آخرین خبرها از ایران- February 20, 2006

Iran clerics say it's okay to use nukes

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1420646.cms

LONDON: Iran's influential hard-line spiritual leaders have issued a fatwa or holy edict, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons as a 'countermeasure' against other nuclear powers.
The fatwa, which for the first time questions the theocracy's traditional stance that Sharia law forbade the use of nuclear weapons, signals Tehran's stiffening resolve on the nuclear issue, The Sunday Telegraph reported.
According to it one senior cleric it is 'only natural' to have nuclear bombs as a 'countermeasure' against other nuclear powers, thought to be a reference to America and Israel.
The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Aid to Iran . . .

Monday, February 20, 2006; A20

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/19/AR2006021901154.html

IS IT A SIGN OF increased wisdom -- or is it a sign of increased desperation? If the Bush administration had announced its intention to spend $75 million on promoting democracy, student exchanges and independent media in Iran several years ago, as part of a wider policy of promoting democracy in the broader Middle East, the policy would have seemed unquestionably wise. To many observers, it has always seemed odd that American efforts to support dissidents in Iran -- one of the few Middle Eastern countries with a broad, diverse and educated democratic opposition -- have been so slim. Usually, the excuse given was historical: American diplomats, queasy about the United States' mixed record of "meddling" in Iranian politics, didn't want to discredit the country's democrats by association, or give the regime another excuse to lock them up. Still, the arguments at least for better Farsi radio and television programming have always been incontrovertible: Iranians do listen to foreign media, but until now they've had mostly pop music stations and third-rate news programs to choose from.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's declaration of a major policy change in this area is welcome. If nothing else, getting better information into Iran could help Iranians understand the West's point of view in its escalating nuclear dispute with their country: At the moment, they hear only one side of the story. But the timing of her announcement, on the heels of the U.S. and European failure to rein in Iran's nuclear program, does make it seem as if the administration is supporting democrats because there isn't much else to be done. True, the administration is still working with its European allies, China and Russia to bring Iran before the United Nations Security Council as early as next month. But any action by the council will be slow and relatively weak, at least at first. The Iranians, meanwhile, aren't deterred: Last week they announced plans to return to full scale uranium enrichment.

Administration officials themselves describe the policy change on democracy aid as the product of a reassessment of the nature of the Iranian threat: This, they say, is the first step in meeting the long-term challenge posed by what they now believe to be a genuinely radical regime. The State Department also plans to build up its Iranian expertise, to teach more diplomats to speak Farsi, to consult with Europeans who have had more business and diplomatic contacts with Iran, and generally to make up for the experience lost in the 26 years that the United States has had no diplomatic representation in Tehran.

The main task now is to make sure that the new democracy policy isn't perceived within the State Department or the Pentagon as "second best" and that the money, which could go quite a long way in Iran, gets spent wisely. That means funding not just the traditional, U.S.-based radio and television stations, which have so far had mixed success, but independent, Iranian exile stations -- or at least those that can be induced to offer a reliable source of news. That also means spreading money around, in very small amounts, so that it remains invisible both to the regime and to ordinary Iranians. Above all it means not identifying "friends" too quickly or with too little skepticism. The United States has a very mixed record in its choices about which dissidents to support, having done so successfully in 1980s Poland, and unsuccessfully in prewar Iraq. If the Iranian opposition is to succeed, it must do so on its own terms.

Falcon jet plane crashes on Iran-Iraq border

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=40684&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

LONDON, February 20 (IranMania) - A small aircraft, Falcon, with 7-8 passengers aboard crashed at Iran's common border with northern Iraq on Thursday February 16 killing all its passengers, MNA reported.

A news released by Mehr News Agency reported that according to an informed local source in northern Iraq, the ill-fated plane was a Falcon which had taken off from a base in Azerbaijan Republic.

It added that the plane, which was heading for an unknown destination, crashed on the Iran-Iraq border, while overflying Kurdestan province.

"No details on the crash, the plane's passengers and mission are available. Investigation into the incident indicated that 3-5 passengers on board were possibly of Israeli origin," added the report.

The local source did not disclose any further details, but told Mehr News Agency that US troops have restricted access of Iraqi Kurdish officials and the interim government to further information.

"A section of the Western media had earlier unofficially reported the crash of a plane in northern Iraq with several German passengers aboard," concluded the press release.

Economic war on the U.S.? Iran, Venezuela join forces

2/19/2006 7:00:00 PM GMT

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10610

Iran and Venezuela joined forces to undermine the U.S. dollar.

Last year, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced that his country's plans to move its foreign-exchange holdings out of the dollar into the euro, calling for the creation of a South American central bank designed to hold in euros all the foreign-exchange holdings of the participating countries.

On the other hand, Iran started since 2003 demanding oil payment in euros, not dollars, although the oil itself was still priced in dollars. The Islamic Republic has already announced plans of opening the Iranian Oil Bourse in March, challenging by that the NYMEX (the New York Mercantile Exchange) and IPE (London's International Petroleum Exchange).

Iranian and Venezuelan lawmakers have recently signed a document condemning nuclear weapons, yet stressing all nations’ right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

During a visit he paid recently to the Venezuelan capital Caracas, Iranian Parliament speaker Ghulam Ali Haddad stated that the U.S. persistent rejection to recognise Iran’s right to pursue nuclear technology to be used for civilian purposes was "only a pretext."

"They are worried that we want to be independent," Hadad Adel said.

According to an editorial published on Viva Le Canada, Mr Adel was kind to use the word "pretext"- He should have directly stated that the U.S. opposition to Iran's peaceful nuclear program is a continuation to the same hardliner propaganda of the Bush Administration, aimed at lobbying the support of the angry public already fury over the continuous failures of the American President in Iraq war and insistence that American forces stay the course there.

It seems that the American government lead by President George W. Bush seeks the nation’s and the Congress’ approval for another war this time against Iran, sort of a punishment for deciding to abandon the U.S. dollar in favor of the euro.

By saying that Washington’s opposition to the Islamic Republic’s nuclear activities was "only a pretext", Mr Adel must have full knowledge of what could be described as the real reason why the Bush Administration and its supporters in the U.S. Congress have suddenly turned uneasy towards a nuclear program that has been in play for decades, the editorial adds.

But what did the Iranian diplomat mean by saying that the U.S. is "worried that we want to be independent" Iran is already an independent and not an occupied country- He didn’t mean the military occupation. In 2000, Washington hailed the Iranians for electing reformists to the Iranian Parliament. But in 2004, the Bush Administration frowned when those same Iranian chose the conservatives into power once again.

Mr Adel didn’t mean the military occupation, but becoming independent of the U.S. dollar.

The toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein decided in 2000 to abandon the U.S. dollars in 2000 under the UN monitored Oil for Food Program.

But shortly after Iraq war was launched, all purchases of Iraqi oil were back to petrodollars.

By joining forces in a move expected to deal a major blow to the U.S. economy, Iran and Venezuela are encouraging and creating a golden opportunity for other states to shift foreign-exchange holdings out of dollars and into euros or other currencies.

The Iran crisis – “Diplomacy” as a launch pad for missiles

Norman Solomon
February 19, 2006

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/5/2006/1318

The current flurry of Western diplomacy will probably turn out to be groundwork for launching missiles at Iran.

Air attacks on targets in Iran are very likely. Yet many antiwar Americans seem eager to believe that won?t happen.

Illusion #1: With the U.S. military bogged down in Iraq, the Pentagon is in no position to take on Iran.

But what?s on the horizon is not an invasion -- it?s a major air assault, which the American military can easily inflict on Iranian sites. (And if the task falls to the Israeli military, it is also well-equipped to bomb Iran.)

Illusion #2: The Bush administration is in so much political trouble at home -- for reasons including its lies about Iraqi WMDs -- that it wouldn?t risk an uproar from an attack on Iran.

But the White House has been gradually preparing the domestic political ground for bombing Iran. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 3, ?in recent polls a surprisingly large number of Americans say they would support U.S. military strikes to stop Tehran from getting the bomb.?

Above those words, the Journal?s headline -- ?U.S. Chooses Diplomacy on Iran?s Nuclear Program? -- trumpeted the Bush administration?s game plan. It?s a time-honored scam: When you?re moving toward aggressive military action, emphasize diplomacy.

Donald Rumsfeld proclaimed at a conference in Munich on Feb. 4 that -- to put a stop to Iran?s nuclear program -- the world should work for a ?diplomatic solution.? Yet the next day, the German daily newspaper Handelsblatt reports, Rumsfeld said in an interview: ?All options including the military one are on the table.?

Top U.S. officials, inspired by the royal ?W,? aren?t hesitating to speak for the world. Condoleezza Rice said: ?The world will not stand by if Iran continues on the path to a nuclear weapons capability.? Meanwhile, Rumsfeld declared: ?The Iranian regime is today the world?s leading state sponsor of terrorism. The world does not want, and must work together to prevent, a nuclear Iran.?

Translation: First we?ll be diplomatic, then we can bomb.

Illusion #3: The U.S. won?t attack Iran because that would infuriate the millions of Iran-allied Shiites in Iraq, greatly damaging the U.S. war effort there.

But projecting rationality onto the Bush administration makes little sense at this point. The people running U.S. foreign policy have their own priorities, and avoiding carnage is not one of them.

Non-proliferation doesn?t rank very high either, judging from Washington?s cozy relationships with the nuclear-weapons powers of Israel, India and Pakistan. Unlike Iran, none of those countries are signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Only Iran has been allowing inspections of its nuclear facilities -- and it is Iran that the savants in Washington are now, in effect, threatening to bomb.

With sugar-plum visions of Iran?s massive oil and natural-gas reserves dancing in their heads, the Washington neo-cons evidently harbor some farfetched hopes of bringing about the overthrow of the Iranian regime. But in the real world, an attack on Iran would strengthen its most extreme factions and fortify whatever interest it has in developing nuclear arms.

?The U.S. will not solve the nuclear problem by threatening military strikes or by dragging Iran before the U.N. Security Council,? Iran?s 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi wrote in the Jan. 19 edition of the Los Angeles Times, in an oped piece co-authored by Muhammad Sahimi, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Southern California. ?Although a vast majority of Iranians despise the country?s hard-liners and wish for their downfall, they also support its nuclear program because it has become a source of pride for an old nation with a glorious history.?

The essay added: ?A military attack would only inflame nationalist sentiments. Iran is not Iraq. Given Iranians? fierce nationalism and the Shiites? tradition of martyrdom, any military move would provoke a response that would engulf the entire region, resulting in countless deaths and a ruined economy not only for the region but for the world. Imposing U.N. sanctions on Iran would also be counterproductive, prompting Tehran to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its ?additional protocol.? Is the world ready to live with such prospects??

While calling for international pressure against Iran?s serious violations of human rights, Ebadi and Sahimi said that ?Iran is at least six to 10 years away from a nuclear bomb, by most estimates. The crisis is not even a crisis. There is ample time for political reform before Iran ever develops the bomb.?

On Feb. 3, the Iranian Student News Agency quoted Iran?s former president Muhammad Khatami, who urged the Iranian government to offer assurances that the country?s nuclear program is only for generating electricity. ?It is necessary to act wisely and with tolerance so that our right to nuclear energy will not be abolished,? he said.

Though he failed to develop much political traction for reform during his eight years as president, Khatami was a moderating force against human-rights abuses. His demagogic successor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a menace to human rights and peace. But it?s by no means clear that Ahmadinejad can count on long-term support from the nation?s ruling clerics.

The man he defeated in the presidential runoff last summer, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, wields significant power as head of the government?s Expediency Council. Though he has a well-earned reputation as a corrupt opportunist, Rafsanjani is now a beacon of enlightenment compared to Ahmadinejad.

In early January, a pair of Iran scholars -- Dariush Zahedi and Ali Ezzatyar, based at the University of California in Berkeley -- wrote an LA Times piece making this point: ?Contrary to popular belief, the traditional conservative clerical establishment is apprehensive about the possibility of violence inside and outside Iran. It generally opposes an aggressive foreign policy and, having some intimate ties with Iran?s dependent capitalist class, is appalled at the rapid slide of the economy since Ahmadinejad?s inauguration. The value of Tehran?s stock market has plunged $10 billion, the nation?s vibrant real estate market has withered and capital outflows are increasing.?

And the scholars added pointedly: ?The history of U.S.-Iran relations shows that the more Washington chastises Tehran for its nuclear ambitions, the more it plays into the hands of the radicals by riling up fear and nationalist sentiment.?

Right now, the presidents of Iran and the United States are thriving on the belligerency of the other. From all indications, a military assault on Iran would boost Ahmadinejad?s power at home. And it?s a good bet that the U.S. government will do him this enormous favor. Unless we can prevent it.

Report: US plans to attack Iran's nuke facilities

http://www.albawaba.com/en/news/194842

A US military action against Iran's nuclear facilities has entered a practical stage, according to a Saudi newspaper. The report, published Sunday by al Watan daily, claims the American intelligence identified 23 nuclear facilities in Iran while intelligence bodies of other countries added to the list eight facilities. All of these are expected to targeted by US warplanes if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran's nuclear facilities fail.

According to the report, the US army will need five days to one week to complete the strike. However, US military experts claim the attack should be carried out no later than January 2007, because on that time Iran's nuclear development enters the "red phase", i.e. the nuclear facilities would be dangerous to strike due to fear of radiation.

The report adds the US has decided that Israel will not be directly involved in the strike. However, the Bush administration will allow Israel to retaliate if attacked by long range Iranian missiles. Based on US intelligence reports, Iran has at least 20 mobile launchers for this kind of missiles.

Rice back to Middle East to campaign for democracy, against Iran

February 20, 2006
Agence France-Presse
TerraNet

http://www.terra.net.lb/wp/Articles/DesktopArticle.aspx?ArticleID=271713&ChannelId=1

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice leaves Monday on a Middle East tour to push efforts to spread democracy and counter what the United States sees as aggressive Iranian policy.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice leaves Monday on a Middle East tour to push efforts to spread democracy and counter what the United States sees as aggressive Iranian policy.

Rice first heads to Cairo where on Tuesday she will meet with Egyptian leaders as well as political opponents of President Hosni Mubarak.

The US administration has made Egypt one of its test cases for the promotion of democracy in the Middle East.

Rice said earlier this week that she was "disappointed" that Mubarak has postponed municipal elections, scheduled to be held in April, for two years.

"The message that I will take to Egypt is that Egypt needs to stay on the democratic course," she told Arab journalists in an interview. "It needs to keep pushing ahead on the democratic course."

The time is "not right" for a free trade accord between the United States and Egypt, she warned.

But Egypt remains one of Washington's key Middle East allies, and the secretary of state also needs Egyptian help to put pressure on the new Hamas government expected to be formed in the Palestinian territories.

As Egypt is one of the rare Arab countries to have signed a peace treaty with Israel, Rice will seek Cairo's commitment to not finance the Palestinian Authority as long as Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.

"The secretary will have the same conversation with the states in the region as she has had with numerous other countries around the world," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

She will be putting across the message of the diplomatic Quartet for the Middle East -- the United States, Russia, European Union and the United Nations, added McCormack.

"It calls upon Hamas to make certain choices: recognize Israel's right to exist, turning away from terror, and also abiding by previous commitments of the Palestinian Authority -- most notably to the road map and a commitment to a two-state solution arrived at via the negotiating table."

From Egypt, Rice will go to another ally seen as problematic by US policymakers, Saudi Arabia. The secretary of state will then travel to Abu Dhabi for talks with leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

Along the way, Rice will again make appeals against giving money to Hamas, and also for regional leaders to be tougher with Iran.

This week she called Iran "a strategic challenge to the United States, to the world, and a destabilizing influence in the Middle East." Rice said all worried states must "challenge Iran's aggressive policies".

Rice will tell the Arab Gulf states "they have an interest in speaking out and confronting Iranian behavior -- because they do have a stake in how Iran is behaving in the region," McCormack said.

Tensions over Iran's nuclear programme -- which the United States and some of its allies fear is hiding a drive to acquire weapons -- is now a major concern for the GCC states -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

The Bushehr nuclear power station that Russia is building in Iran is close to Iran's border with the Gulf states. There is also worry about Shiite Muslim Iran's influence in Iraq and Lebanon.

Rice expressed concern this week about a network formed by Iran, Syria and the Hezbollah group in Lebanon. She called Iran the "central banker for terrorism".

Without openly calling for regime change in Iran or Syria, Rice has asked for 75 million dollars to bolster efforts to beam pro-democracy broadcasts into Iran and five million dollars to help "reformists" in Syria.

Small Bomb Shakes Iranian Oil City

February 19, 2006
Reuters
today.reuters.co.uk

link to original article

TEHRAN -- A percussion bomb exploded in the restive southwestern Iranian oil city of Ahvaz on Sunday, shattering windows but causing no injuries, the official IRNA news agency reported. IRNA quoted an unnamed security official as saying the bomb exploded at 9:45 pm (6:15 p.m. British time). No other details were immediately available.

A similar device blew up in Ahvaz, capital of the predominantly Arab province of Khuzestan, on Jan 29.

Khuzestan has simmered with ethnic unrest since April, when five people died in protests ignited by rumours the government was considering settling non-Arabs in southwest Iran to dilute Arab influence there.

Seven people were killed in bombings in June and six died in a blast in October. Some minor oil facilities were bombed in September. Eight people were killed last month when bombs ripped through a bank and government building.

About three percent of Iran's 69 million people are Arabs. Authorities are sensitive about protests and discontent in the southwestern Arab territories, home to Iran's biggest oil fields.

A preliminary United Nations report has pointed to discrimination against Arabs with regard to basic amenities, resources and legal rights.

Iran accuses Britain of stirring unrest in Khuzestan, a charge London denies.

West Wary as Iran Nuclear Talks Begin

February 19, 2006
The Financial Times
Gareth Smyth in Tehran

link to original article

Iranian officials will on Monday begin talks in Brussels and Moscow on their country’s nuclear programme – while their western counterparts, conscious of domestic critics ready to pounce if things go wrong, will be wary of Tehran’s talk of compromise.

When Javed Vaeedi, deputy secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), last month called informal talks with the European Union “very positive”, the English-language Iran Daily dismissed his claim as “simply inaccurate”.

After the EU and Russia supported the International Atomic Energy Agency’s February 4 decision to report Iran to the Security Council, the newspaper argued that the fruits of Iran’s diplomacy were that “the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany have converged on a position long advocated by the United States.”

As one of several appointments after Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad became president in August, Mr Vaeedi is part of a team that replaced one led by Hassan Rowhani, the pragmatic conservative cleric who conducted Iran’s two-year dialogue with the EU.

This new team – led by Ali Larijani, who replaced Mr Rowhani as the SNSC secretary – has taken a more assertive stance.

Iran provoked the crisis when it resumed nuclear research last month and restarted uranium enrichment activities, “for research only”, at Natanz last week. Time is running out before the IAEA reconvenes on March 6 ahead of a likely Security Council discussion.

Mr Vaeedi and Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran’s foreign minister, were due in Brussels on Sunday night for discussions with, among others, Javier Solana, the EU’s foreign policy representative.

They arrive with diplomatic wires buzzing with talk of a compromise, encouraged by reports that Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA head, had privately suggested western diplomats recognise that limited uranium enrichment in Iran might be the only compromise possible.

It follows a statement issued by Iran’s Paris embassy on Friday that Tehran might accept the use of “modern centrifuges” – limiting uranium enrichment to a level below that required for a bomb – and in return reverse its decision to end snap IAEA inspections.

But western diplomats involved in the talks – most for far longer than their Iranian counterparts – remain sceptical about any deal.

Meanwhile, Ali Hosseini-Tash, another SNSC deputy secretary, is due in Moscow on Monday to discuss Russia’s proposal to enrich Iran’s uranium. The idea is intended to allay concerns over diversion to weapons but runs against Iran’s insistence it must enrich at home.

While skating diplomatic minefields abroad, Iran’s nuclear team faces criticism at home both over its competence and for realigning policy towards Russia.

West May Have to Live with Low-level Iranian atom work

February 19, 2006
Reuters
Mark Heinrich

link to original article

The crisis over Iran's atomic agenda is deepening, but the world's nuclear watchdog chief has warned there may be no choice but to accept limited uranium enrichment by Tehran, diplomats say. For a mistrustful West, the quid pro quo would be to give U.N. inspectors more intrusive powers via a Security Council resolution to prevent suspected atomic bomb projects.

Tehran in turn would have to pledge no industrial-scale enrichment of uranium.

Countries on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have called for the Iranian controversy to be referred to the U.N. Security Council by March 6.

Iran hit back by breaking a moratorium on enrichment, the process of making fuel for atomic plants or, potentially, bombs.

The board vote has driven Iran into a corner under a banner of national pride and risks paralyzing the Council given that veto-holding Russia and China reject sanctions on Tehran mooted by Washington, IAEA veterans say.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei will make no recommendations in a broad report on three years of probes in Iran he is to give to board members on February 27, a week before they convene to weigh whether to urge a course of action by the Security Council.

But he has already suggested in diplomatic circles that a compromise may lie in accepting small-scale enrichment in Iran in exchange for guarantees of no full nuclear fuel production that could enable diversions into bomb-making, diplomats say.

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said ElBaradei was still advocating publicly and privately that Iran take steps to earn international confidence by shelving enrichment-related work and cooperating fully with agency investigations.

"He has also told diplomats that Natanz (pilot enrichment plant) is Iran's bottom line, a sovereignty issue, a reality we may have to deal with," a diplomat close to the IAEA, who asked for anonymity due to the subject's sensitivity, said.

"Nothing of consequence will happen in the Security Council because the Russians and Chinese will block sanctions," the diplomat said of the two non-Western big powers determined to protect massive energy investments and trade with Iran.

IRAN RECEPTIVE TO ELBARADEI IDEA

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has welcomed ElBaradei's idea as a potential way to dispel Western suspicions Tehran seeks atomic bombs, while retaining its "irrefutable right to acquire nuclear technology" for electricity generation.

As an incentive for Iran to renounce its goal of industrial enrichment, Russia has offered to provide it purified uranium under a joint venture. This could prevent development of fissile fuel on Iranian soil that might be siphoned into warheads.

Iran agreed to negotiations on the idea in Moscow this week but its Atomic Energy Organization chief warned Iran would accept no deal excluding enrichment at home.

"We are a nuclear country. The (West) knows it has no other choice but to negotiate," Gholamreza Aghazadeh told state television, adding that Iran had invited Western countries to invest in Natanz and be present on site.

"There is no greater objective guarantee (against bomb-building) we can provide to the world," he said.

Last week Iran resumed test-feeding of uranium UF6 gas into a few centrifuges, which spin at supersonic speeds to yield fuel for nuclear plants or, if enriched to high levels, for warheads.

Analysts believe it may take Iran months to revive a cascade of 164 centrifuges corroded by disuse, and considerably longer to hurdle technological barriers to running the minimum 1,000 that would be needed to make fuel for a single crude bomb.

But U.S. and EU leaders, citing Tehran's past record of hiding nuclear work from the IAEA, object that to give Iran any leeway to ramp up UF6 production will hand it the know-how to "break out" with a nuclear arsenal whenever it so chooses.

Then it will be too late to prevent Iran endangering world peace, they say, pointing to the Islamic Republic's calls for Israel's destruction and alleged support for Muslim militants.

NAIVE COMPROMISE?

"ElBaradei's suggestion seems naive ... If the Iranians get the compromise he's raised, they're likely to demand more concessions, especially operating more centrifuges," said David Albright, a former IAEA inspector in Iraq and director of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

Iran cites a right to develop civilian nuclear energy as a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Toughening the NPT may be the only viable way out of the crisis given Security Council deadlock over sanctions and Iran's promise to enrich under IAEA monitoring, some analysts say.

"There's talk of the Council passing a resolution giving the IAEA much more intrusive powers applicable to all NPT states, so Iran can't claim discrimination as it does now. It's an imperfect compromise, but maybe the only one the West can get."

(additional reporting by Paul Hughes in Tehran)

EU to Make New Nukes Appeal to Iran as Rift Deepens

February 19, 2006
Reuters
Mark John

link to original article

BRUSSELS -- European officials will make a fresh appeal to Iran on Monday to halt sensitive nuclear activities, warning its foreign minister on a rare trip to Brussels that the West is fast running out of patience. The visit by Manouchehr Mottaki comes after Tehran last week resumed uranium enrichment in defiance of possible sanctions in the U.N. Security Council, and despite talks due next week on a Russian offer to enrich uranium on Iran's behalf.

Tensions have been fueled by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent verbal onslaughts on Israel and Western suspicions that Iran has deliberately stoked up Muslim anger over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad published in European newspapers.

"It is very important we repeat to Mr Mottaki the position of the EU on a range of issues -- nuclear, the Middle East peace process, democracy and human rights," said a spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who will meet Mottaki.

"We want a suspension of enrichment, adherence to the Additional Protocol (allowing snap U.N. inspections of nuclear sites) and a change in tone," said Geoffrey van Orden, a senior member of the European Parliament foreign affairs committee.

"What we can't allow is that they think they can drive a wedge between Europe and the United States," said British conservative van Orden, whose committee will receive Mottaki for a potentially abrasive question-and-answer session.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog voted this month to report Iran to the Security Council over fears -- denied by Tehran -- that it is trying to build an atomic bomb, after 2-1/2 years of European diplomacy with Tehran reached a dead end.

Mottaki will also hold talks during the one-day trip with EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner and with Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht.

EU officials see the timing of the visit as no coincidence given the new depths which Iran's relations with the West have plumbed in recent weeks, and regard it as an effort by Tehran to defend its policy before a wide European audience.

With Mottaki not seen as a key player on the nuclear case, Solana and other EU officials will use the visit to urge Iran to cease alleged contacts with Islamic groups listed by the EU as terrorist organisations and raise concerns over human rights.

The EU in December accused Iran of a catalog of abuses ranging from media censorship through to child executions and has been angered by Tehran's failure to stop attacks by protesters on European missions in Iran.

"It is unacceptable that leaders do not do the absolute maximum to halt the violence," said Solana's spokeswoman.

Iran's Defensive Strategy

February 18, 2006
RealClear Politics
John Patrick Quirk

link to original article

The world has been focused on the recent diplomatic failures with Iran and the defiance it continues to exhibit over its nuclear ambitions. Recent events have demonstrated that the Europeans are tired of Iranian tactics and brinkmanship. The effort to go to the UN Security Council and impose sanctions has brought Europe and especially France closer to the American point of view. Even Jacques Chirac threatened Iran several weeks ago, stating publicly that France has the nuclear option of protecting itself from a rogue state with nuclear weapons.

While this unity is designed with the intent of halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the Western allies often ignore the broader implications of Iran seeking to achieve its foreign policy and national security goals.

Iran continues to threaten Israel, fund terrorism, and to accelerate its nuclear weapons program. In addition to its holocaust denial scenario and defiance of its major European trading partners, Iran has not only specific goals for its foreign policy but military plans to defend itself.

In December, 2005 the Atlantic Monthly laid out a scenario of how Israel might attack Iran. The magazine even contained an interactive full color DVD complete with illustrations and Israeli jets striking targets in Iran. Later the Pentagon revealed its own potential attack plan suggesting a major military strike by American warships. This scenario has hundreds of new cruise and tomahawk missiles being launched by our carriers, submarines and Arleigh Burke destroyers based in the Persian Gulf. Rumors abounded the U.S. also had two secret Special Forces bases near Iran ready to drop commandoes against selected Iranian sites.

The Israelis recently acquired newly-developed U.S. bunker busters that can penetrate deep into the Iranian nuclear research and development facilities. The U.S. says there are about 477 targets that can be destroyed by air attacks and missile attacks. The Israelis claim they only need to take out about 50 key nuclear sites to set the Iranian program back 5 to 7 years or longer. Both the American and Israeli scenarios are designed to take out nuclear facilities, not to invade Iran or destroy major cities. Although some of the various scenarios may be designed as disinformation on the part of both the Americans and Israelis, the Iranians are taking these potential attack scenarios seriously.

What are the likely Iranian responses?

The first thing to recognize is the difference between Iran and Iraq. Prior to the last Iraq War, rumors circulated that the Iraqis had plans of WMD attacks, terrorists in the U.S. (or channeling terrorist to the U.S. from France and the UK) and also had a strong Revolutionary Guard that would inflict heavy casualties on the Americans and our allies.

Twenty-one days after the start of hostilities, Iraq was defeated and there were no WMD attacks and not a single terrorist attack outside Iraqi borders.

The Iranians have designed a much different defensive strategy. They know the U.S. is neither capable nor interested in a ground war invasion. They know that both Israel and America seeks to destroy only its nuclear facilities not invade or destroy its cities. Some radical mullahs, as apart of a doomsday type cult in Iran, however, truly believe the U.S. is intent on destroying the centuries old Persian culture.

Iran’s leadership also knows that U.S. foreign policy, urged on by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel, want to see a non-fundamentalist regime in Iran be the dominant leader in the region.

Thus the Iranians have interpreted all of these potential actions as signs of disrespect (in every negotiating session with the European Union the Iranians have commented that the U.S. shows them no respect).

Over the last five years the Iranians have also created the following defensive attack strategy:

1) Accelerate the development of several, maybe up to 5 nuclear bombs, coupled with a deployment strategy of missile technology gained from Pakistan, China and North Korea. These missiles are now capable of being equipped with nuclear weapons could hit Israel, London and most of the 7th Fleet targets (American ships and bases in the Persian Gulf).

2) Iran has fully-trained and equipped terrorists established in the USA, Venezuela, Mexico and probably Canada. These operatives may have weapons of mass destruction and also have plans to bomb American shopping centers and/or symbolic targets to create fear and mass panic that will hopefully damage the American economy.

These terrorist are zealots who may and probably will engage in suicide bombings. These particular spy/terrorists are compartmentalized from and not part of Hezbollah who have their bases in Venezuela, Canada and covert operatives in the USA.

3) Strike at targets within Europe. The French government under Chirac in 2003 made the mistake of issuing over 5,000 visas for Iranian “students” to come to France. France was trying to placate its own Islamic community and ingratiate itself with oil rich Iran. Many of these Iranian students obtained French passports and then migrated to Canada, Venezuela and some to the USA.

The Iranians have every intention of retaliating against an attack on their soil. They believe that negotiations with Europe, the UN and the U.S. are over and they could care less about economic sanctions.

Iran is also not interested in using “oil” as a weapon. They know the U.S. has many new sources of oil, huge reserves, and that the U.S. believes a one week attack against Iranian nuclear targets would not significantly impact the world economy. American diplomats have assured the European Union, China, Japan and its other closest allies any attack on Iran would be over in a week or less. The Iranians also know this and know oil can’t be used as a weapon.

Some of the moderate mullahs in Iran believe an attack, while devastating to their nuclear ambitions, would not destroy their religion, culture or their fundamentalist Islamic government. The more radical leadership is seeking to destroy Israel once and for all and aiming also to seriously damage the United States through terrorist attacks.

The missing link here is the failure of diplomacy and a fait accompli that war is looming. While the Bush Administration is suggesting radio broadcasts to encourage dissidents in Iran, its real strategy is to have the EU and Russia do more to pressure Iran and to even have Republican and Democrats forge a unified front to demand Bush to take military action. The Bush Administration is still smarting over the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and it wants our European allies and Congress to call for military action against Iran. While it is likely there will be much rhetoric on all sides between now and the November Congressional elections, it is highly likely any military action will take place after November 2006 and toward the remaining months of the Bush presidency.

John Patrick Quirk is the author of a number of books and articles on national security and intelligence.