The State Department’s Dead Parrot
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 20, 2006
In the Monty
Python skit, a man brings a parrot back to
the store where he purchased him half an
hour earlier, complaining that the parrot is
dead.
The shop owner insists it must be resting,
but the man says he discovered that the only
reason that parrot was sitting up at all was
because it had been nailed to the perch in
its cage.
Like the shop owner, the State Department is
promoting a long-dead policy of supporting
“moderates” in Tehran, under the guise of
promoting “reform” and “change.”
Not only is State making a monumental
mistake: it has fallen for one of the oldest
tricks of Iran’s clerical elite.
Over the past three years, President Bush
has accumulated a tremendous capital of
goodwill with the Iranian people because of
his outspoken support for their struggle for
freedom.
The president has made clear in private
meetings with Iranian exiles that his public
statements were not mere rhetoric. He really
meant it when he called Iran part of an
“axis of evil” in his 2002 State of the
Union speech.
He meant every word he uttered after the
regime disqualified some 2,400 candidates
for parliamentary elections in February 2004
and he said, “The United States supports the
Iranian people’s aspiration to live in
freedom, enjoy their God-given rights, and
determine their own destiny.”
He meant it when he spoke to the Voice of
America’s Persian service on August 17,
2004. “There is a significant diaspora here
in the United States of Iranian-Americans
who long for their homeland to be liberated
and free. We’re working with them to send
messages to their loved ones and their
relatives…say[ing], ‘Listen, we hear your
voice, we know you want to be free, and we
stand with you in your desire to be free.’”
And he meant it again when he addressed the
Iranian people during his State of the Union
speech this year. “Our nation hopes one day
to be the closest of friends with a free and
democratic Iran.”
Somehow, that message hasn’t made it over to
Foggy Bottom.
At the State Department, where Condoleeza
Rice has admirably pledged to spend $85
million this year to support the pro-freedom
movement in Iran, careerists have taken over
the show and are steering her in the wrong
direction.
Of that $85 million, nearly $50 million has
been tentatively ear-marked to expand the
Voice of America and the Persian service of
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Both radios need to improve the quality of
their broadcasts and, especially, their
political content, before they deserve
another dime in taxpayer funding. But that
is a story I will treat in depth in a future
column.
The rest of the money is being spent on a
variety of programs led by former Tehran
regime officials, student leaders, and U.S.
academics who believe the Tehran regime can
be reformed, but does not need to be
changed.
This is sweet music to the ears of Iran’s
ruling mullahs and to Iran’s boy president,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
They all want “reform.” After all,
Ahmadinejad campaigned for president on a
platform of “reform.” He was going to drive
out corrupt mullahs, such as the “reformist”
Rafsanjani, and reform Iran’s nuclear
weapons program.
Mohsen Sazegara was one of the founders of
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps. He fell
out with the regime in the late 1980s,
published a series of reformist newspapers,
and was jailed for nearly two years.
He came to the United States last year at
the invitation of the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy and with the blessing
of the Department of State.
Sazegara’s break with the regime was
sincere. But since coming to the United
States, he has teamed up with “reformers”
such as Akbar Atri, Ali Afshari, and Ramin
Ahmadi of Yale University, who have gotten
the lion’s share of the “pro-freedom” moneys
from the State Department.
Instead of providing seed money to a
home-grown pro-democracy movement, State
Department has sponsored Atri to go on a
tour of U.S. college campuses, and is now
talking of providing him with a radio
station to broadcast his message of “reform”
into Iran. They have also thrown money at
Ramin Ahmadi by the million – initially, to
sponsor a data base of Iranian human rights
abuses (something that a number of other
groups had already pulled together privately
over the past decades, on shoestring
funding).
It was Ahmadi who sponsored the ill-fated
“non-violent training workshops” in Dubai
that backfired last year, sources familiar
with the program told me.
The idea of training Iranian activists in
the weapons of non-violent conflict is an
excellent one. But as reported by the
Washington Post, the problem with the Dubai
workshops was the choice of people who were
selected to attend.
They were reformers, not activists seeking
to grow a pro-democracy movement.
They didn’t want to change the regime in
Tehran; they wanted to make it stronger,
just as Iran’s reformist clerics have sought
to do. When they found out that the State
Department – and not Yale University - was
financing the workshops, they fled back to
Tehran, where they denounced the United
States publicly.
Roozbeh Farahanipour was one of the leaders
of the student rebellion at Tehran
University in July 1999. He remembers Ali
Afshari well.
“When we tried to get students to take the
demonstrations from the university to the
streets of Tehran, Afshari came along behind
us in a truck with a sound system, shouting
at the crowd to not follow us because we
were against the revolution,” Farahanipour
recalls.
That is one of the tricks the regime likes
to play. It periodically gives leash to
“reformers” and allows them to publish
newspapers and speak out against regime
excesses, for as long as they don’t cross
the red line and demand true freedom and a
change of regime.
Several authentic, grass roots movements for
change in Iran do exist. One is led by
Farahanipour and is called Marzeporgohar, or
Iranians for a Secular Republic (http://www.marzeporgohar.org
<http://www.marzeporgohar.org/> )
Another is the Iran Nation’s Party
(sometimes referred to as the Iran People’s
Party in the West). It was led by Darioush
Forouhar until he and his wife were brutally
hacked to death by regime thugs in Tehran in
November 1998. The current leader is Khosrow
Seif.
Yet another authentic pro-democracy group
worthy of U.S. funding is the Iran
Referendum Movement. Prompted initially by
Sazegara’s campaign that collected 35,000
signatures on the Internet in favor of an
internationally-monitored referendum on the
regime, the movement now has chapters in 35
cities worldwide who sent 250 delegates to a
founding convention in Brussels, Belgium,
this past December.
They elected a 15-member Central Committee,
who in turn selected a 7-member Executive
Board. Although they have extensive networks
inside Iran, they can’t seem to get the eyes
and ears of the State Department.
But because the Referendum Movement is
calling for an end of the Islamic Republic,
the groups being funded by the State
Department have all refused to have anything
to do with it. The State Department’s
choices are reformers, not revolutionaries.
Sazegara himself told me last year that the
reform movement was “dead.” And yet, the
State Department, through lack of
imagination or its atavistic tendency toward
blind man’s bluff, refuses to recognize it.
Like Monty Python’s dead parrot, the State
Department Iran “experts” have nailed the
reform movement to the perch, and keep
selling it again and again, pretending that
it’s alive.
But no matter how they dress it up, it’s
still a dead parrot.
Or, as the Monty Python character put it,
“This parrot is no more!… 'E's kicked the
bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil,
run down the curtain and joined the bleedin'
choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!”
Alas, not in Washington.
More at www.kentimmerman.com and
www.iran.org
Bush and Iran
April 21, 2006
The Wall Street Journal
Review & Outlook
link to original article
Bill Clinton often complained that history
had denied him the sort of historic
challenge -- a Great Depression or war --
that might have made his Presidency great.
We suspect that, after five tumultuous
years, President Bush has more than once
wished that he could have been so lucky.
But that is not the fate of this President,
who has had to confront the consequences of
the holiday from history that was the 1990s:
September 11, continuing wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq, and now his most severe test yet,
the looming crisis over Iran's drive for
nuclear weapons.
* * *
Iran's announcement this month that it has
enriched uranium to reactor-grade levels
marks a watershed, and there is no point
putting a hopeful gloss on it. Iran now owns
the entire nuclear fuel cycle, from mining
uranium ore from its own deposits, to
milling it, crushing it, converting it to
hexafluoride gas and enriching it in
homemade centrifuges.
Technically, uranium enrichment to
reactor-grade constitutes the most difficult
phase of the process; moving from there to
bomb-grade is much easier. "You can have a
lot of problems with the first [centrifuge
cascade]," a knowledgeable U.S. government
source recently told us. "But once you
master it, then you just replicate it
elsewhere."
Nor is that all. President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad claims Iran is "conducting
research" on an advanced centrifuge obtained
from rogue Pakistan scientist A.Q. Khan, and
which it has previously denied using. This
means Iran has once again admitted lying to
the International Atomic Energy Agency. It
also indicates Iran has a more extensive
covert nuclear program than previously
recognized, and that it is much closer to
its goal of developing an industrial-scale
nuclear base than generally assumed.
Put simply, the idea that Iran is still a
decade away from a bomb -- as was suggested
by last year's National Intelligence
Estimate -- now looks like wishful thinking.
The Iranian bomb will thus be a crisis for
this Administration, not the next, and Mr.
Bush will have no choice but to offer the
kind of leadership he has so far outsourced
to the Europeans and the United Nations.
This does not yet mean giving up on
diplomacy, although it does mean being
realistic about its limits and clear about
the alternatives. The threat of
comprehensive sanctions that would put
Tehran under a trade and oil embargo, bar
Iranian officials from traveling abroad and
forbid Iranian athletes from participating
in international sporting events might
persuade Iran's religious leaders that there
is a prohibitive price to pay for going
nuclear. But we doubt it.
Far from deterring the mullahs, sanctions
are likelier to hasten their quest for a
bomb, if only because nuclear-armed regimes
are harder to isolate and contain than
non-nuclear ones. Sanctions on Pakistan and
India, imposed after their nuclear tests in
1998, barely lasted a few years.
In any case, the chances of the
international community imposing sanctions
-- and sticking to them -- are vanishingly
small. Russia and China have made their
opposition plain. China will not allow
itself to be cut off from supplies of
Iranian oil and natural gas. And Russia
increasingly sees Tehran as a valuable
customer: Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr
is being built by Russia, which also
supplies advanced anti-aircraft missiles to
defend it.
As for the Europeans, three years of
fruitless diplomacy have at least persuaded
them of Tehran's bad faith. But neither
Germany nor France (which has extensive
trade links with Iran) appear prepared to go
along with serious sanctions, while British
Foreign Minister Jack Straw has made a
career of trying to cultivate the mullahs.
Instead, the "international community" and
U.S. foreign policy establishment are likely
to press the Administration to pursue what's
being called a "Grand Bargain": direct talks
between Washington and Tehran leading to an
end to the U.S. embargo and a resumption of
diplomatic relations in exchange for an
Iranian promise to abandon its nuclear
program. The bargain idea has just got a
boost from Richard Lugar, the Indiana
Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. Talking to the mullahs,
he recently told ABC's George
Stephanopoulos, "would be useful," adding
that the Administration needed to "make more
headway diplomatically."
This is precisely what Mr. Clinton tried
with North Korea in the 1990s, when
Pyongyang was offered economic and technical
assistance in exchange for promising to give
up its nuclear ambitions. As we now know,
the North pocketed that American commitment,
went ahead covertly with its weapons
programs, and is now demanding further U.S.
concessions.
In the same way, nothing Iran has done in
recent years offers any indication it would
honor such a bargain. It has consistently
lied to the IAEA, trashed its agreements
with Europe, openly flouted a U.N. Security
Council resolution, provided explosives to
insurgents in Iraq, developed ballistic
missiles of increasing range, selected a
president with apocalyptic religious
impulses, and engaged in vitriolic
anti-American and anti-Semitic rhetoric.
This is not the behavior of an ordinary
state -- a "status quo power," in diplomatic
jargon -- that aims to "normalize" its
position in the world through diplomacy.
Rather, they are the acts of a revolutionary
regime seeking to spread its ideology and
power by force and intimidation.
Most of all, the U.S. should think very
carefully about making deals with a despotic
regime that enjoys the support of only 20%
of its own people, at least if our aim is to
see the regime toppled peacefully from
within. In his 2006 State of the Union
address, Mr. Bush addressed the Iranian
people directly, saying "we respect your
right to choose your own future and win your
own freedom." A "grand bargain" of the kind
suggested by Mr. Lugar would betray that
promise and assist the mullahs in retaining
power.
* * *
The task now for the President is to begin
speaking publicly about why a nuclear Iran
is, as he calls it, "unacceptable." Far from
preparing for war with Iran, the
Administration has barely begun to confront
the tough choices at hand. The reasons for
this reluctance are easy to appreciate: The
future of democratic Iraq is far from
assured; Mr. Bush's approval ratings are in
the tank and his political capital is
depleted; and the military options against
Iran have their own limitations and risks.
But Mr. Bush remains President for 33 more
months, with a Constitutional responsibility
to ensure our safety. And there is no more
clear and present danger than Iran's nuclear
programs.
Our point today is not to advocate any
specific course of action. But the
Administration can't postpone any longer a
candid discussion about the nature and
urgency of the Iranian threat. That
discussion must include the Congress; this
would be helpful not least as a way of
smoking out exactly what Senator Lugar and
his fellow-grand bargainers are really
proposing as an alternative to sanctions or
force. If they think an Iranian nuke is
acceptable, they should say so.
Above all, the President must begin to
educate the American public about what is at
stake in Iran and what the U.S. might be
prepared to do about it. Until he does so,
he will be hostage to a series of
increasingly distressing Tehran
"announcements," the pace and timing of
which will be dictated by the clerics and
zealots who wish us ill.
Iran
Bombs Kurdish Camp in Iraq
Reuters
ARBIL, Iraq
- Iranian forces shelled Iranian Kurdish
rebel positions inside mountainous northern
Iraq early on Friday to repel an attack, an
Iraqi Kurdish official said.
"This morning Iranian Kurdish fighters
infiltrated the border into the Iranian side
and the Iranian army bombed the area and
repelled them. The shelling hit Iraqi land
at Sidakan," said Saadi Pira, an official in
Iraq's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)
party.
There was no word on casualties in the
shelling of the rebels of the Iranian Party
of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK). Sidakan is
about 80 km (50 miles) north of the northern
Iraqi city of Arbil and about 10 km (6
miles) from the Iranian border.
News
of the incident could fuel tensions in Iraq,
where Sunni Arab leaders accuse Shi'ite Iran
of meddling in the country's internal
affairs.
There was no word on the shelling from
Iraq's Defense Ministry.
Iran's
Revolutionary Guards have previously clashed
with PJAK separatists in Iran's restive
western borderlands.
Security experts say PJAK is an Iranian wing
of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), whose
separatist struggle regained momentum in
southeastern Turkey after it called off a
unilateral ceasefire in the summer of 2004.
Turkey has
long been concerned about PKK rebel bases in
northern Iraq, which it frequently attacked
before the U.S.-led invasion to topple
Saddam Hussein in 2003.
Dozens of guerrillas and members of Turkey's
security forces have been killed in fighting
in recent months, and a group linked to the
PKK has claimed several bomb attacks in
Istanbul.
Ankara, which
has up to 250,000 troops in southeastern
Turkey, has sent an extra 40,000 soldiers to
the area to prepare for an expected rise in
PKK incursions from northern Iraq, a senior
Turkish military official said on Thursday.
Turkey's Daily
Aksam said on Friday 50,000 troops were
massed at the borders with Iran and Iraq and
that the army planned to extend its fight
against PKK beyond Turkey's border.
Iraqi Kurdish officials said they were
concerned over the reports that Turkey was
deploying troops for possible attacks on PKK
rebels in northern Iraq.
But
Western diplomats in Ankara said they were
not aware of specific plans by the army to
fight the PKK in Iraq. The United States has
made clear its opposition to any such
cross-border action. Ankara is pressing the
Americans to flush out the PKK.
Turkey has
long been concerned about the regional
autonomy enjoyed by Iraqi Kurds, fearing it
might encourage similar aspirations among
its own Kurdish population.
Kurdish Official Accuses Iran of Shelling
Iraq
April 21, 2006
Reuters
Radio Free Europe
link to original article
An official in the leading Patriotic Union
of Kurdistan Party said today that Iranian
forces shelled Iranian Kurdish guerrilla
positions inside Northern Iraq. Saad Pira
said the shells hit Iraqi territory at
Sidakan, north of the city of Irbil.
The guerrillas were reportedly members of
the militant Kurdistan Independent Life
Party (PJAK). There was no word on
casualties.
Ahmadinejad Hails Rising Oil Prices as 'Very
Good'
April 21, 2006
Reuters
MSNBC.com
link to original article
TEHRAN,
Iran -- Iran’s president said on Friday the
rise in oil price was “very good,” Iran’s
Mehr News Agency reported, emphasizing the
hawkish position of the world’s fourth
largest oil exporter as crude prices have
hit record levels.
“The increase of the oil price and growth of
oil income is very good and we hope that the
oil prices reach their real levels,” Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad said as he toured an oil
exhibition in Tehran, the agency reported.
He did not say what those real levels should
be. But these and other earlier remarks
suggest he believes crude prices should rise
above this week’s record high of over $74 a
barrel. On Friday, European Brent crude fell
below $73.
Iranian Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh
said on Thursday Iran was happy with surging
prices. The minister blamed the price rise
on a shortage of gasoline in the United
States and not a shortage of crude in world
markets.
Most members of the Organization of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries worry that the
high prices will hurt world economic growth
and Iran had previously shared that view.
OPEC member Venezuela has also taken a
hawkish position.
In earlier comments to reporters at the
exhibition, Ahmadinejad said Iran was
looking at ways to help protect poor states
from the impact of rising prices but said
rich countries should pay what he called the
“real price.”
Iranian lawmakers have previously said that
a price of $100 or more for a barrel of oil
was an appropriate level.
“There is a fund in OPEC, and the Oil
Ministry and Foreign Ministry are in talks
to see whether this OPEC fund has the
capacity [to support poor countries],”
Ahmadinejad said when asked about his plans
to set up an assistance fund.
“But those rich and industrial countries
that have billions of dollars in income
should pay the real price for their crude
oil,” he said.
He did not give details about the financing
mechanism, but the Organization of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries has a fund to
promote development.
In March, OPEC production excluding Iraq was
27.81 million barrels per day, of which
Iran’s production was 3.85 million bpd.
What's in a Boast?
April 20, 2006
The Economist print edition
Middle East & Africa
link to original article
Iran's
president is not above poking a finger in
the eye of those wanting to contain his
country's nuclear ambitions. But it is not
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's proud boast last
week—that having successfully enriched a
small quantity of uranium in a cascade of
fast-spinning centrifuge machines at Natanz,
Iran has joined the “nuclear
countries”—which most troubles nuclear
inspectors (it had almost reached that point
before). Rather, by claiming that Iran has
more advanced “P-2” centrifuges too, Mr
Ahmadinejad has fuelled suspicion that it is
still hiding nuclear work. If it is, then
guesses by America and others that it might
be five to ten years before Iran could lay
its hands on a bomb may be astray.
Iran says it wants to produce only
low-enriched uranium (last week's was 3.5%
enriched) for use in power reactors, not the
90%-enriched stuff needed for most bomb
designs. But ever since Iran's
long-concealed nuclear work was exposed by
regime opponents in 2002, inspectors from
the International Atomic Energy Agency, the
UN's nuclear guardian, have suspected that
it is still hiding something. Might that be
some P-2 centrifuges?
Iranian officials eventually admitted that
they had received designs for the more
efficient P-2s in 1995, from the same
Pakistan-centred black-market network that
provided the less capable P-1 machines which
produced the uranium Mr Ahmadinejad was
waving about gleefully last week. But the
plans, they claim, were ignored until 2002,
when an Iranian company was given the job of
conducting tests using some locally produced
parts.
The inspectors never bought that story:
testing would not have been possible, they
worried, without more time to work on the
designs. To add to their suspicions, some
traces of low-enriched uranium found in Iran
have yet to be explained, and may indicate
more enrichment work than has been owned up
to. Meanwhile, before inspectors could get
there, Iran razed a site at Lavizan where
nuclear work may have taken place. More
recently, a key member of the black-market
network, in custody in Malaysia, alleged
that Iran bought equipment, not just
designs, for the more advanced centrifuges,
despite its denials.
Concerns have intensified since Mr
Ahmadinejad's claim that Iran has resumed
“research” on P-2S. Once it is able to build
the new models in some number (no one knows
if it yet has all the parts to do so), it
will be able to build up its uranium stocks
much more quickly than first thought.
Experts calculate that it would need about
1,500 P-1 centrifuges, configured to produce
highly enriched uranium rather than the
civilian sort, to produce enough fissile
material for a bomb a year. The P-2S could
do that job in half the time.
But might the gaps and evasions in Iran's
nuclear story point to a still more worrying
conclusion? Some have long suspected that it
has a parallel military enrichment
programme. Inspectors have uncovered no
evidence of that. But a small centrifuge
plant would be difficult to detect. Using
hidden P-2 machines, and either starting
from scratch or with already partially
enriched uranium (getting to 3-5% is already
the hardest part) from its publicly known
enrichment plant, Iran could spring a much
nastier nuclear surprise.
Iran
Sanctions 'Depend on Proof'
April 21, 2006
BBC News
BBCi
link to original article
Russia
has ruled out sanctions against Iran unless
there is proof that its nuclear programme is
not peaceful, a Russian spokesman is quoted
as saying. Mikhail Kamynin of the foreign
ministry said Russia must see "concrete
facts" proving Iran's non-peaceful
activities, the Itar-Tass news agency said.
The US has been trying to rally support from
UN Security Council members like Russia for
tougher action against Iran.
The US suspects Iran may have a nuclear
weapons programme. Iran denies this.
Iran
says rich states must pay "real" oil price
Fri Apr 21, 2006
http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-04-21T085800Z_01_BLA116102_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-ENERGY-IRAN-AHMADINEJAD-DC.XML
TEHRAN
(Reuters) - Iran's president said on Friday
that his country was looking at ways to help
protect poor states from the impact of
surging oil prices while rich countries
should pay what he called the "real price."
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reiterating Iran's
increasingly hawkish position on prices that
have charged to record levels, partly on the
back of worries that Iran's dispute with the
West over its nuclear program could disrupt
Iranian crude supplies.
Ahmadinejad said earlier this week that oil
prices had not reached their "real value"
yet, suggesting they should rise further. He
did not specify an appropriate level.
"There is a fund in OPEC, and the Oil
Ministry and Foreign Ministry are in talks
to see whether this OPEC fund has the
capacity (to support poor countries),"
Ahmadinejad said when asked about his plans
to set up an assistance fund.
"If so, then we will strengthen this fund
and find a formula to protect poor and weak
countries not to be harmed because of the
crude price hike," he told reporters while
touring an oil industry exhibition.
"But those rich and industrial countries
that have billions of dollars in income
should pay the real price for their crude
oil," he added.
He did not give details about the financing
mechanism to protect poor countries but the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries already has a fund to promote
development.
Iran
is the world's fourth largest oil exporter.
Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh said on
Thursday that Iran was happy with surging
prices, which topped $74 a barrel on
Thursday before easing back on Friday.
Iranian lawmakers have previously said that
a price of $100 or more for a barrel of oil
was an appropriate level.
In March, OPEC production excluding Iraq was
27.81 million barrels per day, of which
Iran's production was 3.85 million bpd.
Syria, Iran behind suicide bombing in Tel
Aviv: Olmert
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-04/21/content_4458613.htm
JERUSALEM,
April 21 (Xinhua) -- Israeli Interim Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert said on Friday that
Syria and Iran were behind Monday's suicide
bombing in Tel Aviv, which left nine
civilians dead and dozens wounded, the
Jerusalem Post reported.
Olmert made the remarks during a meeting
with a U.S. Congress finance committee
delegation.
Israeli intelligence information found
that the instruction for the bombing came
from the Islamic Jihad office in Damascus
and that a confirmation of the attack was
sent back there shortly after the suicide
bomber blew himself up, Olmert was quoted
assaying.
Olmert claimed that the Iranians were
funding and guiding terrorism against Israel
through Syria.
Iran and Syria were also enhancing ties
with the Palestinian Islamic Resistance
Movement (Hamas), which is sworn to Israel's
destruction, according to Olmert.
Olmert also warned that Israel would
take unilateral measures for its security,
including fixing final borders with the
Palestinians, if terror attacks continue.
Can Iran Be Deterred?
April 21, 2006
The Washington Times
Editorial
link to original article
"Iran under its present rulers cannot be
allowed finally to acquire nuclear weapons
-- for these would not guarantee stability
by mutual deterrence but would instead
threaten us with uncontrollable perils...The
rulers of Iran are openly financing, arming,
training and inciting anti-American
terrorist organizations...If this is what
Iran's extremist rulers do now even without
the shield of nuclear weapons to protect
them, what would they do if they had it?" So
writes Edward Luttwak of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, an
opponent of military strikes, in the May
issue of Commentary magazine.
Mr. Luttwak argues against military action
on grounds that there is still time to
prevent Iran from going nuclear. The urgency
of the Iran issue continues to grow,
however, in the wake of newly released
commercial satellite photographs which help
to document a pattern of building and
concealment activities dating back to 2002
at two major Iranian nuclear facilities: a
uranium conversion site at Isfahan and a
uranium enrichment site at Natanz.
At Isfahan, satellite photographs taken last
month and obtained by the Institute for
Science and International Security, a
Washington research organization, show
construction of a third tunnel entrance to
the nuclear facility. Iran's decision in
January to resume uranium enrichment bars
the International Atomic Energy Agency from
conducting more comprehensive inspections of
the Natanz nuclear site to keep track of
centrifuge components and assembled
centrifuges, along with critical centrifuge
manufacturing and assembling equipment.
Notes the ISIS: "As a result, the IAEA is
slowly losing knowledge regarding the use
and location of many of these items."
The evidence that Iran is pressing ahead
with a nuclear weapons program is
strengthening the position of those who
believe that Washington must take military
action. One proponent is Reuel Gerecht of
the American Enterprise Institute. Mr.
Gerecht concedes that there are powerful
reasons not to bomb Iran, including the
possibility of retaliatory terrorist attacks
and violent reactions from Muslims in Iraq
and elsewhere. But he makes clear that none
of these problems will go away if the United
States attempts to pursue a policy of Cold
War-style "containment" against a nuclear
Iran and virtually all of them will worsen
if Iran acquires an atomic bomb.
The Bush administration and Pentagon
generals have little interest in taking
military action, but in the end their hand
is likely to be forced, because it would be
intolerable to permit a jihadist rogue state
to obtain nuclear weapons. Iran is less like
the Soviet Union than a more dangerous
version of bin Ladenism, Mr. Gerecht writes.
While it would be preferable to see Iranians
peacefully remove the mullahs and forge a
democratic government, this could take
decades and it is unlikely to happen before
the regime acquires a bomb. If we allow this
to occur and hope for the best, Mr. Gerecht
writes in the Weekly Standard, an American
president would be faced some day with a
terrible decision if we were attacked by a
terrorist group that the United States
believed to be backed by Tehran: "What would
we do if we were pretty sure they'd ordered
a terrorist attack -- say, 80 percent sure
-- but we were 100 percent sure they had
nuclear-armed ICBMs?" In a post-September 11
era, Mr. Gerecht argues, it is essential
that Washington set non-negotiable red lines
to ensure that no rogue regime can use the
possibility of a nuclear strike to deter
U.S. retaliation for a terrorist atrocity
against Americans.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the
current debate is the degree to which an
opponent of military action like Mr. Luttwak
agrees with Mr. Gerecht. Mr. Luttwak writes
that it will be possible to overcome Iran's
attempts at camouflage and deception, and
also "to target air strikes accurately
enough to delay Iran's manufacture of
nuclear weapons very considerably"; that
"there is no indication that the regime will
fall before it acquires nuclear weapons";
and that deterrence cannot work with an
Iranian government run by someone who
believes that provoking a nuclear
catastrophe will bring back the
long-deceased "12th imam."
In sum, it is becoming increasingly
difficult to argue that containment or
deterrence can work against Iran.
Katsav to Iran: Your Regime Hurts You
April 20, 2006
The Jerusalem Post
David Horovitz
link to original article
President Moshe Katsav has warned the people
of Iran that their radical regime, with its
insistent drive for a nuclear capability,
poses a grave danger to global peace and
security and is leading them toward the
abyss.
In an interview with The Jerusalem Post
ahead of Independence Day, the president
sent a message to Iranians stressing that
"Israel is not against the Iranian people,"
and that he himself had "great love for
Persian culture, Persian history."
Potentially, the Iranian-born president
said, Iran enjoyed oil revenues that could
ensure a high standard of living and quality
of life for its people. But instead of using
that money to alleviate poverty, distress,
illiteracy and the other economic and social
problems facing many of his citizens, Iran's
"fanatical, extremist president" Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and his regime were investing
all of their resources in developing a
nuclear capability.
Moreover, Katsav said, there was no
existential threat to Iran, and therefore
there would be no basis for an Iranian claim
to require a nuclear capability for
self-defense.
Katsav, who came to Israel with his family
as a five-year-old in 1951, characterized
Ahmadinejad's regime as "the most hostile"
since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and
branded it "an enemy and a danger to the
internal situation in Iran and a danger to
peace and security in the world. The
Iranians, to my sorrow, are either too
scared or don't recognize the reality and
therefore don't see the regime leading them
to the abyss."
A nuclear Iran would constitute a threat "to
Europe, to Israel, the Persian Gulf
countries, Saudi Arabia and the Hashemite
Kingdom," he said.
The president noted that, for years, the
West had hoped that internal Iranian
pressure "would ultimately bring Iran closer
to the West... But in the last year it's
become clear that the notion of positive
change was a Western illusion. The
reformists didn't prevail."
In a similar vein, the West had hoped that
diplomatic efforts would deter the Iranian
nuclear drive. But "Iran simply led Europe
astray."
"The Iranians pretended to want trade
agreements," he said, "but they didn't slow
in the slightest their plans to reach a
nuclear capability. In my opinion, they aim
to reach the day when the world will say,
'Too bad, they've already got it.'"
Even after Ahmadinejad's recent announcement
that Iran was enriching uranium, Katsav
noted, there was no international outcry. "I
imagine that in the inner rooms of the
Iranian regime they are falling over with
laughter at how they are moving step by step
toward their goal and how the free world is
hesitant and weak," he said.
The president stressed that he was not
calling for military action against Iran but
rather for a "forceful stance" to deter the
nuclear program. The West, he said, needed
to say "enough" and "acknowledge that the
diplomatic effort has failed. Why don't they
open their eyes?"
"We can't have Iran cheating the world,
behaving with contempt," he said.
"Everyone thinks that we Israelis, when we
speak of standing firm against Iran, are
talking of military action. That is not the
case," said Katsav. "I think that a
resolute, unhesitant stance by the free
world is precisely what will avoid military
action. Those who want to avoid military
action must now take a forceful stance
stance against Iran."
Iran
Students Asking Regime To Suspend A-Bomb
Effort
April 20, 2006
New York Sun
Eli Lake
link to original article
CAIRO,
Egypt -- Iran's largest and oldest student
organization is publicly urging the Tehran
government to suspend uranium enrichment and
cooperate fully with the international
community.
A statement released Tuesday by Tahkim
Vahdat's central committee called for a
"temporary suspension of nuclear
activities," Voice of America's Persian
Service reported and an Iranian-American
activist with close ties to the student
organization confirmed.
The statement from Tahkim Vahdat came less
than a week after President Ahmadinejad
appeared on Iranian national television to
announce "the good news" that the regime's
scientists had enriched uranium to levels
suitable both for use in bombs and nuclear
power plants.
The students' public criticism of Iran's
nuclear activities could make them
vulnerable to crackdowns by the country's
national security service, which is
commanded by loyal allies of the
Holocaust-denying president.
Voicing dissent over the nuclear program
carries risk. Last month, a human rights
lawyer, Abdolfattah Soltani, was released
after spending seven months in prison on
charges of nuclear espionage.
A former member of the student
organization's central committee, Reza
Delberry, said last week in an interview
from Tehran that the group did not
necessarily refute Iran's right to enrich
uranium, but rather was concerned that the
regime's prioritization of a nuclear program
was detrimental to other, more pressing
needs.
"You have to put this in the proper context.
Nuclear energy, although it is important for
peaceful means, this is not a priority in
terms of what we and the Iranian people are
looking for," Mr. Delberry said. "We want to
be getting to the position where a
democratic system is in place and our
government respects human rights and enjoy a
peaceful coexistence with the world."
Tahkim Vahdat, which was a pillar of the
1979 revolution, vocally agitated over the
summer for the release from prison of a
dissident journalist, Akbar Ganji. The
organization's former leaders have also
endorsed the idea of a referendum on the
Islamic Republic's constitution, which now
vests most legislative, judicial, and
national security powers in the unelected
supreme leader.
Voice of America yesterday quoted a
spokesman for Tahkim Vahdat, Saber
Sheykhlou, as calling Iran's recent
enrichment activities irrational. "The
irrational and confrontational behavior of
those who are in power has put the country
and the nation on the threshold of a war or
devastating sanctions," VOA quoted Mr.
Sheykhlou as saying.
"The referral of Iran's nuclear case to the
U.N. Security Council was the result of
Iran's biggest foreign-policy mistake."
Mr. Delberry last week said he and others in
Iran's opposition movement opposed the
prospect of an American bombing campaign,
but added that he believed Mr. Ahmadinejad's
behavior was aimed partly at provoking an
assault.
"The only solution is a nonviolent process
towards democracy that will keep in mind the
interests of the Iran ian people in coming
to a democratic system," Mr. Delberry said.
"The only way to do this is to go through a
nonviolent process. Any violent approach,
military approach, or otherwise, is not
accepted and not right. It will put a strain
on our democracy movement."
Mr. Ganji considered a possible American
invasion in his second manifesto, released
last summer. He wrote that Iranian
opposition members worried about the
prospect of invasion, but noted that no one
inside Iran knows whether such a plan exists
or what its details might be.
"That plan depends more on the behavior of
the Iranian regime than it does on the
conduct of the opposition forces," Mr. Ganji
wrote. He called American military action
against Iran unlikely, particularly given
America's involvement in Iraq. The surest
way to avoid a confrontation, he said, is to
succeed in a nonviolent democratic
revolution.
"Freedom lovers can't stop their struggle
for freedom and democracy because of a
possible U.S. invasion. They can't stand
behind tyranny to face imperialism, as the
motto goes," he wrote.
Mr. Ganji last month was threatened with
more jail time after having been released in
March just before the Persian New Year. So
far, however, no warrant has been issued for
his arrest. In recent weeks, he has kept
largely to himself, though he has visited a
number of Iranian newspapers for informal
discussions.
The Tragedy that Followed Hillary Clinton's
Bombing of Iran in 2009
April 20, 2006
The Guardian
Timothy Garton Ash
link to original article
May 7 2009 will surely go down in history
alongside September 11 2001. "5/7", as it
inevitably became known, saw massive suicide
bombings in Tel Aviv, London and New York,
as well as simultaneous attacks on the
remaining western troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Total casualties were estimated
at around 10,000 dead and many more wounded.
The attacks, which included the explosion of
a so-called dirty bomb in London, were
orchestrated by a Tehran-based organisation
for "martyrdom-seeking operations"
established in 2004. "5/7" was the Islamic
Republic of Iran's response to the bombing
of its nuclear facilities, which President
Hillary Clinton had ordered in March 2009.
Despite massive protests across the Islamic
world, and in many European capitals, the
US-led military operation had initially
appeared to be successful. The US, supported
by British and Israeli special forces, had
bombed 37 sites, including underground
facilities in which Iran was said to be on
the verge of making a nuclear weapon using
its own version of P-2 centrifuges. The
model for these had been originally supplied
by AQ Khan, the rogue Pakistani nuclear
scientist. US forces had taken down Iran's
air defences and destroyed much of its air
force. Inevitably, there were civilian
casualties - estimated by the Iranian
government at 197 dead and 533 injured. A
Pentagon spokesman insisted that "collateral
damage" had been confined to "an acceptable
level". He claimed Iran's nuclear weapons
programme had been "knocked back to first
base".
The US navy had also successfully broken an
attempted Iranian naval blockade of the
Strait of Hormuz, one of the main arteries
of the world's oil supplies. A US gunship
had been damaged by an Iranian underwater
missile attack, but with no loss of American
lives. In panic on the oil markets, the
price of crude oil had soared to more than
$100 a barrel, but the Bush administration
had built up America's strategic oil
reserves and the new Clinton administration
was able to draw on these. European
economies were worse hit.
As experts had predicted, however, the
biggest challenge for the west was Iran's
ability to wage asymmetric warfare through
Hizbullah, Hamas and its own suicide-bombing
brigades. The Islamic Republic had for years
been openly recruiting suicide bombers
through an organisation described as the
Committee to Commemorate Martyrs of the
Global Islamic Movement. As early as April
2006, it had held a recruitment fair in the
grounds of the former US embassy in Tehran,
claiming it already had more than 50,000
volunteers for operations against "the
al-Quds occupiers" (that is, Israel), "the
occupiers of Islamic lands", especially the
US and Britain, and the British writer
Salman Rushdie. Recruits could also sign up
through the internet (www.esteshhad.com
) While Hizbullah and Hamas provided the
infrastructure for the Tel Aviv bombings,
the key to the attacks on London and New
York was the recruitment of British and
American Muslims through this group. The man
who detonated the dirty bomb at Euston
station, Bradford-born Muhammad Hussein, had
been secretly trained by the Committee to
Commemorate Martyrs at a camp in northern
Iran.
With hindsight, it appears that the turning
point may have come in the spring of 2006.
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
having proclaimed his intention to wipe
Israel off the face of the earth, announced
that his country had already successfully
enriched uranium and hinted that it had the
superior P-2 centrifuge technology. Whether
true or not, these claims effectively
destroyed the last hopes of achieving a
diplomatic solution through negotiations led
by the so-called E3 - France, Germany and
Britain.
A long, tortuous diplomatic dance followed,
with China and Russia eventually agreeing to
minimal UN sanctions on Iran, including visa
bans on selected members of the regime.
These had little perceptible impact on the
Iranian nuclear programme, but were
successfully exploited by the regime to
stoke up an always strong national sense of
victimisation. Meanwhile, the exposure of
the clumsy channelling of US government
financial support through a California-based
monarchist exile organisation to a student
group in Isfahan was used as a pretext for a
brutal clampdown on all potentially
dissident groups. Several show trials for
"treason" were staged despite international
protests. This produced a further hardening
of US policy in the last years of the Bush
administration. In the 2008 US presidential
campaign, the Democratic candidate, Hillary
Clinton, felt compelled - perhaps against
her own better judgment - to use the Iran
issue to demonstrate that she could be
tougher than John McCain on national
security issues.
When she came into office, she was already
committed to preventing Iran obtaining a
nuclear weapon, by military means if
necessary. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime had
abandoned all restraint in its pursuit of
that objective, calculating that its own
best chances of survival lay in the swiftest
possible acquisition of a nuclear deterrent.
In February 2009, an alarming intelligence
report reached Washington, suggesting that
Tehran - using a secret cascade of its
version of the P-2 centrifuge - was much
closer to obtaining a bomb than had been
thought. In a series of crisis meetings,
President Clinton, her new secretary of
state, Richard Holbrooke, and her new
secretary of defence, Joe Biden, decided
that they could afford to wait no longer.
Operation Gulf Peace, for which the Pentagon
had long made detailed contingency plans,
started on March 6 2009.
Washington claimed that it had legal
authorisation under earlier UN security
council resolutions sanctioning Iran for its
non-compliance on the nuclear issue, but
these claims were disputed by China and
Russia. Most European countries did not back
the operation either, producing another big
transatlantic rift. However, under enormous
pressure from his close friends among US
Democrats, the British prime minister,
Gordon Brown, reluctantly decided to give it
his approval, and allowed the token
deployment of a small number of British
special forces in a supporting role. This
provoked a revolt from the Labour
backbenches - led by the former foreign
secretary, Jack Straw - and a demonstration
of more than 1 million people in London.
Even the Conservative leader, David Cameron,
mindful that a general election was expected
soon, criticised Brown's support for the
American action. Brown therefore postponed
the British election, which had been
provisionally scheduled for May 2009.
Instead of an election, the country
experienced a tragedy.
Meanwhile, President Ahmadinejad faced a
presidential election in June 2009. Unlike
Brown, he was riding high on a wave of
national solidarity. Even the many millions
of Iranians disappointed by his failure to
deliver on his material promises, and those
who despaired of their country's
international isolation, felt impelled to
rally round the leader in time of war.
Many prominent Americans criticised the US
military action. Some claimed to know that
the presidential spouse, Bill Clinton, was
privately among those critics, although in
public he was loyalty itself. But Dr Patrick
Smith of the Washington-based Committee for
a Better World, which had long advocated
bombing Iran, demanded of the critics: "What
was your alternative?"
Blair and Straw at odds over US action in
Iran
April 20, 2006
Independent
Colin Brown and Andy McSmith
link to original article
Jack Straw has warned Cabinet colleagues
that it would be illegal for Britain to
support the United States in military action
against Iran. But Tony Blair has backed
President George Bush by warning that ruling
out military action would send out a
"message of weakness" to Iran.
Differences opened up yesterday between Mr
Blair and the Foreign Secretary over growing
alarm in the US at the refusal of Mr Bush to
rule out military action. Mr Straw said on
BBC Radio 4 that it was "inconceivable" that
Britain would support a military strike
against Tehran. Four hours later, Mr Blair
refused to go that far when challenged to do
so at Prime Minister's questions by the
former minister, Michael Meacher.
Mr Blair accused Iran of fostering
international terrorism, and said young
people were signing up to be suicide bombers
directed at US and UK targets. " I do not
think this is the time to send a message of
weakness," he said.
Mr Straw has told ministerial colleagues he
does not believe that the Attorney General,
Lord Goldsmith, would approve the legality
of British action, because Iran does not
pose a direct threat to Britain. Mr Straw
also said it would be "nuts" to consider a
nuclear strike.
The possibility of action against Iran
threatens to resurrect the row over the
basis on which Britain went to war in Iraq.
The Attorney General became embroiled in the
legal advice he gave to the Prime Minister
over the war.
Clare Short, the former cabinet minister,
said the Cabinet had never been shown the
full legal advice and there were claims that
Lord Goldsmith may have changed his view
under pressure from Mr Blair.
Some Labour MPs say Mr Straw was wrong to
rule out military action, and accuse him of
bowing to pressure from the strong Muslim
population in his Blackburn constituency.
But most Labour MPs support Mr Straw's
strategy and would revolt if Mr Blair showed
any sign of lending support to a US strike
against Iran. Mr Straw was given tacit
support at a meeting of European foreign
ministers in Luxembourg last week.
France understands Mr Blair's argument that
keeping the military option on the table
would keep up the pressure on Iran. But it
is to urge London to press the Bush
administration to soften its approach so it
no longer treats Iran as a "rogue state" but
engages in a wider dialogue with Tehran on
terrorism, the Middle East peace process and
oil.
Yesterday there was a rare, informal meeting
of US and Iranian embassy diplomats at the
Commons organised by the Foreign Policy
Centre think-tank to launch its pamphlet
Understanding Iran.
Diplomatic contacts between Iran and the US
have been infrequent since students occupied
the US embassy in Tehran 26 years ago. Pam
Telford, who handles proliferation issues
for the US embassy, denied Washington had
aggravated the problem by having no clear
policy towards Iran, or by having double
standards about which Asian states are
allowed to have nuclear weapons.
The Iranian charge d'affaires, Hamid Reza
Arefi, denied Iran intended to develop
nuclear weapons.
Iranian Gold Rush Highlights Escalating
Tensions
April 19, 2006
The Financial Times
Gareth Smyth
link to original article
With the war of words over Iran’s nuclear
programme escalating and the domestic
economy stalling, Iranians are scrambling to
buy gold coins, sending their value soaring
by 32 per cent in the past two months.
“It’s unbelievable,” blazed a front page
story in Etemad-e Meli, a reformist
newspaper, earlier this week. “It seems no
investment field is as safe.”
“Gold coins are Iranians’ political hedge
fund,” says Heydar Pourian, editor of
Iqtisad Iran (Iran Economics), a monthly
magazine. “We keep them at home and they
make us feel secure.”
Commodity prices have risen worldwide over
recent years partly in response to Middle
East tensions centred on Iraq, but Iranians
are now starting to feel they may be at the
centre of a growing storm.
Hence the appeal of gold coins given as
presents for weddings and new year; gold
coins are a liquid and proven investment.
And at 460,000 rials (about $41.50) a
quarter, gold coin is within reach for all
but the poorest Iranian.
By contrast, Iran’s largely state-owned
banking sector offers limited services,
while investors face inflation put
officially at 14 per cent.
While deposits in state banks lost 1 per
cent in real terms in the year to February
2006, gold coins gained 21 per cent.
“Buying gold coins reflects a lack of
alternatives,” says Mr Pourian. “Big
investors may pull out of real estate and
move their capital to Dubai. Smaller
investors have fewer opportunities.”
Businessmen say the rush to gold reflects
both growing tension over Iran’s atomic
activities and the destabilising economic
policies of fundamentalist president Mahmoud
Ahmadi-Nejad, whose government took office
last August.
“The direction reverses the years of
[president Mohammad] Khatami and increases
the role of the state, especially in
allocating resources,” says one. “It’s more
like communism than Islam, and makes you
think some of them want a siege economy
ready for war.”
The government buzz-phrase is “directed
lending”, through which banks shape lending
policies to suit governmental priorities for
regional development and agricultural
self-sufficiency. State banks, already
undercapitalised, face increasing demand
after the president has made hundreds of
loan promises, especially on high-profile
provincial trips.
Lending rates have been cut to 16 per cent,
with subsidised exceptions including farm
loans at 9 per cent. The banks, already in
confusion after the new government replaced
seven heads of state banks, are facing calls
from ministers and fundamentalist
parliamentary deputies for further
reductions.
Lower lending rates mean lower returns for
small depositors such as pensioners who,
already wary of inflation, are among those
fuelling rising demand for gold coins.
One of the first acts of the Islamic
Republic after the 1979 revolution was to
issue Bahar-e Azadi (spring of liberty) gold
coins.
Annan Asks Iran To Cooperate In Disarming
Lebanon Militias
April 20, 2006
Dow Jones Newswires
AP
link to original article
UNITED NATIONS -- Secretary-General Kofi
Annan has urged Iran as well as Syria to
cooperate in trying to restore Lebanon's
political independence and disarm militias,
the first time the U.N. chief has issued a
report linking Tehran to instability in
Lebanon.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said Wednesday
that Annan's decision to single out Iran was
"significant" and "an important step
forward" because it recognizes " that Iran's
financing terrorist groups in Lebanon and
Syria has a significant impact on what
happens in those two countries."
Annan mentioned Iran in a report on
implementation of a September 2004 Security
Council resolution that called for the
withdrawal of all foreign forces from
Lebanon, the disbanding and disarmament of
all militias, and the extension of
government authority throughout the country.
The secretary-general made no mention of
Iran financing terrorist groups. But he did
note the "close ties, with frequent contacts
and regular communication," that Lebanon's
Hezbollah guerrillas, who are listed as a
terrorist group by the United States, have
with Syria and Iran.
Iran's interest in Lebanon and prospects for
disarming Hezbollah are certain to come up
when Lebanon's Prime Minister Fuad Saniora
meets Annan and the Security Council on
Friday. The council is expected to discuss
the report on April 26 and will likely be
briefed by Terje Roed-Larsen, the top U.N.
envoy on Lebanon-Syria issues.
Annan said Lebanon's journey into a new era
following last year's departure of Syrian
troops after 29 years is fragile, though the
country has made "further significant
progress" in the last six months. But he
warned that Lebanon will not regain full
sovereignty and independence until Hezbollah
and other Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias
that operate freely give up their arms and
come under government control.
During the past six months, Annan said, "a
tense bilateral relationship has prevailed
between Syria and Lebanon," marked by mutual
accusations in public statements. But he
called the National Dialogue in Lebanon,
initiated by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri,
"a truly historic and unprecedented event"
that has brought Lebanese to talk about
issues that only a few months ago were
taboo.
The secretary-general emphasized in the
report circulated Tuesday night that
Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah,
was one of the Lebanese leaders promoting
the National Dialogue. He said it was also
"particularly noteworthy that Hezbollah has
embraced the National Dialogue and is,
through its participation in the roundtable
and its agreement to its agenda, willing to
discuss the issue of arms."
But in a footnote, Annan noted that Syrian
President Bashar Assad urged continued
"resistance" in Lebanon at a press
conference on Jan. 19 with Iran's visiting
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has
become a close ally.
In what appears to be an intensification of
Iranian contacts with Hezbollah, U.N.
diplomats noted that Nasrallah went to
Damascus to meet Ahmadinejad. Since January,
the Hezbollah leader has gone to the Syrian
capital to meet other senior Iranian
officials, most recently former Iranian
President Hashemi Rafsanjani whose trip
ended Sunday, the diplomats said, speaking
on condition of anonymity because they were
not authorized to discuss the issue
publicly.
In the report, Annan noted the positive
statements by Hezbollah leaders "that
indicate their willingness to disarm" under
a broad national defense policy to protect
Lebanon.
Alluding to Iran and Syria, he said, "a
dialogue with parties other than the
Lebanese authorities is indispensable in
order ... to disarm and disband all Lebanese
and non-Lebanese militias,"
"It is my strong belief," Annan concluded,
"that with the continued support of the
Security Council, the continued National
Dialogue, unity of the Lebanese, and
far-sighted leadership of the government of
Lebanon, as well as the necessary
cooperation of all other relevant parties,
including Syria and Iran, the difficulties
of the past can be overcome and significant
further headway be made towards the full
implementation" of the September 2004
resolution.
Bolton said Annan's report demonstrated "the
importance of Iranian interference in
Lebanese internal affairs."
"I think by saying specifically that Syria
and Iran have to be involved in ceasing
their internal disruption in Lebanon is an
important step forward, and I'm sure the
council will consider that very carefully,"
he said.
Rice: US Will Use Varied Means to Stop Iran
April 19, 2006
Reuters
Yahoo News!
link to original article
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
said on Wednesday the United States would
use political, economic and other measures
to stop Iran from developing a nuclear
weapon. Speaking to the Chicago Council on
Foreign Relations, Rice said the
international community agreed Iran could
not have a nuclear weapon and was mobilized
to respond.
On Tuesday, President George W. Bush refused
to rule out nuclear strikes against Iran if
diplomacy failed to curb the Islamic
Republic's nuclear ambitions.
"In order to turn the Iranians back from
what has been behavior that is contrary to
all the wishes of the international
community, we are prepared to use measures
at our disposal -- political, economic,
others, to dissuade Iran," Rice said in
reply to a question on Iran.
When asked what the threshold would be for
military action against Iran, Rice
reiterated that political and economic
pressure should run its course. However she
stressed the president's view that all
options remained on the table.
Officials from Britain, France, Germany, the
United States, Russia and China have been
meeting in Moscow, so far without agreement,
trying to find a united approach on Iran,
which announced last week it had begun to
enrich uranium.
The United States and its European allies
say Tehran could divert highly enriched
uranium to make bombs while Iran says the
program is for civilian use to meet growing
energy needs.
"The issue here is to mobilize the
international community, to unify the
international community around the view that
Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That is
agreed," Rice said.
She said the United States had a number of
"diplomatic tools at our disposal to
persuade the Iranians that they really need
to come back to negotiations." She did not
elaborate.
Oil prices hit a new high above , partly
driven by fears the dispute could disrupt
shipments from the world's fourth-largest
oil exporter.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman: I'd Support Iran
Attack
April 19, 2006
NewsMax.com
Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
link to original article
Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Tuesday that he
would back a U.S. airstrike on Iran's
nuclear facilities if diplomatic options
fail, becoming the first Democrat to
announce his support for such a move.
"I think the only justifiable use of
military power would be an attempt to deter
the development of their nuclear program if
we felt there was no other way to do it,"
the former vice presidential candidate tells
the Jerusalem Post.
Lieberman said he uses the word "deter"
because it's doubtful that even an extensive
air assault could eliminate all of Iran's
nuclear facilities, many of which are buried
underground.
The goal of such an attack, he explained,
would be to "delay" Iran's nuclear program,
hoping that "by the time they catch up back
to where they were, there's been a change in
the government. That's the limited objective
that I would see."
The use of military force against Iran was
"probably the last choice," Lieberman said,
before adding: "But it has to be there."
The Connecticut Democrat compared the
rhetoric coming from Iranian President
Mamoud Ahmadinejad, who threatened just last
week to "annihilate" Israel, to declarations
from both Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler,
noting:
"Sometimes when people say really extreme
things, which at some level a lot of people
don't want to even believe . . . they may
actually mean it. They may intend to do it.
So I do think that the statements of
Ahmadinejad are taken very seriously, both
with regard to [speaking of a world without]
the US and with regard to Israel."
Lieberman told the Post that any U.S. strike
against Iran would not involve ground
troops, explaining: "I don't think anyone is
thinking of this as a massive ground
invasion, as in Iraq, to topple the
government."
War Game will Focus on Situation with Iran
April 19, 2006
USA Today
Matt Kelley
link to original article
Amid rising tensions between the United
States and Iran over the future of Iran's
nuclear program, the Pentagon is planning a
war game in July so officials can explore
options for a crisis involving Iran.
The July 18 exercise at National Defense
University's National Strategic Gaming
Center will include members of Congress and
top officials from military and civilian
agencies. It was scheduled in August, before
the latest escalation in the conflict,
university spokesman Dave Thomas said.
It's the latest example of how otherwise
routine operations are helping the United
States prepare for a possible military
confrontation with Iran. On Tuesday,
President Bush refused to rule out military
action - even a nuclear strike - to stop
Iran's nuclear program.
"All options are on the table," Bush said in
the Rose Garden.
The exercise is one of five scheduled this
year, including others envisioning an avian
influenza pandemic and a crisis in Pakistan.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld started
the exercises involving members of Congress
in 2002 to help the legislative and
executive branches discuss policy options.
Such exercises do not involve military
members simulating combat. Instead,
officials gather for a daylong conference
and discuss how to react to various events
presented in a fictional scenario.
Prodded by the United States, the United
Nations Security Council has demanded that
Iran stop all uranium enrichment activities
by April 28. Last week, Iran said it has
mastered the technology to make fuel that
could be used for power plants or bombs, but
it insists its nuclear program is only meant
to generate electricity. The United States
and its allies say Iran is working to build
nuclear weapons.
The July exercise may have real-world
consequences since Iran could interpret it
as evidence the United States plans to
attack, said Khalid al-Rodhan, an Iran
expert at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies.
"Anything the U.S. will do in the region
will be seen as further provocation,"
al-Rodhan said. "Given what's happening in
Iraq, it's clear the Iranians are afraid of
U.S. intentions."
In the meantime, the Pentagon is also
collecting and interpreting photos and other
intelligence data about Iran's facilities,
developing weapons to attack hardened
targets and laying the policy groundwork for
a possible strike, Gen. John Abizaid, head
of U.S. Central Command, said in recent
congressional testimony.
For example, the Department of Defense has
announced several initiatives to destroy
deeply buried facilities such as those used
by Iran's nuclear program.
They include:
• Replacing the nuclear warheads on some
submarine-launched Trident missiles with
conventional explosives. The Pentagon asked
Congress for $503 million next year to begin
that program.
• Putting hardened tips on existing missiles
to help them penetrate further into earth or
concrete.
• Setting off a huge explosion to gather
data for efforts to improve bunker-busting
bombs. In the that test, the military's
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) plans
to set off 700 tons of explosives in the
Nevada desert to gather data on how to hit
buried targets.
The June 2 test is meant to help solve the
problems posed by hardened weapons sites in
nations like Iran and North Korea, DTRA head
James Tegnalia says.
July's war game will be the first on Iran to
involve members of Congress, but several
other military exercises have focused on
Iran. Last week, for example, the British
military confirmed a London newspaper's
report that it joined the United States in a
July 2004 war game involving Iran at Fort
Belvoir in Virginia. A report in The
Guardian said U.S. and British officers
played out a scenario involving a fictitious
country called "Korona" with borders and
military capabilities corresponding with
Iran's.
Similarly, a 2003 Marine Corps planning
document envisioned a conflict in 2015 with
Korona, again a country corresponding to
Iran.
A 2004 war game coordinated by the Army's
Training and Doctrine Command featured an
invasion of "Nair," another Iran equivalent.
Harper Says Canada Stands with Allies
Against Iran
April 19, 2006
Ottawa Citizen
Mike Blanchfield
link to original article
OTTAWA
-- With U.S. President George W. Bush
refusing to rule out a nuclear strike
against Iran and the price of oil soaring to
a record high, Prime Minister Stephen Harper
said Canada stands by its allies in seeking
a peaceful solution to the nuclear standoff
with Iran.
''I think our allies are completely, have a
completely legitimate case in being
concerned about a regime like that gaining
access to nuclear weapons,'' Harper said
Tuesday.
''And so Canada certainly will work with our
allies to try and bring about a peaceful
solution that does not leave the government
of Iran in possession of nuclear
armaments.''
Harper's first public remarks on the crisis
came at a British Columbia press conference
on child care, as the brinkmanship between
Tehran and Washington continued Tuesday.
Iran has defiantly said it will pursue
nuclear technology, which it insists is for
the peaceful pursuit of meeting its energy
demands. The United States rejects that
claim, accusing Tehran of attempting to
develop its own nuclear weapon.
Recent incendiary statements by Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for
the destruction of Israel have also provoked
international outrage and concern.
Last week, a report in the New Yorker
magazine suggested the Bush administration
was considering the possibility of tactical
nuclear strikes on Iran's underground
nuclear facilities.
In Washington on Tuesday, Bush was asked if
the option for nuclear attack could be ruled
out.
''All options are on the table,'' the
president replied. ''We want to solve this
issue diplomatically, and we're working hard
to do so.''
The International Atomic Energy Agency is to
issue a report later this month on Iran's
compliance with United Nations demands to
stop enriching uranium.
Meanwhile, oil prices reached a record high
Tuesday, hitting $72.64 US a barrel, as
fears soared over a cut in supplies by Iran,
the world's fourth largest exporter.
Harper said he didn't think all the saber
rattling over Iran was responsible for
driving up the price of oil.
''I have my doubts that prices can be
attributed to that,'' he said.
''I think oil prices are driven largely by
supply and demand, and we know as we see gas
prices rising, we know the reality is that
worldwide demand is gradually outstripping
supply and there's long-term upward pressure
on prices.''
Harper also misspoke, referring to a
''regime like Iraq,'' but quickly corrected
himself to strongly criticize Iran for its
poor human rights record, singling out the
2003 murder of Iranian-born Canadian
photojournalist Zahra Kazemi who was beaten
to death in a Tehran prison after she was
arrested for photographing a demonstration,
and Ahmadinejad's verbal attacks on Israel.
Harper said Canada and its allies should be
concerned about Iran's getting the bomb
because of ''the kind of values it stands
for, the kind of human rights abuses we've
seen there, including ... a Canadian
journalist who was murdered in that country,
and many of the other problems in that
regime, holocaust denial and some of the
bellicose language.''
Harper also had strong words for China,
following comments on the weekend by Foreign
Affairs Minister Peter MacKay that Canada
was determined to crack down on economic
espionage by Beijing.
"There are some well-documented problems
with the Chinese government's operations in
this country. And our officials certainly
intend to raise those with Chinese officials
at the appropriate time,'' Harper said, as
Chinese Premier Hu Jintao departed China for
a visit to the United States this week.
Recent reports indicate that China has as
many as 1,000 economic spies in Canada. The
Chinese Embassy in Ottawa has denied all
claims of economic espionage in Canada.
Blair Cautions Against `Message of Weakness'
to Iran
April 19, 2006
Bloomberg
Mark Deen
link to original article
British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned
against sending a ``message of weakness'' to
Iran and backed President George W. Bush's
vow to keep military options open to prevent
the country from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Blair spoke in Parliament today after Labour
Party lawmaker Michael Meacher asked him for
an ``absolute assurance'' that the U.K.
wouldn't support military action against
Iran.
``At a point in time when the president of
Iran is talking about wiping Israel off the
face of the earth and when there are young
people signing up to be suicide bombers, I
do not think that this is the time to send a
message of weakness,'' Blair said.
The United Nations Security Council demanded
the suspension of Iran's program by the end
of this month as the UN's nuclear agency
checks Iranian claims that it produced a
supply of enriched uranium sufficient to
fuel a reactor. The U.S. considers the
program a front for the development of
nuclear weapons. Iran, the world's
second-largest holder of oil and gas,
maintains the program is for electricity
generation.
The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency
on March 8 referred the case to the Security
Council after it conducted three years of
inspections and failed to conclude that
Iran's atomic work is peaceful. The agency
had condemned Iran as early as November 2003
for concealing parts of its nuclear program
for almost two decades.
Iranian Delegation
Iran sent a team of deputies from the
Foreign Ministry and National Security
Council to Moscow today, Iranian Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told state-run
Fars News agency. The delegation will hold
talks with the five permanent member
countries of the Security Council -- U.S.,
the U.K., France, Russia and China -- as
well as Germany, he said.
While Blair repeated previous British
government comments that suggested no attack
is imminent, he emphasized the need to be
firm against the Iranian government of
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has
called for the destruction of Israel.
``Let's be quite clear on what is happening:
they're in breach of their international
obligations,'' Blair said. ``This is the
moment for the world to send a clear and
united message to the Iranian regime that
they have to desist from that.''
Ahmadinejad, who last week announced Iran's
enrichment of uranium, said his country's
forces will use ``the latest technology''
against enemies and ``cut off the hand of
any aggressor.''
The New Yorker Magazine this month carried a
report suggesting the U.S. is preparing to
use air strikes and tactical nuclear weapons
to destroy Iran's suspected atomic weapons
program.
`Wild Speculation'
Bush said on April 10 that such reports
amounted to ``wild speculation,'' though he
has repeatedly refused to rule out any
options.
``The president of the United States is not
going to take any option off the table,''
Blair said today. ``We are actively pursuing
a diplomatic solution.''
Britain is the second-biggest contributor of
troops to coalition forces in Iraq behind
the U.S. Blair supported the U.S.- led
invasion in 2003 in the face of opposition
from some lawmakers and polls showing the
British public didn't favor war.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mark
Deen in London at markdeen@bloomberg.net.
Straw: Iran Unlikely to Meet UN Demands
April 19, 2006
Reuters
Andrew Hammond
link to original article
RIYADH
-- Britain does not expect Iran to comply
with U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment
by the end of April, Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw said on Wednesday.
Speaking in the Saudi capital Riyadh, where
the government shares Western concerns about
a nuclear Iran, he also said that the Middle
East could be plunged into a nuclear arms
race if Iran develops an atomic bomb.
The U.N. Security Council has asked the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to
report by April 28 on Iran's compliance with
a council demand that it stop enriching
uranium and answer the agency's questions on
its nuclear program.
"We are working on the basis that Iran will
not meet the proposals from the Security
Council on the 30-day deadline," Straw told
BBC Radio Four in an interview from Saudi
Arabia.
He declined to say later to reporters what
action he thought the Security Council might
then take.
Last week Iran declared it had enriched
uranium to a level used in power stations.
The Islamic Republic says it only wants
nuclear technology to produce electricity,
not atom bombs as the West suspects.
REGIONAL
ARMS RACE
Straw, who is taking part in a conference on
Saudi-British ties, also said a regional
arms race was at the heart of his concerns
about Iran's nuclear energy program.
"Iran, which has no natural allies in the
region ... is likely to provoke a nuclear
arms race across the region," he told
reporters during the 24-hour visit.
Israel is widely suspected of possessing
nuclear weapons, and Iraq suffered over a
decade of United Nations sanctions and a
U.S.-led invasion in 2003 in part over
concerns that it was developing nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons.
Straw said Saudi officials had expressed
concerns during his visit about potential
U.S. military action against Iran. But he
added: "They regard it as pretty
hypothetical and so do I."
Saudi Arabia has had uneasy relations with
non-Arab Iran since the 1979 Islamic
Revolution in the Shi'ite Muslim country.
Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia has accused Tehran
of massive political interference in
Shi'ite-dominated Iraq.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said
he hoped he would not have to choose one day
between a nuclear-empowered Iran and
U.S.-instigated war against Iran.
"I hate that choice, I'd choose neither. We
are hoping and not without reason that this
issue can be solved with discussion," he
told the Saudi-British conference.
"Iran is a great and old civilization with
huge responsibilities to the stability of
the region."
(Additional reporting by Madeleine Chambers
in London)
U.S.
Envoy: Iran Sanctions Discussed
April 19, 2006
The Associated Press
Henry Meyer
link to original article
A U.S. diplomat said Tuesday that envoys
from the five permanent Security Council
members plus Germany discussed sanctions
against Iran over its nuclear program, but
failed to reach agreement on how to proceed
further.
On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov called on Iran to halt all
uranium enrichment activities, saying the
international community is demanding "urgent
and constructive steps" from Tehran to ease
concerns about its nuclear program, the
ITAR-Tass news agency reported.
Meanwhile, U.S. Undersecretary of State
Nicholas Burns told The Associated Press
following nearly three hours of talks that
diplomats recognized the "need for a stiff
response to Iran's flagrant violations of
its international responsibilities."
President Bush said "all options are on the
table" to prevent Iran from developing
atomic weapons but that he will continue to
focus on diplomacy.
Burns, speaking in Moscow, said sanctions
had been discussed during the meeting hosted
by Russia but indicated that further talks
would be needed.
"Iran's actions last week have deepened
concern in the international community and
all of us agreed that the actions last week
were fundamentally negative and a step
backward," he told AP. "So now the task for
us is to agree on a way forward."
He was referring to the announcement last
week by Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, that the country had
successfully enriched uranium for the first
time.
Burns gave no specifics as to the type or
timing of sanctions and he refused to say
whether Russia had softened its opposition
to sanctions against Iran. But he reiterated
that the United States expected action in
the Security Council after an April 28
deadline for Iran to stop uranium
enrichment.
Ahmadinejad remained defiant, warning
Tuesday that Iran will "cut off the hand of
any aggressor" that threatens it and
insisting that its military has to be
equipped with the most modern technology.
"The land of Iran has created a powerful
army that can powerfully defend the
political borders," he told a parade
commemorating Iran's Army Day.
The United States and some of its allies
suspect Iran's nuclear program is meant to
produce weapons, but Tehran insists the
program is for peaceful purposes.
Ahmadinejad further complicated the debate
last week by claiming his country is testing
an advanced P-2 centrifuge, which could be
used to more speedily create fuel for power
plants or atomic weapons.
Some analysts familiar with the country's
technology said he could be exaggerating
Iran's capabilities, either to boost his own
political support or to persuade the
International Atomic Energy Agency to back
off.
In Vienna, Austria, diplomats accredited to
or associated with the U.N. nuclear watchdog
said the claim about the centrifuges was not
a surprise.
The diplomats, who demanded anonymity
because they were not authorized to discuss
the confidential Iran file, said past IAEA
reports on Iran documented evidence of
purchases of components for the centrifuges.
But the diplomats noted that Ahmadinejad's
comments appeared at odds with Tehran's
assertions that no such work had been
conducted for years.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
called his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr
Mottaki on Monday to urge Tehran to quickly
answer questions related to its nuclear bid
and halt uranium enrichment, the ministry
said Tuesday.
Earlier Tuesday in Washington, Bush also
said there should be a unified effort
involving countries "who recognize the
danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon."
Before the meeting in Moscow, Russian
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin
reaffirmed Russia's insistence on more
diplomatic efforts. "We are convinced that
neither sanctions nor the use of force will
lead to the solution of the problem," he
said in televised comments.
Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Cui
Tianka, China's top nonproliferation
official, who also attended Tuesday's
meeting in Moscow, has appealed to Iranian
leaders to reach a negotiated settlement,
the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday.
Russia and China, which have strong economic
ties to Iran, have opposed punitive
measures. Bush said he intends to ask
Chinese President Hu Jintao to pressure Iran
when the two leaders meet Thursday at the
White House.
Britain also urged a peaceful solution to
the crisis. "We hope that we'll get behind a
diplomatic avenue, a system of increasing
but reversible pressure which Iran will
listen to," said Julian Reilly of the
British Embassy in Moscow.
___
Associated Press writers Ali Akbar Dareini
in Tehran, Iran, Jennifer Loven in
Washington and George Jahn in Vienna,
Austria, contributed to this story.
Chirac Says Iran with Atomic Weapons is
'Unacceptable'
April 18, 2006
AFX News
Forbes.com
link to original article
CAIRO
-- French President Jacques Chirac told
Egyptian daily Al-Ahram that it was
'unacceptable' for Iran to have nuclear
weapons, but he left the door open to
resumed discussions with Tehran.
The Iranian leaders 'must understand that,
for the international community, the
prospect of a militarily nuclearized Iran is
unacceptable,' Chirac said in an interview
published as he was due to arrive on a
two-day visit set to be dominated by the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and rising
tensions over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Student Group Calls For Suspension Of
Nuclear Activities
April 18, 2006
Radio Free Europe
Golnaz Esfandiari
link to original article
Iran's
largest pro-reform student group, the Office
To Foster Unity (Daftare Tahkim Vahdat), has
expressed concern over Iran's political
behavior in the crisis over its nuclear
program and is calling for "a temporary
suspension of all nuclear activities." The
student group says in its statement that the
tough line of Iranian officials in its
nuclear dealings has put the country and the
Iranian nation in a dangerous position.
Last week's announcement by Iranian
President Mahmud Ahmadinejad that Iran has
successfully enriched uranium has been met
with mixed reactions among Iranian students.
They range from feelings of pride and
enthusiasm to skepticism and concern.
Celebrating Yellowcake
Following the announcement on April 11,
several conservative and the
pro-revolutionary Basiji student groups
issued statements describing the move as a
breakthrough.
On April 16, students at one of Tehran's
prominent science and engineering
universities distributed pieces of a big
yellow cake -- symbolic of uranium
yellowcake -- as a way to celebrate the
achievement by Iranian scientists.
Others, however, including members of Iran's
largest reformist student group, the Office
To Foster Unity (DTV), are questioning the
wisdom of Iran's latest nuclear move.
The DTV's central committee says in a
statement that the Iranian establishment is
insisting on "the honor of having achieved
the nuclear fuel cycle and the continuation
of nuclear activities" at a time when the
country is at one of its most critical
periods.
The groups warns that Tehran's latest
nuclear step could aggravate the
sensitivities of the international community
over its nuclear program and threaten Iran's
national interests.
Not All
Approve
Saber Sheykhlou is the spokesman of the
DTV's central committee. He says, "The
irrational and confrontational behavior of
those who are in power has put the country
and the nation on the threshold of a war or
devastating sanctions; the referral of
Iran's nuclear case to the UN Security
Council was the result of Iran's biggest
foreign-policy mistake."
Other members of the group who did not
endorse the statement also remain critical
of Iran's policies regarding the nuclear
crisis.
Amir Pakzad, the spokesman of the DTV's
Roshangari faction, also believes that
Iran's tough line has put the country in a
difficult position.
"When it comes to the nuclear issue which is
tied to Iran's national interests, then
Iran's main reformist student group will
continue to have a critical view in order to
try to prevent a situation that could become
[even more] critical," he said. "We believe
that by getting angry and stepping out of
the framework of moderation we hand the
initiative to the opponent."
Pakzad thinks Iran should cooperate with
"international organizations" over its
nuclear program and seek a diplomatic
solution to the current crisis.
In its statement, the DTV called on Iranian
officials to immediately suspend all nuclear
activities and to take steps to build trust
in the international community.
Mistaken
Priorities?
Sheykhlou says Iran should improve its
human-rights record. "We believe that the
use of nuclear technology for national
progress and development is the indisputable
right of the Iranian nation but, besides it,
there are other rights, like human rights,
which have a higher priority," he said.
"While the country is facing serious
problems -- including a lack of democracy,
human rights violations, the country's
economy moving toward a crisis situation,
and the society suffering from poverty --
the spending of billions of dollars for
nuclear purposes is contrary to Iran's
national interests."
The DTV wrote in its statement that the
nuclear issue, "in the absence of civil
society activists, the press, political
parties, and groups," and in a situation
where heavy censorship prevails, the
government makes decisions without
consulting the people.
The statement comes at a time when Iranian
officials have ruled out any retreat on the
nuclear issue and said that Iran is
committed to pursue its nuclear activities.
President Ahmadinejad said today that any
aggressor would regret attacking the Islamic
Republic.
Recent U.S. press reports suggest that
Washington is making plans for a strike
against some of Iran's nuclear facilities.
The United States has said it wants the
nuclear standoff to be solved
diplomatically, but U.S. President George W.
Bush has not ruled out military action.
The United States accuses Iran of pursuing
nuclear weapons, but Tehran has said
repeatedly that its nuclear program is
peaceful.
(Radio Farda broadcaster Shirin Famili
contributed to this report.)
Iran
and U.S.-Turkish Relations
April 13, 2006
Center for Strategic & International Studies
CSIS
link to original article
As tensions mount over Iran's nuclear
ambitions, CSIS's Turkey Project examines
how the situation will affect U.S.-Turkish
relations.
THE US-TURKISH ALLIANCE AT THE IRANIAN
JUNCTION?
Iran's
Capabilities and Options for the Future
April 17, 2006
Center for Strategic & International Studies
CSIS
link to original article
Anthony H. Cordesman and Khalid R. Al-Rodhan
of CSIS released a new study analyzing the
different options to deal with a nuclear
armed Iran in case diplomacy fails.
Cordesman and Al-Rodhan explore the
implications of economic sanctions, possible
US military options, the consequences of an
Israeli strike, and the possible Iranian
responses.
Iranian Nuclear Weapons? Iran’s Missiles and
Possible Delivery Systems - Working Draft,
Revised: April 17, 2006
A report by Anthony H. Cordesman and Khalid
R. Al-Rodhan analyzes Iran’s nuclear weapons
program, in light of the announcement by the
Iranian president yesterday. The study lays
out what is and is not known about these
efforts. It does not find conclusive
evidence or some smoking gun, but it raises
deep concerns about Iran's actions and
conclude it is almost certainly seeking to
deploy nuclear weapons and nuclear-armed
long range missiles.
Iranian NuclearWeapons? The Uncertain Nature
of Iran’s Nuclear Programs - Working Draft,
Revised: April 12, 2006
In this study, Cordesman and Al-Rodhan
analyze Iran’s missile programs and possible
delivery systems, and outline what is known
about Iran’s real world delivery
capabilities.
Iranian Nuclear Weapons? The Options if
Diplomacy Fails - Working Draft, Revised:
April 7, 2006
U.S.
and Iran Take Tough Stances in Standoff
April 18, 2006
The New York Times
Brian Knowlton
link to original article
WASHINGTON
-- As diplomats met in Moscow today in a bid
to defuse the Iranian nuclear standoff, the
American and Iranian leaders, both using
tough language, staked out unyielding
positions.
President Bush declined to rule out a
nuclear attack to stop Iran from building
atomic weapons if diplomacy fails, saying
that "all options are on the table." But he
added, "We want to solve this issue
diplomatically and we're working hard to do
so."
In Tehran, a defiant President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad told the Iranian military that
it had to be "constantly ready," and he
warned bluntly that Iran would "cut off the
hand of any aggressor," The Associated Press
reported.
Tensions over Iran have helped push oil
prices to record highs. Crude oil for May
delivery rose 90 cents today to settle at
$71.35 a barrel, after trading as high as
$71.60 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
The diplomats meeting in Moscow,
representing the five permanent members of
the United Nations Security Council and
Germany, hoped to narrow their own
differences over how best to persuade Iran
to halt work on nuclear weapons. No details
emerged immediately from the session.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's defiant warning came in a
martial setting, at a Tehran parade
commemorating Army Day, The A.P. reported.
Speaking hours before the Moscow meeting, he
told the military that it must be prepared
to defend Iran.
"Today, you are among the world's most
powerful armies because you rely on God,"
Mr. Ahmadinejad declared.
"The land of Iran has created a powerful
army that can powerfully defend the
political borders and the integrity of the
Iranian nation and cut off the hand of any
aggressor and place the sign of disgrace on
their forehead."
But he sought to underline that Iran bore no
aggressive intentions unless attacked. "The
power of our army will be no threat to any
country," he said. "It is humble toward
friends and a shooting star toward enemies."
The United States and Britain have said that
if Iran continues uranium-enrichment
activities past an April 28 deadline set by
the Security Council, they will press for a
resolution making the demand compulsory.
Russia and China, both with trade and
strategic ties to Iran, have insisted that
diplomacy will require more time. A Russian
Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mikhail Kamynin,
said earlier that "neither sanctions nor the
use of force will lead to the solution of
the problem," the ITAR-Tass news agency
reported. But Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
called on Iran to halt uranium enrichment
and provide more information on its program.
Mr. Bush, in brief comments made after
announcing White House staffing changes,
said he would urge President Hu Jintao of
China to increase its pressure on Iran when
Mr. Hu visits the White House on Thursday.
The Chinese leader began his four-day trip
to the United States today in Seattle.
The top Chinese nonproliferation official,
Cui Tiankai, visited Tehran over the weekend
to urge Iranian leaders to seek a negotiated
solution, officials said.
Mr. Bush urged a united effort by countries
"who recognize the danger of Iran having a
nuclear weapon." The United States has been
working closely with Britain, France and
Germany on the issue.
The president's comment that "all options
are on the table" came after a reporter
asked whether, when Mr. Bush has used those
words previously, he meant to include the
possibility of a nuclear strike.
"All options are on the table," Mr. Bush
replied plainly, before adding, "We want to
solve this issue diplomatically." The phrase
about "options" has become a commonplace of
administration officials since last summer
in describing concerns about Iran.
It was used last month by Vice President
Dick Cheney, who seemed to hint of military
action or even the overthrow of the Tehran
government. "We join other nations in
sending that regime a clear message," Mr.
Cheney said. "We will not allow Iran to have
a nuclear weapon." He also said the Security
Council would "impose meaningful
consequences" if Iran remained in defiance.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech was broadcast live
on state-run Iranian television, and foreign
military attachés attended the parade,
during which Iran displayed radar-avoiding
missiles and super-fast torpedoes.
Mr. Ahmadinejad, who has issued a series of
highly provocative comments since coming to
office, jolted outside observers last week
by saying that Iran had enriched uranium
using 164 centrifuges, a step that could
lead either to developing power generation
or to the construction of atomic bombs.
Iran also asserted that it is pursuing a far
more sophisticated method of making atomic
fuel, using a so-called P-2 centrifuge,
which could greatly speed its progress to
developing a nuclear weapon.
While Iran insists that it has the right to
conduct research aimed at civilian energy
production, the United States has said that
Iran lost the world's trust by hiding
portions of its nuclear program for years.
American officials also point to Mr.
Ahmadinejad's public calls for the
destruction of Israel.
In Washington, the State Department has
confirmed that Mohammad Nahavandian, an aide
to the top Iranian nuclear negotiator, Ali
Larijani, was in Washington.
But Sean McCormack, the department
spokesman, said, "He's not here for meetings
with U.S. government officials, to my
knowledge."
Rumsfeld's Fast Iran Planning
April 18, 2006
The Washington Post
William M. Arkin
link to original article
More "wild speculation” about Iran war
planning, specifically CONPLAN 1025, which I
believe is the overall name for the war plan
positing major combat operations against
Iran.
In response to my Sunday piece, Pentagon
spokesman Bryan Whitman predictably chose
wittiness over clarification. He told AFP:
“This is the United States Defense
Department. We plan for all sorts of
things."
I made my case, on Sunday and previously in
these pages, why the American people would
be better served if the U.S. government
talked just a little bit about war plans.
The danger of evasion and silence is a
repeat of Iraq: Before implementation, an
Iran war plan would do little to enhance
diplomacy. If war came, the fabulous
choreography of global strikes and major
combat operations could again reflect group
think and a flawed Secretary of Defense’s
view of warfare.
In June 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld issued his first formal
"Contingency Planning Guidance" to the U.S.
military, a new post 9/11 document intended
to provide specific top-level guidance on
what to plan for.
The Guidance was signed by President Bush
early in 2002, institutionalizing the war
against terrorism as the highest overseas
priority of military commands, and directing
each regional command to prepare specific
contingency plans relating to adversary
nations.
In the case of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM),
Gen. Tommy Franks, then the commander, was
directed to develop Iran war plans, though
the looming Iraq war admittedly took all of
the headquarters' attention and energy.
The subsequent Contingency Planning Guidance
(CPG) for 2003 was more focused on the
future, as well as on Rumsfeld’s fetish for
flexibility and quickness. The 2003 Guidance
instituted a significant change in the
production and form Pentagon contingency
plans would take in the future. There would
still be existing operational plans (either
OPLANs, CONPLANs, or “functional plans” that
are fully completed), but Rumsfeld directed
the transition to a more flexible set of
“adaptive plans,” sometimes called “living
plans.”
Under this adaptive planning construct, new
plans would be designated at one of the four
levels depending on the amount of detail
necessitated by the contingency. They are
called Level 1 through 4 plans.
Level 1 plans require the least amount of
planning detail. Level 4 plans require the
most detail. At levels 1 and 2, plans have
enough content and a sets of options to
allow the Chairman of the Joint Chief to
issue an “alert order” triggering more
detailed “crisis action” planning for quick
reaction contingencies: They can be turned
into “real” plans quicker and more flexibly.
Levels 1 and 2 plans apply to lesser
important countries or lower priority
concerns.
The more complete Level 3 or 4 plans enable
the military to plan for the real
contingencies but to do so and more rapidly
transition to war in a crisis. These plans
have a complete base plan and a set of
embedded options. A Level 3 plan most
resembles the old Concept Plan (CONPLAN),
which is applicable to Iran. It includes a
base plan an a set of completed annexes (for
the connoisseurs, those include Annexes A,
B, C, D, J, K, S, V, and Z). When a level 3
plan is done, the combatant commander writes
an estimate of the plan’s feasibility with
respect to the availability and readiness of
forces, logistics, and transportation. The
Secretary of Defense is briefed on the
constantly shifting results.
In the olden days, that is, a couple of
years ago, the operational planning process
was seen as too confining and rigid. Most of
the energy went into elaborate force
deployment databases and logistical
structures to support operations. But the
operations, that is, the strategies and
operational focus, ironically took a back
seat to the details. In the case of Iraq,
for instance, there was a completed plan
(OPLAN 1003) for fighting Saddam in
2001-2002, but the actual plan implemented
in March 2003 (OPLAN 1003V) – avoiding Iraqi
cities, driving to Baghdad, quick regime
change at all cost – was not in the existing
printed plan when 9/11 emboldened the Bush
administration to continue its quest.
Under Rumsfeld’s new adaptive method, in
theory, time isn’t being wasted on preparing
set piece finished plans anymore. The focus
instead has shifted to the more adaptive --
read fast -- mode where the “concept” of
operations and the projection of
contingencies is the centerpiece.
It may seem like this was the way things
operated in the past – the Defense
Department plans for all sorts of things so
Whitman says – but the reality is that the
process and the form of “finished” plans in
the past was far too rigid, particularly if
you have a bunch of quick guns at the top
who are contemptuous of military advice.
The Defense Department now has a quicker and
more “adaptive” system to go to war.
Iran could be the first case. This is all
the more reason to debate the plan – earth
to Congress. I wonder whether the shift away
from logistics and the “old” scut work of
war doesn’t have the result of promoting the
particular Rumsfeld style of war, which is
light and fast and blind to the demands of
the real world.
