Iranian Alert -- August 31, 2003 -- LIVE THREAD PING LIST

21 posted on 08/31/2003 5:05:22 PM PDT by windchime

Is the Energy Map Next on the Neo-conservative Cartography Agenda?

August 31, 2003
Middle East Economic Review
Edward L Morse

The paper trail left by what are known as “neo-con” analysts about their preferred political map of the Middle East is well known. It is built on the twin assumptions that post Cold War geopolitics will remain unipolar for a long time and that the world’s sole “hyper” power, the US, has the right to recraft the structures of geopolitics to make the world more benign, from its perspective.

Globalization has increased the potential for terrorism. Unipolarity, in turn, justifies “preemption” by the hyper power to contain and eliminate the forces that sponsor it. These new international conditions also justify the policy of “regime change” and the political engineering of new democratic institutions, whose advent is allegedly accompanied by greater stability and peace. On the potential US target list, beyond Iraq, are Iran, Syria and even, perhaps, Saudi Arabia – all of which are critical to world oil.

Many around the world, especially in the Middle East, have suspected that oil was a key motivating factor in the US invasion of Iraq and every once in a while evidence is brought to bear that it is. Recently Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, for example, in response to a question about why the US tackled Iraq rather than North Korea, responded that one difference was that Iraq was “swimming” in oil. While oil clearly played a role in the targeting of Iraq, it has been less obvious what kind of oil map the American ‘neo-cons’ want to draw.

What do we know of the neo-con view of oil? It’s impossible to understand the attitudes of the neo-cons about petroleum today without a glimpse back to the heady days of the Cold War and of efforts by officials in the Pentagon and elsewhere, including Richard Perle, once a senior official at the Pentagon, but now a senior advisor to Secretary Rumsfeld and a professional at the American Enterprise Institute, to wage economic warfare on the former Soviet Union. In this context five critical elements appear to underlie the neo-con approach to oil.

First, the neo-cons have a clear orientation to prices: the lower the better! High prices have resulted in the transfer of much more than $1 trillion, and possibly as much as $3 trillion to governments in the oil producing world since 1973, many of which have used the revenues not just for unproductive purposes, but worse, they have financed terrorist acts against the interests of the US and some of its allies.

Second, the neo-cons want to undermine, if not destroy OPEC.

Third, as is the case in the broader neo conservative approach to geopolitics, the approach to oil is anything but conservative. It is radical and revisionist and is oriented far more toward what is possible and desirable to accomplish through the dismantlement of outmoded institutions and the engineering of change than it is mindful of the consequences of meddling with inherited political structures.

Fourth, it takes great exception to the view prevailing broadly in the rules and regulations of international trade for the past 60 years that politics and trade ought to be kept on their separate tracks. Indeed, it turns on its head the central rule against using trade instruments for foreign policy purposes, a rule that would obstruct the wielding of the oil weapon by oil producing states and outlaw secondary boycotts, punishing those that trade with the primary targets of embargoes. Rather, it justifies use of the oil weapon by oil importing countries to punish oil exporters supporting terrorism by depriving them of income, and it actively promotes secondary boycotts, based on the view that whatever damage might result from promoting secondary boycotts is far outweighed by the benefits of depriving supporters of terrorism of revenue. It scorns the notion that oil producers can take revenge against those boycotting their exports. Rather it takes the view that oil sellers are far more in need of a market than buyers are of supply – selling oil to “us” in short, is no favor to us; rather our buying their oil is a favor to them.

Fifth, and wholly supportive of the fourth factor, neo-cons believe that petroleum resources ought to be owned and regulated by the private sector rather than by governments, because the private sector, left to its own, will maximize output and efficiency and bring prices down. It will also provide a means for assuring that citizens have a stake in the petroleum resources of their country.

These five features of the neo-con view of oil were born in the 1980s and were embodied in the effort to destroy the Soviet Union and declare victory over the USSR to end the Cold War. They have been carried forward and adapted to the conditions of the post Cold War unipolar, globalized world and the war on terrorism.

Let us examine these five factors, in both their Cold War and their current contexts.

It is natural that low oil prices lie at the core of the neo-con view of oil. Transparent markets create the conditions for low commodity prices and for sustained economic growth. But they also play a key role in the access to and the use of funds generated by oil exports by oil exporting countries.

In today’s world, the financing of terrorists is deemed to depend unduly on revenues generated by oil, whether directly in the case of Iranian aid to Hizbollah, or indirectly, in the case of Saudi official and private sector channeling of funds to charities, which, in their turn, have financed al-Qa 'ida. In the 1980s, the primary target of low prices was the primary enemy of the United States, the Soviet Union. Since hydrocarbon exports were the single most important source of revenue for the USSR, one of the best ways to sap the strength of the USSR was to deprive it of revenues needed to buy the technology required to maintain Soviet military power and needed to finance Soviet objectives abroad.

The second feature of the neo-con view of oil is the obsession of a number of neo-conservative writers on ways to undermine OPEC. This view was obscured in the Cold War context, since key OPEC members were allied to the US in the effort to block the advance of the Soviet Union’s influence in the Middle East. But it has come to the fore today. OPEC is viewed as far from a benign institution that aims at stabilizing prices. It is viewed as an organization whose underlying structures have facilitated the accumulation of capital for dangerous ends, and it has helped create failed states rather than channeled capital into productive investments that buttress successful societies. It also embodies values and premises that are counter to those of market societies and that underpin democratic institutions. The proceedings of conferences of neo-conservative groups have been marked by efforts to unmask the so-called linkages and causalities between OPEC, oil income, terrorism, and failed states, and between citizens‘ sharing in oil revenues and successful countries. No wonder the view has been taken that oil was a critical element in the removal of Saddam Husain. Iraq, for many neo-cons is the key to the anti-OPEC strategy.

The third element – the neo-cons’ radical, proactive orientation to change – also has its roots in the Cold War. It stems from the approach taken toward the Soviet Union: Finding a way to bring about the collapse of the regime and help replace that regime with one based on democratic institutions, an idea deemed far-fetched in the early to mid-1980s. There were several elements to this approach. There is now clear evidence, for example, that there were discussions between senior US officials, including CIA Director William Casey, and senior Saudi officials, including King Fahd, in the mid-1980s to reduce radically the price of oil in order to reduce access to foreign exchange by Moscow, Tehran and Tripoli. No one disputes that other factors also motivated Riyadh, not the least being the need to regain lost market share. Yet, the lesson learned in neo-conservative circles was that there was direct causality in the agreement to bring down oil prices radically in 1985-86, and the collapse of the USSR five years later.

To be sure oil prices were not the only element of the proactive approach taken by Washington to win the Cold War. It was combined with other elements of economic warfare, including an arms race designed to induce Moscow to expand military expenditures to the point of bankrupting the country, tight restrictions on export credits and on sales of high technology goods, and with placing obstacles on the USSR’s efforts to expand hydrocarbon exports through natural gas sales to Western Europe.

Justifiable economic warfare thus constitutes the fourth element of the neo-con approach to oil. Without condoning either the wielding of the oil weapon by oil producing states or the use of secondary boycotts against firms doing business with Israel, the neo-cons have wholeheartedly embraced the use of the oil weapon to deprive oil producers the wherewithal to finance terrorism and other political objectives abroad. Hence there is little accident that the very same people who were central to the waging of economic warfare against the USSR have also been central to the adoption of policies aimed at isolating Libya and Iran by depriving them of revenues via limitations on exports and on investments that could boost production capacity and, therefore, future income. They did so in the 1980s, a decade before the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, and they were wholly supportive of that legislation.

Finally, there is the issue of privatization. This issue has been central to recent discussions about post-Saddam Iraq, notwithstanding the consistent rhetorical position of Washington that it will be up to a future Iraqi government to decide this matter. Underpinning the neo-con approach is that fostering private ownership of oil resources is a legitimate objective of US policy vis-à-vis the oil producing countries.

Two rationales are offered. The first has to do with the likely consequences: more efficient maximization of oil production, lower prices and lower revenue to be channeled directly into government coffers and available for purposes unfriendly to the US. The second has to do with creating linkages between citizens and a sharing in the exploitation of oil resources. The neo-cons have been obsessed with ways to assure that oil-producing countries can be re-engineered to achieve this end. Their discussions of Iraq have focused, for example, on royalty systems, like those in place in Alaska, or the revenue sharing mechanism of the Osage nation in Osage County (Oklahoma) in which citizens share directly in each barrel of oil produced. Their discussions have also involved other ways to assure that all Iraqis would be able to participate in ownership of oil in the country through schemes that do not repeat the mistakes of privatization in Russia, mistakes that led to the transfer of a state monopoly to a handful of oligarchs rather than to the workers in the industries meant to be provided ownership.

This neo-conservative approach is often tied to views concerning Israel’s role in the Middle East. When reference is made to the neo-conservative approach to redrawing the energy map of the region, it is often linked as well to oil and gas supplies from the region being made indiscriminately available to Israel. It is even tied to the reconstruction of the oil pipeline linking Kirkuk to Haifa. That’s because of the prominence among neo-cons of avid supporters of Israel. But one need not bring Israel into the discussion to understand the profound changes that could occur if the neo-con view prevails.

What have been left out of our discussion are two critical issues. First, do the neo-cons represent US policy? The answer of course is both yes and no. “Yes,” there are neo-cons in the US government, especially in the Pentagon, but also in key positions in the State Department, the office of the Vice President and the White House. But, “no,” it is only one strand of influence in the bureaucratic pulling and hauling that go into Presidential policy-making and there is absolutely no evidence that President Bush has adopted their position wholly either in the political or petroleum arenas. Indeed, the policies pursued by Energy Secretary Abraham have been directly supportive of Saudi Arabia and OPEC, and US officials have gone out of their way publicly to indicate their support of oil priced in the mid-$20s, despite a tradition of never indicating a preference for one price or another. These are hardly neo-con approaches to oil.

Second, there is the issue of whether the neo-conservative view is much more than an optical illusion. The collapse of the USSR, after all, occurred for reasons that go well beyond the waging of economic warfare by Washington and relate to the decay of domestic political institutions. In the oil sector, there are phenomenal and powerful obstacles to fundamental changes taking place, including those designed on the charting table of the neo-cons in Washington. Changing the cartography of petroleum and re-engineering the international petroleum sector will take much more than the toppling of Saddam Husain.

MEES
VOL. XLVI
No 33, 18-August-2003

Edward L Morse is Executive Adviser at Hess Energy Trading Company and was US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Energy Policy in 1979-81. Its views are not necessarily those of Petroleumworld.

Editor's Note:This article appeared in the latest edition of the quarterly Oxford Energy Forum and reprinted with permission by Middle East Economic Revew, on 18-August-2003.Petroleumworld reprint this article in the interest of our readers.

Petroleumworld.com 08 31 03

http://www.petroleumworld.com/SDY083103.htm

22 posted on 08/31/2003 7:28:43 PM PDT by DoctorZIn

Iran's Nuclear Capability Represents "Nightmare Scenario"

August 31, 2003
EU Business
AFP

Iran's pursuit of a nuclear capability is a "nightmare scenario" which demands immediate international action, Israeli Foreign Minsiter Silvan Shalom said Sunday.

"Iran is fast apporaching the point of no return in its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons capability," Shalom said here after talks with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana who was fresh from a visit to Tehran.

"It's urgent that the international community act to ensure that this nightmare scenario is prevented."

Solana said he had urged the Islamic republic to agree to snap inspections by the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi on Saturday.

"We have asked the Iranian government to sign the additional protocol as soon as poosible and to give a clear and urgent anser to the question before the publication on September 8 of the report of the IAEA in Vienna," said Solana.

The European Union has joined the wider international community in pressing Iran to sign an additional protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that would allow IAEA inspectors to descend on its nuclear sites without warning to ensure that Tehran was not secretly developing atomic weapons.

Brussels last month warned that, without credible guarantees over the protocol, it would review its economic ties with the country after an IAEA report on Iran is presented in Vienna between September 8 and 11.

Israel has come to regard Iran as its chief military threat since the downfall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

It warned last month said that a new ballistic missile that was officially inaugurated by Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei represented a threat to the whole of the Middle East.

http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/030831161331.qq5hzw1y

23 posted on 08/31/2003 7:29:32 PM PDT by DoctorZIn

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

Iran's Nuclear Capability Represents "Nightmare Scenario"

August 31, 2003
EU Business
AFP

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/973496/posts?page=23#23

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

24 posted on 08/31/2003 7:30:37 PM PDT by DoctorZIn

Flawed Approaches on Iran

September 01, 2003
The Moscow Times
Jon B. Wolfsthal

Even during the depths of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union often worked together to halt the spread of nuclear weapons to new countries. Now, both countries are dealing with the realization that Iran's nuclear program is more advanced than previously thought and may be aimed directly at acquiring nuclear weapons in the next few years.

Unfortunately, the approaches being pursued by both countries will do nothing to slow Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons, and a new approach and better coordination is desperately needed before it is too late.

For the better part of a decade, U.S. officials pressured Russia to stop its support for the Bushehr nuclear reactor project in Iran. The United States argued that the power plant was a front for Iran to acquire weapons-related technology, a charge that Russian rejected. It now appears that both sides may have been wrong.

Counter to U.S. projections, Iran appears to have used Pakistan and other third parties to develop a uranium enrichment technology based on centrifuges, instead of relying on covert acquisitions of Russian technology. This does not mean, however, that Russian experts or companies have not been involved in this program without the Kremlin's knowledge or permission -- only that Russia appears not to be the primary source of Iran's newfound capabilities. Yet Russia also ignored clear signs that Iran was interested in much more than a peaceful nuclear power program. Its willingness to engage in nuclear commerce with Iran, while financially beneficial, is now coming back to negatively effect Russia's security.

To remedy the situation, the two countries have adopted similarly flawed approaches. Russian officials are working with Iran to ensure that any fuel used in the reactor at Bushehr -- fuel that when reprocessed could produce hundreds of nuclear weapons worth of plutonium -- is returned to Russia. For its part, with Russian support, the United States is pushing Iran to join the IAEA's enhanced inspection agreement, which will give the agency broader inspection and monitoring rights in Iran.

While both of these initiatives are helpful, they will do absolutely nothing to head off the main challenge posed by Iran's growing nuclear program -- Tehran's construction of advanced centrifuge enrichment facilities that could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for 20 weapons per year by the end of the decade. Iran has stated that it is developing the means to produce its own enriched uranium fuel for the Bushehr reactors out of concern that the United States will convince Russia to cut off its fuel supply.

Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a party, states are entitled to engage in all manner of peaceful nuclear development as long as they accept international inspections. This provision, however, allows states to use the cover of the treaty to acquire the very means to produce a formidable nuclear arsenal, and then later withdraw from the pact and use the material for nuclear weapons. At the heart of international concerns is the risk that Iran will follow just this scenario to the detriment of regional and even global security.

To head off this eventuality, the United States and Russia should reach quick agreement on a new strategy that would not only head off Iran's nuclear weapons potential, but address the underlying flaw in the NPT system. At a minimum, Russia should offer to guarantee -- with explicit U.S. endorsement -- Iran's supply of fuel for the Bushehr reactor as long as Iran abandons its indigenous uranium enrichment and plutonium production programs. This offer would give Iran a clear choice -- a reliable foreign source of nuclear energy or an internal nuclear program with weapons potential. The choice that Iran makes would help show the international community Iran's true intentions.

To many, it is already clear that at a minimum, Iran is seeking the option of producing nuclear weapons through its own independent nuclear program. Given its history of conflict with Iraq -- a state by no means guaranteed of a peaceful and stable future -- as well as the perceived threats from Israel's and America's nuclear arsenals, Iran's position is understandable in some circles. But this nuclear option would only serve to increase the desire of other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Syria and even a future independent Iraq, to acquire their own nuclear options, to say nothing of the steps Israel might take before Iran's became a reality.

Thus, in addition to the offer to guarantee Iran's supply of low enriched uranium fuel for its nuclear reactor, the United States and Russia should revisit the idea of establishing a clear policy that nuclear weapons will not be used to threaten states that do not have nuclear weapons or an active nuclear program. Amazingly, since the end of the Cold War, both the United States and Russia have increased the circumstances under which they would be willing to use or threaten use of nuclear weapons. It is time the two countries recognize that such a policy has negative implications that could drive states to acquire nuclear weapons.

Russia and America have an important legacy of preventing proliferation of which they should be proud. It is a legacy that should be revived and focused on the core proliferation threats in Iran and elsewhere before the nuclear confrontation of the Cold War is replaced by a broader nuclear competition the two states will not find as easy to control.

Jon B. Wolfsthal, deputy director of the Nonproliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/09/01/006.html

25 posted on 08/31/2003 7:31:52 PM PDT by DoctorZIn

Iran Bans Car Imports

September 01, 2003
Agence France Presse
Arab News

TEHRAN -- Iran has again banned imports of foreign-made cars despite lifting a prohibition just weeks ago, the local press reported a minister as saying yesterday.

“Until we become confident that the domestic conditions for car imports are ready, we will not allow foreign car imports,” Iranian Commerce Minister Ali Shariatmadari was quoted as saying. “There are more than 15,000 workshops and factories engaged in car-part manufacturing. Their preservation is the government’s duty, so we will not jeopardize their existence by importing foreign-made cars,” he added.

“We wanted to import foreign-made cars in order to rid the streets of polluting cars, but not at the expense of destroying our domestic car manufacturing industry,” Shariatmadari said.

As early as three days ago, a senior official in the Commerce Ministry named five brands of foreign cars ready to export to Iran. Mitsubishi, Toyota, BMW, Hyundai and Lada were given the green light to ship 35 different models to Iran, of which 33 were sedans and the rest minibuses, Hossein Faraji, trade chief at the Ministry of Commerce told newspapers.

It would have been the first time since the 1979 Islamic revolution that Iran sanctioned car imports, albeit under hefty duty, in order to ease pressure on outdated domestic producers. Currently, all Iranian cars are made under license from foreign companies.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=31175&d=1&m=9&y=2003

26 posted on 08/31/2003 7:32:34 PM PDT by DoctorZIn

To: DoctorZIn; nuconvert; seamole; AdmSmith; Valin; yonif; McGavin999; Eala; RaceBannon

Flawed Approaches on Iran

By Jon B. Wolfsthal

Even during the depths of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union often worked together to halt the spread of nuclear weapons to new countries. Now, both countries are dealing with the realization that Iran's nuclear program is more advanced than previously thought and may be aimed directly at acquiring nuclear weapons in the next few years. Unfortunately, the approaches being pursued by both countries will do nothing to slow Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons, and a new approach and better coordination is desperately needed before it is too late.

For the better part of a decade, U.S. officials pressured Russia to stop its support for the Bushehr nuclear reactor project in Iran. The United States argued that the power plant was a front for Iran to acquire weapons-related technology, a charge that Russian rejected. It now appears that both sides may have been wrong.

Counter to U.S. projections, Iran appears to have used Pakistan and other third parties to develop a uranium enrichment technology based on centrifuges, instead of relying on covert acquisitions of Russian technology. This does not mean, however, that Russian experts or companies have not been involved in this program without the Kremlin's knowledge or permission -- only that Russia appears not to be the primary source of Iran's newfound capabilities. Yet Russia also ignored clear signs that Iran was interested in much more than a peaceful nuclear power program. Its willingness to engage in nuclear commerce with Iran, while financially beneficial, is now coming back to negatively effect Russia's security.

To remedy the situation, the two countries have adopted similarly flawed approaches. Russian officials are working with Iran to ensure that any fuel used in the reactor at Bushehr -- fuel that when reprocessed could produce hundreds of nuclear weapons worth of plutonium -- is returned to Russia. For its part, with Russian support, the United States is pushing Iran to join the IAEA's enhanced inspection agreement, which will give the agency broader inspection and monitoring rights in Iran.

While both of these initiatives are helpful, they will do absolutely nothing to head off the main challenge posed by Iran's growing nuclear program -- Tehran's construction of advanced centrifuge enrichment facilities that could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for 20 weapons per year by the end of the decade. Iran has stated that it is developing the means to produce its own enriched uranium fuel for the Bushehr reactors out of concern that the United States will convince Russia to cut off its fuel supply.

Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a party, states are entitled to engage in all manner of peaceful nuclear development as long as they accept international inspections. This provision, however, allows states to use the cover of the treaty to acquire the very means to produce a formidable nuclear arsenal, and then later withdraw from the pact and use the material for nuclear weapons. At the heart of international concerns is the risk that Iran will follow just this scenario to the detriment of regional and even global security.

To head off this eventuality, the United States and Russia should reach quick agreement on a new strategy that would not only head off Iran's nuclear weapons potential, but address the underlying flaw in the NPT system. At a minimum, Russia should offer to guarantee -- with explicit U.S. endorsement -- Iran's supply of fuel for the Bushehr reactor as long as Iran abandons its indigenous uranium enrichment and plutonium production programs. This offer would give Iran a clear choice -- a reliable foreign source of nuclear energy or an internal nuclear program with weapons potential. The choice that Iran makes would help show the international community Iran's true intentions.

To many, it is already clear that at a minimum, Iran is seeking the option of producing nuclear weapons through its own independent nuclear program. Given its history of conflict with Iraq -- a state by no means guaranteed of a peaceful and stable future -- as well as the perceived threats from Israel's and America's nuclear arsenals, Iran's position is understandable in some circles. But this nuclear option would only serve to increase the desire of other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Syria and even a future independent Iraq, to acquire their own nuclear options, to say nothing of the steps Israel might take before Iran's became a reality.

Thus, in addition to the offer to guarantee Iran's supply of low enriched uranium fuel for its nuclear reactor, the United States and Russia should revisit the idea of establishing a clear policy that nuclear weapons will not be used to threaten states that do not have nuclear weapons or an active nuclear program. Amazingly, since the end of the Cold War, both the United States and Russia have increased the circumstances under which they would be willing to use or threaten use of nuclear weapons. It is time the two countries recognize that such a policy has negative implications that could drive states to acquire nuclear weapons.

Russia and America have an important legacy of preventing proliferation of which they should be proud. It is a legacy that should be revived and focused on the core proliferation threats in Iran and elsewhere before the nuclear confrontation of the Cold War is replaced by a broader nuclear competition the two states will not find as easy to control.

Jon B. Wolfsthal, deputy director of the Nonproliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/09/01/006.html

27 posted on 08/31/2003 10:02:04 PM PDT by F14 Pilot

To: DoctorZIn; nuconvert; yonif; AdmSmith; seamole; Valin; McGavin999; windchime; Eala; ...

Signing additional protocol should be decided by government

Tehran, Aug 31, IRNA -- Head of Majlis Energy Commission Hossein
Afarideh said here Sunday that the government, and not international
pressure, should be the basis of signing the additional protocol to
the Non-Proliferation-Treaty (NPT).
Given that Iran` nuclear program is peaceful, there are no concerns
over International Atomic Energy Agency`s (IAEA) inspectors visiting
the Iranian facilities, he told reporters. "The European Union has
been influenced by US pressures."
The IAEA delegation that recently visited Iran, had no
restrictions on inspection of the nuclear facilities or taking
samples, "which in itself is indicative of Iran`s peaceful
intentions."
On wether Iran should abandon NPT altogether, he said uninformed
individuals should refrain from making statements which might create
tension in the society.
There should be a thorough evaluation of the issue and these
individuals should not make such statements, Afarideh underlined.
Furthermore, some people oppose Iran having a peaceful nuclear
program under any circumstances, "not even accelerator facilities
with agricultural and medical applications," the MP from Shirvan
said.
Meanwhile, Iran has invited the European Union for bilateral
cooperation in the country`s nuclear programs, Head of Iran`s Atomic
Energy Organization (IAEO) Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh said here Saturday.
Talking to reporters after his meeting with EU Foreign Policy
Chief Javier Solana, Aqazadeh said Iran has asked the EU to prevent
the politicization of the country`s nuclear programs.
"During the meeting, we asked the EU representative to prevent
the politicization of Iran`s nuclear activities so that the agency
(International Atomic Energy Agency) could continue its work in a
calm atmosphere without propaganda," Aqazadeh said.
"Touching upon the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), we told the European side that Iran is ready to launch
the expert discussion to this effect," he added.
He underlined the need to hold talks with the IAEA and said, "It
is natural that there are important issues which should be discussed
by the two sides in order to clear the ambiguities."
The official noted that Iran`s cooperation with the IAEA is
beyond legal commitments as the director general of the agency
had confirmed such an issue so the agency can be helped to reach
favorable results.
He said this time the two sides held more positive talks compared
to previous negotiations, adding that European states are interested
in cooperating more with Iran after signing the Additional Protocol.
"The EU is also interested to be informed of Iran`s nuclear
programs," he added.

http://www.irna.ir/#2003_08_3119_38_474

28 posted on 08/31/2003 10:06:43 PM PDT by F14 Pilot

To: onyx; windchime; seamole; nuconvert; dixiechick2000; Valin; McGavin999; MEG33; Eala; AdmSmith

President Khatami condemns any form of terrorism

Tehran, Aug 31, IRNA -- President Mohammad Khatami here on Sunday
condemned any form of terrorism and said when a group occupy a
country, they are responsible for its security too.
President Khatami told visiting Polish Defense Minister Jerzy
Szmajdzinski that Iran is ready to contribute to security,
independence, stability and reconstruction of Iraq.
He stressed the need for Iraqis to decide their own fate, saying
Iran is seriously concerned over unrest in the region.
He called for promotion of Tehran-Warsaw ties, and benefiting
from mutual potentials, especially the economic and commercial ones,
to bolster activities in third countries, including Central Asian
republics.
Szmajdzinski, submitting a written message from the Polish
president to Khatami, lauded significance of Iran`s contribution to
settlement of Iraqi problems and restoration of security in the region
and the world.
He also urged expansion of the two-way ties, particularly in the
economic, political and security domains.

http://www.irna.ir/#2003_08_3119_30_470

29 posted on 08/31/2003 10:08:54 PM PDT by F14 Pilot

To: onyx; Valin; McGavin999; yonif; Eala; AdmSmith; seamole; Texas_Dawg

Iraq-Iran border closed to curb mourners
By AFP
Aug 31, 2003, 18:29

http://www.iranian.ws/news/publish/article_361.shtml

30 posted on 08/31/2003 11:58:16 PM PDT by F14 Pilot

Iran: Inspections, or else
By
Aug 31, 2003, 04:18

Tehran - The European Union gave Iran "friendly advice" Saturday to accept unconditional snap International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of its nuclear sites, or jeopardise trade relations with the 15-member bloc. "If you don't sign the protocol it will be a bad news for you," said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana after talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi. "Let me be very clear and very blunt," he added during a joint news conference with Kharazi. "You don't have to expect anything because you signed a protocol which is a part of the Vienna agreement. The only thing you have to expect is that we will continue working as friends. "There will be no reward for doing that. This is not a bargaining thing (it's) just like friends advise each other to do, to continue the relations in a deepening mode, which is just what we want to do," the EU official said. The European Union has joined the wider international community in pressing Iran to sign an additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that would allow IAEA inspectors to descend on its nuclear sites without warning to ensure that Tehran was not secretly developing atomic weapons. Brussels last month warned that, without credible guarantees over the protocol, it would review its economic ties with the country after an IAEA report on Iran is presented in Vienna on September 8. "We want it to be signed: the sooner the better," said Solana. "It brings trust and confidence to the officials in Vienna and the members of the international community," he added. Iran has come under increasing pressure, notably from the United States, to sign the additional protocol. Concern over the issue resurfaced this week when a UN report said that inspectors had found two different types of highly-enriched nuclear particles at facilities in Iran not needed in civilian atomic programmes.

http://www.iranian.ws/news/publish/article_358.shtml

31 posted on 09/01/2003 12:00:42 AM PDT by F14 Pilot

This thread is now closed.

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread

Live Thread Ping List | DoctorZin

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

32 posted on 09/01/2003 12:03:42 AM PDT by DoctorZIn

I'm a bit surprised at Javier Solana's tone, but I'm pleasantly surprised!

33 posted on 09/01/2003 12:05:38 AM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794