10.05.2006 - 09:49 CET | By Aleander Balzan

http://euobserver.com/9/21553

France, Germany and the UK have decided to make Iran a new proposal to resolve the dispute over its nuclear programme - a move which came after a letter from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to US President George W. Bush.

According to media reports, the three European countries will negotiate a set of benefits to offer Iran if it agrees to comply with international demands to stop nuclear enrichment.

"My point of view is that Iran must be faced with a choice," the New York Times reported French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy as saying.

"If Iran is closed to our proposals, we are prepared to discuss deterrent measures. But it seems stupid for us not to stretch out our hand," he added.

"If we draw everything into the council, we will not achieve anything," said Germany's UN ambassador, Gunter Pleuger.

Among the fresh incentives that would be granted if Iran abides with the international obligations, are affordable energy and greater trade with the West.

These proposals are also being backed by the US.

"Obviously, if there is a way for Iran to accept the will of the international community, to accept proposals for civil nuclear power, this is the time for Iran to take that possibility, because no one wants to isolate the Iranian people," said US secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Originally the US wanted a tougher approach on the issue.

"The Security Council has no option but to proceed under Chapter 7," said US under secretary Nicholas Burns a few days ago.

But Russia and China, also permanent members of the Security Council, have opposed a resolution to the UN Security Council obliging Iran to stop its nuclear activities.

A resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter would make a March council statement asking Iran to suspend uranium enrichment work legally binding.

Tensions run high on Iraq-Iran border

 http://www.kuwaittimes.net/Navariednews.asp?dismode=article&artid=1831390616

FORT TARIQ: Fifty Iraqi soldiers clad in olive fatigues and black berets patrol this dusty desert border area with Iran night and day, knowing the situation could heat up at any time. Tensions are high as the United States and its arch-foe Tehran engage in a game of brinkmanship over Iran's nuclear programme. Iraq finds itself caught between its eastern neighbour and America, which invaded the country in 2003. Last week, Iran shelled bases of separatist Turkish Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq. Iran and Iraq have previously battled over their 1,400-kilometre border. From 1980-1988, Iran and Iraq fought a bloody conflict that left more than a million dead and scarred both countries. Here at Fort Tariq, life is tranquil, if not listless in the scorching May heat. Border towers shoot up in the desert and the sun's glare reflects off the binoculars of Iraqi and Iranian guards.
The 258 Iraqi border outposts erected in the past three years are considered crucial to checking Iran's influence in Iraq. US officials have accused Iran of sending sophisticated bomb models to Iraq's insurgents across their shared border of mountains, desert and waterways where the Arab and Persian worlds meet. "We are very concerned about this border. The capabilities of IED's (improvised explosive device) we are facing today are very different than in March 2004 when I first came here," said Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, the number two US commander in Iraq. "Whenever these components come, we have to stop their flow." The US-trained Iraqi guards on the porous border have reported  an increase in arrests from Iran since the start of the year.
"They arrested about 2,000 people since January 2006, which is more than during the whole of 2005 when only 1,500 people were arrested," said Colonel Serguei Polyakov, a Ukrainian advisor for the guards in Wasit province. "I don't believe more people are trying to enter, the border guards are just getting more efficient," he said.
Still, Iraqi officers downplay the notion many weapons are slipping into Iraq from Iran. "Most of the illegal entries are tourists coming to visit the golden mosque in Najaf and Karbala," said Iraqi General Ali Othman Farhuk, referring to Shiite Muslim pilgrims. "Most of the weapons seized are on the western border (with Syria), not the eastern," he added. The general admitted that the occasional Kalashnikov assault rifle or rocket-propelled grenade still slipped through. For the most part, the work is plodding along and those detained by the Iraqis are simple religious pilgrims desperate to reach the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. Iraqi troops recently caught 34 people from Afghanistan, including women and children, but Iran refused to take them back. Contact between the Iraqi troops and their Iranian counterparts is little and that suits most soldiers fine. "There is not much cooperation with the Iranians, but as long as they stay where they are and we stay here, there is no problem," one soldier said.-AFP

Bush Dismisses Iranian Offer of Negotiations as Meaningless Ploy

May 09, 2006
The New York Sun
Benny Avni

link to original article

Bush administration officials quickly dismissed an Iranian attempt to start negotiations with America before foreign ministers of the top world powers met in New York last night to discuss the Mullah's failure to comply by their demands.

The Iranian negotiation offer came in a form of an 18-page letter to President Bush from President Ahmadinejad that was leaked to Tehran-based news agencies yesterday before it made its way to the White House.

Secretary of State Rice, who last night had a working dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria with foreign ministers from Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany, said the letter "isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way."

Iranian state radio, quoting Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, said the letter was delivered to the Swiss embassy in Teheran yesterday, which represents American interests.

The American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said he was not surprised. "The Iranians are always interested in talking right before somebody puts the squeeze in them," he told reporters yesterday. "Once the squeeze lets up a little bit, back they go to enrichment, back they go to perfecting their conversion technology, back they go to the pursuit of nuclear weapons."

The White House was as dismissive. "It doesn't appear to do anything to address the concerns of the international community," outgoing spokesman Scott McClellan said.

The Ahmadinejad letter came after a weekend in which diplomats from Britain and France, with backing by America, were unable to convince their Russian and Chinese colleagues to agree on a Security Council resolution that would make the request for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program "mandatory."

Washington had hoped to pass the resolution prior to last night's dinner. "The five ambassadors are down in the engine room working on this draft text while the ministers are up there on the bridge," Mr. Bolton said. Even if the engine room fails to reach consensus, he told The New York Sun, the council would soon take a vote.

"We're not going to drop it," he said, adding that if Russia and China fail to agree, a vote might be forced before the end of the week. Everybody wants "to keep unity at the council," he said. But "not unity that takes an indefinite period of time."

A Security Council resolution proposal, circulated to the 15 members last week by France and Britain, also representing Germany, opens the way to enforcement measures - including possibly future economic sanctions and military action - to force Iran to drop the enrichment program.

Iran has said that it would not abide by any resolution that would infringe on its "right" to develop an atomic program for peaceful means. "I do not believe that this issue belongs to the Security Council," Tehran's U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif, told the Sun yesterday.

The news of possible renewed talks between Washington and Tehran ignited the imagination of Turtle Bay diplomats who believe that negotiations with the mullah regime would settle the nuclear dispute. Some said that the council's pressure will only achieve results if it leads to renewed negotiations.

"What we are striving for is a negotiated solution in the diplomatic field," the German ambassador to the United Nations, Gunter Pleuger, told the Sun. "And for that we need some pressure by the Security Council in order to get the negotiations going again."

China and Russia have resisted enacting a resolution under the most muscular provision of the U.N. Charter, known as Chapter 7, arguing it would lead to too much confrontation. Nevertheless, China's ambassador to the United Nations, Wang Guangya, admitted that Iran's intransigence has warranted some kind of a council resolution.

"I believe it is time, since the Iranians have not cooperated, have not complied, have not responded positively," he said. "But I think that the resolution has to be appropriate."

Mr. Pleuger, who had served as his country's U.N. envoy when Germany led the opposition to Washington at the council prior to the 2003 Iraq war, was cautious when asked to describe the different approaches among council members in the current dispute.

"The question is, what we want: Do we want to show unity of the international community and facilitate a negotiated result?" he said. "Then I think we need some flexibility in order to maintain the unity of the Security Council."

The other "extreme," he said, "is to put maximum pressure on Iran. Then you might take a resolution, but not unanimously."

[Also yesterday, Prime Minister Blair said that any consideration of a nuclear attack against Iran would be "absolutely absurd," and said the issue had no bearing on his decision to demote his foreign secretary.

A former foreign secretary, Jack Straw, had described alleged American contingency plans for a tactical nuclear strike against Iran as "completely nuts."

Mr. Blair previously had avoided any condemnation of the idea and defended the right of President Bush to hold all options in reserve in the showdown over Iran's nuclear program.

Some analysts believed that differences over Iran led to Mr. Blair's decision on Friday to move Mr. Straw to the less-exalted position of leader of the House of Commons.]

Iran's Nuclear Program: The Way Out

May 09, 2006
Time Magazine
Hassan Rohani

link to original article

A nuclear weaponized Iran destabilizes the region, prompts a regional arms race, and wastes the scarce resources in the region. And taking account of U.S. nuclear arsenal and its policy of ensuring a strategic edge for Israel, an Iranian bomb will accord Iran no security dividends. There are also some Islamic and developmental reasons why Iran as an Islamic and developing state must not develop and use weapons of mass destruction.

Three years of robust inspection of Iranian nuclear and non-nuclear facilities by the IAEA inspectors led Dr. El-Baradi to conclude and certify that to date there are no indications of any diversion of nuclear material and activities toward making a bomb. At the same time, El-Baradi has pointed out that the IAEA cannot certify that Iran's program is exclusively peaceful. But the fact is that few among many states with a nuclear program have received such a clean bill of health from the IAEA. Such certification by the IAEA does and should take time and effort. Iran is prepared and willing to invest the time and effort necessary to receive the IAEA clean bill of health. The IAEA is also ready to pursue its investigation of Iran's nuclear activities. So should the states that have concern about it.

What is, then, the motive for the rush to heighten the situation and create a crisis? Could it be that the extremists all around see their interests — however transient, domestic and short-sighted — in heightened tension and crisis? This situation, if not contained with cool head and if miscalculations continue, can easily turn into a crisis with potentially global ramifications for the rule of law under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and for the economic and security interests of all concerned in the region and beyond. It is high time to cease sensationalism and war mongering, pause and think twice about where we are heading.

Iran is not accused of having the bomb. There are no indications that Iran has a nuclear weapon program. If Iran were to have a weapons program, the alarmists in the U.S. and Israel have reportedly said that it would take at least another seven to ten years for Iran to make the bomb. What is often cited by American officials as 20 years of Iranian secret nuclear military program turned out to be, as declared by the IAEA, nothing more than the failure to declare, in a timely manner, some experiments and receiving some material and equipment. Such failures to declare are not uncommon among the NPT members. Remedial steps are envisioned in the Safeguards Agreement to address them, and Iran has done so. Moreover, it was no secret that we were in the European, Russian and Asian markets to purchase enrichment technology in the late '80s and '90s. Therefore, an Iranian secret weapon program is only hype, and the sense of urgency about Iran's nuclear program is rather tendentious. The world should not allow itself to be dragged into another conflict on false pretenses in this region again.

Iran is intent on producing nuclear fuel domestically for reasons both historic and long-term economic. The U.S. and some Europeans argue that they cannot trust Iran's intentions. They argue that they cannot accept Iran's promise to remain committed to its treaty obligation once it gains the capability to enrich uranium for fuel production. They ask Iran to give up its right under the NPT, and instead accept their promise to supply it with nuclear fuel. This is illogical and crudely self-serving: I do not trust you, even though what you are doing is legal and can be verified to remain legal, but you must trust me when I promise to do that which I have no obligation to do and cannot be enforced. It is this simple and this unfair. There must be a better way out of this than to top this travesty with threatening Iran in the Security Council with possible sanctions and perhaps even use of force. This path can potentially cause harm and suffering at differing degrees to all parties to the conflict.

A negotiated solution still can and must be found if we intend to strengthen the non-proliferation regime and avoid an unwise and unnecessary conflict. To this end, we must dare to leave the emotions aside and avoid polluting the atmosphere with the baggage of immediate and long-past history of Iran-U.S. relations. A solution imposed on Iran by the Security Council is unlikely to provide the assurances the U.S. seeks about the Iranian nuclear program. In my personal judgment, a negotiated solution can be found in the context of the following steps, if and when creatively intertwined and negotiated in good faith by concerned officials:

  Iran would make an active contribution, provided that other countries with similar sensitive fuel cycle programs also do the same, to fixing the loopholes in the non-proliferation system and to developing a technically credible international control regime.

  Iran would consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and snap inspections.

  Iran would address the question of preventing break-out from the NPT.

  Iran would agree to negotiate with the IAEA and states concerned about the scope and timing of its industrial-scale uranium enrichment.

  Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on enrichment limit of reactor grade uranium.

  Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on the production of UF6 — uranium hexafluoride, which is used for enrichment — during the period of negotiation for the scope and timing of its industrial scale enrichment.

  Iran and the IAEA would agree on terms of the continuous presence of inspectors in Iran to verify credibly that no diversion takes place in Iran.

  Iran's readiness to welcome other countries to partner with Iran in a consortium provides additional assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.

It is not Iran's intention to disregard Security Council decisions. The way out is for the Security Council to mandate the IAEA to address this issue and establish a negotiating process for a fixed period to formulate a credible plan taking into account the suggestions I made in my personal capacity.

Iran is prepared to work with the IAEA and all states concerned about promoting confidence in its fuel cycle program. But Iran cannot be expected to give in to United States' bullying and non-proliferation double standards.

Hassan Rohani is representative of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and Iran's former top nuclear negotiator.

A New Gesture From Iran?

May 09, 2006
Time Magazine
Adam Zagorin

link to original article

A top Iranian official, in an open letter given to TIME, offers what could be a starting point for negotiations.

The White House has brushed aside a new letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush that was designed, according to a senior Iranian official, to offer "new ways for getting out of the current, fragile international situation," a reference to the impasse between the two countries over Iran's alleged drive to develop nuclear weapons.

The letter, a 17-page discourse on everything from religion to history and politics, was dismissed by Administration officials as a last-minute attempt by Iran to divide members of the U.N. Security Council, who are considering whether to impose sanctions on Iran. "This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

But a second document, written by a top Iranian official and given to TIME just before Ahmadinejad's letter was made public, offers a more concrete foundation for negotiations to resolve the nuclear impasse. In the two-page memorandum, intended for publication in the West, Hassan Rohani,representative of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and Iran's former top nuclear negotiator, defends Iran's nuclear posture, decries American bullying, and puts forward a plan to remove the nuclear issue from the U.N. Security Council and return it to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, a long-standing Iranian goal.

The letter also offers some specific Iranian starting points for negotiation. Rohani said Iran would "consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and snap inspections," and that it would also "address the question of preventing 'break-out'" — or abandonement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Independent nuclear experts consulted by TIME said these proposals were "hopeful" signs. p> However, on the key U.S. demand that Iran forgo uranium enrichment on its own soil, because of international fears the process would permit Tehran to develop weapons-grade fissile material, Rohani said Iran would agree only "to negotiate with the IAEA and states concerned about the scope and timing of its industrial-scale uranium enrichment." And while Rohani promised that "Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on enrichment limit of reactor grade uranium" on Iranian territory, that would not meet the concerns of the US and most of its European allies.

Rohani also pledged that, "Iran would accept an IAEA verifiable cap on the production of UF6 — uranium hexafluoride, which is used for enrichment." Finally, Rohani promised that, "Iran and the IAEA would agree on terms of the continuous presence of inspectors in Iran to verify credibly that no diversion takes place."

In Iran's shifting political alliances, Rohani , who was long associated with the reformist government of former President Mohammad Khatami. has often been classified as a "moderate." Ousted as Iran's chief negotiator last year by incoming hardline President Ahmadinejad, he has continued to speak out on nuclear issues, often arguing for a less confrontational line, while hewing to Iran's strategic goal of nuclear development, including the domestic enrichment opposed by the U.S. and its allies.

But his views carry weight, because Rohani, who served for 16 years as the top official at the SNSC, has been close to Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini. "In the context of Iran's domestic politics, which is the driving force behind Iran's the nuclear initiative, Rohani's proposals are significant because they have the imprimateur of the Supreme Leader, who would have approved them in advance," says William Samii, the longtime senior Iran analyst at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

"The important, if implicit message to Washington in Rohani's declaration," says Samii, "is you may not like hardline President Ahmadinejad, but we do have more pragmatic leaders with concrete proposals, like Rohani, whom you have known for years, and whom you can deal with now if you want. His proposals amount to recognition of Washington's concerns. "

Other experts note there is still a long way to go toward a resolution of the impasse. "Rohani offers the possibility of heading off a confrontation that could end in military conflict," notes David Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). "But Iran will have to give up more than what Rohani is offering to achieve a settlement, because the two sides are still far apart."

"Rohani recognizes that the international community has a problem with the domestic enrichment of uranium inside Iran — but he's offering steps to deal with that which are probably inadequate," Albright added. "On the other hand, there is a need for cooler heads on all sides right now, and Rohani's offer should be looked at seriously and explored to see if it is genuine and has the support of the Supreme Leader."

Senator Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee noted: "If this is Iran's position, there may be something to build on, but after two decades of deception, and outrageous threats from its president, Iran has to do much more than Rohani suggests to regain the world's trust. For our part, we should talk directly to Tehran, as we did with the Soviet Union during the Cold War."

West to Offer Iran Benefits or Sanctions

May 09, 2006
Reuters
Evelyn Leopold and Carol Giacomo

link to original article

UNITED NATIONS -- European officials on Tuesday worked on a package of carrots and sticks for Iran after major powers failed to agree on a U.N. resolution aimed at curbing Tehran's nuclear ambitions, diplomats said.

Political directors of the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France, along with Germany, authorized Britain, France and Germany, known as the EU3 negotiators with Iran, to prepare the package of benefits and penalties by Monday.

They had planned to offer the package after the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution demanding that Iran halt nuclear activities the West believes are a cover for bomb making, but no agreement could be reached on the resolution.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice backed the new approach. "The United States has long supported an effort by the Russians, an effort by the EU, to make available to the Iranian regime, should they choose to do so, a way to fulfill aspirations for a civil nuclear program," Rice said.

"And that is what is being discussed, is how might that be made available again," she told reporters.

Unlike a previous package offered to Iran by the EU3 last year, the Europeans aim to get the United States, Russia and China on board as partners.

There would be specific commitments to back sanctions if the economic and political inducements do not persuade Iran to abandon work related to nuclear weapons, one diplomat said.

"People will explore what are the triggers, whether there are triggers," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett told a group of reporters. The Iranians had to realize "they don't need to carry on with it because there are ways to do what they say they want.

"What is the exact nature of something that could perhaps give them that way out? That is exactly what everybody will be exploring," Beckett said.

Foreign ministers from the six big powers met for two hours on Monday as a group and then again in one-on-one meetings on Tuesday.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said if Iran cooperated with the international community it could be rewarded with an "ambitious package -- in the domain of civilian nuclear energy, in the domain of trade, in the domain of technology and -- why not-- in the security domain."

The United States previously opposed a new offer to Iran, insisting the security council take strong action to ensure Tehran complies with demands to halt uranium enrichment.

One European diplomat said Washington believed Iran would only respond to coercive measures and "remains very skeptical about any incentives proposal."

RESOLUTION STALLED

No agreement was reached among the ministers on the U.N. Security Council resolution, despite hours of talks, and U.S. and British officials said no vote was expected this week.

The resolution, drafted by France and Britain and backed by the United States, would order Iran to suspend its nuclear programs immediately under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which makes an action legally binding.

Chapter 7, used in dozens of Security Council resolutions, allows for sanctions and even war, but a separate resolution is required to specify either step.

Russia and China, which have veto power in the 15-nation Security Council, fear too much pressure on Iran would be self-defeating or precipitate an oil crisis. Both worry the United States would use a resolution under Chapter 7 to justify military action.

China's foreign minister Li Zhaoxing said on Tuesday he still opposed a resolution under Chapter 7.

Shortly before the meeting began, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to President George W. Bush, the first letter from an Iranian head of state to a U.S. president since relations were broken off after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

The letter focused on American wrongdoings and did not propose any solution for ending the nuclear dispute. U.S. officials dismissed it as a diversionary tactic.

(additional reporting by Irwin Arieff)

((NUCLEAR-IRAN; Editing by David Storey; Reuters messaging: Evelyn.Leopold.reuters.com@reuters.net; 1-212-355-7424)

US, Iran Standoff Grows Louder

May 09, 2006
The Christian Science Monitor
Scott Peterson

link to original article

ISTANBUL, TURKEY -- For 27 years, the rhetorical swordplay between the US and Iran has been unrelenting. Iran portrays its latest thrust in the ongoing row with the West, an unprecedented letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush, as a "new diplomatic opening."

Striking a tough and confident tone and with few conciliatory words, Mr. Ahmadinejad addressed a host of issues, but only touched on atomic energy and provided no new initiatives for ending the standoff over Iran's nuclear program.

Experts say that rather than being any kind of step toward direct dialogue, the letter reveals just how far apart Washington and Tehran remain, with differences magnified by conservative leaderships on both sides that gain more from saber-rattling than peacemaking.

"We should put our ambitions into perspective. The ambition should be trying to avoid a crisis and confrontation, rather than trying to bring about a [US-Iran] rapprochement," says Karim Sadjadpour, analyst for the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG), now in Washington.

In the letter, Ahmadinejad criticized Mr. Bush's handling of 9/11, the creation of Israel, and drew comparisons between current US threats against Iran and the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. He called the war in Iraq a "great tragedy [that] came to engulf both the [US and Iraqi] people."

He also declared the failure of "liberalism and western-style democracy," and said the US is now subject of "an ever-increasing global hatred."

"People around the world are flocking toward ... the Almighty God," he said. "My question for you [Bush] is, 'Do you want to join them?' "

"Ahmadinejad has made it nearly impossible for the US to engage him directly," says Mr. Sadjadpour, referring to the Iranian leader's past remarks that Israel should be "wiped off the map," and doubting events of the holocaust.

"If there is to be any warming of ties ... Iran has got to present a different interlocutor. Ahmadinejad is not the right messenger," he says.

US officials dismissed the 18-page letter, even as Washington this week attempts to rally the UN Security Council around a tough resolution to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions. Monday, Ahmadinejad said the letter represents the "words and opinions of the Iranian nation."

"This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the AP Monday. "There's nothing in here that would suggest that we're on any different course than we were before we got the letter."

The US severed ties with Iran after militants stormed the US Embassy in 1979 during the Islamic Revolution. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of that revolution, dubbed American the "Great Satan." The burning of US flags and chants of "Death to America" have been staple fare for years at government- sanctioned rallies.

In 2002, Bush declared Iran part of an "axis of evil," and its clerical rulers are often mentioned in Washington circles as being the "next" target for US-engineered regime change. The Bush administration in February asked Congress for an additional $75 million for "democracy promotion" in Iran.

The historic hostility and suspicion have come to a head over the nuclear issue. Washington accuses Tehran of using a peaceful power program as a cover for acquiring nuclear weapons, and has not ruled out military action. Iran doubts whether any step it takes can convince the West of peaceful intent, or forestall US attempts at regime change.

"This is the first time you have a conservative government in Iran, that is across the board in favor of talking to the US," says Mohammad Hadi Semati, a political scientist at Tehran University, now a visiting scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. "But Washington and Tehran are now on two different planes. In the last 27 years, when Washington was ready [to talk], Tehran has not been ready. Now Iran is ready, and Washington is not."

"Both sides have cornered themselves" by their uncompromising rhetoric, says Mr. Semati. "It is framed: 'Either the US has to back-off, or Iran has to back-off, or the middle road is war. There is no other way.' "

The result, Semati adds, "leaves very little room for creative diplomacy."

Such diplomacy might bring the US and Iran to the table, as the US has with North Korea - by offering security in exchange for limiting nuclear programs. But the North Korean "model" has a negative aspect, too, experts say. Pressure to halt nuclear work eventually led North Korea to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and build bombs.

In Iran's case, mutual mistrust runs just as deep. For Iran, the nuclear issue is "simply a pretext for regime change," says Sadjadpour of ICG. "They believe that if they are going to compromise, it's not going to get them out of trouble, but be seen as a sign of weakness [that will] invite further pressure."

Likewise, the US believes "Iran's intentions are not peaceful, and they should not reward bad behavior," says Sadjadpour. "So Iran needs to compromise unequivocally, not based on whatever incentives the US can offer."

Both the US and Europeans are in a further dilemma, he adds. While offering nothing to former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, whose mantra was a "dialogue of civilizations," reaching out to this president "sends the message to Tehran that a belligerent foreign policy reaps rewards."

The leap to talks would not be so great, considering that Iranians are perhaps the most pro-US population in the Middle East. A poll commissioned by a parliamentary committee in 2002 showed that 75 percent of Iranians favored renewing ties with the US. When the results were leaked to the press, one pollster was jailed on charges of selling confidential information to an "enemy state."

The Bush administration late last year authorized the US Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, to speak to Iranian officials in meetings that both sides say would be limited only to Iraq issues.

"The fact is that the publicity about [Ahmadinejad's letter] is more important than the content," says Semati at the Wilson Center. "They are trying, in the public domain, to say 'We are using every tool to convince the Americans - and the world - that we want to talk, and want to solve these differences by diplomacy.' "

Iranian newspapers Monday showed both presidents on their front pages, sometimes juxtaposed to imply that Bush was attentively reading the Iranian missive.

"[Ahmadinejad] wanted to get himself on the stage, and take control of the issues," adds Semati. "He wants to be a player."

Missile Used to Shoot Down UK Helicopter May Have Come from Iran

May 09, 2006
Telegraph
Thomas Harding

link to original article

The Army now believes that the Lynx helicopter shot down over central Basra at the weekend was most probably hit by a surface-to-air missile, obtained possibly from neighbouring Iran, after missile casings were discovered on the third floor of a nearby building, security sources in the city said yesterday.

The discovery, if confirmed, will be a worrying development for British operations in Iraq, which are increasingly reliant on helicopter "air bridges" to move men and equipment to reduce the risk of convoys being ambushed by roadside bombs.

The discarded missile parts were located when a search was conducted of the building as British troops swept the surrounding area.

A military observation post had also reported seeing an unusual level of activity in the building during the previous two days.

The missile is understood to have been identified as a Russian-made weapon that can be packed into a golf bag and quickly assembled and fired by one person with minimal training.

The Daily Telegraph has identified the type of missile but has been asked by the MoD not to reveal it on security grounds.

Hundreds of the missiles are known to have been sold to Iran and some to Syria, leading to speculation that some might have been passed to Iraq's insurgents.

If it is clear that the weapon is the sophisticated new missile then it will pose a threat to British and US aircrew in Iraq.

The MoD yesterday announced that a team of experts had been dispatched from Britain to Iraq to determine the exact cause of the crash. Their findings are not expected to be made public until autumn.

FOX News Poll: Do Not Trust Iran

May 09, 2006
FOX News
Dana Blanton

link to original article

NEW YORK -- The latest FOX News poll finds that Americans think Iran cannot be trusted, and a majority thinks Iran either already poses a threat to the United States or that it will soon. The poll finds that an overwhelming 85 percent of Americans say they do not trust Iran to tell the truth about their nuclear technology program, including large majorities of Republicans (91 percent), independents (90 percent) and Democrats (78 percent).

In addition, a majority of voters thinks Iran is a threat to the United States. A quarter of the public — 24 percent — sees Iran as a “clear and present danger,” and another 33 percent think it will be a threat in the near future. Almost a third think Iran will be a threat sometime down the road (30 percent) and one in 10 think the country, which is known as part of the “axis of evil,” is not a threat to the United States at all. These results are in line with polling conducted at the beginning of the year.

Opinion Dynamics Corporation conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News on May 2 and May 3, before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush.

By a three-to-one margin Americans say they do not believe the United Nations can prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. About one in five (22 percent) think the U.N. can stop Iran, but a 74 percent majority disagrees.

Democrats (31 percent) are nearly twice as likely as Republicans (17 percent) and independents (15 percent) to think the U.N. can stop Iran.

Moreover, given Iran’s defiant rhetoric, including its president’s claim that his nation “won’t give a damn about such useless resolutions,” half of Americans say at a minimum the U.N. should impose economic sanctions right away (51 percent), while 39 percent say despite the rhetoric the U.N. should still try diplomacy.

This week the United States is working to get a resolution passed by the U.N. Security Council that could ultimately lead to sanctions on Iran.

Respondents were asked about a couple of hypothetical situations regarding Iran and nuclear weapons. First, the poll asked about taking military action if there is “any chance” of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons before President Bush leaves office. Americans are divided on this issue: 48 percent support President Bush taking military action if there is a chance Iran could get nukes, and 44 percent oppose.

What if Iran did obtain nuclear weapons and President Bush had not used military force to stop it — would he be blamed for not using force? Just over a third say the president would have “failed in his duty” to protect the United States by not using force (35 percent), while a 44 percent plurality says they think he would have done the right thing by not using force, even though Iran got nukes.

“It is clear that while Americans are worried about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, at least half of them have reservations about the use of force,” comments Opinion Dynamics Chairman John Gorman. “The war dragging on in Iraq has clearly made people wary of engaging in another war at this time — particularly against a larger, stronger and more committed adversary. Many people simply see no good choices. They feel the U.N. and sanctions can’t do the job, but they don’t want another fight.”

The Situation in Iraq

The public’s views are mixed on whether a stable government will eventually be established in Iraq.

Nearly half of Americans (49 percent) say they are optimistic that the Iraqi people will ultimately be able to create a stable government, and almost as many are pessimistic (46 percent).

The public is skeptical about progress being made in Iraq. More than four in 10 think “real progress” has been made in Iraq over the past year (43 percent), but a 52 percent majority disagrees.

There are clear, predictable partisan differences on these Iraq questions. Republicans (67 percent) are significantly more likely than Democrats (38 percent) to say they are optimistic about a stable government in Iraq, and Republicans (62 percent) are more than twice as likely to think real progress has been made (28 percent Democrat).

PDF: Click here for full poll results

'Iran Wants to Change World Order'

May 09, 2006
The Jerusalem Post
Yaakov Katz

link to original article

"Wiping Israel off the map is just one step in Iran's attempt to create a new world order," said Brig.-Gen Yosef Kuperwasser, head of the IDF Military Intelligence's research division. "Iran is interested not only in turning into a superpower, but also in changing the world order," Kuperwasser said at a conference on power projection at the Fisher Institute of Strategic Studies in Herzliya.

"Iran is at the forefront of global terrorism, and aids Hizbullah in Lebanon, al Qaida, and Palestinian terror organizations, and is behind attacks on US armed forces in Iraq," the general asserted.

Obtaining nuclear power, Kuperwasser said, would not only establish Iran as a superpower on a global level, but would also assist the country in establishing its domestic regime.

"Nuclear capabilities would ensure that regime returns to its former glory and revives the Islamic revolution there," he explained, adding that there were elements in Iran who believe that the race to achieve a nuclear bomb, plus the government's support of terror, was having an adverse effect on reviving the revolution.

"Power projection", the subject of the conference, addresses challenges originating from terror organizations in distant countries.

Just hours before the UNSC votes on sanctions against Iran, Maj-Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad said that he believed Iran was vulnerable to sanctions. "Iran is Not North Korea," Gilad said. "It's a country of intelligent, intellectual people."

Earlier Tuesday, Gilad had told Army Radio that Israel should place itself at the forefront of the Iran conflict, as the crisis over the country's nuclear program was "international."

Gilad said, referring to Vice Premier Shimon Peres' remarks Monday that "Iran can also be wiped off the map," that any threats Israel made should be "big" but not pointed.

Ahead of UN Vote, Debate in Israel Over Threatening Iran

May 09, 2006
Ha'aretz
Shlomo Shamir and Aluf Benn

link to original article

Senior defense ministry official Amos Gilad, appearing to counter a warning by Vice Premier Shimon Peres that "Iran, too, can be destroyed," said Tuesday that Israel should not use a language of threats in dealing with Tehran.

Major-General Gilad said Israel should not place itself in the front-lines of the Iran issue.

"Israel does not need to spearhead treatment on the Iran matter because this is a world problem. We suggest not adopting a language of threats. It is tremendously important for the world to isolate Hamas and it is tremendously important to isolate Iran," said Gilad.

"International cooperation and legitimacy is important for Israel. Even if we later demand other options it is important for us to pass the necessary course of legitimacy and international support," he added.

Participants in a Tuesday defense establishment meeting said it is necessary to prepare for military options against Iran, but urged taking diplomatic steps for the time being.

Peres, speaking ahead of UN Security Council deliberations over sanctions for Iran, cautioned Monday that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, should bear in mind that his own country could also be destroyed.

"They want to wipe out Israel ... Now when it comes to destruction, Iran too can be destroyed [but] I don't suggest to say an eye for an eye," Peres told Reuters.

"Israel would defend itself under any condition but we don't look upon it as an Iranian-Israeli conflict exclusively... [Iran] is basically a danger to the world, not just to us," he said.

The UN Security Council is due to vote on Wednesday or Thursday on the American-European resolution proposal on the Iranian nuclear issue. Diplomats in the UN headquarters said yesterday that despite Russia and China's firm position against the mandatory wording of the proposal, the two would not use their veto to thwart its adoption.

It is assumed that the required majority of nine members to adopt the resolution is assured. If Russia and China abstain, Qatar, the non permanent member in the council, is expected to join them.

Peres said Iran was mocking the international community's attempts to resolve the crisis over its nuclear ambitions and that the credibility of the United Nations Security Council was on the line.

Peres said he believed Iran would take a unified international front seriously, but was making a "mockery" of the world because it saw divisions in the way different countries wanted to react.

The Security Council had to act, added Peres. "If the crucial moment will come and they are incapable of taking or making a policy ... then they endanger their existence as an important world body," he said.

Peres warned of a nuclear arms race if Iran produced a nuclear weapon. "If Iran becomes nuclear many other countries will follow suit... and whoever will have a conflict will produce a bomb, and finally some bombs will reach the hands of terror," he said.

Russia and China are against provisions in the draft proposal by the U.S., Britain and France that invoke Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This could imply Iran's nuclear program is a threat to global security and pave the way for sanctions - or even military action - against Iran.

Ahmedinejad Monday wrote to President George Bush, offering "new solutions" to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program. The letter is the first public approach by an Iranian president to an American one since the Islamic revolution in the country in 1979.

Previous public messages Iran sent the U.S. consisted of harsh criticism and accused Washington of harassing Iran over its nuclear program and its imperialist involvement in Iraq.

Iranian government spokesman Gulamhussein Elham said Ahmedinejad's letter deals with the nuclear issue, but did not say whether it referred to the possibility of direct talks with the U.S.

The importance of the letter depends on whether Iran will change its typically chastising rhetoric, which Washington tends to dismiss. Analysts believe there is little chance of Ahmedinejad suggesting that Iran cease to produce nuclear fuel, and this is what the UN and Western diplomats see as the only way to defuse the nuclear issue.

On the contrary, they say Ahmedinejad is expected to approach the United States from a position of strength. Iran is building itself up as a regional heavyweight, after having announced it was enriching uranium.

Dr. Ali Ansari, a specialist in Iran at Scotland's St. Andrews University, said the letter could be an attempt on Ahmedinejad's part to follow in the footsteps of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini.

"I suspect he may be trying to emulate Khomeini's letter to (Mikhail) Gorbachev. He gave him a lesson in international politics and told him if he carried on the Soviet Union would collapse... (Khomeini) told him to embrace Islam," he said.

The U.S. and Iran severed diplomatic ties in 1980, after radical students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and seized 52 Americans, whom they held hostage for 444 days.

Iranian and U.S. officials met covertly several times in the 1980s. These contacts were made public during the "Iran-Contra" scandal, when the U.S. sold Iran weapons for its assistance in releasing American hostages in Lebanon.

President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani made an open overture to the United States in 1995, offering the U.S. firm Conoco a $1 billion natural gas deal. President Bill Clinton rebuffed him.

U.S. officials often cite Iran's implacable hostility toward Israel as a key obstacle to restoring ties.

More than any of his recent predecessors, Ahmedinejad has raised hackles in the United States, by asserting that Israel should be "wiped off the map." Bush told Germany's Bild am Sonntag newspaper such comments should be seen as a serious threat to Israel and other countries.

The last gasp of the dollar; Iran bourse set to open shortly

By Mike Whitney
Online Journal Contributing Writer
May 8, 2006

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_772.shtml

"Everybody knows the real reason for American belligerence is not the Iranian nuclear program, but the decision to launch an oil bourse where oil will be traded in euros instead of US dollars. . . . The oil market will break the dominance of the dollar and lead to a decline of global American hegemony." Igor Panarin, Russian political scientist.

Overnight the story of Iran’s proposed oil bourse has slipped into the mainstream press exposing the real reason behind Washington’s hostility towards Tehran. Up to this point, analysts have brushed aside the importance of the upcoming oil-exchange as a "Leftist-Internet" conspiracy theory unworthy of further consideration. Now, the Associated Press has clarified the issue showing that an Iran oil bourse "could lead central bankers around the world to convert some of their dollar reserves into euros, possibly causing a decline in the dollar’s value". ("Iran wants Oil Market in Euros", Globe and Mail)

Currently, the world is drowning in dollars, even a small movement could trigger a massive recession in the United States. There’s nothing remotely "conspiratorial" about this. It is simply a matter of supply and demand. If the oil bourse creates less demand for the dollar, the value of the dollar will sink accordingly; pushing energy, housing, food and other prices higher.

Oil has been linked to the dollar since the 1970s when OPEC agreed to denominate it exclusively in dollars. This provided the US a virtual monopoly which has allowed it to run huge account deficits without fear of crippling interest rate hikes. As Bill O’ Grady of A.G.Edwards said, "If OPEC decided they didn’t want dollars anymore, it would be the end of American hegemony by signaling the end to the dollar as the sole reserve currency."

"If the dollar lost its status as the world’s reserve currency, that would force the United States to fund its massive account deficit by running a trade surplus, which would increase inflationary pressures." (Associated Press)

There’s no prospect of the US running a trade surplus anytime soon. Bush has savaged the manufacturing sector outsourcing over 3 million jobs and shutting down plants across the country. His short-sighted "free trade" policies and enormous tax cuts for the rich ensure that Americans will be left to face skyrocketing energy costs and a hyper-inflationary greenback. There’s no way we can retool fast enough to "manufacture our way" out of the quagmire of red ink.

Currently, the national debt is a whopping $8.4 trillion with an equally harrowing $800 billion trade deficit. (7percent of GDP) The ever-increasing demand for the greenback in the oil trade is the only thing that has kept the dollar from freefalling to earth. Even a small conversion to euros will erode the dollar’s value and could precipitate a sell-off.

Presently, oil is sold exclusively on the London Petroleum Exchange and the New York Mercantile Exchange both owned by American investors. If the bourse opens, central banks around the world will reduce their stockpiles of dollars to maintain a portion of their currency in euros. This is the logical step for Europe which buys 70 percent of Iran’s oil. It is also the reasonable choice for Russia which sells two-thirds of its oil to Europe but (amazingly) continues to denominate those transactions in dollars.

Washington has succeeded in maintaining its monopoly by propping up the many corrupt and repressive regimes in the Gulf States. The prudent choice for Saudi Arabia would be to move away from the debt-ridden dollar and enhance its earnings with the stronger euro. Regrettably, Uncle Sam has a gun to their heads. They understand that such a transition would invite the same response that Saddam got six months after he converted to euros and was removed through "shock and awe".

Regardless, of the outcome, the profligate spending, budget-busting tax cuts, and the shocking increase in the money supply (the Fed has doubled the money supply in one decade) has the greenback headed for the dumpster. Already, China and Japan (who hold an accumulated $1.7 trillion in US securities and currency) are gradually moving away from the dollar towards the euro (although the Fed has blocked the public from knowing the extent of the damage by abandoning the M-3 publication of inflows) The European Central Bank (ECB) and Japan’s central bank are frantically trying to conceal the probability of a dollar collapse by issuing carefully worded statements to allay public fears while they to prepare for an "orderly" retreat.

But, it won’t be "orderly". The dollar has lost 5 percent against the euro since April and is quickly headed south. The Iran bourse could be the final jolt that pushes the greenback over the edge. This is the bitter lesson for those who choose to ignore economic fundamentals and build their house on sand. Paul Volcker anticipated this scenario in a speech last year when he said that account imbalances were as great as he had ever seen and predicted "a 75 percent chance of a dollar crash in the next five years".

Volcker is right, but economic advisor, Peter Grandich summarized it even better when he opined, "The only one who doesn’t know the US dollar is dead is the US dollar."

Prepare the requiem.