Nato may help US airstrikes on Iran

The Sunday Times

March 5, 2006

Sarah Baxter, Washington and Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2070420,00.html

WHEN Major-General Axel Tüttelmann, the head of Nato’s Airborne Early Warning and Control Force, showed off an Awacs early warning surveillance plane in Israel a fortnight ago, he caused a flurry of concern back at headquarters in Brussels.

It was not his demonstration that raised eyebrows, but what he said about Nato’s possible involvement in any future military strike against Iran. “We would be the first to be called up if the Nato council decided we should be,” he said.

Nato would prefer the emphasis to remain on the “if”, but Tüttelmann’s comments revealed that the military alliance could play a supporting role if America launches airstrikes against Iranian nuclear targets.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will tomorrow confirm Iran’s referral to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions.

Iran insists it is developing peaceful nuclear energy, a claim regarded as bogus by America and Britain, France and Germany, which believe it wants to develop nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks about wiping Israel “off the map” have added to fears.

America and Israel have warned that they will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. If negotiations fail, both countries have plans of last resort for airstrikes against Iran’s widely dispersed nuclear facilities.

Porter Goss, the head of the CIA, visited Recep Erdogan, the prime minister of Turkey, a Nato country, late last year and asked for political, logistical and intelligence support in the event of airstrikes, according to western intelligence sources quoted in the German media.

The news magazine Der Spiegel noted: “Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack.”

Nato would be likely to operate air defences in Turkey, according to Dan Goure, a Pentagon adviser and vice-president of the Lexington Institute, a military think tank.

A former senior Israeli defence official said he believed all Nato members had contingency plans.

John Pike, director of the US military studies group Globalsecurity.org, said America had little to gain from Nato military help. “I think we are attempting to bring the alliance along politically so that when all diplomatic initiatives have been exhausted and we blow up their sites, we can say, ‘Look, we gave it our best shot’.”

A senior British defence official said plans to attack Iran were pure speculation. “I don’t think anybody has got that far yet,” he said. “We’re all too distracted by Iraq.”

Israel’s special forces are said to be operating inside Iran in an urgent attempt to locate the country’s secret uranium enrichment sites. “We found several suspected sites last year but there must be more,” an Israeli intelligence source said. They are operating from a base in northern Iraq, guarded by Israeli soldiers with the approval of the Americans, according to Israeli sources.

The commander of Israel’s nuclear missile submarines warned Iran indirectly in a comment to an Israeli newspaper last week that “we are able to hit strategic targets in a foreign country”.

The Israelis fear Iran may reach the “point of no return” — at which it has the capacity to enrich uranium to bomb-grade purity — in the next few months. The Americans are more interested in the point at which Iran is close to developing an actual bomb, thought to be at least three years away.

Two Iranian opposition groups claimed this weekend that Iran had increased its production of Shahab 3 missiles, which have a range of 1,200 miles, sufficient to reach Israel.

Diplomatic efforts to contain Iran are likely to proceed slowly, given Russian and Chinese opposition to punitive action. A Foreign Office official said although the IAEA would refer Iran to the security council, any sanctions would be a “strictly step-by-step process”.

Additional reporting: Tom Walker

Lavrov Denies Russia Offers 'Compromise' on Iran

March 07, 2006
Bloomberg
Janine Zacharia

link to original article

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov today denied that his country is working on a new "compromise" plan aimed at resolving an international dispute about Iran's nuclear program.

"There is no compromise, new Russian proposal," Lavrov said after meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington. Less than an hour before Lavrov spoke, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney told an audience that Iran might face "meaningful consequences" for defying international demands to halt nuclear enrichment work that could lead to a nuclear bomb.

Lavrov said that all Russian contacts with Iran have been "about finding a way to implement" the Feb. 4 decision of the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors, which referred Iran to the United Nations Security Council. The IAEA told Iran's government to freeze all enrichment activities and abide by formal commitments, including full cooperation with inspectors.

"The Russians did not tell us of any new proposal that they have made to the Iranians," Rice said at a joint press conference today with Lavrov.

Diplomats in Vienna, where the IAEA is meeting, talked about a Russian proposal to let Iran carry out uranium enrichment on a small scale as research.
Russian Proposal

The only Russian idea that the U.S. supports is a plan to enrich uranium for Iran in Russia, so as to keep the enrichment process from Iran's direct control, Rice said. The U.S. is concerned that the aim of Iran's research effort is to build a nuclear weapon and destabilize the Middle East.

Rice and Lavrov said Iran should cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog agency to reveal more about its nuclear energy program. While the IAEA says Iran is not sufficiently "transparent" about its nuclear research, the agency also says there is no evidence that nuclear material has been diverted for weapons.

"Any solution should take into account the very high desirability to continue to investigate into the past program of Iran" so inspectors can determine the effort's intent, Lavrov said.

Russia is working with Iran to build a commercial nuclear reactor.

China Weighs In

China, the other major power with close commercial ties to Iran, urged the Iranian government to comply with IAEA demands.

"We hope Iran will cooperate closely with the IAEA and adopt more measures that are helpful to building confidence," Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said in Beijing.

"There is still time for a settlement of the issue within the framework of the IAEA," Li said.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said last week that the U.S. wanted China to be more direct with Iran about the need to avoid nuclear enrichment and developing weapons. China is seeking oil and gas from Iran, which holds the world's second-largest reserves of both commodities.

China should consider the effect of Iran's policies on "energy security in the most vital energy-producing area in the world," Zoellick said in an interview on March 1.

While Cheney didn't specify what penalties Iran might face, he said the U.S. is keeping "all options on the table" and joins other countries in sending the Iranian leadership "a clear message" that they won't be allowed to have a nuclear bomb.

The vice president, speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, made a distinction between the Iranian government and the Iranian people. "Iranians desire and deserve to be free from tyranny and oppression in their own homeland," he said.

Pace of Diplomacy

While rhetoric aimed at Iran's leaders intensifies, UN sanctions against the country may not be discussed for several months, U.S. officials said.

The first step, once the Security Council takes up the issue, is expected to be a statement from the body calling on Iran to fulfill obligations outlined by the IAEA. Iran would then be given several weeks before the IAEA evaluates its performance.

"We have been very clear that we did not think that, as a first matter, we would try to move to sanctions in the first step of the Security Council," Rice said today.

To contact the reporter on this story: Janine Zacharia in Washington at jzacharia@bloomberg.net

U.S. and Russia Stay in Sync on Iran

March 08, 2006
Los Angeles Times
James Gerstenzang

link to original article

WASHINGTON -- The United States and Russia held to a united stance Tuesday in their joint campaign to corral Iran's nuclear program, as top Bush administration officials led by Vice President Dick Cheney issued new threats against Tehran.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov met in Washington with President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the president's national security advisor, Stephen J. Hadley. Lavrov squelched reports that Russia had separately offered Iran a compromise that would have allowed it to make at least small amounts of nuclear fuel.

Heightening the tensions over Iran's refusal to back down, Cheney, in some of the strongest administration language yet, said Iran faced "meaningful consequences" unless it changed course.

"For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime," Cheney said. "And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

His remarks to the Washington policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a strongly pro-Israel lobbying group, are formulaic Washington language that implies the threat of military action.

Asked later about Cheney's remarks, the White House said the administration remained focused on diplomatic options. Rice stopped short of saying the United States would immediately begin demanding international sanctions against Iran.

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, accused the Bush administration of a "propaganda" effort to scuttle a diplomatic solution.

"Whenever the Americans feel there may be any chance for agreement between Iran, [the International Atomic Energy Agency], Russia or other countries, they try to destroy it," he said on Iran's Islamic Republic News Agency website.

Although it has participated in diplomatic efforts, the Bush administration in recent years frequently has resorted to muscular language both to pressure Iran and to persuade U.S. allies to remain firm in dealing with the country's theocratic regime.

Tuesday's comments suggest the administration's skepticism about the likelihood of successful diplomacy. U.S. officials, however, have acknowledged that they have few military options and poor intelligence.

Issuing a new charge, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld linked Iran to the insurgency in Iraq, saying members of the Revolutionary Guard's Al Quds Division had infiltrated Iraq to perform missions "harmful to the future of Iraq."

U.S. and British commanders in Iraq charged last year that the Iranian government was aiding Shiite Muslim insurgents by shipping high-grade explosives and other bomb-making material into Iraq. But before Tuesday, officials had not accused Iran of sending military personnel into Iraq.

Rumsfeld did not provide specifics to support his assertion. He and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it was difficult to determine the number of Iranian troops involved.

"In a country the size of California with a population of 28 million people and porous borders, with Iranian pilgrims going back and forth all the time, it's not an easy thing to make those kind of good judgments," Rumsfeld said.

But, he said, "the Revolutionary Guard doesn't go milling around willy-nilly, one would think," implying that such troops were acting under orders from Tehran.

U.S. intelligence officials believe that the Al Quds force is primarily responsible for foreign intelligence gathering and for training Islamic fundamentalist groups in terrorist operations throughout the Middle East.

The dispute with Iran over its nuclear program hinges on the question of Tehran's ultimate goal: Iran says its research on uranium enrichment is directed at developing civilian nuclear power; the West and Russia fear it is intended to develop a nuclear weapon.

The IAEA governing board is meeting this week in Vienna as a prelude to action by the U.N. Security Council, which will take up the case against Iran next week. After the IAEA meeting ends, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei's report on Iran will be formally conveyed to the Security Council, which could consider imposing sanctions.

The IAEA board of governors reported Iran to the Security Council on Feb. 4. It demanded that Tehran cease all enrichment activity and answer inspectors' outstanding questions about its program, including those about possible links between Iran's uranium enrichment and its military. It also demanded that Iran ratify a more comprehensive inspection regime.

Iran ignored the demands. Moving in the opposite direction, it said that it had the right to operate the nuclear fuel cycle for civilian purposes.

Western diplomats reached from Vienna said Russia had pursued an arrangement under which Iran would abandon uranium enrichment for two years and give the atomic agency additional inspection access. In exchange, it would be allowed to maintain a small research enrichment operation.

But Iran objected, one diplomat said. And officials from the West said that even a small research facility would give Iran expertise in running the larger number of centrifuges needed to enrich the uranium to levels required for a bomb.

"If they've learned to operate even a small cascade [of centrifuges], that's knowledge we think they can apply and will apply to a secret program far away from the eyes of the IAEA," said a U.S. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. "We have real concerns about that."

Lavrov told reporters Tuesday that there had been no such plan. "There is no compromise, new Russian proposal," he said, with Rice at his side after their State Department meeting.

Since December, Russia has been trying to broker a deal that would satisfy Iran's publicly stated need for nuclear fuel but satisfy the West's demand that Tehran be prevented from obtaining access to the technology and knowledge needed to enrich uranium.

The key component in Moscow's initial proposal, which remains under consideration, is a joint Russian-Iranian venture to enrich uranium on Russian soil. Russia has been the major supplier of Iran's civilian nuclear program and is building Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant. Russia has agreed to supply the facility's fuel for 10 years.

Rice, noting the Bush administration's support for the Russian formula, said it "would be a joint venture with enrichment and reprocessing on Russian soil," with "minimal proliferation risk." Russia has sought to avoid imposing U.N. sanctions on Iran.

After his meeting with Rice, Lavrov was asked whether Russia would support sanctions if Iran failed to comply with the efforts to put controls on its nuclear program.

"Have you seen a proposal for any sanctions?" he said in response.

The Russian began a series of intense meetings on the matter Monday evening, dining with Rice and Hadley, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said.

The White House spokesman avoided a direct response when asked whether Cheney was implying that Iran might face military action if it did not refrain from its nuclear development without international supervision.

"We're pursuing a diplomatic solution to this," McClellan said. He said that Iran must "make a dramatic shift in its course and behavior," and if not, "the international community must hold the regime to account."

Finding support for sanctions, which the United Nations imposed on Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion, will not necessarily be an easy route for the Bush administration.

With the Iraq experience still fresh, many countries view referral of the Iran nuclear issue to the Security Council as the equivalent of putting Iran on a military target list and want to take every step to avoid that.

Times staff writers Alissa J. Rubin in Vienna and Mark Mazzetti in Washington contributed to this report.

The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs"

March 07, 2006
Middle East Quarterly
Michael Rubin

link to original article

In The “Great Satan” vs. the “Mad Mullahs,” Brown University anthropologist Beeman laments that the “cultural dynamics” of the U.S.-Iranian relationship have for almost thirty years been beset by “mutual demonization.” He seeks to prove this assertion, not with careful factual analysis, but rather with reliance on the post-modern theoretical constructs so popular in universities today.

However, his research is careless. He constructs his thesis with sweeping statements unsupported by evidence. In explaining Middle Eastern mythological figures, he argues that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein modeled himself on ‘Umar, the third Muslim caliph (644-656 A.D.). But a study of Saddam’s monumental art shows Sa’ad ibn Abi Waqqas, an early Arab warrior who brought Islam to Iran, to be his model.[1]

Beeman stumbles over the most basic facts. Jerusalem is not “the second most sacred Muslim site”; Medina is. Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the Qur’an. He confuses recent history as well. He dismisses the accusation that Iran played a hand in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing as a result of “the desire of the George W. Bush administration to link all attacks on U.S. facilities to a global terrorist network.” But it was the Clinton administration that tied an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps commander to those who carried out the attacks.

Beeman dismisses the possibility that the Islamic Republic might sponsor terrorism. He accuses U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld of fabricating the charge that Al-Qaeda operated in Iran. But the 9-11 Commission documented significant Iranian complicity.[1] Likewise, to dismiss Iranian complicity in the Karine-A affair, he ignores the fact that the ship was loaded at an Iranian port, carried fifty tons of Iranian weaponry, and that both the captain of the ship and Palestinian Authority figures confessed to their part in the operation.

His footnotes are full of conspiratorial and faulty analysis. He wrongly suggests that “it is fairly certain” that the $3 million allocated by Congress to fund democratization in Iran was meant for the Mujahideen al-Khalq; in fact, it was earmarked for civil society groups operating inside Iran.

Beeman is even prone to fabrication: he argues that the American Enterprise Institute placed responsibility on Iran for faulty intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction but does not provide evidence to back that claim. He invents sources, citing a piece by this reviewer for the National Observer although I have never written for that publication.

He appears to have a special passion for condemning “neoconservatives” but uses the term carelessly, labeling as neoconservatives not only those policymakers and thinkers who seek to make democracy promotion a U.S. policy goal but also vocal opponents of U.S. democratization efforts. His criticism is often dishonest. He pillories “neoconservative” analysis marking ‘Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani as the frontrunner in Iran’s 2005 presidential elections. But in a Council on Foreign Relations interview prior to the election, he himself called Rafsanjani the “frontrunner.”[2]

The worst aspect of The “Great Satan” vs. the “Mad Mullahs” is the moral equivalency underpinning the book. To Beeman, Washington’s complaints about Tehran are no different than Tehran’s rhetoric about Washington. But isn’t it possible that U.S. concerns about Iran’s terror sponsorship are real? Likewise, there is no U.S. corollary to Iran’s “Death to America” rallies and threats to “wipe [Israel] off the map.” Neither would many Iranians agree with Beeman’s apologia of Supreme Leader Ayatollah ‘Ali Khamene’i as a moderate consensus builder; nor would Iranian women recognize his assertion that their rights have improved.

The “Great Satan” vs. the “Mad Mullahs” is an embarrassment of polemic masquerading as a scholarly study. That Beeman is director of Middle East Studies at Brown University is another sad testament to the state of the field.

Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at AEI.

Notes

1. “Iran's Link to Al-Qaeda: The 9-11 Commission’s Evidence,” Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2004, pp. 71-4.

2. “Beeman: Rafsanjani Victory Probable, but Not Certain, in Iran’s ‘Real Election,’” Council on Foreign Relations, June 16, 2005.

Cheney: Iran Must Not Have Nuclear Weapons

March 07, 2006
The Associated Press
CNN.com

link to original article

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and warned "the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime." Cheney said the Iranian government "continues to defy the world with its nuclear ambitions" and that the issue may soon go before the U.N. Security Council.

"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," Cheney said in a speech to the to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group.

He said the United States joins "other nations in sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

Also Tuesday, Russia appeared to close ranks with the United States over Tehran's nuclear program.

At a joint State Department news conference with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said there was no compromise in sight with Iran. Russia has been negotiating with Iran and has proposed enriching fuel on Russian soil for Iran's energy need.

Earlier in the day, the White House said it expects the U.N. Security Council to move forward to rebuke Tehran for its disputed nuclear program.

"The international community has spelled out what Iran must do -- that means suspend all enrichment activity," presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said ahead of President Bush's meeting Tuesday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

McClellan's comments came as a diplomat in Vienna, Austria, where the International Atomic Energy Agency is meeting, told The Associated Press that Iran is offering to suspend full-scale uranium enrichment for up to two years. The offer reflected Tehran's attempts to escape Security Council action over the activity, which can be used to make nuclear arms.

The diplomat, who demanded anonymity in exchange for divulging confidential information, said the Tehran's offer was made Friday by chief Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani in Moscow in the context of contacts between Iran and Russia on moving Tehran's enrichment program to Russia. But Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said Tuesday his country was not prepared to freeze small-scale enrichment.

Russian foreign minister in Washington

The Bush administration is getting closer to a U.N. Security Council rebuke of Iran, but the latest round of diplomacy shows the United States needs the help of Cold War foe Russia to close the deal.

Lavrov is holding multiple meetings with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, plus the highly unusual session in the Oval Office. U.S. presidents customarily receive foreign heads of state in the presidential office, but seldom invite a lower-ranking official such as a foreign minister for a meeting there.

"This is an issue of confidence with the international community," McClellan said. "The regime has shown it cannot be trusted. It hid its nuclear activities for two decades from the international community. It has refused to comply with its international obligations. This is about the regime and its behavior. That's what this is about and that's what our focus is."

Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley had dinner with Lavrov Monday evening.

Russia is also a key player in the U.S. drive to limit aid to the extremist group Hamas, which has taken control of the Palestinian legislature.

The U.S. desire for Russian help against Hamas is just one of several cards Lavrov holds as the Security Council prepares to take up the case of Iran's disputed nuclear program.

Russia, which has veto power as one of the permanent members of the Security Council, is perhaps Tehran's most important ally and business partner. Russia also has crafted a potential compromise to head off sanctions or other punishment of Iran.

China, which also has veto power on the Security Council, is appealing for further negotiation. "Iran should cooperate closely with the IAEA to settle the nuclear dispute," Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said Tuesday in Beijing at a news conference. "There is still room for settlement of the issue in the IAEA."

The United States won a diplomatic coup in February when Russia went along with the U.S.-backed effort to report Iran to the council, but had to agree to a delay of at least a month before the council could take any action. That window is closing without the progress Russia hoped to claim on its proposed nuclear compromise.

It is not clear, however, that Moscow will support a U.S. move for penalties against Iran.

Negotiations continues

Russian agencies quoted Lavrov as saying Monday that Russia's proposal to move Iran's uranium enrichment program to Russian territory remains on the table, but that Iran must reimpose a moratorium on the enrichment of uranium and agree to new scrutiny by the IAEA.

"The result of the IAEA session that has begun in Vienna can be satisfactory only if the remaining questions about Iran's past nuclear program are completely answered," Lavrov said in Ottawa, according to the ITAR-Tass news agency.

Rice telephoned Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA at the agency's Vienna headquarters on Monday to reiterate the U.S. position that Iran "must cease all (uranium) enrichment-related activity," according to State Department spokesman Tom Casey.

Meanwhile, a top State Department official warned that the Security Council will intervene "quite actively" if Iran does not act quickly on the nuclear issue.

The IAEA will reaffirm its stance this week in Vienna, "unless Iran does a dramatic about-face and suspends all of its nuclear activities," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told the Heritage Foundation, a private research group.

He did not say what the United States would ask the Security Council to do. While the Bush administration takes a stern line toward Tehran it is not seeking economic or other penalties immediately, and might not be able to win Russian or other backing for that move in any case.

Annan Urges Cool Rhetoric After Cheney Warns Iran

March 08, 2006
Reuters
The New York Times

link to original article

UNITED NATIONS -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the United States on Wednesday to cool its rhetoric after Vice President Dick Cheney warned Tehran it would face "meaningful consequences" if it persisted in defying the international community through its nuclear program.

Annan, in an interview on public television's "Charlie Rose Show," also predicted Tehran would use Washington's recent nuclear agreement with India to argue Western powers were relying on a double standard in seeking to crack down on its atomic ambitions.

"This is something they will use, the Indian agreement," he said of the Iranian government. "It does complicate the discussions with Iran and the deal with Iran."

Under a deal sealed last week during U.S. President George W. Bush's visit to India, New Delhi, which developed its nuclear weapons covertly, agreed to allow international inspections of the bulk of its nuclear power stations to ensure non-proliferation.

In return, it will gain access to U.S. civilian nuclear technology, including fuel and reactors, that it was denied for 30 years. India's military nuclear facilities would not be subject to inspections under the deal.

At the same time, the U.S. administration is pressing Iran to completely shut down a program to enrich uranium on its own soil, a plan Tehran insists is intended only to produce electric power but which Washington insists aims to develop nuclear bombs.

Cheney, speaking to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC on Tuesday, said the United States was keeping all options on the table in its determination to prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms.

"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," Cheney said. He spoke as the 35-nation governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency was meeting in Vienna to decide its next steps on Iran.

Asked about Cheney's remarks, Annan noted that efforts were still under way to reach a negotiated settlement with Iran over the limits of its nuclear program.

"We should all try to lower the rhetoric and allow for calm, serious discussion on this issue," he said.

"But the Iranians will also have to understand what the world expects of them," he added. "They have to find a way of convincing the world they are not going to go the nuclear route."

Russia Drops Iran Proposal

March 07, 2006
The Financial Times
Guy Dinmore

link to original article

Russia indicated on Tuesday it had dropped its proposed compromise over Iran’s nuclear programme, after coming under sustained pressure from the US and the European Union. Nevertheless, a two-day visit to Washington by Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, could not disguise serious strains in the US-Russia relationship over a range of issues – including Iran, the newly elected Palestinian government led by Hamas, bilateral trade issues and energy security.

Mr Lavrov deftly dropped Moscow’s new initiative even before dinner on Monday night with Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, and Tuesday’s unusual White House meeting, in protocol terms, with President George W. Bush.

Under the interim compromise proposal “floated” by Russia this week, Iran would have been allowed to enrich an extremely small amount of uranium in a research plant – too little to make a bomb – while Russia provided Iran with industrial quantities for its sole electricity generating reactor.

The US and EU loudly protested, saying Iran should not be allowed to develop any uranium enrichment capability of its own, at least for several years. Ms Rice called Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who was in Vienna chairing a board meeting that was expected to deliver the Iran issue to the UN Security Council, perhaps within a week.

But on Tuesday the very existence of the Russian idea was denied. “There is no compromise, new Russian proposal,” Mr Lavrov said.

Ms Rice declared: “The Russians did not tell us of any new proposal that they have made to the Iranians.”

Despite the restoration of surface calm, forestalling an open rift with the US and EU, it was clear that Russia’s support of the US went only so far.

Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, warned Iran yesterday that the international community was “prepared to impose meaningful consequences” if it continued “to defy the world” with its nuclear ambitions.

But Mr Lavrov insisted that discussions on the next steps had yet to take place. Sanctions were a “hypothetical question”, he said after meeting Mr Bush.

Ms Rice made a point of saying that the US and Russia “continue to enjoy good relations”. Mr Lavrov pointedly did not, although he did refer to “our partnership”.

While Ms Rice used the podium to raise concerns over “domestic developments” in Russia, Mr Lavrov berated the US for being the only country not to sign the protocol on Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation. Ms Rice declined to give a US commitment to sign this year.

Russia’s invitation to Hamas for talks in Moscow, which dismayed the White House, was also defended by Mr Lavrov. “Somebody” had to communicate the demands of the international community, he said.

The two sides did agree, however, to continue co-operation over energy security ahead of the G8 summit to be hosted by Russia.

Russia’s growing assertiveness is worrying the Bush administration.

“Realists” in Washington fear that a US agenda driven by what they see as a utopian pursuit of democracy and freedom will lead to new ruptures in the relationship with Russia just when the US needs maximum co- operation on various fronts. But others, including Republicans and Democrats, accuse Mr Bush of coddling the Kremlin.

But others, including Republicans and Democrats, accuse Mr Bush of coddling the Kremlin.

“George Bush has been too soft on Vladimir Putin. It appears to be the result of his personal relationship with him,” said John Edwards, the former Democrat senator who co-led a report on Russia commissioned by the Council on Foreign Relations think-tank.

US-Russia relations were “clearly headed in the wrong direction” and “the very idea of a ‘strategic partnership no longer seems realistic,” the report concluded.

Cheney: All Options on the Table With Iran

March 07, 2006
Reuters
investing.reuters.co.uk

link to original article

WASHINGTON -- Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons and faces "meaningful consequences" if it persists in defying the international community, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Tuesday. Cheney, speaking to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, also reaffirmed that the United States was keeping all options on the table -- including military force -- in its determination to prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms.

"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," Cheney said.

Cheney spoke as the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency governing board was meeting in Vienna to decide its next steps on Iran.

"For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table. ... We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," Cheney said.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said late on Monday that Washington would seek to have European allies and others, possibly including Russia and China, join it in imposing travel and financial sanctions on Iran if it refused to halt nuclear uranium enrichment.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had dinner on Monday night with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and was to hold further meetings on Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad says Iran will make West regret aggression

Tehran, Iran, Mar. 08 – The West will regret trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, radical Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday, state television reported.

“Everyone must accept and respect the Iranian nation’s desire to obtain peaceful nuclear technology”, Ahmadinejad said at a rally in the city of Khorramabad, western Iran.

“If anyone shows aggression to the Iranian nation’s rights, Iran will wipe the dark stain of regret on their foreheads”.

“If the world accepts Iran’s desire then fine, but if it wants to ignore the rights of the Iranian nation then Iran will know what path to pursue”.

“If we stand strong the enemies will be defeated in the face of the Iranian nation’s will”.

In an apparent reaction to an accusation Tuesday by United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Iran was sending members of its Revolutionary Guards into Iraq to cause harm, Ahmadinejad said that Tehran was seeking peace and stability in the region in particular in neighbouring countries.

He said that the world was being tormented by a handful of “bullying powers”.

US warned military action on Iran would fail

[This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1587019.htm]

The World Today - Wednesday, 8 March , 2006  12:43:00

Reporter: Kasra Naji

ELEANOR HALL: As the diplomatic pressure increases on Iran, the Tehran Government is warning the United States not to take military action.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator has said that the Bush administration risks falling into the same trap it did in Iraq, if it acts on the military plans that it's been reported to have been considering.

The warning comes as the United Nations nuclear agency is considering reporting Iran to the UN Security Council this week for possible punitive action.

From Tehran, Kasra Naji reports on the mood in the Iranian capital.

KASRA NAJI: The nuclear standoff with world powers is coming to a head. Sanctions, even war, may be on the cards, and quietly Iran is preparing for the worse.

(sound of music)

This ominous music is the soundtrack to a set of rapidly edited images of Palestinian suicide bombers and news clips of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The venue is the auditorium of one of the universities in Tehran. The video presentation part of the political activities of an organisation, which is dedicated to enrolling suicide bombers here.

Ali Samadi is their spokesman.

(sound of Ali Samadi speaking)

He says our first aim is to fight foreign occupying forces who may venture into Iran. But he adds that they also aim to defend against possible US or British air strikes on Iran by attacking their interests in the region.

After the presentation, two-dozen or so hardline Islamic students rush to the desk outside the auditorium to register as future suicide bombers. The organizers say they have no government backing. But it is obvious that they could not be so active without the green light from some centres of powers here.

(sounds of crowds chanting)

More openly the authorities are mobilising the people for a possible confrontation. Almost every day there is a gathering of different groups of people in support of Iran's quest for nuclear know-how.

Shouting "nuclear energy is our undeniable right," these women were part of the a group of some 2,000 people - supporters of President Ahmadinejad - that gathered on Sunday to voice their support for Iran's nuclear policies.

(sound of fighter jet)

The army and the Revolutionary Guards, as well as the volunteer militia force here, are holding regular war games in various parts of the country. Iran has the experience of mobilising hundreds of thousands of soldiers during the eight years of war with Iraq in the 1980s. That experience is being put to use again.

On the streets, no outward sign of panic or concern. Ibrahim Yazdi is an opposition politician here who is barely tolerated. He says for many the immediate concern is the possibility of sanctions.

IBRAHIM YAZDI: Well, as you know, 80 per cent of our budget is coming from the oil revenues. If sanction means the blockade, or the sanction against the export of the oil, which means that the oil revenue will be stopped, that will have a very pronounced, deep economic impact on our society, and as a result there might be some reaction to that among the lower income groups in Iran.

KASRA NAJI: But the official line is that sanctions will not hurt Iran that much, and a country that has fought an eight-year war under conditions of economic sanctions and arms embargo once before, can do it again.

Kasra Naji, Tehran.

U.N. Urged to Take Action Against Iran

 Staff and agencies
08 March, 2006
http://www.localnewsleader.com/elytimes/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=154237

By GEORGE JAHN

VIENNA, Austria - The United States and its European allies said Wednesday that Iran ‘s intransigence over its nuclear program has left the world no choice but to ask for the U.N. Security Council U.N. Security Council to take action against the Islamic regime.

"The time has now come for the Security Council to act," Gregory Schulte, the U.S. delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency , told the group‘s 35-nation board as it began discussions on Iran‘s nuclear ambitions.

"Iran has still not come clean," he said.

France, Germany and Britain, which spearheaded the Feb. 4 IAEA resolution clearing the path for Security Council action once this week‘s meeting ends, warned that what is known about Iran‘s enrichment program could represent only "the tip of the iceberg."

'US attack on Iran likely'

http://www.tmcnet.com/scripts/print-page.aspx?PagePrint=http%3a%2f%2fwww.tmcnet.com%2fusubmit%2f2006%2f03%2f08%2f1439192.htm

(Gulf News Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)London: The quagmire that America finds itself in in Iraq "makes an attack against Iran more likely", according to the Oxford Research Group.

The comments came as Iran was accused of seeking weapons of mass destruction.

"The evidence points to Iran building a bomb," the International Institute of Strategic Studies told Gulf News.

Leading organisation

The Oxford Research Group is the leading organisation in its field, facilitating dialogue. It has close connections with the highest levels of the British government and is acutely aware of the issues of the day.

"Shortly after 9/11 I went to Washington to attend a high-level meeting on American foreign policy," Paul Rogers a peace studies professor at Bradford University and a key member of the ORG, said.

"Iraq, of course, was the main topic and I argued against an invasion. Then a high-ranking officer pulled me aside and said 'Paul, it is not about Iraq it is about Iran. We get Iraq right, we get Iran right'." Rogers said.

"Well, they haven't got Iraq right, which means it is more likely that they will take action against Iran. But there is one other major issue here that America is worried by and that is China. Iran has just signed a $70 billion (Dh257 billion) oil deal with China. This worries America. the geo-politics of oil and the Middle east over the next 30 years is what this is about."

Iran kept quiet about one key element of its nuclear industry, involving enrichment, which it later admitted to. But that aside, it has not done anything to break its commitment to the NPT. It has met all its international obligations."

The International Institute of Strategic Studies increased the pressure on Teheran when it told Gulf News that it now believes Iran wants a nuclear weapon.

Cumulative evidence

"The cumulative evidence suggests that Iran is building nuclear weapons," said Mark Fitzpatrick of the IISS, a think-tank that examines the global military situation. The IISS is an Atlanticist organisation that reflects the view of Washington on most key issues.

"Taken separately you could possibly explain some of their actions away but when you put it all together it looks as if Teheran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme."

This statement indicates a hardening of the IISS position since a report on Iran's nuclear programme last October carried by the Gulf News. Then the IISS said that there was "no smoking gun" and the organisation was far less forthcoming in its opinion.

The situation was increasingly critical, Fitzpatrick said.

"We are perhaps about 4-6 months from a turning point."

This does not mean that Iran will have a physical bomb, that is still about three years away, but it does suggests a time when the knowledge and basic framework needed to produce a bomb come together or at least will be apparent to Teheran.

"Some people query why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons," Fitzpatrick said.

"Well the world will shortly have to come up with an answer to the dilemma. Should Iran have the bomb or should it be attacked? Why not let Iran have the bomb? The trouble is that its leader has threatened to attack Israel and that worries the international community.

Perfect world

"In a perfect world no one in the middle east would have nuclear weapons. But we do not live in a perfect world."

The IISS is considered "left wing in America and right wing in Europe".

It reflects Washington's foreign policy through a European prism. What its says carries weight through the fact that it echoes official Washington viewpoints for an audience that is not American.