Iran-U.S.A

[Rasputin]

Following the National Intelligence Estimate ("NIE") report, the rhetoric on Iran has decreased significantly. Not only have politicians stopped debating about it (except for attacks against Clinton for supporting a resolution calling the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization), but the news and reports about Iranian nuclear programs have stopped getting the front page coverage in major papers that they apparently deserved in the past.

Yet there's a problem here, an itch that everyone feels but no one has yet scratched. The Bush administration has long stopped caring about Iran possessing nuclear WEAPONS. It cares about Iran possessing nuclear KNOWLEDGE. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ("NPT") was a negotiated settlement between states who possessed nuclear power and those who didn't.

The compromise was this: the nuclear powers agreed to share their knowledge and technology and to de-militarize their programs in exchange for assurances that the non-nuclear states would never ever possess nuclear weapons.

So while the NPT forbids militarization of nuclear technology, it actually encourages development and exchange of nuclear knowledge. The basis for this compromise is clear, nuclear technology provides any states a host of resolutions to energy problems. At the same time, it can give any state a dangerous tool.

This brings us to our current dilemma. The Bush Administration has arguably increased, rather than lower the stakes against Iran. Instead of embracing the NIE and engaging Iran, it has not only rejected the NIE (in a speech in the Gulf, Bush specifically noted that he did not agree with the NIE) but he has also increased the burden on Iran.

In other words, instead of taking us further from confrontation, he has actually brought us closer. Think of it this way, after the NIE report came out, Bush was asked by one reporter whether he definitively believed that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon. In response, he states "...yeah, I believe [Iran] want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon."

In his classic rhetorical moment, he summed up the administration's position on Iran: "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Now here's the point, the funny thing about knowledge is that the same knowledge needed to develop a peaceful civilian program which is perfectly legal under the NPT and in fact encouraged by the negotiating party is identical to the knowledge needed to develop a nuclear weapon. In fact, it is well known that every one of the 50+ countries in the world who have "nuclear know-how" have the knowledge to also build nuclear weapons.

So what Bush is really trying to do is deny Iran what they are perfectly entitled to under international law and under international agreements that the U.S. itself has signed onto. This makes the position by the U.S. not only irresponsible and unagreeable, but ultimately it makes it much more dangerous.

In many ways, this type of rhetoric is seeking to create a difficult international distinction between "states we like" and "states we don't like." Utilizing that distinction, we will respect international rules and regulations with states we like, but we feel free to throw such negotiated settlements out the door with states we don't like. The product of such a distinction: international anarchy.

The whole point of international treaties, like the NPT, is to create a framework by which states at odds can negotiate peacefully. Without respecting the contours of those treaties, the whole notion of international order is thrown out the door. In the end, we might not agree with Iran’s policies and record, but we also should not encourage any country to arbitrarily throw international law out the door in order to seek a resolution that is more politically advantageous to it.

The fact remains that the NIE report conclusively found that Iran is not developing weapons. This should be a time where we are pursuing negotiations, not increasing the line to war. Bush’s advisors should take this measure in hand and pursue the same policy that John F. Kennedy did during the Cuban Missile Crisis: that there is more to lose by not talking than to gain by remaining silent to one another.

[Rasputin]

The Iranian Armed Forces' Chief of Staff says his country's armed forces are ready to teach the US another lesson if it crosses the line.

"America's enmity towards Iran stems from the fact that they know Iran's revolutionary ideology is against their quest for domination," Major General Hassan Firouzabadi told Farsnews in the Iranian holy city of Mashhad.

"We say that our nuclear energy is for peaceful purposes and we have proven it. Those who allege that Iran is a threat have to prove their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has always endangered the illegitimate accumulation of wealth by superpowers," he added.

Commenting on the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which confirmed that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, Firouzabadi said the west is repeating its 'worn-out accusations' about Iran, even after the NIE report was released by the American intelligence community.

He added that Iran's system, which is based on 'logic and Islamic ethics', does not need and has never needed nuclear weapons.

On the policies of other regional states, Firouzabadi said countries seek their own national interests despite the friendly ties they share. However, he added, they must be aware that it will be their turn next, once the US tires of hurling accusations at Iran.

[Rasputin]

The human rights situation in Iran is getting drastically worse. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report that executions in Iran - including instances of stoning - have sharply increased under in the last few years. In addition, using the Bush administration's Iran Democracy Fund as a pretext, Iranian authorities have clamped down on Iran's civil society with thousands of arrests.

As Washington’s foreign policy elite is concluding that negotiations with Tehran lie in America’s strategic interest, it is also important to recognize that it lies in the US’s long-term interest to make any improvements in relations with Iran contingent upon Tehran’s adherence to the UN human rights deceleration.

This approach will enable Washington to develop a stake in Iran's future and ultimate stability, but not a stake in the survival of the Iranian theocracy.

This argument was developed in greater detail in my op:ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer earlier this week:

Bush administration has fueled the human-rights abuses in Iran

The Bush administration's apparent disregard for the expressed wishes of Iranian human-rights defenders has made a bad situation worse. When it comes to human rights in the Middle East, the Bush administration has claimed to walk the walk. But that walk clearly has a limp.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report that executions in Iran - including instances of stoning - have sharply increased under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In addition, using the Bush administration's Iran Democracy Fund as a pretext, Iranian authorities have clamped down on Iran's civil society with thousands of arrests.

The $75 million Iran Democracy Fund, first appropriated in 2006, was reappropriated in December despite loud protests by human rights and democracy champions. Human rights workers argue that this "regime change slush fund" has facilitated the Ahmadinejad government's latest wave of abuses.

Washington has dismissed these protests, putting Iranian human-rights defenders in a double bind. While they recognize that the absence of diplomacy between Washington and Tehran - and the ensuing tensions - enable the Iranian government to intensify human-rights abuses, activists also fear that U.S.-Iran talks might result in a relationship that mirrors America's relationship with Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Iran under the shah. That is, one in which geopolitical objectives trump concerns about human rights and democracy.

There is a solution to this dilemma.

Washington must restore its own standing on human rights, and put the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran on the table in its discussions with Tehran.

A foreign policy contingent on human rights will create a balance between America's relationship with the people of Iran and its relationship with Iran's unpopular government.

The value of this relationship will yield great strategic objectives for the United States. Namely, any resulting improvements in the U.S. relationship with Iran will be sustainable, rather than tied to the survival of the current regime.

By tying improved relations to Iranian respect for human rights, Washington will develop a stake in Iran's future and ultimate stability, but not a stake in the survival of the Iranian theocracy.

Past foreign policy efforts in the Middle East - namely with America's Arab allies - have failed in this regard. While Arab governments support the American order, Arab streets blame the United States for prolonging the reigns of the dictators who rule them. Unsurprisingly, this creates a dangerous breeding ground for anti-American sentiments and terrorism.

Making Iran's human rights record a condition of gradual improvement of U.S.-Iran relations would help reduce tensions between the two countries without alienating the Iranian people and undermining America's soft power in Iran.

The next president of the United States must recognize the necessity of reducing tensions with Tehran through diplomacy. Fortunately, this strategic goal can be achieved without getting stuck with the theocracy.

Trita Parsi is president of the National Iranian American Council in Washington, D.C. and author of Treacherous Alliance - The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States.

[Rasputin]

استعفای فالون حین گمانه زنی پیرامون اختلاف بر سر ایران


دریاسالار فالون در مارس 2007 جانشین ژنرال جان ابیزید شده بود
دریاسالار ویلیام فالون، فرمانده ارشد نظامی آمریکا در منطقه خاورمیانه در خلال گمانه زنی هایی در مورد شکاف میان او و دولت جورج بوش در مورد سیاست مربوط به ایران از مقام خود استعفا داده است.
رابرت گیتس، وزیر دفاع آمریکا، روز سه شنبه گفت که با درخواست دریاسالار ویلیام فالون برای بازنشستگی زودهنگام موافقت شده است.

این مقام 63 ساله نظامی ماه مارس 2007 پس از خدمت به عنوان فرمانده نیروهای آمریکایی در ناحیه اقیانوس آرام "فرماندهی مرکزی آمریکا" در خاورمیانه را به عهده گرفت.

هفته گذشته مقاله ای در مجله "یو اس اسکوایر" حکایت از آن داشت که آقای فالون با سیاست سرسختانه دولت جورج بوش با ایران مخالف است.

آقای گیتس گفت هرچند با اکراه استعفای آقای فالون را می پذیرد اما فکر می کند تصمیم درستی بوده است.

وزیر دفاع آمریکا افزود هرچند او فکر نمی کند که هیچ اختلاف نظر عمده ای میان دیدگاه های دریاسالار فالون و دولت بوش وجود داشته باشد اما برداشتی شکل گرفته دایر بر این که چنین است.

براساس مقاله نشریه "اسکوایر" آقای فالون با طرح های دولت بوش برای حمله نظامی به ایران مخالف بود.

این مقاله ادعا کرد که دریاسالار فالون با تامل درباره اقدام نظامی علیه ایران مخالف بود و او را "قوی ترین مردی که در سر راه دولت بوش و جنگ با ایران ایستاده بود" توصیف کرد.

براساس بیانیه فرماندهی مرکزی آمریکا، آقای فالون گفت او به دلیل تصورات به وجود آمده در مورد ناهمخوانی نظرات او با رئیس جمهور آمریکا استعفا می دهد چرا که دیگر نمی تواند به شکلی موثر به منافع آمریکا خدمت کند.

وی که درحال سفر در عراق است طی بیانیه ای که دفترش در فلوریدا منتشر کرد نوشت: "گزارش های اخیر مطبوعاتی حاکی از وجود انفصالی میان دیدگاه های من و سیاست های رئیس جمهور است که مانع تمرکز (بر وظایف) در مقطعی حیاتی شده است."

وی افزود: "هرچند من باور ندارم هرگز هیچ اختلافی در زمینه اهداف آن بخش از سیاست های ما که به حیطه مسئولیت های فرماندهی مرکزی مربوط می شود وجود داشته، اما وجود چنین برداشتی مانع می شود تا به طور موثر به منافع آمریکا در ناحیه خدمت کنم."

آقای گیتس هرگونه اشاره ای به اینکه استعفای آقای فالون به معنی برنامه ریزی آمریکا برای رفتن به جنگ با ایران است را "مسخره" خواند.

رئیس جمهور آمریکا نیز طی بیانیه ای به تقدیر از خدمات دریاسالار فالون پرداخت.

"فرماندهی مرکزی" ارتش آمریکا ناحیه ای از شاخ آفریقا تا آسیای میانه را در بر می گیرد و جنگ های عراق و افغانستان در حیطه مسئولیت های آن بوده است.

[Rasputin]

بوش:ايران اعلام كرده است تسليحات هسته اي را براي از بين بردن مردم مي خواهد

كاخ سفيد در تلاش براي كم اهميت عنوان كردن اظهارات جرج دبليو بوش رييس جمهور آمريكا درباره برنامه هسته اي ايران، اين كشور را به تلاش براي توليد بمب هسته اي متهم كرد.

بر اساس اين گزارش به نقل از خبرگزاري فرانسه از واشنگتن، جمهوري اسلامي ايران طي سال هاي اخير تلاش براي دستيابي به تسليحات اتمي را تكذيب كرده است و مي گويد برنامه هسته اي اش تلاشي صلح آميز و غيرنظامي براي تامين نيازهاي برق اين كشور است.

اما بوش در گفتگو با ايستگاه راديويي فارسي زبان تحت كنترل آمريكا گفت، ايران اعلام كرده است تسليحات هسته اي را براي از بين بردن مردم مي خواهد.

بوش به راديو فردا كه از طريق اروپا در ايران پخش مي شود گفت، وي از تلاش ايران براي توسعه برنامه برق هسته اي غيرنظامي اش حمايت كرده است.

براساس متن اين گفتگو كه روز چهارشنبه صورت گرفت و به دست كاخ سفيد رسيده است، بوش اعلام كرد:"اين حق آنهاست كه برنامه برق هسته اي غيرنظامي داشته باشند."

وي تاكيد كرد:"مشكل اين است كه نمي توان به اين دولت براي غني سازي اورانيوم اعتماد كرد اولا به دليل آنكه آنها برنامه پنهاني را در گذشته داشته اند و احتمالا اكنون نيز درحال پنهان كردنش هستند. ثانيا آنها اعلام كرده اند سلاح هسته اي را براي از بين بردن مردم بخشي از خاورميانه مي خواهند."

بر اساس اين گزارش به نقل از خبرگزاري فرانسه از واشنگتن،كاخ سفيد ديروز در تلاش براي كم اهميت عنوان كردن اين اظهارات، اعلام كرد، بوش فقط به صورتي مختصر صحبت كرده است.

گوردون ياندرو سخنگوي امنيت ملي آمريكا اعلام كرد:"رييس جمهور پاسخ هايش را درباره برنامه تسليحات هسته اي محرمانه گذشته ايران و اقدامات حال حاضر اين كشور در غني سازي اورانيوم و آزمايش موشكي بالستيك به اختصار بيان كرده است.

[IranianGuards]

only if they respect the iranian rights

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

BAGHDAD -- A series of conflicts with insurgent groups along Iran's borders may be impelling Tehran to back its own allies in Iraq in what it regards as a proxy war with the U.S., according to security experts and officials in the U.S., Iran and Iraq.

Dozens of Iranian officials, members of the security forces and insurgents belonging to Kurdish, Arab Iranian and Baluch groups have died in the fighting in recent years. It now appears to be heating up once again after an unusually cold and snowy winter.

In recent weeks, Iranians have begun the now-routine bombardment of suspected rebel Iranian Kurd positions in northern Iraq, and guerrillas have claimed incursions into northwestern Iran.

Some Iranians blamed Sunni Arab radicals for an explosion Saturday that killed 12 and injured 202 at a gathering where a preacher criticized the Wahhabi form of Islam that inspires Osama bin Laden.

None of the groups appear to pose a serious threat to Iran, but Tehran regards them as Washington's allies in an effort to pressure it to scale back its nuclear program and withhold support for militant groups fighting Israel. American and Iraqi officials in turn accuse Iran of supporting Shiite Muslim militias and other militant groups in Iraq to keep the U.S. preoccupied and the Baghdad government weak.

Although a U.S. intelligence estimate in December undercut claims that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program and appeared to lower the possibility of a direct military conflict over Iran's uranium enrichment operations, tensions over Iraq have increased. U.S. officials accuse Iran of backing Shiite militias close to cleric Muqtada Sadr that fought Iraqi government forces to a standstill in Basra and Baghdad two weeks ago.

Tempting assets

Analysts say the anti-Iranian groups are tempting assets for the U.S. They say it would be a surprise if the groups were not receiving U.S. funding, but that the strategy would probably not work.

"It will give more encouragement to Iran's hard-liners to step up their own efforts to assist anti-American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst now at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

Among the most active groups is the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, known by its Kurdish acronym, PEJAK. It has hundreds of well-trained fighters along with camps in northern Iraq.

Iranian soldiers guarding the border are sometimes ambushed by PEJAK fighters. Iran responds with artillery attacks that send Iraqi villagers scurrying for cover. Border s***mishes last summer and fall between Iranian security forces and PEJAK left dozens dead on both sides.

PEJAK emerged this decade as an Iranian offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, an armed group formed to fight a separatist war against the Turkish government.

Former members say PEJAK was meant to circumvent Western restrictions on contacts with the PKK, which has been labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department and the European Union.

"The PKK wanted to have a relationship with America, so it formed and used PEJAK," said Mamand Rozhe, a former commander who defected from the group four years ago.

U.S. military officials visited PEJAK's camps in northern Iraq just after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, said Osman Ocalan, a brother of the PKK's imprisoned leader and a founder of PEJAK.

"Since the beginning, we thought we would get the American help," said Ocalan, who left the group two years ago. "And it's a good relationship now. . . . They are in talks with each other, and there is some military assistance."

Ocalan and others say U.S. help has included foodstuffs, economic assistance, medical supplies and Russian military equipment, some of it funneled through nonprofit groups. Every two or three months, U.S. military vehicles can be seen entering PKK and PEJAK strongholds, Ocalan said.

"There's no systematic relationship, no number to call," he said. "Americans do not intend to have an official relationship. Whenever there's any kind of question by the Turks, they can say we don't have a relationship."

A PEJAK leader, Abdul Rahman Haji-Ahmadi, was publicly given a cold shoulder when he went to Washington last summer.

PEJAK's activities may have created obstacles for those working inside Iran for peaceful change. Dozens of Kurdish activists in Iran have been thrown in jail on charges of supporting the rebel group.

[Rasputin]

تابناک:جان مک کين، نامزد جمهوريخواهان در انتخابات رياست جمهوری آمريکا خواستار آن شد که در صورت معلق نشدن برنامه اتمی ايران تحريم های جديدی عليه تهران اعمال شود.

مک کين که در نشست سالانه آيپک، لابی قدرتمند آمريکا � اسرائيل سخن می گفت از جمله خواستار اعمال محدوديت هايی در زمينه فروش بنزين به ايران شد.

اين سناتور ايالت آريزونا بار ديگر به باراک اوباما، رقيب احتمالی دمکرات خود در انتخابات رياست جمهوری آينده حمله کرد و اظهارات او در باره مذاکره با تهران را يک ,بازخوانی غلط از تاريخ, توصيف کرد.

وی گفت: ,پيگيری (ساخت) سلاح اتمی از سوی تهران يک ريسک و خطر غير قابل قبول است که ما نمی توانيم اجازه طرح آن را بدهيم.,

نامزد جمهوريخواهان افزود: ,به جای نشستن پشت ميز مذاکره با رييس جمهوری و يا رهبر ايران بدون پيش شرط و با اين اميدواری که می توانيم با آنها در برخی موارد گفت وگو کنيم، ما بايد يک فشار واقعی جهانی ايجاد کنيم که به صورت صلح آميز و موثر راهی را که آنها دنبال می کنند، تغيير دهد.,

به گفته مک کين، ,سختگيری بين المللی عليه واردات بنزين توسط ايران به علاوه تحريم های شديدتر مالی عليه بانک های ايران، محدوديت صدور ويزا در سطح جهانی و مسدود کردن دارايی های اين کشور کمک خواهد کرد تا ذهنيت مقامات ايران تغيير کند.,

وی اظهار داشت: ,يک محدوديت شديد بر واردات بنزين توسط ايران فشاری فوری را بر مقامات ايران برای تغيير روش خود وارد خواهد کرد و ادامه برنامه سلاح های اتمی را متوقف می کند.,

نامزد جمهوريخواهان همچنين به باراک اوباما، سناتور ايليونيز و از نامزدهای حزب دمکرات در انتخابات به دليل پيشنهاد او برای ديدار و مذاکره با رهبران ايران حمله کرد.

اردوگاه انتخاباتی باراک اوباما در هفته های گذشته بارها به موضع گيری عليه جان مک کين پرداخته و او را متهم کرده دنباله رو سياست های جرج بوش، رييس جمهوری آمريکا است.

اوباما می گويد که سياست های دولت کنونی آمريکا در خاورميانه تنها باعث قدرتمند تر شدن ايران شده است.

[Rasputin]

TEHRAN, Iran - On a recent afternoon, while riding a rickety bus down Tehran's main thoroughfare, I overheard two women discussing the grim state of Iranian politics. One of them had reached a rather desperate conclusion. "Let the Americans come," she said loudly. "Let them sort things out for us."

Although their leaders still call America the "Great Satan," ordinary Iranians' affection for the United States seems to be thriving these days, at least in the bustling capital. This rekindled regard is evident in people's conversations, their insatiable demand for US products and culture, and their fascination with the US presidential campaign.

One can't do reliable polling about Iranians' views under their theocratic government, of course, but these shifts were still striking to me as a longtime visitor – not least because liking the US is also a way for Iranians to register their frustration with their own firebrand president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

It might startle some Americans to realize that Iran has one of the most pro-American populations in the Middle East. Iranians have adored America for nearly three decades, a sentiment rooted in nostalgia for Iran's golden days, before the worst of the shah's repression and the 1979 Islamic revolution. But today's affection is new, or at least different.

Starting in about 2005, Iranians' historic esteem for the US gave way to a deep ambivalence that is only now ending. President Bush's post-9/11 wars of liberation on both of Iran's borders rattled ordinary Iranians, and Washington's opposition to Iran's nuclear program added to their resentment. In early 2006, when I lived in Iran as a journalist, I had only to step outdoors to hear the complaints.

It was a time when Iranians of all ages and backgrounds united in their pique against the US, turning their backs on its traditions and culture. But on a recent trip to Iran, I found a shift in sentiment.

The most interesting aspect of the revival of warm feelings today is that the US has done so little to earn them. Instead, Iranians' renewed pro-American sentiments reflect the depth of their alienation from their own rulers. As a family friend put it: "It's a matter of being drawn to the opposite of what you can't stand."

I lived in Iran until last summer and experienced all the reasons why Mr. Ahmadinejad has replaced the US as Iranians' top object of vexation. Under his leadership, inflation has spiked at least 20 percent, according to nongovernment analysts – thanks to Ahmadinejad's expansionary fiscal policies, which inject vast amounts of cash into the economy.

Inflation has hit the real estate market particularly hard. Housing prices have surged by nearly 150 percent, according to real estate agents. For most Iranians, previously manageable rents have become tremendous burdens.

I watched Ahmadinejad on television as he addressed Iranians from the holy city of Qom. He blamed everyone – the hostile West, a domestic "cigarette mafia" – for the economic downturn, just as he had previously claimed that a "housing mafia" was driving up real estate prices.

Many Iranians who initially believed this kind of conspiracy talk now admit that the president's policies and obstinacy are actually at fault. In a sign that even the regime is growing impatient, one of Ahmadinejad's chief rivals – former top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani – was elected speaker of Iran's parliament last week by an overwhelming majority.

To add to Iranians' weariness, there are the interminable lines that have accompanied the government's new gas-rationing scheme. Ahmadinejad has insinuated that the unpopular plan was a precaution against possible Western sanctions, but most people I spoke with considered it another instance of his administration's mismanagement.

Beyond the new penury, Ahmadinejad has also resurrected unpopular invasions into Iranians' private lives. On the second day of my trip, newspapers announced that police would begin raiding office buildings and businesses to ensure that women were wearing proper Islamic dress. On the third day, police swept our street to confiscate illegal satellite dishes. "I'm going to miss 'American Idol,' " a neighbor sighed, fiddling with her satellite dish.

Yet another issue helping to restore Iranians' regard for the US is the withering relevance of Iran's suspected nuclear program. At the height of his popularity, Ahmadinejad successfully rallied public support around the program with catchy slogans such as, "Nuclear energy is our absolute right." But that defiance failed to win Iran much more than the disagreeable whiff of global-pariah status, moving many Iranians to reconsider the costs of nuclear enrichment.

Of course, a minority of Iranians still hate the Great Satan. But the strain of anti-Americanism in Iran is more mellow than the rage found elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world.

The Palestinian cause is less deeply felt here, making it easier for even Washington's critics to view relations pragmatically. Most Iranians belong to generations with compelling reasons to admire the US.

Those old enough to remember the shah's era are nostalgic for the prosperity and international standing Iran once enjoyed; those born after the revolution see no future for themselves in today's Iran and adopt their parents' gilded memories as their own.

These longings have young and old Iranians alike following the US election. Most favor Sen. Barack Obama, who they believe will patch up relations with Iran.

But the mullahs in power still can't figure out how to stop being US-hating revolutionaries. Until they do, most people here will consider the "Great Satan" just great.

[Rasputin]

متكي: مشاركت آمريكا در گفتگوهاي اتمي مثبت است


آقاي اسد ابراز ترديد كرده كه دخالتش بتواند كمكي به حل مناقشه هسته اي ايران و غرب كند
منوچهر متكي، وزير امور خارجه ايران تصميم آمريكا براي مشاركت در گفتگوهاي هسته اي ايران را "مثبت" ارزيابي كرد و افزود كه ايران از همكاري هاي سازنده در گفتگوهاي روز شنبه استقبال مي كند.
قرار است ويليام برنز، معاون وزارت امور خارجه آمريكا براي اولين بار در گفتگوهاي روز شنبه كه در ژنو بين خاوير سولانا، مسئول سياست خارجي اتحاديه اروپا، و سعيد جليلي، سرپرست مذاكرات هسته اي ايران، انجام مي شود، حضور يابد.

گفتگوهاي ژنو درباره بسته پيشنهادي گروه 1+5 به ايران است.

آقاي متكي، اين سخنان را در يك كنفرانس خبري در دمشق عنوان كرد.

وزير امور خارجه ايران امروز(پنج شنبه، 17 ژوئيه) وارد سوريه شد و در بدو ورود به اين كشور گفت كه درباره "تازه ترين تحولات خاور ميانه" با بشار اسد، رئيس جمهور سوريه، گفتگو مي كند.

گفته مي شود كه مناقشه هسته اي ايران يكي از محورهاي گفتگوهاي آقاي متكي و آقاي اسد است.

آقاي اسد پيشتر گفته بود كه به درخواست فرانسه، درباره راههاي حل بحران هسته اي ايران با آقاي متكي گفتگو خواهد كرد.

نيكولا ساركوزي، رئيس جمهور فرانسه، چند روز پيش در پاريس با بشار اسد ديدار كرد.

ايران و سوريه متحدان نزديكي هستند اما آقاي اسد ابراز ترديد كرده كه پا درمياني او كمكي به حل مناقشه بين ايران و كشورهاي غربي كند.

در همين حال امروز كاندوليزا رايس، وزير امور خارجه آمريكا نيز در گفتگو با خبرنگاران درباره گفتگوهاي آقاي جليلي و آقاي سولانا درباره بسته پيشنهادي گروه 1+5 گفت كه نمي داند آيا ايران به اين بسته پاسخ مثبت خواهد داد يا نه.

او همچنين گفت: "مقصود ما اين است كه نشان دهيم آمريكا به شدت حامي اين ديپلماسي و حامي متحدانش است. ما اميدوارم كه ايراني ها اين پيام ما را دريافت كنند."

مذاكره درباره ايران در تركيه

از سوي ديگر، وزارت امور خارجه تركيه اعلام كرده كه مشاور امنيت ملي جورج بوش، رئيس جمهور آمريكا در حال گفتگو درباره ايران است.

او گفته كه استفان هدلي با علي باباجان، وزير امور خارجه تركيه، ديدار كرده و قرار است با رجب طيب اردوغان، نخست وزير اين كشور نيز گفتگو كند.

آقاي باباجان گفته كه تركيه در هفته جاري ميزبان گفتگوهايي درباره پرونده هسته اي ايران خواهد بود.

[Rasputin]

مذاكرات هسته*اي ايران در ژنو با حضور آمريكا


در مذاكرات ژنو، پاسخ ايران به بسته پيشنهادي مورد بررسي قرار مي گيرد
مذاكرات ايران و كشورهاي موسوم به پنج بعلاوه يك در حالي در ژنو سوئيس آغاز شده كه براي اولين بار آمريكا نيز ديپلماتي به اين مذاكرات اعزام كرده است.
گفتگوهاي سعيد جليلي، مذاكره كننده ارشد هسته اي ايران و خاوير سولانا، مسئول سياست خارجي اتحاديه اروپا با حضور ديپلمات هايي از آمريكا، بريتانيا، آلمان، فرانسه، چين و روسيه صورت مي گيرد.

يك ساعت پس از آغاز مذاكرات طرفين، يك عضو هيات اعزامي ايران بار ديگر موضع اين كشور مبني بر قابل قبول نبودن درخواست تعليق غني سازي را تكرار كرد.

تعليق فعاليت هاي غني سازي اورانيوم، خواسته اصلي اين كشورها از ايران است كه در ازاي آن مشوق هاي امنيتي، اقتصادي و سياسي به اين كشور داده مي شود اما ايران غني سازي را از جمله حقوق هسته اي خود دانسته و توقف و تعليق آن را رد كرده است.



حضور ويليام برنز، سومين ديپلمات ارشد آمريكا در اين گفتگوها، به گمان بسياري از كارشناسان، تغيير در سياست آمريكا در برابر ايران به شمار مي رود.
پس از انقلاب اسلامي در سال ۱۹۷۹ و گروگان گيري در سفارت آمريكا در تهران، دو كشور روابط ديپلماتيك را قطع كردند و از آن پس چنين رابطه اي برقرار نشده است.

تماس ميان مقام هاي دو كشور طي اين سال ها بسيار محدود بوده است. سال پيش سفراي دو كشور در آمريكا درباره مسايل امنيتي عراق به گفتگوهاي مستقيم روي آوردند.

ديويد ميليبند، وزير امور خارجه بريتانيا از حضور آقاي برنز در مذاكرات ژنو ابراز خشنودي كرده و گفته است كه اين حضور نشان مي دهد كه غرب به دنبال يك راه حل از طريق مذاكره است.

در مذاكرات ژنو، پاسخ ايران به بسته پيشنهادي مورد بررسي قرار مي گيرد.


سعيد جليلي و ويليام برنز در نشست ژنو

بتاني بل، خبرنگار بي بي سي كه در ژنو است، مي گويد ايراني ها ممكن است در مورد افزايش روند غني سازي تجديدنطر كنند.

ديپلمات ها به دنبال راه حل "تعليق در برابر تعليق" هستند. طبق اين روش، ايران فعاليت هاي غني سازي خود را گسترش نمي دهد و غرب نيز تحريم ها عليه ايران را شديدتر نمي كند.

مقام هاي ايراني ابراز اميدواري كرده اند كه اين مذاكرات به نتيجه مثبتي منجر شود.

اين مقام ها درباره حضور آمريكا در اين نشست واكنش نشان داده و سعيد جليلي، دبير شوراي عالي امنيت ملي گفته است: "بيش از اينكه چه افرادي حضور مي يابند، نوع رويكرد است كه اهميت دارد."

منوچهر متكي وزير خارجه ايران هم گفتگوهاي ژنو و حضور يك ديپلمات آمريكايي در اين مذاكرات را مثبت خوانده است.

گروه ۱+۵ با عضويت ايالات متحده، روسيه، چين، بريتانيا، فرانسه و آلمان رهبري تلاش هاي بين المللي براي حل بحران هسته اي ايران را برعهده دارد.

آمريكا پيش از اين تاكيد كرده بود تا زماني كه جمهوري اسلامي به قطعنامه هاي شوراي امنيت عمل نكند، در مذاكرات اين گروه با جمهوري اسلامي شركت نخواهد كرد.

قطعنامه هاي شوراي امنيت از ايران مي خواهد بخشي از فعاليت هاي هسته اي خود، به خصوص در زمينه غني سازي اورانيوم را تا زمان كسب اطمينان جامعه جهاني از صلح آميز بودن اين فعاليت ها به حالت تعليق در آورد.

با وجود وضع برخي تحريم هاي بين المللي عليه ايران، جمهوري اسلامي اين قطعنامه ها را رد كرده و با تاكيد بر ادامه غني سازي اورانيوم به عنوان حق انكار ناپذير اين كشور، به فعاليت خود در اين زمينه ادامه داده است.

[Rasputin]

Rice wants "serious answer" from Iran

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran on Monday that it faced more sanctions if it defied a two-week deadline to agree to curb its nuclear program.

Rice said Iran was stalling and must give a "serious answer" within the deadline set by six world powers which offered trade and technical incentives if Tehran halts its uranium enrichment. The West fears Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb.

"We are in the strongest possible position to demonstrate that if Iran does not act then it is time to go back to that (sanctions) track," Rice said,

It was her first comment on the subject since Washington broke from usual policy and joined nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva on Saturday.

Rice, speaking to reporters on her way to Abu Dhabi en route to Asia, said the United States would impose more bilateral sanctions on Iran and the Europeans would look at what they could do if Iran failed to meet the world powers' demand.

"The main thing is we will have to start considering what we do in New York," she said, referring to the Security Council which has imposed three rounds of sanctions on Iran.

Envoys from the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain -- the so-called sextet of world powers -- attended the Geneva meeting.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, said at the next meeting Iran would not discuss the demand to freeze its sensitive atomic work which the West fears is aimed at making bombs. Iran says its aims are peaceful.
But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave an upbeat assessment on Sunday. "Any negotiation that takes place is a step forward," he told reporters, according to IRNA news agency.

A senior Iranian official said Iran was ready to respond to any positive U.S. overture but it was unclear whether Washington had decided between diplomacy and force.

The U.S. government was "indecisive about whether to lean on diplomacy or the military option", said Deputy Foreign Minister Alireza Sheikh-Attar, according to the student news agency ISNA on Monday.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, briefed by Jalili in Istanbul on Sunday, said: "There is no reason to be hopeless. The process continues but it would not be right to raise expectations too high."

NO MORE "SMALL TALK"

Rice said Iran's envoy to Saturday's talks, attended by senior U.S. diplomat William Burns, engaged in small talk rather than address the central issue of the sextet offer.

"I understand that it was at times meandering," Rice said.

She said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana "clarified" Iran's choices at the talks.

"It was also a very strong message to the Iranians that they can't go and stall and make small talk and talk about culture and that they have to make a decision," said Rice.
Burns will brief Rice during her one-night stopover in Abu Dhabi, where she will meet her counterparts from Gulf countries, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan on Monday to discuss Iran and other issues.

U.S. attendance at the Geneva talks was an about-face and comes as Washington is considering whether to open an interest section in Tehran, which would allow for diplomatic contact while falling short of diplomatic ties.

The United States broke ties with Iran nearly 30 years ago.

"We are always looking for ways to relate to the Iranian people and to make it easier for them to relate to us," said Rice. She said such a move should not be seen as a thawing of relations.

Rice said there were no plans to join further nuclear talks unless Iran met conditions to give up the enrichment work. She said the decision to join the Geneva talks was to show U.S. commitment to the incentives offer to Iran.

"I think we have done enough to demonstrate that the United States is serious and to assure our partners that we are serious and to show the Iranians that we are serious. I think we have done enough," Rice said.

[Rasputin]

It might seem like the US consul setting up shop in Iran is only going to help those who need visas to avoid having to go to Dubai anymore. But as small overtures always do, they end up becoming far more than they started out to be. This time there seems to be a huge wave of good karma pointed at this latest ray of hope.

On one side you have the legitimizing effect of giving one of the most brutal and murderous empires Persia ever had, regional credibility, and the tough admission that the US policy of isolation for the past 30 years, was wrong.

On the other side, you now have the beginnings of the slow start to the discussion of what you expect Iran to become, namely the moderation of Iran towards the Western notion of what a "civilized country" is. Complete with a calm and mature dialog on what real democracy is.

Both sides of the coin have pros and cons, but there is also precisely the greater risk of pros and cons, or professional con artists on both sides who only want to outwit and out-gamble and outlive the other, regardless of the stakes.

Unfortunately there is no indication that the used car salesmen on both sides, eager to sell their countries long term interests for their own short term gains, are capable of putting aside their greed and ambitions long enough to bring about the kind of idealistic fairy tale relationship of peace that the people of Iran and the US dream of.

Proof? The meetings have been and will continue to be behind closed doors and we the people, will never hear any actual live dialog of the talks openly, and the resulting press conference afterwards will describe the goings on as merely "cordial and productive".

Just enough to give the people hope, keep them docile, and waiting.

For now though we Iranians and Americans sit and wait and hope that somehow, out of this usual den of suspect vipers, good will finally find a way.

[Rasputin]

If you favor a forward, nonviolent strategy to tackle the Middle Eastern challenges of the 21st century, “diplomacy” is the only game in town. To illustrate my claim that, for us liberals of the Middle East, talk or negotiation with adversaries has become the only alternative for ending a row that has triggered regional tension, I shall discuss the recent shift in the US policy toward Iran.

When Senator Barack Obama expressed his readiness to pursue diplomacy with America’s adversaries should he win the November election, President Bush was quick to denounce such plans to engage the enemy, saying: “We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

On the contrary, various other great politicians—political figures who wanted to refrain from war—have done that. One of the key turning points in the peace process in the Middle East was Anwar Sadat’s momentous journey to Jerusalem in 1977 to meet face-to-face with Menachem Begin. Another notable diplomatic breakthrough was the establishment of diplomatic relations between the US and Communist China. This was surely the result of Henry Kissinger’s and Richard Nixon’s readiness to go to Beijing for direct negotiations with Mao Zedong.

The attendance of Under Secretary of State William Burns in the Geneva talks is, indeed, a sign of not appeasement, but of realism. It is a crack in the US diplomatic door for giving negotiation a chance, or as the Middle Eastern proverb has it: “When the head of the camel enters the tent, the rest of it is bound to follow.”

I can crudely sum up the six-hour meeting by saying that the six world powers asked Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment for a so-called “freeze-for-freeze” offer which, boiled down to its essence says: you suspend your nuclear activities; at the same time we refrain from any new Security Council resolution on sanctions; plus, we work out a multilateral deal to develop nuclear energy for your civilian purpose, and lifting of sanctions.

The Iranians, who are, to put it mildly, still going strong, insisted that “suspension - there is no chance for that.” At the meeting, Iranians did not give a yes-or-no answer to the proposed "freeze-for-freeze" offer. At the same time they urged Western powers not turn away from negotiations. The six diplomats gave Iran two weeks to come up with answer, emphasizing that the given time-period is not an ultimatum.

The Iranian response seems to cancel out the desirability of negotiation over “military confrontation” in resolving the nuclear crisis by providing ammunition for those who advocate that diplomacy as a mean to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear bomb has always been a fantasy: “It will take military means.” In commenting over the US attendance in the Geneva talk, John Bolton, a neoconservative and Mr Bush’s former Ambassador to the UN, told The Times: “This is a complete U-turn and very disappointing to say the least.” (…) “Under the freeze-for-freeze deal Iran only has to not increase its nuclear material. This is an acknowledgment and validation of its existing enrichment activities.”


Of course, proposals to bring nuclear programs under multilateral supervision are neither new nor few in number. What is new is the political space that has recently emerged and become ripped for the implementation of any of these alternative plans. This new political space represents three objective conditions and one subjective one.

First, the December National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) said Tehran had halted development of nuclear weapons in 2003. Moreover, the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report suggests that progress has been made by Iran.

Second, the improvement in US–Iranian relations over Iraq policy, which was the result of direct talks, has given a great boost to the American surge strategy in Iraq.

Third, the failure of the strategy of containment and sanctions to persuade Iran to halt uranium enrichment in line with Security Council demands. Nicholas Burns, US undersecretary of state, believes that “Iran’s work on enrichment - which can produce both nuclear fuel and weapons grade material - was “outpacing” the sanctions.” This is because Iranian political elites rightly believe in what Nietzsche once said: What does not kill me, makes me stronger!

Fourth, for good reason, if all credible experts on Iran and the Middle East agree on anything it is this: offer Iran a chance for a resumed relationship (Ray Takeyh and Joseph Cirincione); make a direct, unconditional talks between Washington and Tehran (Reuel Marc Gerecht); and, the reward of such negotiations will be a more stable and peaceful Middle East (William Luers, Thomas R. Pickering, Jim Walsh).

Napoleon once said to understand the policy of a country, look at the map. Unlike most states in the region, Iran was not born this century. It is the world’s second-oldest state after China. If the US offers Iran nothing but sticks, the Iranians are going to say, “Screw you and the horse you rode in on.”