Tweet
The Khomeini letter.
Amazing.
Amazing.
-
-
Comment
-
Iran says sanctions threat part of psychological war
Iran's Foreign Ministry said on Saturday Western threats to impose sanctions were part of a "psychological war" and the Islamic Republic was more determined than ever to pursue peaceful nuclear technology.
Barring a change of heart by Iran, the European Union's 25 foreign ministers want to agree at a meeting on Tuesday to ask the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on Saturday.
Iran's state television Web site said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini described "the issue of imposing sanctions on Iran as a psychological war against Iran".
"The Iranian nation does not fear possible sanctions and -- more determined than in the past -- it continues its way toward the peaceful use of nuclear energy," he was quoted as saying.
Iran's case has been sent back to the Security Council after it failed to halt uranium enrichment, a process the West fears Iran is using to develop atomic bombs despite Tehran's denials.
Iran has shrugged off the threat of sanctions in the past. Analysts say the world's fourth largest oil exporter, which is enjoying an oil revenue windfall, may feel it can cope with the modest penalties likely to be imposed initially.
Hosseini said Iran's proposal for other countries to invest in its nuclear program was "still on the table".
Iran has said this would be a way for others to monitor its atomic work to prove it was peaceful. The offer has found no takers so far.
Hosseini also said the United States was to blame for North Korea's decision to stage a nuclear test because of its "unilateral policies in global issues".
Iran has said it opposes atomic weapons and, in previous statements, has called for nuclear disarmament by all countries.Comment
-
just a gameComment
-
Who's Next to Go Nuclear?
North Korea announced its first test of a nuclear device last week, setting off hand-wringing around the world that a newly armed Pyongyang might sell nuclear weapons to rogue states or terrorists.
But another threat, more likely and more dangerous, may emerge. Pyongyang's test could encourage "near-nuclear" proliferation -- a world in which states master key technologies that are ostensibly for harmless energy-related purposes but can be quickly adapted for deadly, offensive ends.
Indeed, governments aspiring to join the small but growing club of nuclear states don't need to consider testing nukes or withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Instead, their first step could involve learning how to enrich uranium or separate plutonium; that technology can produce fuel for nuclear energy reactors -- or bombs.
Under common interpretations of the NPT, governments are allowed to acquire such technology for peaceful purposes. Once states perfect these techniques, though, they will have overcome the greatest obstacle to getting the bomb -- access to nuclear fuel.
These aren't hypotheticals: Iran has claimed that its fledgling uranium enrichment program is intended to diversify its energy supply by producing fuel for reactors. This year, Egypt and Turkey announced interest in nuclear energy as well.
A world in which countries have the capability to go nuclear on short notice is fraught with peril. Over the next decade, keep your eye on five nations in particular that may pursue that path:
JAPAN . Japan's stockpile of more than 40 tons of plutonium -- which it keeps for use in energy reactors -- is enough fuel for 3,000 to 5,000 nuclear weapons. It also has the technical capacity to produce a sophisticated nuclear arsenal on short notice that could rival the Chinese arsenal.
The Japanese public is traditionally anti-nukes, but politicians such as former prime minister Yasuhiro Nakasone have openly suggested that Japan may need to reconsider its nuclear options.
SOUTH KOREA. Since 1998, South Korea has followed a "sunshine policy" toward North Korea, emphasizing engagement over isolation. Nuclear weapons play no role in this approach. However, North Korea's test has prompted some anger in the south. Seoul's attitude toward Pyongyang may be shifting.
Seoul had a nuclear weapons program in the early 1970s, but joined the NPT in 1975. In 2004, however, South Korea admitted that it had conducted secret experiments with uranium enrichment and plutonium separation beginning in the late 1970s. Like Japan, South Korea could acquire a credible nuclear arsenal on relatively short notice.
IRAN . Flush with oil revenue, Iran has emerged as a newly assertive and ambitious player in the Middle East. If isolated and impoverished North Korea can get away with developing and testing nuclear weapons, better-positioned countries such as Iran may be emboldened to think they can, too.
EGYPT. Egypt once had a nuclear weapons program, but gave it up in the 1970s and joined the NPT. Since Iran's 1979 revolution, relations between the two countries have been strained. Iran bridles at Egypt's recognition of Israel, and is still sore about Egypt's siding with Saddam Hussein during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. Until 2004, a street in Tehran was named after the assassin of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat. Relations have improved in recent years, but suspicions still run deep.
Last month, Gamal Mubarak, son of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and widely viewed as next in line for the presidency, suggested in a speech that Egypt pursue nuclear energy. In a thinly veiled reference to Iran, he noted that Egypt "is not the only country that is thinking about this alternative to save on energy sources."
SAUDI ARABIA. Like Egypt, Saudi Arabia regards Iran's nuclear program and growing clout with suspicion, and is also nervous about the precipitous decline in U.S. influence in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia helped finance Pakistan's nuclear program, and its leaders are rumored to have met with A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb and the mastermind of a global black market in nuclear technology. The Saudis couldn't develop a nuclear arsenal now, but a shortcut is possible. They could obtain a weapon from Pakistan, or invite Pakistan to station some of its weapons at Saudi bases. This could be legal under the NPT, just as the United States stations nuclear weapons at European bases.Comment
-
در هفته های آينده
منتظر چه اخباری بايد بود؟
وزيرخارجه امريكا:
درهفته های آينده بايد منتظر تصميمات جديد بود
نماينده امريكا در سازمان ملل:
پاسخ به كره، درسی است برای ايران
جان بولتن نماينده امريكا در سازمان ملل، روز گذشته و دراشاره به تصويب قطعنامه جديد شورای امنيت عليه كره شمالی، پس از آزمايش هسته ای اين كشور، خطاب به ايران، در مصاحبه با شبكه تلويزيونی سی ان ان گفت:
اميدوارم ايران از اين قطعنامه درس گرفته باشد و دست از ادامه حركت به سوی توليد سلاح اتمی بردارد. ما باز هم به ايران توصيه می كنيم پيشنهاد چند ماه پيش اعضای دائمی شورای امنيت و آلمان را بپذيرد. گرچه دولت امريكا و كاخ سفيد معتقد است سران جمهوری اسلامی اين پيشنهاد را رد كرده اند زيرا مصمم به توليد سلاح اتمی اند.
همانگونه كه آنها در اين مسير پيش ميروند، ما نيز بايد در مسير پاسخ لازم به آنها حركت كنيم.
درهمين ارتباط وزير خارجه امريكا "رايس" نيز در مصاحبه با تلويزيون فاكس گفت:
ما هماهنگ با اروپا پيش می رويم. اين همآهنگی از ماه فوريه پيش ميرود. وقتی آژانس انرژی اتمی اعلام كرد كه غنی سازی و پروسه اورانيوم درايران قابل قبول نيست ما به سمت قطعنامه ماه جولای رفتيم. اكنون نيز همآهنگی لازم برای نشان دادن عكس العمل لازم در برابر ادامه سياست اتمی ايران جريان دارد و نتايج آن را ظرف چند هفته آينده خواهيد ديد. قطعنامه جديد شورای امنيت نيز در پايتخت كشورهای مختلف درحال بررسی است و بزودی تسليم شورای امنيت خواهد شد.
Comment
-
I am still attempting to understand what the central point of Rasool Nafisi's "The Khomeini Letter" exactly is. His references to “this most critical issue” goes back and forth from the focus of “western media attention” on the nuclear reference in Khomeini’s letter recently published by Rafsanjani, on to trying to establish the differences of opinions within the ruling class in Iran and ending with an almost regretful mention of the “delay” this may all cause in “Washington’s ability to influence Iran’s internal debates”. That last part made me look again to make sure it wasn’t Azar Nafisi who wrote it instead of Rasool.
For starters, perhaps it would have helped if Mr. Nafisi had attempted a better translation of the section of the letter his first part of the article is focused on. The actual text attributed to Mohsen Rezaei (Former head of the Revolutionary Corps) in Farsi reads:
Rasool Nafisi does a decent job of translating the text, except for dropping a small sentence and changing one key word that could change the meaning or at least the context it was included. Most would translate the text as:
"We will have no victories over the next five years. It is possible that we may gain the ability to conduct effective strikes or counter-attacks by utilizing the tools we will collect over these five years and at the end of 1371 (1992), if we have 350 brigades of infantry, 2500 tanks, 3000 canons, 300 fighter jets, 300 helicopters and the ability to produce a significant amount of laser and atomic weapons which will be the necessary tools of war by then, it could be said that with blessing of god we could have offensive operations.”
Nafisi drops the sentence about “by end of 1992” and then uses “nowadays” instead of “by then” in describing what Rezaei saw in 1988 as the necessities of an upcoming future war, making it something they saw necessary at the time to obtain.
This small but significant difference plays very nicely into the hands of those who are desperately attempting to prove an intention to build military capabilities for Iran’s nuclear program. After all, if the top IRI leaders were discussing obtaining nuclear weapons as items that “are nowadays among the necessities of modern warfare” in 1988, then they must have continuously pursued that goal to this day.
Of course, the “western media” that are supposedly so focused on that sentence are missing the greater threat so clearly demonstrated in those lines and that refers to the obvious campaign to obtain “laser weapons” as well. Yes, I am being sarcastic as I think including lasers next to atomic is a good demonstration of the nature of the conversation that must’ve taken place; making everything far more dangerous, bigger and uglier than necessary to make a point.
I am not suggesting Nafisi changes the text to make that point, but by not carefully translating the text, he contributes to establishing a tale as fact. Something most respected intellectuals should be extra cautious of.
The rest of the piece is further confusing. Is the author sincerely trying to make “Washington” be better aware of the conditions in Iran in order to “influence” it more rapidly and effectively? Otherwise, why bother? By now everyone knows those in charge of the White House don’t really care a whole lot about facts or the truth. They will change the information to suit their agenda as has been demonstrated aptly since September of 2001 and whether they really understand what the actual “internal debates” in Iran is, not many would assume that they even care.
If it is in fact this foreign influence that is sought by such reasoning, then author is correct in misrepresenting that first quote and then offering yet another piece in paving the way to justify another illegal and immoral foreign influence of the west in our home region.
For all of our sakes, let us hope that is not the case.Comment
-
Iran doesn't criticize N. Korea's nuclear test, blames Washington
Iran stood apart Tuesday from the chorus of countries condemning North Korea for its declared nuclear test, with a government spokesman putting the blame on Washington and calling for universal nuclear disarmament.
In their first reports about North Korea's test, Iranian newspapers were sympathetic Tuesday toward the Pyongyang regime, with which Tehran has long enjoyed close but secretive relations.
"When America's expansionist policies make the world a dangerous place, it is to be expected that countries seek such weapons as a deterrence," said the hard-line Resalat in an editorial.
One moderate newspaper, the independent Etemad-e-Melli, said the nuclear explosion that North Korea announced Monday bore a lesson for the United States, which has long pushed for sanctions on Iran because of its controversial nuclear program. Iran contends its program is civilian-only and it does not intend to produce a bomb.
"The White House has to choose one of two options: mobilizing world support for dealing with North Korea and showing flexibility toward Iran, or ignoring North Korea and insisting on threatening Tehran for its nuclear activities," said Etemad-e-Melli.
"Political analysts will choose the first option," the editorial added.
In the first official response to the test, government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters that Iran opposed "any use of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons." But he did not criticize North Korea for developing a nuclear weapon.
"The root cause of this (test) should be sought in the policy, behavior and method adopted by the rulers of the United States," Elham said.
His remark took the same line as a state radio editorial on Monday that said the test was "a reaction to America's threats and humiliation."
"The Islamic Republic of Iran is a pioneer in supporting a world that is free of nclear weapons. If the big powers are serious, the best way to counter nuclear weapons is for them to start nuclear disarmament themselves," Elham said.
In an obvious reference to Iran's own difficulties with the U.N. nuclear agency, Elham added: "the International Atomic Energy Agency has to provide the ground for the peaceful use of nuclear energy by all countries."
The IAEA has called on Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium until doubts about the country's nuclear program have been cleared. But Iran has refused to do so, saying it is enriching uranium solely to provide fuel for a reactor that will generate electricity.
Enriched uranium can also be used to make nuclear bombs, which Washington believes is Iran's aim.
One Iranian columnist warned that North Korea's test was "both a chance and a threat for Iran."
"It is a chance because it will reduce the pressure on Iran," Amir Rafati told The Associated Press. "It is a threat because it may make things worse for Iran in the long run."
Rafati, who writes for the financial paper Jahan-e-Eghtesad, said that Washington and its allies might be frustrated in trying to tackle North Korea and get tough with Iran instead.
Iranian officials have long refused to comment on the nature of their government's relationship with North Korea. Western intelligence agencies have reported that Iran's Shahab-3 missile, which is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, is based on a North Korean rocket. But Iran denies this.
Iran does not criticize North Korea's nuclear test, blames WashingtonComment
-
Rice urges tough action on N.Korea, warns Iran
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Monday she would rally Asian allies this week to implement U.N. sanctions against North Korea and warned Iran it faced the same fate over its nuclear program.
Rice, who will leave on Tuesday for Japan, South Korea, China and Russia, said North Korea must "pay a price" after its underground nuclear test last week. U.S. intelligence authorities confirmed on Monday the test had taken place.
"We expect every member of the international community to fully implement all aspects of this resolution. And we expect the Security Council to aggressively monitor the process," Rice told reporters.
The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution on Saturday imposing financial and weapons sanctions against North Korea and Rice's main goal on her trip will be to find practical ways to impose those measures.
"North Korea cannot endanger the world and then expect other nations to conduct business as usual in arms or missile parts," said Rice.
Rice said she hoped North Korea would not conduct a second nuclear test, saying this would be a provocative act and would further isolate the country.
IRAN WARNING
The United States is also at loggerheads with Iran over its nuclear program and Tehran's refusal to meet an August 31 U.N. deadline to abandon uranium enrichment or face sanctions. Iran says its nuclear program is for power generation while the U.S. and its allies suspect Tehran of building a bomb.
Rice said the U.N. Security Council was expected to start work on a sanctions resolution against Iran this week.
"The Iranian government is watching and it can now see that the international community will respond to threats from nuclear proliferation," said Rice, whose government has spearheaded the sanctions campaign against Iran.
"So the Iranian government should consider the course that it is on, which could lead to, simply to further isolation."
Rice said the United States was open to resuming six-party talks with North Korea on ending its nuclear ambitions without any preconditions. The six party talks bring together the two Koreas, Japan, Russia, China and the United States.
"My goal on this trip is, certainly, to reiterate that we're prepared to return to the talks. But North Korea also needs to understand ... that they will pay a price here (because of the test)," she said.
North Korea has boycotted the talks since last year because of a U.S. crackdown on firms it suspects of aiding Pyongyang in illicit activities such as counterfeiting.
All of the six-party members except for North Korea had tentatively planned to meet in Beijing during Rice's visit but a State Department official said "scheduling problems" meant a meeting of the five might not take place now.
One of Rice's toughest challenges will be to convince China to follow through on its promises to rigidly impose sanctions and to put more pressure on Pyongyang.
China fought to weaken some provisions in the U.N. resolution and made clear nations must not take "provocative steps" in their actions, such as halting cargoes on the high seas.
"Rice must tell the Chinese 'We think it is in your interests to pressure North Korea and that, frankly this will be important to our (U.S. and China's) bilateral interests'," said Winston Lord, a former U.S. ambassador to China.Comment
-
North Korea has finally played its trump card by testing a nuclear weapon. In doing so, it has challenged the United States, shook South Korea, deeply alarmed Japan, paid little heed to Russia, and risks humiliating China for a big reward by appearing independent and daring. Emboldened by its own action, Pyongyang will be less accommodating in future negotiations, especially since it has successfully provoked international attention while raising the stakes for the United States, South Korea, and Japan. The sanctions passed by the Security Council are not strong enough to force Pyongyang to relinquish its nuclear weapons. To prevent the situation from spinning out of control, the Bush administration must conduct direct talks with North Korea.
The administration may praise the UN resolution, arguing that even a weaker resolution strongly signals international condemnation. But since when has North Korea worried about international condemnation? The truth is that the sanctions will neither have an immediate nor a crippling effect. North Korea knows that China will not allow it to become a failed state and inherit the insurmountable burden of dealing with millions of refugees and possibly millions more starving to death. This is why China and Russia will continue to insist that the situation be peacefully resolved. Pyongyang also knows that by seeking multilateral punitive measures through the UN, Washington has ruled out a military response. In fact, President Bush conceded defeat when he publicly switched from a policy of nonproliferation to one of deterrence and defense. Thus, in his statement after the test, he basically acknowledged that he can no longer seek to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons but will try to deter North Korea from their use or transfer. Pyongyang is also fully cognizant that South Korea, regardless of its internal debate on how to deal with a nuclear North, wants to preserve the Sunshine policy. Seoul is eager to keep the prospect of unification alive and will do everything to prevent a war that could completely devastate it. Finally, although realizing how sensitive Tokyo is about a nuclear North Korea, but obsessed with its historic enmity to Japan, Pyongyang went ahead with its nuclear test willingly risking the loss of Japanese economic assistance in order to assert itself as a regional nuclear power to be reckoned with. In sum, North Korea skillfully capitalized on the divergent interests of the group of five it has engaged with in on-and-off negotiations during the last few years.
The test’s aftermath finds North Korea in a much better bargaining position. Washington’s refusal to negotiate directly with Pyongyang for the past six years has allowed it to proceed with its nuclear program with impunity. The administration’s stubborn insistence on regime change and its refusal to enter into a non-belligerency agreement have given North Korea every reason to defy and successfully defeat the Bush administration policy. Pyongyang has certainly succeeded: there is not even a hint of an American military attack, and to assure the American public, Secretary of State Rice has categorically removed that option.
The Bush administration may choose to be satisfied with the passage of the Security Council’s sanctions. But by themselves, they will not force North Korea to the negotiating table nor abandon its nuclear program. Kim Jong-il has skillfully raised the stakes at a time of his choosing: U.S. troops are bogged down in Iraq fighting an ever-widening insurgency in a country that has plunged into civil war; the administration is fighting for its political life in mid-term elections, and Iran has rejected international demands to end its uranium enrichment program, thus presenting another daunting challenge to Washington. To be sure, North Korea has scored another impressive victory in its brinkmanship game with the Bush administration, leaving it scrambling for a face-saving way out.
Six years of failed policy has added another nation to the nuclear club, but one that is reckless, unpredictable, and potentially extremely dangerous. The argument by some administration officials who boast that the UN resolution is evidence of a united, multilateral front agreeing to punish North Korea is dangerously naive. It is critical to move quickly beyond the sanctions because North Korea’s first nuclear test hardly signals the end of its nuclear program. Kim Jong-il seeks a functional nuclear deterrent, and this requires more testing of larger magnitude as well as the development of long-range missiles. Moreover, now that scores of countries are involved in uranium enrichment programs the problem of proliferation assumes far greater urgency.
To prevent North Korea from pursuing this dangerously ambitious goal, there is an urgent need for long, sustained talks between Pyongyang and Washington. In this context, the Bush administration must give up the idea of regime change in North Korea to assuage its main concerns and begin the process of building a positive relationship. Only bilateral dialogue will permit Washington to gauge Pyongyang’s intentions and requirements and reach a verifiable and enduring agreement. Such an agreement will permanently remove the danger of transfer of nuclear technology and the growing risks of nuclear conflagration in Asia.Comment
-
Iran issues stark warning over sanctions moves
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has warned the UN Security Council against imposing sanctions over its nuclear programme, saying such a move would "radicalise" the situation and affect its cooperation with the UN atomic agency.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said US-led efforts to put a draft resolution to the Security Council would make ending the standoff even harder and even have consequences for the wider Middle East region.
His comments came after the European Union -- whose foreign policy chief Javier Solana held several rounds of talks with Larijani in search of a solution to the standoff -- declared the issue must now go the United Nations.
"If the Europeans give into US pressure, the situation will radicalise in such a way that Iran will suffer the least and the West will suffer the most," Larijani told the Mehr news agency in an interview.
"Any new resolution would push further back the chance of an agreement.
"If the other side tries to pass a resolution and exercise pressure and threats, then Iran will not stay indifferent," added Larijani, in his first public comments for several days on the nuclear issue.
He reiterated warnings that Iran could suspend its policy of allowing inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to carry out checks on its nuclear sites.
Security Council moves "would also be perceived by Iran as a threat to our security and will have consequences for our attitude towards the agency," he said.
"The path of sanctions and an illegal hardening is a path along which a reciprocal reaction from Iran can be expected."
Larijani referred to a bill proposed by parliament and already adopted by its security commission that would automatically suspend inspections if sanctions were imposed.
He said he did not "favour" such a move but also warned that parliament was right to "defend the natural interests of Iran".
Hamid Reza Hadji Babaie, a member of the security commission, said parliament would vote on the law immediately after any sanctions resolution was agreed by the Security Council.
"The government would be obliged to expel the inspectors and this law would be applied as long the sanctions were in force," he said, according to Mehr.
Larijani also said that if sanctions are pursued, this "will accentuate the regional crisis" in the Middle East.
"The adventurist actions of the United States (against Iran at the Security Council) would have consequences on a regional scale," he added, without elaborating.
The sanctions action against Iran is looming after Tehran failed to heed repeated deadlines to suspend uranium enrichment, a process which the West fears could be diverted to make nuclear weapons.
However Iran insists its atomic programme is aimed solely at generating energy and that it has every right to enrich uranium under the Non-Proliferation Treaty as part of its drive to master the full nuclear fuel cycle.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier predicted Western powers would not be able halt Iran's drive to master the nuclear cycle. It has so far succeed in enriching uranium to almost five percent on an experimental scale.
"Some oppressive countries intend to create discord in order to dissuade the Iranian nation from reaching the summits of dignity and glory, including using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes," said Ahmadinejad.
"But with God's kindness they will be defeated in this arena too," he added, according to the IRNA agency.
The United States is seeking a step-by-step sanctions regime, to be implemented through multiple UN resolutions that would ramp up pressure on Iran if it persists with its nuclear work.
The first set of measures is expected to focus on preventing the supply of material and funding for Iran's ballistic missile programme or its nuclear drive.
Other steps could include asset freezes and travel bans on officials.Comment
-
Comment
-
Israel vows not to let nuclear Iran stand
JERUSALEM Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (EH'-hood OHL'-murt) warns that Iran will have a "price to pay" if it doesn't back down from its nuclear ambitions.
Olmert didn't say what might happen but Israel did destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981.
Talking to reporters after returning from Russia, where he also took a tough stance against Iran, Olmert said, "a red line must be drawn that cannot be crossed." He did not say what that line was.
Olmert also said there may be "a need to do something in the future," although Israel has said in the past it won't lead a campaign against Iran's nuclear program.
Military experts have questioned Israel's ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, which, unlike Iraq's, are scattered among installations. But they have said Israel could set the program back years by striking several of the sites.Comment
-
IRAN NUCLEAR: WORLD POWERS DISCUSS NEW RESOLUTION
New York, 20 Oct. (AKI) - Officials with the three European countries - Britain, France and Germany - involved in talks over Iran's nuclear programme will be drafting over the weekend a draft resolution on Tehran to be presented to the UN Security Council. A European diplomatic source told Adnkronos International (AKI) that the resolution will be drafted under article 41 of Chapter seven of the United Nations Charter dealing with political and economic sanctions against countries which have ignored previous UN resolutions.
Iran ignored a UN 31 August resolution demanding that it halt sensitive nuclear work the international community fears is aimed at building nuclear weapons.
The US embassy in Moscow has announced a visit of US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice on Saturday who will reportedly try to convince Russia not to exercise its veto power within the Council against sanctions. Russia and China, close commercial allies of Iran, both oppose sanctions.
The draft resolution, UN sources say, should include in an initial phase only a ban on the sale and export to Iran of materials and technologies which could be used to develop Tehran's atomic programme or to build chemical and bacteriological weapons.
News that the draft resolution will be presented at the beginning of next week has already sparked the first reactions from Iran.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani warned the international community that "should sanctions against the Islamic Republic be approved, we will not remain indifferent."
Ali Ahani, Iran ambassador to France, said potential sanctions would not damage the US "which hasn't had economic and commercial relations with our country [Iran] for 27 years, but would cause strong losses to French, German and Italian companies."
Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor in chief of Kayhan, the main ultra-conservative daily in Tehran, warned the West "not to underestimate the vengefulness of the Islamic Republic."Comment
-
پشت صحنه چه می گذرد؟
بحث ها و نشانه های جدی
پيرامون قطعنامه جديد شورای امنيت
دور پايانی رايزنی ها برای ايجاد همآهنگی، قبل از اجلاس قريب الوقوع شورای امنيت سازمان ملل، با هدف بررسی پرونده اتمی ايران و نوع برخورد با فعاليت های اتمی كره شمالی با سفر "رايس" وزير خارجه امريكا به روسيه به پايان رسيد. پيش از روسيه، رايس در جريان سفر به چين، با رهبران اين كشور گفتگو كرده بود. با آنكه بهانه سفر به چين و مسكو، مسئله آزمايش اتمی كره مطرح شده، اما كانون اصلی بحث ها بر محور ايران بوده است، چرا كه در اظهارنظرهای مقامات چين و روسيه پيرامون اين مذاكرات، توجه اصلی روی مسئله ايران بوده است.
همگان – حتی روزنامه كيهان كه نظر فرماندهان سپاه و بيت رهبری را منعكس می كند- بر اين عقيده اند و يا اين گمان را بيان می كنند كه شورای امنيت سازمان ملل در اجلاس آينده خود قطعنامه ضعيفی درباره تحريم های اقتصادی ايران را تصويب خواهد كرد. آنها، اين قطعنامه را نيز عمدتا شامل وسائل و تجهيزات موشكی و اتمی می دانند. سرمقاله روزنامه كيهان به قلم حسين شريعتمداری كه در شماره روز گاشته پيك نت نيز خلاصه آن منتشر شد و همچنان عنوان آن در صفحه اول امروز پيك نت نيز قابل دسترسی است بر همين محور تنظيم نوشته شده است.
اين خوش بينی ها، با مصاحبه روز گذشته وزير خارجه روسيه بايد در روزهای آينده سمت و سوی دقيق تر و حساس تری به خود بگيرد، زيرا وی پس از ديدار با "رايس" در مسكو فاش ساخت: می خواهند شورای امنيت سازمان ملل را به ابزاری برای تغيير حاكميت درايران تبديل كنند
اكنون پرسش بزرگ اينست كه امريكا و يا متحدان اروپائی آن چگونه می خواهند شورای امنيت را متقاعد به تغيير حاكميت در ايران كنند و اگر قطعنامه با اين سمت گيری در شورای امنيت تصويب شود، ابزار اعمال آن جز توسل به قدرت نظامی چيست؟ وزير خارجه روسيه چه طرح و پيشنهادی را در گفتگو با وزير خارجه روسيه شنيده است كه از آن استنباط رفتن امريكا به سوی قطعنامه ای با هدف تغيير رژيم ايران كرده است؟
Comment
Comment