Nuclear Crisis

[Rasputin]

Iran pushes France nuclear deal

Iran has suggested that France monitor its nuclear programme, by setting up a nuclear fuel consortium inside Iran.
The announcement was made by the deputy head of Iran's atomic energy agency. France said Iran's offers had to go through the EU's foreign policy chief.

But Javier Solana has concluded that Iran is unlikely to suspend nuclear enrichment, said a senior UK official.

Key world powers have agreed to seek a new UN Security Council resolution to impose sanctions, the official said.

The official stressed that this did not prevent further negotiation with Iran to try to persuade it of the benefit of complying with UN requirements to halt their nuclear programme.

Conflicting signals

The deputy director of Iran's atomic energy agency, Mohammad Saeedi, told French radio that a solution to the nuclear issue could be a consortium with France to enrich uranium in Iran.

"That way France... could control in a tangible way our enrichment activities," Mohammad Saeedi, deputy chief of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told France-Info radio.

Mr Saeedi presented this as a new idea, but more than a year ago Iran's president suggested foreign companies should enter into joint ventures with Iran to develop its nuclear power industry, says the BBC's Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison.

Iran has given out confusing and conflicting signals about how far it is willing to go in what many suspect may be a deliberate attempt to delay, says our correspondent.

France said it was taken by surprise by the latest Iranian move.

"There is a channel of dialogue with the Iranians" that must pass through Mr Solana, said Jean-Baptiste Mattei, a spokesman for the French foreign ministry.

"It's through this channel we await a response from the Iranians on the suspension" of uranium enrichment, as demanded by the UN Security Council, Mr Mattei told reporters.

Speaking in Helsinki, Mr Solana said the Iranian offer was "something we have to analyse in greater detail".

He described a telephone conversation with Iran's nuclear chief Ali Larijani as "cordial and constructive".

But he added: "We still have some elements that need to be agreed. We will continue talking."

[Rasputin]

Double blow to nuclear detente

On the same day, the crises over the nuclear policies of North Korea and Iran have taken a turn for the worse.

North Korea's announcement that it intends to carry out a nuclear weapons test is another grave twist in a crisis that appears to be without end or solution.

And a senior British official has said it is now clear that Iran will not suspend uranium enrichment and that therefore moves to impose sanctions will start in the UN Security Council.

The only hope that can be seen in the North Korean statement is what is not in it. It does not announce that a test has already taken place.

There is therefore some possibility that, by warning of it well in advance, North Korea is simply trying to engage the United States in direct dialogue.


If the North cannot or will not be restrained, then the world might one day have to live with the North Korean bomb


In particular it wants the US to halt moves it has taken to prevent the North from trading weapons parts and carrying out other suspected illegal economic activities.

However, the history of North Korea's nuclear ambitions is such that it is only realistic to take its statement at face value and to expect a test at some stage.

It has previously withdrawn from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has announced that it has built nuclear weapons. A test is a logical technical follow-up.

Any test would cause extreme concern in the region and might in due course propel both South Korea and Japan to go down the nuclear weapons route themselves.

The reaction of the United States to a test is obviously not going to be favourable but is unlikely to be military.



There is a chance the North's move may be a gambit for dialogue

The risk of North Korea launching an attack on South Korea (whose capital Seoul is very close to the border line) in retaliation is very high, probably too high to risk.

The US very much hopes that China will be able to restrain the North Koreans, who rely heavily on Chinese aid, but so far this has not happened.


If the North cannot or will not be restrained, then the world might one day have to live with the North Korean bomb.


The policy then would be to isolate the North even further. It is already subject to sanctions against its nuclear and missile programmes under a Security Council resolution passed this summer.

The hope would be that in the course of time, the regime will collapse internally as other communist regimes have done and that it will no longer be a threat.

But for this to happen the US would have to accept that the wheel on one part of what President George W Bush calls the "axis of evil" will keep on rolling.


'All hardliners'

As for Iran it is no surprise that negotiations now appear to have come to a halt.

They were being led by the EU's foreign policy representative, Javier Solana, and his conclusion, reported to the permanent five members of the Security Council plus Germany, is pessimistic.



The EU says Iran will not suspend uranium enrichment

Iran, he has reported back, will not suspend enrichment as demanded by the Security Council.

The next move, according to a senior British official, will be an attempt to get sanctions imposed on Iran by the council.

This will be easier said than done and even if achieved, sanctions are unlikely to stop Iran at this stage.

The US has imposed a wide-ranging embargo on Iran for more than 25 years and it has made no difference to Iran's policy.

"They are all hardliners in Tehran at the moment," a British official commented.

The sanctions were threatened in the resolution demanding suspension that was passed on 31 July and need a separate council decision.

Russia and China have hitherto been opposed to sanctions and France has recently expressed doubts as well.

They might be prepared to take limited steps but the effect of these is not likely to be severe on Iran.

The issue of a military attack on Iran is not on the agenda.

[Rasputin]

Iran’s Proposal to End Nuclear Standoff Is Rejected by the West

Iran has proposed that France organize and monitor the production of enriched uranium inside Iran, complicating negotiations over the fate of its nuclear program.
The United States, France and Britain rejected the proposal on Tuesday, saying it was a stalling tactic and fell far short of the United Nations Security Council’s demand that Iran freeze all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.

The proposal, made by Mohammad Saeidi, the deputy director of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, was presented as a sign of flexibility in negotiations between Iran and six world powers represented by the European Union.

“In order to reach a solution, we’ve just had an idea: we propose that France create a consortium for the production in Iran of enriched uranium,” Mr. Saeidi said in an interview in Tehran with France Info radio that was broadcast Tuesday.

A senior French official on Tuesday said: “This is totally excluded. There is nothing substantive behind it. This is not the first time the Iranians have tried to divide the international community.”

Another senior European official — who, like the first, spoke on condition of anonymity under diplomatic rules — said that proposal “seemed to have the intention of distracting.”

The United States, meanwhile, is giving Iran until the end of the week to declare whether it will agree to fully stop making enriched uranium or face sanctions. Enriched uranium can be used to make energy or to fuel weapons, and Washington has consistently taken the position that any uranium enrichment on Iranian soil is out of the question because it could give Iran the ability to master the nuclear fuel cycle.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the foreign ministers of the other five governments involved in the negotiations with Iran — Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — have discussed the possibility of meeting in London on Friday to plot a strategy for the next steps, officials said.

While at a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo on Tuesday, Ms. Rice told reporters that there was nothing new in the Iranian proposal, and that it continued to fall far short of international demands.

“The Iranians have floated it before,” she said, suggesting that the United States would reject any proposal that allowed Iran to enrich and reprocess uranium on its own soil. “This may be a stalling technique.”

The Iranian proposal, which has been rejected by Iran’s negotiating partners in the past, comes as Iran has hardened its position in negotiations between Ali Larijani, its chief nuclear negotiator, and Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief.

Mr. Solana reported to the six governments in recent days that Mr. Larijani rejected the calls to halt key nuclear activities even though Iran could face sanctions by the Security Council, three senior European officials said.

Instead, in meetings in Berlin with Mr. Solana last week, Mr. Larijani floated the idea of the creation of an international consortium to administer Iran’s production of enriched uranium. He did not mention France as the central player, the officials said.

In what was widely perceived as a stalling tactic, Mr. Larijani also spent much of his time in recent conversations with Mr. Solana, airing Iran’s historical grievances against the rest of the world.

Specifically, Mr. Larijani told Mr. Solana that Iran’s current enrichment activities would have to continue, and that Iran would consider only a temporary halt to the expansion of its uranium enrichment program, the officials added.

The six powers, through Mr. Solana, had been trying to persuade the Iranians to accept a three-month halt on all uranium enrichment activities at their vast plant at Natanz and on construction at the plutonium plant at Arak, the European officials said. Uranium conversion, an earlier stage of processing, would have been allowed to continue at the Isfahan plant.

These officials also spoke on condition of anonymity under normal rules of diplomacy.

There is also increasing frustration among European governments with Mr. Solana for presenting the results of his talks in too positive a light, several European officials said.

Mr. Solana has acknowledged the lack of progress on substantive issues, telling reporters in Finland on Monday, “The fundamental matter of suspension has not been agreed.” But he has repeatedly pointed to “progress” on peripheral issues, like where and when further negotiations with the six governments would take place.

On Tuesday, Mr. Solana appeared to keep the door open to Iran’s new proposal, describing it as “interesting,” and adding, “This is something we have to analyze in greater detail.”

In the radio interview, Mr. Saeidi proposed that Iran’s uranium enrichment activities would be monitored “in a tangible way” by Eurodif, a multinational enrichment consortium based in France, and by Areva, the France-based nuclear energy giant and majority shareholder in Eurodif.

Eighty-seven percent of Areva is held by French governmental institutions, and the company has vast interests in the United States ($1.8 billion in earnings in America in 2005) that it may not want to jeopardize by seeming to negotiate with Iran.

[Rasputin]

What nuclear adventurism?

In a recent opinion column in Washington Post, Mr. Ganji has lavishly praised American the beautiful, as the abode of constitution and rule of law, as if little of the Abu Ghraib and Gunatanamo Prison atrocities had reached him while he was unjustly tormented in Iran's prisons, and, worse, has accused Iranian government of "nuclear adventurism."

Setting aside my own misgivings about injustice and discrimination in the US, which I have personally endured and repeatedly written about (to the deaf ears of Iranian academic community in the US who have proved to me their shallow depth and pseudo-intellectualism by their concert of silence on the viciousness perpetrated on me by some folks at Harvard), my question from Mr. Ganji is this: on what ground does he accuse the Iranian government of nuclear adventurism? And why is he so certain that the Iranian government is on its way to produce nuclear weapons? On what evidence does he base his claim?

As an expert on Iran's foreign and nuclear policies, I am rather curious in Ganji's response, since to my knowledge there is no "smoking gun" and any tangible evidence that Iran is engaged in either clandestine nuclear activities (which if it did, I am sure Mr. Ganji would not know about) or any diversion of peaceful activities to military purposes. Having spent a great deal of time poring over the IAEA's reports and other reports by various Western governments and their think tanks, I am convinced that accusing Tehran's rulers of "nuclear adventurism" is irresponsible without the empirical evidence to back such an important accusation, shared by so many neo-conservative and pro-Israel pundits in the US today.

May be Mr. Ganji has been listening to the likes of Abbas Milani, who has been similarly airing his views, e.g., on a radio program I listened to by chance a few weeks ago, on Iran's "hegemonic intentions" behind its "definite" nuclear weapon drive, as well as Iran's mullahs' equally sinister goal of using the bomb against the "democratic forces" inside Iran, the assumption being that the nuclear-armed clergy would be impossible to dislodge and may trade their power for US's forefiture of regime change.

Now, Milani, who has not set foot inside Iran for some three decades and has not published even one peer-review article or resarch piece on Iran's foreign or nuclear affairs, may be forgiven for his outlandish accusations sure to endear him to his conservative colleagues at Hoover Institutions. The critical bar for a home-grown dissident like Ganji must be raised higher, which is why we dispense with even a mild curiosity about the sources of information for Milani's wild claims.

Suffice to say that President Ahmadinejad was on the mark in his recent trip to NY, when he stated that the nuclear arsenal did not save the Soviet Union, nor proved an asset to Israel in its recent debacle in Lebanon. The argument that Iran's government seeks the bomb as a deterrent against democracy is too problematic to deserve a critical pause, for it shows a fundamental ignorance of the proliferation history and logic, and Milani should stick with his popular biography-writing than sticking his head in such convoluted waters.

The poverty of Iranian dissidence is here partially diplayed, however. Ganji, the heroic dissident exposing fearlessly the corruptio of power, should know better than to level uncorroborated accusations against Iran, that would only endear him to Iran's enemies and, simultaneously, weaken Iran's moderate politicians, some of whom have worked with Ganji in the past. Those same politicians have rightly criticized Ganji in the past, for his excesses, e.g., vis-a-vis Hashemi Rafsanjani, and they must now reckon with the potential damage of befriending someone whose view point on the nuclear issue is at odds with the sentiment of vast majority of Iranians.

Long ago, this author reached the point of evolution in his own political discourse, by not conflating the political value of some one's dissidence with the value of his intellectual or theoretical valor. Mr. Ganji, the journalist and great essayist, is a poor source when it comes to Iran's foreign and national security priorities and it would be ill-advised for any one to follow his ill-informed insights on that front. Nor should we ignore the serious defects of his new, one-dimensional love for the United States of America, which shows the limits of his understanding of the dark sides of the US, and the post 9/11 perils to democracy and democratic rights particularly for the Middle East immigrants. Perhaps Ganji should spend more time with the critical texts of his idol, Noam Chomsky, who would have most likely thought twice about a photo session at his MIT office with Ganji, had Ganji published his Washington Post column earlier.

Speaking of Chomsky, he has informed me that at no point in his conversation with Ganji did he say that the present Iranian government and the one before that are one and the same, and, yet, this is precisely what Ganji claims that Chomsky has told him in his "interview" with him. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that one detects some silly signs of distortions of facts on Ganji's part, which only undermine his own credibility. Hopefully, none of these criticisms of Ganji will be misinterpreted as any sign of disrespect toward him, or the lack of empathy for his long and painful sufferings.

[Rasputin]

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's hard-line president has ordered nuclear facilities opened to foreign tourists to prove that the nation's disputed atomic program is peaceful, state-run television reported on Wednesday.

"After an order by the president ... foreign tourists can visit Iran's nuclear facilities," the head of Iran's tourism division, Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, was quoted as saying.

Mashai said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issued the order to show that Iran's nuclear program it aims to generate fuel, not weapons.

"We are reviewing the related instructions in this regard," he reportedly said.

The report did not clarify the definition of a foreign tourist. The announcement came a day after Iran's parliament voted to debate a bill that would require the government to fingerprint all U.S. citizens visiting Iran.

The draft law would require all American citizens to be fingerprinted when they enter Iran.

The measure was in retaliation for the fingerprinting of Iranian travelers visiting the United States -- a procedure implemented in 2002 for Iranians and citizens of several other countries.

The U.S. and some of its allies fear Iran is seeking to enrich uranium to develop nuclear weapons.

Senior U.N. diplomats said Tuesday that Iran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment had sabotaged talks meant to defuse the standoff over its nuclear program, opening the way for the Security Council to start considering sanctions next week.

[Rasputin]

EU says Iran nuclear sanctions are edging closer

The European Union warned on Wednesday Iran was close to triggering sanctions by refusing to halt uranium enrichment, but Tehran again insisted it would not give up its right to produce nuclear fuel.

Despite four months of intensive talks, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said, Tehran had made no commitment to suspend a process the West fears it is using as a step toward building atomic bombs.

"This dialogue I am maintaining cannot last forever, and it is up to the Iranians now to decide whether this time has come to an end. And if that is the case we will have to follow the second track (a U.N. sanctions resolution)," Solana said.

An EU diplomat said foreign ministers of six big powers were likely to meet in London on Friday or Saturday to assess the outcome of Solana's talks and decide on seeking gradual sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.

The diplomat said no further contact was planned with Larijani before ministers of the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany meet Solana, although it was not ruled out and lower-level contacts were continuing.

As Solana was speaking to the European parliament's foreign policy committee, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a rally that Iran wanted the exploratory talks to go on.

"We want talks to continue but if anyone thinks talks can be used to pressure us they are wrong," he said in a speech broadcast on state television.

"They are wrong if they think that the Iranian nation, in its path to obtain nuclear technology, will be stopped, even for a second because of their rejection, nagging and frowning."

The president is not the most powerful figure in the Islamic Republic's leadership hierarchy but rather Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani answers to Khamenei.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said the international community would have no choice but to impose sanctions if Iran refused to stop enrichment. A British official said world powers were starting to draft a U.N. resolution.

"There has been a lot of patience," Rice said on Wednesday during a visit to the Palestinian territories.

"...I have to say that the logic of bringing to a close the open-ended negotiations with the Iranians, that it's become evident that is what we're going to have to do," she said.

[Rasputin]

RUSSIAN RELUCTANCE

Russia, key trade partner of Iran and opposed to sanctions, which it could veto in the Security Council, had not confirmed whether it would attend the meeting, the diplomat added.

Western nations accuse Iran of trying to string out talks to avoid meeting demands to stop enriching uranium. Iran, the world's No. 4 oil producer, insists its nuclear program is designed only to yield fuel for power plants.

The Solana-Larijani talks were intended to find a basis for formal negotiations to implement trade benefits offered to Iran if it shelved uranium enrichment work first.

"There is an acceptance by both sides that the talks have come to an end" and that "this dossier is going to come back to the Security Council pretty damn quickly," said a Western diplomat at the United Nations in New York.
He said the six powers' would discuss at their pending meeting whether an array of sanctions should be prepared, or initially just a warning to Iran that they are in the works.

Iran, which is enjoying an oil revenue windfall, has shrugged off the sanctions specter.

In June, the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany offered Iran economic and political incentives to stop enriching. In its reply in August, Iran hinted at some flexibility over suspension but not as a precondition for talks.

"The situation at this time, as we are talking, is still that the negotiations would not be able to start because of the lack of wish of them (the Iranians) to start the suspension before the negotiations start," Solana said.


Iran missed an August 31 deadline set by the U.N. Security Council to suspend enrichment activity.

(Additional reporting by Paul Taylor in Brussels, Evelyn Leopold at the United Nations and Luke Baker in Jerusalem)

[Rasputin]

West rejects Iran offer of solution to nuclear dispute

An Iranian proposed solution to the nuclear dispute has caused some division with France, Germany, the UK and the US rejecting it but Brussels' Javier Solana calling it "interesting".

Iran had suggested the creation of a consortium where France would organise and monitor the production of enriched uranium in Iran.

"In order to reach a solution, we've just had an idea: we propose that France create a consortium for the production in Iran of enriched uranium," the deputy director of the Iranian Atomic Energy Mahamed Saidi said on a radio programme in Tehran on Tuesday (3 October), according to the New York Times.

He later told France Info radio that in this way Paris could considerably control its uranium enrichment activities.

Western states have rejected the offer saying it is a stalling tactic and that it falls short of the UN security council's demand that Tehran freeze all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.

But EU foreign affairs chief Javier Solana held the door open describing the latest Iranian proposal as "interesting" and that "this is something we have to analyse in greater detail," according to press reports.

He added that the idea of a control of Iranian enrichment "had been discussed since the beginning," reports Le Figaro. "It is perhaps an idea that can be discussed more in detail now."

Mr Solana has been negotiating with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani on behalf of the five permanent UN security council members - China, France, Russia, the UK and the US – and Germany.

But progress has been slow with Mr Solana acknowledging on Monday "The fundamental matter of suspension has not been agreed."

UN sanctions on Iran
Western countries are moving towards imposing UN sanctions on Iran after Mr Solana briefed foreign ministers of the permanent members of the UN security council and Germany over the weekend on the state of the talks.

Iran has hinted that if sanctions are imposed, it would leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which would mean UN inspectors would no longer be able to monitor Iran's nuclear programme, and that it might close the Straits of Hormuz, a move which would choke off most of the oil supply from the Gulf.

US secretary of state Condoleeza Rice is scheduled to be in Europe at the end of the week to discuss sanctions with Britain, France and Germany.

"I hope that there is still room to resolve this, but the international community is running out of time because soon its own credibility ... will be a matter of question," Ms Rice said at a joint news conference on Tuesday, according to Reuters.

Meanwhile, the head of Russia's security council, Igor Ivanov, flew to Tehran yesterday to make a renewed attempt at finding a solution.

[Rasputin]

Iran’s French offer - can it bridge the political divide?

Iran floated the idea of a French consortium this morning, led by EURODIF, to oversee Iran’s uranium enrichment activities. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana noted that the idea was “interesting” and should be examined further. Similar options have been floated in the past, including by Russia (with enrichment on Russian soil) and MIT scholars Geoff Forden and Sir John Thompson (http://mit.edu/stgs/irancrisis.html). The Bush administration continues to maintain that if this week does not yield a suspension of Iranian enrichment, it will pursue sanctions in the Security Council



While the month-long talks between Solana and Larijani have apparently resolved some issues, they appear hung up on several key points:



If Iran will agree to suspend uranium enrichment activities: Iran has so far firmly refused categorical suspension, citing its rights under the NPT to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes; the US asserts that Iran must agree to a verifiable suspension for diplomacy to continue outside the UN Security Council

When Iran would suspend enrichment: before full negotiations on the P5+1 offer formally begin (the US position), or after (the Iranian position)

For how long the suspension would last: the US wants to see a suspension for as long as talks on the P5+1 offer continue; Iran is willing to consider a voluntary and temporary suspension tied to the success of the negotiations

Where enrichment activity could take place once the overall issue is resolved: outside Iran (the US position) or on Iranian soil (the Iranian position); this particular item has re-emerged in the context of Iran’s offer today for international monitoring and control of enrichment activities on its soil



As pressure mounts on both sides, internal fissures have appeared more prominently and could shift the course of developments over the next weeks and months. For Iran, today’s offer of allowing an international consortium to oversee uranium enrichment, while not unprecedented, represents a relative softening of its overall hardline stance. This shift is likely rooted in internal divisions over the extent to which Iran can be intransigent on the question of building confidence in its nuclear intentions. EURODIF is an internationally reputable and well-established consortium; within a framework of “close monitoring” of Iranian activities, a consortium led by it could effectively dispel suspicion regarding the diversion of enriched uranium on Iranian soil.



A similar formula has been floated by two MIT scholars, Jeff Forden and Sir John Thompson. It uses the availability of technical solutions to bridge the political distrust between Iran and the United States, pointing out that the nuclear stand-off is not a technical problem per se, but a political one. Technically, a proliferation proof solution with enrichment in Iran is available, they argue. As such, the recent Iranian proposal may prove useful on the technical front, but may fall short to bridge the political divide.



For the US/P5+1/EU, splits between the Anglo-American (and to some extent, German) position pushing for the suspension of enrichment by Iran and that of others (including France, Italy, Russia, and China) are now clearly visible. In a radio interview on September 18, French President Chirac stated that he didn’t “believe in a solution without dialogue” and that he had “never seen that sanctions were very effective.”



His solution was for the P5+1 powers to renounce involving the UN Security Council and for Iran in turn to forego enrichment during the negotiations—an offer already made by Iran to Solana. President Chirac thus directly contradicted the US position, making him the first world leader to propose starting negotiations with Tehran before it suspends its nuclear program. His stance is backed up by Russian and Chinese support for continued dialogue instead of Security Council action. Moreover, divisions between the broader EU community and the EU3 emerged in early September over the implications of Security Council action and will likely figure more prominently in the overall picture should the nuclear issue return to the Council in the near future. Nevertheless, the Bush administration is poised, four weeks after the expiration of the August 31 deadline, to renew its push for Security Council sanctions on Iran and is supported in this by the UK.



According to US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, “If (Iran’s answer this week) is maybe, it’s a no” and has reportedly rejected Iran’s consortium offer made today. In the background in recent weeks are additional ominous rumblings regarding the circulation of a war plan in the White House and the issuing of orders for the deployment of additional US forces to Southwest Asia in the event the plan is put in motion.



The stage appears set for a heightening of tensions given looming escalation and the high stakes involved. The Iranian offer for France to oversee its enrichment reflects Iran’s objective of appearing constructive while not conceding the key point of the talks —its right to enrichment—in advance of final negotiations. The US rejection reflects America’s concern with what it perceives as Iranian delaying tactics and a growing realization that continued lengthy discussions will only erode the common international front it has cobbled together since last February. It remains to be seen if that front can survive a Security Council debate on sanctions on Iran, which appears increasingly likely.

[Rasputin]

Mutual disaster

I agree with Ardeshir Ommani's article "Who appeases whom?" and its conclusions. It seems like a criminal element has hijacked the American Adminstration to the detriment of the rest of the world.

I dare say that if the American Army had not gotten so bogged down in Iraq we may have already seen open hostilities between the US and Iran. It seems they are desperate to look for an excuse to launch an attack.

In the 27 years since the Iranian Revolution, the United States has launched air strikes on Libya, invaded Grenada, put Marines in Lebanon and run air strikes in the Bekaa Valley and Chouf Mountains in retaliation for the Beirut bombing.

The US invaded Panama, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait and put troops into Somalia. Under Clinton, they occupied Haiti, fired cruise missiles into Sudan, intervened in Bosnia, conducted bombing strikes on Iraq and launched a 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia, a nation that never attacked America. Then, they put troops into Kosovo.

After the Soviet Union stood down in Eastern Europe, we moved NATO into Poland and the Baltic states and established U.S. bases in former provinces of Russia's in Central Asia.

Under Bush II, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, though it appears Saddam neither had weapons of mass destruction nor played a role in 9-11.

Yet, in this same quarter century when the U.S. military has been so busy it is said to be overstretched and exhausted, Iran has invaded not one neighbor and fought but one war: an 8-year war with Iraq where she was the victim of aggression. And in that war of aggression against Iran, we supported the aggressor.

Hence, when Iran says that even as we have grievances against her, she has grievances against us, does Iran not have at least a small point?

Which brings me to the point. There is no reason to believe Iran wants war with us. If she did want war with America, she could have had it any time in the last 27 years. If she did want war with America, all the old Khomeni had to do was continue holding those American hostages after Ronald Reagan raised his right hand. He didn't. As Reagan recited the oath, the hostages were clearing Iranian air space.

In all those years, Iran has never attacked the United States and has been tied to but one terror attack against us: the Khobar Towers 10 years ago. No evidence has been found that Iran had any role in 9-11, the first attack on the World Trade Center, the suicide attack on the U.S.S. Cole or the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

Herr Ahmadinejad routinely promises the eradication of Israel. But if he wants a war with Israel, he could have it tomorrow by launching rockets. If he wants war with America, Bush and Cheney will accommodate him. He has done neither.

Ahmadinejad is behaving like a man provoking us to hit him, but not too hard, so he can play the "victim" of U.S. "aggression" without winding up in the hospital or the morgue. For while Iran's regime might benefit from heroically enduring U.S. strikes to destroy its nuclear facilities -- none of which is near producing atom-bomb material -- a major war would be a disaster for Iran. Not only would the regime be denuded of modern weapons, it would be set back decades to where the Arabs, Azeris, Baluchis and Kurds might try to break the country up, even as Iraq is breaking up.

But this would be a disaster for the United States as well. For an attack on Iran would unify Persians in hatred of America, the way Pearl Harbor unified Americans. And a breakup of Iran could create a new archipelago of terrorist training camps across the Middle East.

The saga continues.

[Rasputin]

Let me count the ways

Because I am not very smart, don’t have a Ph. D, and have never done any research at Harvard University, I looked up the meaning of the word “adventurism” in the dictionary, and here is what it says: “Involvement in risky enterprises without regard to proper procedures and possible consequences”

Well, to me, that is a good description of what Akbar Ganji describes in his “Letter to America” article that was published in the Washington Post, and what Kaveh Afrasiabi criticized in his article, “What nuclear adventurism?”

Let’s examine the words in the definition of “adventurism”:

Involvement: I have no doubt that every one believes the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) is definitely involved in a nuclear “enterprise”; but for the sake of argument, let’s accept that IRI is only interested in the development of nuclear industry for peaceful proposes.

Risky: Since I don’t have a Ph. D. to be able to memorize everything, I did a quick “google” search for nuclear accidents and disasters, and here is a small sampling of what I found (if you get bored with the list just skip to the end of it):

Dec. 12, 1952, Chalk River, nuclear reactor. Ottawa, Canada: a partial meltdown of the reactor's uranium fuel core resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water accumulated inside the reactor, there were no injuries.

Oct. 7, 1957, Windscale Pile No. 1, north of Liverpool, England: fire in a graphite-cooled reactor spewed radiation over the countryside, contaminating a 200 square miles area.

Winter 1957-1958 South Ural Mountains: explosion of radioactive wastes at U.S.S.R nuclear weapons factory 12 miles from city of Kyshtym forced the evacuation of over 10,000 people from a contaminated area, although no casualties were reported by U.S.S.R. officials.

Jan. 3, 1961 Three technicians died at a U.S. plant in Idaho Falls in an accident at an experimental reactor.

July 4, 1961, The captain and seven crew members died when radiation spread through the U.S.S.R Union's first nuclear powered submarine, because a pipe in the control system of one of the two reactors had ruptured.

Oct. 5, 1966, The core of an experimental reactor near Detroit, Michigan, melted partially when a sodium cooling system failed.

Jan. 21, 1969, A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, released a large amount of radiation into a cave, which was then sealed.

Dec. 7, 1975, nuclear reactor. Greifswald, East Germany: the radioactive core of the reactor in the Lubmin nuclear power plant nearly melted down due to the failure of safety systems during a fire.

March 28, 1979, Three Mile Island, nuclear reactor. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: one of two reactors lost its coolant, which caused the radioactive fuel to overheat and caused a partial meltdown. Some radioactive material was released.

Feb. 11, 1981, Eight workers were contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant leaks into the containment building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1.

April 25, 1981, Officials reported that around 45 workers were exposed to radioactivity during repairs to a problem-ridden plant at Tsuruga, Japan.

Aug. 10, 1985, An explosion in Shkotovo-22 ship repair facility in U.S.S.R., which repairs nuclear-powered vessels. Ten people were killed and many died later from radiation exposure.

April 26, 1986, Chernobyl, nuclear reactor. Kiev, U.S.S.R.: explosion and fire in the graphite core of one of four reactors released radioactive material that spread over part of the U.S.S.R., Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, and later Western Europe. 31 claimed dead. Total casualties are unknown and estimates run into the thousands. Worst such accident to date.

March 24, 1992, Radioactive iodine and inert gases escaped into the atmosphere after a loss of pressure in a reactor channel at the Sosnovy Bor station near St. Petersburg in Russia.

November 1992, In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.

November 1995, At Chernobyl, serious contamination occurred when fuel was being removed from one of the reactors. One person received the equivalent of a year's permitted radiation.

December 8, 1995, Several hundred Kg of sodium coolant leaked out and upon contact with air ignited and produced temperatures as high as 1500 degrees Celsius that melted several steel structures.

March 1997, A fire and explosion at the state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation.

September 30, 1999, Tokyo, Japan: Workers added uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 Kg of uranium, which exceeded the critical mass, into a precipitation tank. Radiation was released to the surrounding areas. Three workers performing the operation were exposed to high levels of radiation and two of them died. One hundred sixteen workers were exposed in total.

One may argue that some of these cases are irrelevant to the nuclear industry that is under construction in Iran, but that is not the point, the point is nuclear accidents happen.

Nuclear Power Plants cause between 600-1000 deaths a year per million people. The vast majority of them, 80%, are to the plant workers.

The distance from a nuclear power plant also has a direct affect on things such as breast cancer. In an extensive study it was found that, women living near a nuclear reactor had an average of 26-28 deaths from breast cancer per 100,000 women. Women living far from one averaged 22-23 deaths per 100,000.

[Rasputin]

According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, one of the most prominent anti-nuclear industry Australian physician, “children and the elderly are 10 to 20 times more sensitive to the effects of radiation than others. The incubation time, the time between exposure and the manifestation of symptoms, for cancer is five to 60 years; no tumor, though, appears with a "caused by" sign attached. Furthermore, the effects of radiation are cumulative. Each dose received adds to the risk of developing cancer or producing genetic disease in the offspring of those exposed to it. That's why we advise people not to have more medical or dental X-rays than are absolutely necessary.

Yet nuclear power plants routinely discharge millions of curies of radioactive elements into the air and water. The so-called "noble" gases (krypton, xenon, and argon) are readily absorbed by humans through the lung and deposit in the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, where they irradiate the testicles and ovaries with high-energy gamma radiation. Tritium, radioactive hydrogen, is also routinely released.”

So, it appears that the nuclear industry is in fact a risky business, even though there has not been a (reported) major accident since 1999; or maybe that is what IRI is counting on, no more disasters.

Enterprise: I am sure that there are some people who agree that the corrupt government officials in Iran have lucratively benefited (accepted bribes) in the wheeling and dealing of the nuclearization of Iran; however, I have no proof of it. I am going to be “irresponsible without empirical evidence” and appeal to my own personal life to make a point that IRI is corrupt:

My brother once paid an IRI official 600,000 Toman to get permission to import 6,000,000 Toman worth of medical supplies into the country during Iran-Iraq War. In another occasion we had to pay 5,000,000 Toman to a judge in IRI Revolutionary Court to get permission to sell my diseased mother’s property. In one of my trips to Iran, I was stopped by a traffic police officer for a few moving violations and lack of proper driving license in Tehran. I nervously pulled out my wallet and saw that I only had one hundred dollar bills, so I offered one of them to him. He responded, “No, idiot, hundred dollars is too much.” I looked again and managed to put twenty dollars together and gave it him.

Up to this date, it’s taken an estimated cost of 4-6 billion dollars to build Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant; and only their God knows how much money they have made with this “enterprise”, not to mention all the other nuclear facilities.

But let’s be clear here, since I am not bound by “peer review” as Kaveh Afrasiabi is, I can speculate all day, and anyone who reads this article can take it and say he is right, or say “No! Mullahs are honest people.” or like the police officer, they don’t take too much bribes to contaminate their country.

Without: That means void of, lacking participation, omission of, and excluding. I would say IRI’s nuclear power plant industry is void of the people’s representative approval. It lacks participation of independent investigators, contains omission of opposing views, and excludes democratic checks and balances.

Proper procedure: Is there a proper procedure in place for when and if there is a nuclear melt down in Bushehr, Esfehan, or Natanz? Has anyone outside the IRI government scrutinized it, or does the public not need to know?

Possible consequences: Has IRI prepared us for the worst possible consequences of above-mentioned types of accidents or disasters; and are we as a nation willing to accept those consequences? What if there is disaster in the nuclear facilities in Esfehan and prevailing winds carry radioactive clouds to the historic part of the city. Are we willing to accept the consequences, and not visit nagsh'e jahan for let’s say, the next 10,000 years?

According to the way the word “adventurism” is defined in the dictionary, I would say Akbar Ganji was right on the money when he said “We hope that the regime will not be allowed to... continue with its nuclear adventurism.” If I were a teacher in a university, as Kaveh Afrasiabi is sometimes, I would give Akbar Ganji an A+ for the proper use of the word “adventurism.

[Rasputin]

Decision Delayed on Sanctions Against Iran Over Nuclear Issue

INCIRLIK AIR BASE, Turkey, Oct. 6 -- An unexpected travel delay has forced the United States and its diplomatic partners to postpone until early next week a decision about what punitive actions to take against Iran over its nuclear program, a senior State Department official announced Friday.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and counterparts from Britain, France, Russia and China -- the four other permanent members of U.N. Security Council -- plus Germany are to hold talks in London late Friday. But Rice, who made an unannounced visit to Iraq Thursday, was delayed leaving by two hours because of problems with her plane. Although she is still expected to attend the talks, the delay will mean that the entire group will not be together to discuss the issue in full because the Russian foreign minister must leave London early for a cabinet meeting in Moscow.

U.S. officials said the decision will likely be made in a conference call among the foreign ministers of the six nations on Monday or Tuesday.

The London meeting was set because months of intense negotiations with Iran have failed. The United States wants to impose sanctions on Iran in a new U.N. resolution, but divisions are still deep among the six countries over whether to go that far and, if so, in what form. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Thursday that his country does not back sanctions as a means to punish the Islamic republic for failing to comply with a U.N. resolution that requires it to suspend uranium enrichment.

Iran maintains that the fuel program is part of a peaceful nuclear energy program, but U.S. officials and others worry that it could be subverted for making weapons.

"I believe that until diplomatic means are exhausted, sanctions would be too radical," Lavrov said at a news conference in Warsaw. "We have to do everything to persuade Iran to begin negotiations. . . . The issue needs to be resolved diplomatically."

European Union foreign affairs chief Javier Solana, who has taken the lead in recent last-ditch talks with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, also said talks should not be closed off. "Even if we fail now, we should maintain the doors open to continue dialogue with Iran," he said Thursday in Rome.

China also has been reluctant to impose tough sanctions, while France has not been as adamant as the United States and Britain. "We've done the Solana effort and now we'll have to move to sanctions. That's the ministers' role," Rice said en route to Baghdad on Thursday.

The first stage of sanctions could include a travel ban on Iranian officials involved in the nuclear program and a ban on selling Iran so-called dual-use equipment that can be adopted for weapons. Tougher actions could follow if Iran continues to balk.

At the United Nations, Britain's ambassador, Emyr Jones Parry, said Thursday the Security Council is likely to discuss specific language for a resolution on Iran next week that would include nonmilitary sanctions under Chapter 7, Article 41 of the U.N. Charter.

U.S. officials remain optimistic that they can win agreement -- in large part because of Iran itself. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeated several times in recent weeks, including during a trip to the United Nations last month, that Iran would not give up its enrichment program because it is operating within the rules of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

During a visit to Spain, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said that Iran is "gaining time" and that the time had come "to look at the consequences of Iran's attitude." But Douste-Blazy also said the route to dialogue would remain open if Tehran suspends its nuclear program.

Rice's delay was caused by mechanical problems that developed on an Air Force plane that took her from Baghdad to Irbil, in Iraq's northern region. After Rice and her party had disembarked or talks with Kurdish officials there, the plane was taxiing and apparently something was sucked into an engine. Another plane had to be summoned to fly Rice out of Irbil.

[Rasputin]

UN talks on anti-nuclear sanctions against Iran

SIX world powers have agreed to discuss possible UN Security Council sanctions to punish Iran for failing to halt its nuclear program, but said they were still open to negotiations with Tehran.

The US, which has accused Iran of trying to build a nuclear bomb, portrayed the agreement with Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China as a decision by the six powers to impose sanctions, with just their scope yet to be determined.

"The decision has been made - we'll go for sanctions; the question is what the extent of the sanctions will be," US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns told reporters after the London ministerial-level meeting on Friday.

Mr Burns said the six powers would hold talks early this week and that their UN ambassadors were expected to begin discussing a sanctions resolution the following day.

While the US, backed by Britain, is lobbying hard for sanctions, Russia and China have opposed this route.

Russia reiterated after the meeting that talks with Iran were the way forward and that it would continue to pursue that goal at the UN.

"We have firmly confirmed that we will hold consultations in the UN Security Council on what additional measures to take to incite the Iranian party to accept the proposals that the sextet made in early June," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

In June the six powers offered Iran economic and political incentives to halt uranium enrichment. In its reply, Iran hinted at some flexibility over suspension, but not as a precondition for talks.

Iran, which says its nuclear program is only for power generation, missed a Security Council deadline of August 31 to stop uranium enrichment.

Apart from Germany, the powers that met in London were veto-wielding Security Council members.

"Further pressure [on Iran] is needed," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett told reporters.

In July, a UN resolution authorised the Security Council to "adopt appropriate measures" to press Iran under article 41, Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which refers to commercial or diplomatic sanctions but excludes military force.

"We are proposing to consult on measures under article 41," Mrs Beckett said.

"That means not military measures, but it does mean other measures which can put pressure on Iran in order to bring them to the negotiating table."

[zubin]

Sactions Talk as Primarily for Face Saving a Stubborn Administration..

sanctions talk seems to be just a face saving measure for the US administration that likes conflict, no?