Ambassador to France sees Japan's part in Iran sanctions

May 20, 2006

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20060520p2a00m0na023000c.html

Japanese Ambassador to France Hiroshi Hirabayashi believes Japan should basically join economic sanctions against Iran, if launched, over its nuclear development program.

Japan should consider its people''s feeling as an A-bombed country in deciding on its attitude toward the Iran sanctions, Hirabayashi said in a recent interview with Jiji Press.

The ambassador, who will leave the post May 29, said Japan should also pay attention to an influence the Iran issue may have on efforts to defuse another nuclear crisis evolving around North Korea.

"Nuclear nonproliferation is Japan''s cause," he said.

"Dropping the cause to give priority to economic benefits is not a choice for us to take," Hirabayashi said. He was keeping in mind crude oil supply from Iran to Japan.

It is uncertain whether an agreement will be reached on Iran sanctions among member countries of the Security Council of the United Nations.

Indications are that sanctions will be launched by the United States and its allies if the members fail to come to terms on the issue. (Jiji Press)

 

Intelligence Update On Iran Is Requested

Senate Democrats Write President

Associated Press
Saturday, May 20, 2006; A09

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901610.html

Senate Democrats, saying they want to "avoid repeating mistakes made in the run-up to the conflict in Iraq," wrote President Bush yesterday urging him to direct U.S. agencies to prepare an updated National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.

"We must have objective intelligence untainted by political considerations or policy preferences and a comprehensive debate in the Congress about the best short and long-term approaches to resolving the international community's differences with Iran," the letter said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, has accused Iran of failing to answer questions about its nuclear program. In late March, it reported Tehran to the Security Council and gave the country one month to address the demands.

The Bush administration has been sounding warnings about Iran's nuclear abilities and potential ambitions.

The Democrats, wary of a repeat of the administration's warnings about alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which turned out not to exist, stressed in their letter that they, like the administration, are seriously concerned about Iran.

"An Iranian nuclear weapons program would be a significant threat to international peace and security," they wrote. "Iran's refusal to conclusively explain or halt its uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities and its acquisition of ballistic missiles, coupled with the troubling rhetoric of its president, presents serious challenges to security in the Middle East and requires the United States to energetically pursue a diplomatic solution.

"The international community must not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and Iran must know that it ultimately will not succeed in undermining international peace and stability," the letter said.

It was signed by Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the Senate minority leader; Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), assistant minority leader; John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), vice chairman of the intelligence committee; Carl M. Levin (Mich.), senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee; and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Iran says U.S. launching offensive against borders

 

Tehran, Iran, May 19 – A senior Iranian cleric accused the United States on Friday of targeting Iran’s borders and masterminding attacks in the south of the country.

“The enemy has planned to create insecurity in the country’s border regions”, Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani told Friday prayers worshippers in Tehran. His remarks were aired on state television.

“Our enemies, which are the United States and Zionists, have targeted Iran’s border security, economy, universities, and science”, he said, adding that the U.S.’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was behind such activities.

In other parts of his sermon, referring to Tehran’s nuclear pursuit, the senior ayatollah said, “Our scientific and university dignity is more important than the economy”.

He said that Iran would not give up its nuclear “rights”.

 

Isolate Iran's Belligerent Regime

Jubin Afshar - 5/21/2006

http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=1780&cid=2&sid=4

In the past few weeks a chorus of influential voices in foreign policy circles in the United States and Europe has expressed concern over the perceived "march to war" by the Bush Administration, prompting emphatic appeals for direct dialogue between the US and the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism." The call for dialogue with Tehran has come from Sandy Berger, former President Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Patrick J. Buchanan, a leading conservative columnist, George Perkovich, a vice-president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Madeline Albright, former President Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, Senators Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) and Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), among others.Test

The Financial Times, the perennial voice for dialogue with Tehran's mullahs, led off its editorial page on May 15 by declaring that "A grand bargain is still the only solution on Iran." It claimed, "The opportunity now exists to turn the tables on Tehran: to put forward an offer that recognizes that Iranians have legitimate security concerns while acknowledging that others have so too. Thus a realistic threat that Iran faces isolation in the world should be accompanied by a serious offer to negotiate."

The question, however, is whether the regime in Iran is willing to negotiate and about what?

The commotion about guaranteeing the tyrants of Iran their security and promising them that nobody wants "regime change" in exchange for their goodwill and cooperation misses the point of what this most serious crisis of the 21st century is about. The argument goes something like this: The US is not supporting negotiations and is implicitly threatening Iran with regime change, has nearly 150,000 troops on Iran's western and eastern borders, and Tehran has genuine security concerns which is forcing it to pursue nuclear weapons and behaving belligerently. To succeed in changing the Iranian regime's behavior, the US should engage the Iranian regime directly in a grand bargain to buy its goodwill by promising the regime the security it wants, and getting a well-behaved partner in securing regional stability.

This argument rests on a misunderstanding, or a lack there of, about the nature of the present Iranian regime and fails to draw lessons from the past three decades of Islamic fundamentalist rule in Iran. Is the Iranian regime really pursuing nuclear weapons as an act of self-defense against perceived US threats? Are Ahmadinejad's continuous threats to other countries and his call for a "global Islamic rule," a result of Iran's perceived threats? Is Iranian sponsored terrorism and its spread of fanatical and regressive religious fundamentalism due to some outside impetus?

The past three decades of Islamic fundamentalist rule in Iran have shown that the regime in Iran thrives on confrontation and external threats to suppress all dissent and consolidate internally, precisely because it is incapable of managing a modern, prosperous, open, and democratic system of government.

The regime's acquisition of nuclear technology, which many suspect is for building nuclear weapons, started in total secrecy in the late 1980s and was uncovered by the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) in the summer of 2002.

Tehran's involvement in Lebanon and its sponsorship of terrorism began in the early 1980s, which make it clear that terrorism has been a major foreign policy instrument for the regime with which it aims to intimidate and blackmail various countries into accepting its terms.

Tehran has openly declared its ambition to be the leader of the "Islamic World," and to form an "Islamic bloc" to impose the Iranian model of religious government on Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond. This "Islamic Caliphate" would be armed with nuclear weapons and long-range missiles to impose its terms on a world that looks on incredulously and seeks to negotiate and bargain with an increasingly confident and belligerent state-sponsor of terrorism.

What does Iran have to negotiate about? The Iranian regime said repeatedly that it is more than willing to negotiate, but only about its own agenda and on its on terms. In the same breath, it vowed over and over never to suspend nuclear enrichment. What it is willing to negotiate about is how the West could help it dominate the region, acquire nuclear surge capability, withdraw from the region, and abandon all talk of spreading democracy to the so-called Islamic dominion.

So herein lies the fallacy of the argument for engagement and negotiations. The Iranian regime says let's negotiate about how you can save your skin and leave the region safely, rather than about changing our behavior. No change in behavior will come from any such negotiations and the regime will use the time to cross the point of no return in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The second fallacy lies in the fact that engagement has been the modus operandi going all the way back to the Irangate fiasco in mid-1980s, with the Europeans and the United States engaging with Iran one way or another and closing their eyes on the regime's human rights abuses at home and sponsorship of terrorism abroad. Engagement, therefore, is not a new idea but an old and failed policy that actually resulted in the ascension of Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a sign of hardliners consolidating their position in the Iranian regime.

If the threat of military confrontation in the Persian Gulf region looms so large today is a consequence of such appeasement in the past.

The third fallacy is that it sends precisely the wrong signal to a restive and discontent Iranian population which does not support the regime and will not support it on the nuclear issue either.

The world must unite in the face of this new oriental and religious dictatorship and isolate it rather then lend it further legitimacy through futile engagement. The Iranian people despise the regime, and despite the myth of Iranian nationalist sentiments causing a rally round the flag effect over the nuclear issue, will not support this regime in its present confrontational stand. Over 4,000 protest actions in Iran aimed at the regime during the last Iranian year that ended in March prove that there is a deep and wide gap between the Iranian rulers and the Iranian people. The world must recognize this resistance to Islamic fundamentalist rule in Iran and avoid offering the mullahs any more favors by promising it security guarantees. Why should anyone offer to protect this regime from inevitable downfall at the hands of the Iranian people?

On the contrary, international pressure on the religious tyranny in Iran should be ratcheted up and the US administration should engage the Iranian Resistance movement and people instead of threatening military action. War is not inevitable as long as appeasement (ie: engagement, negotiations, grand bargains, etc) is avoided.

The best option remains the third option as set out by Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, in her address to the European Parliament in December 2004 and to the Council of Europe in April 2006. "I have come to say that the international community is not required to choose between the nuclear-armed mullahs or a war," she said. "There is a third option: democratic change by the Iranian people and their organized resistance. Making concessions to the mullahs is not the way to avoid war. It would increase the possibility of a war."

The West should heed her advice before it is too late.

Jubin Afshar is Director of Near East Studies at Near East Policy Research, a research and foreign policy analysis firm in Washington, D.C.

 

Retired Pakistani general says he told Iran to hit Israel in event of any attack

by repost Friday, May. 19, 2006

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/1728023.php
 

Pakistan's former army chief says Iranian officials came to him for advice on heading off an attack on their nuclear facilities, and he in effect advised them to take a hostage -- Israel.

Retired General Mirza Aslam Beg said he suggested their government "make it clear that if anything happens to Iran, if anyone attacks it -- it doesn't matter who it is or how it is attacked -- that Iran's answer will be to hit Israel; the only target will be Israel."

Since Beg spoke of the encounter, echoes of his thinking have been heard in Iran, though whether they result directly from his advice isn't known.

Mohammed Ebrahim Dehghani, an Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander, was quoted last week as saying that if "America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel."

The threat was disavowed the following day by Brigadier General Alireza Afshar, deputy to the chief of Iran's military staff, who said that it was Dehghani's "personal view and has no validity as far as the Iranian military officials are concerned."

And on Tuesday, Israel's vice premier, Shimon Peres, warned that "Those who threaten to destroy are in danger of being destroyed."

Advice

In the interview that took place several weeks before these threats were exchanged, Beg said a delegation from the Iranian Embassy in Pakistan had come to his office in January, seeking advice as Western pressure mounted on Iran to abandon its nuclear effort. Beg said he offered lessons learned from his experience dealing with India's nuclear threat.

He said he told the Iranians, whom he did not identify, that Pakistan had suspected India of collaborating with Israel in planning an attack on its nuclear facilities. By then, Pakistan had the bomb too.

But both countries had adopted a strategy of ambiguity, he said, and Pakistan sent an emissary to India to warn that no matter who attacked it, Pakistan would retaliate against India.

"We told India frankly that this is the threat we perceive and this is the action we are taking and the action we will take. It was a real deterrent," he recalled telling the Iranians.

He said he also advised them to "attempt to degrade the defense systems of Israel," harass it through the Hamas government of the Palestinian Authority and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, and put second-strike nuclear weapons on submarines.

Although analysts are divided on how soon Iran might have nuclear weapons, Beg said he is sure Iran has had enough time to develop them.

But he insists the Pakistani government didn't help, even though he says former prime minister Benazir Bhutto once told him the Iranians offered more than US$4 billion for the technology.

Ephraim Asculai, a former senior official with the Israel Atomic Agency Commission, said he didn't think Beg's remarks reflected official Pakistani policy.

Asculai said he believed Iran learned more from Iraq than from Pakistan, recalling that as soon as the 1991 Gulf War broke out, Saddam Hussein fired missiles at Israel, even though it wasn't in the US-led coalition fighting Iraq.

Beg became army chief of staff in 1988, a year after Pakistan confirmed CIA estimates that it had nuclear weapons capability. He served until 1991 and now runs his own think tank.

He speaks freely and in detail about the nuclear issue, but many critical blank spots remain and the subject remains one of great sensitivity, clouded by revelations in 2004 that A.Q. Khan, who pioneered Pakistan's nuclear bomb, sold nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

The bigger picture has also changed radically. Pakistan is now a US ally in the war on terrorism, and Asculai said "Pakistani government officials have often suggested that they would be willing to have ties with Israel under certain conditions."

In the interview, Beg detailed nearly 20 years of Iranian approaches to obtain conventional arms and then technology for nuclear weapons. He described an Iranian visit in 1990, when he was army chief of staff.

"They didn't want the technology. They asked: `Can we have a bomb?' My answer was: By all means you can have it but you must make it yourself. Nobody gave it to us," Beg said.

The US imposed sanctions on Pakistan in 1990, suspecting it was developing a nuclear bomb. In 1998, confirmation came with Pakistan's first nuclear weapons tests.

Although Beg insisted his government never gave Iran nuclear weapons, Pakistan now acknowledges that Khan sold Iran centrifuges to produce weapons-grade uranium, though without his government's knowledge.

Confession

In a televised confession Khan insisted he acted without authorization in selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, saying the proliferation took place between 1989 and 2000.

Khan has been pardoned by President General Pervez Musharraf, and Pakistan has refused to hand him over to the US or the UN nuclear watchdog agency for questioning.

According to Beg, Iran first sent emissaries to Pakistan in the latter years of its 1980-88 war with Iraq with a shopping list worth billions of dollars, mostly for spare parts for its air force.

It offered in return to underwrite the development plan of General Zia-ul Haq, then Pakistan's ruler.

"General Zia did not agree," he said.

Much of what Beg says cannot be independently confirmed, and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Beg's version of events.

Iran May Require Non-Muslims to Wear Badges Associated Press http://www.beliefnet.com/story/191/story_19187_1.html

WASHINGTON, May 19 - The State Department said Friday it is concerned about reports that Iran's parliament is considering legislation to require non-Muslims in the country to wear badges. Spokesman Sean McCormack said any such measure would be "despicable" and carry "clear echoes of Germany under Hitler." U.S. govenrment statistics indicate that 98 percent of Iranians are Islamic. Other faiths are Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i. McCormack said he could not comment further because the precise nature of the proposal is unclear. "I don't have all the facts," he said.

 

Iran Mirroring 1940s Germany   By: dpayton · Section: Diaries   http://dpayton.redstate.com/story/2006/5/19/11547/2400
Comparisons of the Iranian regime to Nazi Germany just got more legitimacy. Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.
May 19th, 2006: 11:54:07

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

"There's no reason to believe they won't pass this," said Rabbi Hier. "It will certainly pass unless there's some sort of international outcry over this."

And guess who's been a big sponsor of this?

The new law was drafted two years ago, but was stuck in the Iranian parliament until recently when it was revived at the behest of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And the official line is "no comment".

A spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa refused to comment on the measures. "This is nothing to do with anything here," said a press secretary who identified himself as Mr. Gharmani.

"We are not here to answer such questions."

The question before the world now is whether history will repeat itself.  Is there a diplomatic solution to this?  Consider how often Ahmadinejad has been slamming those doors and upping the ante, both in rhetoric and now in legislation.

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has written to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, protesting the Iranian law and calling on the international community to bring pressure on Iran to drop the measure.

"The world should not ignore this," said Rabbi Hier. "The world ignored Hitler for many years -- he was dismissed as a demagogue, they said he'd never come to power -- and we were all wrong."

Mr. Farber said Canada and other nations should take action to isolate Mr. Ahmadinejad in light of the new law, which he called "chilling," and his previous string of anti-Semitic statements.

"There are some very frightening parallels here," he said. "It's time to start considering how we're going to deal with this person."

Mr. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly described the Holocaust as a myth and earlier this year announced Iran would host a conference to re-examine the history of the Nazis' "Final Solution."

He has caused international outrage by publicly calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Outrage, yes, but has that done anything constructive?  There are still steps we can take short of war to try to force the issue, but no one has the guts to take them yet.  Just issue another report and have another vote and go home thinking you've done something.  It's time for action on Iran.  The longer we wait, the more strenuous the action must be to make a difference.  

But remember that the Left in this country was outraged just over sanctions.  Ahmadinejad may be counting on such allies to keep the wolves at bay until he has a nuclear club to threaten them with.  And if America doesn't put its weight behind such sanctions, they're highly unlikely to work.  

It may be time to choose your weapon.  Continuing to watch 1940s Germany replay right before our eyes shouldn't be an option.

Iran Looking Like Nazi Germany

May 19, 2006

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051906/content/see_i_told_you_so.guest.html

 

RUSH: (story) "The Iranian government, led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has decided that badges will be required for non-Muslims in Iran. Human rights groups [amazingly], are raising alarms over this." I don't recall human rights groups coming to the defense of Christians lately, but I guess they've got no choice here. Human rights groups, "raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the consultant's Jews and Christians to wear colored badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims. 'This is reminiscent of the Holocaust,' said Rabbi Marvin Heier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. 'Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis.'" Well, he's right, but he's not the first to say it. Let's go back to me, April 17th on this very program. BEGIN ARCHIVE CLIP RUSH ARCHIVE: Churchill had this problem back in the thirties with Hitler. It's eerie how similar this is. Hitler was rearming; he was engaged in turning his population into a bunch of psychos. He was creating the Nazi Party, and Churchill is out there warning everybody, and nobody wanted to listen to him -- and we got the era of Neville Chamberlain, and because nobody wanted to listen to Churchill, nobody thought he knew what he was talking about -- because nobody wanted war. "Ah, let him do what he wants to do. He's not going to attack us. It doesn't matter," and there's an eerie parallel here because while the Iranians are doing the same thing, a bunch of experts say, "Ah, it's just bluster. They can't get a bomb for ten years. We don't need to do anything," and we've got all these experts in this country saying (breathless), "If we do anything in Iran, it's going to look just like Iraq! It's going to be a mistake!" END ARCHIVE CLIP RUSH: The parallels are eerie. Once again a demonstration of this program keeping you on the cutting edge of societal evolution.

Beilin: Israel must act to evacuate Jews from Iran

 

JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961378091&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Responding to news from Iran, Meretz Chairman Yossi Beilin said, "Israel could no longer be satisfied with warnings, and that the moment Jews are forced to wear the yellow band, Israel must act to evacuate all Jews from Iran."

He added that, "Israel must stand at the forefront of efforts to separate Iran's crazy and Hitlerite regime from government control."

The making of an insurgency in Iran's Balochistan province

By Alex Vatanka and Fatemeh Aman

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir060519_1_n.shtml  

There has been a considerable escalation in violence in Iran's impoverished Balochistan province. On 1 May, Iran's Interior Minister Mostafa Purmohammadi said that Tehran has approached Interpol for help in tracking down Abdolmalek Rigi. The Iranian authorities believe that Rigi, the ethnic Baloch and Sunni leader of Jondollah (Soldiers of Allah), is probably traversing between Iran's Balochistan and Pakistan and southern Afghanistan.

Rigi and his unknown number of militiamen have vowed to fight the Shia-centric government in Tehran unless socio-economic conditions improve in the province, where the majority of the population is Sunni and ethnic Baloch. Meanwhile, mainstream Balochis are also becoming increasingly vocal in demanding socio-economic regeneration and an end to discrimination in the province.

Tehran's response

Iran's reaction to Jondollah's most recent attacks has been to publicly concede to the severity of ethnic Baloch militancy in Iran.

The most recent attacks have included the 16 March killing of 20 people travelling between the provincial capital, Zahedan, and Zabol, a desolate border town that acts as a major conduit for drugs from Afghanistan. On 14 May, a number of cars travelling on the main road between the cities of Bam and Kerman were attacked by an estimated 30 gunmen, leaving 12 people dead. Jondollah has claimed responsibility for the 16 March attack, although it said that those killed were either military personnel or somehow affiliated with the Iranian government, an accusation rebuffed by Tehran, which maintains that civilians were targeted. Jondollah denies involvement in the 14 May attack.

Despite the differing accounts, there is little doubt that the escalation of violence and the increasing reach and size of Jondollah's attacks are forcing provincial authorities, as well as the embattled Interior Ministry and the various branches of the armed forces to rethink the situation. However, early indications suggest that an array of assessments are being carried out by Iranian officials, making a concerted and resourced response to the threat from Jondollah and other possible militancy in Balochistan unlikely, at least in the short term.

 

Western Powers Disagree on Elements of Iran Proposal

May 19, 2006
The New York Times
Steven R. Weisman

link to original article

WASHINGTON -- The United States and Europe are divided over the latest phase of their negotiating strategy on Iran, with the Bush administration resisting a new European offer that includes a proposal for a Middle East security "framework" for Iran if it gives up its nuclear activities, diplomats from each side said Friday.

The diplomats said the administration was also resisting the idea of protecting European companies from punishment by the United States for violating its sanctions if they did business with Iran, as called for in the European proposal.

The disagreements on these issues are clouding the possibility of a deal with Iran on its nuclear program, even as tensions have increased over Tehran's refusal to change its behavior, the diplomats said. In addition, they said, Europe, the United States and Russia have not agreed on the need to impose sanctions on Iran if it continues to defy the West.

The diplomats and other officials requested anonymity because, following diplomatic protocol, they are not authorized to speak publicly about ongoing negotiations.

The European proposals for how to deal with Iran were transmitted to the United States only on Thursday, American and European officials said. A senior administration official said the proposals were being studied by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others.

"The U.S. has received a European proposal but has not yet responded to it," said the official, adding that the American answer would be conveyed next Wednesday at a meeting of senior envoys in London. Also to be discussed are sanctions if Iran continues activities believed in the West to be part of a weapons program.

"What we have is a general agreement among the Europeans, Russians, Chinese and ourselves to make the Iranians choose between a positive path and a negative path," the official said, adding that both incentives and possible sanctions would be discussed in London.

The United States, Europe, Russia and China are trying to negotiate an approach on Iran, a challenge made even more difficult by persistent rebuffs from Iranian leaders. This week President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reported to have described what the West was preparing as akin to nuts and candy in exchange for gold.

The envoys were supposed to have met Friday to discuss the European ideas, but disagreements on the details were said to have postponed the session until next week. Some European officials say talks may continue into the summer.

Hard-liners in the Bush administration and other countries, particularly Israel, are worried that time is wasting and that Iran is about to reach a "point of no return," when it will have the technology and expertise to produce weapons on its own, even though that may take years. In the proposed European package for Iran, there is still no agreement with Russia on sanctions. Russia has said it will not endorse a United Nations Security Council resolution that would make Iran's compliance mandatory.

According to several European officials, Russia's refusal was the focus of a testy exchange between Ms. Rice and the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, when they met for dinner with other envoys on May 8 in New York. Previous accounts have described the heated nature of their exchange, but new details emerged Friday.

According to two officials, Mr. Lavrov said statements about Iran by R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, were "pathetic," prompting Ms. Rice to come back and say such talk was unacceptable. Later, Ms. Rice was said to have asked Mr. Lavrov whether his comments meant an end to talks on the matter.

Mr. Lavrov was said to have replied no, and European diplomats now say Russia may eventually support a threat of sanctions — provided they are not imposed automatically if Iran defies the Security Council's demand for cooperation.

European officials say there is a consensus among them that Mr. Lavrov was angry because of an earlier speech by Vice President Dick Cheney denouncing Russia for its increasingly authoritarian and bullying behavior. Several wondered whether Mr. Cheney, worried about the direction the Europeans were taking the talks, was not in fact trying to antagonize Russia to discourage it from cooperating on Iran.

American officials say that it is no secret that Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld are deeply distrustful of the European effort. Instead, they support efforts to topple the Iranian regime from within, though not through military action.

Similarly, administration hardliners do not like any kind of security guarantees for Iran, including talk of a Middle East "regional" framework put forward by the Europeans. While details are sketchy, the Europeans said the plan would include some sort of guarantee that the government would not be overthrown, through either outside attack or subversion. Europeans say Ms. Rice has made it clear that she is more sympathetic to the idea.

The Europeans are also persisting in the view that there will eventually have to be talks between the United States and Iran on security matters. But both they and American officials say there is no call for such negotiations in the current proposal. Administration officials say that if such a proposal were in the European package, it would be rejected outright by the United States.

The only contact likely with Iran would be through the United States ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, who is authorized to talk to Iranians about only the situation in Iraq. Mr. Khalilzad said in an interview Friday that he had not been in touch with Tehran and that he is not authorized to make contact until after an Iraqi government is formed.

"Since I've served as ambassador, I have not met secretly or openly with any Iranian official," said Mr. Khalilzad, who took office in April 2005. He was responding to speculation that had appeared in some news reports. "We would be prepared to meet with them once the government of national unity is formed."

Security Council May Alter Involvement in Iran

May 20, 2006
The Associated Press
USA Today

link to original article

VIENNA -- World powers are considering dropping U.N. Security Council involvement in Iran's nuclear file if Tehran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment but could push for sanctions backed by the threat of force if the Islamic state refuses, diplomats said Saturday.

Citing from a draft proposal being considered by the five Security Council nations plus Germany, one of the diplomats said it could still undergo revision before the six nations sit down Wednesday to approve it. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to reveal elements of the draft.

The proposal says the international community will "agree to suspend discussion of Iran's file at the Security Council," if Tehran resumes discussion on its nuclear program, suspends enrichment during such talks and lifts a ban on intrusive inspections by the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

It also offers help in "the building of new light-water reactors in Iran," offers an assured supply of nuclear fuel for up to five years and asks Tehran to accept a plan that would move its enrichment program to Russia.

If Iran does not cooperate, however, the draft calls for bans on travel visas, freezing assets and banning financial transactions of key government figures and those involved in Iran's nuclear program; an arms embargo, and other measures including an embargo on shipping refined oil products to Iran. While Iran is a major exporter of crude it has a shortage of gasoline and other oil derivatives.

"Where appropriate, these measures would be adopted under Chapter VII, Article 41 of the U.N. Charter," says the draft, referring to provisions that add the implicit threat of military force to a Security Council resolution.

That section — backed by the United States, France and Britain — remains controversial, however, and the head of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency plans to urge the Bush administration next week to ease its push for tough Security Council action.

Diplomas said that Mohamed ElBaradei would meet with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and other top U.S. officials to press the administration to moderate its stance.

Several of the diplomats — all of them accredited to the Vienna-based agency — told The Associated Press that ElBaradei's Washington meetings would be Tuesday, a day before the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany convene in London.

The Americans have swung behind new attempts by France, Britain and Germany to persuade the Iranians to give up enrichment — which can be used to generate nuclear fuel or for making weapons. But the U.S. insists that the Iran package include the threat of a Security Council resolution that is militarily enforceable if Tehran refuses.

Russia and China — the two other permanent Security Council members — oppose any resolution that even implicitly threatens force.

One of the diplomats said on Friday that Washington remained opposed to proposals by some European nations that the Iranians be offered U.S.-backed security guarantees effectively removing the threat of American-backed attempts at regime change, the diplomat said.

Concern has built since 2002, when Iran was found to be working on large-scale plans to enrich uranium. Iran insists it is only interested in generating electricity, but the international community increasingly fears ulterior motives.

A series of IAEA reports since have revealed worrying clandestine activities and documents, including drawings of how to mold weapons-grade uranium metal into the shape of a warhead.

Iran heightened international concerns by announcing April 11 that it had enriched uranium with 164 centrifuges. It has informed the IAEA that it plans to install 3,000 centrifuges in the last quarter of 2006.

Experts estimate that Iran could produce enough nuclear material for one bomb if it had at 1,000 centrifuges working for over a year.

Will the U.S. Shift on North Korea Pay Dividends for Iran?

May 19, 2006
Time
Tony Karon

link to original article

In what would be a remarkable reversal of policies it has adopted since taking office in 2001, the Bush Administration is reportedly now considering accepting North Korea's longstanding demand for comprehensive peace talks in parallel with negotiations over its nuclear program.

Up to now the Administration's position, shaped by its hawkish faction that favors regime-change, has always been to avoid any concessions to North Korea. And even in the course of the six-party talks over its weapons program, Washington has consistently rebuffed the appeals of other key players such as China, Russia and South Korea to talk directly to the North Koreans.

But that policy has, quite plainly, failed to restrain Pyongyang's nuclear activities. Just this week, it was reported that satellite images appear to confirm that the nuclear reactor at Yongbon has been restarted, following a shut-down during which the North Koreans claim to have extracted enough fuel rods to produce possibly three to five nuclear weapons. What's really going on at Yongbon remains a mystery, since North Korea's withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty forced out inspectors, and the six-party talks remain stalled since last fall.

Now, the New York Times reports, U.S. officials fear that maintaining the stalemate allows North Korea to become the poster child for resisting international pressure against going nuclear — an example that Iran might seek to emulate. But by shifting its policy against security guarantees for North Korea, the Administration could undercut its arguments against talking to Iran.

Within days of taking office, the Bush Administration's divisions over North Korea were made public: Secretary of State Colin Powell said the new administration would continue the Clinton-era policy of negotiating incentives with North Korea in exchange for verifiable steps to end all non-civilian nuclear activity. President Bush publicly repudiated Powell — and alarmed the South Korean government — warning that the North Koreans could not be trusted.

The hawks pointed to North Korean duplicity in maintaining a secret uranium enrichment program even as it claimed to be implementing agreements reached with the Clinton administration. Their stance was practically codified when the President, a year later, labeled North Korea part of his "Axis of Evil."

But if the hawks had a case against engagement, their own alternatives — sanctions and other forms of blockade to throttle the regime, or even some form of military action — had no takers. The South Koreans, whose defense is ostensibly the basis for U.S. involvement on the Korean peninsula, as well as China, strenuously opposed both options. Instead, they favor engagement and aid as the best way to ease their neighbors into the 21st century and avert the chaos that a collapse of the regime would bring. And without the support of the two countries that border North Korea, sanctions would be meaningless.

So, the U.S. opted instead for the six-party process, relying on China, South Korea, Japan and Russia to create a united front with the leverage to compel North Korea to disarm. But, while these countries shared Washington's goal of halting North Korea's nuclear weapons program, they did not share the U.S. perspective† on how to get there. China, South Korea and Russia have become increasingly open in their criticism of the Bush Administration's refusal to talk directly to North Korea, and to take regime-change off the table by offering it security guarantees in exchange for closing down nuclear weapons program.

Eventually, in September 2005, China presented Washington with a take-it-or-leave-it deal: North Korea would agree to verifiably scrap "all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs" and return to the Non Proliferation Treaty in return for security guarantees and a normalization of relations, as well as a package of economic and energy aid. Having thrown in its lot with the six-party process, the U.S. had little choice but to agree, even though it was hardly the outcome the hawks had hoped for.

The deal collapsed almost immediately, however, in a dispute over what the North Koreans would get and when, and it has remained stalled since then as Washington has sought to pressure Pyongyang on other fronts — such as its alleged counterfeiting of millions of dollars in U.S. banknotes — while North Korea proceeded with its nuclear work.

But if the U.S. is prepared to reverse its opposition to offering North Korea comprehensive peace talks as part of the effort to end its nuclear weapons program, pressure will mount to do the same on Iran. There, too, the U.S. is relying on a diplomatic "united front," refusing to deal directly with Iran and instead outsourcing the direct diplomacy to the EU3 — Britain, France and Germany — and needing the consent of Russia and China for any meaningful sanctions.

The parallels with the Iranian standoff are hard to miss. While its partners share Washington's concern over Iran's intentions, they want Iran to be offered security guarantees by the U.S. in exchange for Iran verifiably refraining from activities that would give it the means to create nuclear weapons. And they want Washington to talk directly with Tehran. Thus far, the Administration has rebuffed all such suggestions, but it will become a lot harder to maintain that position towards dealing with Iran if the hawks suddenly change their hardline approach to the other surviving member of the Axis of Evil.