Nuclear Crisis

[Rasputin]

World opinion opposes aggressive steps as a way of stopping a possible Iranian nuclear arms programme, according to a 25-nation poll for BBC World Service.
But only 17% of those polled believed Iranian assurances that research it is carrying out is just for energy needs.

The most popular course of action, with 39% support, was to use only diplomatic efforts; 11% favoured military strikes.

Last month, Iran failed to abide by a UN deadline to halt uranium enrichment which could lead to sanctions.

An average of 30% of respondents favoured economic sanctions if Iran continued to produce nuclear fuel.

Survey findings in full (1.2 MB)
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Download the reader here


Breakdown by country
Split over solution
The survey asked 27,407 people in countries ranging from the US and UK to Brazil, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Israel, Nigeria, Poland, Russia and Turkey.

The survey, by the international polling organisation GlobeScan, has a margin of error of between plus-or-minus 2.5% and 4%.

Poll analyst Steven Kull, of the University of Maryland, said: "Clearly world opinion rejects Iran's claim that it is simply trying to develop nuclear energy.

"But at this point the world public favours addressing the problem through diplomacy rather than a confrontational approach."

Mandate

Nearly three-quarters of respondents said they would be concerned if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, with 43% saying they would be "very concerned".

In general, there appeared to be a world-wide mandate for stricter controls on the production of nuclear fuels which could be used in weapons.


Fifty-two percent favoured a new effort to have the UN develop new controls, while 33% favoured preserving the existing system allowing non-nuclear powers to develop nuclear fuel but not weapons.

The questionnaire also showed respondents in Egypt and Turkey had a strong sense of entitlement to have a nuclear capacity.

Only 29% in each country agreed the UN should stop countries from producing their own nuclear fuel, but provide them with the fuel they need.

A recent report by the UN's nuclear watchdog said Iran started a new round of uranium enrichment, which can be used to make weapons, just days before the UN deadline to halt it.

Tehran says it is completely within its rights to pursue a nuclear power programme and insists that is what it is doing.

[Rasputin]

Early October New Deadline for Iran

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 20 -- With Iran still resisting a freeze on its nuclear activities, the United States and five partners have decided to set yet another deadline in hopes that Iran will finally agree to terms paving the way for substantive talks on its nuclear program.

Under the plan, reached by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her counterparts from five other nations over a late-night dinner Tuesday, Iran will have until early October to agree to suspend its nuclear activities as the negotiations take place, diplomats said. At the meeting, Rice backed off the U.S. demand that the U.N. Security Council begin imposing sanctions over Iran's failure to meet previous deadlines, but noted that there is intense interest in the issue on Capitol Hill.

"Everyone wants to solve this through negotiation, everybody wants to solve this diplomatically," Rice said Wednesday, declining to confirm the new deadline.

The new deadline is the fourth in four months. Originally, when the six countries -- the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia -- offered on June 1 to discuss an array of incentives with Iran if it froze its uranium enrichment program, they demanded an answer by the end of June. That slipped to July, and then the end of August was set as the deadline in a Security Council resolution.

U.S. officials said they believe the deadline of the first week of October is firm, but at least one European diplomat suggested that the possibility of slippage remains.

"There is certainly no doubt in our mind how much longer we will see through continuation of the Solana track," one U.S. official said, referring to the efforts of European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who is spearheading the talks with Iran. "We have a hard end-date in mind." The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the ministers agreed not to announce the date.

Solana has held numerous talks with his Iranian counterpart, Ali Larijani, in an effort to find a formula that would allow the talks to begin. The United States granted a visa to Larijani so he could meet with Solana in New York this week, but Larijani did not show up. Larijani and Solana agreed in a telephone call to hold talks next week somewhere in Europe, the official Iranian news agency reported in Tehran.

"We must have a response fairly quickly," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told reporters. "It's becoming urgent."

Iran has resisted appearing to bow to international pressure to halt its program. In a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran's nuclear activities are "transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors," referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. He denounced the effort to bring the issue to the Security Council, which he called "an instrument of threat and coercion."

Originally, Iran was told that no talks could start until it suspended the nuclear program. Officials are discussing the possibility of beginning the talks without the United States present, having Iran declare its willingness to suspend its program at the same time that action in the Security Council is halted, and then having the United States join the talks once the suspension is verified. Rice has said that she would attend the first meeting as the U.S. representative to the talks.

Meanwhile, President Bush met on Wednesday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Rice met with her counterparts in the Quartet, a coordinating group on Middle East peace that includes the European Union, Russia and the United Nations. The main topic of discussion was the Palestinian government led by the Islamic Resistance Movement, also known as Hamas -- which receives financial backing from Iran -- and how to persuade the militant group to give up its pledge to destroy Israel.

U.S. officials say that a cutoff of international aid has left Hamas desperate for a solution, but Europeans officials have pressed for ways to relieve the suffering of the Palestinians. The Quartet in a statement said that the group has agreed to expand and continue what was originally billed as a temporary measure to bypass the government and to bring aid to critical groups of Palestinians.

[Rasputin]

We're not worthy?

In response to a recent posting titled "Nuclear IQ" where I attempted to expose the myth crafted by the Western media that Iran by continuing to enrich Uranium is in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I was accused by Mr. Rahmanian of "whitewashing the threats of a nuclear Iran" and promoting the idea that their program is aimed at developing peaceful nuclear technology .What has led this reader to reach such conclusion is beyond this writer's comprehension.

He then cavalierly questions whether I'm "an insider"? Well let's see; if digging up a little history and actually reading the articles of the NPT makes me an insider then yes by all means-- guilty as charged. But most confounding was the statement that "it is not always the reporting that is to blame [for us being misinformed] but it is the way we tend to perceive things that determines our reactions to any kind of reporting". Huh?

The way we perceive things is directly determined by the manner it is packaged and then repeated over and over until we accept them as truth both at cognizant and unconscious level. I sighted the following familiar example often in the news:

"Iran refuses to suspend its uranium enrichment activity, which can produce among other things, the material for atomic bombs. Tehran insists that its nuclear program is for generating electricity but the West believes Iran wants to make nuclear weapons."

This should've been self evident but apparently our friend did not find anything wrong with the way it is worded which intentionally manipulates the mind and creates an impression on the part of the unsuspecting public that Uranium enrichment is an unlawful act associated only with producing atomic bombs. He then asks how else the above piece of news could be worded so it would not "offend" any side. Never mind offending, just spare us the misinformation, fear-mongering and the dramatic and stick with the facts:

"Iran refuses to give up its right to uranium enrichment; the process allowed by the NPT and by which necessary fuel to power nuclear reactors is produced. Tehran insists that its nuclear program is for generating electricity but the West accuses Iran of intending to produce nuclear weapons, a charge not confirmed by the UN nuclear watch dog agency".

Now isn't that much more informative and far less frightening? Perhaps Mr. Rahmanian would also be relived to find that the IAEA and the UN inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program did lodge a formal complaint in a letter dated September 12, 2006 to the Bush administration about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to disprove all its central claims and particularly refute the report's assertion that Iran is producing "weapons-grade" enriched uranium.

As to Mr. Rahmanian's indictment that "Iran's nuclear activities were kept secret for years and neither the people of Iran nor other signatories to NPT knew anything about it" until they were exposed by the reputable MEK terrorist organization, the IAEA letter also charges that the report's description of those activities -- in particular, the so called "covert" production of polonium-210 -- is misleading since Iran was under no obligation under its Safeguards Agreement to report such activities.

The agreement in force at the time with the IAEA read that "Iran is not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into it". That means they were not even required to inform the IAEA of their existence until then, a point conceded by Britain at the March 2003 Board of Governors meeting. The 'six months' clause was a standard part of all IAEA safeguards agreements. Nonetheless, Iran did allow intrusive inspections of their facilities by the IAEA pursuant to the Additional Protocol, and the Agency concluded that none were related to any secret nuclear weapons program.

The other main theme of my commentary was to expose the Western and United States in particular lack of moral authority to accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons when the U.S. remains to be the only nation that has actually used such weapons and continues to maintain and modernize those weapons in clear violation of the NPT. I did not get into any arguments on whether or not that horrendous act of genocide on civilians was somehow justified. But since Mr. Rahmanian demanded that I provide some historical background then let us examine some of the utterly discredited but immortal claims that millions of lives would have been lost in an invasion, and that the Japanese would not have surrendered without either an invasion or the atomic bombing of their country.

Neither claim withstands an honest examination of the evidence. First the estimate of possible casualties is a gross exaggeration, and secondly the Japanese war machine was already broken by 1945, and its leaders were ready to surrender only if the US would agree not to try their Emperor for war crimes and allow him to keep his seat, which it did anyway. US leaders knew this because Japanese codes had already been broken at the time.

In the book "Fathering the Unthinkable: Masculinity, Scientists and the Nuclear Arms Race" Brian Easley describes the relevant events and views of key participants. One especially telling point he brings up is the omission of any mention of weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons in particular, in the Potsdam Declaration issued on July 26, 1945 by Harry S. Truman, Winston Churchill, and Chiang Kai-Shek, because "Stalin would have wanted details" about the bomb, and "Japan might possibly have surrendered before the bombs could have been dropped thus not allowing [the US] to demonstrate to Stalin the power of its new ultimate weapon and the willingness of the American administration to use them."

Howard Zinn, in his "People's History of the United States", gives an account that belies the purity of U.S. motives. For one thing, "Japan, by August 1945, was in desperate shape and ready to surrender" (pg. 413). He quotes New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin, who says we almost certainly did not need to nuke the two cities. Zinn describes how the Japanese code had been broken at the time and American intelligence was relaying messages to the effect that the Japanese were ready to surrender if only the US agreed not to try the Emperor for war crimes and allow him to keep his seat.

Zinn suggests that perhaps the money and effort invested in developing the Bomb influenced the decision to go ahead and use it. The military's desire to see the effects of nuclear weapons, one uranium-fueled, the other plutonium-fueled, on populated areas was another probable contributing motive. This is supported by the scheduling of the two bombings two days apart, so that there would be no time for Japan to surrender before the second bomb was dropped. Zinn cites P.M.S. Blackett (Fear, War, and the Bomb) and Gar Alperovitz (Atomic Diplomacy), who separately argue that political considerations with regard to the Soviet Union definitely played a major role in the decision. Alperovitz quotes Navy Secretary James Forrestal "describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as "most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in" (Zinn, pg. 415).

In "Bombs for Beginners", John Stockwell, the highest-ranking former CIA officer ever to resign in protest over US foreign policy, writes:

"Knowing that Japan was facing imminent defeat, Russia declared war in early August. American leaders were desperate to cut Stalin and his cohorts out of the victory. General Eisenhower was among those who opposed the bombs' use. A demonstration bomb, dropped near Tokyo, would have conveyed the relevant message [to Japan] ... [But some US leaders] were obsessed with the fervor of war. They were determined to punish the Japanese and show the world how powerful the United States was and how tough-minded its leaders were" (pgs. 6-7). "Unless Japan surrendered immediately to the US, the United States would have faced a Berlin-type solution, i.e., joint occupation of Japan with the Soviets" (pgs. 22-23)

Sociologist Lester Kurtz of the University of Texas at Austin writes that public statements by Truman and others that avoiding an invasion saved 500,000 to a million American lives "were a deliberate lie," and concludes that "the real target of the bombing was the Soviet Union." He refers to the same briefing paper as Stockwell and Alperovitz, saying the U.S. soldier death estimate given to Truman was about 40,000. He quotes Admiral William D. Leahy, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.

[Rasputin]

The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender" (Alperovitz, in Kurtz, "The Nuclear Cage: A Sociology of the Arms Race"; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988, pg. 22). Kurtz quotes Thomas Powers, who says General Leslie Groves was convinced within a few weeks of becoming director of the Manhattan Project that "Russia was our enemy and the project was conducted on that basis" (Powers, "Thinking about the Next War", New York: Mentor Books, 1984, p 138, in Kurtz, pg. 22).

Mr. Rahmanian, the sad and inescapable truth about the tragic atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that it served two primary purposes ˆTesting the effectiveness of this new barbaric weapon; and scaring the Soviets and the rest of the world into accepting the U.S. as the new supreme world power.

Having built and used that ultimate weapon, the US adopted a failed policy of monopoly and exclusion by refusing to cooperate even with its closest wartime ally Britain. But by 1964, both Britain and France were declared nuclear weapon states along with Soviet Union and China that posed the very first proliferation fear for the West which desperately looked for a way to stop it. In 1965, the Geneva disarmament conference began considering a draft non proliferation treaty which led to the introduction of the formal treaty which was then opened for signature on July 1, 1968 and entered into force on March 5, 1970 and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was charged with the primary task of verifying that parties to the NPT are complying with its terms.

The strategy of the Western countries vis-à-vis Iran is nothing short of nuclear apartheid and is precisely the very same failed policy of monopoly and exclusion adopted by the United States at onset of the nuclear age which actually led to nuclear proliferation before ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This time around the treaty itself will be the first casualty of that unwise policy.

[donsaeid]

امروز از بين روزنامههاي مورد بررسي روزنامهي "كارگزاران " يادداشتي در زمينه پرونده هستهاي و مذاكرات پيرامون آن داشتهاست .


*** روزنامه "كارگزاران" در ستون سر مقاله خود با عنوان "تعهد دو جانبه" نوشتهاست:
هشداري كه ديروز غلامرضا آقازاده رئيس سازمان انرژي اتمي ايران به طرفهاي غربي ايران در مذاكرات هستهاي داد، براي سياستمداران غربي، مفهومي آشناست زيرا آقازاده بر "اجراي دوجانبه قراردادها" تاكيد ورزيد كه از مباني تغيير ناپذير ديپلماسي است.

ديپلماتها و دانشوران علوم سياسي و روابط بينالملل در غرب براي هر مذاكرهاي فرجامهاي مشخص پيش بيني كرده اند؟ مذاكره يا به توافق منتهي مي شود و يا به عدم توافق. شكل اول پيروزي ديپلماسي و شكل دوم شكست آن است. در دهههاي اخير حتي براي شكل شكست خورده مذاكرات هم مفهومي ابداع شده كه نشان دهد حتي مذاكرات شكست خورده هم كاري مهمل نيست و به هر حال مذاكره كردن از مذاكره نكردن بهتر است. در مفهوم جديد وقتي طرفين به توافق نميرسند، در بيانيه يا اعلاميه پاياني مذاكرات اين جمله را قيد مي كنند كه "طرفين توافق كردند كه به توافق نرسند".

اين جمله متناقض نما دلالت بر اين دارد كه شكست مذاكره به معناي قطع هميشگي گفت وگو نيست، بلكه ميبايست فرصتي تازه در نظر گرفت كه طرفين در خلال آن مواضع خود را تعديل كنند و با رويكرد متفاوت به مذاكرات بازگردند.

وجه ديگر ديپلماسي يعني اجراي دوجانبه تعهدات، مكمل وجه پيش گفته است.

يعني تعديل در مواضع بايد به شكلي صورت گيرد كه هيچ يك از طرفين مذاكره با احساس شكست و قبول اجباري تعهدات، ميز مذاكره را ترك نكنند، زيرا نتيجه چنين مذاكرهاي نميتواند صلح پايدار باشد.

عبارتي كه آقازاده از آن استفاده كرد در گوش ديپلماتهاي غربي به ويژه آمريكاييها طنيني آشنا دارد. زيرا نخستين بار ريچارد نيكسون رئيس جمهور پيشين آمريكا بود كه با اشاره به كشمكشهاي ايالات متحده و اتحاد شوروي گفت: "اجراي يكجانبه تعهدات نشانه تواضع نيست، بلكه نشانه ترس است". از آنجا كه هيچ دولتي نميتواند با قبول مذاكره تحت فشار و ترس حاكميت خود را خدشه دار كند، هيچ مذاكرهاي نيز نميتواند به تعهد يكجانبه ختم شود.

هنر ديپلماتهاي ايراني اين است كه بتوانند اين مفهوم را به طرف غربي خود بقبولانند.

[Rasputin]

Iran Open To a Break In Nuclear Program

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday that his government is prepared to consider suspending its controversial uranium-enrichment program if Western governments meet unspecified conditions.

The Iranian leader did not spell out Tehran's demands. But his remarks indicated that he is prepared to move ahead with preliminary discussions with European powers aimed at heading off a confrontation with the West.

"Our position on suspension is very clear," he told reporters at U.N. headquarters, where he is attending the United Nations' annual meeting of world leaders. "We have said that under fair conditions and just conditions, we will negotiate about it -- under fair and just conditions, I repeat."

The statement comes two days after the United States and five other key powers authorized the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, to continue sessions with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. The two negotiators have been seeking to set the terms of formal talks on Iran's nuclear program that would place the United States and Iran at the same negotiating table.

The Iranian leader denied U.S. claims that he is pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program, saying that Iran's spiritual leader has issued a decree prohibiting such a development. He said Iran is simply exercising its rights, under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, to develop nuclear power to meet the country's growing energy needs.

"The bottom line is, we do not need a bomb," he said.

The United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia have urged Iran to provide verifiable assurances that its nuclear program is peaceful. They pledged in June to offer Iran a broad range of commercial and political rewards in exchange for subjecting its nuclear program to greater international scrutiny.

The Security Council subsequently passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of nuclear fuel by the end of August or face sanctions. Iran ignored the demand.

But U.S. efforts to impose sanctions stalled in the face of opposition from Russia, China and France. The Europeans, meanwhile, agreed to resume talks with Iran to break the impasse.

Ahmadinejad said the latest round of talks is "moving on the right track, unless . . . hopefully, others will not disrupt the work in small ways, perhaps. We think that it is a constructive path to take."

But he also accused the West of reneging on previous agreements to support Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear power program. He said Tehran is now seeking assurances that the United States and its European partners will provide enforceable guarantees that they will abide by any agreements they ultimately make in formal negotiations. "We need to know who the parties to the negotiations are, and what the prerogatives and the responsibilities of each are, and what guarantees there are on enforcement measures," Ahmadinejad said.

[donsaeid]

البرادعي:

گفتوگو تنها راه حل پرونده هستهاي ايران است

مديركل آژانس بين المللي انرژي اتمي با بيان اينكه گفت و گو تنها راه حل پرونده هستهاي ايران است، تهديدها را به نفع هيچ يك از طرفهاي مسوول در پرونده هستهاي ندانست.


به گزارش فارس، محمد البرادعي در حاشيه پنجاهمين نشست عمومي آژانس بين المللي انرژي اتمي در گفت وگو با روزنامه مصري الاهرام در پاسخ به سوالي مبني بر تحولات جديد پرونده هستهاي ايران و ارزيابي البرادعي از اين تحولات گفت: در اين خصوص پيشرفتي بين گفت وگوهاي ايران و غرب صورت گرفته است و اميدوارم گفت وگوهاي اين هفته بين سولانا و لاريجاني در نيويورك شرايط را براي آغاز مذاكرات فراهم كند.
وي با اشاره به اين مسئله كه پرونده هسته اي ايران جزيي از مشكلات امنيتي خاورميانه است، افزود به عقيده من در اين خصوص راه حلي جز گفت و گو وجود ندارد.
البرادعي در ادامه گفت: دست يابي به هرگونه توافقي درباره ايران فقط به مسئله هستهاي اين كشور خلاصه نميشود بلكه توافق درباره مسائل سياسي، امنيتي و اقتصادي را شامل مي شود كه دو طرف ايران و امريكا از سال 1979 با آن مواجه هستند.
البرادعي در ادامه گفت موضوع هسته اي ايران بخشي از روند عمليات امنيتي در منطقه است و بايد به شكل صلح آميز حل شود.
وي افزود از اينكه تهران در شرايط كنوني براي آغاز گفت و گوها نرمش و انعطاف از خود نشان مي دهد خوش بين هستم و ممكن است با بازگشت به مذاكره در آينده توافق نيز صورت گيرد.
مديركل آژانس بين المللي انرژي اتمي درباره اظهارات آقازاده ، رئيس سازمان انرژي هستهاي ايران مبني بر كاهش همكاري ايران با آژانس در صورت اعمال مجازات بر ضد اين كشور گفت : ديپلماسي شامل گفت وگو و فشار از سوي هر يك از طرفين درگير است و ايران و اروپا هركدام از اعمال فشار بر طرف ديگر استفاده ميكنند.
وي تصريح كرد: اروپا با تهديد بر اعمال مجازات بر ايران و ايران نيز با تهديد به كاهش همكاري ها با آژانس به يكديگر فشار مي آورند.
البرادعي اين تهديدها را به نفع هيچ كدام از دو طرف ندانست و گفت اين تهديدها پيامدهايي منفي براي تمامي منطقه به دنبال دارد.

[Rasputin]

تاهفته اول اكتبر
اولتيماتوم اتمی جديد
گروه 1+5 به ايران




در اوضاع بشدت آشفته ای كه در درون حاكميت پيرامون سياست اتمی وجود دارد و بازتاب آن در لغو ملافات لاريجانی با سولانا، اعزام هاشمی ثمره برای مذاكرات محرمانه با فرانسوی ها و موضع گيری های ادعائی احمدی نژاد در نيويورك پيرامون پيشرفت خوب مذاكرات با اروپائی ها، ناگهان اعضای اصلی شورای امنيت سازمان ملل و آلمان هفته اول ماه اكتبر را آخرين مهلت ايران برای توقف غنی سازی اعلام داشتند.

اين درحالی است كه همچنان سياست مقامات جمهوری اسلامی حذف توقف غنی سازی بعنوان پيش شرط مذاكرات است.اعضای دائم شورای امنيت و آلمان در حاشيه اجلاس عمومى سازمان ملل با يكديگر بر سر موضع جديد و مهلت تازه به ايران با هم به تفاهم رسيدند. مهلتی كه به اولتيماتوم شباهت دارد تا مهلت. هر نوع مذاكرات وزيرخارجه اتحاديه اروپا با مقامات ايرانی برپايه اين مهلت جديد تنظيم شده است و به اين ترتيب بنظر می رسد نتيجه مذاكرات هاشمی ثمره و ژاك شيراك نيز دستآوردی به همراه نداشته و فرانسوی ها نيز در اين اجلاس تابع نظر بقيه شده و به مهلت و اولتيماتوم هفته اول ماه اكتبر تن داده اند.

درحاليكه هنوز احمدی نژاد در نيويورك است و منتظر مهلت يك سخنرانی ديگر در مجمع عمومی سازمان ملل، جرج بوش نام او را از ليست ميهمانی رهبران جهان حذف كرده و در يك مصاحبه تلويزيونی با شبكه CNN اعلام داشت: زمان براى ايران سپرى ميشود. به نظر ميآيد ايران قصد وقت كشى دارد و به همين دليل هم بايد با تمام توان مناقشه را به جلو برد. تعيين كننده در اين مناقشه فاكتور زمان است

[Rasputin]

Ahmadinejad's UN speech: A potent propaganda text

Tuesday's speech to the UN by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was crafted in a more moderate tone than other recent tirades, but that did not diminish its potency as a propaganda text aimed at rallying the Muslim world behind his violent apocalyptic vision, and at winning the support of the Third World in casting the US as a global threat and oppressor.

Ahmadinejad repeatedly challenged the international role of the US, describing it as a nuclear-armed occupier of other lands that is hypocritical on democracy. Still, the speech was wrapped in more diplomatic language, marking a change from the rambling, Unabomber-style letter he sent to US President George Bush last May. Similarly, the speech included oblique references to "some of the survivors of the Second World War," but stopped short of previous statements that openly called the Holocaust "a myth."

The Iranian president's speech opened with strong religious language, and ended with expressions of messianic fervor. This follows on Ahmadinejad's theme from last year, when he talked of being "surrounded by a light" while addressing the 2005 plenary. He continued in that vein tonight, saying that today's world "above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples." He asked God for return of "the perfect human being promised to all by You", and that God "make us among [the savior's] followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause."

Despite using relatively softer language, said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based monitoring organization, the Iranian leader's speech was riddled with numerous blatant contradictions:


Ahmadinejad's major theme was the injustice and non-democratic nature of the UN Security Council. But Iran itself is a theocracy controlled by an unelected Supreme Leader that, among other things, tightly controls which candidates are allowed to run in elections - as the General Assembly itself found (see quote from UN resolution below).

His solution was to hand more power to countries from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) - yet the vast majority of these regimes are entirely non-democratic themselves, lacking any claim to representative legitimacy.

Ahmadinejad talked about "truth" and referred 33 times to the word "justice" - yet his regime was found by the IAEA to have been lying for years about its nuclear program, and has been accused of gross injustice through resort to phony trials, which have covered up the torture and killings of dissidents such as Canadian photo-journalist Zahra Kazemi.

He portrayed himself as leader of the Third World, and claimed to speak in the name of "peoples across the Globe." As such, he sought to distinguish between those who live in poverty and others (i.e., the US) who "rely on weapons and threats." He talked about countries that "waste their wealth and resources" to produce "destructive arsenals" of nuclear weapons. But that's precisely what international experts say Iran is doing in illegally pursuing its massive nuclear weapons program. Moreover, Ahmadinejad's regime has for years preferred to send hundreds of millions of dollars for advanced weaponry to arm Hizbullah for its rule over Lebanon and for attacks against Israel, all in violation of UN resolution 1559 - rather than meet the basic needs of Iran's own impoverished citizens.

[Rasputin]

Ahmadinejad said "occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq". Yet Iran remains the leading external force actively promoting violence and division to ensure the instability of that country.

His speech protested the tragedy of the Palestinians - yet Iran has been the greatest sponsor of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorism in order to undermine every attempt for a peaceful, two-state resolution, from the Oslo agreements to the Road Map.

Ahmadinejad referred 17 times to "peace," and complained about the war in Lebanon. But Iran's Hezbollah client militia was the one that, as Kofi Annan said, provocatively attacked Israel across the UN-certified blue line, backed by Iranian Revolutionary Guards, all in clear defiance of UN resolutions.

He talked a great deal about notions of "freedom and human rights." Yet the General Assembly - which, in his own words, "as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be
…respected" - earlier this year condemned Iran as one of the world's greatest violators of human rights. According to GA Resolution 60/171, adopted in March, these include the following systematic violations by the Teheran regime:

Continuing harassment, intimidation and persecution of human rights defenders, non-governmental organizations, political opponents, religious dissenters, political reformists, journalists, parliamentarians, students, clerics, academics and webloggers"

Restrictions on the freedoms of assembly, opinion and expression, the use of arbitrary arrest, targeted at both individuals and their family members, and the unjustified closure of newspapers and blocking of Internet sites"

The absence of many conditions necessary for free and fair elections, including by the arbitrary disqualification of large numbers of prospective candidates, including all women, during the presidential elections of June 2005" - indeed, the very ballot that elected Ahmadinejad;

The persistent failure to comply fully with international standards in the administration of justice and, in particular, the absence of due process of law"

The refusal to provide fair and public hearings, the denial of the right to counsel and access to counsel by those detained, the use of national security laws to deny human rights, the harassment, intimidation and persecution of defence lawyers and legal defenders"

The continuing use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment such as flogging and amputations"

Continuing violence and discrimination against women and girls in law and in practice"; and continuing discrimination, and other human rights violations against ethnic and religious minorities," specifically citing Arabs, Kurds, Baluchis, Christians, Jews, Sunni Muslims, and particularly the Bahai.

UN Watch calls on UN member states to unite and firmly support the current international effort to hold Iran accountable to its obligations under all relevant UN resolutions and international law.

[donsaeid]

[donsaeid]

جهان عرب در بخش انرژي هستهاي از ايران پيروي كند

دبيركل شوراي همكاري خليج فارس از جهان عرب خواست نسبت به استفاده از برنامه هاي مسالمت آميز هستهاي توجه داشته باشند و براي دستيابي به اين فناوري از ايران پيروي كنند.


عبدالرحمان العطيه در گفت و گو با شماره روز شنبه روزنامه فرامنطقهاي الحيات گفت: ما از دستيابي كشورها به فناوري مسالمتآميز و قانوني حمايت ميكنيم و با اقدامات كشورهاي غربي در خصوص ايران كه از قبل در خصوص آنها با ما رايزني و مشورت نشده، مخالفيم.
وي افزود: ما موضع گيري خود را در اين خصوص به طور شفاف در نشستهاي خود با مسوولان بين المللي و ديگر گروههاي بينالمللي به اطلاع آنها رسانديم و معتقديم برنامههاي هستهاي در چارچوب مسالمت آميز مشروعيت دارد.
دبيركل شوراي همكاري خليج فارس گفت: جهان عرب نبايد در دستيابي به فناوري هستهاي از ساير كشورهاي جهان عقب بماند و جزو آخر پيشرفتهاي جهاني باشند بويژه اينكه كشورهاي عرب دانشمندان خود را به ديگر كشورها مي فرستند.
وي تاكيد كرد: اين شورا با اتخاذ اقدامات از سوي غرب در مورد پرونده هستهاي ايران، بدون مشورت و رايزني با جهان عرب مخالف است.
عطيه در بخش ديگري از اين مصاحبه با انتقاد از مواضع برخي كشورهاي غربي در مورد مسائل جهان اسلام گفت: غربيها با وجود منافع اقتصادي مشترك با كشورهاي عربي در شوراي امنيت مواضع يكجانبه اتخاذ ميكنند.
وي درباره دورنماي مذاكرات صلح در خاورميانه نيز گفت: اعراب در اين باره دچار شكاف شده و با يكديگر اختلاف نظر دارند و اسرائيل با نقش شوراي امنيت سازمان ملل مخالف است كه اين مسائل معادله دشواري را ايجاد كرده است.
دبيركل شوراي همكاري خليج فارس مخالفت اسرائيل با بررسي مسائل خاورميانه در شوراي امنيت را محكوم كرد و گفت: روند صلح به اجازه اسرائيل نيازي ندارد.

[Rasputin]

chirac ham cheh pouli az akhounda gerefteh hala Pour merde.. hahaha

[Rasputin]

The nations seeking to halt Iran's nuclear activities are working out a new deadline for Tehran despite continuing differences over possible sanctions, the French foreign minister said on Wednesday night.

With world leaders gathered at the United Nations, the United States had hoped to drive decisively this week toward political and economic sanctions against Iran after it missed an Aug. 31 UN Security Council deadline to halt disputed uranium enrichment that many believe is aimed at making a nuclear bomb.

But some US allies are balking. France has instead proposed a compromise deal: a simultaneous suspension of all threats of sanctions and Iran's uranium enrichment.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy pushed ahead with this plan Wednesday. He suggested that the United States and others support it and said they were discussing a possible new timeline. He also discussed it with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and said the Iranian agreed that "time is an important factor."

Douste-Blazy gave no specific date. But a senior French diplomat said the nations involved in nuclear talks with Iran are mulling an early October deadline for Tehran to agree to a simultaneous suspension of uranium enrichment and talk of sanctions.

The United States and Britain remained cautious about the suspension plan. A US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the confidential discussions, confirmed that the group had discussed a new timeline - but said sanctions are still on the table.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday: "I'm not going to talk in terms of deadlines," but added, "This cannot go on for very much longer."

She also reiterated the US position that Iran suspend enrichment before negotiations can begin.
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett would not discuss a possible new date, either.
"What we are looking for is a clear and sustained and concrete signal that Iran wishes to negotiate," she told reporters. "Our patience, I think, is not unlimited."

A dinner meeting Tuesday with Rice, Beckett, Douste-Blazy and the foreign ministers of Russia, China, Germany and Italy produced little consensus about the next step, US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said. He said the diplomatic effort to counter Iran was in "extra innings."

The Americans have little choice but to give the Europeans a little more time, since Washington needs Europe on board for sanctions to be effective.

US-Iranian tensions are in the spotlight this week, with both nations' presidents speaking Tuesday to the UN General Assembly - and pointedly avoiding each other in the halls of the world body.

In his speech, US President George W. Bush said, "Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions," but said the US has "no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted in his speech that Tehran's nuclear activities are "transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye" of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog. He also reiterated his nation's commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Progress hinges on talks between EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani. Larijani had been expected in New York this week, but Beckett said Wednesday that it appeared that he would not be coming.
She also said the ministers have authorized Solana to go anywhere at any time to meet Larijani.

[Rasputin]

Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi met the Iranian president Ahmadinejad later Wednesday, but no details of the talks were released.
France appeared determined to resist sanctions, despite mixed messages this week.

President Jacques Chirac shook up diplomatic circles with a proposal to drop talk of sanctions on Monday, then appeared to soften the stance after meeting Tuesday with Bush. Chirac also said Tuesday he was not interested in new deadlines for Iran.

Douste-Blazy, however, was eager to set a new timeline.

"We cannot let the Iranians ... gain time," he said. "We must have a response rather fast."
Iran hinted last week that it might be willing to suspend uranium enrichment. That was enough to sow new division among the nations seeking to stem Iran's nuclear program - and brake the push for sanctions.