blueprints for nuclear bombs three years ago from Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan's nuclear bomb store. The Council of Resistance is the same organization that blew the whistle on Iran's nuclear program in 2002, when it exposed satellite imagery of Iran's nuclear facility in Natanz.

Aside from this, European leaders themselves have said that in their view there is no military option for taking out Iran's nuclear facilities. In an interview with the BBC this week, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop." Straw made this statement the same week that French President Jacques Chirac made an all-out diplomatic assault against British Prime Minister Tony Blair for his alliance with US President George W. Bush. Speaking to British reporters on Monday, Chirac said, "Britain gave its support [to the US in Iraq] but I did not see much in return. I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors." Chirac added that he had told Blair that his friendship with Bush could be of use if the US adopted the EU position on Israel and the Palestinians. Since Bush has refused to do so, Chirac argued, Bush has played Blair for a fool.

From these statements, two things about the European agenda become clear. First, by bringing Britain into the talks with Iran, the French have managed to ensure that the Americans, if they decide to do something about Iran's nuclear weapons programs, will be forced to act without British backing and at the expense of the British government, thus causing a serious fissure in the Anglo-American alliance. Straw's statement is breathtaking in that it shows that on the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons, the British prefer to see Iran gain nuclear weapons to having anyone act to prevent them from doing so.

Chirac's statement exposes, once again, France's main interest in international affairs today. To wit: France wishes only to box in the US to the point that the Americans will not be able to continue to fight the war against terrorism. The French do this not because they necessarily like terrorists. They do this because as Chirac has said many times, he views the central challenge of our time as developing a "multipolar" world. France's obsession with multipolarity stems from Chirac's perception that his country's primary aim is not to free the world from Islamic terror, but to weaken the US.

Given this state of affairs, it is clear that the newest deal with the mullahs has removed diplomacy from the box of tools that can be used against Iran. In the unlikely event that the issue is ever turned over to the Security Council, France will veto sanctions even if Russia and China could be bought off to abstain. As the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal has shown, even if sanctions were to be levied, there is no credible way to enforce them.

So where does this leave the Jews who, in the event that Iran goes nuclear, will face the threat of annihilation? Crunch time has arrived. It is time for Israel's leaders to go to Washington and ask the Americans point blank if they plan to defend Europe as Europe defends Iran's ability to attain the wherewithal to destroy the Jewish state. It must be made very clear to the White House that the hour of diplomacy faded away with the European Trio's latest ridiculous agreement with the mullahs. There is no UN option. Europe has cast its lot with the enemy of civilization itself.

The prevailing wisdom in Washington these days seems to be that the US is waiting for an Israeli attack on Iran. There is some logic to such a policy. No doubt, the Arabs and the Iranians will all blame America anyway, but they are not America's chief concern here. Britain and Germany are.

What the US needs is plausible deniability regarding an Israeli strike vis- -vis Britain and Germany, in order to get itself out of the trap that Paris has set for it. An Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program will leave Germany in an uncomfortable public position. Berlin cannot condemn the Jews for doing what we can to prevent another Holocaust without losing whatever crumbs of moral credibility it has built up over the past 50 years.

As for Britain, if Israel were to conduct the attack on its own, the British would be hard-pressed to abandon the Americans; thus, the danger that British involvement with the Paris-based multipolarists on Iran will breach the Anglo-American alliance could be somewhat mitigated.

On the other hand, if the Bush administration does not accept Israeli reasoning, the fact will still remain: Israel cannot accept a nuclear Iran.

Caroline B. Glick is the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, where this article first appeared.

A 'Good-Cop, Bad-Cop' Approach on Iran

By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: November 21, 2004

ANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 20 - It took the bluntest-talking member of the Bush administration - Richard L. Armitage, who is leaving his post as deputy secretary of state - to explain the strategy of suddenly increasing the heat on Iran's nuclear program.

Interviewed on Al Jazeera, the Arab-language television network, on Friday, Mr. Armitage argued that it made sense for Europe to offer incentives to Iran to give up its program while President Bush continues to take a hard line.

"My view would be that the incentives of the Europeans only work against the backdrop of the United States being strong and firm on this issue," he said. "In the vernacular, it's kind of a good-cop bad-cop arrangement. If it works, we'll all have been successful."

That may explain why Iran, which is nowhere near the Pacific Ocean, became a repeated subject of conversation on Saturday as President Bush arrived at his first post-election summit meeting, the annual gathering of leaders of Asian nations and countries from Chile to Canada whose borders touch the Pacific.

Mr. Bush has been known to pursue his own agenda at these meetings. He used the 2001 gathering in Shanghai, for example, to organize the first responses to the Sept. 11 attacks.

And since Wednesday, when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell arrived here for a meeting of foreign ministers, the administration has used this summit mmeting to reinforce its tough stance on Iran - though its exact strategy is still a bit of a mystery.

Mr. Powell told reporters on the way here that he had seen information that Iran was trying to modify its missile fleet so it could launch small nuclear warheads - even though, by all estimates, Iran is still a few years away from producing its first nuclear weapon.

Almost immediately, Mr. Powell took criticism for his comment, some from inside the administration. The intelligence is apparently based on a single source, whose reliability is unclear.

To Mr. Powell's critics, it was a throwback to his presentation to the United States on Feb. 5, 2003 about Iraq's weapons, a presentation he came to regret.

But he defended his comments during a television interview here on Friday, as did a State Department spokesman, Adam Ereli.

"Don't just focus on a uranium enrichment program, on a nuclear plant here or a nuclear plant there," Mr. Ereli said. "Look at the totality of the picture. And the picture is you've got undeclared nuclear activity, deliberate misinformation on nuclear activity, development of delivery systems and other technical research that, added all up, paints a very troubling picture."

Mr. Bush tried to add to that picture on Saturday, seizing on a report, attributed to diplomats who interact with the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran is speeding ahead in producing uranium hexafluoride, a gas that can be turned into bomb fuel. Although Iran's uranium-enrichment program was frozen under the agreement with Europe that was announced Monday, Iran has said it will not halt until Dec. 22.

By itself, this report on uranium hexafluoride proves little. Iran is within its legal rights to produce the gas, which can be used to make fuel for nuclear power plants.

In the end, Mr. Bush may not be the Iranians' main worry. While the president has made it clear he thinks that diplomacy, not military action, is the solution, the Israelis have been increasingly clear to administration officials that at some point they may feel forced to take action against Iran's facilities, before an Iranian project turns into a nuclear weapon that can reach Iran's neighbors.

Nov. 18, 2004 0:21 | Updated Nov. 18, 2004 1:04
Analysis: Israel is biding its time
By DAVID RUDGE

Jerusalem's lack of response to the firing of two Katyusha rockets at the Western Galilee in the past month and an undetected incursion of its airspace by a Hizbullah drone have reportedly caused deep divisions in the higher echelons of the IDF.

Some senior officers have apparently called for direct action to deter future occurrences. The decision-makers, however, have opted for a policy of restraint while issuing the usual warnings of a retaliation at a time and place of their choosing.

Such comments have been made so many times over the years that they have come to sound like a cliche, although that is not necessarily the case.

The decision to allow yet another pretext for military action against Hizbullah and other terrorist elements in Lebanon to pass has as much to do with regional and international affairs as it does with national security.

"The decision not to respond is directly related to the government's agenda to try to keep things as calm and non-violent as possible to allow the disengagement plan to go ahead with minimum opposition on the ground," said Prof. Gabriel Ben-Dor, director of the University of Haifa's National Security Studies Center.

"In my opinion, for this and other reasons, Israel will not respond to any provocation if there are no serious casualties. We also have to bear in mind that there are many hundreds of rockets in south Lebanon that pose a major strategic threat.

"In such circumstances, Israel is unlikely to be drawn into a minor fight with a minor group over the firing of one or two Katyusha rockets. If anything it will look to settle accounts with those holding the rockets at some future time.

"Israeli policy-makers increasingly feel that instead of settling accounts with Hizbullah, it would be better to go after its masters and mentors, in other words Iran and Syria.

"This, however, is unlikely to happen for the time being because Israel has its hands full dealing with Palestinian terrorism and the disengagement plan. I also believe that Israel is unlikely to take any major action until the US has resolved the Iraqi problem."

According to analysts, the rocket firing from Lebanon was perpetrated by a Palestinian splinter group after the death of PA chairman Yasser Arafat and because of the power struggle now taking place over who will be in charge.

A previously unknown group calling itself the Ghaleb Awali Martyrs Brigade, after a senior Hizbullah official who was killed in a car bombing in Beirut in July, claimed responsibility.

Hizbullah, however, denied any responsibility or involvement with the group, as did the Fatah organization in the Sidon area. This led to the assessment that Palestinians, apparently intent on reiterating their presence and that of hundreds of thousands of other Palestinian refugees, were behind the attack.

This would explain the attitude of Hizbullah and the Lebanese government that do not want any wild card players in south Lebanon who could disrupt the rules of the game established along the border.

It could also partly explain the reason for the lack of retaliation – to prevent being drawn into a Palestinian-orientated provocation that would highlight the refugee issue and disrupt the disengagement plan that does not include them.

"It is merely speculation at this stage, but it seems likely that the rocket attacks were the work of a Palestinian splinter group that was trying to make a point in light of the power struggle now over control of the PA," Ben-Dor said.

He stressed that the main problem in Lebanon is not the Palestinians but Hizbullah. "This is the first time in the history of Israel that a non-state organization has the ability to threaten it strategically with a massive rocket bombardment.

"At some stage this threat will have to be tackled either diplomatically or by more direct military means. The question is the timing and whether it will be against Hizbullah or its masters and mentors. For now, Israel is biding its time until all the circumstances, including international public opinion, are right.

"If the issue is to be settled with the Iranian masters, the context will be broad because the US and Israel identify a range of threats emanating from Teheran, such as its ambitious nuclear program and its support for insurgents in Iraq and for terrorism elsewhere."

Iranians mobilize the defend "Persian Gulf" and Iranian islands

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Nov 20, 2004

Iranians and knowledged Americans, historians and geographists are increasing their mobilization in order to defend the historically and internationally well recognized name of the "Persian Gulf" and Iran's sovereignty over the three Iranian islands of "Greater" and "Lesser Tumbs" and "Aboo Moossa".

Their constant actions in that line, since the fall of the former Iranian regime which has left Iran with an unpopular, incompetent and fragilized regime and diplomacy, has been boosted, especially, following a very controversial publication made by the till now well respected and 'non-partisan' "National Geographic Society". This institution has labeled the well known "Persian Gulf" as "Arabic Gulf" in its latest "Atlas of the World 2005" (Eighth Edition, ISBN: 0-7922-7543-8 & ISBN: 0-7922-7542-x).

Worst, it has qualified the three Iranian islands as "occupied islands" by trying to attribute their ownership to the "United Arab Emirates" (UAE) which is well known for its desperate tries to use Iran's current regime's position in order to push its illegitimate agenda against the Iranian nation. Many, especially among Americans, can't understand how an entity, such as the "National Geographic Society", can get mixed in a lobby action and carry a mission of geographical falsification attempts while it was qualified for years as a neutral and factual reference.

They do beleive that the desperate tries of the UAE and the money it's spending, in order to falsificate historical and geographical facts in reference to the region, have finally produced some effects, as, the "National Geographic" has agreed to put its credibility in jeopardy. Other alarming news are stating that National Geographic's support of such a false claim, follows its acceptance of a rich family member of one of the Sheiks, ruling over UAE, as one of its top administration members.

It's to note that while Iran or Persia (new official name of Iran since 1936) has been officially existing for over 2500 years, the UAE was created in 1971 form the formation of seven little Sheikhdoms. This small region was formerly known as the "Pirates Coast" and was under British mandate following the collapse of the Turkish Ottoman Empire at the issue of the First World War.

Unfortunately, in addition to several money oriented European governments and news or financial institutions, such as France, UK and Germany or AFP and Reuters, some very few American sources are helping UAE in its illegitimate claim. They do think that such policy can force the Islamic republic to comply with their agenda. But in reality, these very few misguided American sources are helping the Islamic regime which then plays the well known fear and nationalistic feelings of Iranians by stating that foreign powers are against Iranians and that its downfall can bring the split of Iran or of its islands.

It's in reaction to such demagogy that a secularist dissident Iranian group named the "Marzeporgohar Organization" has started a well percieved campaign by alarming the Iranians and Americans. Many of those who had purchased the latest version of the "National Geographic's Atlas of the World 2205", have started to return them back, since yesterday, and getting back their legally due refunds. Others are following the same path by buying the book from sellers, such as, Borders, Barnes & Nobles or Amazon.Com, in order to return them few days later with their note of protest and getting their legally full refund. This way of protest has been reported as having created many complications for the sellers located especially in the Los Angeles area.

In addition, many Iranians who have heard about the illegitimate and shameful episode , or their Iranian friends are flowing the publisher with calls (800 962 1643 from inside the US and Canada) or (+1 813 979 6845 from oustide US and Canada) , faxes and e-mails ( cbeidel@ngs.org, comments@natgeochannel.com, ngsforum@nationalgeographic.com, ngt@nationalgeographic.com , education@nationalgeographic.com) of protest which have brought its different departments to often blame each other.

Several jurists are even looking on the legal grounds to sue pro-bono the "National Geographic Society" and asking a discovery on contributions received which they believe might show links to UAE sources.

The anger is of the most justified especially by knowing the UN directive of August 18 1994 {94-33224 (E) 180894} Stating: "Attention is once again drawn to editorial directive ST/CS/SER.A/29 and Corr.1 and Add.1 on the use of the term 'Persian Gulf'.

The purpose of the present addendum is to urge that care be taken to ensure the appropriate use of this term in documents, publications and statements prepared by the Secretariat. The full term 'Persian Gulf' should be used in every case instead of the shorter term 'Gulf', including in repetitions of the term after its initial use in a text."

Or the May 14, 1999 { 99-14427 (E) 200599 UNST/CS/SER.A/29/Rev.1} , which is stipulating the follow: "1. The term 'Persian Gulf' is used in documents, publications and statements emanating from the Secretariat as the standard geographical designation for the sea area between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran.

The full term 'Persian Gulf' is always used to designate that sea area when it is first referred to in a text and is repeated thereafter whenever necessary for the sake of clarity. 2.

The term 'Gulf' is used in documents, publications and statements emanating from the Secretariat to identify or refer to the general geographical area surrounding or adjacent to the sea area referred to in paragraph 1 above or to refer to the situation around that sea area.

The terms 'Gulf area', 'Gulf region' and 'Gulf States' are examples of such usage. " Parts of the Marzeporgohar statement are as follow: "Considering the fact that the National, Geographic is the biggest non-profit educational and scientific institution, it is hard for us to fathom how they made reference to the Persian Gulf with an unrecognized name.

The United Nations, in addition to historical records and facts that date back more than thousands of years, have made it abundantly clear that the body of water in question is recognized as the Persian Gulf. .... ....Perhaps the National Geographic Society should look back on it’s own maps to see that 33 years ago no entity by the name of United Arab Emirates existed, however Iran did.

Furthermore, the National Geographic itself had previously always used the formal, and legitimate name, the Persian Gulf to reference the body of water in question.

The National Geographic’s stance encourages conflict in an area which has experiences relative calm with the use of the official and internationally recognized name of the Persian Gulf for centuries.

Iran has existed for more then seven thousand years, and to now have a publication attempt to strip it of its historical territory will not be tolerated.

The Atlas goes further to claim that the Persian Gulf Islands are being occupied by Iran. If anything is being occupied, it would be various parts of Iran that have been taken from us through illegal means starting 33 years ago...." For a better and more referenced, historical and detailed understanding of the issue, read SMCCDI's "Iran's Maritime Boundaries in the 'Persian Gulf' and the case of the three Iranian islands" located in the website's "About Iran" section or at: http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_2385.shtml

Nov. 21, 2004 0:01 | Updated Nov. 21, 2004 1:29

IDF: Iran has secret nuclear program

By ARIEH O'SULLIVAN

The IDF believes that Iran is running a secret nuclear weapons program in parallel to the one it had agreed this week to temporarily suspend.

Senior military sources told The Jerusalem Post that in the worst-case scenario Iran could produce a nuclear bomb within two years.

"Without a more determined stance by the West against Iran, they will reach a point of no return within six months," said a senior officer. From then it would take another 18 to 24 months to produce a nuclear bomb, they added.

Meanwhile, US President George W. Bush tried to marshal international support to counter dual nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Chile. Reports from the US said that Iran is racing to produce large quantities of enriched uranium that can be used for making nuclear weapons before its agreed-upon program freeze goes into effect this week.

"The Iranians have a 'declared' secret program which they have agreed to temporarily suspend," said one senior Israeli officer. "But they also have a 'secret' secret program. The agreement with the Europeans is not touching this program. Furthermore, it is our understanding that the suspension is only temporary and partial."

The military source said the negotiations Iran conducted with Britain, France, and Germany over the pace of its uranium enrichment program amounted to a "Persian bazaar."

The military sources declined to give details about their knowledge of Iran's parallel program.

The assessment in the IDF is that once Iran has converted several dozen tons of uranium tetrafluoride (yellow cake) into UF6 (uranium hexafluoride), it would be able to make a few bombs.

The IDF source also said that the Iranian test launches of the Shihab-3 rockets conducted in August and October were part of a program to extend their range and put Europe and Asia in its reach.

"It is very important for the Iran government to hear that we are concerned about their desires and we're concerned about reports that show that before a certain international meeting, they're willing to speed up the processing of materials that could lead to a nuclear weapon," Bush said on Saturday. "This is a very serious matter. The world knows it's a serious matter and we're working together to solve this matter," he said.

Bush lauded the efforts of European nations involved in diplomacy to persuade Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons. "They do believe that Iran has got nuclear ambitions, as do we, as do many around the world," Bush said.

A State Department official and a senior administration official said Iranian technicians were converting uranium ore into substantial quantities of uranium hexafluoride gas before Monday's deadline at a facility in the central city of Isfahan.

The new allegations could escalate tensions over Iran's nuclear intentions ahead of a meeting Thursday of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the Islamic republic's nuclear activities. It also cast further doubt on Iran's goodwill.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said over the weekend that Iran was working on fitting nuclear warheads to its missiles.

The US wants the IAEA to refer the matter to the UN Security Council for consideration of economic sanctions.

Iran denies that it is seeking nuclear weapons, saying its nuclear activities are for generating electric power.

AP contributed to this report.

Group fights for a free Iran
Organization uses satellite TV to organize peaceful resistance to regime

Posted: November 20, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Ron Strom
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A U.S.-based organization is working with groups and governments around the globe, as well as Iranians themselves, to effect a regime change in Iran through strictly peaceful means.

S.O.S Iran, based in Southern California, has a detailed, systematic plan, outlined on its website, to see the Islamic government of Iran ousted and replaced with a constitutional monarchy or free republic.

States the group on its homepage: "We support the people of Iran for the removal of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the establishment of freedom, human rights and a democratic, secular and modern government in Iran."

While the organization registered as a nonprofit just eight months ago, its leadership has been working on like-minded projects for two years.

Iman Foroutan, an Iranian-America, is the executive director of S.O.S. Iran. He explained what kind of government his group would like to see in Tehran. Whatever actual form a new Iran takes, it must have basic human rights, the right to vote and other personal freedoms, he told WND.

Most of the recent resistance to the ruling mullahs in Iran has been by pro-freedom student groups there.

"We have indirect ties with quite a few student organizations inside Iran," he said. "Most of them are underground."

Foroutan says, however, what is key to attaining freedom in Iran is the mobilization of the non-students in the country.

"What Iran really needs is for the rest of the people – 80 to 90 percent of whom are against the existing regime – to be organized and coordinated so that pretty soon they can come alongside the students and move forward to basically overthrow the regime," he said.

Foroutan pointed to the fact that only 28 percent of the population voted in the last election in Iran – proof, he says, that people are not hopeful about the current system. Though elections are conducted in Iran, the dictatorial Guardian Council decides who is eligible to actually appear on the ballot, so anyone opposed to the regime can be easily silenced.

"If you read the constitution of [Iran], basically you start laughing," Foroutan said, "because all the powers of the government … are given to one person, and that's Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader."

Foroutan mentioned Iran's Parliament passed two laws last year, one to bolster the rights of women and one to outlaw torture, and the Guardian Council summarily vetoed them both.

"It's all a game," he said. "There is no democracy there."

Foroutan says most Americans and Europeans don't realize how little freedom there is in Iran, which is why his organization has an aggressive public-relations campaign to expose what's going on in the country, including "the torture, the killings, the beatings, the cutting of the hands and gouging of the eyes and hanging people from a crane," he said.

The activist mentioned that recently a 14-year-old Iranian was given 85 lashes for failing to fast at the right time during Muslim Ramadan.

"They beat him up so bad he died," Foroutan lamented, "just 14 years old."

Strictly non-violent

Foroutan says there are three options for how to deal with the oppressive Iranian regime.

One is the status quo – dialoguing with the rulers there to try to effect positive change. The second is a military invasion, which Foroutan calls "unacceptable," saying it's not needed.

The third option is the one S.O.S. Iran is advocating: non-violent civil disobedience.

"We have put together a nine-month plan and have adapted it to the Iranian culture and the Iranian people," Foroutan explained.

He says the group has studied many civil-disobedience tactics in history and subsequently has come up with specific programs to implement. Three of those already have gone into effect.

"The first one is people turning the lights off in the homes Thursday nights from 9 to 9:30," Foroutan said. "Right now, 30 to 40 percent of the communities in Iran are turning off their lights."

He says the organization considers the lights-out tactic an S.O.S. distress signal to the world from Iran – with the message: "We need help."

The second program calls on Iranians to go to parks every Friday afternoon (a weekend day in Iran) to show the government how many people can gather together in public on a coordinated basis.

"We're trying to build self-confidence in the Iranian people after 25 years of torture, death and imprisonment," Foroutan said.

"We have reports the regime forces can hardly control the crowds that are going to the parks just to have fun. This is totally opposite of the demonstrations by the students … because once students demonstrate, they are photographed … and taken to jail."

Continued Foroutan: "But by going to a park, nobody can ask you why you are coming to a park with your wife and kids."

He says "hundreds of thousands of people" are going to Iranian parks on Fridays.

The third program is called "Pashiz," Farsi for "small change." The effort calls on Iranians to keep coins and small bills out of circulation, which, Foroutan says, is playing havoc with the economy.

"There's no change," he explained, "and it's totally bringing down the economy."

The program, which has been in effect for six weeks, means goods that are purchased with small change are not bought at the same level as before, causing inestimable economic ripples.

"They cannot do their business because there is no change," Foroutan said.

The activist says the organization has 18 departments, each having a specific role in helping with the ultimate ousting of the mullahs. Plans also include how to transition the nation to freedom beginning the day after the regime comes down.

Foroutan says there's no way to know how long a transition will take, but he said he is hopeful it will happen within the next year. He emphasized the time line for winning freedom for Iran depends greatly on how much "moral support" the effort gets from the U.S. and other countries – one reason he is enthused about the nomination of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.

Foroutan criticized Secretary of State Colin Powell for not wanting to "rock the boat" in Iran and relying on dialogue, but he sees Rice as more willing to push for regime change.

From its base in Southern California, S.O.S. Iran broadcasts 24-hour-a-day satellite television to the U.S., Canada, Europe and, most importantly, Iran. Foroutan estimates up to 30 percent of Iranians have access at some point to see the broadcasts, even though satellite TV connections are illegal in Iran.

Said a hopeful Foroutan: "They're hearing us."

The activist encourages people concerned about Iran to donate to the efforts of S.O.S. Iran, which can be done via the "Support" link on its website.

Ron Strom is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.

Pentagon turns heat up on Iran

Washington and European Union on collision course over how to neutralise Tehran's nuclear capabilities

Peter Beaumont and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday November 21, 2004
The Observer

Pentagon hawks have begun discussing military action against Iran to neutralise its nuclear weapons threat, including possible strikes on leadership, political and security targets.

With a deadline of tomorrow for Iran to begin an agreed freeze on enriching uranium, which can be used to produce nuclear weapons, sources have disclosed that the latest Pentagon gaming model for 'neutralising' Iran's nuclear threat involves strikes in support of regime change.

Although the United States has made clear that it would seek sanctions against Iran through the United Nations should it not meet its obligations, rather than undertake military action, the new modelling at the Pentagon, with its shift in emphasis from suspected nuclear to political target lists, is causing deep anxiety among officials in the UK, France and Germany.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to meet on Thursday to decide whether to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for being in breach of non-proliferation measures.

Sources close to the Bush administration have warned that Tony Blair will have to choose between the EU's pursuit of the diplomatic track and a more hardline approach from the White House.

While George Bush clearly favours more stick and less carrot, it is not yet clear what the stick might be: US administration sources say targeted air strikes - either by the US or Israel - aimed at wiping out Iran's fledgling nuclear programme would be difficult because of a lack of clear intelligence about where key components are located.

Despite America's attempt to turn up the heat on Iran, analysts remain deeply uncertain whether the increasingly bellicose noises which are coming from Bush administration figures represent a crude form of 'megaphone' diplomacy designed to scare Iran into sticking to its side of the bargain, or evidence that Washington is leaning towards a new military adventure.

Details of the emerging Pentagon thinking have come as US officials have spent the past week turning up the pressure on Iran before the deal comes into force.

US officials are expected to meet European diplomats and IAEA officials to complain about Iran's continuing production of substantial quantities of uranium hexafluoride, which can be used in a weapons programme.

Although not explicitly barred in the accord, US officials believe it amounts to a serious show of bad faith by Iran.

Speaking on the fringes of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meeting in Santiago yesterday, Bush ratcheted up the pressure on Iran.

'It is very important for the Iran government to hear that we are concerned about their desires and we're concerned about reports that show that, before a certain international meeting, they're willing to speed up the processing of materials that could lead to a nuclear weapon,' Bush said.

Referring to the European countries that negotiated the deal with Iran, Bush added: 'They do believe that Iran has got nuclear ambitions, as do we, as do many around the world.

'This is a very serious matter. The world knows it's a serious matter and we're working together to solve this matter.'

Under a pact reached by the European countries and Iran last week, Iran is due to suspend all uranium enrichment, while it negotiates a deal in which it would receive trade incentives and peaceful nuclear technology.

Yesterday, the Foreign Office tried to play down fears that Iran is already breaching the deal which was negotiated with the EU, insisting that the IAEA be allowed to issue its own verdict on Tehran's compliance this week.

'We will wait and see what the report is: the Iranians have got until 25 November,' said a spokesman.

But Whitehall sources said the UK accepted that Iran had a complex and extensive nuclear programme that could not be shut down overnight.

'There is a lot of speculation that is unfounded. Obviously there have been a lot of concerns in the past, but there's a deal on the table and we hope that they will stick with it,' said one.

Last week, US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has just announced his resignation, told reporters that US intelligence had seen hard evidence that Iran was close to putting a nuclear weapon on a long-range weapons system.

The allegation was immediately challenged by officials in the State Department, who said the information, which had come from a single 'walk-in' source, had yet to be verified.

Iran Bars National Geographic Over Map Dispute

Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:33 PM ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran banned National Geographic reporters and sales of the magazine until it corrects an atlas it published using a disputed name for waters off the Islamic Republic's south coast.

Iran insists on calling the waters the "Persian Gulf." However, the saltwater body also touches the shores of eastern Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain. Many people in these other states refer to the waters as the "Arabian Gulf."

Iran's culture ministry said the atlas published by U.S.-based National Geographic labeled the waters as the "Persian Gulf," but also included the "Arabian Gulf" name in parentheses on the map.

"As a reaction, we are banning their journalists from entering Iran and the distribution of their publications until they correct this," the culture ministry's foreign media director Mohammad Hossein Khoshvaght told Reuters.

The ministry also said the atlas labels three islands in the Gulf claimed by the United Arab Emirates as "occupied by Iran." Iran insists Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunb are part of its sovereign territory.

"We consider this a clear violation of U.N. documents and antagonistic toward Iran's national interests," Khoshvaght said. "National Geographic should immediately correct this big mistake and this strange move."

The National Geographic's chief cartographer Allen Carroll defended the use of both names.

"We do, and will continue, to recognize 'Persian Gulf' as the primary name," he said on National Geographic's Web site.

"But we want people searching for "Arabian Gulf" to be able to find what they're looking for and not to confuse it with the nearby Arabian Sea," he added.

The culture ministry has previously also objected to the use of the compromise term "The Gulf" used by some foreign news agencies.

A perfect example of why we need regime change in Iran! I must admit I laughed when I saw the story. But then you got to think about what the regime is doing to its citizens that we don't hear about. If you can't print an alternative name for a body of water on a map....

I like the way the US is moving on Iran. You got this IAEA report on the 25th which looks like it'll just be a joke. Regardless, Bush & Powell/Rice will push for sanctions at the Security Council. Unless the same people who opposed regime change in Iraq water it down, it'll likely fail. I like the idea of putting a naval blockade around Iran. But if the Europeans don't cooperate (and I don't expect them to), it might not really work. So what happens then?

Military action could be a nightmare. Not to mention that you get the impression we hardly have any land troops left to spare for an invasion. Although, it would likely happen after the January 30th Iraqi elections (yeah!), so that would free some up. I would then favor sabatoging their electrical grid (to inhibit the operation of at least part of the nuclear fuel cycle) and their money supply. Lastly, send a few thousand US special forces around the country, with a heavier concentration in Tehran for the purposes of:

1) *Supporting* the insurrection against the regime. Ideally, in my view, the common Iranian overthrows their regime, with maybe some help from us.

2) Killing and capturing regime persons of interest, essentially widespread assassinations. There's no good in bombing the country to dust. Just get the thugs.

3) Securing nuclear installations.

As the regimes crumbles, then bring in at least 50,000 ground forces to crush the insurgency. Iran's not going to give up without a fight. Iran's basically the capital of Islamic terrorism. I don't know. Iraq was bad and Iran will be worse. That's why you want to minimize the American face on the regime change.

This isn't going to be easy. Tens of thousands, if not more, will die. Not good. But it's way better than nukes going off in NYC, DC, London, Paris, Tel-Aviv. Baghdad, etc.

:-) And then after Iran falls, I can envision Syria and Lebanon falling shortly thereafter (recovering Saddam's WMD's in the process).

Hey, how about that. Man gets elected president and eight years later, he brings regime change to five Islamic (!) countries, giving them democracy.

We're at two and counting.

I wouldn't count on Bush getting a Nobel Peace Prize like Arafat did :-(

Then maybe regime change in the UN....!

Hey, we're doing regime change everywhere. And proud of it!

BTW, I highly recommend this book on Freedom:

The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror

It's very readable and it's very great! Not only that, President Bush just finished reading it only days ago and had a 1-hour meeting with the author. If Bush takes the book's contents to heart....

The term "Arab street" might loose its meaning.

DoctorZIn, keep up the great work!

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.