Shah's son urges action on Iran
Tue May 30, 2006
http://today.reuters.co.uk/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05-30T022154Z_01_N29370107_RTRUKOC_0_UK-PAHLAVI.xml
POTOMAC, Maryland (Reuters) -
The exiled son of Iran's late
shah on Monday called on the
Bush administration to put
action before rhetoric in
ousting Tehran's Islamic regime,
which he said has long been the
source of global instability.
Reza Pahlavi, 45, the eldest son
of the late Mohammed Reza
Pahlavi, said Iranians are ready
to actively oppose the Islamic
regime of Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but need
more than pro-democratic
utterances from world leaders
like U.S. President George W.
Bush.
"Fantastic, we love to hear
that, motherhood and apple pie,"
Pahlavi said of Bush's
statements that the United
States supports a free,
democratic Iran.
"What remains to be seen again
is in what concrete way the U.S.
administration will take the
necessary steps," Pahlavi told
Reuters in an interview at his
home in a suburb of Washington,
flanked by the Iranian flag and
portraits of his mother and
father, the U.S.-backed monarch
who was deposed in the 1979
Islamic revolution.
The United States and other
nations should actively support
Iran's dissident groups and give
them the technical gear and
expertise to get their message
out, Pahlavi said.
Pahlavi said regime change in
Iran will leave the Middle East
a safer place, and said that
Iran's clerics have long been a
prime mover behind violence in
Iraq, Lebanon and Sudan.
"For 27 years we have seen the
world sending their firetrucks
to try to extinguish fires all
over the planet," he said. "But
nobody has asked the question
'Who is the main culprit?' ...
When you come to think of it, it
has been Tehran all along."
The United States and Iran are
at odds over Western accusations
that Iran's nuclear program is a
cover for making weapons. Iran
says it wants to use the
enriched uranium for electricity
generation.
Pahlavi, who trained in the
United States as a jet fighter
pilot, said Iran has the right
to nuclear technology, but not
to threaten other nations with
it.
"It was never a question of Iran
having the right -- the problem
is the finger on the trigger,"
he said, referring to
Ahmadinejad's public calls for
Israel's destruction.
However, Pahlavi said the United
States should not pursue
military means to take away
Iran's uranium-enrichment
capability. Bush has said
military options are on the
table but has stressed the need
for diplomatic talks.
Instead of a military strike,
Pahlavi said global leaders
should help Iran dissident
groups' overthrow the current
regime from within.
Spiegel Interview With
Ahmadinejad: "We Are Determined"
May 30, 2006
Spiegel
Interview conducted by Stefan
Aust, Gerhard Spörl and Dieter
Bednarz in Tehran
link to original article
In an interview with SPIEGEL,
Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad discusses the
Holocaust, the future of the
state of Israel, mistakes made
by the United States in Iraq and
Tehran's nuclear conflict with
the West.
SPIEGEL: Mr.
President, you are a soccer fan
and you like to play soccer.
Will you be sitting in the
stadium in Nuremberg on June 11,
when the Iranian national team
plays against Mexico in Germany?
Ahmadinejad: It
depends. Naturally, I'll be
watching the game in any case. I
don't know yet whether I'll be
at home in front of the
television set or somewhere
else. My decision depends upon a
number of things.
SPIEGEL: For example?
Ahmadinejad: How much
time I have, how the state of
various relationships are going,
whether I feel like it and a
number of other things.
SPIEGEL: There was
great indignation in Germany
when it became known that you
might be coming to the soccer
world championship. Did that
surprise you?
Ahmadinejad: No,
that's not important. I didn't
even understand how that came
about. It also had no meaning
for me. I don't know what all
the excitement is about.
SPIEGEL: It concerned
your remarks about the
Holocaust. It was inevitable
that the Iranian president's
denial of the systematic murder
of the Jews by the Germans would
trigger outrage.
Ahmadinejad: I don't
exactly understand the
connection.
SPIEGEL: First you
make your remarks about the
Holocaust. Then comes the news
that you may travel to Germany
-- this causes an uproar. So you
were surprised after all?
Ahmadinejad: No, not
at all, because the network of
Zionism is very active around
the world, in Europe too. So I
wasn't surprised. We were
addressing the German people. We
have nothing to do with
Zionists.
SPIEGEL: Denying the
Holocaust is punishable in
Germany. Are you indifferent
when confronted with so much
outrage?
Ahmadinejad: I know
that DER SPIEGEL is a respected
magazine. But I don't know
whether it is possible for you
to publish the truth about the
Holocaust. Are you permitted to
write everything about it?
SPIEGEL: Of course we
are entitled to write about the
findings of the past 60 years'
historical research. In our view
there is no doubt that the
Germans -- unfortunately -- bear
the guilt for the murder of 6
million Jews.
Ahmadinejad: Well,
then we have stirred up a very
concrete discussion. We are
posing two very clear questions.
The first is: Did the Holocaust
actually take place? You answer
this question in the
affirmative. So, the second
question is: Whose fault was it?
The answer to that has to be
found in Europe and not in
Palestine. It is perfectly
clear: If the Holocaust took
place in Europe, one also has to
find the answer to it in Europe.
On the other hand, if the
Holocaust didn't take place, why
then did this regime of
occupation ...
SPIEGEL: ... You mean
the state of Israel...
Ahmadinejad: ... come
about? Why do the European
countries commit themselves to
defending this regime? Permit me
to make one more point. We are
of the opinion that, if an
historical occurrence conforms
to the truth, this truth will be
revealed all the more clearly if
there is more research into it
and more discussion about it.
SPIEGEL: That has
long since happened in Germany.
Ahmadinejad: We don't
want to confirm or deny the
Holocaust. We oppose every type
of crime against any people. But
we want to know whether this
crime actually took place or
not. If it did, then those who
bear the responsibility for it
have to be punished, and not the
Palestinians. Why isn't research
into a deed that occurred 60
years ago permitted? After all,
other historical occurrences,
some of which lie several
thousand years in the past, are
open to research, and even the
governments support this.
SPIEGEL: Mr.
President, with all due respect,
the Holocaust occurred, there
were concentration camps, there
are dossiers on the
extermination of the Jews, there
has been a great deal of
research, and there is neither
the slightest doubt about the
Holocaust nor about the fact -
we greatly regret this - that
the Germans are responsible for
it. If we may now add one
remark: the fate of the
Palestinians is an entirely
different issue, and this brings
us into the present.
Ahmadinejad: No, no,
the roots of the Palestinian
conflict must be sought in
history. The Holocaust and
Palestine are directly connected
with one another. And if the
Holocaust actually occurred,
then you should permit impartial
groups from the whole world to
research this. Why do you
restrict the research to a
certain group? Of course, I
don't mean you, but rather the
European governments.
SPIEGEL: Are you
still saying that the Holocaust
is just "a myth?"
Ahmadinejad: I will
only accept something as truth
if I am actually convinced of
it.
SPIEGEL: Even though
no Western scholars harbor any
doubt about the Holocaust?
Ahmadinejad: But
there are two opinions on this
in Europe. One group of scholars
or persons, most of them
politically motivated, say the
Holocaust occurred. Then there
is the group of scholars who
represent the opposite position
and have therefore been
imprisoned for the most part.
Hence, an impartial group has to
come together to investigate and
to render an opinion on this
very important subject, because
the clarification of this issue
will contribute to the solution
of global problems. Under the
pretext of the Holocaust, a very
strong polarization has taken
place in the world and fronts
have been formed. It would
therefore be very good if an
international and impartial
group looked into the matter in
order to clarify it once and for
all. Normally, governments
promote and support the work of
researchers on historical events
and do not put them in prison.
SPIEGEL: Who is that
supposed to be? Which
researchers do you mean?
Ahmadinejad: You
would know this better than I;
you have the list. There are
people from England, from
Germany, France and from
Australia.
SPIEGEL: You
presumably mean, for example,
the Englishman David Irving, the
German-Canadian Ernst Zündel,
who is on trial in Mannheim, and
the Frenchman Georges Theil, all
of whom deny the Holocaust.
Ahmadinejad: The mere
fact that my comments have
caused such strong protests,
although I'm not a European, and
also the fact that I have been
compared with certain persons in
German history indicates how
charged with conflict the
atmosphere for research is in
your country. Here in Iran you
needn't worry.
SPIEGEL: Well, we are
conducting this historical
debate with you for a very
timely purpose. Are you
questioning Israel's right to
exist?
Ahmadinejad: Look
here, my views are quite clear.
We are saying that if the
Holocaust occurred, then Europe
must draw the consequences and
that it is not Palestine that
should pay the price for it. If
it did not occur, then the Jews
have to go back to where they
came from. I believe that the
German people today are also
prisoners of the Holocaust.
Sixty million people died in the
Second World War. World War II
was a gigantic crime. We condemn
it all. We are against
bloodshed, regardless of whether
a crime was committed against a
Muslim or against a Christian or
a Jew. But the question is: Why
among these 60 million victims
are only the Jews the center of
attention?
SPIEGEL: That's just
not the case. All peoples mourn
the victims claimed by the
Second World War, Germans and
Russians and Poles and others as
well. Yet, we as Germans cannot
absolve ourselves of a special
guilt, namely for the systematic
murder of the Jews. But perhaps
we should now move on to the
next subject.
Ahmadinejad: No, I
have a question for you. What
kind of a role did today's youth
play in World War II?
SPIEGEL: None.
Ahmadinejad: Why
should they have feelings of
guilt toward Zionists? Why
should the costs of the Zionists
be paid out of their pockets? If
people committed crimes in the
past, then they would have to
have been tried 60 years ago.
End of story! Why must the
German people be humiliated
today because a group of people
committed crimes in the name of
the Germans during the course of
history?
SPIEGEL: The German
people today can't do anything
about it. But there is a sort of
collective shame for those deeds
done in the German name by our
fathers or grandfathers.
Ahmadinejad: How can
a person who wasn't even alive
at the time be held legally
responsible?
SPIEGEL: Not legally
but morally.
Ahmadinejad: Why is
such a burden heaped on the
German people? The German people
of today bear no guilt. Why are
the German people not permitted
the right to defend themselves?
Why are the crimes of one group
emphasized so greatly, instead
of highlighting the great German
cultural heritage? Why should
the Germans not have the right
to express their opinion freely?
SPIEGEL: Mr.
President, we are well aware
that German history is not made
up of only the 12 years of the
Third Reich. Nevertheless, we
have to accept that horrible
crimes have been committed in
the German name. We also own up
to this, and it is a great
achievement of the Germans in
post-war history that they have
grappled critically with their
past.
Ahmadinejad: Are you
also prepared to tell that to
the German people?
SPIEGEL: Oh yes, we
do that.
Ahmadinejad: Then
would you also permit an
impartial group to ask the
German people whether it shares
your opinion? No people accepts
its own humiliation.
SPIEGEL: All
questions are allowed in our
country. But of course there are
right-wing radicals in Germany
who are not only anti-Semitic,
but xenophobic as well, and we
do indeed consider them a
threat.
Ahmadinejad: Let me
ask you one thing: How much
longer can this go on? How much
longer do you think the German
people have to accept being
taken hostage by the Zionists?
When will that end - in 20, 50,
1,000 years?
SPIEGEL: We can only
speak for ourselves. DER SPIEGEL
is nobody's hostage; SPIEGEL
does not deal only with
Germany's past and the Germans'
crimes. We're not Israel's
uncritical ally in the Palestian
conflict. But we want to make
one thing very clear: We are
critical, we are independent,
but we won't simply stand by
without protest when the
existential right of the state
of Israel, where many Holocaust
survivors live, is being
questioned.
Ahmadinejad:
Precisely that is our point. Why
should you feel obliged to the
Zionists? If there really had
been a Holocaust, Israel ought
to be located in Europe, not in
Palestine.
SPIEGEL: Do you want
to resettle a whole people 60
years after the end of the war?
Ahmadinejad: Five
million Palestinians have not
had a home for 60 years. It is
amazing really: You have been
paying reparations for the
Holocaust for 60 years and will
have to keep paying up for
another 100 years. Why then is
the fate of the Palestinians no
issue here?
SPIEGEL: The
Europeans support the
Palestinians in many ways. After
all, we also have an historic
responsibility to help bring
peace to this region finally.
But don't you share that
responsibility?
Ahmadinejad: Yes, but
aggression, occupation and a
repetition of the Holocaust
won't bring peace. What we want
is a sustainable peace. This
means that we have to tackle the
root of the problem. I am
pleased to note that you are
honest people and admit that you
are obliged to support the
Zionists.
SPIEGEL: That's not
what we said, Mr. President.
Ahmadinejad: You said
Israelis.
SPIEGEL: Mr.
President, we're talking about
the Holocaust because we want to
talk about the possible nuclear
armament of Iran -- which is why
the West sees you as a threat.
Ahmadinejad: Some
groups in the West enjoy calling
things or people a threat. Of
course you're free to make your
own judgment.
SPIEGEL: The key
question is: Do you want nuclear
weapons for your country?
Ahmadinejad: Allow me
to encourage a discussion on the
following question: How long do
you think the world can be
governed by the rhetoric of a
handful of Western powers?
Whenever they hold something
against someone, they start
spreading propaganda and lies,
defamation and blackmail. How
much longer can that go on?
SPIEGEL: We're here
to find out the truth. The head
of state of a neighboring
country, for example, told
SPIEGEL: "They are
very keen on building the bomb."
Is that true?
Ahmadinejad: You see,
we conduct our discussions with
you and the European governments
on an entirely different, higher
level. In our view, the legal
system whereby a handful of
countries force their will on
the rest of the world is
discriminatory and unstable.
One-hundred and thirty-nine
countries, including us, are
members of the International
Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA)
in Vienna. Both the statutes of
IAEA and the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty as well
as all security agreements grant
the member countries the right
to produce nuclear fuel for
peaceful purposes. That is the
legitimate legal right of any
people. Beyond this, however,
IAEA was also established to
promote the disarmament of those
powers that already possessed
nuclear weapons. And now look at
what's happening today: Iran has
had an excellent cooperation
with IAEA. We have had more than
2,000 inspections of our plants,
and the inspectors have obtained
more than 1,000 pages of
documentation from us. Their
cameras are installed in our
nuclear centers. IAEA has
emphasized in all its reports
that there are no indications of
any irregularities in Iran. That
is one side of this matter.
SPIEGEL: IAEA doesn't
quite share your view of this
matter.
Ahmadinejad: But the
other side is that there are a
number of countries that possess
both nuclear energy and nuclear
weapons. They use their atomic
weapons to threaten other
peoples. And it is these powers
who say that they are worried
about Iran deviating from the
path of peaceful use of atomic
energy. We say that these powers
are free to monitor us if they
are worried. But what these
powers say is that the Iranians
must not complete the nuclear
fuel cycle because deviation
from peaceful use might then be
possible. What we say is that
these countries themselves have
long deviated from peaceful
usage. These powers have no
right to talk to us in this
manner. This order is unjust and
unsustainable.
SPIEGEL: But, Mr.
President, the key question is:
How dangerous will this world
become if even more countries
become nuclear powers -- if a
country like Iran, whose
president makes threats, builds
the bomb in a crisis-ridden
region?
Ahmadinejad: We're
fundamentally opposed to the
expansion of nucleaar-weapons
arsenals. This is why we have
proposed the formation of an
unbiased organization and the
disarmament of the nuclear
powers. We don't need any
weapons. We're a civilized,
cultured people, and our history
shows that we have never
attacked another country.
SPIEGEL: Iran doesn't
need the bomb that it wants to
build?
Ahmadinejad: It's
interesting to note that
European nations wanted to allow
the shah's dictatorship the use
of nuclear technology. That was
a dangerous regime. Yet those
nations were willing to supply
it with nuclear technology. Ever
since the Islamic Republic has
existed, however, these powers
have been opposed to it. I
stress once again, we don't need
any nuclear weapons.
We stand by our statements
because we're honest and act
legally. We're no fraudsters. We
only want to claim our
legitimate right. Incidentally,
I never threatened anyone -
that, too, is part of the
propaganda machine that you've
got running against me.
SPIEGEL: If this were
so, shouldn't you be making an
effort to ensure that no one
need fear your producing nuclear
weapons that you might use
against Israel, thus possibly
unleashing a world war? You're
sitting on a tinderbox, Mr.
President.
Ahmadinejad: Allow me
to say two things. No people in
the region are afraid of us. And
no one should instill fear in
these peoples. We believe that
if the United States and these
two or three European countries
did not interfere, the peoples
in this region would live
peacefully together as they did
in the thousands of years
before. In 1980, it was also the
nations of Europe and the United
States that encouraged Saddam
Hussein to attack us.
Our stance with respect to
Palestine is clear. We say:
Allow those to whom this country
belongs to express their
opinion. Let Jews, Christians
and Muslims say what they think.
The opponents of this proposal
prefer war and threaten the
region. Why are the United
States and these two or three
European nations opposed to
this? I believe that those who
imprison Holocaust researchers
prefer war to peace. Our stance
is democratic and peaceful.
SPIEGEL: The
Palestinians have long gone a
step further than you and
recognize Israel as a fact,
while you still wish to erase it
from the map. The Palestinians
are ready to accept a two-state
solution while you deny Israel
its right to existence.
Ahmadinejad: You're
wrong. You saw that the
Palestinian people elected Hamas
in free elections. We argue that
neither you nor we should claim
to speak for the Palestian
people. The Palestinians
themselves should say what they
want. In Europe it is customary
to call a referendum on any
issue. We should also give the
Palestinians the opportunity to
express their opinion.
SPIEGEL: The
Palestinians have the right to
their own state, but in our view
the Israelis naturally have the
same right.
Ahmadinejad: Where
did the Israelis come from?
SPIEGEL: Well, if we
tried to work out where people
have come from, the Europeans
would have to return to east
Africa where all humans
originated.
Ahmadinejad: We're
not talking about the Europeans;
we're talking about the
Palestinians. The Palestinians
were there, in Palestine. Now 5
million of them have become
refugees. Don't they have a
right to live?
SPIEGEL: Mr.
President, doesn't there come a
time when one should accept that
the world is the way it is and
that we must accept the status
quo? The war against Iraq has
put Iran in a favorable
position. The United States has
suffered a de facto defeat in
Iraq. Isn't it now time for Iran
to become a constructive power
of peace in the Middle East?
Which would mean giving up its
nuclear plans and inflammatory
talk?
Ahmadinejad: I'm
wondering why you're adopting
and fanatically defending the
stance of the European
politicians. You're a magazine,
not a government. Saying that we
should accept the world as it is
would mean that the winners of
World War II would remain the
victorious powers for another
1,000 years and that the German
people would be humiliated for
another 1,000 years. Do you
think that is the correct logic?
SPIEGEL: No, that's
not the right logic, nor is it
true. The Germans have played a
modest, but important role in
post-war developments. They do
not feel as though they have
been humiliated and dishonored
since 1945. We are too
self-confident for that. But
today we want to talk about
Iran's current mission.
Ahmadinejad: Then we
would accept that Palestinians
are killed every day, that they
die in terrorist attacks, and
that houses are being destroyed.
But let me say something about
Iraq. We have always favored
peace and security in the
region. For eight years, the
Western countries provided arms
to Saddam in the war against us,
including chemical weapons, and
gave him political support. We
were against Saddam and suffered
severely because of him, so
we're happy that he has been
toppled. But we don't accept a
whole country being swallowed
under the pretext of wanting to
topple Saddam. More than 100,000
Iraqis have lost their lives
under the rule of the occupying
forces. Fortunately, the Germans
haven't been involved in this.
We want security in Iraq.
SPIEGEL: But, Mr.
President, who is swallowing
Iraq? The United States has
practically lost this war. By
cooperating constructively, Iran
might help the Americans
consider their retreat from the
country.
Ahmadinejad: This is
very interesting: The Americans
occupy the country, kill people,
sell the oil and when they have
lost, they blame others. We have
very close ties to the Iraqi
people. Many people on both
sides of the border are related.
We have lived side by side for
thousands of years. Our holy
pilgrimage sites are located in
Iraq. Just like Iran, Iraq used
to be a center of civilization.
SPIEGEL: What are you
trying to say?
Ahmadinejad: We have
always said that we support the
popularly elected government of
Iraq. But in my view the
Americans are doing a bad job.
They have sent us messages
several times asking us for help
and cooperation. They have said
that we should talk together
about Iraq. We publicly accepted
this offer, although our people
do not trust the Americans. But
America has responded negatively
and insulted us. Even now we're
contributing to security in
Iraq. We will hold talks only if
the Americans change their
behavior.
SPIEGEL: Do you enjoy
provoking the Americans and the
rest of the world now and then?
Ahmadinejad: No, I'm
not insulting anyone. The letter
that I wrote to Mr. Bush was
polite.
SPIEGEL: We don't
mean insult, but provoke.
Ahmadinejad: No, we
feel animosity toward no one.
We're concerned about the
American soldiers who die in
Iraq. Why do they have to die
there? This war makes no sense.
Why is there war when there is
reason as well?
SPIEGEL: Is your
letter to the president also a
gesture toward the Americans
that you wish to enter into
direct negotiations?
Ahmadinejad: We
clearly stated our position in
this letter on how we view the
problems in the world. Some
powers have befouled the
political atmosphere in the
world because they consider lies
and fraud to be legitimate. In
our view that is very bad. We
believe that all people deserve
respect. Relationships have to
be regulated on the basis of
justice. When justice reigns,
peace reigns. Unjust conditions
aren't sustainable, even if
Ahmadinejad does not criticize
them.
SPIEGEL: This letter
to the American president
includes a passage about Sept.
11, 2001. The quote: "How could
such an operation be planned and
implemented without the
coordination with secret and
security services or without the
far-reaching infiltration of
these services?" Your statements
always include so many
innuendos. What is that supposed
to mean? Did the CIA help
Mohammed Atta and the other 18
terrorists conduct their
attacks?
Ahmadinejad: No,
that's not what I meant. We
think that they should just say
who is to blame. They should not
use Sept. 11 as an excuse to
launch a military attack against
the Middle East. They should
take those who are responsible
for the attacks to court. We're
not opposed to that; we
condemned the attacks. We
condemn any attack against
innocent people.
SPIEGEL: In this
letter you also write that
Western liberalism has failed.
What makes you say that?
Ahmadinejad: You see,
for example you have a thousand
definitions of the Palestian
problem and you offer all sorts
of different definitions of
democracy in its various forms.
It does not make sense that a
phenomenon depends on the
opinions of many individuals who
are free to interpret the
phenomenon as they wish. You
can't solve the problems of the
world that way. We need a new
approach. Of course we want the
free will of the people to
reign, but we need sustainable
principles that enjoy universal
acceptance - such as justice.
Iran and the West agree on this.
SPIEGEL: What role
can Europe play in the
resolution of the nuclear
conflict, and what do you expect
of Germany?
Ahmadinejad: We have
always cultivated good relations
with Europe, especially with
Germany. Our two peoples like
each other. We're eager to
deepen this relationship.
Europe has made three mistakes
with respect to our people. The
first mistake was to support the
shah's government. This has left
our people disappointed and
discontent. However, by offering
asylum to Imam Khomeini, France
earned a special position that
it lost again later. The second
mistake was to support Saddam in
his war against us. The truth is
that our people expected Europe
to be on our side, not against
us. The third mistake was
Europe's stance on the nuclear
issue. Europe will be the big
loser and will achieve nothing.
We don't want to see that
happen.
SPIEGEL: What will
happen now in the conflict
between the West and Iran?
Ahmadinejad: We
understand the Americans' logic.
They suffered damage as a result
of the victory of the Islamic
Revolution. But we're puzzled
why some European countries are
opposed to us. I sent out a
message on the nuclear issue,
asking why the Europeans were
translating the Americans' words
for us. After all, they know
that our actions are aimed
toward peace. By siding with
Iran, the Europeans would serve
their own and our interests. But
they will suffer only damage if
they oppose us. For our people
is strong and determined.
The Europeans risk losing their
position in the Middle East
entirely, and they are ruining
their reputation in other parts
of the world. The others will
think that the Europeans aren't
capable of solving problems.
SPIEGEL: Mr.
President, we thank you for this
interview.
Interview conducted by Stefan
Aust, Gerhard Spörl and Dieter
Bednarz in Tehran.
World Powers To Sign Off On Iran
Package
May 29, 2006
The Associated Press
CTV
link to original article
U.S.,
Russian, Chinese and European
officials plan to sign off this
week on a package of incentives
and penalties meant to reward
Iran if it gives up uranium
enrichment -- and punish it if
it doesn't, diplomats said
Monday. Agreement by the five
permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council plus Germany
could open the way for sanctions
if Tehran remains defiant and
refuses to abandon technology
that can be used to make the
fissile core of nuclear
warheads.
Their meeting was set for
Thursday in Vienna, said the
diplomats, who demanded
anonymity for divulging the
confidential information.
Tehran appeared unimpressed: One
official repeated that Iran is
permitted to enrich uranium for
peaceful purposes under the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Another announced that his
country had experimented in
technology that can be used to
make the hydrogen bomb.
Tehran's main goal was
recognition of "the essential
right of Iran to have nuclear
technology," Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki said during a
visit to Malaysia.
State television quoted nuclear
official Sadat Hosseini as
saying his country "is competing
with the advanced world in the
field of producing nuclear
energy through fusion."
Fusion is the main principle
behind the hydrogen bomb, which
can be hundreds of times more
powerful than atomic weapons
that use fission. In a hydrogen
bomb, radiation from a nuclear
fission explosion sets off a
fusion reaction responsible for
a powerful blast and
radioactivity.
Peaceful uses of fusion are
still at the experimental stage.
The European Union, the United
States, Japan, China, Russia and
others hope to set up a
demonstration power plant in the
southern French town of
Cadarache around 2040. Officials
project that 10 percent to 20
percent of the world's energy
could come from fusion by the
end of the century.
International concern about
Iran's nuclear aims has been
focused on fears it could be
trying to make a fission-type
nuclear weapon by enriching
uranium to weapons-grade level.
Hosseini's comments were likely
add to concern about Tehran's
interest in fusion.
But former U.N. nuclear
inspector David Albright said
the announcement was probably
"not very worrisome."
"They like to pretend they are
competing but their program is
(probably) pretty rudimentary,"
said Albright, who runs the
Washington-based Institute for
Science and International
Security.
"One part of their (nuclear)
strategy is to say, 'We have it
all, so you can't stop us,'" he
said.
Any package foreign ministers
approve on Thursday would then
be presented to Tehran by
France, Britain and Germany --
the trio of nations that broke
off talks with Iran in August
after it resumed activities
linked to uranium enrichment.
The Security Council gave Iran
until the end of April to
suspend all such activities.
Instead of complying, Iran
announced last month that it had
for the first time successfully
enriched uranium and was doing
research on advanced centrifuges
to produce more of the material
in less time.
Indirectly linked to any
possible deal for Iran would be
agreement on a resolution tough
enough for Washington but
acceptable to Tehran ally
Moscow, a dispute that has
hobbled action by the Security
Council's permanent members for
months.
If Iran remains defiant, the
proposal -- as outlined to AP by
diplomats familiar with the text
-- calls for a resolution
imposing sanctions under Chapter
VII, Article 41 of the U.N.
Charter. But it avoids any
reference to Article 42, which
is the trigger for possible
military action to enforce any
such resolution.
The proposal also calls for new
consultations among the five
permanent Security Council
members on any further steps
against Iran -- a move meant to
dispel complaints by the
Russians and Chinese that once
the screws on Iran are
tightened, the council would
automatically move toward
military involvement.
Among the possible sanctions are
a visa ban on government
officials, the freezing of
assets, blocking financial
transactions by government
figures and those involved in
the country's nuclear program,
an arms embargo and a blockade
on the shipping of refined oil
products to Iran.
If Tehran agrees to suspend
enrichment, enter new
negotiations on its nuclear
program and lift a ban on
intrusive inspections by the
International Atomic Energy
Agency, rewards would include
agreement to "suspend discussion
of Iran's file at the Security
Council," as well as help in
building a peaceful domestic
nuclear program that uses an
outside supply of enriched
uranium.
West Must Take Pre-emptive
Action for its Own Security
May 29, 2006
Telegraph
Janet Daley
link to original article
You could hear a snigger of
triumph echo round the world as
George Bush and Tony Blair
uttered an admission of their
"mistakes" over Iraq. Not quite
the mortified apology that the
anti-war lobby wanted, but it
would make a satisfying
headline.
The Blair Government is
imploding at home and when Tony
goes under, George will be
friendless. The Bush-Blair
foreign misadventure show is in
its last, discredited moments.
In no time at all, we will be
back to business as usual: the
UN can hunker down happily into
its familiar stalemates and
corrupt corridor deals, while
Europe witters about the
minutiae of its latest wave of
regulations. And the peoples of
the world who live under
murderous despots can go to hell
in a handcart.
Well, it's not to be: never
business as usual again, I'm
afraid. The status quo ante is
not an option - not just, as Mr
Blair likes to say, because of
9/11, but because the old
dispensation was a product of
the Cold War.
In the days when two nuclear
superpowers eyeballed each other
across the wall, the little
dictators were part of a global
chess game.
The big boys could be
complacently cynical about third
world tyrannies: it didn't
matter if a ruler was genocidal
or corrupt and kept his own
population in terrorised
poverty. All that mattered was
that he was your guy.
We kept our sons-of-bitches
under control and they kept
their sons-of-bitches under
control. It was a global
carve-up of the most callous and
immoral kind.
It always makes me smile when I
hear Leftists complaining, in
the old Stalinist tradition,
about Western imperialism in
Iraq: these are the very people
who used to attack the United
States for supporting
dictatorships that suited its
interests.
Well, you can't have it both
ways. Either it's good to remove
dictators, or it isn't. But
anyway, the game is up. It is
the little dictators and the
rogue states, with their access
to nuclear weapons and their
terrorist networks, who are the
threat now.
The ideological struggle which
had once bribed and coerced them
into compliance is finished.
They are on the loose, and there
is no room for complacency any
more.
The undoing of the Blair-Bush
case for the war - the
"deception" of public opinion
over the existence of weapons of
mass destruction - was actually
rooted in this historical shift.
Removing Saddam Hussein had to
be justified on the old rules -
he is an immediate threat to our
national security - when, in
reality, this was the first war
to be fought on the new rules.
In his Georgetown University
speech, Mr Blair said that, in
this new global politics
"idealism becomes the
realpolitik", which sounds like
one of his rhetorical oxymorons.
Typical of Mr Blair's
pronouncements on this subject,
it was sententious and
self-regarding - and absolutely
right. What he meant was that a
policy that would once have
seemed hopelessly pious and
far-reaching - liberating
oppressed people in distant
lands that seem to have little
to do with us - was not just an
abstract moral duty but
essential for our security.
If terror is to be defeated,
then the swamp that breeds
terrorists must be drained. So
try putting it this way:
"Pre-emption is the pragmatism
of the 21st century." Mr Blair's
talk about UN reform makes
Washington impatient: they see
the talking shop principle as
exhausted, irrelevant and too
reliant on the cooperation of
the dictators who must be
displaced.
If there is a criticism to be
made of the Blair logic, it is
that it does not follow the
argument through to its obvious
conclusion: the lunatic in
charge of Iran must not be
permitted to acquire nuclear
weapons under any circumstances,
and so the threat of force must
remain on the table as a last
resort.
If his beloved international
consensus fails, Mr Blair knows
that the United States and its
best friends will have to handle
this alone, whoever occupies the
White House and Downing Street.
But it is a pity about Europe's
pusillanimous response to the
new order: the US does have real
limitations in its understanding
of how the rest of the world
thinks.
What really went wrong in Iraq
was a failure of the US to grasp
that not everyone would seize
the gift of freedom with both
hands and make it work. They say
that America is an optimistic
country because that's where the
optimists went.
What is also true is that it is
the place where people went when
they hungered for freedom - from
religious persecution, from
poverty, from inequality.
Americans believe that being
free is a universal birthright.
They just don't get it when
nations, given the choice, opt
for dictatorship, theocracy or
the tribalism of warlords. What
Mr Blair has tried to sell to
Washington is the wisdom that
the Old World has to offer about
ancient hatreds and peoples who
fear liberty - but this will not
wash if Europe wants no part of
the new order and refuses the
role it might have had.
Now the Blair era is crashing to
a gruesome end. While the Prime
Minister delivered his grand
speech on the future of the
world, his deputy was playing
croquet in a kind of parody of
aristocratic insouciance.
There is a comic quality to the
fiasco of New Labour's failure
to manage even the most mundane
functions of government. The
brand new Home Secretary sets
off on holiday while illegal
immigrants discover that they
can simply walk out of
detention.
But in the first analysis, the
Iraq war will be seen as the
cause of Mr Blair's collapse. It
will be his support for the Bush
foreign policy that will take
the blame - at least, in the
media coverage - for his
downfall, even though domestic
problems are causing greater
public anger and anxiety.
But, as Mr Blair knows, these
things are connected: illegal
immigration, which arouses so
much resentment, will remain a
problem for Britain and the US
so long as poverty and
oppression in Africa, Latin
America and the Middle East
persist.
In the West, we have learned how
to eradicate mass starvation and
gross inequality. There is no
mystery: the answer is liberal
democratic government and free
market economics. Those are the
things that we are going to have
to export if we are to have any
hope of a peaceful future.
Iran
Says Research on Nuclear Fusion
Progressing
May 29, 2006
Reuters
The Washington Post
link to original article
TEHRAN -- Iran is pressing ahead
with research tests on nuclear
fusion, a type of atomic
reaction which has yet to be
developed for commercial power
generation, a senior Iranian
official said on Monday.
Iran said in the 1990s it was
working on nuclear fusion
research but this is the first
mention in years that the work
is continuing and comes at a
time of heightened tension over
Iran's nuclear program.
Iran has been hauled before the
U.N. Security Council for
failing to convince the world
that its atomic work is not
being used to make bombs. Tehran
insists it only wants to
generate electricity.
"Iran has done various fusion
tests for research purposes at
its Amirabad research reactor
over the last few years," the
official told Reuters, referring
to the reactor in central
Tehran, adding that Iran was
continuing to carry out such
tests.
"We do fusion tests for research
purposes from time to time," he
said.
Commercial nuclear reactors rely
on nuclear fission, a process
that generates energy from
splitting atoms.
Fusion tries to generate power
by joining nuclei of atoms
together, but scientists have
yet to develop a commercial way
of doing this so that it
produces more energy than it
consumes.
Each development in Iran's
nuclear program is scrutinized
by the international community.
Iran surprised experts in April
by announcing it had enriched
uranium for the first time in
small quantities to the level
used in nuclear power plants.
As long ago as 1996, the then
Iranian President Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani said Iran was
pressing ahead with research on
nuclear fusion.
In 1999, Canada said it had
blocked a plan to sell its
experimental nuclear fusion
program to Iran because it could
be used to make atomic bombs.
Nuclear arms incorporating
fusion are also called
thermonuclear bombs.
Russia
Signals Delay in Tor-M1 to Iran
May 29, 2006
Middle East Newsline
MENL
link to original article
MOSCOW
-- Russia has again signaled a
delay in the delivery of
advanced air defense systems to
Iran. Officials acknowledge that
Russia has delayed delivery of
the TOR-M1 to Iran by several
months. They said the first
shipment of 29 short-range air
defense batteries was to have
begun in February 2006.
"The contract to deliver the
short-range TOR-M1 air defense
system has been signed," Defense
Minister Sergei Ivanov said. "To
fulfill it will take some time."
Ivanov, who is also deputy prime
minister, did not say when the
TOR-M1 would be delivered to
Iran. In November 2005, Russia
signed a $700 million contract
to deliver 29 TOR-M1 air defense
systems to Iran.
Iran
'will Need 5bn Dollars Subsidy'
to Avoid Petrol Rationing
May 28, 2006
The Financial Times
Gareth Smyth in Tehran
link to original article
A leading Iranian
parliamentarian on Sunday warned
President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad
he would need to spend an extra
5bn Dollars this year to pay for
subsidies on sales to motorists
of imported petrol and diesel to
avoid politically sensitive
rationing.
Kamal Daneshyar, head of the
parliament’s energy commission,
told Reuters the government
needed to withdraw the money
from the Oil Stabilisation Fund
(OSF), which collects windfall
oil revenue for contingencies
and investment. He later told
the FT this was in addition to
the $2.5bn (€2bn, £1.3bn)
already allocated in the budget
for the year March 2006-March
2007.
But the allocation of OSF funds
to maintain subsidies would fly
in the face of Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s
promises to maximise spending on
capital projects, especially in
Iran’s regions.
Current government spending is
already due to rise 20.5 per
cent in the current year,
according to Iran Economics, the
leading Tehran monthly. With
inflation put officially at 13.5
per cent, this represents a
significant increase in real
terms.
The fiscal pressure over petrol
imports results from the
antiquated state of Iran’s
refineries and subsidies which
keep the price for motorists at
9 cents a litre.
Despite having the world’s
second-largest proven crude oil
reserves, Iran imports around 40
per cent of its petrol. So while
rising global oil prices boost
Iranian coffers and are
celebrated by Mr Ahmadi-Nejad,
the subsequent rise in imported
petrol prices has become a
domestic issue.
Little progress has been made on
a $15bn plan to revamp five
existing refineries, build three
new ones, and so increase
production over five years from
40m litres a day to 92m litres.
Mr Daneshyar ruled out an
earlier proposal, discussed in
government and parliament, for
two-tier pricing later in the
year to sell imported petrol at
cost to motorists. He said this
would be “illegal” as the
government lacked time to meet
25 targets set by the energy
commission, including improving
public transport.
With more and more cars
throttling Tehran’s streets and
the average motorist using 10
litres per day, double the world
average, the World Bank in March
estimated total losses from air
pollution in Iran at $10.3bn by
2009, $14bn in 2014 and $19.2bn
in 2019.
But many politicians oppose
higher petrol prices as either
inflationary or politically
sensitive, even though around 8m
litres of subsidised petrol are
daily smuggled into Afghanistan,
Iraq, Turkmenistan, Turkey and
the UAE.
With Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s
popularity holding up, his
centrist opponents are
discussing plans for a common
front against him.
The Iranian media reported on
Sunday that three leading
figures – including two former
presidents Mohammad Khatami and
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani plus
Mehdi Karrubi, former
parliamentary speaker – were
discussing a common slate for
both November’s election for the
assembly of experts, which
chooses Iran’s supreme leader,
and for local elections next
March.
Jews Urge Ban of Iran Chief at
Game
May 29, 2006
Agence France Presse
The Washington Times
link to original article
LOS ANGELES -- An international
Jewish human rights group again
urged Germany yesterday to bar
Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad from attending
soccer's World Cup finals after
the Islamist leader repeated his
doubts about the Holocaust.
The Los Angeles-based Simon
Wiesenthal Center, which made a
similar appeal last month,
repeated the request after Mr.
Ahmadinejad questioned the
Holocaust's existence in an
interview with a German
magazine.
"I know this is difficult for
the Germans; they have economic
relations to think of," said
Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of
the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
"But it is unfair for the
victims of the Holocaust and
their families to pay the bill
once again," he said.
"Whether they say it publicly or
privately, they should tell
Ahmadinejad that he is unwelcome
to attend the World Cup and that
his presence there would be an
affront to the millions of Jews
and non-Jews who perished in the
Holocaust," Mr. Hier said.
In the interview with Der
Spiegel that hits newsstands
today, Mr. Ahmadinejad said: "I
will only accept something as an
absolute truth if I am fully
convinced."
He also repeated his calls for
Jews to leave Israel and return
to Europe.
"If the Holocaust happened, then
Europe should suffer the
consequences and not let
Palestine pay the price. If
nothing happened, then the Jews
should go back to where they
came from," he said.
Mr. Ahmadinejad has said that he
does not plan to attend the
sport's premier world
tournament.
Germany has criminal laws
against Holocaust denial.
Iran:
Last Exit for Diplomacy
May 28, 2006
Daily Times
Joschka Fischer
link to original article
The Bush administration must
lead the Western initiative in
harmonised, direct negotiations
with Iran, and, if these
negotiations succeed, the US
must also be willing to agree to
appropriate guarantees. In this
confrontation, international
credibility and legitimacy will
be the deciding factors, and
ensuring them will require
far-sighted and cool, calculated
American leadership
The Iran crisis is moving fast
in an alarming direction. There
can no longer be any reasonable
doubt that Iran’s ambition is to
obtain nuclear weapons
capability. However, at the
heart of the issue lies the
Iranian regime’s aspiration to
become a hegemonic Islamic and
regional power and thereby
position itself at eye level
with the world’s most powerful
nations. It is precisely this
ambition that sets Iran apart
from North Korea: whereas North
Korea seeks nuclear weapons
capability in order to entrench
its isolation, Iran is aiming
for regional dominance and more.
Iran is betting on revolutionary
changes within the power
structure of the Middle East to
help it achieve its strategic
goal. To this end, it makes use
of Israel and the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
but also of Lebanon, Syria, its
influence in the Gulf region,
and, above all, Iraq. This
combination of hegemonic
aspirations, questioning of the
regional status quo, and a
nuclear programme is extremely
dangerous.
Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear
bomb — or even its ability to
produce one — would be
interpreted by Israel as a
fundamental threat to its
existence, thereby compelling
the West, and Europe in
particular, to take sides.
Europe has not only historical
moral obligations to Israel, but
also security interests that
link it to the strategically
vital Eastern Mediterranean.
Moreover, a nuclear Iran would
also be perceived as a threat by
its other neighbours.
This would likely provoke a
regional arms race and further
fuel regional volatility. In
short, a nuclear Iran would call
Europe’s fundamental security
into question. To believe that
Europe could keep out of this
conflict is a dangerous
illusion.
In this crisis, the stakes are
high, which is why Germany, the
UK, and France began
negotiations with Iran two years
ago with the goal of persuading
Iran to abandon its efforts to
close the nuclear fuel cycle.
This initiative failed for two
reasons. First, the European
offer to open up technology and
trade, including the peaceful
use of nuclear technology, was
disproportionate to Iran’s
fundamental fear of regime
change on the one hand, and its
regional hegemonic aspirations
and quest for global prestige on
the other. Second, the
disastrous US-led war in Iraq
has led Iran’s leaders to
conclude that the leading
Western power has been weakened
to the point that it is
dependent on Iran’s goodwill,
and that high oil prices have
made the West all the more wary
of a serious confrontation.
The Iranian regime’s analysis
might prove a dangerous
miscalculation, because it is
likely to lead sooner rather
than later to a ÒhotÓ
confrontation that Iran simply
cannot win. After all, the issue
at the heart of this conflict is
this: who dominates the Middle
East — Iran or the United
States? Iran’s leaders
underestimate the explosive
nature of this issue, and how it
is answered, for the US as a
global power and thus for its
own future.
Nor, however, is the debate
about the military option — the
destruction of Iran’s nuclear
programme through US air strikes
— conducive to resolving the
issue. Rather, it rings of a
self-fulfilling prophecy. There
is no guarantee that attempts to
destroy Iran’s nuclear potential
and thus of its capability for a
nuclear breakout will succeed.
Moreover, as a victim of foreign
aggression, Iran’s nuclear
weapons ambitions would be fully
legitimised. Finally, a military
attack on Iran would also mark
the beginning of a regional, and
possibly global, military and
terrorist escalation — a
nightmare for all concerned.
So what should be done? There
remains a serious chance for a
diplomatic solution if the US,
in cooperation with the
Europeans and thus certainly
with the support of the Security
Council and the non-aligned
states of the Group of 77,
offers Iran a ÒGrand BargainÓ.
In exchange for long-term
suspension of uranium
enrichment, Iran and other
states would gain access to
research and technology within
an internationally defined
framework and under
comprehensive supervision by the
International Atomic Energy
Agency. Full normalisation of
political and economic relations
would follow, including binding
security guarantees upon
agreement of a regional security
design.
The high price for refusing such
a proposal has to be made
absolutely clear to the Iranian
leadership: should no agreement
be reached, the West will do
everything within its power to
isolate Iran economically,
financially, technologically,
and diplomatically, with the
full support of the
international community. Iran’s
alternatives should be no less
than recognition and security,
or total isolation.
Presenting Iran with these
alternatives presupposes that
the West does not fear rising
oil and gas prices. Indeed, the
two other options — Iran’s
emergence as a nuclear power or
the use of military force to
prevent this — would, in
addition to all of its horrible
consequences, also increase oil
and gas prices. Everything
speaks in favour of playing the
economic-financial and
technology card vis-ˆ-vis Iran.
Knowledge of the potentially
horrible consequences of a
military confrontation and of
the equally horrific
consequences of an Iran in
possession of the atomic bomb
must force the US to abandon its
policy of no direct negotiations
and its hope for regime change.
It is not enough for the
Europeans to act while the
Americans continue to look on as
the diplomatic initiatives
unfold, partaking in discussion
only behind the scenes and
ultimately letting the Europeans
do what they will.
The Bush administration must
lead the Western initiative in
harmonised, direct negotiations
with Iran, and, if these
negotiations succeed, the US
must also be willing to agree to
appropriate guarantees. In this
confrontation, international
credibility and legitimacy will
be the deciding factors, and
ensuring them will require
far-sighted and cool, calculated
American leadership.
An offer of a ÒGrand BargainÓ
would unite the international
community and present Iran with
a convincing alternative. Were
Iran to agree to this offer, its
suspension of nuclear research
in Natanz while negotiations are
ongoing would be the litmus test
of its sincerity. Were Iran to
refuse the offer or fail to
honour its obligations, it would
totally isolate itself
internationally and provide
emphatic legitimisation to
further measures. Neither Russia
nor China could avoid showing
solidarity within the Security
Council.
But such an initiative can
succeed only if the American
administration assumes
leadership among the Western
nations and sits down at the
negotiating table with Iran.
Even then, the international
community would not have long to
act. As all sides must be aware,
time is running out for a
diplomatic solution. —DT-PS
Joschka Fischer was Germany’s
foreign minister and vice
chancellor from 1998 to 2005. A
leader in the Green Party for
nearly 20 years, he helped
change the Greens from a party
of protest to a party of
government.
Iran
Says Won't Move All Atomic Work
to Russia
May 29, 2006
Reuters
Yahoo News!
link to original article
Iran
said on Monday it had no
intention of moving all of its
uranium enrichment work to
Russia to allay the
international community's fears
that it could use nuclear fuel
technology to make atomic bombs.
Western countries say the only
way Iran can prove it is not
seeking a bomb is for it to stop
enriching uranium. But the
Islamic Republic insists it has
every right to turn the uranium
ore mined in its central deserts
into nuclear reactor fuel.
"There is no discussion about
plans to give up enrichment on
our soil and it is a wrong
argument that the enrichment
should be done in Russia," said
government spokesman
Gholamhossein Elham.
"Enrichment in Iran ... will
continue," he told a weekly news
conference.
A Russian offer to enrich
uranium on Iran's behalf has
made little progress with Tehran
saying it would be willing to
pass some but not all of its
fuel work over to Moscow.
Igor Ivanov, Secretary of
Russia's Security Council, held
talks with senior Iranian
officials in Tehran on Sunday.
But there was no sign of a
breakthrough with Iran's Supreme
National Security Council
issuing a statement to say that
the two sides had agreed to
continue talking.
"The general approach is that
Iran's case should remain in the
(International Atomic Energy)
Agency and if it does so all
international and legal
supervisions will continue and
that is in everyone's interest,"
Elham added.
Iran's case has been referred to
the U.N. Security Council for
possible sanctions. Tehran says
it is developing a nuclear
program that will produce
electricity, not bombs.
Angered by its referral to the
world body, Tehran stopped
allowing snap U.N. checks of its
atomic facilities.
Russia, a veto-wielding member
of the U.N. Security Council,
has criticized Iran for
enriching uranium in defiance of
the world body. However, it has
some important energy ties with
Iran and opposes the use of
sanctions against Tehran.
Russia is helping Iran build its
first atomic power station at
the Gulf port of Bushehr and is
interested in further nuclear
co-operation. Russia's LUKOIL is
exploring the Anaran oilfield in
the world's fourth biggest crude
producer.
US planning to tighten net
around Iran
By Khalid Hasan
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C05%5C30%5Cstory_30-5-2006_pg1_5
WASHINGTON: The Bush
administration is pressing
Europe and Japan to impose
wide-ranging sanctions designed
to stifle the Iranian leadership
financially if diplomatic
efforts fail to resolve an
impasse over the country’s
nuclear programme, the
Washington Post reported on
Monday.
The newspaper, quoting internal
government memos and interviews
with three involved officials,
said the scheme was developed by
a Treasury Department task force
that reports directly to
Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice.
The plan is designed to curtail
the financial freedom of every
Iranian official, individual and
entity the Bush administration
considers connected not only to
nuclear enrichment efforts but
to terrorism, government
corruption, suppression of
religious or democratic freedom,
and violence in Iraq, Lebanon,
Israel and the Palestinian
territories. It would restrict
the Tehran government’s access
to foreign currency and global
markets, shut its overseas
accounts and freeze assets held
in Europe and Asia, the report
added.
However, internal US assessments
had suggested that the sanctions
could not hurt Tehran without
causing significant economic
pain for Washington’s friends
like Italy and Japan, both large
importers of Iranian oil. The
newspaper disclosed that
American intelligence agencies
had calculated the amount of
foreign investment at stake and
even which charities have
connections to Tehran.
With Britain, France, Germany,
Italy and Japan on board,
sanctions would “isolate the
Iranian regime” and see it
“shunned by the international
financial community,” according
to one internal memo.
“The sanctions could make Iran
miserable, and Iran can respond
by making everyone miserable
back,” said one senior Western
official, who spoke recently
with Rice. “In the end, the
whole world is miserable and
Iran gets to keep its nuclear
programme.”
World powers mull Vienna meeting
on Iran
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=43310&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
LONDON, May 30 (IranMania)
- World powers are planning to
meet in Vienna Thursday over
Iran's nuclear ambitions with
the international community
still at odds over the issue of
possible sanctions against
Tehran, diplomats said.
The proposed meeting of foreign
ministers from the five
permanent UN Security Council
members, Britain, China, France,
Russia and the United States,
plus Germany, and including
European Union foreign policy
chief Javier Solana, has not yet
been confirmed, diplomats told
AFP.
But one European diplomat said
it was being arranged in order
to "fine-tune" a European
Union-drafted package of
incentives to get Iran to
guarantee it will not make
nuclear weapons, as well as
sanctions if Tehran does not
comply.
Political directors from the six
foreign ministries will Tuesday
discuss the package in a
telephone conference, diplomats
in Vienna confirmed.
One said the political directors
would also attend any meeting
Thursday in the Austrian
capital.
A
Western diplomat said the
so-called EU-3 of Britain,
France and Germany "are working
hard now to revise their package
to respond to concerns, mostly
from (Iranian allies and trading
partners) Russia and China."
The diplomat said disagreements
centered around the timing of a
Security Council resolution to
require Iran to comply and open
the door to sanctions, with
Russia and China wanting to put
this off but the United States
plus the EU-3 wanting sanctions
to quickly follow any Iranian
non-compliance.
"There are still significant
areas of disagreement" such as
"the detail and commitment in
the package to a specific menu
of sanctions," the diplomat
said.
According to a draft text seen
by AFP, the possible sanctions
include an arms embargo on Iran
-- something Russia, a major
arms supplier to Iran, and
China, a major consumer of
Iranian oil, resist.
The European diplomat said the
disagreements were mainly over
how to present the package and
how hard to go on possible
sanctions.
"Much depends on how you
approach someone," the diplomat
said.
Iran on Monday
once again spurned the prospect
of EU incentives to curtail its
nuclear program, saying the bloc
must acknowledge its right to
nuclear technology.
"The main incentive for Iran is
to recognise the essential right
of Iran to have nuclear
technology and the ways of
realising this right," Iranian
Foreign Minister Manouchehr
Mottaki said when asked about
the incentive plan.
The United States and the EU-3
want Iran to abandon all uranium
enrichment activities since this
process makes not only fuel for
nuclear power reactors but also
can make the raw material for
atom bombs.
Iran insists on
its right to enrich uranium but
would be willing to limit its
enrichment activities, diplomats
have said.
Oil Futures Trades Above $71 as
UN Studies Iran Atomic Program
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=agNiQsfyGTDc&refer=europe#
May 30 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil
traded above $71 a barrel in New
York amid concern supplies from
Iran, the world's fourth-
biggest producer, may be
threatened should the United
Nations impose sanctions to halt
the Islamic republic's nuclear
research.
Foreign ministers of the five
permanent members of the UN
Security Council and Germany may
meet in Vienna June 1 to
consider a package of incentives
to get Iran to abandon uranium
enrichment, Agence France-Presse
reported yesterday. Members are
divided on how long Iran should
have to comply before sanctions
are sought, AFP reported, citing
European diplomats.
``Iran is going to fold on
this,'' said David Thurtell,
commodity strategist at
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
Ltd. in Sydney. ``They're just
going to stick it out and
extract as big a concession as
they can. The U.S. is going to
have to make some concessions as
well.''
Crude oil for July rose as much
as 19 cents, or 0.3 percent, to
$71.56 a barrel in after-hours
electronic trading on the New
York Mercantile Exchange. It
traded at $71.46 at 9:`9 a.m.
Sydney time. Prices today are 37
percent higher than a year ago.
The contract rose 5 cents to
$71.37 a barrel on May 26, when
trading hours were reduced
before the Memorial Day holiday
weekend. Prices traded between
$70.86 and $71.90, the narrowest
trading range in three weeks.
The exchange was closed
yesterday.
Russia
and the other world powers are
prepared to guarantee Iran's
right to develop nuclear energy
provided that the government
eases international concern over
its nuclear intentions and
cooperates fully with the
International Atomic Energy
Agency, the Interfax news
service said yesterday, citing
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov.
IRAN
SHIFTING TO WAR FOOTING
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made it
clear that he sees European
opposition to his nuclear
program a threat, and returned
one in kind. Speaking to the
German magazine Der Spiegel, the
Iranian president warned Europe
that they will
"suffer the consequences"
if they did not capitulate:
Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad warned Europe that
it should support his country's
nuclear program or "suffer the
consequences."
In an interview to be published
in the German Der Spiegel on
Sunday, Ahmadinejad also
expressed his doubt regarding
the Holocaust, saying that even
if it had occurred, the Jewish
state should have been
established in Europe, not in
Palestine.
The article in DS has not yet
been released, but the Jerusalem
Post blurb indicates that Iran's
president has not yet tired of
following the playbook of Adolf
Hitler in dealing with the West.
Alternating between veiled
threats and offers of diplomacy,
Ahmadinejad has attempted to
split the coalition of nations
opposing its development of
nuclear weapons. In this case,
it looks like Ahmadinejad wants
to stress the reach of Iranian
weapons and the fact that most
of Europe falls within their
range.
Nor is that the only parallel
between Hitler and Ahmadinejad
these days. The messianic
Shi'ite has conducted a purge of
high-level political opponents
from national offices, seemingly
with the blessing of the Iran's
supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khameini. The New York Times
reports on the
"consolidation"
underway in Teheran:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is
trying to consolidate power in
the office of the presidency in
a way never before seen in the
27-year history of the Islamic
Republic, apparently with the
tacit approval of Iran's supreme
leader, according to government
officials and political analysts
here. ...
Mr. Ahmadinejad is pressing far
beyond the boundaries set by
other presidents. For the first
time since the revolution, a
president has overshadowed the
nation's chief cleric, Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
on both domestic and
international affairs.
He has evicted the former
president, Mohammad Khatami,
from his offices, taken control
of a crucial research
organization away from another
former president, Ali Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani, challenged
high-ranking clerics on the
treatment of women and forced
prominent academics out of the
university system.
"Parliament and government
should fight against wealthy
officials," Mr. Ahmadinejad said
in a speech before Parliament on
Saturday that again appeared
aimed at upending pillars of the
status quo. "Wealthy people
should not have influence over
senior officials because of
their wealth. They should not
impose their demands on the
needs of the poor people."
In this theocratic system, where
appointed religious leaders hold
ultimate power, the presidency
is a relatively weak position.
In the multiple layers of power
that obscure the governance of
Iran, no one knows for certain
where the ultimate decisions are
being made. But many of those
watching in near disbelief at
the speed and aggression with
which the president is seeking
to accumulate power assume that
he is operating with the full
support of Ayatollah Khamenei.
The Times notes that the
elimination of the fog
surrounding the exercise of
power in Iran gives the US an
opportunity for meaningful
direct talks for the first time
since the revolution 27 years
ago. However, what the Times
fails to comprehend is that,
much like the Nazi
"consolidation" in the early
days of their rule, the
accumulation of power to one man
allows for streamlined
internal
decisionmaking, not external,
where Khameini always held the
power. That kind of structure
lends itself to one purpose:
war.
Ahmadinejad, working under
Khameini's approval, is
stripping all of the potential
elements of opposition to war
from his government. Arrests
have not yet come, but this is
certainly a politicial purge,
attempting to guarantee a
political purity in the
government under Ahmadinejad.
Nor is this limited to the
secular government. Khameini
appears to be using Ahmadinejad
to bypass the rest of the
Guardian Council and establish
himself as the only cleric whose
opinion matters. It reduces the
amount of time needed for
decisions and eliminates any
potential for time-wasting
dissension.
Why else would all
decision-making power get
concentrated in the hands of two
men, and all mechanisms for
dissent eliminated?
Other warning signs exist as
well. Iran, like Germany in the
late 20s and early 30s, has a
restive population wishing for a
sharp improvement in their
standard of living. Ahmadinejad
has to either deliver that or
explain why he cannot. For this
purpose, he has turned to
Islamic anti-Semitism and as the
Times reports, he has started to
raise up a new intellectual
elite that uses Jews as a
scapegoat for the domestic woes
Iranians suffer. They quote an
unnamed political-science
professor in Teheran as saying,
"He is reshaping the identity of
the elite. Being against Jews
and Zionists is an essential
part of this new identity." He
has also started large
government-works programs and
promised all sorts of welfare to
garner a populist following.
We have seen this path before.
The world should recognize the
signs, and the West had better
start looking for Churchills
rather than Chamberlains, and
quickly.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
www.captainsquartersblog.com
*
IRANIAN-BACKED MILITIA GROUPS
TAKE CONTROL OF MUCH OF SOUTHERN
IRAQ
We Won! Alert from
Knight Ridder Newspapers,
with thanks to Mackie:
BASRA, Iraq - Southern Iraq,
long touted as a peaceful region
that's likely to be among the
first areas returned to Iraqi
control, is now dominated by
Shiite Muslim warlords and
militiamen who are laying the
groundwork for an Islamic
fundamentalist government, say
senior British and Iraqi
officials in the area.
The militias appear to be
supported by Iranian
intelligence or military units
that are shipping weapons to the
militias in Iraq and providing
training for them in Iran.
Some British officials believe
the Iranians want to hasten the
withdrawal of U.S.-backed
coalition forces to pave the way
for Iran-friendly clerical rule.
Iranian influence is evident
throughout the area. In one
government office, an aide
approached a Knight Ridder
reporter and, mistaking him for
an Iranian, said, "Don't be
afraid to speak Farsi in Basra.
We are a branch of Iran."
"We get an idea that (military
training) courses are being run"
in Iran, said Lt. Col. David
Labouchere, who commands British
units in the province of Maysan,
north of Basra. "People are
training on the other side of
the border and then coming
back."
Saturday, May 27, 2006
http://jihadwatch.org
*
AHMADINEJAD: "GERMANS ARE
PRISONERS OF THE HOLOCAUST"
More details are emerging about
the evil statements made by
Iranian president Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad in his interview
with Germany’s
Der
Spiegel:
Germans should stop feeling
Holocaust guilt: Ahmadinejad.
BERLIN
(Reuters) - Iran’s President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Germans
they should no longer allow
themselves to be held prisoner
by a sense of guilt over the
Holocaust and reiterated doubts
that the Holocaust even
happened.
In an interview with Germany’s
Der Spiegel magazine,
Ahmadinejad said he doubted
Germans were allowed to write
“the truth” about the Holocaust
and said he was still
considering traveling to Germany
for the World Cup soccer
tournament.
“I believe the German people are
prisoners of the Holocaust. More
than 60 million were killed in
World War Two ... The question
is: Why is it that only Jews are
at the center of attention?,” he
said in the interview published
on Sunday.
“How long is this going to go
on?” he added. “How long will
the German people be held
hostage to the Zionists?... Why
should you feel obligated to the
Zionists? You’ve paid
reparations for 60 years and
will have to pay for another 100
years.”
Sunday, May 28, 2006
