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

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

Why Iran must to shut down its last 20 centrifuges

November 26, 2004
DoctorZin

Yesterday, the IAEA attempted to shut down 20 centrifuges in Iran that were part of their "agreement" with the EU and the Iranians refused. Reuters reports:

"IAEA inspectors ran into problems on Wednesday when Iran refused to let them seal the 20 centrifuges to put them out of use."

The failure of Iran to shut down their uranium enrichment program is a clear violation of the “agreement” that they made with the EU earlier in the week. It is a bold step that can lead to Iran to being referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.

So why would Iran refuse to come into compliance when they have so much to lose, if they are only for experimental purposes as claimed?

I asked John Loftus (a Fox News intelligence correspondent and director of IntelCon). His answer has been confirmed by other experts on Iran. He claims that uranium enrichment centrifuges, which run at supersonic speeds, emit a unique “sound” that our intelligence satellites can detect. He believes that Iran is aware of this capability of US intelligence.

If Iran has an “undeclared” centrifuge program as many claim, then Iran needs a few centrifuges to be permitted to stay in operation to mask this larger program they have in operation. Once Iran declares that all enrichment has ceased US intelligence would be “hear” the undeclared centrifuges and thus be able to prove their deception. Therefore Iran cannot shut down all their centrifuges.

That the US is aware of this undeclared program would help explain why earlier this week Secretary of State Colin Powell made a public announcement of alarm at Iran's development of a unique version of its Shehab 3 missile system designed only to carry a nuclear warhead.

Iran has no need for such a missile unless it has a nuclear program and one that is far more advanced than most experts had anticipated.

The news of Iran's quest for nuclear technology must be understood in light of their statements as to how they would use the technology.

December 14, 2001, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who, as the Chairman of the Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State and is the Islamic Republic’s number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, said

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world."

But why would the Iranians risk so much at this time?

First it is important to know that, according to the Jerusalem Post, Iran's supreme leader Khamenei has already declared war against the US back in July:

"We are at war with the enemy," Iran's Supreme Guide Ali Khamenehi told a meeting of mullahs in the city of Hamadan, west of Teheran, last Monday. "The central battlefield [of this war] is Iraq."

It has also been reported by Bill Gertz on WorldNetDaily.com that Iran's Supreme leader Khamenei has demanded of his nuclear development staff to have two functional nuclear weapons by January of 2005:

"Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged his country's weapons developers to step up work on making a nuclear bomb, a U.S. official said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

According to the official, an authoritative source in the Iranian exile community has stated that Khamenei met recently with senior government and military leaders on the nuclear weapons program.

Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said."

Why the January deadline?

I have been reporting for sometime that Iran cannot permit Iraq to have democratic elections. If Iraq has free elections the pressure on Iran to have “open and free elections” (something they do not currently have) will be huge and has the potential of encouraging massive internal opposition to demand the same thing in Iran.

Lately things have not been going well for Iran's insurgents in Iraq and they may feel that they have no choice but to launch their own preemptive strike on US interests in the region.

Iran has already declared its own preemptive strike doctrine, according to ABC News Online:

Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani has warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities. ABC News reported:

"We will not sit [with arms folded] to wait for what others will do to us," Mr Shamkhani told Al Jazeera television when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

"Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq.

"The US military presence [in Iraq] will not become an element of strength [for Washington] at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

Iran can attack US interests preemptively and make the case that it was an act of self defense.

So how are things likely to play out?

The EU will have to display uncommon courage to maintain their hard-line position with Iran as the price may prove too great. According to IranMania:

A top aide to Iran's supreme leader declared on Monday that Tehran did not fear being taken to the Security Council over its nuclear programme and warned that if the UN imposed an oil embargo world prices would go above $100 a barrel. ...

Questioned about a possible UN embargo on Tehran's oil exports, the former parliamentary speaker said: "The big loser will be them, not us.

"If an oil embargo is slapped on Iran, the price of oil will exceed US $100 per barrel, with a potential to paralyse the West's economy."

The EU imports 8% of its oil from Iran and has 90 days of oil reserves, according to EUBusiness compared to the US which imports no oil from Iran and has 150+ days of oil reserves.

Therefore, the US can afford the fallout from an embargo of Iran while the EU will be in a much more difficult situation.

The EU may cave into Iran's demand and thus permit Iran to continue with its nuclear weapons program. If it does, this will force the US to create a coalition of the willing to take action to prevent Iran's program. The most likely scenario is an embargo of Iranian oil. The US Navy can stop all Iranian oil shipments out of the Persian Gulf.

But Iran has plans for this contingency. According to MEMRI, Hassan Abbassi, one of Iran’s Supreme Leader’s security counselors has been quoted as saying:

If America attacks us, don’t worry at all. It won't be like what you've seen in Afghanistan and in Iraq. In Southern Iran we have a 2000 km coast and 36 islands. The average depth of the Persian Gulf is between 45-50 meters. The Deepest spot there is 94 meters deep between the islands of Abu Musa and Tonb. This is a very suitable spot for maritime guerrilla warfare. Our special forces are definitely ready for action there.

Through the Straits of Hormuz, 67% of the world's total energy passes. You must know this. Imagine I'm gone abd, God willing, you want to face America. Take a tanker to the Straits Of Hormuz and sink it there. The tanker won't sink because the water is shallow there – about 50 meters. The tanker itself is 55 meters high, and when it will lie on the surface, half of it will protrude. It will take five months until it will be salvaged. A rise in oil prices, as you have seen, causes the West fever. These are the weaknesses.

And his attacks are not limited to ships in the Persian Gulf, he has also said:

There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them.'

We must take these threats seriously.

None of our options are great, but our best options require the support of the EU and ultimately the UN. This would explain why the US is continuing to support the EU's efforts even though the EU is slowly caving into Iran's demands.

What else can the US do?

Military strikes against Iran are a poor option. As I already pointed out, Iran may act preemptively against US forces.

At best military action on Iran’s nuclear sites it will slow down their program but not end it.

But military strikes will likely have the unfortunate effect of unifying the Iranian people against us. While the Iranian people are largely pro American they are even more pro Iranian. The deaths of Iranians at the hands of the US will likely push the people of Iran back into the hands of the Mullahs they hate. This would be disastrous.

Instead, we can support a regime change in Iran.

This will not likely become a priority of the US unless the EU agreement fails. But if it does, we need to make regime change in Iran US policy and aggressively, publicly and clearly support a popular revolt against the Iranian regime. The people of Iran have replaced their leaders before and can do it again. Unfortunately the Iranian people have been disheartened by the confusing messages coming out of the US administration.

With Condi Rice as our new Secretary of State we can expect these confusing signals to the Iranian people to cease. The people of Iran have been waiting a very long time for our clear and uncompromising support.

But the Iranian people witnessed US failure to support a similar call for regime change in Iraq a few years ago, where untold numbers of Iraqi's lost their lives acting on this call by the senior President Bush.

So we need to not only call for regime change but make clear what kind of support the US will give the Iranian people and what we will not.

The US administration needs to release its long awaited "Iran policy." The sooner we do so the sooner the people of Iran can act.

January is coming soon. Let's hope we act before it's too late.

Faster please.

Another great thread. Thanks for all of them! And the centrifuge story isn't a surprise at all. Faster, please -- indeed.

DoctorZin: Please check out my report. It's the most extensive report I have ever posted.

Why Iran must to shut down its last 20 centrifuges.

http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2004/11/why-iran-must-to-shut-down-its-last-20.html#comments

Thanks, Doc. As always, I appreciate all of your hard work. Best wishes.

Instead, we can support a regime change in Iran.

Is this Ledeen talking? I'm no expert, but I think this is naive in a couple of ways:

Just as with Japan which saw our naval blockade after the Tripartite agreement as declaration of open warfare, Iran will see any effort on America's part to trigger regime change as a direct attack.
Iranians are already united against us to some extent. It would be an exaggeration to say that they all love us. Some do. Most think Israel is evil. We still have to defend ourselves. That is a lesson we must learn soon or more troops will die "spreading the gospel of freedom" before anyone is listening.
Iran's nukes might be coming online sooner than we think. We can't wait any longer to see what will happen next.

We can't save the world. We can't save every innocent person in Iran. We have to save ourselves.

We can try regime change, but despite the comment that Iran may act preemptively against US forces and/or the Iranian people might be driven into the hands of the mullahs, keep in mind we're talking about a Nazi Germany here. The leaders lead the people. At some point, the people are a side issue that will have to be managed after we finish dealing with the threat.

I am not saying that military action should be off the table, just that it far less desirable option.

We need Iran to become an ally not a country that we occupy, if at all possible.

I am convinced that a popular revolt is still possible but we need to move soon, clearly, and aggressively.

Thanks. If this can succeed, it's worth trying. I'd much rather be where we want to be in Iraq in January in Iran in a couple of months rather than two years from now. But I do think we need several sets of contingency plans, and their gist doesn't need to be top secret. We're good friends when we're invited to help, but we're wicked fierce when we're angry. That ought to be the message: help and be free, or we'll have to do things the hard way. This is our security that concerns us, as well as theirs; and I think the Iranian people need to understand that loudly and clearly.

What do you think is going to happen now that Arafat is gone?
It seems the perfect opportunity for Iranian regime to move in big time.

The fact is the Iranian nuclear sites need to be taken out no matter what. Iran does not neeed nuclear power they have oil. Any nuclear technology in the Muslim World is in danger of falling in the hands of terrorists and being used here!

As much as I would love to see oppressed people freed, we should not put the safety of our country in the hands of the population of Iran. Their revolt seems to be going nowhere, and in 6 months it will be too late!

Thank you so very much for all you do to get the truth out about Iran, Doc. There are so many articles to read, and so many go against others, that my mind spins trying to take it all in. Your article is absolutely AWESOME!!! The Iranian people MUST UNDERSTAND that we Americans support THEM and THEIR desire for freedom. BUT, as you say, there are so many other "players" involved also, and some of them are more interested in their own concerns, than the lives of the Iranians. I've been in full support of Regime Change for Iran since I first read your posts here. There are bills in congress supporting this worthy cause so at least Some congressmen understand how important this is. I'm just afraid that we are running out of time. Again, thank you for this great report.

We may have no choice but to strike.

But the Mullahs of Iran would love for us to strike.
It will turn the people of Iran, who hate the Mullahs, back into the hands of the Mullahs.
But anything less than military occupation will not resolve the problem.

The Mullahs would remain in power and able to reconstitute their program only this time with popular support.

Israel is in a much more dangerous position.
Any such military action will likely lead to a unified military response against Israel and the US in the Middle East.

Our military action will also likely lead to military retaliation in the Middle East and possibly here at home and more importantly kills any chance of securing a friendly government in Tehran for a long time.

A popular revolt in Iran has been brewing beneath the surface for a very long time. The people of Iran are waiting for a clear message from the US that we want them to overthrow their government. It can happen quickly, if the people of Iran understand that we are serious about supporting regime change.

The benefits of a new regime are almost incalculable.

We need to give the people of Iran a chance, before it is too late.

DoctorZin

EU, Iran clash over terms of nuclear freeze

By Louis Charbonneau and Mark Trevelyan

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran is seeking exemptions from a deal to suspend sensitive nuclear activities that could be used to make weapons, just 3 days after it came into force, the head of the U.N. atomic watchdog says.

Iran's request has threatened to wreck a hard-won agreement with the European Union and to infuriate Washington, which despite Iranian denials has long accused Tehran of trying to build an atomic bomb.

The dispute came to a head as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has the authority to refer Iran to the United Nations for possible sanctions, began a crucial board meeting to review its nuclear programme.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Iran wanted to continue experimenting with 20 centrifuges for enriching uranium, although without using nuclear material.

Western diplomats said that flew in the face of Tehran's November 15 agreement with EU members Germany, France and Britain.

To avoid the risk of sanctions, Iran agreed under the deal to voluntarily suspend all activity related to uranium enrichment, the process by which the metal is purified for use in nuclear reactors or, potentially, in bombs.

"There's a general feeling that people want to give the EU agreement a chance," one diplomat said. But the Iranian move meant the deal had been "unnecessarily placed in jeopardy".

Another senior diplomat said Tehran appeared to have raised the exemption issue as a bargaining tactic in the hope of winning concessions elsewhere.

"This is a big problem," a third diplomat said. He said IAEA inspectors ran into problems on Wednesday when Iran refused to let them seal the 20 centrifuges to put them out of use.

EU SOFTENS DRAFT RESOLUTION

IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky confirmed this, and said that the centrifuges were at the Natanz enrichment plant, a facility which Tehran had kept secret from the United Nations until a group of Iranian exiles revealed its existence in August 2002.

Centrifuges are devices that spin at supersonic speed to produce enriched uranium from uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6).

ElBaradei said that until it suspended enrichment-related activities on Monday, Iran had produced 3.5 tonnes of UF6.

A diplomat close to the IAEA said this was significantly higher than the 2 tonnes previously recorded by the agency and could produce about a quarter of the 25 kg of highly enriched uranium needed for a bomb.

ElBaradei said he hoped the centrifuge dispute would "resolve itself" within 24 hours. Meanwhile, away from the conference hall, member states were haggling over an EU-drafted resolution on Iran which Tehran sees as too critical and Washington considers too weak, diplomats said.

Sirus Naseri, a member of the Iranian delegation, told Reuters it was time for the EU to "start delivering" on the terms of this month's deal, which held out the prospect of trade incentives and peaceful nuclear technology for Iran.

France, Britain and Germany circulated a revised draft resolution that included quite a few changes to accommodate Iranian demands. However the Iranian delegation was not satisfied.

"It's a step forward but not meeting our expectations," Naseri said, adding discussions were continuing.

A Western diplomat on the board said he believed Washington did not like the new text but would probably not block anything proposed by the Europeans.

Washington wanted the text to include a "trigger" that would automatically refer Iran to the Security Council if it resumed any enrichment-related work.

But the latest EU draft, parts of which were read to Reuters, included a clause that Iran felt was an indirect trigger was removed, while the call for Iran to provide "unrestricted access" to the IAEA was changed to "access deemed necessary by the Agency".

November 26, 2004

Foreign Editor's Briefing

US counts the cost as Iran backtracks on nuclear deal

By Bronwen Maddox

::nobreak::THE latest international attempt to persuade Iran to halt its controversial nuclear programme was badly jolted yesterday by Tehran’s sudden announcement that it planned to press on with the most controversial strand of the work.

The declaration threatened to scupper a deal painfully hammered out with Britain, France and Germany that was intended to defuse confrontation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog. But as the IAEA’s board of governors assembled in Vienna yesterday, the Iranian move left European officials stunned.

“It was vintage, really bad timing, and unnecessarily provocative and disruptive,” one Western official said last night. Iran’s plan to keep running up to 20 centrifuges “for research purposes” to enrich uranium was technically insignificant, he said, and represented only a tiny fraction of its capability. “It may not be a deal-breaker. But it has soured the mood and made it hard for the Europeans to prove to the US that negotiation can work”.

Diplomats said that the IAEA board might still reach a consensus by tonight, as scheduled. But Iran’s move had left Europeans in little mood to compromise on two other sticking points which jeopardised a deal.

Mohammed ElBaradei, IAEA director-general, told the board that the agency was “still in discussion” with Iran on this sudden request. On a positive note, Iran had been much more co-operative since December 2003 and the agency was now sure that all the nuclear material which Iran had disclosed had not been diverted towards weapons.

But he gave warning that “the agency is not yet in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran”. Its systematic attempts at concealing its 20-year programme meant that “a confidence deficit has been created and confidence needs to be restored”.

Why this week matters

SINCE 2002, when Iran’s nuclear programme came to light, the quarterly meetings of the IAEA board of governors have become cliffhangers as other countries have tried to extract reassurance from Tehran that it is not pursuing weapons.

The setting, drab even by UN standards, hardly suggests drama: four arcs of tan leather seats in the windowless boardroom, with its 1970s dark orange carpet and fittings. The talk is unrelentingly technical; even the most technophobic officials can draw a centrifuge freehand.

Yet the boffinish exchanges belie the significance of the challenge: can the pressure of international opinion, together with the creaking clauses of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), still dissuade a country from building the bomb? This month’s meeting matters more than most. Britain, France and Germany gave notice in September that they were reaching a point of “sharp exasperation” in trying to negotiate with Iran, in the words of one British official. If Iran failed to halt its work they would join the US in pressing for a referral to the UN Security Council.

The deal

UNTIL this week, Britain, France and Germany thought they had a deal, repairing the holes in the deal they thought they struck last year. Most important, stopping suspension of enrichment also meant stopping the “conversion” of uranium into the gas fed into centrifuges. The draft resolution now before the IAEA board is based on the European deal.

But this week, even before the revelation of its “research” plans, Iran gibbed at a clause saying that if it resumed enrichment it would be referred to the UN. It says that the work is legal under the NPT, that its suspension is voluntary and that referral would be without legal basis. It also objects to the powers of inspection the resolution would give the IAEA.

The problem

THE problem is the NPT itself, which allows a country legally to acquire the skills to take it to the brink of weapons capability. The governors’ best retort, as Mr ElBaradei said, is that Iran has broken the treaty in concealing its work to the point where there is real cause for alarm about its intentions, and justification for exceptional curbs.

What Iran has won

IN TWO years of talks, Iran has edged forward. It has not dismantled the equipment. It has inserted clauses in all deals stressing that the suspension is “voluntary”. It is also said to be pleased with the clause saying it will join the IAEA’s “Expert Group on Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle”, reading into this membership of a “club” with a say in the making of the world’s nuclear fuel.

US weak

THIS week has shown the US’s weakness. France and Germany have made clear their commitment to negotiation, not referral, and Britain is still close to their position. As one senior British official puts it: “The US can’t say what it would want the Security Council to do” if it did secure a referral. Senior US officials acknowledge they are in no position to talk of military strikes against Iranian facilities, given the US’s predicament in Iraq and the lack of international support.

The US’s need for Pakistan’s support in Afghanistan appears to explain why it has not pushed harder for access to scientist AQ Khan, now under house arrest, for selling nuclear designs and equipment to Iran among others. Recent US news reports have suggested he sold weapons designs, something which, if confirmed, would secure a Security Council referral instantly.

ElBaradei out?

THE US has also not yet won much support on the board for its bid to dislodge Mr ElBaradei, who wants to begin a third term next year. The US has not formally stated its views, but American diplomats make little secret of their antipathy. “Thank heaven for small mercies”, said one, when the director-general did not win the Nobel Peace Prize earlier this year. They feel he is too sympathetic to Iran, perhaps because he is Muslim. They believe he would see referral to the Security Council as a personal failure (something strongly denied by his aides in Vienna). Above all, they feel he is promoting his own agenda, including the notion of an internationally-shared centre to make nuclear fuel, something they see as a Utopian distraction.

Fallout — South Korea

ONE of the side-effects of the Iranian impasse is that the IAEA is at a loss in dealing with South Korea’s similar but smaller infringements of enrichment experiments. A referral — without similar action on Iran — would look ludicrous.

Conclusion

THE deal that the three European countries struck with Iran, echoed in the draft resolution now before the board in Vienna, is a tough one, at face value. But even if it passes, the question is whether Iran will observe it — or whether it will resume enrichment. And the deal represents the loss of a year; this is, after all, no more than the deal the European trio thought they had last autumn. Above all, these negotiations show how much Iraq has cost the US: in the coolness of relations with France and Germany, in scepticism about its claims to have detected weapons of mass destruction, and in the assumption that it cannot contemplate military strikes.

IRAN IAEA AND TROIKA ON LOGGER HEAD IN VIENNA

By Safa Haeri
Posted Friday, November 26, 2004

E-mail this page Printer-friendly page

VIENNA, 26 Nov. (IPS) New Update Iranians and the Europeans in charge of the Iran’s controversial nuclear program met en tete a tete Friday at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to patch up divergences and “misunderstandings” that the surfaced Thursday at the beginning of the Agency’s Board of Directors here in Vienna.

Director General of the international nuclear watchdog, Mohammad ElBarade’i exploded a mini-bomb concerning Iran’s nuclear activities when he informed the 35 members of the Board of Directors that Iran is to keep alive “dozens” of centrifuges while it starts suspending all activities related to enriching uranium.

ElBarade’i exploded a mini-bomb when he informed the Board of IAEA's Directors that Iran is to keep alive “dozens” of centrifuges.

According to the report that Iran Press Service saw a copy, Iran wants to run these centrifuges for Research and Development (R&D), but the report, provided to some correspondents in Vienna by certain “so-called” diplomats, was immediately interpreted as “another sign that the Islamic Republic is backing off from earlier engagements with Europe’s Troika.

In an accord reached in Paris on 15 November 2004, Tehran accepted to interrupt enriching uranium for a limited period, against pledges by Britain, France and Germany to help Iran access to advanced nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes and signing a Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the European Union.

Iranian officials who spoke with IPS in Vienna on condition of anonymity said Iran had informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about running 20 centrifuges for R&D, indicating at the same time that all of them would remain open to inspections by the Agency’s inspectors.

“What one can do with 20 centrifuges while one needs hundreds, if not thousands for producing fuel for generating electricity”, he explained, adding that Iran had never accepted sealing Research and Development centrifuges.

“Maybe the Europeans (the Troika) thought that suspension would also include R&D, for, according to Mr. ElBarade’i, it is a problem between Iran and the Europe’s so-called “Big 3”, not with the IAEA.

In his report to the Board, Mr. ElBarade’i confirms that Iran has in halted all uranium enriching activities, as promised to both the Troika and his organisation, but at the same time states that Iran has conducted experiments to acquire “the know-how for almost every aspect" of the nuclear fuel cycle and details evidence that Iran repeatedly has not given the agency the information and access it has requested.

However, the demand to except some centrifuges badly angered the Troika, which produced a rather strong-tuned draft resolution that calls on Iran to stop all uranium enriching activities and sign the Additional Protocol to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

In London, the British Foreign Office dismissed the Iranian demand. "The agreement stands as it states," an official statement said. "There is absolutely no exception to the agreed suspension of all reprocessing, conversion and enrichment activities".

In Brussels, a European Union official had the same reaction, saying: "The response is no. It has to be no. An agreement is an agreement. This was a stupid move on the part of the Iranians".

The composition of the Iranian delegation at this meeting reflects the hardening of Tehran’s attitude in the nuclear controversy.

Iranian officials were as blunt: “As far we are concerned, difficulties with the (Big 3’s) draft resolution remain and talks we have with them would be difficult and long. Though they have promised substantial changes, but we are not convinced”, the Iranian news agency “Mehr” quoted Mr. Hoseyn Moussavian, one senior negotiator as having said.

In fact, the wording and the tone of the European draft has even angered the group of Non Aligned Movement represented at the Board of Directors.

“This is not to our satisfaction and we have warned the Europeans that if they do not poor some water (in the wine), we would prepare a draft of our own and presented it to the Board”, one NAM member told IPS, asking at the sane time not be named.

In his interview with “Mehr”, Mr. Moussavian, -- who had travelled to Moscow and Peking ahead of the Thursday meeting of the IAEA in order to get their support in case the Iranian case would go to the United Nations Security Council, as pressed by the United States – reiterated that Iran’s suspension of uranium enriching is “temporary and voluntarily”.

Interesting enough, Russia, the country that is building Iran’s first nuclear reactor, the one that the Americans and Israelis suspect would help the ruling ayatollahs to divert the technology to make an atomic weapon aimed at the Jewish State seems to have sided with the Big 3 concerning the R&D centrifuges.

However, under concording pressures, Franch, British and German diplomats agreed to soften their joint draft by changing some words and even formulas, including one that, according to an Iranian diplomat, changed the so-called "trigger mechanism" into a "continuation mechanic", meaning that the issue would eventually stay at Vienna.

“We do not go with Iran about excepting some centrifuges and on that matter, we agree with the European’s stand”, Mehr quoted one Russian diplomat at the IAEA who wished not be named.

As the wrangle continued late Thursday, independent observers in Vienna noted that the composition of the Iranian delegation at this meeting reflects that hardening of Tehran’s attitude in the nuclear controversy.

“The presence in the Iranian negotiating team of some officials known for their “radicalism” in the one hand and the low-profile of the delegates considered as “pragmatist” on the other shows that Iran not only Iran is about to lose patience with the endless talks, but also would push very hard on the centrifuges issue”, informed sources told IPS. ENDS IRAN NUCLEAR 251104

TEHRAN URGED TO RENOUNCE OFFICIALLY TO EXCEEPTING SOME CENTRIFUGES.

By Safa Haeri
Posted Friday, November 26, 2004

E-mail this page Printer-friendly page

VIENNA, 26 Nov. (IPS) Iran was asked by the International nuclear watchdog to spell out in an official letter that it renounces to except some centrifuges from the deal it coined on 15 November with the European Union’s so-called “Big 3”, Iran Press Service learned from informed sources in Vienna.

At the same time, Mr. Hoseyn Moussavian, the spokesman for the Iranian delegation said that Iran and the Big 3 “get closer” Friday after hours of direct talks at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over both the centrifuges issue and a draft resolution the Troika had tabled earlier after it learned that Tehran wanted to keep running some 20 centrifuges for Research and Development (R and D) purposes, informed Iranian sources told Iran Press Service.

Hoseyn Moussavian said that Iran and the Big 3 “are getting closer.

The latest minute dispute between Iran in the one side and Britain, France and Germany on the other surfaced after Mr. Mohammad ElBarade’i, the General Director of the Vienna-based IAEA informed the 35 members of the IAEA’s Board that Iran had asked for excepting “dozens” of centrifuges for R and D.

In the confidential report that had leaked to correspondents, Mr. ElBarade’I had also confirmed that Iran had suspended all activities related to enriching uranium, as agreed with the Big 3 on 15 November in Paris.

In a brief talk to reporters before the start of the direct meeting with the Europeans, Mr. Hoseyn Moussavian, the spokesman for the Iranian delegation dismissed the importance of the centrifuges.

But a German diplomat who asked for anonymity said the issue was a kind of “red line” for the Europeans.

“It seems that by raising the issue of centrifuges, the Iranians want to show their public opinion that they have teeth. That’s OK, but it is not our problem. What we want is Iran to stick hundred per cent to the Paris Agreement”, he added.

According to IPS sources, the Iranian delegation at the Friday direct talks with the Troika was able to get the Europeans to change some of the words the Iranian considers as “humiliating”, like “breach” (of agreement) or “indefinite” suspension (of uranium enriching) or (approving) “without delay” (the Additional Protocol to the Non Proliferation Treaty) with synonymous like “failure” etc.

The Iranian negotiators seemed to be pleased that the Troika has accepted some changes meaning that their case would continue in Vienna and not transferred to the United Nations Security Council, as demanded by the United States.

“In case Tehran refuses to send an official letter informing explicitly that it abides by the Paris agreement and renounces to excepting the centrifuges for R and D, the Troika would withdraw its draft resolution”, a spokesman for the IAEA told reporters, confirming that the views of Iran and the Europeans have narrowed.

“However the question of the centrifuges remains as the central issue”, he added at the end of a session of the Board of Directors discussing the problem of South Korea, where some scientists have for years enriched uranium in secret laboratories, though in a very small quantity.

In case Tehran refuses to send an official letter informing that it renounces to excepting the centrifuges for R and D, the Troika would withdraw its draft resolution.

While Iranians here say that they had informed the IAEA and its General Director about excepting 20 centrifuges for Research and Development needs, European diplomats say they consider this as a breach to the Paris Accords that says Iran has agreed to suspend all uranium enriching activities and approve the Protocols that allows international inspectors to visit any Iranian nuclear site or project at any time, without any restrictions.

For his part, a spokesman for the group of Non Aligned Movement at the Board said the dispute over the centrifuges is between Iran and the Europeans and does not regard the NAM.

Observers said that the group had warned the Troika that if it not introduces some changes in its drafts, the Non Aligned would initiate one of their own and present it to the Board for consideration.

“The third draft worked out by the Europeans is closer to our views and satisfies some of our expectations”, Mr. Moussavian stressed, speaking to Iranian reporters. ENDS IRAN IAEA 261104

Nuclear Technolgy and National Sovereignty

SMCCDI (Public Statement)
Nov 25, 2004

The result of the presidential election of the United States of America on one hand, and the resignation of its "dovish" Secretary of State, broke the obstinate and procrastinate resistance of the Islamic republic for uranium enrichment, before the three European countries, and in the weekly press conference on Sunday November 21^st, the speaker of the Mullahs foreign minister, with the a rushing announcement to halt all uranium enrichment program stressed that permanent suspension is not in our agenda and what we are doing is to halt voluntarily and is base on the agreement with European countries.

Islamic Republic has gained golden time for the process of enriching uranium by stretching of the 16 months discussions with Europeans. Now, right before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors meeting, Islamic Republic, with all the deceits, wants to block referring it's case to the U.N. Security Council by temporarily halting the uranium enriching, in spite of the Majlis decree to re-start the program. In this direction, we can mention the efforts of the mullahs for alluring the outwardly communist China with Billions of dollars to support Iran in the United Nation Security Council.

The Paris agreement and the repeated warnings of the Europeans to Tehran rulers for the consequences of rejecting these agreements, shows a few important points:

First, Europe and the World have found out that there is not just one power and management in the Islamic Republic, and any agreement with the fully authorized representatives of Islamic Republic can be vetoed by the other powerful faction of the government. In the "Akhoond (Mullah) infested Iran", there are believers that do not withhold any efforts of arming the Army of Islam with golden dream of nuclear power.

Second, the Europeans know well that referring Iran's nuclear issue to the U.N Security Council, and conviction and possible economical sanctions of Iran, will deprive the European Union from continuation of astronomical deals and easy coming profits. In fact, the main loser of this sanction will be Europe, not Islamic Republic. So, the Europeans, like mullahs, also will profit from this stretched dialogue. But, with disappointment of this Union (European) and Islamic Republic on John Kerry's defeat, and knowing of Bush's cabinet to refer the Iran's nuclear case to the Security Council, the humbly requests of Europeans from Islamic Republic for accepting the Paris agreement in the form of repeated warnings in one hand and more important, the resignation of the moderate US Secretary of States, on the other hand, forced the mullahs to surrender, or better to say in Islamic term "to dissimulate" (Taghiyeh).

Third, although, it is emphasized by the European Union and Islamic Republic, the fight against terrorism and continuous support for the political changes for an elected government in Iraq, in this agreement, but it is not mention to force the mullahs for observance of human rights, which was one of the conditions of European Union for commercial exchanges and economical relations with Islamic Republic before. In fact, the Europeans have linked the non-observance of the human rights in Iran to the Islamic Republic internal affairs and, in fact, show that they have not gone beyond of just issuance of statement or worthless conversations. The Iranian freedom fighters remember some models of this softness of Europeans before the savagery of mullahs.

It seems that deceitful and tradesmen Europeans have replaced the human rights issues with more "important and profitable" Mullahs' nuclear issues. It is interesting that in many European countries the criminal and terrorism cases of even the current rulers of the Islamic Republic are still open and then they confederate with terrorists and the founders of Islamic terrorism against terrorism, shamelessly. On the other hand, there is no one who doesn't know that how the return of peace and democracy in Iraq could topple the Islamic Republic, and why the Islamic Republic could be the source of instigations of the Shi'is, homicides and sparks in Iraq.

The "Student Movement Coordination committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI) stresses that obtaining the nuclear technology for peaceful means such as producing electricity, is one of the indisputable rights of all nations, including Iranian nation. But, on one side the secrets of mullahs in this matter and production of aggressive weapons such as long range missiles, and declamations of the Islamic Republic Sepah (Guardians of Revolution) commanders, make the peaceful use of this program doubtful and jeopardize the national interests of Iran, and on the other hand, the responsibility of use of nuclear energy must be with the real elected representatives of people of Iran.

For several times, we announce that we condemn any military attack to Iran and for fighting against Islamic terrorism and return of a long lasting peace in Middle East we believe in the followings:

1-The Islamic republic, for it's ties with Islamic ideology, is not reformable and any believe in reforming this regime is like believe in the reform of the Muslim God.

2- There is no military solution to the issue of Iran and the terrorist foster Islamic Republic.

3- If, Europe, Russia and the upstart China stop milking and plundering the national resources of Iranians and, with the United States government, support the struggle of the Iranian people to establish a democratic regime, and, as this committee mentioned in it's statement on Esfand 21^st, 1381 (March 12^th, 2003), if they give priority to a national free election (referendum) instead of the nuclear topic, they have taken a more effective step towards the stability and peace in the region.

Let it be considered that the downfall of the oligarchic-terrorist Islamic republic regime will lead to the establishment of National Sovereignty in Iran and peace around the world.

Long Live Freedom!
Long Live Secularism!
Long Live Democracy!

Tehran, November 25, 2004 (4th Azar 1383)

The "Student Movement Coordination committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI)

US hawks sharpen talons as Iran accord falters

By Guy Dinmore
Published: November 26 2004 02:00 | Last updated: November 26 2004 02:00

A deal with Europe committing Iran to freezing sensitive elements of its nuclear programme threatened to unravel yesterday as officials wrangled over final details.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, where negotiations were continuing, said Iran wanted to keep working on a small number of centrifuge machines for experimental purposes, but without using nuclear material.

There was also debate over how intrusive the United Nations nuclear watchdog could be with its inspections in Iran and the duration of the freeze on enrichment.

Diplomats were still hopeful the deal would be rescued, but said the negotiations revealed a lack of trust on both sides. The US has refused to endorse the agreement, worked out by France, Germany and the UK. A breakdown would leave the Bush administration without an alternative approach, however.

Diplomats in Washington closely involved with the issue said that in effect there was no US policy towards Iran. Martin Indyk, ambassador to Israel under the Clinton administration, said President George W. Bush had put Iran in the "too-hard basket". But he admitted that under President Bill Clinton neither attempts at containment of Iran nor engagement had worked.

Danielle Pletka, a senior Middle East analyst at the influential neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, this week sketched out what a second Bush administration's policy towards Iran might look like.

It did not go unnoticed among her audience of experts that she avoided the words "regime change". At odds with other neo-conservatives, who for years have described the Islamic regime as one ready to fall like a rotten fruit, Ms Pletka said a revolution was not on the cards.

Policy to date had been characterised by "frustrated concern and congressionally mandated sanctions", said Ms Pletka. She admitted this was not good enough: "Facing something with nothing is not an effective alternative in foreign policy."

The administration should not get dragged into bargaining with Iran over "incremental" steps, she said, as it had with North Korea. Instead it should consider a Libya-type offer of a "grand bargain".

In exchange for handing over all weapons of mass destruction and halting support for "terrorist" groups, the US should be prepared to renew diplomatic relations and remove unilateral sanctions. There would be no negotiations, she said.

As Iran is unlikely to take such a decision, what remained was a "twin-track" approach of tightened containment backed by preparations to use military force.

"We need to provide much more support for Iranian dissidents," Ms Pletka said. The Central Intelligence Agency should also develop "on the ground" capabilities.

The funding element is already set out in the draft Iran Freedom Support Act, which has been put forward in Congress. This would also punish foreign companies investing in Iran, but Ms

Pletka said this was no time for the US to get involved in a trade war with Europe.

Over the past month or so the "military option" for Iran has been the hottest topic of debate in Washington. Senior officials say military intervention is not being considered. However, it is an open secret that influential neo-conservatives at least hope Iraq will be sufficiently stable within a year to free up the US military for its next campaign.

Military strategies have been discussed among the community of think-tanks and armchair generals. But the options remain unattractive, partly because of Iran's ability to retaliate itself or through its allies, such as Lebanon's Hezbollah. Daniel Byman, a terrorism expert, said Iran had the capability to make Iraq "a living hell for the US".

Ms Pletka, however, said the limits of US military abilities had been exaggerated. "That's the end of the road," she said of the military option.

In the US State Department, officials speak of a state of limbo as Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser, prepares to take over as secretary of state from Colin Powell.

Modest attempts by Mr Powell to open a dialogue with Iran failed because of opposition from administration "hawks", say officials, and because of Iranian actions such as its ambiguous treatment of al-Qaeda activists in its custody.

However, in the summer of 2003, Ms Rice and Mr Powell did succeed in thwarting efforts by the "hawks", including Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, to make regime change the declared policy. But this was replaced by what amounted to contracting out policy to the European Union.

A year later, with the efforts of the European Union to defuse Iran's nuclear programme hanging in the balance, one official says there is no longer much "daylight" between the US hawks and doves.

There is also little confidence, after the divisions over Iraq, that Washington's European allies are ready to wield the sticks of economic and other sanctions to get Iran in line on the key issues of nuclear weapons and support for terrorist groups.

"It's a mess," the US official commented. European diplomats next to him agreed.

Payvand's Iran News ...

1/26/04

Iran-EU dispute unresolved on parts of draft resolution to IAEA
Vienna, Nov 26, IRNA -- A senior diplomat said in Vienna on Thursday that Iran-EU differences of opinion over parts the union's amended draft resolution about Iran's nuclear energy program still remain unresolved. The diplomat, speaking on conditions of anonymity, said the amendments to EU's draft resolution accommodate four of Iran's main objections to the previous version. The diplomat added that an objection had been almost resolved, but one still remains disputed. The diplomat said Iran and the EU have arrived at no agreement on Clause 3 of the draft resolution -- Clause 2 in the new version -- which calls for reporting Iran's breaches of pledges to suspend uranium enrichment activities. The verified clause urges the director general of the International Energy Agency (IAEA) to "report without delay to the [IAEA] board [of governors] should the agency find that the suspension is not fully sustained, or should the agency be prevented from verifying all elements of the suspension, for as long as the suspension is in force". The diplomat further said another Iran-EU dispute over the amended resolution concerns the ambiguity over issue of third-party countries in contamination cases. The diplomat recalled arguments that third-party countries may not cooperate in those cases and that the issue might remain unresolved for years. Clause 8 of the previous draft resolution, which is Clause 6 in the revised version, has been completely amended to meet Iran's requests. The amended clause requests Iran to allow access deemed necessary by the agency to all locations in line with the Additional Protocol. The diplomat further stressed that a major part of the problems with Clause 7 of the previous draft resolution has been removed. Clause 7 -- which is Clause 5 in the amended version of the resolution -- emphasized the director general's "providing credible assurances," adding, however, that this left it open to the director general not to provide assurances for an unknown period of time. The diplomat said Clause 5 of has been changed on that it welcomes investigations into all issues, "in particular the origin of contamination and the extent of Iran's centrifuge program, as well as the full implementation of Iran's Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, with a view to drawing conclusion regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran". The problems with Clause 2 -- now Clause 1 -- have been almost completely removed. Iran was against this clause in that it called for sustaining uranium enrichment activities. The diplomat said the phrase "sustain this suspension" of the clause has been amended by 70 percent, and that the term "sustained" has been completely removed from the clause. The EU has amended Clause 1 of the resolution by adding that "the board considers the full and sustained implementation of this confidence building measure essential to addressing outstanding issues". The diplomat elsewhere in his remarks stressed that the revised edition of EU's draft resolution refers to the recent Paris Agreement with Iran, and stresses that Iran's nuclear case should be removed from the agenda of the IAEA Board of Governors. The draft resolution has also described Iran's decision to suspend uranium enrichment activities as merely a voluntarily measure meant for building confidence.

Iran-EU dispute unresolved on parts of draft resolution to IAEA

Vienna, Nov 26, IRNA -- A senior diplomat said in Vienna on Thursday that Iran-EU differences of opinion over parts the union's amended draft resolution about Iran's nuclear energy program still remain unresolved.

The diplomat, speaking on conditions of anonymity, said the amendments to EU's draft resolution accommodate four of Iran's main objections to the previous version. The diplomat added that an objection had been almost resolved, but one still remains disputed.

The diplomat said Iran and the EU have arrived at no agreement on Clause 3 of the draft resolution -- Clause 2 in the new version -- which calls for reporting Iran's breaches of pledges to suspend uranium enrichment activities.

The verified clause urges the director general of the International Energy Agency (IAEA) to "report without delay to the [IAEA] board [of governors] should the agency find that the suspension is not fully sustained, or should the agency be prevented from verifying all elements of the suspension, for as long as the suspension is in force".

The diplomat further said another Iran-EU dispute over the amended resolution concerns the ambiguity over issue of third-party countries in contamination cases.

The diplomat recalled arguments that third-party countries may not cooperate in those cases and that the issue might remain unresolved for years.

Clause 8 of the previous draft resolution, which is Clause 6 in the revised version, has been completely amended to meet Iran's requests.

The amended clause requests Iran to allow access deemed necessary by the agency to all locations in line with the Additional Protocol.

The diplomat further stressed that a major part of the problems with Clause 7 of the previous draft resolution has been removed.

Clause 7 -- which is Clause 5 in the amended version of the resolution -- emphasized the director general's "providing credible assurances," adding, however, that this left it open to the director general not to provide assurances for an unknown period of time.

The diplomat said Clause 5 of has been changed on that it welcomes investigations into all issues, "in particular the origin of contamination and the extent of Iran's centrifuge program, as well as the full implementation of Iran's Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, with a view to drawing conclusion regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran".

The problems with Clause 2 -- now Clause 1 -- have been almost completely removed. Iran was against this clause in that it called for sustaining uranium enrichment activities.

The diplomat said the phrase "sustain this suspension" of the clause has been amended by 70 percent, and that the term "sustained" has been completely removed from the clause.

The EU has amended Clause 1 of the resolution by adding that "the board considers the full and sustained implementation of this confidence building measure essential to addressing outstanding issues".

The diplomat elsewhere in his remarks stressed that the revised edition of EU's draft resolution refers to the recent Paris Agreement with Iran, and stresses that Iran's nuclear case should be removed from the agenda of the IAEA Board of Governors.

The draft resolution has also described Iran's decision to suspend uranium enrichment activities as merely a voluntarily measure meant for building confidence.