By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
The Associated Press
Thursday, April 13, 2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041300211.html  

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Thursday that Iran won't back away from uranium enrichment and said the world must treat Iran as a nuclear power.

China's Foreign Ministry said Thursday it will send an envoy to Iran and Russia to discuss the dispute over Tehran's uranium enrichment program.

Assistant Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai, who is in charge of nuclear nonproliferation issues, will make a "working visit" to Iran and Russia from April 14 to 18, said spokesman Liu Jianchao.

Meanwhile, the comments were made as Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, arrived in Tehran for talks aimed at defusing tensions over Iran's nuclear program.

"We know they (the U.S. and its allies) are waiting for us to retreat an inch so that they use that (against us)," the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

Ahmadinejad declared on Tuesday that Iran "has joined the club of nuclear countries" by successfully producing enriched uranium for the first time, a key process in what Iran maintains is a peaceful energy program.

Western diplomats and experts familiar with the program, however, say Iran still is far from producing any weapons-grade material needed for bombs and may be exaggerating its own progress.

"Today, our situation has changed completely. We are a nuclear country and speak to others from the position of a nuclear country," IRNA quoted the president as saying Thursday.

"We won't hold talks with anyone about the right of the Iranian nation (to enrich uranium) and no one has the right to retreat, even one iota," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

The United States accuses Tehran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to produce nuclear weapons but Tehran says its nuclear program is merely to generate electricity.

Iran's deputy nuclear chief, Mohammad Saeedi, said Wednesday that Iran intends to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges, signaling the country's resolve to expand a program the United Nations has demanded it halt.

The U.N. Security Council has insisted that Iran stop all enrichment activity by April 28.

On Tuesday, Iran announced it had produced enriched uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges, at a facility in the central town of Natanz.

6 major powers to meet on Iran in Russia: China

 

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=41974&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

LONDON, April 13 (IranMania) - Political directors of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet Tuesday in Moscow to discuss the Iranian nuclear crisis, China's UN envoy said, AFP reported.

Wang Guangya said he had been told by Beijing that the meeting would bring together senior officials from the United States, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany, the so-called P-5 plus one.

The dispute over Iran's suspected effort to build an atomic bomb reached a new phase Tuesday when Tehran said it had achieved a major success in enriching uranium for nuclear fuel.

In Washington, US officials confirmed Iran would figure prominently in talks that Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns will have in Moscow next week with his counterparts in the Group of Eight powers.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Burns would travel to the Russian capital for a previously scheduled meeting of political directors to prepare for the G-8 summit in July in Saint Petersburg.

"But Iran will be on the agenda of discussion for this particular meeting, certainly given Iran's recent announcement," McCormack told reporters at the department's daily briefing.

The G-8 groups permanent Security Council members the United States, Russia, Britain and France, plus Germany, Canada, Italy and Japan.

Burns, currenty in Canada, is the number three official in the US State Department and its point man on Iran.

US officials did not confirm plans for a Moscow meeting of the permanent members and Germany that would also include China. But McCormack alluded to the possibility.

"I'm not going to rule out any other meetings that Undersecretary Burns may have on the margins, around, or as part of that G-8 political directors meeting," he said.

A senior State Department official who asked not to be named said a meeting of the P-5 plus one "is a definite possibility, but we haven't nailed it down."

Washington has been pressing for a tough line with Iran, including the threat of sanctions, to coax the Islamic republic away from sensitive uranium enrichment activities. Tehran says its aims are strictly peaceful.

Amid a new flurry of diplomacy, US Secretary Condoleezza Rice spoke for the second time in three days with Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomidc Energy Agency (IAEA), before he headed to Tehran for talks.

The two spoke on Monday about ElBaradei's upcoming discussions with the Iranians, McCormack said.

"It is safe to say that he is going to be re-underlining the message that ... it (Iran) must suspend its enrichment programs and it needs to come back into the mainstream and into compliance with its international obligations."

Iran's Defiance Narrows U.S. Options for Response

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 13

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041201967.html

As Iran takes a step closer to developing nuclear capacity, President Bush finds his options ever more constricted. The Iranians seem unfazed by U.N. statements. The Russians and Chinese won't go along with economic sanctions. And the generals at the Pentagon hate the idea of a military strike.

The White House declared yesterday that "it is time for action" by the U.N. Security Council, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on it to take "strong steps" to force Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment. But even as Europeans, Russians and Chinese expressed disapproval of Iran's latest move, there were no signs of consensus on what to do about it.

The central problem for Bush, according to aides and analysts, is that Iran has proved impervious so far to the diplomatic levers Washington and its partners have been willing to use. Some administration officials have grown increasingly skeptical that a solution can be found, raising the prospect that, like North Korea before it, a second member of the trio of rogue states Bush once dubbed the "axis of evil" may ultimately develop a nuclear bomb over U.S. objections.

Bush is especially frustrated with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has abandoned negotiations with the Europeans and defied international pressure while talking of wiping Israel "off the map." Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, complained during an appearance yesterday in Houston that it is hard to find a diplomatic resolution because Ahmadinejad "is not a rational human being."

That has left Bush with few attractive alternatives. "At this point, your options seem to be not good and scarce," said Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Your other option is living with it . . . and I think that's what will happen."

"Their Plan A is to put incremental pressure on Iran so it will cave," said retired Air Force Col. P.J. Crowley, a National Security Council aide under President Bill Clinton who now works at the liberal Center for American Progress. "And there is no Plan B."

Iran escalated the standoff by announcing that it has enriched uranium in a 164-centrifuge network to 3.5 percent. If true, the achievement would be a milestone but not one that necessarily makes a bomb imminent. Iran has insisted it wants nuclear energy for civilian purposes. Weapons-grade uranium would have to be enriched to at least 80 percent and would need thousands of centrifuges operating in tandem.

Iran reiterated yesterday that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at its facility in Natanz within a year and declared it would eventually expand to 54,000. Making so many centrifuges work together is especially tricky, according to scientists. Acting Assistant Secretary of State Stephen G. Rademaker told reporters in Moscow yesterday that, once built, a 3,000-centrifuge cascade could produce enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb within 271 days. A 50,000-centrifuge cascade, he said, would need 16 days to yield enough fissile material.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, headed to Tehran, and his inspectors are expected to report on whether the Iranian claims are true. But the announcement electrified the diplomatic circuit and highlighted the challenge to Bush. British, French and German officials all criticized Iran for "going in precisely the wrong direction," as German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier put it. Russia and China also called the development unwelcome but still resisted a tough U.N. response.

Andrei Denisov, Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, counseled restraint and said "it is not high time" to reach a judgment about Iran's ultimate nuclear aims. In an interview, Denisov said Moscow is concerned about reports that the Bush administration is studying military options and remains skeptical of sanctions. "We don't like sanctions, we don't like imposing any forceful settlement. It must be political and diplomatic."

The Security Council in a presidential statement last month gave Iran 30 days to suspend uranium enrichment, a deadline that expires April 28, but it threatened no consequences if Tehran disobeys. Rice said yesterday that the latest announcement means the council must do more to enforce its will.

"I do think that the Security Council will need to take into consideration this move by Iran and that it will be time when it reconvenes on this case for strong steps to make certain we maintain the credibility of the international community," she said. White House press secretary Scott McClellan would not discuss those steps, "but you can be assured that it needs to be more than just a presidential statement at this point."

U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton suggested that the council consider a resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter making its demand legally binding. "It's clear that by announcing not only the enrichment activity, but by contending they're prepared to go all the way to . . . 50,000 centrifuges, the Iranians are expressing their disdain for the Security Council," he said.

Diplomats from the United States, Europe, Russia and China agreed yesterday to meet about Iran next Tuesday on the sidelines of a scheduled Moscow meeting of nations in the Group of Eight. In the meantime, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan urged all sides "to cool down on the rhetoric and not to escalate."

Analysts said Iranian officials may have made the announcement to respond to the reports on U.S. military options, in effect saying airstrikes would not stop their program because they now possess enough knowledge to reincorporate it.

Bush has dismissed suggestions of airstrikes as "wild speculation" and emphasized diplomacy. If he cannot persuade Russia and China to toughen U.N. pressure on Iran, though, he has few options, analysts said. He could organize economic sanctions with a "coalition of the willing" in tandem with the Europeans. Or he could offer Iran a more substantive deal.

Richard N. Haass, a former top Bush State Department official, proposed a package in which Iran would be allowed "very limited enrichment" subject to inspection and in exchange be given economic benefits and security guarantees. If Iran violated the terms, he said on the Web site of the Council on Foreign Relations, where he is president, the deal would spell out consequences including sanctions and "conceivably military force."

"We've been trying coercive diplomacy and the Iranians have just sent a very clear message: 'Nice try, it just won't work,' " said Clifford Kupchan, an analyst at the Eurasia Group. "The only diplomatic option we haven't tried" is to cut a deal directly. "We might as well try putting everything on the table."

Iran to buy Israel-made car alarms from China

 

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/April/middleeast_April333.xml&section=middleeast&col=  

TEL AVIV , The Iranian Ministry of Transport recently asked a Chinese company provide anti-theft car alarm systems, the consignment of which, according to media reports, contains 15,000 anti-theft devices made in Israel.

Meanwhile, the Israeli mass media declared that the Iranian government had signed a deal with a Chinese company which markets the products for an Israeli company called Sonar located in Ramat Hasharon town in north of Tel Aviv.

The deal was made after an Iranian Ministry of Transport representative visited a Chinese automobile alarm systems exhibition.

The Iranian representative took 20 of the devices back to his homeland, and subsequently, the Iranian government asked the Chinese company to provide 15,000 such devices

 

 

Iran leader 'not a rational human being'

 

13 April 2006

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3636978a12,00.html

HOUSTON: Reaching a diplomatic solution over Iran's nuclear ambitions will be difficult because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "not a rational human being," a senior White House adviser said on Wednesday.

The United States is pressing for the UN Security Council to take further action against Iran for pursuing its nuclear programme, which the Bush administration says is a cover for producing weapons while Tehran says is for peaceful energy generation.

"We are engaged in a diplomatic process with our European partners and the United Nations to keep them from developing such a weapon," Karl Rove, deputy White House chief of staff, told an audience of business people at the Houston Forum.

"It's going to be difficult. It's going to be tough because they are led by ideologues who have a weird sense of history," he said.

Rove said his characterisation of Ahmadinejad was based on statements the Iranian president made after speaking to the United Nations.

"Ahmadinejad spoke to the United Nations and afterwards was quoted as saying that for the 23 minutes that he spoke, there was a halo around his head that transfixed the audience and caused them to be completely focused on his message," he said.

Rove noted, however, that world leaders speaking before the UN General Assembly are often watched attentively in silence by the delegates. Rove said that President George W Bush, for instance, says that speaking to the General Assembly is like appearing before a "waxworks."

“This guy (Ahmadinejad) had the sense that he was mystically empowered and as a result transfixed the audience – that is not a rational human being to deal with," he said.

International pressure increased on Iran to halt its nuclear programme this week after Tehran declared it had produced enriched uranium.

 

UN's nuclear watchdog arrives in Iran

 

Thursday, 13 Apr 2006 08:35

 

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/news/international-affairs/uns-nuclear-watchdog-arrives-in-iran-$384847.htm

 

The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog arrived in Iran last night ahead of talks aimed at persuading Tehran to suspend its nuclear programme.

Mohamed el-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), touched down in Tehran just two days after Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that his country had successfully enriched uranium and was determined to produce it on a larger scale.

Tehran insists that its intentions are entirely peaceful and that its nuclear programme is necessary to boost electricity supplies, but the United States and Europe fear that Iran is planning to develop nuclear weapons.

The UN's security council has now demanded the Islamic state stop the sensitive work and has imposed an April deadline for it to comply or face possible sanctions.

Arriving in Iran last night, Mr el-Baradei said he hoped to convince Iran to take "confidence-building measures", including the suspension of its uranium enrichment activities.

"The time is right for a political solution and the way is negotiations," he said.

During his one-day visit, Mr El-Baradei is expected to meet Iranian diplomats and be briefed by IAEA inspectors before reporting back to the UN about the current state of Tehran's nuclear activities.

Speaking ahead of his visit, UN secretary general Kofi Annan said he hoped Mr el-Baradei would persuade Iran to resume negotiations over its nuclear plans.

"They have pursued their research but I hope they will be able to come back to the table and work with the international community to find a negotiated solution," he said, appealing for all parties in the global dispute to "cool down the rhetoric".

US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice insisted yesterday that the UN take "strong steps" to maintain "the credibility of the international community" in reacting to the stand-off with Iran.

 

 

Possible US strike on Iran may top Aliyev-Bush talks http://www.azernews.net/view.php?d=8156

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev is expected to meet US counterpart George Bush in Washington on April 28 for talks many say will focus on the possible US campaign against Iran and the settlement of a long-standing Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh. This will be Aliyev's first official visit to the United States since he became president in 2003.

The details of President Aliyev's visit were discussed during Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov's meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the United States on Friday. Rice said that during the visit, the two countries would continue the dialogue on expanding strategic ties. Some Azeri experts say Washington is likely to focus on efforts to draw Azerbaijan into an international coalition against Iran over what the West describes as this country's ambition to develop a nuclear weapon.

The head of the President's Office international relations department, Novruz Mammadov, said that during meetings with the Bush administration, the parties will discuss democratic development, cooperation in the South Caucasus, energy and security issues and combat against terrorism. Commenting on the statements by some experts that the US-Iranian tensions will be tabled in Washington, Mammadov said most political analysts tend to make certain allegations without bothering to substantiate them. He said the repeal of Section 907 to the Freedom Support Act, which bans US government's direct assistance to Azerbaijani government, will be one of the priority issues during President Aliyev's meetings. Mammadov described the document as being unfair. "This sanction should not be applied against Azerbaijan. On the other hand, whether or not it will be upheld is not a concern for us. We may not need assistance any more," Mammadov told Lider TV channel. The official said the legislative process in the US is so complex that its government is apparently unable to lift the section. "But the Azerbaijani president's visit may facilitate the process of repealing it," he added. The head of the President's Office socio-political department, Ali Hasanov, has brushed aside the allegations that the US-Iranian tension would be discussed during the visit. "I don't believe Iran will be the main topic of the talks between the two countries. Our ties with Iran are just as good as those with the United States. Iran is a neighboring country and we share a common culture. Our citizens have close ties with this country." Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov dismissed reports suggesting that Azerbaijan plans to be part of an international coalition against Iran. "The reports are untrue. Moreover, how can this happen in the absence of such a coalition?" Azimov added that the country is not interested in joining such a group even if it is formed in the future. The official did not rule out that US-Iranian relations would be free of third-party involvement. Online edition Day.az approached well-known politicians and pundits to examine reasons for President Aliyev's visit to the U.S. and the feedback of the Azeri opposition which maintains that the visit has not taken place so far due to alleged problems over the Azeri leader's legitimacy. Deputy chairman of an opposition Democratic Party, Sardar Jalaloghlu, said the invitation to the head of state to pay an official visit to the U.S. is explained by the US-Iranian stand-off and the attempts by the Bush administration to lure Azerbaijan into an international anti-Iranian coalition. "As for the opposition's reaction, the United States has already stated its feedback on the 205 Azeri parliamentary election in a State Department report. Besides, we understand that the problem with Iran is currently much more important for the USA than democratization in Azerbaijan," said Jalaloghlu. MP Anar Mammadkhanov said the president's visit to the U.S. will undoubtedly be one of the most significant events in the country's socio-political life. "The visit has been expected for a long time, especially considering the very high level of US-Azeri ties," he said. Mammadkhanov went on to say that a special emphasis would be laid on the settlement of the Garabagh conflict during the visit. "We recall that in late last year many analysts were predicting that 2006 would be a watershed in the conflict resolution. I hope that the outcome of the president's visit to the U.S. will show how realistic those projections were. As for the opposition's reaction to this, I have said on many occasions and can repeat now that there is no opposition in Azerbaijan. I am not being sarcastic and am just stating the facts. They are just a group of people that call themselves opposition. What they will say about President Ilham Aliyev's visit is of no interest to the Azeri public or even their closest cohorts." A well-known political analyst Ilgar Mammadov said that after the opposition's failure in last year's elections, the U.S. no longer has any reason to postpone the Azeri leader's visit. Moreover, the US-Azeri relations are currently on a very high level, he said. "As for the opposition's feedback, its most intelligent representatives will simply keep silent. But there will be others that will lambaste the United States over this, which will be another ridiculous action by the opposition and an attempt to pin the solution of their own problems on others. Besides, it is not ruled out that during the visit, the U.S. will suggest to President Aliyev that the authorities soften their stance toward the opposition, which we will probably witness upon his return from the United States," Mammadov added.

 

Iran and the U.S. Maneuver Carefully Toward Confrontation

April 11, 2006
The Power and Interest News Report
Intelligence Brief

link to original article

In the latest edition of the New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh argues that the United States is currently in the process of planning an attack on Iran. The purpose of the plan, according to Hersh, is to eliminate Iran's nuclear research program. The Bush administration believes that Iran's nuclear research program is part of a covert Iranian strategy to develop nuclear weapons.

While there is no doubt that the Bush administration has drawn up contingency plans for an attack on Iran, it is unlikely that in the immediate future Washington will execute an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Indeed, after Hersh's article hit the press, the Bush administration was quick to reassure that while the military option remains on the table, it is seeking a "diplomatic" solution to the current dispute. President George W. Bush himself labeled Hersh's claim as "wild speculation."

Although the United States is perfectly capable of launching air strikes on Iran, such a scenario could have a very negative effect on U.S. interests. The negative outcomes that are part of this policy may outweigh the positives. The negative outcomes involved in an attack were outlined by PINR on March 2: "The U.S. military is overburdened by the ongoing insurgency in Iraq, making a realistic ground invasion of Iran improbable. While strategic air strikes are certainly an option, it is unlikely that such strikes would destroy completely Iran's nuclear research program. Furthermore, an actual attack on its facilities would probably hasten Iran's drive toward nuclear weapons, similar to the effect that Israel's 1981 strike on the Osirak reactor in Iraq had on Baghdad." There is also the very real concern that an attack on Iran would cause it to exercise its levers of power in neighboring Iraq, using its power brokers to increase instability. [See: "Intelligence Brief: Iran Tests Washington's Limits"]

In addition to the above strategic costs, there are also economic repercussions. The price of oil currently stands at US$68 a barrel, and any instability introduced to the Middle East will raise this price substantially. The economies in oil dependent countries are already suffering from sustained high oil prices, and as the price of oil moves higher it will cause further damage to these economies. Even without an attack, any sanctions placed on Iran that include its energy industry will also cause an escalation of oil prices.

The above drawbacks explain why the current government in Tehran thinks that it can defy the United States and the E.U.-3 (France, Germany and the United Kingdom). For Tehran, the U.S. and the E.U.-3 have limited leverage options at their disposal. Tehran does not believe that the United States will initiate air strikes, and thinks that it can buy time and use Washington's current exposed position to accelerate its nuclear research program. Indeed, while Iran may not have an active nuclear weapons program, the further that it proceeds in nuclear research the closer that it comes to having the potential to quickly and efficiently develop a nuclear weapons arsenal.

It is very likely that Tehran sees nuclear weapons as an essential part of its drive for regional power. As PINR Senior Analyst Dr. Michael A. Weinstein examined in an in-depth analysis of Iran's regional strategy, "When the positives and negatives of Iran's strategic situation are weighed, it becomes clear that the complex balance of opportunities and threats provides the opportunity for Iran to try to expand its regional power at considerable risk."

According to Weinstein, "The best-case scenario for Iran is that the U.S. military is forced to withdraw from Iraq, leaving Iran with a dominant sphere of influence over a Shi'a-dominated Iraq or a breakaway Shi'a mini-state in the south, and that Iran is able to achieve nuclear weapons capability. Were this outcome to occur, Iran would be the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, displacing the United States." [See: "Iran's Bid for Regional Power: Assets and Liabilities"]

Iran's current U.N. declared deadline for halting uranium enrichment will come at the end of April. If Iran does not halt uranium enrichment by the deadline, Washington has said that it will attempt to punish Iran more concretely, with measures including sanctions. But placing sanctions on Iran may not have the desired effect since it is far from clear whether Russia or China will approve of any sanctions regime, especially one that targets Iran's energy exports. A sanctions regime without the support of Russia and China would have a limited effect on Iran. [See: "Intelligence Brief: Iran Tests Washington's Limits"]

Therefore, the conflict between the U.S., E.U.-3 and Iran continues forward, much as it has for the past three years. The U.S. has a clear policy of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran has a clear policy of preventing the U.S. from halting its robust nuclear research program; Tehran's more murky policy may be to develop and acquire nuclear weapons that will assist it in increasing its regional power. The two countries will continue to spar with each other, both playing a potentially hazardous game where any substantial move by either side could rapidly damage both countries' interests.

Both the U.S. and Iran continue to take little steps toward confrontation. Washington wants to prevent, or at least delay, Iran's move toward controlling the nuclear fuel cycle, and Tehran is testing Washington's limits since it believes that military action against it is unlikely and that the U.S. is in a weak position to confront Iran effectively. [See: "Intelligence Brief: Iran Tests Washington's Limits"]

An Explosive Move

April 12, 2006
The Times
Leading Articles

link to original article

Iran’s provocative boast that it has successfully enriched uranium has been received with almost universal condemnation. In language that is strikingly, and deliberately, similar, America, Britain, France and Russia yesterday spoke of a “step in the wrong direction”, and called on Iran to respect its obligations and stop its nuclear activities. The message from these four permanent Security Council members will be delivered in person in Tehran today by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

And underlining the seriousness of the Iranian breach, Condoleezza Rice yesterday urged the United Nations to take “serious steps” to deal with the threat.

The angry reaction is music to the ears of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s maverick President. Since taking office, he has made every effort to sabotage negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme. He has sought at every opportunity to turn the nuclear issue into a question of national pride and sovereignty. And he has coupled this with bellicose pronouncements on Israel and America as a ploy to rekindle at home the anti-Western fervour so lacking among Iran’s youth.

His aim is transparent. A populist with little political experience, Mr Ahmadinejad came to power on the back of a massive protest vote and extravagant promises to the poor. These, he soon found, cannot be delivered. To avoid the inevitable opprobrium, he has resorted to the old tactic of creating a foreign threat to divert attention. The greater the threat, the more he can rally his opponents and silence those seeking to sideline him. So far, it is proving successful. Even the former President, Hojatol- eslam Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, his electoral rival who now heads Iran’s influential Expediency Council, yesterday cautioned that pressure on Iran “might not have good consequences for the region and the world”.

Mr Ahmadinejad appears to have overestimated Iran’s strength, however. The general speculation that a US military strike is unlikely and that oil sanctions are unenforceable may have given Tehran the impression that it is unassailable. This is far from the case. At the UN it is isolated. However critical France has been of US actions in Iraq, Paris has strongly backed a firm line against Iran. More signifi- cantly, Russia also is committed to ending Iranian nuclear adventurism, and was outspoken in its condemnation.

Russia holds the key to concerted pressure. It was Moscow that began building Iran’s nuclear facilities and it is on Russian fuel deliveries that the programme depends. Moscow, however, is far from happy with Iran’s deception of the IAEA and breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was angered by the cavalier rebuff to its compromise proposal for enrichment research on Russian soil. Moscow has its own quarrel with Tehran over the Caspian Sea. It is determined to see the Security Council deadline of April 28 upheld. Such unity is important. The UN will need patience and nerves to face down the Iranian challenge. But it must indeed be met.

Gordian knot of Iran

April 13, 2006
The Washington Times
James D. Zirin

link to original article

If the British don't go along with us on Iran, we may have to go it alone without our old allies and faithful friends. The French don't feel too strongly about Iran's nuclear program. They have been bribed.

The Chinese and Indians aren't too upset about nukes in Iran. They need the Iranians for oil. The Russians find in Iran a traditional trading partner. Much of Iran's nuclear technology was made in Moscow. The Russians are unlikely to make much of a fuss.

The Germans, quite ironically, get upset when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel off the map and resettle its Jews in Germany and Austria. But the Germans have no military muscle and don't want to rub Tehran the wrong way.

Even the Israelis, whose hard-liners say will not tolerate a "final solution" at the hands of Iran, are largely silent. They know they lack the planes and ordnance to take out Iran's nuclear installations.

That leaves us with a big headache. We need bold and creative diplomacy.

Mr. Ahmadinejad says his nuclear program, in which he seeks to develop full-cycle enrichment technology, is as peaceful as it is nonnegotiable. We might believe this if Iran were not already sufficient in energy, and if Mr. Ahmadinejad did not appear to be a such a scary guy. During his September U.N. speech, in which he raged against what he called America's policy of "nuclear apartheid" and demanded Iran be entitled to its own full-fledged nuclear program, he laid claim to enlightenment, saying he was bathed in a "light" even as he spoke, and the world leaders stared at him "as if paralyzed." The prime minister of Sweden, he's not.

We could try U.N. Security Council sanctions, as we have, but we know they will be watered down and ineffective. We could shoot for regime change, and maybe the CIA could find someone to take out Mr. Ahmadinejad. But the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know, and the reformers who oppose their fanatical president also want Iran in the nuclear club.

We could, of course, decide to do nothing. But if Iran gets the bomb, it will change the strategic equation and make it much more difficult to deal with on the four issues dearest to U.S. hearts -- terror (Iran sponsors terror in Lebanon and Palestine; refuses to release al Qaeda operatives in Iranian custody), Iraq (where, reportedly, more than 2,000 Iranian operatives are on the ground aiding the insurgency), oil and democratization, not to mention Israel. And the world will have become much more dangerous.

So how do we meet the challenge of an adversary so determined to undermine U.S. interests? Henry Kissinger has said we have no military option, and he may well be right.

Any decision to use force against Iran is fraught with peril. If we surgically take out Mr. Ahmadinejad's surface and subterranean nuclear installations in a "preventive" strike (not "pre-emptive" as on Iraq), how do the Iranians respond? Surely, they will try to rebuild: Experts say that can be done in three to four years. Then, one can readily conceive of a parade of unintended consequences the U.S. would have to absorb -- perhaps a terrorist strike against the United States, a retaliatory attack on Iraq, Saudi Arabia or even Israel.

Iran has more than 2,000 sea mines, with which Tehran's navy could readily shut down the crucial Straits of Hormuz. "That would drive the global economy into the cellar," warns Michael Mazarr of the Washington-based National War College.

Then what would the U.S. do? There would be the prospect of a major military confrontation. Would we invade Iran to take out the regime and its command and control? Would we use nuclear weapons? Would we level Tehran and Isfahan, Tabriz and Shiraz? Would our actions radicalize the moderates in Iran opposed to Mr. Ahmadinejad?

What would be the effect on the already high level of anti-Americanism in the world? And what would be the political support at home, where the president's apparent failures in Iraq have driven his approval ratings into the cellar?

A major military option launching a vicious cycle of confrontation is almost too sobering to contemplate. But how can negotiations achieve anything if a credible military option is off the table?

One thing we know: The current standoff cannot go on indefinitely.

Iran's hostility to the United States is deep-seated. Iranians remember our role in removing their premier, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953 and replacing him with the Shah. They recall we sided with Saddam Hussein in Iran's war with Iraq. If they wanted to make a case for U.S. hostility, they might point to policies of economic containment; asset freezes; exclusion from the World Trade and other international organizations; Mr. Bush identifying Iran as part of the "axis of evil"; and our call for a "regime change" that would oust Mr. Ahmadinejad, like Mossadegh, their elected leader.

So how do we get out of the box? President Kennedy counseled: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." There have been many proposals, many unconvincing, for a viable diplomatic option to break the impasse. Not to deny the complexity of the problem, I would argue, as others have, for a blended approach looking to a staged engagement with Iran.

• The basic problem is process. For two decades, we have communicated with the Iranians via back channels and intermediaries. Let us try for direct communication with a view to eventual diplomatic relations.

• Seek to agree with them on a broad framework for negotiations like the 1972 Shanghai Communique, wherein Richard Nixon opened the door to China, in which neither side initially agrees to anything other than to discuss problems of mutual interest, however elusive the solutions may prove. The overture might be accomplished under the auspices of the U.N. or perhaps moderate Arab countries concerned about nuclear weapons in an already unstable region.

• Try to get both sides to commit to compromise rather than seeing each proposal by one side as an insult to the other's machismo.

• Try to avoid unintended consequences in the statements and policies advocated by both sides. Let's not let overblown rhetoric demonizing the other side defeat our basic purposes.

• Although all roads must inevitably lead to the bomb, try to open the dialog on a number of issues simultaneously. The Iranians don't like terrorism either. Presumably, they want a stable economy that would come from nonisolation, trade agreements, new markets and diversified exports. The issue for them is what they would rather have: a stable economy, a terror-free neighborhood and no bomb, or a bomb and an isolated, unstable state with a regime that must surely be overthrown if it fails to satisfy its people's social and economic needs. While we may "agree to disagree" on some issues, we must eventually come to terms with Iran on nuclear weapons. Otherwise, the initiative fails.

• Recognize there will be no quick fix and progress will take time. It is unlikely Iran will agree near term about Israel, Hamas or Hezbollah.

• Quietly, but unmistakably, leave our military option on the table, and be prepared to use it as a last resort. If we do not lead from strength, we are unlikely to accomplish anything.

However difficult it is to find a solution, the stakes for the world order are too awesome to contemplate. The greatest danger would be to do nothing. Disaster must not become irretrievable.

James D. Zirin, an attorney in New York, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Rice Urges U.N. to Take 'Strong Steps' on Iran (Video)

April 12, 2006
The Washington Post
Fred Barbash and Colum Lynch

link to original article

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reacting to Iran's latest advance in nuclear technology, said today that the United Nations Security Council must now take "strong steps" to "maintain the credibility of the international community." Video of Secretary Rice's statement.

At the United Nations, China's ambassador Wang Guangya announced that the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany would meet in the next few days to address the latest development in the ongoing nuclear crisis with Tehran.

Denouncing Iran's successful enrichment of uranium as unacceptable to the international community, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday the U.N. Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Tehran to change course.

Rice's comments followed an announcement from Tehran yesterday that the country had taken a major step forward in its ability to process uranium into fissionable material, an advance necessary to produce nuclear fuel or a nuclear weapon. Iran says it has only peaceful uses in mind, but the United States and its European allies think otherwise.

Only a small proportion of uranium -- roughly 7 atoms out of a thousand -- is fissionable, capable of producing the reaction necessary to produce electric power or a bomb. "Enrichment" is the process of separating out that fissionable proportion into a usable concentrate. The 3.5 percent fissionable concentrate produced by Iran is far below the 90 percent required to make a bomb.

The advance was not a surprise but the defiant announcement, coming amid growing expressions of concern about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability and stories about the U.S. considering military options to stop Iran's progress, was considered politically provocative. The U.N. Security Council is considering possible sanctions designed to stop Iran's nuclear activities.

"The world does not believe that Iran should have the capability and technology" that could lead to production of a nuclear weapon, Rice said to reporters at the State Department. The latest announcement, she said, "will further isolate Iran . . . and I do think that the Security Council will need to take into consideration this move by Iran and that it will be time for strong steps to maintain the credibility of the international community."

She stopped short of calling for any immediate action.

Russia and the European Union joined the United States in condemning Iran's assertion, wire services reported, but Moscow said force could not resolve the dispute.

"If such [military] plans exist they will not be able to solve this problem," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, according to Russian news agencies as saying. "On the contrary they could create a dangerous explosive blaze in the Middle East, where there are already enough blazes."

China's Wang said that Iran "is not in line" with demands by the U.N.'s Vienna-based nuclear watchdog agency and the U.N. Security Council to halt its uranium enrichment activities.

But he said that harsh punitive measures -- including the threat of force or sanctions -- "would not be helpful under the current situation." "So we do appeal once again to all parties to exercise restraint, to act constructively and not to take action that might further aggravate the situation," he said.

Russia also opposes U.N. sanctions against Iran.

Wang expressed hope that the IAEA's director general, Mohammed ElBaradei, who is traveling to Iran tonight for talks, can persuade Iran to back down. "I do hope that the Iranians will take note of the reactions and be more cooperative with the IAEA and also with the Security Council." British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, meanwhile, said the announcement was "deeply unhelpful" and undermined confidence, wire services reported. His German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said Iran was "going in precisely the wrong direction" for a return to negotiations.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said it was a worrying step and Iran should stop its "dangerous activities".

The European Union voiced dismay. "This is regrettable," said Emma Udwin, a spokeswoman for Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU commissioner for external relations.

Lynch reported from the United Nations.

Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says

April 12, 2006
Bloomberg
Sebastian Alison

link to original article

Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said. Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.

``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.

Rademaker was reacting to a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. That announcement defies demands by the UN Security Council that Iran shut down its nuclear program this month.

The U.S. fears Iran is pursuing a nuclear program to make weapons, while Iran says it is intent on purely civilian purposes, to provide energy. Saeedi said 54,000 centrifuges will be able to enrich uranium to provide fuel for a 1,000-megawat nuclear power plant similar to the one Russia is finishing in southern Iran, AP reported.

``It was a deeply disappointing announcement,'' Rademaker said of Ahmadinejad's statement.

Weapons-Grade Uranium

Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use. The process involves placing uranium hexafluoride gas in a series of rotating drums or cylinders known as centrifuges that run at high speeds to extract weapons grade uranium.

Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.

``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said.

While the U.S. has concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Rademaker said ``there certainly has been no decision on the part of my government'' to use force if Iran refuses to obey the UN Security Council demand that it shuts down its nuclear program.

Rademaker is in Moscow for a meeting of his counterparts from the Group of Eight wealthy industrialized countries. Russia chairs the G-8 this year.

China is concerned about Iran's decision to accelerate uranium enrichment and wants the government in Tehran to heed international criticism of the move, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Sebastian Alison in Moscow at Salison1@bloomberg.net.

World Criticism Mounts Over Iran's Nuclear Step

April 12, 2006
Reuters
Parisa Hafezi

link to original article

TEHRAN -- Russia and the European Union joined the United States on Wednesday in condemning Iran's assertion that it had enriched uranium in defiance of a U.N. demand, but Moscow said force could not resolve the dispute.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared on Tuesday that Iran had enriched uranium for the first time and would now press ahead with industrial-scale enrichment.

His triumphant announcement keeps the Islamic Republic on a collision course with the United Nations and with Western countries convinced that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, not just fuel for power stations as it insists.

The United States said that if Iran continued moving in the "wrong direction" it would discuss future steps with the U.N. Security Council, which can impose punitive measures.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the use of force could not solve the stand-off over Iran's nuclear programme, but he did not reiterate Moscow's past opposition to sanctions.

"If such plans exist they will not be able to solve this problem. On the contrary they could create a dangerous explosive blaze in the Middle East, where there are already enough blazes," he was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying.

U.S. President George W. Bush this week dismissed media reports of plans for strikes on Iran as "wild speculation" and said force might not be needed to curb its nuclear ambitions.

The Russian Foreign Ministry urged Tehran to stop all enrichment work, saying its proclaimed atomic advance ran counter to the decisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. Security Council.

But a senior Iranian official ruled out any retreat.

"Iran's nuclear activities are like a waterfall which has begun to flow. It cannot be stopped," said the official, who asked not to be named, referring to the Russian demand.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei will visit Iran on Thursday to seek full Iranian cooperation with the Security Council and IAEA inquiries, a trip now clouded by Ahmadinejad's speech.

The IAEA, whose inspectors are in Iran investigating nuclear sites, has given no comment on Iran's statements. But an agency diplomat said: "The timing was strange but it may have been intended by them to improve their bargaining position."

The Security Council has told Iran to halt all sensitive atomic activities and on March 29 it asked the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, to report on its compliance in 30 days.

"DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES"

Three European states behind a deal to suspend enrichment which broke down last year weighed in with criticism of Iran.

Foreign Minister Jack Straw said the announcement was "deeply unhelpful" and undermined confidence. His German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said Iran was "going in precisely the wrong direction" for a return to negotiations.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said it was a worrying step and Iran should stop its "dangerous activities".

The European Union voiced dismay. "This is regrettable," said Emma Udwin, a spokeswoman for Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU commissioner for external relations.

The Iranian president further stoked international anxieties about Iran's nuclear programme last year when he called for Israel's destruction. But Israelis responded cautiously to Iran's latest announcement, saying diplomacy was the best route.

"The United States has placed this issue at the top of its agenda. I do not recommend that we should be involved," Israeli elder statesman Shimon Peres told Israel Radio.

The United States has pledged to defend Israel, which bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility in 1981.

The U.S. State Department said it was unable to confirm that Iran had enriched uranium and some experts said even if Tehran's assertions were accurate, it would still be years before the Islamic Republic was able to produce a nuclear weapon.

In a well-flagged televised address, Ahmadinejad had said: "I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology."

He also said Iran's goal was industrial-scale enrichment.

The level of enrichment needed for nuclear bombs is far higher than the 3.5 percent Iran says it has reached.

It would take Iran about two decades to yield enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb with its current cascade of 164 centrifuges. But Tehran says it wants to install 3,000 centrifuges, enough to produce material for a warhead in a year.

Exiled Iranian opposition leader Maryam Rajavi said in Strasbourg that the West had been too soft on Iran and had allowed the country "to get so close to a nuclear weapon".

Information provided in 2002 by Rajavi's National Council of Resistance of Iran, which wants to oust Iran's clerical rulers, forced Tehran to lift the veil on its nuclear programme.

The council's armed wing, the People's Mujahideen, is listed as a terrorist group by the United States.

(Additional reporting by Oliver Bullough in Moscow, Carol Giacomo and Tabbassum Zakaria in Washington, Luke Baker in Jerusalem, Mark Heinrich in Vienna)

Foreign Secretary's Statement On Iran Nuclear Programme

April 12, 2006
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Press Office, Downing Street

link to original article

"I am seriously concerned about President Ahmadinejad's statement. It is contrary to repeated requests by the IAEA Board and now by the Security Council that Iran resume full and sustained suspension of all enrichment and reprocessing activities, including research and development. The Iranian regime must demonstrate by its words and actions that it is not seeking nuclear weapons. The latest Iranian statement further undermines international confidence in the Iranian regime and is deeply unhelpful.

"The Director-General of the IAEA will visit Tehran today and will then report back to the Security Council at the end of the month. If Iran does not comply, the Security Council will discuss further diplomatic measures. I call upon Iran to suspend its activities, begin the process of building confidence, and get back into negotiations. We will remain in close contact with our international partners, whose strong reactions show the depth of international concern there is about Iran's activities."

Jack Straw

Scowling at Iran

April 11, 2006
Economist
Global Agenda

link to original article

The war of words between America and Iran, which is suspected of developing a nuclear weapons programme, has intensified. A report—dismissed by some as “wild speculation”—that America may consider a tactical nuclear strike against Iran’s nuclear research facilities has caused consternation.

Meanwhile, Iran announced on Tuesday that it had enriched uranium to a level usuable for reactor fuel. Diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to co-operate with the International Atomic Energy Agency are, so far, showing no sign of success

AMERICA and Iran are used to rhetorical combat. But in recent days the level of mutual hostility has grown unusually intense after an American journalist, Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker magazine, suggested that America is planning, among other options, possible tactical nuclear strikes on Iran’s nuclear research facilities. The purpose would be to stop Iran making its own nuclear bomb, suggested Mr Hersh, a respected but sometimes controversial writer who gained credibility by describing in detail the persistent abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, the American-run prison in Iraq.

It is hard to judge how seriously to take Mr Hersh’s latest claims. The response from western governments has been sceptical and consistent. George Bush’s communications director called the story “ill-informed”. Jack Straw, Britain’s foreign minister, said talk of a nuclear strike was “completely nuts”. The European Union’s top foreign-policy man, Javier Solana, said it has “nothing to do with reality”. Some even suggest Mr Hersh is the unwitting tool of an American propaganda campaign, designed to increase the pressure on Iran.

Meanwhile, Iran has replied by ratcheting up the stakes itself. On Tuesday Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, announced that Iran had entered the nuclear-fuel-making club. A “cascade” of 164 centrifuges at a facility in Natanz have produced a small amount of uranium enriched to contain a 3.5% proportion of uranium-235, the crucial radioactive isotope. This level is sufficient for nuclear-reactor fuel, which is all Iran claims it wants. Uranium must be enriched much more (to about 90% 235U) to make weapons. But this first step is something Iran can learn from, and outsiders suspect that bomb-making is Iran's real goal. Before announcing the “good news”, Mr Ahmadinejad said that “our enemies cannot do a damn thing given the Iranian nation’s persistence, and they know that.”

The enrichment news was not completely unexpected. Two weeks ago the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran had set up the centrifuges at Natanz. The IAEA’s boss, Mohamed ElBaradei, is expected to visit Iran this week to seek its co-operation with the United Nations Security Council, which has demanded that enrichment activity end and that intrusive inspections restart. The IAEA will report on the level of Iran’s compliance at the end of this month.

The evidence so far suggests that Iran is brazenly pushing ahead with both its nuclear and other weapons programmes. It claims recently to have tested new weapons, including a multiple-warhead missile which may be able to evade radar, and a “highly destructive” torpedo. It also held military exercises in the Persian Gulf near the Strait of Hormuz, through which much Middle Eastern oil is shipped. That was probably meant to indicate Iran’s ability to threaten oil supplies. Emphasising the point, an Iranian representative warned America not to “play with fire”.

But America is hardly peace-mongering either. American tactical aircraft based in the Arabian Sea have been practising nuclear bombing manoeuvres, says Mr Hersh. There are rumours that the Pentagon will deploy conventional but enormous bunker-busting weapons.

The difficult military option

The talk of military strikes, whether meant seriously or not, may be intended to put pressure on Iran to give way in future negotiations. But, as Iran’s leaders know, America’s leaders would be wise to think twice—at least—before unleashing any attack. The costs could be great diplomatically, as few American allies would support a strike. Nor would it do much good to the world economy: any disruption to oil supplies would push up already high prices.

And Iran has considerable power to make mayhem in Iraq. There, ironically, America is trying to coax the Shiite coalition that won the January election to nominate Adel Abdul Mahdi as prime minister. He represents a party that is widely considered to be an Iranian proxy. Though America has no diplomatic relations with Iran, its ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, may yet talk to the Islamic Republic about Iraq’s internal affairs. But efforts to seek a deal in Iraq may complicate the war of words over Iran’s nuclear plans.

America will have to think through the political effects of any military strike within Iran. Some of Mr Bush’s planners reportedly think a strike might “humiliate” the regime of Mr Ahmadinejad causing the people to rise up. The reverse may be more likely. Like him or not, Mr Ahmadinejad was elected by Iranians; even the most moderate and pro-western would not look kindly on a foreign power attacking their country.

Others, meanwhile, are seeking more diplomatic means of putting on pressure. On Monday European foreign ministers considered applying visa bans and financial sanctions if Iran presses on with sensitive nuclear activity. Of greater importance is persuading Russia and China, both with strong interests in Iran, to agree to tough diplomatic measures. Russia has proposed to enrich uranium for use in Iran, thereby keeping Iran from mastering the full fuel cycle. But Iran continues to reject this idea.

An Iranian Missile Crisis?

April 12, 2006
The Washington Post
David Ignatius

link to original article

The emerging confrontation between the United States and Iran is "the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion," argues Graham Allison, the Harvard University professor who wrote the classic study of President John F. Kennedy's 1962 showdown with the Soviet Union that narrowly averted nuclear war. If anything, that analogy understates the potential risks here.

President Bush tried to calm the war fever Monday, describing stories about military contingency plans for bombing Iran that appeared last weekend in The Post and the New Yorker as "wild speculation." But those stories did no more than flesh out the strategic options that might be necessary to back up the administration's public pledge, in its National Security Strategy, "to block the threats posed" by Iran and its nuclear program.

The administration insists that it wants diplomacy to do the preemption, even as its military planners are studying how to take out Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy should fail. Iran, meanwhile, is pursuing its own version of preemption, announcing yesterday that it has begun enriching uranium -- a crucial first step toward making a bomb. Neither side wants war -- who in his right mind would? -- but both frame choices in ways that make war increasingly likely.

The impasse was summarized by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker, in a quote attributed to a Pentagon adviser: "The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S."

Allison argues that Bush's dilemma is similar to the one that confronted Kennedy in 1962. His advisers are telling him that he may face a stark choice -- either to acquiesce in the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a dangerous adversary, or risk war to stop that nuclear fait accompli . Hard-liners warned JFK that alternative courses of action would only delay the inevitable day of reckoning, and Bush is probably hearing similar advice now.

Kennedy's genius was to reject the Cuba options proposed by his advisers, hawk and dove alike, and choose his own peculiar outside-the-box strategy. He issued a deadline but privately delayed it; he answered a first, flexible message from Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev but not a second unyielding one; he said he would never take U.S. missiles out of Turkey, as the Soviets were demanding, and then secretly did precisely that. Disaster was avoided because Khrushchev believed Kennedy was willing to risk war -- but wanted to avoid it.

The Bush administration needs to be engaged in a similar exercise in creative thinking. The military planners will keep looking for targets (as they must, in a confrontation this serious). But Bush's advisers -- and most of all, the president himself -- must keep searching for ways to escape the inexorable logic that is propelling America and Iran toward war. I take heart from the fact that the counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Philip Zelikow, is an expert on the Cuban missile crisis who co-authored the second edition of Allison's "Essence of Decision."

What worries me is that the relevant historical analogy may not be the 1962 war that didn't happen, but World War I, which did. The march toward war in 1914 resulted from the tight interlocking of alliances, obligations, perceived threats and strategic miscalculations. The British historian Niall Ferguson argued in his book "The Pity of War" that Britain's decision to enter World War I was a gross error of judgment that cost that nation its empire.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, makes a similar argument about Iran. "I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world," he told me this week. "Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Brzezinski urges President Bush to slow down and think carefully about his options -- rather than rushing to stop Iran's nuclear program, which by most estimates is five to 10 years away from building a bomb, even after yesterday's announcement. "Time is on our side," says Brzezinski. "The mullahs aren't the future of Iran, they're the past." As the United States carefully weighs its options, there is every likelihood that the strategic picture will improve.

The Bush administration has demonstrated, in too many ways, that it's better at starting fights than finishing them. It shouldn't make that same mistake again. Threats of war will be more convincing if they come slowly and reluctantly, when it has become clear that truly there is no other choice.

At the White House, Engaging Iran With Words Over Action

April 11, 2006
The New York Times
David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt

link to original article

WASHINGTON -- One of President Bush's most senior foreign policy advisers spoke with unusual candor last week about the quandary the White House faces as it tries to confront Iran. "The problem is that our policy has been all carrots and no sticks," the adviser told a gathering of academics and outside strategists, according to members of the audience. "And the Iranians know it."

It is partly for that reason, other administration officials say, that President Bush and his aides see some benefits in the increasing public discussion about what the White House may do if diplomacy fails to persuade Iran to halt what they suspect is a nuclear weapons program.

Iran's announcement on Tuesday that it had succeeded in enriching uranium — a significant step toward building a weapon, which most experts believe is still years away — is bound to heighten the escalation of threats between Washington and Tehran.

Even before the announcement, news accounts in recent days of what airstrikes could look like, appearing in The New Yorker, The Washington Post and elsewhere, served as what one senior official called "a reminder" to the Iranian government and to Europe, Russia and China "of where this could go one day."

But at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the administration, officials say the prospect of military action remains remote in the short term and highly problematic beyond that.

The issue remains delicate within an administration that has identified Iran as a major threat. The senior adviser who spoke candidly at last week's gathering did so only under ground rules that guaranteed him anonymity, and members of the audience reported his comments on the condition that they also not be identified.

"Is it a good thing for the Iranians to think there are occasions where the U.S. would use force? Sure," said Eliot A. Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who directed the Air Force's definitive study of the first war against Iraq. "But I don't get a sense that people in the administration are champing at the bit to launch another war in the Persian Gulf."

Others suggest that the vague drumbeat of talk about military action may be less aimed at Tehran than at China and Russia — two countries that have said they oppose even the threat of economic sanctions against Iran, much less threats to set back the Iranian program by obliterating its facilities.

"In Tehran, the threat of military action is double-edged," said Ashton B. Carter, a Harvard security expert who worked on nuclear issues in the Clinton administration. "It may scare the leadership, but it could also cause people to rally around the leadership. Where it's most effective is showing the Russians and the Chinese that we are serious about stopping this program."

The question is how serious, and on that question the administration seems happy to create a strategic fog. Officials at the Pentagon say military planners are examining and updating a variety of contingencies for possible military action against Iran. But they quickly add that such updates are routine.

On Tuesday, as the Iranians were announcing that they had successfully enriched a test amount of uranium, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld dismissed the growing tempo of reports about plans to attack Iran as a "fantasy land" and insisted that the administration was sticking to the diplomatic track in its dealings with Tehran.

Yet when asked whether he had directed the military's Joint Staff or Central Command to update or refine the contingencies the military is preparing for Iran, Mr. Rumsfeld bristled. "The last thing I'm going to do," he said, "is to start telling you or anyone else in the press or the world at what point we refresh a plan or don't refresh a plan, and why. It just isn't useful."

He said he had yet to hear expert opinion from government analysts about what Iran's declaration a few hours earlier meant.

Mr. Rumsfeld was nearly alone among administration officials in saying anything about the issue publicly. Others throughout the government, and even some outsiders who maintain close ties to those in authority, had to be promised anonymity before they would talk about the nuances of military planning.

Some officials, from a range of agencies including the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, said there was none of the feverish planning that took place in the prelude to the Iraq war, and no indication that the White House was seeking an explanation of its military options.

"The strike plans have been in place for some time," said one former senior Pentagon official who is in close touch with his former colleagues.

Tactically, eliminating Iran's nuclear sites, experts say, would require 600 to 1,000 air sorties to make sure that underground sites were destroyed.

Strategically, the task would be more enormous, because the United States would have to be prepared to stop Iran from interfering with oil shipments coming out of the Gulf, to cut off terrorist attacks, and to keep Iran from inciting uprisings in southern Iraq.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a foreign diplomat who visited her recently that to use military force to eliminate Iran's nuclear sites would be an extraordinarily difficult task; President Bush all but dismissed it as a near-term option to some lawmakers who, on condition of anonymity, relayed the essence of their discussion.

According to current and retired senior military officers and Pentagon officials, the military options against Iran range from a limited overnight strike by cruise missiles or stealth bombers aimed at nuclear-related activities, to a much larger series of attacks over several days against not only nuclear-related sites, but also other government targets, including the country's Revolutionary Guard and its intelligence headquarters.

Iran's large uranium-enrichment complex at Natanz, including an unfinished hall for 50,000 nuclear centrifuges that sits empty more than 50 feet underground, could be destroyed with earth-penetrating conventional bombs. Its conversion facility at Isfahan is above ground and easier to hit.

But senior officers warned that attacking targets in Iran would be much more difficult than the air campaign against Iraq in 2003. Iran's air defenses are more formidable. Many nuclear-related targets are dispersed across the country or buried deep underground. And United States intelligence analysts acknowledge that they do not know where all of Iran's secret nuclear-related activities are situated.

"Iran poses a very difficult target set," said one former top officer who was involved in target planning. "It's a bigger country, with more rugged terrain. It would be very difficult to take down."

Those officers and Pentagon officials, as well as independent military specialists, emphasized that there were no indications that airstrikes or commando attacks were imminent, and that any military action would most likely unleash a series of retaliatory strikes from Tehran.

"The consequences of U.S. strikes are enormous," concludes a new report by Anthony H. Cordesman and Khalid R. Al-Rodhan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The report, released Friday, warned that Iran could retaliate by firing missiles at United States troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, by using proxy groups in Iraq to attack American soldiers there, and by sending suicide bombers to the United States.

High Likelihood of US Military Action Against Iran

April 12, 2006
ABC
Eleanor Hall

link to original article

A security consultant to the United States Defence Department and a former adviser to President Clinton on nuclear arms reduction says today's announcement by Iran is deeply worrying. Dr Michael Nacht, who is now Dean of Public Policy at University of California, predicts that there is a high likelihood that there will be a military confrontation between Iran and the United States before the end of President George W. Bush's term.

But speaking to me earlier today, Dr Nacht said the choices for the international community are limited and that doing nothing in response to Iran's latest challenge is not an option.

MICHAEL NACHT: There of course are different judgements about how quickly they can actually fabricate and then deploy a nuclear weapon. Some say as short a time as a year or two. Others say it's going to take years. But there's no doubt that they have the capability and they're moving in the right direction from their perspective.

ELEANOR HALL: Well President Ahmadinejad actually scoffed that the United Nations Security Council knows it can't do anything. How should the international community respond then? I mean are sanctions a realistic option?

MICHAEL NACHT: I actually don't think they're very realistic, because in economic terms, the European Union and many other countries trade extensively with Iran, they're very dependent on Iranian oil. There are just too many economic interests that Iranians have as leverage that would produce a set of sanctions of the kind that the Americans want.

And I, you know… with respect to a UN approved sanction that the Security Council has to approve, I would be very surprised if either Russia or China supported any effort at sanctioning Iran.

ELEANOR HALL: So what message does that send?

MICHAEL NACHT: The message is that the path their on is going to pay off, that they can have their cake and eat. They can basically develop a nuclear energy program.

They can, in addition, in my view, work on a clandestine nuclear weapons program, and they can also maintain bilateral and multilateral economic and political relations with many countries in the world.

And in doing all that, they strengthen the hand of the regime internally and they reduce, you know, their own internal opposition.

ELEANOR HALL: So as someone who's watched this for a long time. How worried are you about that?

MICHAEL NACHT: Well I think this is very serious. I think this is a very serious issue and could easily develop into the next and probably final threat of really concrete military action by the United States.

ELEANOR HALL: Well of course this does come in the same week that the Bush administration's plans for nuclear strikes possibly on Iran's facilities have been revealed.

The President is now playing down that option, but does today's announcement by Iran make this much more likely?

MICHAEL NACHT: Well, you know, frankly my own view throughout the Bush years has been he doesn't joke around.

The language that he's using and the language that Condoleezza Rice is using about the Iranian threat suggests to me that they are gearing up and developing the options for military action.

ELEANOR HALL: So what would be the consequences of a military confrontation between Iran and the United States?

MICHAEL NACHT: Well, I mean, you know, what we see… if Iraq is any indicator, they're highly unpredictable. What we expect to happen may not happen.

And I do think the United States has the physical capacity to destroy most, but not necessarily all, of the Iranian nuclear capability.

The reason I think it's unlikely we can get it all is because they're highly dispersed, they're deeply buried underground.

You know, the Iranians are doing all the things they're supposed to do to protect their assets, and the thought is that they would mount terrorist actions in the United States, in Europe, more against Israel. I mean they of course already back Hamas and Hezbollah. But exactly how much of that they would do is hard to say.

ELEANOR HALL: You've mentioned Iraq and the difficulty there. I mean, how would you compare the two – the prospect of going to war against Iraq and the prospect of going to war against a much bigger country Iran?

MICHAEL NACHT: Right. I mean they are different in many respects. I'd be very surprised if there was any American or any other land-based operation in Iran. I think this would be done strictly from the air using combat aircraft and missiles.

ELEANOR HALL: So if you were advising the Bush administration at the moment, what would you be suggesting they do in response to this statement?

MICHAEL NACHT: I probably would try a multiple strategy. I would not give up on the multilateral diplomatic IAEA UN sanctions strategy, which is largely what they are doing. I would pursue that. I'm not very optimistic it would work, but I would pursue that.

I probably at some point would engage in direct diplomatic negotiations with the Iranians. I'd at least try. I don't think you have a lot to lose. I think that's been a mistake of the Bush administration – not to negotiate directly with the Iranians or frankly with the North Koreans.

And then I would have a military option, but you'd have to really make the case to the American people and to the international community about the justification for this. And frankly right now, of course, President Bush is in a very weakened position.

ELEANOR HALL: But do you think you could make a case for military action against Iran?

MICHAEL NACHT: Well I think they'd have to be able to come forward again… See, I think they should try these other things so then if they fail, frankly, it gives them a little bit more credibility.

There'll be no… they really need to try all the non-military options first.

ELEANOR HALL: But you don't shy away from a military option at the end? You think that you have to keep that there on the table.

MICHAEL NACHT: Absolutely.

I think that diplomacy in these kinds of situation is only as effective… I mean, the carrot is only as effective as the threat of the use of the stick.

ELEANOR HALL: But you're saying that even with the threat that military action could unleash more terrorism, that is a better option than allowing Iran to continue.

MICHAEL NACHT: Yes. It could have very… there's no doubt that it could have very adverse consequences if we act militarily. I think you'd have to go in with your eyes wide open.

But the precedent of Iran going down this path, the precedent for others, the impact further even on North Korea, the impact on a possible – which has been discussed – a possible Saudi-Pakistani-Sunni nuclear program and nuclear alliance to combat the Iranian Shia nuclear program.

This is all very bad news and I do think, though perhaps I'm misreading the situation, I do think that Bush will act one way or the other. It will be resolved in some… let's say it'll be transformed by the end of his tenure.

ELEANOR HALL: And how confident are you that that resolution will be a successful one from the United States point of view?

MICHAEL NACHT: Frankly, I think there are problems no matter what we do, from doing nothing to trying diplomacy and failing, to even acting militarily.

There'll be a lot of adverse consequences no matter what we do.

ELEANOR HALL: That's Dr Michael Nacht, a security analyst and former adviser on nuclear arms issues to President Clinton. He was speaking to me from Berkeley earlier today.

Council on Foreign Relations Told of U.S. Plans for Iran Strike

April 11, 2006
World Tribune
World Tribune.com

link to original article

LONDON -- Western defense sources and analysts told a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations that Britain and the United States are preparing for the prospect of air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities in late 2006 if diplomatic efforts at the United Nations Security Council are not succesful.

"In just the past few weeks I've been convinced that at least some in the administration have already made up their minds that they would like to launch a military strike against Iran," Joseph Cirincione, director of the Washington-based Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said.

At an April 5 seminar by the Council on Foreign Relations, Cirincione said he based his assessment on conversations with those with "close connections with the White House and the Pentagon.

[On Tuesday, Iran announced the successful enrichment of uranium to the 3.5 percent level required to produce fuel to operate nuclear power reactors, Middle East Newsline reported.]

On Monday, President George Bush said Iran's nuclear program could be halted by means other than force. He dismissed reports of U.S. plans for an air strike against Teheran.

"I know we're here in Washington [where] prevention means force," Bush said. "It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy."

"There is already active discussion and even planning of such strikes," Cirincione said. "It is now my working hypothesis that at least some members of the administration, including the vice president of the United States, have made up their mind that the preferred option is to strike Iran and that a military strike will destabilize the regime and contribute to their longtime goal of overthrowing the government of Iran."

Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel and instructor at the National Defense University, held a recent simulation of a U.S. attack on Iran.

Gardiner, envisioning a five-day military operation, identified 24 nuclear-related facilities — some of them 15 meters underground — as part of 400 Iranian sites required for U.S. targeting.

The targets for the U.S. military, Gardiner told a security conference in Berlin in April, would include two Iranian chemical production plants, medium-range ballistic missile launchers and 14 airfields with sheltered aircraft. He said the United States could use its B-2 fleet to destroy these targets.

"The Bush administration is very close to being left with only the military option," Gardiner said.

[On April 9, the Iranian daily Jumhuri Eslami reported that Iran shot down an unmanned aerial vehicle launched from neighboring Iraq. The newspaper said the UAV was relaying reconnaissance of southern Iran.] On April 3, the British Defence Ministry hosted a high-level strategic meeting in London that included senior officials from the Prime Ministry, Foreign Office and military. The Telegraph newspaper reported that the meeting focused on military plans against Iran, something the government quickly denied.

"Clearly at some level, the British don't feel that the military option will come into play until, at the very earliest, the late summer," Hugh Barnes, director of the Iran program of the London-based Foreign Policy Center, said.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw agreed. On April 9, Straw told the British Broadcasting Corp. that a military strike against Iran was not on the agenda.

"They [the Americans] are very committed indeed to resolving this issue by negotiation and by diplomatic pressure," Straw said. "And what the Iranians have to do is recognize they have overplayed their hand at each stage."

At this point, the Western sources said, Britain and the United States have agreed to seek support from China and Russia on UN sanctions on Iran.

They said the two countries hope to draft a unified Security Council resolution on sanctions before the G-8 summit in July.

Should that fail, the sources said, Britain and the United States would prepare for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. They said the plans would allow London and Washington to prepare for the prospect of a Shi'ite backlash in Iraq.

"It is a kind of dual policy that the military will be looking at," Barnes said. "Not just the context strategically for what an attack on Iran would involve, but also the likely fallout from such an attack if — as is not yet conceivable — it was to take place."

Richard Haas, a former White House national security adviser and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the United States has drafted a military option against Iran. Haas said the option called for a limited military strike that would destroy Iran's nuclear facilities without seeking to overthrow the regime in Teheran.

"It would be a preventive military option, not preemptive because there's no imminent threat of use [of nuclear weapons]," Haas said. "But something more limited, to basically destroy or set back their nuclear development — a classic preventive military strike."

At the Council on Foreign Relations discussion, Reuel Gerecht, a former CIA operative in the Middle East and now with the American Enterprise Institute, said the Bush administration would wait three months to determine whether the Security Council was prepared to sanction Teheran. In July 2006, Gerecht said, the military option would undergo open debate in Washington.

"We have not had that debate," Gerecht said. "We are going to have that debate. I think we should have that debate sooner, not later, so we don't have to get bogged down."