Nuclear Crisis

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

An Iranian offer to negotiate on its nuclear programme falls short of UN demands, the US has said.
Iran had offered "serious talks" in response to a package of incentives offered if it halted uranium enrichment by 31 August.

But the US said suspension of research was required first, echoing French comments. China and Russia said earlier that talks were the only way forward.

Iran could face sanctions, amid claims it is making a bomb - which it denies.

The Iranians know the rules of the game: first a suspension of sensitive nuclear activities

Philippe Douste-Blazy
French Foreign Minister

The US, UK, Russia, China, France and Germany offered Iran the package of incentives - including help with civilian nuclear technology - in exchange for suspending enrichment.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said on Tuesday that his country was ready for "serious talks" on the issue - but did not give any more details.

In Washington, a state department spokesman said the US was consulting closely, including with other members of the Security Council, on the next steps.

"We acknowledge that Iran considers its response as a serious offer, and we will review it," said Gonzalo Gallegos.


Iran says its nuclear programme is for power generation only

"The response, however, falls short of the conditions set by the Security Council, which require the full and verifiable suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy also said fresh talks were dependent on Tehran halting its research.

"The Iranians know the rules of the game: first a suspension of sensitive nuclear activities," he said.

Chinese response

Beijing said it was "carefully studying" Iran's reply.

"China has always believed that seeking a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic talks is the best choice and in the interests of all parties concerned," the Chinese foreign ministry said.

While the US has been playing poker in the region, Iran has been playing chess

Nadim Shehadi
Chatham House expert


Iran 'boosted' by US-led wars
Iranian press defiant
European press berates Iran

Russia echoed the Chinese stance, stressing its commitment to a negotiated solution to the crisis.

BBC state department correspondent Jonathan Beale describes the US response as a carefully worded statement, in that it did not at first appear to dismiss Tehran's offer of "serious talks" completely out of hand.

But the US promise to "review" the offer is more likely to be aimed at reassuring Russia and China than Iran, he says - the US still needs to persuade all members of the UN Security Council that it has been willing to negotiate.

But in the end the US has now made its position clear by stating that Iran's latest offer is still not enough - and that the US is now considering "next steps" - in other words the threat of sanctions, our correspondent adds.

'Nuclear rights'

Iran points out that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) it is entitled to a nuclear power programme and says it has broken no rule.

But the Western powers accuse Iran of concealing an enrichment programme, and Washington has refused to rule out military action.

Meanwhile, a report by UK-based think tank Chatham House says Iran can afford to continue equivocating in the dispute because of its regional supremacy.

The report argues that Iran has emerged as the biggest beneficiary of the US-led "war on terror" in the Middle East.

Recent US-led wars have "eliminated two of Iran's regional rival governments - the Taleban in Afghanistan and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq in April 2003".

[Rasputin]

US in the dark over Iran: Congress intelligence report

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A congressional committee warned of "significant" gaps in US intelligence on Iran, a scenario it said precluded confident assessments on Tehran's alleged weapons of mass destruction programs.

The unclassified report called on US intelligence agencies to offer better information to policymakers in the event of any talks on the current nuclear showdown, or to check compliance with sanctions if negotiations founder.

It was released as tensions between Iran and the United States rose another notch, as the State Department said Tehran's response to an incentives package aimed at ending the standoff fell short of conditions to avoid sanctions.

"There is a great deal about Iran that we do not know," the report, issued by the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said.

"The United States lacks critical information needed for analysts to make many of their judgments with confidence about Iran and there are many significant information gaps," said the report, accompanied by a classified annex.

The committee declined to specify where gaps were evident, saying it did not want to tip off the Iranian government, but added that more needed to be done to decipher Iran's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons efforts, its political and economic strategy, alleged support for terrorism and involvement in fomenting violence in Iraq.

"US policymakers and intelligence officials believe, without exception, that the United States must collect more and better intelligence on a wide range of Iranian issues," the report said.

Complaints about the structure of intelligence collection struck a familiar chord. Huge gaps in US knowledge about Iraq's clandestine programs were exposed after the ouster of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the rationale for war used by the administration of President George W. Bush.

Admitting "American intelligence agencies do not know nearly enough about Iran's nuclear weapons program," the report said the threat had deepened with the election last year of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Though citing evidence that Iran was bent on making nuclear bombs, the committee also raised the possibility that it could be bluffing with a "denial and deception" campaign, similar to that apparently pursued by Saddam Hussein.

Iran has denied it is pressing for nuclear weapons development, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes of energy generation.

Among recommendations, the report said intelligence analysts must challenge conventional wisdom and called on agencies to improve human intelligence -- up-close spying on Iran.

More Farsi speakers should be recruited to work in intelligence, and new efforts launched to frustrate Iranian counter-intelligence operations.

Suspicion in the United States has centered on the role of Tehran in Iraq, and the report called for better US evaluations of any Iranian support for the insurgency.

[Rasputin]

Iran Needs Nuclear Weapons

Paris - Two years ago I did not want Iran to produce nuclear energy for electricity, let alone for its military. Today I've changed my mind. Iran needs nuclear weapons to defend itself.

Back in 2004, I had environmental and political worries about nuclear energy. Low safety standards in Iran, evidenced for example in the extremely high incidences of road accidents, would make anyone nervous about the possibility of another Chernobyl occurring in Iran. Politically, I argued that possessing nuclear weapons would embolden the new government of Iran, which was already exhibiting an unimpressive record on democracy and human rights.

But the events of the past two years -- most notably with what's happening in Iraq, along with last year's presidential election and other unfortunate events in the region -- has left no doubt in my mind, and in the minds of lots of secular Iranians, that the U.S. is behaving more and more like a reckless imperial force in search of new sources of energy and new markets to expand to economically. Therefore, even if Iran becomes the most peaceful, secular and progressive, yet still independent state on the planet, the U.S. would be unable to tolerate it. The U.S. would seek new excuses to topple Iran's government and install their favorite instead.

For this reason, I believe Iran needs to produce nuclear weapons as a defensive mechanism, to deter the U.S. today and the ever-expanding and equally energy-hungry China tomorrow.

Moreover, a nuclear Pakistan has always been a threat to Iran and a source of instability. Radical Wahabi and anti-Shia groups such as Sepah-e Sahabeh have murdered Iranian citizens or diplomats in the past twenty years. They helped create the Taliban, which almost got into war in Iran in late in late 90s.

But making nuclear weapons even for totally defensive purposes is not easy now. Iran could only get away with it by stopping enrichment now, voluntarily normalizing relations with Israel and the U.S., and withdrawing from the NPT. Then it could start making the weapons -- secretly or maybe even publicly. It's only then that the world would tolerate a nuclear Iran.

[Rasputin]

JERUSALEM - With the purchase of two more German-made Dolphin submarines capable of carrying nuclear warheads, military experts say Israel is sending a clear message to Iran that it can strike back if attacked by nuclear weapons.


The purchases come at a time when Iran is refusing to bow to growing Western demands to halt its nuclear program, and after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

The new submarines, built at a cost of $1.3 billion with Germany footing one-third of the bill, have diesel-electric propulsion systems that allow them to remain submerged for longer periods of time than the three nuclear arms-capable submarines already in Israel's fleet, the Jerusalem Post reported.

The latest submarines not only would be able to carry out a first strike should Israel choose to do so, but they also would provide Israel with crucial second-strike capabilities, said Paul Beaver, a London-based independent defense analyst.

Israel is already believed to have that ability in the form of the Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, which are buried so far underground they would survive a nuclear strike, he said.

"The Iranians would be very foolish if they attacked Israel," Beaver said.

German officials have said the contract for the new submarines was signed July 6, and the Jerusalem Post reported this week the subs will be operational shortly.

Israel, operating on a policy of nuclear ambiguity, has never confirmed or denied whether it has nuclear weapons. It is believed, however, to have the world's sixth-largest stockpile of atomic arms, including hundreds of warheads.

Iran so far has resisted calls by the U.N. Security Council to halt uranium enrichment, which can produce, among other things, the material for atomic bombs. The council set an Aug. 31 deadline that is accompanied by the threat of sanctions.

The dispute over Tehran's nuclear program revolves around Iran's insistence it wants to master the technology simply to generate electricity. Critics say Iran wants to make nuclear weapons.

The Dolphin submarine could be one of the best deterrents, Beaver said. The technology on the subs makes them undetectable and gives them defensive capabilities in the case of attack, he said.

"They are very well-built, very well-prepared, lots of interesting equipment, one of the best conventional submarines available," Beaver said. "We are talking about a third string of deterrence capabilities."

Michael Karpin, an expert on Israel's atomic weapons capabilities who published a book on the issue in the United States, said nuclear-armed submarines provide better second-strike capabilities than missiles launched from airplanes.

"Planes are vulnerable, unlike nuclear (armed) submarines that can operate for an almost unlimited amount of time without being struck," Karpin said. "Second-strike capabilities are a crucial element in any nuclear conflict."

In Germany, members of two opposition parties criticized the deal. Winfried Nachtwei, national security spokesman for the Greens, said the decision was wrong because Germany had obtained no guarantee the submarines would not be used to carry nuclear weapons.

"This red line should not be crossed," Nachtwei was quoted as saying by the newspaper Taz. "Otherwise it is a complete renunciation of Germany's policy of non-proliferation."

David Menashri, an Israeli expert on Iran, said Tehran is clearly determined to obtain nuclear weapons and "the purchase of additional Dolphin submarines by Israel is a small footnote in this context."

What also makes Tehran dangerous, Beaver said, is that it may not understand the consequences of carrying out a nuclear strike.

"They (Iran) have a belligerent leadership and that's why Israel is prudent in ensuring that it has that deterrent capability," Beaver said. "What they (the submarines) are is a very good insurance policy."

[Rasputin]

Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami defended his nation's right to the peaceful use of nuclear power, insisting that the Islamic republic had no desire to build an atomic bomb.

"We are seeking a peaceful kind of use of nuclear technology," Khatami told a seminar at the United Nations University in Tokyo, speaking through a translator.

"Iran doesn't want to get access to nuclear weapons. Not at all. We do not need them," said Khatami, a reformist who was president from 1997 to 2005 and has since been replaced by the more hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Khatami reiterated Tehran's view that it has "the legitimate right" to produce energy from nuclear technology as other countries do.

"If they are very much concerned about nuclear weapons, we are a member of NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) and we have signed the protocol," said Khatami, who was in Japan for a conference on religion and peace in Kyoto.

Khatami on Thursday met with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and warned against possible UN sanctions on Iran over its disputed nuclear program, foreign ministry officials said.

Western nations have reacted coolly to Iran's response to an offer by the five permanent Security Council members and Germany of incentives in return for a halt to uranium enrichment.

The standoff over Iran's nuclear program has to be resolved through negotiations, Khatami told Koizumi.

Koizumi said that Japan -- a major importer of Iranian oil -- wants Tehran to take a cooperative stance toward the international community and to suspend uranium enrichment.

The Security Council adopted a resolution last month giving Iran until August 31 to freeze its uranium enrichment programme or face possible sanctions.

Khatami later said in an interview with Japan's public broadcaster NHK that he hoped to visit the United States to encourage dialogue.

"No matter what position I have, I will speak with the same words," he said. "I will speak on peace and friendship."

Washington has said it is considering a visa application by Khatami to visit the capital next month.

He would be the most senior Iranian to visit the United States since the termination of diplomatic relations following the Islamic revolution and takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979.

[Rasputin]

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has inaugurated a new phase of a heavy water reactor project despite Western fears about its nuclear programme.
He said Iran posed no threat to other states, not even its "enemy" Israel.

Heavy water made at Arak will be used to cool a reactor being built that will create a plutonium by-product that could be used to make atomic warheads.

Observers say Iran's move aims to send a signal of defiance days ahead of a UN deadline to halt uranium enrichment.

The US says Tehran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, while Iran says it is building a reactor to supply the country with nuclear power.





Key nuclear sites
The Iranian president toured the site at Arak, 190km (120 miles) south-west of Tehran.


After inaugurating the heavy water plant, he again said Iran would never abandon its nuclear programme, but that nuclear weapons were not its goal.

"Basically, there is no talk of nuclear weapons," he said. "There is no discussion of nuclear weapons. We are not a threat to anybody, even the Zionist regime which is a definite enemy of the people of the region."

ARAK PROJECT
Located at Khondab, some 190km (120 miles) southwest of Tehran
New plant now produces up to 16t of heavy water per year - Iran wants to produce up to 80t a year
Western diplomats say producing heavy water itself does not violate non-proliferation treaties
Water to be used to cool a new research reactor currently under construction
Reactor will produce plutonium by-product that could be used to make atomic warheads
Reactor expected to be completed by 2009
Source: News agencies and Iranian government

The ceremony comes amid mounting international pressure for Iran to suspend its nuclear programme.

Earlier this week, Iran had offered "serious talks" in response to a package of incentives offered if, by 31 August, it halted uranium enrichment - another possible route to nuclear weapons.

However, the US said suspension of research was required first, echoing French comments. China and Russia said earlier that talks were the only way forward.

Iran could face sanctions if it does not suspend its nuclear programme.

'Bone of contention'

BBC regional analyst Pam O'Toole says the heavy water reactor project at Arak has long been a bone of contention between Iran and some Western governments.

Arak was one of two Iranian nuclear facilities whose existence was revealed by an exiled Iranian opposition group four years ago. At that stage Iran had failed to declare its existence to the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.

The IAEA later called on Iran to reconsider construction of its heavy water reactor project.

[Rasputin]

The Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy has prepared a report to the House Select Committee on Intelligence that is sharply critical of US intelligence, implying that intelligence agencies are unwilling to draw the appropriate lessons about Iran. There were stories about this subject in the Washington Post and the New York Times on August 24. The original document can be found here.

In preparation for an interview with VOA, I read through most of the document. If you read to the end of the text, pp. 24-5, you will find a series of exceptionally bland recommendations (need better analysis, more Farsi speakers, more translation, more human intelligence, etc.) that have been voiced repeatedly by serious observers of the intelligence community.

But that is not the purpose of this "study," which is really intended as a sort of Team B report of what at least one Hill staffer believes the intelligence community should be reporting on Iran. (The staffer is Frederick Fleitz, a former CIA officer who had been a special assistant to John Bolton but who lost his job when Bolton was excessed at the time when Condi Rice came to the State Dept.; so this report can reasonably be seen as the world -- and Iran -- according to Bolton and his associates.)

If you are going to take on the entire US intelligence community, it is a very good idea to at least get your basic facts straight. On a very quick reading, I found a statement on p. 9 claiming that the 164 centifuges at the Iranian Natanz site are "currently enriching uranium to weapons grade." There is no evidence whatsoever that this is true -- and a lot of evidence that the tiny bit of enriched uranium produced at this site was reactor grade (c. 2.5%? vs weapons grade c. 95%?). It may be true that Fleitz, and perhaps many in the neo-con community, suspect that weapons grade enrichment is either covertly underway or is planned, but their suspicions should not be allowed to substitute for facts.

Throughout the report, there is careful documentation of any & all criticism that the IAEA inspectors have produced or any questions that they may have raised about Iran's performance. However, there is no mention at all of any of the IAEA conclusions that they find no evidence of weapons production or activity. Some people will recall that the IAEA inspectors, in their caution, were closer to the truth about Iraqi WMD than, say, the Vice President's office.

The summary of the study claims that Iran has "the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East," and it focuses attention on the 1300-km Iranian Shahab-3 missile and its possible future development for carrying a nuclear warhead, including a handy map of exaggerated ranges for the Shahab-3 and (as yet non-existent) Shahab-4 demonstrating that everything from Monaco to Moscow to Mumbai is vulnerable to Iranian strikes.

A very quick check of the study's own sources revealed that Iran has "some" Shahab-3 missiles, but probably not more than a handful. By contrast Israel has 50 ballistic missiles with range greater than the Shahab and configured for nuclear warheads that are stored "nearby." Saudi Arabia, we need to recall, has 40-60 long-range missiles, each with a range of 2650 km and all capable of carrying a 2500 kg warhead, clearly the largest inventory of its kind in the Middle East.

The author of this repoprt did not have the time or inclination to talk to any of the intelligence organizations that he was indicting. If he had, he might at least have caught some of the embarrassing bloopers in the text. Yet the report was rushed to public release in order to coincide with Iran's reply to the Europeans (for maximum publicity impact), without even waiting for it to be reviewed by the full committee.

The irony, therefore, is stunning when Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who heads the House Committee, explained the rush by commenting that "We want to avoid another 'slam dunk.'" The famous "slam dunk" judgment on Iraq's WMD was, of course, the result of selective reading of available intelligence (which some call cherry-picking), plus a willingness by some to subordinate the (often prosaic) facts to (sensational) ideological conviction.

That is exactly what has happened in this report. It is a sloppy attempt to lay the ground for another slam dunk judgment and a potential rush to war. It deserves to be recognized for what it is.

[Rasputin]

With the main stream media maligning Iran and its nuclear program, a discussion of facts is desperately needed. Listening to any talking head on any major American news outlet, and you'll undoubtedly hear someone bemoaning, "Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions."[1][2] Noticeably absent from all these statements is "alleged." and alleged is exactly what it is, but from the way the MSM presents it, we are left to conclude that Iran is but a few days from creating a Persian Gulf Godzilla.

Let’s start off with Iran’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT). Iran is to abide by "a safeguards agreement with the [international atomic energy agency (IAEA)], with a view to preventing diversion of 'source or special fissionable material' to the production of nuclear weapons. It is the IAEA's responsibility to make certain that materials are used in furtherance of any military purpose."[3] Iran did fail to report the reemergence of its nuclear program to the IAEA, and only after it was brought to attention by an Iranian opposition group, did Iran acknowledge the program. Iran’s defense of this revolves around two points:

1. Iran maintains that all of its work and materials obtained has been for the sole purpose of producing nuclear energy, and outside of procedural reporting, has been in compliance with the "substantive obligation under the NPT." [4] And more importantly...

2. A real concern over a united states pre-emptive action, whether through, "sanctions against those facilities, military, covert or otherwise."[5]

Iran has never denied its violation of the safeguard agreements, and indeed made extraordinary effort to "build confidence" in its nuclear program's intentions. They even went as far as signing a voluntary additional protocol, to extend "transparency measures" and to temporarily suspend enrichment. Since that signing in February 2003, "the IAEA’s inspectors have been conducting over 2000 person-day of intrusive investigation into the nature and extent of Iran’s nuclear program."[3].

For these measures that Iran voluntarily implemented while negotiations were in progress Iran was rewarded with a big fat "screw you." minor concessions by the eu3 were offered, but the major sticking points for Iran: security guarantees, frozen assets released and sanctions lifted were all dismissed. [6] Essentially it boiled down to the eu3 telling Iran, "we don't mind you having a nuclear program, we just want you to buy the fuel from someone else, and in return we won't even stop the United States from threatening regime change on a daily basis. Now doesn't that sound good?" well, for some reason Iran didn't really care for that, and withdrew partially from the additional protocol, and began limited enrichment under the watch of the IAEA.

It should be noted once more that aside from Iran’s initial breach in procedural reporting, it has been in compliance with the NPT. Under the NPT, which the United States recognizes and is a signatory, Iran has an "inalienable right" to nuclear power. We have to wonder what then, the bush administration means by, "it is obvious that if Iran cannot be brought to live up to its international obligations... Iran would have to be referred to the UN Security Council."[7] What obligations are they talking about?

All suspensions of enrichment were from the outset a non-binding, voluntary process. Under the legal terms of the NPT, Iran is well within its rights.

According to article IV (1) of the NPT:

"nothing in this treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the parties to the treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes..."

furthermore, in article IV (2):

"all the parties to the treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful use of nuclear energy." [4]

Yet western powers, in particular the United States, have remained suspicious of Iran’s intentions even though Iran has remained within its clear legal rights under the NPT. in fact the United States has already made good of its threat, and strong armed the IAEA into referring Iran to the un security council. This despite the fact that the "IAEA have found no conclusive evidence to support allegations of a clandestine nuclear weapons program in Iran." [4] by referring Iran, the IAEA has show itself willing to be manipulated, and is ultra vires under article xii(7)(c) of its own statute.[4] in response Iran, as it said it would if referred to the un, ceased to comply with the voluntary NPT additional protocol.

In February of 2006, under constant threat of attack, increased sanctions, and regime change from the United States and Israel, with no substantial concessions from the eu3, and the IAEA showing itself willing to be manipulated, Iran started up again a limited enrichment program. Today on august 26th, a new phase in a heavy water reactor was begun.

In both instances Iran has been accused of violating its obligations (implicit in this rhetoric is a material breach of the NPT, when in fact it is the additional protocols that are being referred to) by western powers. A second, and what seems to be a more comprehensive incentives package was sent to Iran in July. The fine details of which are not known. On august 22nd, Iran responded in length to these incentives, the details of which are also unknown.

Iran’s charge of un threats as illegal are not diversion tactics as portrayed in the west, but hold true under the slightest of scrutiny. The UN Security Council should not have even entertained the Iranian nuclear program agenda without proof from the IAEA, which in absence, was impossible to provide. What can be reasonably speculated is Iran will not be willing to suspend its enrichment program again; this of course being the key demand by the UN Security Council.

Iran, during its previous suspension lost years of research and received nothing to show for it. Iran has every reason to distrust the west. They know full well that should they accept importing nuclear fuel as a compromise, at anytime, for any reason, they can be cutoff, and left holding absolutely nothing. it may not take long for Iran to remove itself entirely from the NPT, as it has proved itself ineffective and unproductive; and I predict the united states will use that as a rallying cry as "proof" of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Because, if they have nothing to hide, why would they withdraw? Right?

[Rasputin]

U.S. May Curb Iran

With increasing signs that several fellow Security Council members may stall a United States push to penalize Iran for its nuclear enrichment program, Bush administration officials have indicated that they are prepared to form an independent coalition to freeze Iranian assets and restrict trade.

The strategy, analysts say, reflects not only long-standing U.S. frustration with the Security Council's inaction on Iran, but also the current weakness of Washington's position because of its controversial role in a series of conflicts in the Middle East, most recently in Lebanon.

Despite assurances from Russia and China in July that they would support initial sanctions against Iran if it failed to suspend aspects of its nuclear program, Russia seemed to backtrack this week after Tehran agreed to continue talks, but refused to halt enrichment. A Security Council resolution gives the Islamic Republic until Aug. 31 to stop uranium enrichment, which could provide fuel to produce electricity or possibly atomic weapons, or face penalties.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov said Friday that as long as Iran was willing to negotiate, it was "premature" to punish the country and perhaps permanently isolate it.

"I do not know cases in international practice or the whole of the previous experience when sanctions reached their goals or were efficient," Ivanov said.

"Apart from this, I do not think that the issue is so urgent that the U.N. Security Council or the group of six countries" — the U.S., China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany — "should consider the introduction of sanctions. In any case Russia continues to advocate a political and diplomatic solution to the problem."

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Iran's response was "not satisfactory" but France wanted to avoid a new conflict that could lead to "a clash of civilizations."

"But the worst thing would be to escalate into a confrontation with Iran on the one hand — and the Muslim world with Iran — and the West," he said on French radio. "That would be the clash of civilizations that France today is practically alone in trying to avoid."

U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton said in an interview late this week that the United States planned to introduce a resolution imposing penalties such as a travel ban and asset freeze for key Iranian leaders soon after the Aug. 31 deadline, and seemed optimistic that China and Russia would agree to it once they saw the text. "Everybody's been on board," he said.

But in case Russia and China do not accept it, the U.S. is working a parallel diplomatic track outside the U.N., Bolton said.

Under U.S. terrorism laws, Washington could ramp up its own sanctions, including financial constraints on Tehran and interception of missile and nuclear materials en route to Iran, Bolton said, and the U.S. is encouraging other countries to follow suit. "You don't need Security Council authority to impose sanctions, just as we have," he said.

The U.S. has had broad restrictions on almost all trade with Iran since 1987. Exceptions include the import of dried fruits and nuts, caviar and carpets. In addition, U.S. companies can obtain licenses to do limited trade in agriculture and medicine. The United States also initiated the Proliferation Security Initiative, involving a coalition of countries that have agreed to intercept shipments of materials to Iran that could be used for weapons of mass destruction.

"We will continue to enhance PSI to cut off flows of materials and technology that are useful to Iran's ballistic missile program and nuclear programs," Bolton said. "We will be constraining financial transactions under existing terrorism laws."

He said Washington was focusing on European and Japanese banks to restrict business with Iran, because most of Tehran's transactions are done in U.S. dollars, euros, British pounds and yen. "There aren't a lot of opportunities to sell in other currencies," he said.

Bolton and U.S. Treasury officials refused to provide details on which countries might be interested, citing the "sensitivity" of the talks.

But Treasury spokeswoman Molly Millerwise said they had already seen results, including Union Bank of Switzerland cutting off relationships with Iran.

"We're seeing more financial institutions around the world looking at the actions and messages emanating out of Iran — from their nuclear ambitions to state sponsorship of Hezbollah — and asking themselves, 'do we really want to be Iran's banker?' " she said in an e-mail.

Though U.S. officials said pursuing parallel paths is "common sense" and highlights what they consider to be the inefficiency of the Security Council, some analysts said the move would underline Washington's inability to win over the council and the lack of options against a newly emboldened Iran.

"When you start doing things that would be better with the Security Council's endorsement, does it show weakness or strength?" said George Perkovich, the director of the nonproliferation program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Iran could argue that 'the U.S. couldn't even get the Security Council backing, and so we are winning.' "

Perkovich said even traditional U.S. allies were fatigued by dealing with so many conflicts and didn't want to add Iran to a list that includes Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon.

"There is a general reluctance to follow the U.S. lead," he said. "Our negotiating power is diminished, which is regrettable."

Russia and China have specifically objected to the use of a U.N. charter measure known as Chapter 7 that would open the door to military action or sanctions. But Bolton said that a resolution on North Korea passed unanimously in July might create a new template for dealing with those concerns.

That resolution instituted a ban on supplying technology and goods related to North Korea's missile and nuclear programs, and got around China's and Russia's doubts about Chapter 7 with other legally binding language that would prevent an Iraq-style invasion.

"There are some aspects of the North Korea resolution that will be useful," Bolton said. "A lot of this is just going to have be played out."

[Rasputin]

The failure of the Bush administration to persuade or coerce Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions for the past six years has increased the menace while decreasing the prospects for a peaceful solution. The United States must now develop a new strategy to end Iran’s nuclear program. Anything less will bring the Middle East ever closer to nuclear conflagration.

From the start, Mr. Bush’s wishy-washy approach to dealing with Iran’s nuclear program has permitted Tehran to outwit Washington in the game of brinkmanship and gain the time it needed to make tremendous progress in its quest to acquire nuclear weapons. The administration’s refusal to conduct direct negotiations, obsession with regime change, and preoccupation with Iraq has given Iran the time and the leverage it needed to refuse to negotiate on America’s terms while emboldening it to defy Washington without fear of reprisal.

Meanwhile, Britain, France, and Germany, representing the European Community (EU), have made little headway in their on-again off-again negotiations with Iran. By the time they presented Iran with a generous economic incentive and a promise that the Americans would enter into the negotiations if Tehran stopped its uranium enrichment program, Iran was swimming in oil money, close to $100 billion in hard currency.

Meanwhile, Tehran has been dismissive of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution calling on it to end its uranium enrichment program by the end of August. Tehran’s governing clergy is counting on Russia and China, with their substantial oil and gas interests in Iran, to prevent any meaningful economic sanctions from being imposed on it by a future UNSC resolution. The picture is bleak, and the Bush administration is being forced to settle for ever-reducible leverage. Unless the administration departs from its current policy toward Iran and charts a much bolder course of action, it will court disaster.

Iran has successfully played for time by stalling and resorting to ambiguities and contradictions. The administration has repeatedly fallen for these ploys. Instead, the White House needs to offer Iran the possibility of direct and unconditional negotiation with itself and its European partners for a limited period of three months. During this time, a negotiated settlement must be hammered out that satisfies both the United States and Iran while being fully supported by Russia and China.

This approach will allow Tehran to continue to enrich uranium only during the negotiation, satisfying Iran’s main demand. But permanent suspension will be the result rather than the precondition of the negotiations. The other option discussed, seeking UN economic sanctions, as the administration threatens to do, will be ineffective since it’s nothing more than a smokescreen. Russia and China will not agree to support any watered down resolution that can neither be enforced universally nor inflict real damage on Iran. This second option will end up giving Tehran ever more time to pursue its uranium enrichment program.

By agreeing to talk directly to the Iranians, by abandoning the policy of regime change in Tehran, and by providing a compelling economic incentive for Iran to come to the table, the administration will prevent Iran from playing Russia and China against the EU and the United States. Only under such circumstances will the United States be in a strong enough position to ask for and receive the full support of the Russians and the Chinese.

Notwithstanding that Russia and China, as permanent members of the Security Council, have the responsibility to do everything in their power to prevent the proliferation of WMD, they will not risk their lucrative business deals in Iran unless the United States makes a genuine commitment to a negotiated settlement.

America’s change in strategy will also underscore the seriousness of the situation because neither Russia nor China wants to see their investments in Iran go up in radioactive smoke. They’ll also realize that they’ve nothing to lose, but something tangible to gain if they remain resolute in the face of the Iranian threat because Iran will compromise only if it sees no other way out.

If the international community fails to end Iran’s nuclear weapon program, it will be left to Israel to deal with the menace, with all its catastrophic potential. For Israel the point of no return (the point at which Tehran masters the technology to produce nuclear weapons) looms even closer. Israeli intelligence circles estimate that Iran could reach such a point within two years, not the five to ten years estimated by the CIA. Iran’s president has repeatedly and unambiguously threatened Israel’s right to exist.

No Israeli government will be foolish enough not to take these threats very seriously. The war in Lebanon provided Israel with a rude awakening. A nuclear Iran does not merely intend to “eradicate the nuclear prestige of Israel” as the Iranian Newspaper Kayhan editorialized recently, its goal, many Israelis believe, is Israel’s eradication. From the Israeli perspective, the Iranian threat is terribly real: the international community must open its eyes and act in concert to avert a catastrophe of epic proportions.

The conditions under which negotiations should be conducted must leave Iran with no uncertainty that the failure to reach agreement will not simply lead to crippling economic sanctions but to the use of other coercive tactics, including blockades and other unspecified measures with the potential of producing a devastating effect. The responsibility falls on the Bush administration to do whatever it takes to remove the looming Iranian nuclear menace.

[Rasputin]

During the bloody Iran-Iraq war, tens of thousands of Iranians became victims of Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons. Seventeen years after the end of the war, thousands continue to suffer unimaginable pain and grief. Throughout Iran, many men lie in bed and wait for death, the only way to escape the misery.

Today we all know who supplied the Iraqi dictator with the deadly weapons and the means to deliver them into the lungs and the bloodstreams of Iranians. Putting greed before humanity, European and American companies provided the Iraqi army with weapons that have no defensive value, but are designed to terrorize and destroy human life in the most savage way. Germany was of course one of the largest suppliers of such weapons. The same Germany that talked of “diplomacy” then and talks of “diplomacy” now.

Seventeen years have gone by since the War came to an end. One would think, or at least hope, that “civilized” nations such as Germany see the world in a different light today than they did one or two decades ago. After the attacks on New York City, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, one would hope that the Europeans, who themselves have experienced the horrors of war, would use their influence to promote peace and non-proliferation. But no, it doesn’t seem like peace is what our “civilized” friends want.

In July, Israel signed a contract with Germany to purchase a pair of submarines capable of launching nuclear weapons – the same Germany that aided Iraq in its terror campaign against Iran and the same Israel whose recent crimes against Lebanon and humanity were facilitated by weapons and cash from the U.S. and silent encouragement and approval from “civilized” European governments. It is noteworthy to mention that the German people are footing one-third of the $1.3 bill. In 1992, Germany donated two similar submarines to Israel and split the cost of a third one.

Any claim by Israel that this acquisition will enhance its “defensive” capabilities against Iran is absolutely ridiculous. The absurdity of this claim becomes obvious if one takes even a small glance at the realities in the Middle East and the imbalance of military power in the region. Some would argue that Hezbollah’s recent success against Israel indicates some sort of military balance.

I disagree.

No country in that region is capable of a military victory against Israel for the simple fact that Israel’s two hundred or so nuclear warheads give it the power to completely destroy its adversaries. Israel would of course justify any nuclear attack against its neighbors as a DEFENSIVE MEASURE AGAINST AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT.

Israel’s possession of a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them (such as submarines) renders the military power imbalance in the region completely lopsided and proves that it does not need to add to its arsenal in order to defend itself. Why does Israel need additional submarines to “defend” itself against the remote possibility that one day in the future Iran may become capable of building a nuclear bomb? Doesn’t Israel have enough deterrents at its disposal?

By helping Israel advance its nuclear capability, Germany has clearly betrayed the basic principles of non-proliferation. Those who are concerned about the threat of a nuclear war must speak out and condemn Germany and pressure its government to reconsider the delivery of these Weapons of Mass Destruction to Israel, a nuclear capable of country which has shown disregard for human life over and over again.

The goal of Germany and other so-called “civilized” countries must be to get rid of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and beyond. Not much room for optimism remains when exactly the opposite is happening. It is important for Iranians whose country has already suffered from Western-made Weapons of Mass Destruction to do whatever they can to prevent the spread of such weapons.

I encourage readers to voice their concern to German officials by sending a short email to the address below. It will only take a minute of your time.

[Timsar]

jahansh88, well i have to tell u this that if Islam is brought in is cuz, iran is a country that religious leader leads it.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

The Iranian failure to suspend the enrichment of uranium as demanded by the UN Security Council has set the stage for the next move in this long-running confrontation - possible sanctions.

However, diplomatic arguments lie ahead because American and European pressure will probably be countered by Russian and Chinese reluctance.

So there is some way to go before the Council makes any decision.


The Iranian disregard of Security Council resolution 1696, that it suspends enrichment and carry out other confidence-building measures by 31 August, was confirmed in a report by the UN's nuclear agency the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which was seen by the media in Vienna, the IAEA's headquarters.

The report said: "Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities."

And beyond that, the report said, Iran had been blocking IAEA inspectors.


Ahmadinejad says Iran will not be intimidated

This came as no surprise. The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted by Iranian radio as saying only hours before the deadline: "The Iranian nation will never abandon its obvious right to peaceful nuclear technology."

The Security Council had called for the suspension to clear the way for talks about concessions over trade that would include the transfer to Iran of nuclear technology to make electricity.

Iran responded that it was ready for "serious talks" but would not suspend its programme in advance.

What happens now is that the US will consult in the first instance with the so-called EU3 - Britain, France and Germany, which led earlier, fruitless, negotiations with Iran.

If agreement is reached among these countries, then Moscow and Beijing will be brought in to try to get them on board.

And that is where the difficulty lies.

Loss of confidence

Russia nor China are not keen on sanctions, especially sanctions that might make a major impact on Iran where they both have important interests. China has signed up to buy oil from Iran.

So, the first sanctions proposed by the US might be easy ones - travel and financial restrictions on Iranians involved in the nuclear programme.

A more serious one would be a ban on the transfer of nuclear technology or equipment and possibly a similar ban on material for Iran's missile development.


Iran hid its nuclear programme for 18 years

So-called dual use items might also be prohibited.

The example here would be a Security Council resolution banning such exports to North Korea, which has actually left the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has declared that it has built a nuclear bomb.

If China and Russia refuse any sanctions, or serious ones, then the US would move to the further stage of trying to build a 'coalition of the willing' to try to hit Iran harder.

The US already itself imposes sanctions against Iran, especially against any co-operation with its oil and gas industry, and Washington might eventually propose that Europe joins in. But that is down the track.

In the meantime, Iran will no doubt continue its enrichment activities, though they are at an early stage.

And Iran will continue to insist on its rights under the NPT to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

The problem for the West is that Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years and as a result has lost the confidence of the IAEA that its enrichment will always be peaceful.

The fear is that it could in due course use the skills its acquires to make a nuclear device, though its says repeatedly that it has no such intention.

The issue of an attack on Iran has not gone away, though it is on the back burner for the moment.